From Good Soldiers To Psychologically Entitled: Examining When and Why Citizenship Behavior Leads To Deviance

r Academy of Management Journal
2017, Vol. 60, No. 1, 373–396.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0234
FROM GOOD SOLDIERS TO PSYCHOLOGICALLY ENTITLED:

EXAMINING WHEN AND WHY CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR
LEADS TO DEVIANCE
KAI CHI YAM
National University of Singapore
ANTHONY C. KLOTZ
Oregon State University
WEI HE
Huazhong University of Science and Technology
SCOTT J. REYNOLDS
University of Washington
Research has consistently demonstrated that organizational citizenship behaviors

(OCBs) produce a wide array of positive outcomes for employees and organizations.
Recent work, however, has suggested that employees often engage in OCBs not because
they want to but because they feel they have to, and it is not clear whether OCBs
performed for external motives have the same positive effects on individuals and or-
ganizational functioning as do traditional OCBs. In this article, we draw from self-
determination and moral licensing theories to suggest a potential negative consequence
of OCB. Specifically, we argue that when employees feel compelled to engage in OCB by
external forces, they will subsequently feel psychologically entitled for having gone
above and beyond the call of duty. Furthermore, these feelings of entitlement can act as
moral credentials that psychologically free employees to engage in both interpersonal
and organizational deviance. Data from two multisource field studies and an online
experiment provide support for these hypotheses. In addition, we demonstrate that
OCB-generated feelings of entitlement transcend organizational boundaries and lead to
deviance outside of the organization.
For more than three decades, scholars have gen- Dutton, & Quinn, 2003; LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002;
erated a great deal of research on the causes and Luthans & Youssef, 2007; Podsakoff, Whiting,
consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009), in part because it was
(OCBs) (Organ, 1977; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, originally conceptualized as a purely discretionary
2006). Broadly defined, OCB refers to employee be- behavior (Bateman & Organ, 1983). Several scholars,
havior that contributes to the effective social and however, have noted that employees often engage in
psychological functioning of the organization but is OCBs because such behaviors are required as part of
often discretionary and not rewarded relative to in-role their job (Morrison, 1994) or because the behaviors are
job performance (Organ, 1997; Organ et al., 2006). OCB formally rewarded by the organization (MacKenzie,
is widely regarded as a positive construct (Cameron, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991). To reconcile the differences
between these various types of good deeds at work,
We thank Associate Editor Carol Kulik and three anon- Organ altered the definition of OCBs, proposing that
ymous reviewers for their tremendously helpful and con- employee behaviors need not be discretionary or vol-
structive comments. This research was partly supported by
untary to be considered acts of citizenship; instead,
the National Science Foundation of China (71232001;
71402061).
they must only be contextual, in the sense that they
Correspondence concerning this article should be contribute to the “organizational context that supports
addressed to Wei He, Department of Business Adminis- task performance” (1997: 91).
tration, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Consistent with Organ’s (1997) redefined version
China. E-mail: whe@hust.edu.cn. of OCB, ongoing research has demonstrated that
373
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
374 Academy of Management Journal February
employees often engage in this positive behavior not out of more organizationally controlled motivation in
of their own discretion, but because they perceive that the workplace (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Second, we es-
they must (Bolino, Klotz, Turnley, & Harvey, 2013). For tablish a theoretical and empirical basis for linking en-
example, Bolino, Turnley, Gilstrap, and Suazo (2010) titlement to moral licensing. In doing so, we contribute
found that employees often engage in citizenship be- to the behavioral ethics literature by demonstrating the
haviors because they feel pressured by their organiza- role of motivation in the moral licensing process, and by
tion to do so. Relatedly, employees may also go above providing support for the underlying mechanism of the
and beyond the call of duty to avoid punishments moral credentialing process (i.e., psychological entitle-
relative to their peers (Salamon & Deutsch, 2006). ment). Third, the results of our studies extend the lit-
Many employees also view OCBs as simply part erature on the consequences of citizenship behaviors by
of their job responsibilities (McAllister, Kamdar, demonstrating that motives not only influence the ex-
Morrison, & Turban, 2007), and in some cases tent to which employees engage in OCBs (Grant &
OCBs become expected parts of employees’ jobs over Mayer, 2009; Rioux & Penner, 2001), but also affect
time (Van Dyne & Ellis, 2004; Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). employees’ attitudes and behaviors following the good
In short, research has demonstrated that employees deeds. Finally, we complement recent theoretical ex-
often perform acts of citizenship not because they planations for, and empirical evidence of, the within-
want to, but because they feel like they have to person occurrence of OCBs and deviant behavior in
(Bolino et al., 2013) or ought to (Organ et al., 2006). organizations (Dalal, 2005; Dalal, Lam, Weiss, Welch, &
Despite the growing acknowledgment that em- Hulin, 2009; Spector & Fox, 2010a, 2010b) by demon-
ployees often feel compelled by external forces to go strating one path through which OCB leads to sub-
the extra mile for their organization, the effect of sequent bad behavior.
pressuring employees into performing OCBs is not
well understood. A few scholars have theorized that
SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY AND OCB
employees will sometimes react negatively when
they feel required to engage in acts of citizenship, Self-determination theory (SDT) proposes that
perhaps by engaging in subsequent deviant behavior people engage in motivated behaviors, such as OCBs,
(Klotz & Bolino, 2013; Spector & Fox, 2010a, 2010b), due to either autonomous or controlled motives
but to our knowledge no empirical research has (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Autono-
provided a causal link between externally driven mous motives refer to forces that are intrinsically
OCBs and negative organizational consequences interesting and enjoyable to individuals or are im-
to support these claims (Organ et al., 2006). Ac- portant to their goals and values (Ryan & Deci, 2000),
cordingly, we draw from self-determination theory and range from pure enjoyment of the task (i.e., in-
(SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and moral licensing the- trinsic motivation) and accordance with one’s sense of
ory (Miller & Effron, 2010; Monin & Miller, 2001) to self (i.e., integrated regulation) to identifying the in-
consider how and when OCBs may lead employees strumental value of the task (i.e., identified regulation).
to subsequently engage in deviance at work or out- Controlled motives, in contrast, are characterized by an
side of the workplace. As shown in Figure 1, we external locus of causality and range from egocentric
suggest that when employees engage in OCBs for reasons for engaging in a given behavior, such as bol-
externally regulated reasons (e.g., supervisory de- stering one’s self-worth (i.e., introjected regulation), to
mands, compliance with norms, punishment avoid- purely externally regulated forces, such as meeting
ance [Ryan & Deci, 2000]), they develop a sense of a supervisor’s expectations (i.e., external regulation
entitlement that leads to increased subsequent de- [Gagné & Deci, 2005]). Importantly, autonomous and
viance on the job and outside of the workplace. To test controlled motivation operate independent of one an-
this model, we conduct three studies and employ other and are not opposite ends of a single continuum
multiple methodologies including a multisource field (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994).
study in China, a two-wave multisource field study in In organizations, employees are often compelled
the United States, and an online experiment. to engage in OCBs by any number of external forces.
Our research makes a number of theoretical con- OCBs might be referenced in a job description, subtly
tributions. First, whereas SDT has primarily been enforced by the organizational culture, or informally
used to study the positive effect of autonomous mo- required by a supervisor (Bolino et al., 2010). In any
tives on employees, our work uses a moral credential case, OCBs are most commonly secondary to the
perspective to extend SDT and lend support to its core job tasks (Organ, 1988), so research has sug-
predictions regarding the negative consequences gested that when employees are compelled to offer
2017 Yam, Klotz, He, and Reynolds 375
FIGURE 1
Theoretical Model of the Current Research
External
Motivation toward
OCB Interpersonal
Deviance
H1 H2a
Organizational Psychological Organizational

