Content uploaded by Pascale Desrumaux
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pascale Desrumaux on Mar 19, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
épreuve de contrôle
Revue inteRnationale de psychologie sociale 2012 n° 3/4
5
The authors thank Davy Duthoit and Claire Denhollander for their contributions to data
collection.
* EA 4072 PSITEC, Université de Lille 3, BP 60149, 59650 Villeneuve d’Ascq, France. E-mails:
claudien06@yahoo.fr, pascale.desrumaux@univ-lille3.fr, veronique.leoni@univ-lille3.fr
** EA 7273 CRP-CPO, Université de Picardie, chemin de Thil, 80025 Amiens Cedex1, France.
E-mail: caroline_nicolas@live.fr
Key-words
Prosocial behaviors,
citizenship behaviors,
affect, organizational
justice, organizational
commitment
Mots-clés
Comportements
prosociaux,
comportements
citoyens, affects,
justice
organisationnelle,
engagement
organisationnel
Abstract
Prosocial behaviors at the work-
place (PSBW) can be divided into
two categories: pro-organizational
behaviors and pro-individual behav-
iors. Among the variables linked to
PSBW, the affective components of
subjective well-being seem to play
a determining role. The aim of this
study was to find out whether
organizational variables, affects, and
personality have a predictive role in
determining PSBW. One hundred
and forty-eight employees filled out
a questionnaire measuring PSBW,
affectivity and satisfaction with life,
organizational justice, organiza-
tional commitment, and personality
traits. Correlation analyses indi-
cated that emotional commitment
was positively correlated with polit-
ical prosociality, helping, and
encouragement. Procedural justice,
informational justice, and interac-
Résumé
Les comportements prosociaux au
travail (CPST) peuvent être répartis
en deux catégories: les conduites
pro-organisationnelles et pro-indi-
viduelles. Parmi les variables en lien
avec les CPST, les composantes
affectives du bien-être subjectif
semblent jouer un rôle détermi-
nant. L’objectif de notre recherche
est de tester le rôle prédictif de
variables organisationnelles, des
affects et de la personnalité sur les
CPST. 148 salariés ont complété un
questionnaire mesurant les CPST,
l’affectivité et la satisfaction avec la
vie, la justice organisationnelle,
l’engagement organisationnel et les
traits de personnalité. Les analyses
de corrélation montrent que l’enga-
gement affectif est positivement
corrélé avec la prosocialité poli-
tique, l’aide et les encouragements.
Des corrélations sont également
RIPS / IRSP, 25 (3/4), 91-90 © 2012, Presses universitaires de Grenoble
Predicting prosocial behavior in the workplace:
Links with organizational justice, commitment,
affectivity, and personality
Prédire les comportements prosociaux au travail : liens avec la justice
organisationnelle, l’engagement, l’affectivité et la personnalité
Méthode Boundenghan*
Pascale Desrumaux*
Véronique Léoni*
Caroline Violette Nicolas**
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 5 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: LINKS WITH JUSTICE, COMMITMENT AND PERSONALITY
6
For some years, positive behaviors at work (Bierhoff, 2002;
Borman & Motowidlo, 1993) have sparked considerable
interest. As for the antisocial behaviors at work, distinctions
between pro-organizational and pro-individual behaviors can be
made. It is also commonly agreed in the literature that organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors (OCB) is a multi-dimensional
construct (Motowidlo, 2000) and includes pro-organizational and
pro-individual behaviors. A first goal of this study is to measure a
whole of prosocial behaviors on the base of a recent classification
distinguishing individual and organisational prosocial behaviors.
Researchers have tried not only to better understand prosocial
and citizenship behaviors, but also to identify factors likely to
explain them (Desrumaux, Léoni, Bernaud, & Defrancq, 2012;
Paillé, 2009). Variables such as job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, perceptions of fairness or leader supportiveness
are found to be positively related to OCB (see Organ & Ryan,
1995, for an overview). For example, satisfaction at work and
belonging to a group are associated with citizenship. In this vein,
the current study proposes to explore the various links between
organizational variables (as the four dimensions of organizational
justice) or personal variables (as agreeability, positive affectivity,
commitment) and prosocial behaviors directed toward the orga-
nization or toward the individuals. Thus, the principal aim of this
study was to determine the best predictors of prosocial behavior
in the workplace. The contribution of this study is firstly to
compare a whole of variables (individual and organizational);
often studies are concerned with only one to two variables, and
tional justice were also found to be
correlated with political prosocial
behaviors. PSBW were best
explained by commitment and
affect. A regression analysis demon-
strated the strong impact of affectiv-
ity, commitment, and organizational
justice on prosocial behaviors.
observées entre les justices procé-
durale, informationnelle, interac-
tionnelle et les comportements
prosociaux politiques. Les CPST
sont mieux expliqués par l’engage-
ment et les affects. L’analyse de
régression met en évidence l’im-
pact décisif de l’affectivité, de l’en-
gagement et de la justice
organisationnelle sur les conduites
prosociales.
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 6 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PSYCHOLOGIE SOCIALE 2012 N° 3/4
7
explore organizational causes or personal causes. Secondly, we
have chosen to add a variable which is often forgotten: the affec-
tivity which plays a role on prosocial behavior. Thirdly, the link
between the four dimensions of organizational justice and behav-
iors at work are measured. Finally between these organizational
and individual variables, we try to determine which ones are the
best predictors of prosocial behaviors.
Theoretical Background
Prosocial behaviors
Prosocial behavior refers to an employee’s helpful behavior
toward other individuals or the organization. This behavior is
beneficial for the people to whom it is directed (individuals or
the organization). In general, a prosocial behavior in the work-
place can be described as any act aimed at improving the
situation of the person to whom the help is directed (Bierhoff,
2002). Prosocial behaviors at work can be considered a key
element of organizational effectiveness in the sense that they lead
to improvement in the work environment through a series of acts
performed by employees. These acts have been designated by
several terms in the literature: organizational citizenship behavior
(Organ, 1988), extra-role behavior (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998),
contextual performance, and mobilization. Organizational citi-
zenship behavior was originally defined as any intentional and
discretionary behavior performed by an employee that is not
recognized or compensated, but which nevertheless improves
the functioning of an organization (Organ, 1988; Schnake, 1991).
