A Metaanalysis of The Relationship

Journal of Applied Psychology
2014, Vol. 99, No. 6, 12221243
2014 American Psychological Association

0021-9010/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037547
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between General Mental Ability and

Nontask Performance
Erik Gonzalez-Mul and Michael K. Mount
In-Sue Oh
University of Iowa
Temple University
Although one of the most well-established research findings in industrial organizational psychology is
that general mental ability (GMA) is a strong and generalizable predictor of job performance, this
meta-analytically derived conclusion is based largely on measures of task or overall performance. The
primary purpose of this study is to address a void in the research literature by conducting a meta-analysis
to determine the direction and magnitude of the correlation of GMA with 2 dimensions of nontask
performance: counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB).
Overall, the results show that the true-score correlation between GMA and CWB is essentially 0 (.02,
k 35), although rating source of CWB moderates this relationship. The true-score correlation between
GMA and OCB is positive but modest in magnitude (.23, k 43). The 2nd purpose of this study is to
conduct meta-analytic relative weight analyses to determine the relative importance of GMA and the
five-factor model (FFM) of personality traits in predicting nontask and task performance criteria. Results
indicate that, collectively, the FFM traits are substantially more important for CWB than GMA, that the
FFM traits are roughly equal in importance to GMA for OCB, and that GMA is substantially more
important for task and overall job performance than the FFM traits. Implications of these findings for the
development of optimal selection systems and the development of comprehensive theories of job
performance are discussed along with study limitation and future research directions.
Keywords: general mental ability, organizational citizenship behavior, counterproductive work behavior
that the robust, well-established findings regarding the GMA

performance relationship is the major contribution of the
industrial organizational psychology field to the study of intelligence.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that GMA plays a critical
role in success in the workplace, most evidence regarding the
validity of GMA is based on criterion measures of task performance or overall performance (e.g., Hunter, 1986; Salgado et al.,
2003). To be clear, task performance is an important facet of job
performance because it consists of behaviors that contribute to the
production of a good or the provision of a service (Rotundo &
Sackett, 2002, p. 67). However, in the past decade researchers have
identified an expanded domain of job performance that includes
two nontask performance components, counterproductive work
behaviors (CWB) and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB),
in addition to task performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993;
Dalal, 2005; Lievens, Conway, & De Corte, 2008; Organ & Ryan,
1995; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002).
These two nontask performance components are critical because
the broad sets of behaviors associated with OCB and CWB can
influence the success (or failure) of organizations and can have a
strong positive (or negative) effect on the welfare of individuals in
the organizations. In their Annual Review of Psychology article,
Sackett and Lievens (2008) identified the expanded criterion domain as one of the major developments in the past decade that can
lead to improved personnel selection (see also Hough & Oswald,
2000).
The emergence of the expanded domain of job performance
provides the impetus for the present study because it highlights a
There is broad scientific consensus that general mental ability

(GMA) plays an integral role in success at work, in ones career,
and in life in general. As 52 prominent social science researchers
concluded, GMA is strongly related, probably more so than any
other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes (L. S. Gottfredson, 1997a, p. 14). In fact, meta-analytic research has shown
that GMA correlates above .50 with occupational level attained,
performance within ones chosen occupation, and performance in
training programs (Ree & Earles, 1992; Salgado et al., 2003).
Considering the cumulative validity evidence regarding GMA,
Scherbaum, Goldstein, Yusko, Ryan, and Hanges (2012) stated
This article was published Online First August 18, 2014.

Erik Gonzalez-Mul and Michael K. Mount, Department of Management and Organizations, Henry B. Tippie College of Business, University
of Iowa; In-Sue Oh, Department of Human Resource Management, Fox
School of Business, Temple University.
An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2013 Academy of
Management Conference in Orlando, Florida. We would like to thank
Frank Schmidt, Amy Colbert, Ernest OBoyle, Chris Berry, and Ben
Postlethwaite for their constructive feedback on earlier drafts of this article.
We would also like to thank Sharon Parker for her helpful recommendations and developmental feedback throughout the revision process.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Erik
Gonzalez-Mul, Department of Management and Organizations, Henry B.
Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa, W361 Pappajohn Business
Building, Iowa City, IA 52242-1994. E-mail: erik-gonzalez-mule@
uiowa.edu
1222
GMA AND NONTASK PERFORMANCE
gap in the applied psychology literature. Despite the widely held