Citizenship Behavior Entitlement H2b Deviance
H3
Nonwork
Deviance
OCBs, negative results can emerge. For example, not necessarily based on an objectively equitable ex-
Gagné and Deci (2005) proposed that to the extent change. Naumann et al. (2002) argued that entitlement
that organizational climates are controlling in this perceptions are based on perceptions of reciprocity.
manner, employees will find OCBs less appealing. Thus, individuals with strong entitlement perceptions
More generally, prior research has indicated that to expect organizational rewards and compensation with-
the extent that work tasks are performed for auton- out having necessarily earned them. In this light, Snow,
omous reasons, workers experience higher levels Kern, and Curlette (2001) described psychologically
of persistence on those given tasks (Grant, entitled workers as those who perceive that they deserve
Nurmohamed, Ashford, & Dekas, 2011; Turban, “special or unique treatment” relative to their peers
Tan, Brown, & Sheldon, 2007), but when in- (104). Empirical evidence suggests that psychological
dividuals engage in tasks driven by controlled mo- entitlement exists not only as a trait (Campbell, Bonacci,
tives, they experience lower subsequent interest and Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004; Snow et al., 2001) but
engagement in that work (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, also as a state. For instance, Zitek, Jordan, Monin and
1999). Similarly, Judge, Bono, Erez, and Locke Leach (2010) demonstrated that individuals can feel
(2005) suggested that employees may feel a “quiet psychologically entitled when they feel (or remember)
resistance” to these kinds of external demands that they have been wronged or treated unfairly. More
placed on them at work (266), and Grant et al. generally, state psychological entitlement emerges when
(2011) proposed that employees may begrudge individuals feel that their efforts are worth more than
those who pressure them into work tasks. Consistent what has been offered to them in return. Thus, based on
with this reasoning, we suggest that when compelled the principles of STD, we argue that because employees
to offer OCBs, employees may come to believe that often engage in OCBs not because they want to, but be-
they are providing something above and beyond the cause they are driven by external motives to do so, they
needs of the job and have therefore earned something are more likely to perceive their OCBs as under-
additional to what is being proffered by the orga- rewarded. Therefore, we argue that employees who en-
nization. Thus, employees who have been exter- gage in OCBs in response to external demands can
nally compelled or pressured to engage in OCBs may experience a sense of psychological entitlement.
feel psychologically entitled to some form of rec- Unlike many aspects of a job that might be asso-
ompense from the organization. ciated with issues of entitlement, OCBs contain
Psychological entitlement is defined as “the com- a strong moral component. That is, citizenship be-
pensation expected as a result of an individual haviors are normally viewed as positive and socially
participating in an employment relationship” desirable actions, regardless of the motivation un-
(Naumann, Minsky, & Sturman, 2002: 150). Rooted in derlying them (Organ et al., 2006). Indeed, an indi-
economics, the term entitlement refers to a good or vidual who engages in OCBs can be referred to as
service due to a party, but psychological entitlement is a “good soldier” (Organ, 1988). Given the moral
aspects of OCBs, we suggest that the sense of psy- Prior work in moral licensing has identified two
chological entitlement an employee experiences af- unique paths through which moral licensing can
ter performing externally motivated OCBs functions occur: via moral credits or via moral credentials
in a manner similar to a psychological license. Thus, (Miller & Effron, 2010). In the well-researched moral
in the next section we invoke moral licensing theory credits model, the mechanism underlying the moral
to propose that an employee who experiences psy- licensing process is a dynamic moral self-concept
chological entitlement due to engaging in externally that fluctuates around an equilibrium point (Nisan,
motivated OCBs may be prone to acting deviantly 1990, 1991). When people perform good deeds, their
both within and outside of the organization. self-concept often rises; when they engage in deviant
behavior, their self-concept can descend. Because
people tend to strive for a balanced moral equilib-
MORAL LICENSING THEORY AND
rium (Zhong et al., 2009), they are generally moti-
ENTITLEMENT
vated to boost their moral self-concept through
Broadly speaking, moral licensing theory states good deeds when it is below the equilibrium point
that an individual’s current moral behavior unfolds (i.e., moral cleansing) (Tetlock, Kristel, Elson, Green,
in the context of past moral behavior such that past & Lerner, 2000; Zhong & Liljenquist, 2006), and
good deeds can license future bad deeds. Numerous content to allow it to deflate via transgressions when
studies have provided empirical support for moral it is above the equilibrium point (i.e., moral licensing
licensing theory. For example, Mazar and Zhong [Monin & Miller, 2001]). Put simply, an individual’s
(2010) found that after engaging in good deeds, in- moral self-concept is akin to a bank account; whereas
dividuals are more likely to lie or steal. Furthermore, moral behavior credits the account, immoral behav-
the moral licensing effect extends beyond actual ior debits the account.
moral behavior to imaginary moral behavior (Khan The second and less well-understood pathway of
& Dhar, 2007) and to the moral behavior of one’s moral licensing is moral credentials. When moral
ingroup (Kouchaki, 2011; for a review, see Merritt, licensing occurs via moral credentials, one’s moral
Effron, & Monin, 2010). In sum, extant empirical in- self-concept does not fluctuate. Instead, “one’s be-
vestigations of moral licensing theory support the havioral history makes morally questionable deeds
idea that “when people can call to mind previous seem as if they were not transgressions at all” (Miller
instances of their own socially desirable or morally & Effron, 2010: 128). In other words, when people
laudable behaviors, they will feel more comfortable feel that their past good deeds have established their
taking actions that could be seen as socially un- moral credentials, they do not construe their sub-
desirable or morally questionable” (Miller & Effron, sequent deviant acts as bad; instead, their credentials
2010: 118). entitle them to behave in bad ways without dis-
Several scholars in the moral licensing literature crediting themselves (Merritt et al., 2012). For ex-
have noted a similarity between moral licensing and ample, hiring a racial minority can help establish the
the experience of psychological entitlement. For moral credential of being nonprejudiced, and such
example, Zhong, Liljenquist, and Cain (2009: 78) a moral credential can legitimatize subsequent un-
argued that when individuals engage in good deeds, ethical behavior via construal. Because moral cre-
moral licensing produces “a sense of entitlement to dentialing involves construing less-than-virtuous
some moral laxity.” In their review of the moral li- deeds as benign behavior, this process is more likely
censing phenomenon, Merritt et al. (2010: 348) to license “grey” behaviors, such as bad behaviors
stated that after individuals engage in moral behav- that are ambiguous in nature or somewhat open to
ior, they feel “entitled to transgress.” Relatedly, being interpreted as not harmful (e.g., interpersonal
Sachdeva, Iliev, and Medin (2009: 528) described deviance [Monin & Miller, 2001]). When employees
morally licensed individuals as those who feel “en- engage in OCBs due to external motives, it is unlikely
titled to more than their share.” Collectively, then, that their moral self-regard will elevate, given that
many researchers have suggested that the moral they have not freely chosen to engage in the good
license resulting from good deeds, such as OCBs, is deed at work (Bradley-Geist, King, Skorinko, Hebl, &
akin to a sense of entitlement (Miller & Effron, 2010; McKenna, 2010). Instead, the feeling of psychologi-
Polman, Pettit, & Wiesenfeld, 2013). We extend this cal entitlement experienced by those who perform
logic to suggest that entitlement resulting from OCBs an externally motivated act of citizenship should
is similar to one particular form of moral licensing: function in a manner more similar to a moral cre-
moral credentials. dential, which, as we describe next, can be generated
by lower-magnitude good deeds (e.g., externally 2013). For example, an employee pressured to help an
motivated OCBs) than moral credits. Exploring in- absent coworker might subsequently feel entitled to
terpersonal and organizational deviance through the take an overly long break the next day. In sum, we
lens of moral credentialing is also more appropriate suggest that the relationship between OCB and de-
as employees are much more likely to engage in viant behavior toward coworkers and the organiza-
ambiguously, rather than egregiously, bad behavior tion is mediated by feelings of entitlement, when
in organizations. OCBs are performed as a result of external motiva-
Prior research on moral credentials has indicated tion.1 Thus, we propose the following hypotheses.
that even good behavior that is not especially morally
Hypothesis 1. OCB and external motivation to-
laudable (i.e., prosocial behavior of low moral in-
ward OCB will interact to influence psycholog-
tensity [Jones, 1991]) can generate a moral license via
ical entitlement, such that the relationship
moral credentials. For example, Effron and col-
between OCB and psychological entitlement will
leagues (Effron, 2014; Effron, Miller, & Monin, 2012)
be positive when external motivation is high, and
found that participants who forewent a racist op-
will not exist when external motivation is low.
portunity were still able to generate moral cre-
dentials that licensed subsequent bad behaviors. Hypothesis 2. Psychological entitlement will
Furthermore, people often preemptively create mediate the interactive effect of OCB and exter-
moral credentials when they need to bolster their nal motivation toward OCB on (a) interpersonal
character in order to engage in morally dubious be- and (b) organizational deviance, such that the
havior (Merritt et al., 2010). As such, relatively self- indirect effect will be positive when external
ish motives, such as impression management, can motivation is high and will not exist when ex-
sometimes underlie the formation of moral creden- ternal motivation is low.
tials in individuals (Effron & Conway, 2015). More-
over, when anticipating the need for moral credentials,
people are often willing to reinterpret their past be- CROSS-DOMAIN MORAL LICENSING
havior as more morally virtuous than it actually was
We recognize that moral licensing theory is not the
(Effron, 2014). Extending this line of logic, even when
only theory that provides an explanation of how
individuals engage in good behavior for external rea-
externally motivated OCBs can lead to interpersonal
sons, they may still view their prior OCBs as morally
and organizational deviance. Most notably, social
credentialing if needed. In sum, when OCBs are driven
exchange theory suggests that if employees do not
by external motives, employees may nonetheless draw
feel fully compensated, they may retaliate against
on these acts of citizenship to give them the credentials
their organization (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005;
necessary to license subsequent deviance.
Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Unlike these theories,
Consistent with this argument, extant research has
however, moral licensing theory suggests that when
also suggested that entitlement is generally associ-
entitlement results from externally driven OCBs, the
ated with negative outcomes. In one study, entitled
employee’s subsequent deviant behavior will not be
followers were more likely to engage in self-serving
limited to the organization’s boundaries.
attributions and to prioritize their own needs above
Miller and Effron (2010) argued that although
and beyond others in the organization (Harvey &
moral licensing often occurs within the same do-
Martinko, 2009). Behaviorally, scholars have found
main, good deeds can also license deviant behavior
that entitled individuals are more likely to act self-
across domains as long as the behavior involved is
ishly (Zitek et al., 2010) and be disrespectful toward
still generally characterized by moral interests. In
others (Campbell et al., 2004), behaviors that are both
support of this assertion, Mazar and Zhong (2010)
cornerstones of workplace deviance (Bennett &
found that participants who purchased environmentally
Robinson, 2000). Deviance is defined as “voluntary
behavior that violates significant organizational 1
Interestingly, while the moral credentialing path ex-
norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of
plains deviant behavior under conditions of external mo-
an organization, its members, or both” (Robinson &
tivation via entitlement, the moral credits path allows for
Bennett, 1995: 556). In the workplace, this deviance deviant behavior under conditions of autonomous moti-
is likely to manifest in the form of bad deeds aimed at vation (Klotz & Bolino, 2013). Though this second path is
either fellow organizational members (e.g., incivility) not the subject of this research, we note that moral licens-
or the organization in general (e.g., harming an orga- ing theory accounts for deviant behavior following OCBs
nization’s image) (Dalal et al., 2009; Klotz & Bolino, driven by either controlled or autonomous motives.
friendly products were more likely to allocate re- STUDY 1

sources unfairly to an innocent person, and in-
Participants and Procedure
dividuals who planned to donate blood were more
likely to act in a racially prejudiced manner (Cascio & Participants were full-time employees and their
Plant, 2015). In other words, research has suggested leaders from multiple organizations located in East-
that license-generating behavior and the ensuing ern China. Participants worked in a variety of
deviance need not always be in the same domain. industries, including manufacturing, telecommuni-
Extant empirical research has provided some in- cation, and banking. We intentionally recruited
direct support for this hypothesis. For example, participants from multiple industries to increase
pressure to engage in OCBs has been associated generalizability and to avoid the contextual con-
with heightened levels of work–life conflict and straints associated with limited industries (Rousseau
work–family conflict for employees in general & Fried, 2001). First, with the permission of an ex-
(Bolino et al., 2010), which is consistent with the ecutive manager from each organization, we asked
notion that OCBs driven by external motives can the human resources managers to randomly select
potentially disrupt behaviors outside of the work- (with a random number generator that matched the
place. Finally, scholars have argued that in jobs in employees’ work IDs) five workgroups and four to
which employees are under a great deal of super- five employees from each workgroup and schedule
vision, they do not have the opportunity to use a time for us to deliver the surveys to them. The
their moral license at work without facing imme- chosen groups were all official departments within
diate censure (Kidwell & Bennett, 1993); as such, the organizations. We gathered all selected em-
these workers will likely choose to use their license ployees in a large conference room and asked them
in a domain in which the punishment for deviance to complete a pencil-and-paper-based questionnaire
is less severe. Taken together, these arguments that assessed external motivation toward OCB, psy-
suggest that psychological entitlement following chological entitlement, interpersonal deviance, orga-
externally driven citizenship behavior can license nizational deviance, and demographic information.
employees to engage in bad deeds outside of the Finally, group leaders were gathered to evaluate the
workplace. Thus, in contrast to other theoretical OCB of their employees who participated in the survey.
explanations of employee deviance, only moral A total of 384 employees from 86 workgroups were
licensing theory predicts cross-domain effects of invited to complete the surveys. A total of 39 par-
externally motivated OCBs and psychological ticipants from four workgroups did not complete the
entitlement. surveys, leaving a final sample of 345 employees
from 82 workgroups (89.8% response rate). All par-
Hypothesis 3. Psychological entitlement will
ticipants completed this study on a voluntary basis.
mediate the interactive effect of OCB and ex-
The average organizational tenure for the employees
ternal motivation toward OCB on nonwork
(Mage 5 32.05; 50.4% male) was 7.18 years. On av-
deviance, such that the indirect effect will be
erage, the 82 group leaders (Mage 5 39.39; 67.1%
positive when external motivation is high,
male) had managed their groups for 5.98 years. The
and will not exist when external motivation
mean group size was 16.41 employees, ranging from
is low.
4 to 72 (SD 5 13.97).
RESEARCH OVERVIEW Measures