Initially, organizational citizenship behavior was perceived as a
voluntary, extra-role act that serves to help other members of the
organization accomplish their work, while at the same time
demonstrating support toward one’s organization (Smith, Organ,
& Near, 1983). Examples of such efforts include cooperation with
peers, performing extra role tasks, punctuality, helping one’s
coworkers, using one’s time at work effectively, sharing ideas, or
representing one’s organization positively. Seen as such, this type
of behavior has been studied by measuring two of its compo-
nents, i.e., altruism and general compliance (Organ & Ryan,
1995). Altruism refers to helping behaviors intentionally directed
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 7 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: LINKS WITH JUSTICE, COMMITMENT AND PERSONALITY
8
toward a specific person. Compliance refers to a manifestation of
social awareness in regard to organizational values and proce-
dures. Organ (1988) later expanded this definition by specifying
that even if organizational citizenship behaviors are not directly
or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, they
contribute to the overall effectiveness of the organization’s oper-
ations. Accordingly, the author proposed a taxonomy which
remains the most widely used. The taxonomy covers the following
five characteristic facets of organizational citizenship behavior.
Altruism refers to a deliberate behavior aimed at helping another
person in one’s workplace. Conscientiousness refers to a set of
behaviors complying with those established by the organization
(for example, getting to work on time). Sportsmanship is
adopting a positive attitude, e.g., being sportsmanlike would
mean not complaining about trivial things. Next is courtesy,
which translates into asking other people’s opinions before
taking action. It would also involve being vigilant in anticipating
potential difficulties likely to cause problems in coworkers’ jobs
(Paillé & Pohl, 2008). Finally, civic virtue would mean concerning
oneself with issues that are important to the organization, i.e.,
getting involved in organizational matters.
The concept of organizational citizenship has generated an abun-
dant literature. In the past twenty years, numerous types of
citizenship have been identified (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, &
Bachrach, D, 2000), inspired by the pioneering work by Organ
(1988). More than thirty different types of citizenship have been
distinguished, then grouped into seven categories.
Although the origin of the organizational citizenship concept
goes back to Bateman and Organ (1983), numerous researchers
have worked more on the relationships between this concept
and other variables than on the concept itself (Podsakoff et al.,
2000). The concept rests on the idea that satisfaction at work
gives rise to the desire to help one’s coworkers and predisposes
one to cooperate in order to maintain workplace processes.
Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994) showed that OCB are close to
managers’ evaluations of employee performance and attribution
of rewards. According to the theory of social exchange, OCB
constitute beneficial acts that employees provide to an organiza-
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 8 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PSYCHOLOGIE SOCIALE 2012 N° 3/4
9
tion in exchange for advantages they receive from the organization.
Bishop, Scott and Burroughs (2000, in Paillé, 2009, p. 191)
showed that commitment to the organization and to the work
team positively and simultaneously influences organization-
oriented citizenship.
Organizational citizenship behaviors cover a large whole of
behaviors, ranging from mutual assistance among coworkers to
spreading a good image of the organization. All of the studies
show that organizational citizenship behavior is a multidimen-
sional construct. However, there is no consensus in the literature
on the exact number of dimensions involved. More recently,
Paillé (2009) proposed to retain three main types of citizenship:
mutual help, team spirit, and civic-mindedness. OCB are compa-
rable to a form of organizational spontaneity in which they are
also defined as discretionary behaviors contributing to the
improvement of organizational operations. Some researchers
have proposed to classify organizational citizenship behaviors
into two different categories: affiliative versus challenging (Van
Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995). Affiliative citizenship behaviors
are actions seeking to maintain the status quo by promoting and
supporting existing relationships at work, including providing
help to coworkers, being courteous to others, and taking the
initiative during overtime work (Van Dyne et al., 1995). Challenging
citizenship behaviors, on the other hand, are actions aimed at
modifying the status quo by casting doubt on existing relational
processes (Van Dyne et al., 1995). These behaviors include voice
problems (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), and taking charge of imple-
menting constructive changes in work methods. The studies
show that these two categories of organizational citizenship
behavior contribute to effective results for organizations (Van
Dyne & LePine, 1998; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Accordingly, “behav-
iors not explicitly required, such as organizational citizenship
behaviors, contribute to the proper functioning of the organiza-
tion” (Paillé, 2008, p. 33). They are important “because they
shape the organizational, social and psychological context”
(Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p. 71). In general, organizational
citizenship behavior, associated with its related concepts, rests on
Organ’s definition (1988, p. 4): “ Individual behavior that is
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 9 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: LINKS WITH JUSTICE, COMMITMENT AND PERSONALITY
10
reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective
functioning of the organization”. Organizational citizenship
behavior is defined as individual behavior of a discretionary type,
not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system,
that contributes to the proper functioning of the organization.
According to Smith, Organ, and Near (1983), OCB have two
dimensions: (1) extra-role, which pertains to altruism and
describes person-oriented behavior, and (2) intra-role, which
emphasizes the importance of professional conscientiousness
(organization-oriented). In 1994, Organ grouped these organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors into five major categories: altruism,
conscientiousness, team spirit, civic-mindedness, and courtesy.
Organizational citizenship behaviors include an entire set of
behaviors, from mutual help among employees to spreading a
good image of the company among coworkers.
All these studies show that organizational citizenship behavior is
a multidimensional construct. In the context of our study, we will
need to distinguish OCB that directly benefit the organization
from those directed mainly toward individuals, which therefore
benefit the organization only indirectly.
Two approaches have been proposed, each with its own catego-
rization of organizational citizenship behaviors. One approach
establishes a typology based on groups of behaviors such as toler-
ance, conscientiousness, civic virtue, altruism and courtesy
(Organ, 1988; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990).