belief that GMA is the best single predictor of job performance,
our knowledge and understanding of this relationship is incomplete because we do not know the answers to very basic questions,
such as, do more intelligent people engage in more (or less)
counterproductive work behaviors that are harmful to the organization and its members, and do more intelligent people engage in
more (or less) citizenship behaviors that promote the functioning
of the organization? As Dilchert, Ones, Davis, and Rostow (2007,
p. 625) stated: The cognitive abilityCWB link deserves more
attention than it has received in industrial and organizational
psychology so far. This sentiment was echoed by scholars with
regard to OCB (e.g., LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Salgado, 1999).
Accordingly, the first purpose of this study is to address these
voids in the literature by conducting a meta-analysis that examines
the direction and magnitude of the relationship between GMA and
the two dimensions of nontask performance: CWB and OCB. The
second purpose draws on the idea that nontask behaviors are
influenced less by ones cognitive ability and more by ones
volitional and motivational factors, and therefore are more likely to
be predicted by personality traits (e.g., Borman & Motowidlo,
1993). For example, in their Annual Review of Psychology article
Borman, Hanson, and Hedge (1997) stated that it appears that
ability best predicts technical proficiencyrelated criteria and personality best predicts such criterion domains as teamwork, interpersonal effectiveness, and contextual performance (p. 330). To
our knowledge, this assertion has not been tested metaanalytically. Accordingly, we conducted relative weight (RW)
analyses (Johnson, 2000) based on meta-analytic evidence to determine the relative contribution of the five-factor model (FFM) of
personality traits and GMA in predicting CWB, OCB, task performance, and overall job performance. Thus, the present study is
the first to compare the relative importance of the FFM and GMA
in predicting task and nontask performance criteria.
We believe the findings of our study may have important
implications for both selection practice and theory. First, metaanalytic estimates of the relationship between GMA and nontask
behaviors will help practitioners understand how their selection
system will fare with respect to their criteria of choice. This is
particularly important given the more dynamic and social nature of
todays workplace where such behaviors have become increasingly important (e.g., team systems, innovation focus). Second, the
results of the current study will help scholars formulate more
comprehensive theories of performance that account for the multidimensional nature of job performance criteria via cognitive and
noncognitive predictor constructs. For example, if the results show
that GMA is related to both nontask performance components, it
will provide further evidence of the importance and ubiquity of
GMA as a selection instrument. On the other hand, if the results
show that GMA is unrelated (or is only weakly related) to both
nontask components, at a minimum, it calls into question the
widely held belief in the field that GMA is the single best predictor
of job performance (e.g., F. L. Schmidt, 2002). Such findings
would suggest that theories of job performance should be revised
to reflect the differential relations of GMA with task versus nontask performance components.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. First, we
discuss and define the two dimensions of the nontask performance
domain (CWB and OCB) and review relevant research pertaining
1223
to each. Then we formulate our hypotheses pertaining to the

expected magnitude and direction of the relationships of GMA
with nontask performance. Third, we discuss possible moderators
of the relationship of GMA with nontask performance. Last, we
discuss the relative importance of GMA and the FFM personality
traits in predicting nontask performance.
Theoretical Perspectives and Research Hypotheses