We conducted three studies to test our theoretical All scale items underwent a back-translation pro-
model. In Study 1, we tested Hypotheses 1, 2a, and 2b cess (see Brislin, 1970) to ensure the internal validity
in a field setting with multisource data collected of our translated scales.
from 345 employees from 82 workgroups from a va- OCB. Employees’ OCB was evaluated by the group
riety of industries in China. In Study 2, we collected leaders using Farh, Hackett, and Liang’s (2007) nine-
two-wave multi-source data from 180 employee– item OCB scale. We chose this scale because national
supervisor dyads to extend these findings to non- culture may affect the perception and display of
work deviance (Hypothesis 3). Finally, in Study 3 we OCB. Specifically, because the Chinese culture is
used an experimental design to establish stronger dominated by social orientation and collectivism,
causal inferences. Ultimately, results across the the interpersonal dimension of OCB may be partic-
three studies supported our theoretical model. ularly valued. Accordingly, this scale was developed
and validated in China, thus reflecting these national workplace deviance is commonly self-reported in
differences and ensuring high content validity (Farh, prior research (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007). Seven
Zhong, & Organ, 2004). A sample item was “initiates items assessed interpersonal deviance; a sample
assistance to coworkers who have a heavy workload” item was “made fun of someone at work” (a 5 .87).
(1 5 strongly disagree to 7 5 strongly agree; a 5 .95). Twelve items assessed organizational deviance;
External motivation toward OCB. Because extant a sample item was “taken property from work with-
measures of external motivation often have specific out permission” (1 5 never to 7 5 very frequently;
reference points (e.g., toward one’s job, one’s edu- a 5 .91). As with our OCB scale, this measure of
cation, etc.), we drew from the literature on motiva- deviance has been used in a Chinese context (Fehr,
tion (Deci & Ryan, 1985) to develop a five-item Yam, He, Chiang, & Wei, 2017).
external motivation scale that specifically examined Control variables. Because our study is correla-
participants’ motivation for engaging in OCB. We tional in nature, we controlled for several relevant
first gave participants a definition of OCB following factors in order to carry out a conservative test of our
Organ’s (1988) conceptualization. We then listed hypotheses and to rule out alternative explanations.
several prototypical OCBs in the workplace At the individual level, we controlled for employee
(e.g., helping coworkers who have been absent) to demographics because these variables often corre-
help employees more vividly understand the con- late with workplace deviance (Berry et al., 2007). In
cept of OCB. A question then asked, “Most em- addition, because negative affect has been theorized
ployees have engaged in some forms of citizenship as an alternative explanation of the relationship be-
behavior in your organization. Why do you engage in tween OCB and deviance (Dalal et al., 2009; Spector
these behaviors?” (1 5 strongly disagree to 7 5 & Fox, 2010a), we controlled for employees’ trait
strongly agree; a 5 .84). The items were “because I’ll negative affect (e.g., irritable, hostile, ashamed) using
get in trouble if I don’t,” “because that’s what I am the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson,
supposed to do,” “so that others won’t yell at me,” Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). We specifically asked par-
“so others won’t get mad at me,” and “because others ticipants, “In general, to what extent do you feel this
will reward me.” After our data collection period, way?” (1 5 not at all to 7 5 very much). Finally, at the
Gagné et al. (2015) published a similar six-item scale. group level, we controlled for the demographic at-
To check the convergent validity of our scale, we tributes of the group leader to ensure that ratings of
sampled 170 participants on Amazon’s Mechanical employees’ OCB did not vary as a function of the
Turk (MTurk). This scale correlated significantly and leaders themselves.
strongly with Gagné et al.’s measure (r 5 .71, p , .01).
Psychological entitlement. We measured psy-
Results
chological entitlement with a nine-item self-report
scale developed and validated by Campbell et al. Preliminary analyses. We first conducted a set of
(2004). Specifically, we asked participants to com- confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to ensure that
plete the scale based upon their own beliefs relative to the five level-1 latent variables (OCB, external mo-
others at their organizations (1 5 strongly disagree to 7 tivation toward OCB, psychological entitlement, in-
5 strongly agree). Unfortunately, we were unable to terpersonal deviance, and organizational deviance)
translate all nine items because some items involved had satisfactory discriminant validity. The CFA
specific cultural references not applicable to a non- results indicated that the five-factor model had
U.S. sample (e.g., “If I were on the Titanic, I would a good fit to the data, x2 (314) 5 950.32; x2/df 5 3.32;
deserve to be on the first lifeboat”). Therefore, partic- RMSEA5 .08; IFI5 .93; CFI5 .93. x2 difference tests
ipants completed a four-item measure. These four showed that the five-factor model was superior to
items included “I honestly feel I’m just more deserving a four-factor model where items for interpersonal
than others,” “great things should come to me,” “I and organizational deviance were set to load on one
demand the best because I’m worth it,” and “I deserve factor, Dx2[4] 5 655.10, p , .01. These results pro-
more things in my life” (a 5 .93). vided construct validity evidence of the five latent
Interpersonal or organizational deviance. We variables in the Chinese context. Before running the
asked employees to self-report their interpersonal or hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) regression, x2
organizational deviance using the 19-item scale de- tests suggested that the between-group variances in
veloped by Bennett and Robinson (2000) because psychological entitlement, x2 (81) 5 145.31, p , .01,
these behaviors are usually carried out privately and ICC(1) 5 .15, interpersonal deviance, x2 (81) 5
without the knowledge of group leaders. In addition, 127.55, p , .01, ICC(1) 5 .12, and organizational
deviance, x2 (81) 5 214.06, p , .01, ICC(1) 5 .30, suggested by Preacher, Curran, and Bauer (2006),
were all significant, thereby justifying the use of we graphed and calculated two simple slope tests.
HLM to test our hypotheses. Descriptive statistics are The relationship between OCB and psychological
presented in Table 1. entitlement was significant when external motiva-
Given that our data were nested in nature, we con- tion toward OCB was high (g 5 .33, p , .01), but was
ducted HLM (with HLM 6.06) (Raudenbush, Bryk, not significant when external motivation toward
Cheong, & Congdon, 2004) with restricted maximum OCB was low (g 5 .003, n.s.; see Figure 2). Thus,
likelihood estimation method to test our research Hypothesis 1 was supported.
hypotheses. All explanatory variables (except gender, Moderated mediation (Hypothesis 2a and Hy-
which is a dummy variable) were standardized, and pothesis 2b). To test Hypothesis 2a and Hypothesis
the individual-level variables were grand-mean cen- 2b, we followed the bootstrapping-based analytic
tered before being entered into regressions, to reduce approach of Edwards and Lambert (2007) and the
potential collinearity between the group-level in- statistical software of Hayes (2013) to test for a condi-
tercept and slope terms (Hoffman & Gavin, 1998). tional indirect effect (with 10,000 resamples). We first
Although we did not hypothesize a main effect, we examined the moderated mediation model with in-
first examined whether OCB exhibited main effects terpersonal deviance as the dependent variable. OCB
on interpersonal and organizational deviance. OCB was entered as the independent variable, external
was marginally associated with interpersonal de- motivation toward OCB as the first-stage moderator,
viance (g 5 .10, p 5 .08) and organizational deviance and psychological entitlement as the mediator. When
(g 5 .10, p 5 .05). The IV-to-DV interaction analyses external motivation toward OCB was low, the medi-
revealed that OCB interacted with external motiva- ated model was not significant (coefficient 5 2.00,
tion to significantly affect organizational deviance SE 5 .02, 95% CI 5 2.04 to .03). When external mo-
(g 5 .11, p , .05), but not interpersonal deviance tivation toward OCB was high, however, the mediated
(g 5 .07, p 5 .23). model was significant (coefficient 5 .09, SE 5 .04,
The interaction Between OCB and external 95% CI 5 .03 to .18). We calculated the index of
motivation toward OCB on psychological entitle- moderated mediation (Hayes, 2015), and results
ment (Hypothesis 1). To test Hypothesis 1, we con- revealed that the difference between the two co-
ducted a series of HLM regression models. In Model efficients was also significant (coefficient 5 .11, SE 5
1, we entered all control variables. In Model 2, we .08, 95% CI 5 .03 to .28). Because the coefficient was
entered OCB and external motivation as predictors. positive, results suggested that OCB led to increased
In Model 3, we entered the interaction term, which interpersonal deviance via increased psychological
was significantly related to psychological entitlement entitlement, but only among those with high external
(g 5 .17, p , .05; see Table 2). Following the procedure motivation toward OCB.
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Focal Variables (Study 1; n 5 345 at Individual Level,
n 5 82 at Group Level)
Variables M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Level 1 variables
1. Age 32.05 (7.48) —
2. Gendera 0.50 (0.50) 0.07 —
3. Negative affect 2.20 (0.83) –0.15* –0.05 (0.88)
4. OCB 5.44 (1.05) –0.05 –0.03 –0.03 (0.95)
5. External motivation 3.76 (1.38) 0.11* 0.09 0.13* –0.07 (0.84)
6. Psychological entitlement 2.78 (1.52) 0.04 0.11* 0.09 0.06 0.39** (0.93)
7. Interpersonal deviance 1.70 (1.04) –0.07 0.20** 0.12* 0.10 0.13* 0.23** (0.87)
8. Organizational deviance 1.81 (0.93) –0.07 0.10 0.33** 0.11 0.19** 0.32** 0.40** (0.91)
Level 2 variables
1. Leader age 39.39 (6.75) 0.19 —
2. Leader gender 0.67 (0.47) 0.14 0.02
a
Dummy variable (1 5 Male, 0 5 Female).
*p , .05
**p , .01
TABLE 2
Summary of HLM Results on Psychological Entitlement (Study 1; n 5 345 at the Individual Level, n 5 82 at the Group Level)
DV 5 Psychological Entitlement
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Variables g SE g SE g SE
Intercept 3.42** 0.37 3.41** 0.32 3.34** 0.32

Individual-level controls
Age 0.14 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.09
Gendera 0.31 0.16 0.22 0.15 0.21 0.15
Negative affect 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.08
Group-level controls
Leader age 20.19 0.11 20.21* 0.09 20.21* 0.09
Leader genderb 0.12 0.21 0.22 0.18 0.17 0.18
Independent variables
External motivation 0.58** 0.08 0.58** 0.08
OCB 0.15 0.08 0.17* 0.08
Interaction
OCB 3 External motivation 0.17* 0.08
R2a 0.00 0.17 0.02
Dummy variable (1 5 Male, 0 5 Female)