The second approach divides organizational citizenship behav-
iors into two main categories, depending on whether they are
centered on individuals (OCB-I) or the organization (OCB-O;
McNeely & Meglino, 1994; Williams & Anderson, 1991). A new
conceptualization of prosocial organizational behavior was
proposed by Desrumaux (2007, p. 109). In this approach, two
main categories of behavior can be distinguished. The first is pro-
organizational behaviors, or “all voluntary behavior that helps
preserve organizational standards and serves to maintain the
well-being of the members of the organization.” Three types of
pro-organizational behaviors are defined. Prosocial property
behaviors involve such things as an employee making individual
possessions available to serve the organization, as for example
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 10 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PSYCHOLOGIE SOCIALE 2012 N° 3/4
11
the act of donating equipment to the company. Prosocial polit-
ical behaviors are rooted in an acceptance of company rules and
procedures (for example, working during breaks). Prosocial
production behaviors are those aimed at increasing the quantity
or improving the quality of work (overinvesting in one’s job;
employees showing such strongly committed behavior might, for
example, take their work home or even devote their weekend to
finishing a current project).
The second type is pro-individual behaviors, which are “positive
behaviors directed toward individuals, and which are volun-
tary behaviors executed freely by an individual in such a way
as to increase the well-being, feeling of autonomy, recognition,
and self-esteem of people, for the purpose of preserving or devel-
oping the quality of life among people at work” (Desrumaux,
2007). Pro-individual behaviors can be divided into three subcat-
egories: autonomy, mobilization, and dynamism. Autonomy
within a company is described as an employee’s ability to deter-
mine rules of action with which he/she will comply, and to set up
specific activity modes inside his/her sphere of action, without
having someone else (here, the organization) imposing stan-
dards (Chatzis, Mounier, Veltz, & Zarifian, 1999, p. 29). Autonomy
pertains to a type of responsibility with respect to oneself when
accomplishing a task, a form of independence. Prosocial actions
that are freely accomplished, and that express a person’s well-
internalized values, allow that person to feel that his/her need for
autonomy has been satisfied. The concept of autonomy has to do
with taking initiatives, margin to maneuver, and the potential to
be entrepreneurial. This is a sought-after quality in work teams
since it leads to willing accomplishment of actions and the
outward expression of well-internalized values, which also
provide opportunities to satisfy one’s needs. Mobilization,
according to the definition proposed by Tremblay and Wils (2005)
corresponds to a critical mass of employees who accomplish
actions (which may or may not be part of their employment
contract and may or may not be remunerated), and which benefit
the well-being of others and their company and contribute to the
accomplishment of a collective endeavor. Mobilization behaviors
include providing assistance to others, coordination with others,
organizational loyalty, dedication to one’s job, and development
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 11 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: LINKS WITH JUSTICE, COMMITMENT AND PERSONALITY
12
of competency and performance. According to Tremblay and
Simard’s (2005) model of human-resource mobilization, healthy
exchanges between employers and employees lead to employee
mobilization behaviors, the source of their performance and
hence organizational performance. Dynamism is an ability to
commit to one’s job. Dynamism assumes a sense of purpose,
values, and priorities. An employee is said to be dynamic when
each act performed in the context of his/her job is in pursuit of a
goal or a value recognized by the organization.
Next, help and support behaviors involve assisting one’s
coworkers, or being an altruist. They represent a person’s willing-
ness to help members of his/her organization when they
encounter difficulties in their job tasks. Help refers to various
types of assistance that is geared to the nature of the problem
identified. Helping behavior manifests itself in several ways. The
types most studied are altruism, conciliation, and courtesy.
Support can be perceived in terms of activities (comforting a
coworker, lending money, giving information, or sharing tasks),
in terms of relationships (having contact with other members of
the organization — people on whom one can rely in case of diffi-
culty), or in terms of the individual, while taking into consideration
the degree of satisfaction with the help received. In defining
supportive behavior, Barrera (1986) spoke of social support as
being a set of actions or behaviors that effectively provide help to
someone. Support behaviors consist of listening, affectivity,
lending money. Flynn (2005) considers that individuals are able
to help their coworkers because they identify with the whole
organization. As a result, they have exchange-oriented relation-
ships with all members of the organization, because they identify
personally with a specific member and maintain a one-on-one
relationship with this person. Finally, under the third category of
pro-individual behaviors, we have valuing, gratification, and
encouragement behaviors. This category pertains to “behaviors
performed by employees for the purpose of encouraging other
people’s work, as well as respecting it and giving it value. These
behaviors are accompanied by gestures of recognition, compli-
ments, words of congratulation for a job well done, etc.”
(Desrumaux, 2007, p. 14). This recent conceptualization, more
complete than previous ones, includes some of the dimensions
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 12 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PSYCHOLOGIE SOCIALE 2012 N° 3/4
13
of organizational citizenship behavior defined by Organ (1988)
and Van Dyne et al. (1995). For example, the pro-political dimen-
sion of prosocial behavior is equivalent to the dimension “loyalty
toward the organization” within the OCB category, which clearly
shows the overlapping of these concepts in the literature.
Individual and organizational variables involved in
explaining prosocial behaviors
In the literature, prosocial behaviors that can be observed in indi-
viduals on the job are determined by organizational variables
(justice and commitment) and individual variables (personality,
satisfaction, affect). Several studies have attempted to explain the
potential links between organizational justice and behaviors at
work. It seems that employees’ feelings of justice or injustice
regarding the organization have an impact on reactions within
the company.