Dimensions of Nontask Performance
CWB are intentional behaviors that violate organizational norms
and are contrary to the legitimate interests of the organization and
its members (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Gruys & Sackett, 2003).
CWB were originally subsumed by contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993), but more recent models of job performance (e.g., Rotundo & Sackett, 2002) have consistently shown
that they constitute a third factor of job performance or an important dimension of nontask performance (Bennett & Robinson,
2000; Dalal, 2005; Sackett, Berry, Wiemann, & Laczo, 2006;
Spector, Bauer, & Fox, 2010). Robinson and Bennetts (1995)
seminal work distinguished between two types of CWB according
to their target: organizational and interpersonal deviance. Organizational deviance (CWB-O) consists of behaviors targeted at the
organization and the task, such as theft, sabotage, or shirking.
Interpersonal deviance (CWB-I) consists of behaviors targeted at
other organizational members, such as yelling, insulting, or taking
credit for others work (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Empirical
evidence shows that there are enormous personal and organizational costs associated with CWB. For example, CWB can cause
personal suffering and discomfort such as decreased well-being
and satisfaction, as well as increased stress and depression (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Spector & Fox, 2005). Additionally, CWB can
cause financial costs to organizations through behaviors such as
theft and sabotage, shirking, increased absenteeism and turnover
(among both offenders and victims), which result in a direct loss of
billions of dollars of financial losses for organizations (Berry,
Carpenter, & Barratt, 2012; Burke, Tomlinson, & Cooper, 2011;
Dunlop & Lee, 2004).
OCB, on the other hand, are individual behaviors that [are]
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promote the efficient
and effective functioning of the organization (Organ, Podsakoff, & Mackenzie, 2006, p. 8). OCB have been shown to
contribute to individual- and organizational-level effectiveness,
making them a desirable set of behaviors for employees to
engage in (Organ et al., 2006; Parker, Williams, & Turner,
2006; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). As with
CWB, OCB researchers (e.g., Organ et al., 2006) delineated
OCB according to whether they are directed at the organization
(OCB-O) or other individuals (OCB-I) and, more recently,
whether they are change-oriented (OCB-CH; Chiaburu, Oh,
Berry, Li, & Gardner, 2011; Choi, 2007). OCB-O consists of
behaviors such as volunteering for overtime and job dedication,
whereas OCB-I consists of behaviors such as helping, courtesy,
and interpersonal facilitation (Chiaburu et al., 2011). OCB-CH
includes a broad class of positive, proactive behaviors, such as
voice, creativity, and adaptive performance (Griffin, Neal, &
Parker, 2007; Parker & Collins, 2010). At its core, individuals
1224
GONZALEZ-MUL, MOUNT, AND OH
engaging in OCB-CH contribute to heightened organizational

performance by proactively suggesting new ideas and finding
more efficient and novel ways to accomplish tasks. There are
commonalities among CWB and OCB dimensions, as CWB-O
(e.g., theft), OCB-O (e.g., job dedication) and OCB-CH (e.g.,
personal initiative) represent behaviors that are more directly
related (in the case of CWB-O, antithetically) to the technical
core of work and thus more directly related to task performance.
On the other hand, the interpersonal dimensions of CWB-I (e.g.,
racial slurs) and OCB-I (e.g., helping) are more directly related
to the social context of work and less directly related to task
performance.
Relationship of GMA With CWB

Numerous studies in the criminology literature have argued that
GMA has an inhibitory effect on CWB (e.g., Dilchert et al.,
2007; M. R. Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Jensen, 1998; Marcus,
Wagner, Poole, Powell, & Carswell, 2009; Moffitt & Silva, 1988).
According to this hypothesis, high-GMA individuals are better
able to reason and learn, and therefore better evaluate all the
possible consequences of their actions. As OToole (1990, p. 220)
stated, People with low intelligence may have a poorer ability to
assess risks and, consequently take more poor risks . . . under
conditions that a more intelligent person would avoid. In work
settings a high-GMA individual might shy away from shirking at
work or insulting coworkers because he or she better anticipates
the possible negative long-term consequences (i.e., disciplinary
action, damaged relationship with coworkers) of the behavior and
knows that those far outweigh the possible short-term benefits of
the deviant behavior. In line with the inhibitory effect, research
suggests that cognitive ability is associated with the ability to delay
gratification, a lack of which is associated with greater propensity
to engage in delinquent or deviant behavior (Jensen, 1998; Terman, 1916).
A related explanation pertains to moral reasoning. Jensen (1998)
points out that intelligence is related to all forms of reasoning, and
adults of low GMA do not have the same developmental level of
moral reasoning that is attained by adults of average and higher
GMA. As such, higher GMA individuals will have a better sense
of the inherent wrongness of their behaviors than lower GMA
individuals. Jensen also suggests that individuals with low GMA
will experience less success and more failure, which leads to
frustration, alienation, rejection of commonly accepted social
norms, and verbal and physical aggression. That is, low GMA may
be one of the root causes to the frustrationaggression cycle, which
suggests a negative relationship between GMA and CWB (Fox &
Spector, 1999).
At the core of these perspectives is that high-GMA individuals
have a greater ability to reason, learn, and solve problems. This
capacity has numerous positive benefits that result in less frequent
engagement in CWB: better anticipation of the possible negative
consequences of CWB, greater ability to suppress or delay gratification, superior moral reasoning, and less likelihood of falling
victim of the vicious frustrationaggression cycle. Most likely,
these mechanisms operate in concert and lead to a negative relationship between GMA and CWB whereby smarter people engage
in fewer CWB. In support of this contention, Dilchert et al. (2007)
found that GMA has a negative relationship with the frequency of
organizational and interpersonal CWB based on organizational