a
R2 is calculated based on proportional reduction of error variance due to predictors in the models.
b
*p , .05
**p , .01
We next examined the moderated mediation model to .22). Because the coefficient was positive, the
with organizational deviance as the dependent vari- results suggested that OCB led to increased organi-
able. When external motivation toward OCB was low, zational deviance via increased psychological en-
the mediated model was not significant (coefficient 5 titlement, but only among those with high external
2.00, SE 5 .02, 95% CI 5 2.04 to .02). When external motivation toward OCB. Together, these findings
motivation toward OCB was high, however, the me- support Hypothesis 2a and Hypothesis 2b.
diated model was significant (coefficient 5 .10, SE 5
.06, 95% CI 5 .03 to .24). We calculated the index of
Study 1 Discussion
moderated mediation, and results revealed that the
difference between the two coefficients was also Study 1 provides initial support for our hypothe-
significant (coefficient 5 .10, SE 5 .06, 95% CI 5 .02 ses. Participants who engaged in OCB for external
FIGURE 2
The Interactive Effect between OCB and External Motivation on Psychological Entitlement (Study 1)
5
Psychological Entitlement
Low External
3 Motivation
High External
Motivation
2
1
Low OCB High OCB
reasons were more likely to display a sense of enti- entitlement; supervisors rated their employees’ OCB.
tlement and subsequent deviant behaviors. In the At Time Two (T2), approximately two weeks later,
next study, we sought to constructively replicate employees completed measures of interpersonal,
these findings in several ways. First, we adopted organizational, and nonwork deviance. To ensure
a two-wave survey to boost the internal validity of measurement validity, each focal variable was sep-
the design. Second, we strengthened the generaliz- arated by a filler task or page break.
ability of our theoretical model by testing our hy-
potheses in the United States. Third, we sought to
Measures
test the cross-domain moral licensing hypothesis,
namely whether increased psychological entitle- OCB. At T1, supervisors rated employees’ OCBs
ment as a result of OCB leads to deviance outside of with the 16-item scale of Lee and Allen (2002). Eight
the workplace. items captured the interpersonal dimension of OCB,
and eight items captured the organizational di-
mension of OCB. With each item, supervisors in-
STUDY 2
dicated how frequently the focal employee had
Participants and Procedure engaged in a specific behavior in the past two weeks.
Sample items included “Has helped others who have
Participants were recruited through the Study
been absent” and “Has taken action to protect the
Response Project, a nonprofit research project
organization from potential problems” (1 5 never,
maintained by a large private university in the
7 5 always). Because the two subscales correlated
United States (for a detailed description of this data
very highly (r 5 .85, p , .01), we combined the sub-
collection method, see www.studyresponse.net; for
scales to form an aggregated measure of OCB (a 5 .94).
a recent example utilizing this data collection
External motivation toward OCB. We measured
method, see Yam, Fehr, & Barnes, 2014).2 With the
external motivation toward OCB at T1, as in Study 1.
assistance of the Study Response administrators, we
We first defined OCB as in Study 1 and asked focal
first prescreened potential participants to select
employees to respond to the five-item scale (a 5 .90).
those that were (1) working full-time, (2) willing to
Psychological entitlement. We measured psy-
invite their supervisors to participate, and (3) willing
chological entitlement at T1 with the scale de-
to complete surveys at two different time points. To
veloped by Campbell et al. (2004), as in Study 1.
minimize potential self-selection biases, partici-
Because all subjects were from the United States, we
pants were only provided with a generic description
were able to utilize the full nine-item measure
of the intent of the study during the prescreening
(a 5 .89).
process. Administrators from the Study Response
Interpersonal or organizational deviance. At T2,
Project validated all supervisors’ e-mail addresses.
employees self-reported their interpersonal and or-
A total of 283 focal employees expressed interest
ganizational deviance with the same scale used in
in participating. Surveys were sent to each of these
Study 1 (a 5 .95 and .97, respectively).
employees and their corresponding direct supervi-
Nonwork deviance. Also at T2, we asked em-
sors. A total of 180 dyads successfully completed the
ployees to self-report their deviant behaviors outside
study at both time points (63.6% response rate). On
of the organization. After a filler task in which par-
average, employees were of 38.21 years old, 67.2%
ticipants were asked to complete the Big-Five per-
male, and 75.8% European-American; supervisors
sonality measures (Goldberg et al., 2006), we asked
were 41.59 years old, 70.1% male, and 76.5%
participants to respond to the same interpersonal
European-American. All participants were com-
deviance scale with an adjusted reference point.
pensated with $7 at the end of the survey. At Time
Participants were asked to respond to the seven in-
One (T1), employees completed measures of exter-
terpersonal deviance items directed toward people
nal motivation toward OCB and psychological
outside of the workplace. A sample item was “cursed
2 at someone outside of work” (a 5 .96).
The data reported in Study 2 were collected as part of
Controls. We controlled for demographic in-
a larger data collection. Findings in other data drawn from
the same collection effort have been reported in a separate formation for both supervisors and employees and
article (Yam, Fehr, Keng-Highberger, Klotz, & Reynolds, employees’ trait negative affect for the same reasons
2016). None of the substantive variables in this article outlined in Study 1. In addition, because prior
(i.e., IVs, mediators, moderators, and DVs) are used in the studies have shown that employees’ behaviors are
other article. often driven by a mix of autonomous and external
motivation (e.g., Grant & Mayer, 2009), we controlled These results support Hypothesis 1, suggesting that
for autonomous motivation at T1 by asking em- psychological entitlement only increased for those
ployees to answer a four-item scale after they had who engaged in OCB and had high external motiva-
read the definition of OCB (Grant, 2008). An in- tion for engaging in OCB.
troductory question then asked: “Why do you engage Moderated mediation (Hypothesis 2a and Hy-
in these behaviors at work?” A sample item was pothesis 2b). To test Hypothesis 2a and Hypothesis
“because I enjoyed the behavior itself” (a 5 .88). 2b, we again followed the bootstrapping-based ana-
lytic approach of Edwards and Lambert (2007) and
the statistical software of Hayes (2013) to test for
Results
conditional indirect effect (with 10,000 resamples).
Preliminary analyses. We first conducted CFAs We first examined the moderated mediation model
to ensure that our focal constructs (OCB, external with interpersonal deviance as the dependent vari-
motivation, psychological entitlement, interper- able. OCB was entered as the independent variable,
sonal, organizational, and nonwork deviance) had external motivation toward OCB as the first-stage
satisfactory discriminant validity. Results suggested moderator, and psychological entitlement as the
that the six-factor structure had a good fit to the data, mediator. When external motivation toward OCB
x2 (286) 5 622.42; RMSEA5 .07; IFI5 .93; CFI5 .92 was low, the mediated model was not significant
and was superior to models in which (a) the external (coefficient 5 .00, SE 5 .02, 95% CI 5 2.04 to .05).
motivation and psychological entitlement items When external motivation toward OCB was high,
were set to load on a single factor, Dx2[4] 5 36.40, however, the mediated model was significant (co-
p , .01 and (b) the three types of deviance were set efficient 5 .05, SE 5 .03, 95% CI 5 .003 to .13). We
to load on a single factor, Dx2[5] 5 23.96, p , .01. calculated the index of moderated mediation (Hayes,
Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics. 2013), and the results revealed that the difference
Although we did not hypothesize a main effect, we between the two coefficients was also significant
first examined whether OCB exhibited main effects (coefficient 5 .02, SE 5 .01, 95% CI 5 .001 to .06).
on interpersonal, organizational, or nonwork de- Because the coefficient was positive, the results
viance. None of the main effects were significant (b 5 suggested that OCB led to increased interpersonal
.01, p 5 .88; b 5 .03, p 5 .74; b 5 .08, p 5 .53). The IV- deviance via increased psychological entitlement,
to-DV interaction analyses revealed that OCB inter- but only among those with high external motivation
acted with external motivation to significantly affect toward OCB.
interpersonal deviance (b 5 .15, p , .05), organiza- We next examined the moderated mediation
tional deviance (b 5 .20, p , .01), and nonwork de- model with organizational deviance as the de-
viance (b 5 .32, p , .01). pendent variable. When external motivation toward
The interaction Between OCB and external OCB was low, the mediated model was not signifi-
motivation toward OCB on psychological entitle- cant (coefficient 5 .001, SE 5 .02, 95% CI 5 2.04 to
ment (Hypothesis 1). To test Hypothesis 1, we con- .05). When external motivation toward OCB was
ducted an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. In high, however, the mediated model was significant
Model 1, all control variables were entered to predict (coefficient 5 .06, SE 5 .03, 95% CI 5 .01 to .14). We
psychological entitlement. In Model 2, we entered calculated the index of moderated mediation, and
OCB and external motivation. In Model 3, we entered the results revealed that the difference between the
the interaction term, which resulted in a significant two coefficients was also significant (coefficient 5 .02,
change in R2 (R2 5 .44, DR2 5 .03, p , .05) and SE 5 .01, 95% CI 5 .001 to .06). Because the co-
a significant interaction between OCB and external efficient was positive, the results suggested that OCB
motivation toward OCB predicting psychological led to increased organizational deviance via increased
entitlement (b 5 .20, p , .01; see Table 4 and psychological entitlement, but only among those with
Figure 3). We then statistically compared these two high external motivation toward OCB. Together, these
slopes to zero using the simple slope test. When ex- findings support Hypothesis 2a and Hypothesis 2b,
ternal motivation toward OCB was high, OCB sig- suggesting that the results obtained in Study 1 are
nificantly predicted higher levels of psychological generalizable to a Western work context.
entitlement (b 5 .39, p , .01). When external moti- Cross-domain moral licensing (Hypothesis 3).
vation toward OCB was low, however, OCB did not Hypothesis 3 posited that the conditional indirect
influence psychological entitlement as the slope did effect of OCB via increased psychological entitlement
not differ significantly from zero (b 5 2.06, p 5 .68). would extend to deviance outside of the organization.
384
TABLE 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Focal Variables (Study 2; n 5 180 Leader–Follower Dyads)
Variables M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. OCB 3.65 (0.74) (0.94)

2. External 4.27 (1.52) –0.15* (0.90)
motv.
3. Psych. 3.32 (1.16) 0.05 0.59** (0.89)
entitlement
4. Inter. 1.45 (0.74) 0.05 0.16* 0.18* (0.95)
deviance
5. Org. 1.47 (0.77) 0.03 0.151 0.19** 0.56** (0.97)
deviance
6. Nonwork 2.09 (1.56) 0.08 0.10 0.141 0.55** 0.41** (0.96)
deviance
7. Follower age 38.21 (9.23) 0.14 –0.53** –0.40** 0.21** 0.16* 0.14 (–)
8. Follower 1.50 (1.02) 0.06 0.17* 0.14 –0.05 –0.03 –0.07 –0.15* (–)
racea
9. Follower 0.67 (0.47) –0.03 0.29** 0.15* –0.18* –0.16* –0.11 –0.27** 0.06 (–)
genderb
10. Leader age 41.59 (9.46) 0.02 –0.19* –0.09 0.15* 0.16* 0.14 0.15* 0.10 –0.11 (–)
11. Leader racea 1.56 (1.14) 0.05 0.12 –0.06 –0.03 –0.06 –0.09 –0.15* 0.06 –0.06 –0.06 (–)
12. Leader 0.70 (0.46) –0.10 0.22** –0.08 –0.16* –0.12 –0.09 –0.06 –0.00 0.10 –0.17* 0.01 (–)
Academy of Management Journal
genderb
13. Negative 3.13 (0.90) –0.05 –0.12 0.22** .39** 0.46** 0.50** 0.15* –0.07 –0.25** 0.19* –0.01 –0.13 (0.90)
affect
14. 5.62 (0.90) 0.09 –0.17* –0.21** 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.13 0.14 0.02 –0.13 0.00 –0.00 –0.12 (0.88)
Autonomous
motv.
a
Dummy variable (1 5 White, 0 5 Others)
b
1
p , .10
*p , .05
**p , .01
February
TABLE 4
Summary of Regression Results on Psychological Entitlement (Study 2; n 5 180 Leader–Follower Dyads)
DV 5 Psychological entitlement
Variables B SE B b B SE B b B SE B b
Follower age –0.05 0.01 –0.40** –0.02 0.01 –0.18* –0.02 0.01 –0.20**
Follower racea 0.04 0.07 0.03 –0.01 0.07 –0.01 –0.00 0.06 –0.01
Follower genderb 0.05 0.16 0.02 0.20 0.15 0.08 0.24 0.01 –0.20**
Negative affect 0.26 0.10 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.08 0.18 0.06 –0.01
Autonomous motivation –0.37 0.09 –0.30** –0.21 0.08 –0.17* –0.25 0.08 –0.20**
Leader age –0.01 0.01 –0.10 –0.01 0.01 –0.08 –0.01 0.01 –0.08
Leader racea –0.02 0.07 –0.02 –0.06 0.06 –0.06 –0.06 0.06 –0.07
Leader genderb –0.09 0.17 –0.04 0.08 0.15 0.03 0.06 0.15 0.02
OCB 0.27 0.10 0.18** –0.61 0.30 –0.40*
External motivation 0.38 0.06 0.51** –0.37 0.25 –0.50
OCB 3 External motivation 0.20 0.07 1.08**
Adjusted R2 0.21 0.41 0.44
DR2 0.38** 0.03**
Dummy variable (1 5 White, 0 5 Others)