All organizations are founded on the basis of distributions (sala-
ries, bonuses, decisions, rules), procedures regarding these
distributions, and interpersonal relations. Studies by Greenberg
and Colquitt on organizational justice (2005) distinguished
several types of injustice feelings: distributive, relating to unjust
allocation of rewards; procedural, where for example an employee
does not have the right to express himself/herself; and interper-
sonal, where interactions are judged to be unfair. According to
these authors, the feeling of informational injustice refers to the
actual content of interactions; in other words, it concerns infor-
mation on procedures used to make decisions (Colquitt, 2001;
Greenberg, 2006). Perceptions of justice are very important to
employees’ involvement and satisfaction, as well as to their rela-
tionships with the company hierarchy. This adds up to four types
of justice being studied (Colquitt, 2001). Distributive justice was
defined by Melkonian, Monin, Noordelhaven, Rouzies, &
Timmers, (2006, p. 232) as “the degree to which decisions are
perceived as just by employees”. The notion of distributive justice
comes from studies on Adams’ equity theory (1965) whereby
individuals assess fairness by calculating the ratio between their
contributions (what they bring to the company) and their
rewards (what they receive, which includes salaries and bonuses,
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 13 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: LINKS WITH JUSTICE, COMMITMENT AND PERSONALITY
14
among other things), while comparing their situation to that of
others working under the same conditions. The next type of
justice, procedural, concerns decision-making procedures.
Defined as the fairness of procedures and methods used to make
decisions at work, procedural justice pertains to the formal char-
acteristics of a system. The third type, interpersonal justice, is
based on the quality of interpersonal treatment that individuals
receive from others (sincerity, respect, politeness, etc.). The
general idea underlying this notion is that people look at how
well they are treated by decision-makers (Bies & Moag, 1986).
Informational justice concerns the perceived fairness of explana-
tions and information received during interpersonal exchanges
(Colquitt, 2001). This information must be given on a regular
basis, and should be clear and reciprocal as well. Reciprocity in
this case means that the person providing the information asks
for the employee’s opinion. Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001)
pointed out correlations between procedural and distributive
justice, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Similarly, a study
by Desrumaux, Léoni, Bernaud and Defrancq (2012) showed that
prosocial behaviors are linked to different types of commitment
and procedural justice.
In light of the literature, we hypothesized that there is a link
between organizational and individual variables and the manifes-
tation of prosocial behaviors. To verify this hypothesis, we had to
test several sub-hypotheses. Based on the various links identified
between organizational justice and prosocial behaviors, we
expected, for most of the subdimensions, that (indirect) percep-
tion of justice and prosociality would be positively associated
(Hypothesis 1).
The concept of commitment has been the focus of a large body
of research. In regards to organizational attachment, Porter,
Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (1974, p. 603) defined commitment
as “the intensity of an individual’s attachment, and identifica-
tion with his organization”. In this sense, commitment can be
seen as a measure of how strongly one personally identifies with
a given organization (Mowday, Steers, & Porter 1979, p. 226). In a
recent study, it was demonstrated that a boss’s behavior had an
indirect effect on organizational citizenship behavior by impacting
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 14 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PSYCHOLOGIE SOCIALE 2012 N° 3/4
15
the commitment of employees (Meierhans, Rietmann, & Klaus,
2008, p. 132). On their side, Meyer and Allen (1991, p. 67) defined
commitment as “a psychological state that (a) characterizes the
relationship of the employee to his/her organization and (b)
affects the decision as to whether or not to stay with the
company”. They proposed a three-component model of commit-
ment to the organization. In addition, it has been shown that
affective organizational commitment (AOC) and normative orga-
nizational commitment (NOC) are good predictors of
organizational citizenship behaviors (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch,
& Topolnytsky, 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000).
In this context, it is important to determine which dimensions of
commitment are most likely to produce prosocial behaviors. A
study by Paillé (2009) on the link between commitment and citi-
zenship made a substantial contribution. He referred to the work
on normative commitment and citizenship by Stinglhamber,
Bentein, and Vandenberghe (2002) and Vandenberghe,
Stinglhamber, Bentein and Delhaise (2001) to study these two
concepts in terms of three targets: the supervisor, the work
group, and the organization. His study, which measured four
forms of affective commitment, provided evidence that commit-
ment to the organization is a stronger predictor for OCB than for
ICB (individual citizenship behaviors), commitment to the work
team is a better predictor for ICB than for OCB, commitment to
coworkers promotes ICB, and commitment to one’s boss
promotes OCB. Exploring the relationships between various
forms of prosociality and various levels of commitment, we
hypothesized that affective commitment and normative commit-
ment would be correlated with prosocial behaviors (Hypothesis 2).
Personality is a concept that must be addressed in order to under-
stand the attitudes and behaviors of individuals in the workplace.
In this respect, as Goldberg (1990) asserted, understanding
personality will help managers make use of individual differences
at work for the purpose of facilitating teamwork, promoting skill
development, and improving job performance. Personality would
thus seem to be one of the basic factors affecting the manifesta-
tion of prosocial behaviors at work. In 1991, Barrick and Mount
published a meta-analysis on the subject and noted that the traits
of conscientiousness and emotional stability were good predic-
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 15 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: LINKS WITH JUSTICE, COMMITMENT AND PERSONALITY
16
tors of performance at work. The relationship between personality
traits and job performance is based on scientific studies demon-
strating the importance of this factor in the working world.
Certain dimensions of personality would seem to be more posi-
tively associated with prosocial behaviors than others. Desrumaux
et al., (2012), for example, provided evidence that agreeability
contributed significantly to explaining prosocial behaviors.
Ménard et al. (2007), who studied the links between personality
and the emission of antisocial behaviors at work, observed a
negative correlation between agreeability and anti-property
behavior. We can therefore assume that agreeability is positively
linked to pro-property behaviors. Agreeability would be able to
significantly predict pro-property behavior. Agreeability should
explain some prosocial behaviors such as those involving prop-
erty and production (Hypothesis 3).
Affect is a generic term representing various emotions felt during
individual experiences. Positive affect (PA), associated with posi-
tive emotions such as happiness or excitement, can be
distinguished from negative affect (NA) associated with negative
emotions such as fear (Russell & Barrett, 1999). These two
dimensions are not at opposite ends of a continuum, but consti-
tute independent dimensions (Weiss, 2002). With support from
the work by Brief and Weis (2002), who demonstrated a link
between positive affect and certain prosocial behaviors, and
between negative affect and certain antisocial behaviors, we
hypothesized that positive affectivity would explain pro-organiza-
tional behaviors (Hypothesis 4.1) and pro-individual behaviors
(Hypothesis 4.2).