records of formally recorded incidents among police officers. As
such, we hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 1: GMA will be negatively related to CWB.
Relationship of GMA With OCB

The greater ability of high-GMA individuals to reason, learn,
and solve problems may also explain the potential positive relationship between GMA and OCB. That is, higher GMA individuals have a better understanding of the moral reasons (e.g., going
beyond ones prescribed duties to help others is the right thing to
do) and positive consequences (e.g., receiving recognition and
rewards, positive feeling of self-worth) of engaging in more OCB
(Podsakoff et al., 2009). In addition, Motowidlo, Borman, and
Schmit (1997) derived a theory of individual differences in work
performance based on F. L. Schmidt and Hunters (e.g., Hunter,
1986; F. L. Schmidt, Hunter, & Outerbridge, 1986) as well as
Borman, Hanson, Oppler, and Pulakoss (1992) work. Their theory
postulates that GMA will be positively related to OCB because of
its effect on contextual knowledge, defined as knowledge of the
facts, principles, and procedures for effective action in situations
that call for helping and cooperating with others; endorsing, supporting, and defending organizational objectives; persisting despite
difficult obstacles; and volunteering (Motowidlo et al., 1997; p.
80). This suggests that contextual job knowledge plays an important role in the link between GMA and OCB, like task-related job
knowledge plays a key role in the link between GMA and task
performance (Hunter, 1986; F. L. Schmidt & Hunter, 2004). Examples of contextual knowledge include knowing how to make
suggestions to improve organizational functioning without conflicting with supervisors, knowing how to calm an upset coworker,
knowing how to work productively with difficult peers, knowing
how to project a favorable image of the organization, and so forth
(Motowidlo et al., 1997). Because contextual knowledge requires
the ability to learn, reason, and solve problems in various settings
involving other individuals and organizational policies (Ct &
Miners, 2006), we would expect a positive relationship between
GMA and OCB. Therefore, we hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 2: GMA will be positively related to OCB.
Magnitude of the Relationships of GMA With

Nontask Performance
Although we expect that GMA will predict nontask performance
(negatively for CWB and positively for OCB), there are theoretical
reasons to believe that the relationship between GMA and nontask
performance will be modest in magnitude compared to the relationship between GMA and task performance. Over 50 years ago,
Cronbach (1960) coined the term construct fidelity to refer to the
nature and quality of information yielded by a measuring device.
From a theoretical perspective, the construct fidelity principle
posits that the predictive validity of a construct will depend on how
well it aligns with criteria in terms of the underlying constructs
being assessed (Arthur & Villado, 2008; Campbell, 1990; Sackett
& Lievens, 2008). This is relevant in the present study because
there are fundamental differences in the nature of the information
assessed by GMA (and hence what criterion behaviors it will
predict) and the nature of information captured by nontask performance criteria such as CWB and OCB (and hence what constructs
will predict them).
In applying the construct fidelity principle to personnel selection, Borman and Motowidlo (1993) distinguished between two
types of predictors that they labeled can-do and will-do. GMA
is a can-do predictor because, as discussed earlier, it influences
task performance mostly through ones cognitive capacity to acquire, process, and apply information (e.g., Hunter, 1986; F. L.
Schmidt et al., 1986). As such, criterion measures like task performance measures that are influenced strongly by the acquisition
and application of job-related information have greater fidelity
with GMA, and therefore will be predicted well by cognitive
ability measures. In contrast, the two nontask performance criteria
are voluntary, intentional, and motivated behaviors. Consequently,
they are more likely to be predicted by will-do predictors, such as
the FFM personality traits, which influence individuals motivation and willful intentions to engage voluntarily in particular
behaviors. Empirical findings corroborate this logic, as personality
traits have been shown to influence behavior through mediating
mechanisms that capture ones motivation and self-regulatory processes such as effort, goal-setting, and discretion (e.g., Barrick,
Mount, & Strauss, 1993; Judge & Ilies, 2002; Mount, Ilies, &
Johnson, 2006).
Hypothesis 3: The magnitude of the correlation between GMA
and nontask performance will be modest and smaller in magnitude compared to the GMAtask performance relationship.
Relative Importance of GMA and Personality in