a

b
*p , .05
**p , .01
To test this hypothesis, we utilized the same mediation (Hayes, 2013), and the results revealed
bootstrapping-based method used before, except that that the difference between the two coefficients was
nonwork deviance was modeled as the dependent also significant (coefficient 5 .02, SE 5 .02, 95% CI 5
variable. The results suggested that when external .001 to .08). Because the coefficient was positive, the
motivation toward OCB was low, the mediated results suggested that OCB led to increased nonwork
model was not significant (coefficient 5 .001, SE 5 deviance via increased psychological entitlement,
.03, 95% CI 5 2.05 to .06). When external motivation but only among those with high external motivation
toward OCB was high, however, the mediated model toward OCB. This finding supports Hypothesis 3,
was significant (coefficient 5 .06, SE 5 .05, 95% CI 5 and suggests that the moral licensing effect tran-
.003 to .20). We calculated the index of moderated scends organizational boundaries.
FIGURE 3
The Interactive Effect Between OCB and External Motivation on Psychological Entitlement (Study 2)
5
Low
3 External
Motivation
High
2 External
Motivation
1
Low OCB High OCB
Study 2 Discussion work schedule to help accommodate other employers’

requests for time off. In the space provided below,
Together, Studies 1 and 2 provide strong support please type 3–5 sentences that describe what you did.
for our theoretical model. While each study has its
strengths, each also has limitations and neither was An example of a response from participants in the
able to provide evidence for the causal relationships OCB-recall condition was: “My boss’s father recently
proposed in our theoretical model. Therefore, we passed away and she went out for a few days. I
conducted an experiment that tested our moderated messaged her and told her that I would be picking up
mediation argument and addressed some of the all of her extra work that I could handle. . .” An ex-
limitations discussed previously. Specifically, we ample of a response from participants in the control
used Gagné et al.’s (2015) scale of external motiva- condition was: “At work I wrote a bunch of docu-
tion and measured participants’ external motivation ments for clients. I made phone calls. I answered
toward the specific OCB in which they engaged, phones. . .”
rather than general motivation toward all OCBs. External motivation Toward OCB. Gagné et al.’s
Second, since social exchange theory posits that (2015) workplace motivation scale assesses each of
externally motivated OCB may lead to an imbalance the dimensions of work motivation as outlined by
in the social exchange process, which may cause SDT. We used the six-item scale for extrinsic regu-
employees to act deviantly, we controlled for social lation to measure external motivation. We asked
exchange processes in order to rule out this alterna- participants to specifically recall their motive of the
tive explanation of our findings. Finally, we also behavior they had just recalled. Sample items in the
controlled for participants’ moral identity after they external motivation scale are “to avoid being criti-
engaged in OCB to demonstrate the unique mediat- cized by others” and “because I risk losing my job if
ing role of psychological entitlement. I don’t put enough effort in it” (1 5 strongly disagree
to 7 5 strongly agree; a 5 .84).
STUDY 3 Psychological entitlement. We measured psycho-
logical entitlement with the same nine-item measure
Participants and Procedure as in Study 2 (a 5 .89).
We recruited 217 working adults from MTurk to Nonwork deviance. Because we wished to ex-
participate in this study (61.3% male; 78.8% Caucasian; amine nonwork deviance in a behavioral manner,
Mage 5 32.77). Because prior research has suggested that it was necessary to focus on a specific behavior—
merely recalling (rather than actually engaging in) cheating for extra compensation. In this study, we
good behavior is sufficient for moral licensing (Merritt measured nonwork deviance with a well-validated
et al., 2010), we tested our model by randomly measure in the behavioral ethics literature (Yam,
assigning participants to recall and write about either Chen, & Reynolds, 2014; Yam, Reynolds, & Hirsh,
(1) past incidents of their OCBs, or (2) what they had 2014). Participants were given five math problems
done at work the previous day. After the writing task, to complete, and were asked to find numbers that
participants completed measures on external moti- would add up to 10. For each correctly solved
vation toward OCB, psychological entitlement, a ma- problem, participants were told that they would re-
nipulation check item, and a behavioral measure of ceive an additional $.50. We provided participants
nonwork deviance. with a computerized calculator to aid their calcula-
tions. When participants selected 2.77 and 7.15, for
Manipulation and Measures example, the program automatically provided the
summation (9.92) to participants to avoid accidental
OCB manipulation. We randomly assigned par- cheating. Unbeknownst to the participants, none of
ticipants to either recall past incidents of their OCBs the five problems were solvable, but at the end of
(OCB recall) or what they had done at work the pre- the study participants self-reported the number
vious day (control). Participants in the OCB-recall of unsolvable math problems they had “solved.”
condition received the following instructions: Nonwork deviance was thus operationalized as
At one time or another while working as an employee, a continuous scale ranging from 0 to 5. Because
most of us do something that is not required but which participants were specifically cheating from the ex-
is helpful for coworkers or the organization. For ex- perimenter, we suggest that this is a valid behavioral
ample, you may have volunteered to help a coworker measure for nonwork deviance. Overall, a total of 57
with his/her work-related problem, or adjusted your (26.3%) participants engaged in nonwork deviance,
a rate similar to past research that has used this condition (M 5 .51, SD 5 1.12), t (215) 5 4.01, p ,
measure. .01. The IV-to-DV interaction analyses revealed that
Manipulation check. To ensure that participants OCB interacted with external motivation to signifi-
in the OCB-recall condition recalled more OCBs, at cantly affect nonwork deviance (b 5 .54, p , .01).
the end of the study we asked participants whether Manipulation check. Participants in the OCB-
the behaviors they recalled were prosocial (1 5 recall condition indicated that their recalled behav-
strongly disagree to 7 5 strongly agree). iors were more prosocial (M 5 5.74, SD 5 1.41) than
Controls. As with previous studies, we controlled the behaviors of participants in the control condition
for participants’ demographic information. In addi- (M 5 3.97, SD 5 1.87), t(215) 5 7.90, p , .01, sug-
tion, rather than controlling for trait negative affect, gesting that our manipulation was successful.
we controlled for in-situ state negative affect (Watson The interaction Between OCB and external
et al., 1988). To isolate the effect of external motiva- motivation on psychological entitlement (Hypoth-
tion in our hypothesis tests, we also controlled for esis 1). We conducted an OLS regression to test
introjected (e.g., “because it makes me feel proud of Hypothesis 1. In Model 1, all control variables were
myself”), identified (e.g., “because I personally con- entered to predict psychological entitlement. In
sider it important to put efforts in this behavior”), Model 2, we entered OCB and external motivation. In
and intrinsic motivation (e.g., “because I have fun Model 3, we entered the interaction term, which
doing it”) using Gagne et al.’s (2015) scale. In addi- resulted in a significant change in R2 (R2 5 .37, DR2 5
tion, social exchange theory suggests that when .02, p , .05) and a significant interaction between
employees are forced to engage in OCB, they may OCB and external motivation toward OCB predicting
retaliate in order to restore a balance (Cropanzano & psychological entitlement (b 5 .39, p , .05; see
Mitchell, 2005). To rule out this alternative expla- Table 6 and Figure 4). We then statistically compared
nation, we controlled for social exchange processes these two slopes to zero using the simple slope test.
using a four-item measure (e.g., “my relationship When external motivation toward OCB was high,
with my supervisor/organization is characterized by OCB significantly predicted higher levels of psy-
mutual trust”) developed by Colquitt, Baer, Long, chological entitlement (b 5 .30, p , .05). When
and Halvorsen-Ganepola (2014). Finally, prior work external motivation toward OCB was low, how-
has suggested that movement in one’s moral identity ever, OCB did not influence psychological enti-
may also explain the moral licensing effect via the tlement as the slope did not differ significantly
moral credits pathway (Kouchaki, 2011). Because we from zero (b 5 .04, p 5 .74). These results support
are interested in examining the moral licensing effect Hypothesis 1, suggesting that psychological enti-
via the moral credentials pathway of psychological tlement only increased for those who engaged in
entitlement, we controlled for this alternative path- OCB and had high external motivation for engaging
way of moral licensing using Aquino and Reed’s in OCB.
(2002) measure of moral identity. Participants were Cross-domain moral licensing (Hypothesis 3).
first presented with nine positive moral traits and We utilized the same bootstrapping-based method
asked to respond to the survey questions. A sample as in Studies 1 and 2 (Hayes, 2013) (with 10,000
item is “it would make me feel good to be a person resamples). Controlling for moral identity, state
who has these characteristics.” All control variables negative affect, social exchange processes, and the
were assessed after the experimental manipulation other types of motivation, the results suggested that
and before the measure of psychological entitlement. when external motivation toward OCB was low, the
Finally, all control variables were assessed with mediated model was significant (coefficient 5 .25,
seven-point scales, except for moral identity, in SE 5 .11, 95% CI 5 .05 to .49). When external mo-
which a five-point scale was used. tivation toward OCB was high, the mediated model
was also significant (coefficient 5 .62, SE 5 .16, 95%
CI 5 .34 to 1.03). We calculated the index of mod-
Results
erated mediation, and the results revealed that the
Descriptive statistics can be found in Table 5. difference between the two coefficients was signifi-
As with previous studies, we first examined cant (coefficient 5 .13, SES 5 .06, 95% CI 5 .02 to
whether OCB exhibited a main effect on nonwork .27). Because the coefficient was positive, the results
deviance. Participants in the OCB-recall condition suggested that OCB led to increased nonwork de-
engaged in more nonwork deviance (M 5 1.32, SD 5 viance via increased psychological entitlement, and
1.73) compared to participants in the control this effect was stronger among those with high
external motivation toward OCB, providing support
(–)
13
for Hypothesis 3.
0.14*
Post-hoc analyses. Although we controlled for
(–)
12
two alternative explanations of our findings

(i.e., social exchange theory and the moral credits
0.09
0.02
pathway of moral licensing theory), we were also
(–)
11
interested in examining their simultaneously medi-

ating effect with psychological entitlement. Thus, we
–0.15*
(0.85)
0.07
–0.03
10
conducted a three-mediator moderated mediation

analysis using the same bootstrapping-based method
(Hayes, 2013). The results indicated that only enti-
(0.94)
–0.04
–0.01
–0.06
0.07
tlement mediated the effect between OCB and non-
9
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Focal Variables (Study 3; n 5 214)
work deviance when external motivation was high

(coefficient 5 .62, SE 5 .16, 95% CI 5 .31 to .95).
0.19**
Neither social exchange (coefficient 5 .05, SE 5 .04,

(0.95)
0.06
–0.08
0.08
–0.05
8
95% CI 5 2.01 to .15) nor moral identity (co-

efficient 5 .07, SE 5 .07, 95% CI 5 2.04 to .24)
0.52**
0.42**
mediated the effect when external motivation was

–0.16*
(0.93)
0.07
0.03
–0.08
7
high. These results provide further support for our

theoretical model, affirming the role of psycholog-
ical entitlement in explaining the relationship be-
0.58**
0.55**
0.20**
(0.83)
tween OCB and deviance.