Method
Context and sample
This study was conducted with a sample of 148 workers, of which
54 were men (27.40%) and 94 women (72.60%) selected from 67
different French companies, agencies and other organizations
located in the Northern France (the second most urbanized
region in France after the Parisian region). All sectors of activity
were represented (private sector, government, institutions). The
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 16 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PSYCHOLOGIE SOCIALE 2012 N° 3/4
17
sample was mainly made up of individuals from hospitals in mid-
level healthcare occupations, more than 60%, to which we added
6% from mid-level administrative occupations, which increased
the proportion of mid-level occupations to 66% of our popula-
tion. An added sampling of managers and other professionals
represented 15%. The mean age was 30.74 years (SD = 16.20).
The questionnaires were filled out on a voluntary basis and, all
participants were mainly recruited directly at their workplace and
with the agreement of the supervisors. A general purpose of the
study (e.g., investigating behaviors and attitudes at work), as well
as the time required to complete the questionnaire (e.g., 40
minutes), were presented to individuals solicited in order to
obtain their informed consent to participate. Participants were
instructed to complete the questionnaires on their personal time
within two weeks before returning them to the research assist-
ants. Participants were also reassured that all their responses
would be kept confidential and anonymous.
Measurements
The prosocial behaviors were the dependent variables (DV or
criteria) and were measured via a questionnaire validated by
Desrumaux et al. (2012). Initially, the questionnaire consisted of
126 questions divided into 12 categories of behavior. Following a
factor analysis, this number was reduced. The prosocial scales (a
= .75) for this study included 6 categories of behaviors with a
total of 29 items. The subjects responded on scales ranging from
1 (never) to 6 (very often). These ratings were used to calculate
the frequencies at which the behaviors were reported. It is
important to note that with the above measurement, the
response scale did not specify the exact frequency: for some
participants, “rarely” could correspond to once a month whereas
for others, this could refer to less than once every six months. To
avoid this problem, similarly to Rioux, Savoie and Brunet (2003),
we proposed the following frequency scale: never, every 6
months, every 3 months, every month, every week, every day.
The first independent variable (IV), dealing with organizational
justice (a = .75), was measured using Colquitt’s (2001) scale
pertaining to various types of justice: distributive, procedural,
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 17 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: LINKS WITH JUSTICE, COMMITMENT AND PERSONALITY
18
interactional, and informational. This scale consisted of 20 state-
ments. The subjects were asked to indicate to what degree these
measures had been applied in the context of their job. They
responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale with choices ranging
from 1 (to a minimal degree) to 5 (to a high degree).
The second IV, commitment (a = .76), was measured by the
Nyock’s scale (2007, p. 243): 18 questions falling on three dimen-
sions (6 for normative commitment, 6 for instrumental
commitment, and 6 for affective commitment). For normative
commitment, Nyock utilized Paillé’s 6-item scale (2004) composed
of items taken from the scale validated by Vandenberghe et al.
(2001). The subjects responded on a 4-point Likert scale ranging
from “completely disagree” to “completely agree”.
Personality (a = .77), was evaluated using a test based on the Big
Five Theory, namely the Alter-Ego test, which consists of five
personality dimensions (Bernaud & Debaisieux, 1997). For theo-
retical reasons and to keep the questionnaire from getting too
long, only three of the five dimensions were measured: agree-
ableness, neuroticism, and extraversion. For each of the three
dimensions, there were 24 questions, making a total of 72 state-
ments rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (totally true) to 5
(totally false).
Affect was studied using the Positive and Negative Affect Scale
(PANAS, from Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988; a = .77). This is a
Likert-type scale on which the answer choices range from 1 (very
little or not at all) to 5 (very often or completely). The scale
consists of 20 items. Participants noted the frequency with which
they experienced each one of the states.
Results
Correlation analyses were conducted between the different
studied variables and the behaviors. The results are reported in
Table 1. Among all the correlations between the independent
variables (IV) and dependent variables (DV), 83 correlations were
positive. The IVs that were most often correlated were normative
commitment and all the dimensions of organizational justice
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 18 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PSYCHOLOGIE SOCIALE 2012 N° 3/4
19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
1 – AffCom –
2 – NormCom -.01 –
3 – InsCom .24* .32* –
4 – TotCom .90* .38* .55* –
5 – ProcJ .15* .28* -.01 .20 –
6 – DistJ .05 .46* .13 .21 .59* –
7 – IntJ .07 .28 .26* .21 .16 .21 –
8 – InfJ .14 .47* .23* .31* .48* .51* .57* –
9 – TotJ .14 .49* .18 .30* .80* .79* .56* .83* –
10 – Extra .17 .00 -.24* -.20 -.01 .10 .12 .06 .08 –
11 – Neuro -.35* .07 -.12 -.3* -.17 -.06 -.01 -.14 -.14 .31* –
12 – Agree -.06 -.21 -.15 -.15 -.11 -.03 .12 -.10 -.07 .33* .23* –
13 – WelBe .-02 .60* .14 .20 .25* .4* .27* .50* .49* .09 -.03 -.11 –
14 – PosAff -.23* .19 -.10 -.17 .00 .06 -.02 .04 .03 -.08 .09 -.15 .35* –
15 – NegAff -.07 -.10 -.07 -.10 .13 -.15 -.01 -.08 -.03 .07 -.02 -.16 -.34* -.10 –
16 – Panas -.23* .08 -.13 -.20 .09 -.06 -.03 -.03 0 -.02 .05 -.23* .03 .72* .63* –
17 – Pprop -.03 .04 .09 .01 .05 -.03 -.07 -.02 -.01 -.16 -.03 .04 .09 .05 .08 .09 –
18 – Pprod -.12 .06 -.04 -.10 -.06 .03 .18 .04 .04 .10 .03 -.11 .07 .44* .21 .50* .12 –
19 – Ppol -.29* .09 -.13 -.25* -.02 .05 .12 .07 .06 .16 .26* -.13 .06 .22* .17 .30* -.18 .39* –
20 – Empo .12 .14 -.05 .13 .18 .15 .08 .08 .17 .03 -.06 -.29* .19 .35* .30* .49* -.02 .47* .33* –
21 – Help .22 .06 .01 .20 .13 .05 -.04 .03 .04 -.09 -.16 -.17 .02 .33* .18 .39* .09 .38* .17 .61* –
22 – Encour .21 -.03 -.03 .20 .25* .14 .09 .20 .24* -.03 -.14 -.15 .08 .21 .23* .33* .09 .37* .15 .56* .80* –
23 – Pros .07 -.03 -.03 .09 .16 .11 .08 .11 .16 -.02 -.05 -.21 .13 .40* .31* .53* .30* .65* .42* .78* .84* .81*
Note: *at least p < .05
Variables: AffCom (Affective Commitment), NormCom (Normative Commitment), InsCom (Instrumental Commitment), TotCom (Total Commitment), PosAff (Positive
Affectivity), NegAff (Negative Affectivity), PANAS (Positive and Negative Affect Scale), ProcJ (Procedural Justice), DistJ (Distributive Justice), IntJ (Interactional Justice), InfJ
(Informational Justice), TotJ (Total Justice), Extra (Extra-Role Behavior), Neuro (Neuroticism), Agree (Agreeability), WelBe (Well-being), PProp (Pro-Property), PProd
(Pro-Production), PPol (Pro-Political), Empo (Empowerment), Help, Encour (Encouragements), Pros (Prosociality).