0.09
–0.05
–0.11
–0.07
6
GENERAL DISCUSSION
0.24**
0.50**
0.36**
0.24**
(0.93)
0.08
0.08
–0.05
–0.06
TABLE 5
Although OCBs were originally conceptualized as

discretionary in nature, employees often engage in
them not because they want to, but because they feel
–0.16*
0.18*
0.15*
0.15*
0.06
0.12
–0.03
–0.13
–0.12
compelled to do so by extrinsic forces (Bolino et al.,

(–)
4
2013; McAllister et al., 2007; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006).

Despite the apparent prevalence of nonvoluntary
0.49**
0.15*
–0.16*
0.15*
OCB, little is known about the effect of compulsory

(0.91)
–0.09
0.12
–0.03
0.09
0.10
–0.03
3
OCB on employees’ attitudes and subsequent be-

Dummy variable (1 5 Experimental condition; 0 5 Control)
haviors. Drawing from moral licensing and self-

determination theories, we demonstrated that OCBs
0.52**
0.45**
0.31**
0.14*
–0.17*
(0.84)
–0.08
0.11
0.10
0.12
0.02
–0.04
driven by external motivation leave employees with

2
a heightened sense of psychological entitlement. We

further showed that these feelings of entitlement
0.25**
0.27**
have a licensing effect on employees, freeing them to

0.16*
–0.08
–0.06
–0.07
0.02
–0.12
–0.02
0.03
–0.05
0.02
(–)
Dummy variable (1 5 White; 0 5 Others)

1
Dummy variable (1 5 Male; 0 5 Female)
engage in subsequent acts of deviance, both within

and outside of the organization. Below, we discuss
the implications of our findings.
3.13 (1.28)
0.52 (0.50)
3.31 (1.41)
0.93 (1.52)
5.20 (1.30)
3.85 (1.48)
5.03 (1.50)
4.03 (1.77)
1.57 (0.91)
4.31 (0.70)
0.61 (0.49)
32.77 (9.44)
0.79 (0.41)
M (SD)
Theoretical Implications
The vast majority of work that has applied SDT has
4. Nonwork deviance
3. Psych. entitlement
focused on the role of autonomous motivation in

6. Introjected motv.
5. Social exchange
7. Identified motv.
facilitating beneficial behavior for employees and

9. Negative affect
8. Intrinsic motv.
2. External motv.
10. Moral identity

Variables
organizations. The reality, though, is that employee

*p , .05
**p , .01
behavior, including OCB, is often under the influ-

11. Genderb
13. Racec
1. OCBa
ence of different forms of autonomous and external

12. Age
motivation (Grant & Mayer, 2009; Grant et al., 2011).

a
c
b
That is, employees go above and beyond the call of

duty at times because they want to, and at other times entitlement may function as an underlying mecha-
because they feel they have to (Bolino et al., 2013). nism of the moral credentialing process in moral
Yet, beyond evidence suggesting that work quality licensing. Moreover, the results of Study 3 in par-
may decrease when autonomous motivation is low, ticular indicate that externally motivated OCBs do
we know little about the implications, if any, of OCBs not lead to subsequent deviant behavior as a result of
driven by external motivation. The results of this set elevation in one’s moral self-regard, as the moral
of studies paint a more complete picture of how SDT credits model predicts; instead, our studies provide
operates in organizations. We demonstrate that acts evidence that the credentialing pathway of moral
of citizenship undertaken for external purposes have licensing is more likely to explain why employees
a direct effect on employee attitudes and in turn sometimes engage in deviance following being pres-
affect their subsequent behaviors. Specifically, sured into engaging in OCB.
employees gain a sense of entitlement and engage In addition, these studies contribute to our grow-
in deviant behaviors when they go above and beyond ing understanding of the specific conditions under
the call of duty as a result of external motivation. which moral licensing will occur (e.g., Gneezy, Imas,
This work also contributes to our understanding of Brown, Nelson, & Norton, 2012). Despite these ad-
moral licensing in a number of ways. First, although vances in our knowledge of when good deeds will
prior work has provided evidence that moral license subsequent bad behavior, the literature is
licensing occurs at the firm level in organiza- relatively quiet concerning how the motives associ-
tions (Ormiston & Wong, 2013) and among families ated with good deeds influence the extent to which
with regard to their home energy consumption moral licensing ensues. By incorporating the predictions
(Tiefenbeck, Staake, Roth, & Sachs, 2013), Studies 1 of SDT with moral licensing theory, our work high-
and 2 are among the first investigations to demon- lights another theoretically grounded condition un-
strate the moral licensing effect in organizations. der which moral licensing is especially likely to
Second, although the mechanism via which good occur: when good deeds are compelled by external
deeds lead to subsequent bad behavior has been motives. In doing so, the findings of these studies
heavily discussed in the moral licensing literature, contribute back to social psychology by suggesting
it has rarely been empirically demonstrated. Here, that in order to understand moral licensing, it is im-
we provide evidence of the mediating mechanism portant to consider the degree to which engagement
of psychological entitlement as one route through in positive behaviors is self-determined, as it may
which licensing occurs. Most importantly, whereas influence whether individuals will feel free to en-
past research has provided some support for the gage in subsequent deviant behavior.
mediating mechanism of the moral credits pathway Our research also considers a highly relevant, yet
(e.g., Kouchaki, 2011), we suggest that psychological understudied, construct: psychological entitlement.
FIGURE 4
The Interactive Effect between OCB and External Motivation on Psychological Entitlement (Study 3)
5
3 Low
External
Motivation
High
2 External
Motivation
1
Control OCB Recall
TABLE 6
Summary of Regression Results on Psychological Entitlement (Study 3; n 5 217)
DV 5 Psychological entitlement
Variables B SE B b B SE B b B SE B b
Gendera –0.09 0.19 –0.03 –0.04 0.16 –0.02 –0.01 0.16 –0.01
Age –0.01 0.01 –0.05 –0.02 0.01 –0.10 –0.02 0.01 –0.12*
Raceb 0.13 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.08
Moral identity –0.29 0.14 –0.15* 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.01
Social exchange 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.05
Introjected motivation 0.19 0.08 0.22* 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.03
Identified motivation –0.15 0.09 –0.17 –0.17 0.08 –0.20* –0.15 0.08 –0.17*
Intrinsic motivation 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.08
State negative affect 0.14 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.07
OCBc 0.89 0.15 0.34** 0.02 0.39 0.01
External motivation 0.47 0.06 0.52** 0.32 0.08 0.35**
OCB 3 External motivation 0.26 0.11 0.39*
Adjusted R2 .04 .36 .37
DR2 .31** .02*
Dummy variable (1 5 Male; 0 5 Female)

a
Dummy variable (1 5 White; 0 5 Others)

b
c
Dummy variable (1 5 OCB-recall, 0 5 Control)
*p , .05
**p , .01
Entitlement has been examined in diverse fields, and 2 further strengthens the validity of this alter-
such as personality (Campbell et al., 2004) and social native conclusion. In other words, our research
psychology (Zitek et al., 2010), and only recently in presents an empirically supported, complemen-
organizational behavior (Harvey & Martinko, 2009). tary, explanation of the co-occurrence of OCBs and
In this research, psychological entitlement played deviance.
a critical mediating role between one type of behav- The results of Studies 2 and 3 also shed light on our
ior and another, and we have both theoretical and growing understanding of how the consequences of
empirical bases for believing that psychological en- employee behavior at work can spill over into their
titlement can affect a wide range of other behaviors lives outside of work. Prior work in social psychol-
relevant to the organizational sciences. Thus, we ogy has demonstrated that moral licensing occurs
believe that this research constitutes a promising across domains (e.g., Mazar & Zhong, 2010), and re-
first step toward more fully understanding the role of search in organizational behavior has found that
psychological entitlement in the workplace. OCB is positively associated with family con-
This work also helps to resolve questions arising flict (Bolino & Turnley, 2005). While research has
from theoretical and empirical research suggesting argued that it is the resource-depleting quality of
that within persons, OCBs and deviance co-occur good deeds at work that are chiefly responsible for
and are sometimes positively correlated (Spector subsequent related deviance outside of the work-
& Fox, 2010a). As described earlier, Dalal et al. place (Halbesleben, Harvey, & Bolino, 2009), our
(2009) found that the within-person relationship findings suggest that feelings of entitlement operate
between helping behaviors and deviant acts to- in a similar mediating fashion as a moral credential,
ward the organization was positive and significant. and therefore may underlie the connection between
While those authors proposed that the co-occurrence going above and beyond the call of duty at work
of OCBs and deviance could be due to various af- and conflict outside of work. In doing so, this work
fective events, these explanations remain theoret- empirically demonstrates a previously untested mech-
ical. The findings of our studies suggest that their anism through which employees’ on-the-job re-
results may also be partly due to the presence of quirements can negatively influence their behaviors
external motivations underlying helping behav- in nonwork domains, thereby causing conflict with
iors. Controlling for trait negative affect in Studies 1 family members and peers.
Finally, this paper contributes to the development rituals associated with OCBs (e.g., distribution of e-
of a more complete understanding of the potential mails equating OCBs with extrinsic rewards) and re-
negative consequences of OCBs. In a recent review of shape them to more fully emphasize the intrinsic value
the dark side of citizenship behavior, Bolino and of good behavior. The organization should also learn to
colleagues (2013) called for more research to in- rely more heavily on informal rewards, such as positive
vestigate precisely how employee motives affect the feedback and public praise for OCBs. Finally, OCBs
outcomes of OCBs. Although the idea that OCBs should be formally distributed throughout the organi-
driven by darker motives can lead to negative out- zation and not reside in just one division or department
comes relative to those driven by prosocial motives (e.g., human resources). Consistent with Treviño,
has been around for some time (Bolino, 1999), this Weaver, Gibson and Toffler’s (1999) conclusion that
perspective has been criticized (Organ et al., 2006) organizations that communicate a values-based ap-
and has received little empirical support. Here, we proach yield more positive results compared to or-
provide some support for the idea that after per- ganizations adopting a compliance-based approach,
forming OCBs motivated for external reasons, em- we suggest that a culture-wide emphasis on the in-
ployees may feel entitled to engage in behavior that trinsic value of OCBs can reduce the need for and
harms the organization. reliance on external rewards for OCBs, and should
thereby reduce the negative and unwanted effects of
moral credentials.
Practical Implications
In addition to the theoretical contributions of
Limitations and Future Research
this work, these findings also provide guidance for
practitioners. To begin, managers should be keenly Although we examined our theoretical model
aware of the tradeoffs involved in using external thoroughly (conducting both experimental and field
motivation to encourage citizenship behaviors. Al- studies, utilizing both behavioral and other-report
though it may not be realistic to eliminate in- measures, etc.), we acknowledge that both OCB and
ducements for OCBs from the workplace, it is deviance have numerous behavioral manifestations.
important for managers to realize that in addition to While we have tried to consider these constructs in
encouraging employees to go above and beyond, these their most general forms, we recognize that more
inducements will also likely result in employees feel- unique instances of these behaviors may not conform
ing entitled. As a result, when managers increase to our theoretical model as the general forms did. For
pressure on their employees to be good citizens, they example, researchers have differentiated different
may inadvertently be freeing them subsequently to types of OCBs such as relational- versus task-focused
behave like bad apples, either on the job or outside of (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002) and affiliative versus
work. If an organization views extrinsic rewards for challenging (Grant & Mayer, 2009). Future research
OCBs as a necessity, then the organization should also should explore the consequences of these more
dedicate resources to more effectively communicating unique behaviors when they are driven by external
ethical standards, monitoring employee behavior, and motives. Second, although we triangulated our re-
enforcing ethical conduct. We suggest, however, that sults with cross-cultural samples, we did not consider
a more effective route would be to de-emphasize the culture as an important factor in this phenomenon. We
role of extrinsic rewards for OCBs. In other words, we recognize culture’s pervasive influence and point to it
believe that the key to avoiding the negative conse- as a potential variable to consider in future research.
quences of moral credentials is to create a culture that Third, although we controlled for two alternative ex-
values and emphasizes the intrinsic value of OCBs. planations of our findings in Study 3, there are other
As per Reynolds’ (2014) discussion of ethical cul- potential indicators of the broader social exchange re-
tures, perceptions of the purpose and value of OCBs lationship (e.g., reduced perceptions of fairness) not
can be managed through different elements of the examined, and our indicator of social exchange re-
organization’s culture. For example, the organization lationship did not differentiate the source of imbal-
can more effectively craft and narrate stories of anced social exchange (e.g., from the supervisor or
employees engaging in OCBs not for the external organization). Future research should examine the
rewards they receive, but for the intrinsic value alternative explanation of social exchange more rig-
doing so provides. In this same vein, top leadership orously, with broader measures. Despite these limi-
should demonstrate OCBs without being extrinsically tations, we believe the findings of this research open
compensated for doing so. The organization can revisit at least four avenues for future research in this area.
First, although our studies showed that the moral deviance. Whereas autonomous OCBs may lead to
licensing effect associated with external motivation deviance primarily via the moral credits pathway, we
led to deviant behavior both at work and outside of found that externally motivated OCBs led to deviance
work, our data also revealed that engaging in OCB through a pathway akin to moral credentialing. Im-
alone (without taking the motives into account) did portantly, however, although psychological entitle-
not lead to increased deviance (except in Study 3). ment shares many similarities with moral credentials,
The lack of a main effect from OCB to deviance im- they are not identical constructs. Therefore, we en-
plies that there are a number of other moderators that courage scholars to examine other operationalizations
may drive the moral licensing effect, and we urge future of moral credentials to gain a more nuanced un-
researchers to continue to explore these boundary derstanding of the different mechanisms underlying
conditions. Another implication is that deviance may moral licensing. Indeed, it may be that credits, creden-
be too distal from OCB. Most extant moral licensing tials, and psychological entitlement are three of many
research has employed an experimental design in slightly different paths through which morally laudable
which the IVs and DVs were separated by only minutes behavior leads to deviance.
(e.g., Bradley-Geist et al., 2010; Monin & Miller, 2001). Fourth, and finally, while our results suggest that
As a result, organizational scholars must continue to externally controlled OCBs at work licensed deviance
consider the underlying psychological mechanisms outside of the workplace via psychological entitlement,
that drive the link between OCB and deviance from the extent to which moral credentials can account for
a moral licensing perspective. Relatedly, although we these findings is not clear. Specifically, since we did not
only examined OCB as the independent variable in this measure the extent to which OCBs changed employees’
research, other prosocial forms of workplace behavior, construals of their deviance outside of work, we cannot
such as constructive voice (Morrison, 2011), can po- conclude that psychological entitlement operates in the
tentially cause the same effects found in our studies. same way as credentials across domains. This is par-
Second, future work should explore the condi- ticularly important given that Effron and Monin (2010)
tions under which employees are more likely to use argued that cross-domain moral licensing is less likely
their license in one domain versus another. For ex- to occur via credentials than via credits. Although our
ample, people who hold positive attitudes about studies provide evidence that the licensing that took
their jobs, their peers and supervisor, or their orga- place was not due to moral credits, future scholars
nization may be more likely to seek out a nonwork should continue to examine all possible mechanisms
domain in which to engage in morally licensed de- through which cross-domain licensing may occur in
viance. As suggested by Klotz and Bolino (2013), order to better understand when citizenship at work
individuals may also avoid using their moral license will lead to counterproductive behavior at home.
in a domain that conflicts with their identity orien-
tation. In addition, employees differ in the perme-
CONCLUSION
ability of the boundaries between their work and
personal lives (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000); In this paper, we utilized moral licensing and self-
those with more rigid boundaries between their work determination theories to explain the attitudinal and
and home lives should feel less entitled to engage in behavioral consequences of externally motivated OCBs.
deviance at home as a result of OCBs at work, and vice In three studies, we demonstrated that employees who
versa. In other words, whether employees view them- are compelled to engage in OCB later display a height-
selves as segmenters, or as integrators, can serve as ened sense of entitlement, which in turn leads to de-
a potential moderator of cross-domain moral licensing. viance both within and outside of the organization.
Interestingly, any organizational policies that prevent Although the literature on external-motive-driven
the expression of deviance may in fact paradoxically workplace behavior is still in its nascence, we hope
increase deviance outside of work. This is an important our research is a first step toward a more complete un-
empirical question that merits further attention. derstanding of external motivation and its effects on job
Third, whereas past research has tended to focus on attitudes and organizational behavior.
the moral credits pathway and we focused on the moral
credentials pathway of moral licensing, we encourage
future work to examine these two perspectives in REFERENCES
tandem. Our theorizing suggests that individuals’ Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M.
motivation behind their good deeds determines 1994. The work preference inventory: Assessing
which pathway they may choose to license subsequent intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66: now? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
950–967. 56: 110–116.
Aquino, K., & Reed, A. 2002. The self-importance of moral Colquitt, J. A., Baer, M. D., Long, D. M., & Halvorsen-
identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Ganepola, M. D. 2014. Scale indicators of social ex-
ogy, 83: 1423–1440. change relationships: A comparison of relative content
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. 2000. All in validity. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 99:
599–618.
a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions.
Academy of Management Review, 25: 472–491. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange
theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Man-
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. 1983. Job satisfaction and
agement, 31: 874–900.
the good soldier: The relationship between affect and
employee “citizenship.” Academy of Management Dalal, R. S. 2005. A meta-analysis of the relationship be-
Journal, 26: 587–595. tween organizational citizenship behavior and coun-
terproductive work behavior. The Journal of Applied
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. 2007. In-
Psychology, 90: 1241–1255.
terpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and
their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Dalal, R. S., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E. R., & Hulin, C. L.
The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 410–424. 2009. A within-person approach to work behavior
and performance: Concurrent and lagged citizenship–
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. 2000. Development of
counterproductivity associations, and dynamic re-
a measure of workplace deviance. The Journal of
lationships with affect and overall job performance.
Applied Psychology, 85: 349–360.
Academy of Management Journal, 52: 1051–1066.
Bolino, M. C. 1999. Citizenship and impression manage-
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. 1999. A meta-
ment: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of analytic review of experiments examining the effects
Management Review, 24: 82–98. of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psycho-
Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley, W. H., & Harvey, J. logical Bulletin, 125: 627–668.
2013. Exploring the dark side of organizational citi- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and
zenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behav- self-determination in human behavior. New York,
ior, 34: 542–559. NY: Plenum.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. 2005. The personal costs of Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. 2007. Methods for in-
citizenship behavior: The relationship between indi- tegrating moderation and mediation: A general ana-
vidual initiative and role overload, job stress, and lytical framework using moderated path analysis.
work-family conflict. The Journal of Applied Psy- Psychological Methods, 12: 1–22.
chology, 90: 740–748.
Effron, D. A. 2014. Making mountains of morality from
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., Gilstrap, J. B., & Suazo, M. M. molehills of virtue: Threat causes people to over-
2010. Citizenship under pressure: What’s a “good estimate their moral credentials. Personality and
soldier” to do? Journal of Organizational Behavior, Social Psychology Bulletin, 40: 972–985.
31: 835–855.
Effron, D. A., & Conway, P. 2015. When virtue leads to
Bradley-Geist, J. C., King, E. B., Skorinko, J., Hebl, M. R., & villainy: Advances in research on moral self-licensing.
McKenna, C. 2010. Moral credentialing by associa- Current Opinion in Psychology, 6: 32–35.
tion: The importance of choice and relationship
Effron, D. A., Miller, D. T., & Monin, B. 2012. Inventing
closeness. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
racist roads not taken: The licensing effect of immoral
letin, 36: 1564–1575.
counterfactual behaviors. Journal of Personality and
Brislin, R. W. 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Social Psychology, 103: 916–932.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1: 185–216.
Farh, J. L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. 2007. Individual-level
Cameron, K., Dutton, J., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.). 2003. Posi- cultural values as moderators of perceived organiza-
tive organizational scholarship: Foundations of tional support–employee outcome relationships in
a new discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler China: Comparing the effects of power distance and
Publishers. traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50:
Campbell, K. W., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J., & 715–729.
Bushman, B. 2004. Psychological entitlement: In- Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. 2004. Organiza-
terpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report tional citizenship behavior in the People’s Republic of
measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83: 29–45. China. Organization Science, 15: 241–253.
Cascio, J., & Plant, E. A. 2015. Prospective moral licensing: Fehr, R., Yam, K. C., He, W., Chiang, J., & Wei, W. 2017.
Does anticipating doing good later allow you to be bad Polluted work: A self-control perspective on air
pollution, organizational citizenship, and counter- Hoffman, D., & Gavin, M. 1998. Centering decisions in hi-
productive work behavior. Organizational Behavior erarchical linear models: Implications for research in
and Human Decision Processes. Published online organizations. Journal of Management, 24: 623–641.
ahead of print. Jones, T. M. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. 2005. Self-determination theory in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Acad-
and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Be- emy of Management Review, 16: 366–395.
havior, 26: 331–362. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. 2005. Core
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role
van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A. K., Bellerose, J., Benabou, of self-concordance and goal attainment. The Journal
C., Chemolli, E., Güntert, S. T., Halvari, H., Indiyastuti, of Applied Psychology, 90: 257–268.
D. L., Johnson, P. A., Molstad, M. H., Naudin, M., Ndao, Khan, U., & Dhar, R. 2007. Where there is a way, is there
A., Olafsen, A. H., Roussel, P., Wang, Z., & Westbye, C.
a will? The effect of future choices on self-control.
2015. The multidimensional work motivation scale:
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 136: 277–288.
Validation evidence in seven languages and nine
countries. European Journal of Work and Organi- Kidwell, R. E., & Bennett, N. 1993. Employee propensity to
zational Psychology, 24: 178–196. withhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect three
avenues of research. Academy of Management Re-
Gneezy, A., Imas, A., Brown, A., Nelson, L. D., & Norton,
view, 18: 429–456.
M. I. 2012. Paying to be nice: Consistency and
costly prosocial behavior. Management Science, Klotz, A. C., & Bolino, M. C. 2013. Citizenship and coun-
58: 179–187. terproductive work behavior: A moral licensing view.
Academy of Management Review, 38: 292–306.
Goldberg, L. R., et al. 2006. The international personality
item pool and the future of public-domain personality Kouchaki, M. 2011. Vicarious moral licensing: The influ-
measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40: ence of others’ past moral actions on moral behavior.
84–96. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101:
702–715.
Grant, A. M. 2008. Does intrinsic motivation fuel the pro-
social fire? Motivational synergy in predicting per- Lee, K., & Allen, N. 2002. Organizational citizenship be-
sistence, performance, and productivity. The Journal havior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and
of Applied Psychology, 93: 48–58. cognitions. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87:
131–141.
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. 2009. Good soldiers and good
actors: Prosocial and impression management mo- LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. 2002. The nature
tives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship and dimensionality of organizational citizenship be-
behaviors. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: havior: A critical review and meta-analysis. The
900–912. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 52–65.
Grant, A. M., Nurmohamed, S., Ashford, S. J., & Dekas, K. Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. 2007. Emerging positive or-
2011. The performance implications of ambivalent ganizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33:
initiative: The interplay of autonomous and con- 321–349.
trolled motivations. Organizational Behavior and MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1991.
Human Decision Processes, 116: 241–251. Organizational citizenship behavior and objective
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. 2009. Too productivity as determinants of managerial evalu-
engaged? A conservation of resources view of the ations of salespersons’ performance. Organiza-
relationship between work engagement and work tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
interference with family. The Journal of Applied 50: 123–150.
Psychology, 94: 1452–1465. Mazar, N., & Zhong, C. B. 2010. Do green products make us
Harvey, P., & Martinko, M. J. 2009. An empirical exami- better people? Psychological Science, 21: 494–498.
nation of the role of attributions in psychological enti- McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban,
tlement and its outcomes. Journal of Organizational D. B. 2007. Disentangling role perceptions: How per-
Behavior, 30: 459–476. ceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and
Hayes, A. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, efficacy relate to helping and taking charge. The
and condition process analysis: A regression-based Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1200–1211.
approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., Fein, S., Savitsky, K. K., Tuller,
Hayes, A. 2015. An index and test of linear moderated D. M., & Monin, B. 2012. The strategic pursuit of moral
mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50: credentials. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
1–22. chology, 48: 774–777.
Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. 2010. Moral self- Preacher, K., Curran, P., & Bauer, D. 2006. Computational
licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear
and Personality Psychology Compass, 45: 344–357. regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve
Miller, D. T., & Effron, D. A. 2010. Psychological license: analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral
Statistics, 31: 437–448.
When it is needed and how it functions. In P. Z. Mark &
M. O. James (Eds.), Advances in experimental social Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R.
psychology, vol. 43: 115–155. New York, NY: Aca- 2004. HLM 6: Hierarchical and nonlinear modeling.
demic Press. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. 2001. Moral credentials and the Reynolds, S. J. 2014. The non-conscious aspects of ethical
expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and behavior: Not everything in the “good” organization is
Social Psychology, 81: 33–43. deliberate and intentional. American Criminal Law
Review, 51: 245–266.
Morrison, E. W. 1994. Role definitions and organizational
citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. 2001. The causes of organiza-
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37: tional citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis.
1543–1567. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1306–1314.
Morrison, E. W. 2011. Employee voice behavior: In- Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. 1995. A typology of deviant
tegration and directions for future research. The workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study.
Academy of Management Annals, 5: 373–412. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 555–572.
Naumann, S. E., Minsky, B. D., & Sturman, M. C. 2002. The Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. 2001. Location, location,
use of the concept “entitlement” in management lit- location: Contextualizing organizational research.
erature: A historical review, synthesis, and discussion Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 1–13.
of compensation policy implications. Human Re- Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2000. Self-determination theory
source Management Review, 12: 145–166. and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social de-
Nisan, M. 1990. Moral balance: A model of how people velopment, and well-being. The American Psychol-
arrive at moral decisions. In T. E. Wren (Ed.), The ogist, 55: 68–78.
moral domain: 283–314. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. 2009. Sinning saints and
Nisan, M. 1991. The moral balance model: Theory and re- saintly sinners. Psychological Science, 20: 523–528.
search extending our understanding of moral choice Salamon, S. D., & Deutsch, Y. 2006. OCB as a handicap: An
and deviation. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), evolutionary psychological perspective. Journal of
Handbook of moral behavior and development, vol. 3: Organizational Behavior, 27: 185–199.
213–249. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. 2002. Relationship
Organ, D. W. 1977. A reappraisal and reinterpretation quality and relationship context as antecedents of
of the satisfaction–causes–performance hypothesis. person-and task-focused interpersonal citizenship
Academy of Management Review, 2: 46–53. behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87:
255–267.
Organ, D. W. 1988. O. C. B.: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. 1997. Retaliation in the work-
place: The roles of distributive, procedural, and in-
Organ, D. W. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s
teractional justice. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10: 85–97.
82: 434–443.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 2006.
Snow, J. N., Kern, R. M., & Curlette, W. L. 2001. Iden-
Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, ante-
tifying personality traits associated with attrition
cedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
in systematic training for effective parenting
Ormiston, M. E., & Wong, E. M. 2013. License to ill: The groups. The Family Journal (Alexandria, Va.), 9:
effects of corporate social responsibility and CEO 102–108.
moral identity on corporate social irresponsibility.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. 2010a. Theorizing about the deviant
Personnel Psychology, 66: 861–893.
citizen: An attributional explanation of the interplay of
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. organizational citizenship and counterproductive work
2009. Individual- and organizational-level consequences behavior. Human Resource Management Review,
of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. 20: 132–143.
The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 122–141. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. 2010b. Counterproductive work
Polman, E., Pettit, N. C., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. 2013. Effects behavior and organisational citizenship behavior: Are
of wrongdoer status on moral licensing. Journal of they opposite forms of active behavior? Applied Psy-
Experimental Social Psychology, 49: 614–623. chology, 59: 21–39.
Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O. V., Elson, S. B., Green, M. C., & abusive supervision. The Journal of Applied Psy-
Lerner, J. S. 2000. The psychology of the unthinkable: chology, 101: 292–301.
Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical Yam, K. C., Reynolds, S. J., & Hirsh, J. B. 2014. The hungry
counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social thief: Physiological deprivation and its effects on un-
Psychology, 78: 853–870.
ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Hu-
Tiefenbeck, V., Staake, T., Roth, K., & Sachs, O. 2013. For man Decision Processes, 125: 123–133.
better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral li-
Zhong, C. B., & Liljenquist, K. 2006. Washing away your sins:
censing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign.
Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science,
Energy Policy, 57: 160–171.
313: 1451–1452.
Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., Gibson, D. G., & Toffler, B. L.
Zhong, C. B., Liljenquist, K., & Cain, D. M. 2009. Moral self-
1999. Managing ethics and legal compliance: What
regulation: Licensing and compensation. In D. De
works and what hurts. California Management Re-
Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical
view, 41: 131–151.
behavior and decision making. Charlotte, NC: In-
Turban, D. B., Tan, H. H., Brown, K. G., & Sheldon, K. M. formation Age Publishing.
2007. Antecedents and outcomes of perceived locus of
Zitek, E. M., Jordan, A. H., Monin, B., & Leach, F. R.
causality: An application of self-determination theory.
2010. Victim entitlement to behave selfishly.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37: 2376–2404.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98:
Van Dyne, L., & Ellis, J. B. 2004. Job creep: A reactance theory 245–255.
perspective on organizational citizenship behavior
as over-fulfillment of obligations. In J. A. M. Coyle-
Shapiro, L. M. Shore, M. S. Taylor & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.),
The employment relationship: Examining psycho- Kai Chi Yam (bizykc@nus.edu.sg) is an assistant professor
logical and contextual perspectives: 181–205. Oxford, of management at the National University of Singapore. He
UK: Oxford University Press. received his PhD from the University of Washington. His
Vigoda-Gadot, E. 2006. Compulsory citizenship behavior: research focuses on behavioral ethics, ethical leadership,
Theorizing some dark sides of the good soldier syn- and abusive supervision.
drome in organizations. Journal for the Theory of Anthony C. Klotz (anthony.klotz@oregonstate.edu) is an
Social Behaviour, 36: 77–93. assistant professor in the College of Business at Oregon State
Vigoda-Gadot, E. 2007. Leadership style, organizational University. He received his PhD from the University of Okla-
politics, and employees’ performance. Personnel homa’s Price College of Business. His research interests in-
Review, 36: 661–683. clude organizational citizenship behavior, team conflict, and
Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Development employee resignation.
and validation of brief measures of positive and neg- Wei He (whe@hust.edu.cn) is an assistant professor in the
ative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personal- Department of Business Administration at the School of
ity and Social Psychology, 54: 1063–1070. Management at the Huazhong University of Science and
Yam, K. C., Chen, X. P., & Reynolds, S. J. 2014. Ego de- Technology, where he also received his PhD. His research
pletion and its paradoxical effects on ethical decision interests include pay structure, leadership, and employee
making. Organizational Behavior and Human De- proactive and deviance behaviors.
cision Processes, 124: 204–214. Scott J. Reynolds (heyscott@uw.edu) is a professor of
Yam, K. C., Fehr, R., & Barnes, C. M. 2014. Morning em- business ethics and the Weyerhaeuser Faculty Fellow at
ployees are perceived as better employees: Employees’ the Michael G. Foster School of Business at the University
start times influence supervisor performance ratings. of Washington. He earned his PhD from the University of
The Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 1288–1299. Minnesota in business administration. His research fo-
Yam, K. C., Fehr, R., Keng-Highberger, F., Klotz, A., & cuses on individual moral decision making.
Reynolds, S. 2016. Out of control: A self-control
perspective on the link between surface acting and