Table 1
: Correlations between prosocial behaviors and explanatory variables (N = 148).
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 19 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: LINKS WITH JUSTICE, COMMITMENT AND PERSONALITY
20
(with 4 correlations), and also procedural justice and the other
forms of justice (3 correlations). As to the DVs, 8 correlations
were found among the prosocial behaviors. The most correlated
behaviors were the pro-individual behaviors, with 3 correlations.
Three dimensions of justice — procedural, interactional, and
informational, but not distributive — were significantly corre-
lated with political prosociality. Two dimensions of commitment
were positively correlated with prosocial behaviors. The first,
affective commitment, was correlated with help and encourage-
ment (r = .17, p < .05) and with political prosociality (r = .18,
p < .05). The second, normative commitment, showed a correla-
tion with political prosociality (r = .17, p < .05), and with
encouragement (r = .19, p < .05). Furthermore, positive affect
was significantly linked to almost all of the prosocial behaviors.
Results from the regression analyses indicated that normative
commitment was significantly and positively linked both to pro-
production behaviors (b = .18, R² = .026) and to prosocial
behaviors (b = .19, R² = .065) (Table 2). Pro-political behaviors
were significantly and positively correlated with procedural
justice (b = .19, R² = .019) and interactional justice (b = .21,
R² =.038). Positive affect was linked to almost all of the prosocial
behaviors, except pro-political ones. And instrumental commit-
ment was significantly and negatively linked to empowerment.
Thus, 6.3% of the variance in empowerment was explained by
this commitment dimension. Overall, the regression analyses
indicated that variables such as procedural and informational
justice, positive affect, and normative commitment were the best
predictors of prosocial behavior at work. The regressions also
revealed that affectivity clearly predicted pro-individual behaviors
better than pro-organizational behaviors, since one of the dimen-
sions of pro-organizational behaviors was not linked to affect at
all.
Discussion
In the present study, organizational commitment proved to be an
important variable for explaining prosocial behaviors. Our step-
by-step regression analyses of the prosocial behaviors showed
that normative commitment significantly and positively explained
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 20 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PSYCHOLOGIE SOCIALE 2012 N° 3/4
21
pro-production and pro-political behaviors, and instrumental
commitment significantly and negatively explained empower-
ment behaviors. This first result aligns with studies by Meyer et al.
(2002) and by Podsakoff et al. (2000), who showed that affective
commitment and normative commitment were good predictors
of citizenship behaviors. It confirms Hypothesis 2. The type of
commitment, then, seems to play a determining role in under-
standing the link between this variable and behaviors at work.
Organizational justice is another variable we considered in
explaining prosocial behaviors. Procedural justice was the most
effective justice variable for producing prosociality, insofar as it
significantly explained prosocial political behaviors. Cohen-
Charash and Spector (2001) also found a correlation between
procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior. This
result partially confirms Hypothesis 1. The employees felt the
need to be involved in decision-making procedures. To achieve a
sense of belonging to the organization, each employee must feel
that he/she is free to contribute ideas, which will in turn lead him/
her to accept the rules. It is therefore important to pay attention
Behavior
Category
Variables Used in
Analysis
Beta
(simple R) T P Adjusted
R2
Pro-production
Positive affectivity
Agreeability
Procedural justice
Normative
commitment
.45*
.27
.07
.18*
5.34
1.2
0.79
2.11
.000
.235
.434
.003
.194
.026
Pro-property Positive affectivity
Agreeability
.26*
.42
2,01
1.74
.048
.086
.089
Pro-political
Procedural justice
Interpersonal justice
Normative
commitment
Distributive justice
Informational justice
.19*
.21*
.22*
.02
-.13
2.17
2.63
2.65
0.3
-0.98
.036
.00
.008
.768
.333
.019
.038
.065
Autonomy
Positive affectivity
Instrumental
commitment
.29*
-.58*
2.95
-2.29
.003
.025
.142
.063
Help Positive affectivity .47** 2.68 .009 .088
Valuing
Positive affectivity
Normative
commitment
.55**
.27
2.9
1.53
.005
.132
.174
Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01
Table 2:
Regression analysis of
variables explaining
prosocial behaviors.
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 21 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: LINKS WITH JUSTICE, COMMITMENT AND PERSONALITY
22
to this variable, since it can play a major role in explaining proso-
cial behaviors.
In line with Hypothesis 3, agreeability was a predictor of pro-
property behavior. Thus, altruistic individuals, who like to offer
help and cooperation, would have a tendency to give or lend
personal possessions to the company. Furthermore, agreeability
also predicted producing prosociality.