From Good Soldiers To Psychologically Entitled: Examining When and Why Citizenship Behavior Leads To Deviance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

From Good Soldiers To Psychologically Entitled: Examining When and Why Citizenship Behavior Leads To Deviance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

r Academy of Management Journal

2017, Vol. 60, No. 1, 373–396.

FROM GOOD SOLDIERS TO PSYCHOLOGICALLY ENTITLED:

Research has consistently demonstrated that organizational citizenship behaviors

Organizational Psychological Organizational

friendly products were more likely to allocate re- STUDY 1

RESEARCH OVERVIEW Measures

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Intercept 3.42** 0.37 3.41** 0.32 3.34** 0.32

Dummy variable (1 5 Male, 0 5 Female)

1. OCB 3.65 (0.74) (0.94)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Dummy variable (1 5 White, 0 5 Others)

Dummy variable (1 5 Male, 0 5 Female)

Study 2 Discussion work schedule to help accommodate other employers’

external motivation toward OCB, providing support

two alternative explanations of our findings

interested in examining their simultaneously medi-

conducted a three-mediator moderated mediation

work deviance when external motivation was high

Neither social exchange (coefficient 5 .05, SE 5 .04,

95% CI 5 2.01 to .15) nor moral identity (co-

mediated the effect when external motivation was

high. These results provide further support for our

tween OCB and deviance.

Although OCBs were originally conceptualized as

compelled to do so by extrinsic forces (Bolino et al.,

2013; McAllister et al., 2007; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006).

OCB, little is known about the effect of compulsory

OCB on employees’ attitudes and subsequent be-

haviors. Drawing from moral licensing and self-

driven by external motivation leave employees with

a heightened sense of psychological entitlement. We

have a licensing effect on employees, freeing them to

Dummy variable (1 5 White; 0 5 Others)

Dummy variable (1 5 Male; 0 5 Female)

engage in subsequent acts of deviance, both within

focused on the role of autonomous motivation in

facilitating beneficial behavior for employees and

10. Moral identity

organizations. The reality, though, is that employee

behavior, including OCB, is often under the influ-

ence of different forms of autonomous and external

motivation (Grant & Mayer, 2009; Grant et al., 2011).

That is, employees go above and beyond the call of

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Dummy variable (1 5 Male; 0 5 Female)

Dummy variable (1 5 White; 0 5 Others)

You might also like

Intercept 3.42 0.37 3.41 0.32 3.34** 0.32