Relative to the main aim of this study — to determine the best
predictors of prosocial behaviors at work — the most relevant
predictors appeared to be normative and instrumental commit-
ment, and procedural justice. Thus in order to increase prosocial
behaviors, it can be possible to improve procedural justice by
suggesting more respect, and a more strong application of proce-
dural justice rules and by communicating about these rules.
The results also showed that personal variables played a signifi-
cant role in eliciting behaviors at work. These variables made it
possible to increase the portion of the variance that was
explained. The new personal variables that contributed the most
to the variance were those linked to emotions. In this category,
positive affectivity raised the variance of all the prosocial variables
except pro-property behaviors. Affectivity, the newest variable,
was therefore the most significant one, which validates
Hypotheses 4.1 and 4.2. Positive affectivity represents both an
inclination to invest fully in one’s job or even to overinvest, and
the ability to be altruistic and support others at work. To a large
extent, positive affectivity serves to enhance productive behavior.
Limitations and directions for future research
Several methodological limitations should be mentioned. First,
the content of some of our behaviors was subject to the social
desirability bias, which was in effect here for the prosociality
items, even though anonymity was guaranteed. An important
limitation is that diary data are correlational in nature and proso-
cial behaviors were self-reported. Therefore, it is possible that
this method has introduced biases. In future common method
needs to be controlled for to exclude potential rival explanations
for observed pattern of correlations (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee,
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 22 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PSYCHOLOGIE SOCIALE 2012 N° 3/4
23
& Podsakoff, 2003). While the partial correlation procedure
accounts for common method variance in the assessed relation-
ships, this methodology could not control for all possible sources
of common method biases. In our results (Table 1), some correla-
tions are high. Multicolinearity could be suspected reflecting
another limitation.
Next, it should be noted that the population, although taken
mostly from the hospital setting, was not really homogeneous.
This limits the scope and external validity of our study. Despite
the merits of having demonstrated the impact of organizational
justice and affectivity, a large part of the variance was still not
explained, and the predictive value of certain variables (i.e., the
Big Five variables) remains limited. Clearly, predicting behaviors
is still a challenging area of research (Ajzen, 2002; Fishbein &
Ajzen, 1975). Other links between prosocial behaviors and
different explanatory variables thus remain to be explored.
In the future, in an attempt to more accurately measure certain
prosocial behaviors (political, help), we plan to take into account
certain dimensions of Paillé’s scale (2007) such as civic virtue and
team spirit.
In order to optimize the prediction of prosociality in the work-
place, we know that a very effective indicator is behavioral
intention (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In the future — and in light
of studies demonstrating links between behavior and satisfaction
of needs (Chatzisarantis & Biddle, 1998) — it would also be
worthwhile to explore the effects of self-efficacy and locus of
control, and particularly the impact of satisfaction of fundamental
needs such as competency, autonomy, and affiliation (Decy &
Ryan, 1985, 2000).
Practical implications
On a practical level, processes and actions aimed at enhancing
justice and promoting commitment would tend to favor the
emergence of various types of prosociality in the workplace. We
also know that prosocial behaviors are critical in preventing dete-
rioration of the work environment. Prosociality of employees has
been shown to a genuine protective factor against harassment at
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 23 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: LINKS WITH JUSTICE, COMMITMENT AND PERSONALITY
24
work (Desrumaux, 2011; Desrumaux & De Chacus, 2007).
Creating a favorable climate, modifying policies overly focused on
profits and performance, and managing companies more equi-
tably, would surely lead to an increase in feelings of justice,
positive affectivity on the job, and commitment. In particular,
improving organizational justice would help reduce aggression
and would not only favor the emergence of organizational proso-
cialities such as pro-property behavior, but would also have a
positive impact on employee health.
References
Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequality in Social Exchange. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp.
267-269). New York: Academic Press.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus
of control and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 32, 665-683.
Barrera, M. (1986). Distinctions between social support concepts,
measures and models. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 14(4), 413-445.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality
dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Bateman, T.S., & Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the
good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee citi-
zenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595.
Bernaud, J-L., & Debaisieux, S. (1997). Alter Ego, cinq facteurs de
personnalité: adaptation de l’outil de G. Vittorio, C. Barbaranelli,
L. Borgogni. Paris: Les Editions du Centre de Psychologie
Appliquée.
Bierhoff, H-W. (2002). Prosocial Behaviour. Hove: Psychology
Press.
Bies, R.J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication
criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1,
43-45.
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 24 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PSYCHOLOGIE SOCIALE 2012 N° 3/4
25
Bishop, J., Scott, K., & Burroughs, S. (2000). Support, commit-
ment, and employee outcomes in a team environment. Journal
of Management, 26(6), 1113-1132.
Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion
domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N.
Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organiza-
tions (pp. 71-98). New York: Jossey-Bass.
Brief, A.P., & Weiss, H. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in
the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307.
Chatzis, K., Mounier, C., Veltz, P. & Zarifian, P. (1999). L’autonomie
dans les organisations. Quoi de neuf ? Paris: L’Harmathan.
Chatzisarantis, N.L.D., & Biddle, S.J.H. (1998). Functional signifi-
cance of psychological variables that are included in the theory of
planned behaviour: A self-determination theory approach to the
study of attitudes, subjective norms, perceptions of control and
intentions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(3),
303-322.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P.E. (2001). The role of justice in
organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational
justice: A construct validation measure. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(3), 386-400.
Decy, E.L., & Ryan, M.R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Decy, E.L., & Ryan, M.R. (2000). The what and why of goal
pursuits: Human needs and the self determination of behavior.
Psychological Inquiry, 1I, 227-268.
Desrumaux, P. (2007). Juger la valeur professionnelle et les
conduites des personnes: effets des normes et des stéréotypes sur
les jugements dans les organisations. Unpublished habilitation
thesis, University of Lille 3.
Desrumaux, P. (2011). Le harcèlement moral au travail: réponses
psychosociales, organisationnelles et cliniques. Rennes: Presses
Universitaires de Rennes.
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 25 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: LINKS WITH JUSTICE, COMMITMENT AND PERSONALITY
26
Desrumaux, P., & De Chacus, S. (2007). Bullying at Work: Effects
of the victim’s pro and antisocial behaviors and of the harassed’s
overvictimization on the judgments of help-giving. Studia
Psychologica, 49(4), 357-368.
Desrumaux, P., Léoni, V., Bernaud, J-L., & Defrancq, C. (2012). Les
comportements pro et anti-sociaux au travail: validation de deux
échelles de mesure et liens avec des inducteurs organisationnels
et individuels. Le Travail Humain, 75, 1, 55-87.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and
behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Flynn, F. (2005). Identity, orientations and forms of social
exchange in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30,
737-750.
Goldberg, R.L. (1990). An alternative description of personality:
The Big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
Greenberg, J. (2006). Losing sleep over organizational injustice:
Attenuating insomniac reactions to underpayment inequity with
supervisory training in interactional justice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 58-69.
Greenberg, J., & Colquitt, J.A. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of
organizational justice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
McNeely, B.L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional
and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior:
An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 836-844.
Meierhans, D., Rietmann, D.B., & Klaus, J. (2008). Influence of
fair and supportive Leadership behavior on commitment and
organizational citizenship behavior. Swiss Journal of Psychology,
67(3), 131-141.
Melkonian, T., Monin, P., Noordelhaven, N., Rouzies, A., &
Timmers, A. (2006). Etre juste ou être exemplaire? La fusion Air
France-KLM à la loupe. Revue Française de Gestion, 164(5),
229-252.
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 26 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PSYCHOLOGIE SOCIALE 2012 N° 3/4
27
Ménard, J., Brunet, L., Savoie, A., Vandaele, A., & Flament, A.
(2007). Comportements anti-sociaux au travail: les meilleurs
prédicteurs des déviances de production et de propriété.
Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations, 13(1), 47-62.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptual-
ization of organizational commitment. Human Resource
Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002).
Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organ-
ization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates an
consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.
Motowidlo, S.J. (2000). Some basic issues related to contextual
performance and organizational Citizenship behavior in human
resource management. Human Resource Management Review,
10(1), p. 115-126.
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. (1979). The measure-
ment of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 14(2), 224-247.
Nyock, S. (2007). La congruence objective entre profil structurel
organisationnel de l’individu: effet sur la satisfaction au travail
et l’engagement normatif envers l’organisation. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Lille 3.
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The
good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Organ, D.W. (1994). Personality and organizational citizenship
behavior. Newspaper of Management, 20, 465-478.
Organ, D.W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitu-
dinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship
behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802.
Paillé, P. (2004). Examen empirique sur le caractère multidimen-
sionnel de l’engagement normatif et sur les liens avec les
engagements affectif et continu. Psychologie du Travail et des
Organisations, 10, 327-339.
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 27 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: LINKS WITH JUSTICE, COMMITMENT AND PERSONALITY
28
Paillé, P. (2007). Validation française des échelles de mesure de
Podsakoff et McKenzie (1994). Cahiers Internationaux de
Psychologie Sociale, 74(2), 59-66.
Paillé, P. (2008). Citizenship, commitment, satisfaction and
involvement in the workplace. European Review of Applied
Psychology, 58(3), 145-153.
Paillé, P. (2009). Engagement et citoyenneté en contexte organi-
sationnel: un examen empirique sur l’apport des cibles multiples
d’engagement à la prédiction des comportements de citoyenneté
organisationnelle. Le Travail Humain, 72(2), 185-204.
Paillé, P., & Pohl, S. (2008). Les relations empiriques entre
l’implication au travail et les comportements de citoyenneté
organisationnelle. Journal of Global Management Research,
4(3), 33-42.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R.
(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on
followers’ trust leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Podsakoff, P. M. & Mackenzie, S.B. (1994). Organizational citizen-
ship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing
Research, 31(3), 351-363.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical
review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J., & Bachrach, D. (2000).
Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theo-
retical and empirical literature and suggestions for future
research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.
Porter, L.W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R.T., & Boulian, P.V. (1974).
Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover
among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology,
59, 603-609.
Rioux, P., Savoie, A., & Brunet, L. (2003). Etude descriptive des
comportements anti-sociaux au travail. Psychologie du Travail et
des Organisations, 9(1), 89-112.
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 28 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PSYCHOLOGIE SOCIALE 2012 N° 3/4
29
Russell, J. A., & Barrett, L. F. (1999). Core affect, prototypical
emotional episodes, and other things called emotion: Dissecting
the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76(5), 805-819.
Schnake, M. (1991) Organizational citizenship behaviors: A
review proposed model and research agenda. Human Relationes,
44(7), 735-759.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational
citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.
Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Vandenberghe, C. (2002).
Extension of the three component model of commitment to five
foci: Development of measures and substantive test. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 123-138.
Tremblay, M., & Wils, T. (2005). La mobilisation des ressources
humaines: Une stratégie de rassemblement des énergies de
chacun pour le bien de tous. Gestion, 30(2), 37-49.
Tremblay, M., & Simard, G. (2005). La mobilisation des ressources
humaines: L’art d’établir un climat d’échanges favorables basé sur
la réciprocité. Gestion, 30(2), 60-68.
Vandenberghe, C., Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Delhaise, T.
(2001). An examination of the cross-cultural validity of a multidi-
mensional model of commitment in Europe. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 322 -347.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role
behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy
of Management Journal, 37, 765-802.
Van Dyne, L., Gummings, L.L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-
role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. In
L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215-285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and
validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the
PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
1063-1107.
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 29 30/01/13 17:51
épreuve de contrôle
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: LINKS WITH JUSTICE, COMMITMENT AND PERSONALITY
30
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Conceptual and empirical foundations for
the study of affect at work. In R. G. Lord, R. J. Klimoski & R.
Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the
structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior (pp.
20-63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E. (1991). Assumptions about
unmeasured variables with studies of reciprocal relationships:
The case of employee attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
77, 638-650.
RIPS_3-4_2012.indd 30 30/01/13 17:51