Predicting Nontask Performance
Despite the can-do versus will-do distinction, it is important to
note that task performance is also influenced by personality. This
is similar in nature to our argument that nontask performance is
also influenced by GMA. Namely, in the same way that task
performance is influenced by motivation and self-regulation, it is
likely that both OCB and CWB are influenced at least to some
degree by (contextual) knowledge acquisition. For example, some
aspects of contextual knowledge are relevant to nontask performance behaviors, such as knowing when and how to help individuals (OCB) or knowing that a given behavior is morally wrong or
harmful to ones career if caught (CWB). However, compared to
task performance behaviors that require job-specific knowledge
(e.g., facts, principles, concepts), OCB and CWB have substantially less construct fidelity with GMA because contextual knowledge may be less determined by GMA than job-specific knowledge because of its increased social and interpersonal focus
(Chiaburu et al., 2011; Morgeson, Reider, & Campion, 2005).
Therefore, we argue that whereas task performance behaviors are
influenced largely by can-do factors and less so by will-do factors,
the opposite is true for nontask performance behaviors, which are
influenced more by will-do factors and less by can-do factors. On
the basis of the preceding logic, we hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 4: GMA will be relatively less important in predicting CWB and OCB than the FFM traits, collectively.
Hypothesis 5: GMA will be relatively more important in
predicting task performance than the FFM traits, collectively.
1225
To test these arguments, we gauge the relative importance of

GMA and the FFM personality traits in predicting CWB and OCB.
To do so, we conduct RW analyses (Johnson, 2000) based on
meta-analytic evidence to determine the relative contribution of
the FFM and GMA in predicting CWB, OCB, task performance
(specific job performance dimensions), and a composite of job
performance (overall job performance). The use of RW analyses
(Johnson, 2000) is warranted due to the moderate to strong truescore correlations among the FFM traits (Mount, Barrick,
Scullen, & Rounds, 2005). Relative weights broadly represent the
average contribution of a predictor to the total R2, net of the other
predictors, which provides an intuitive index of relative importance among predictors (Johnson, 2000).
Moderators for the Relationship Between GMA and

Nontask Performance
In addition to our expectations regarding the overall relationship
and relative importance of GMA with nontask performance, we
investigate the effects of three theoretically derived moderators:
target of the nontask performance behaviors (other people at work,
the organization, or change oriented), rating source, and job complexity. We also investigate relevant methodological moderators
(e.g., publication status, GMA scales used), which are discussed in
the Method section.
Target of CWB and OCB. Based on the construct fidelity
principle discussed earlier, the distinction between organizationally based and interpersonally targeted CWB and OCB is noteworthy because it is possible that GMA has differential relationships with these two types of nontask behaviors. It is well
established that GMA is a major driver of task performance, and
therefore it follows that GMA should have a stronger negative
relationship with CWB-O than with CWB-I, and a stronger positive relationship with OCB-O and OCB-CH than with OCB-I
because the former have a correspondence with task behaviors. For
example, organizationally targeted CWB (e.g., theft) and OCB
(e.g., job dedication) represent behaviors more directly related (in
the case of CWB-O, antithetically) to task performance. In the case
of OCB-CH, proactive behaviors require higher order cognitive
processing than the other two types of OCB, because it involves
anticipating the needs of the organization, as well as identifying
areas for improvement, and suggesting ways to meet the organizations needs or suggesting ways to improve the organization
(Grant & Ashford, 2008). Thus, due to the proactive and taskbased nature of OCB-CH, it is possible that it will have a stronger
correlation with GMA than OCB-I. On the other hand, because
CWB-I (e.g., racial slurs) and OCB-I (e.g., helping) have a social
and interpersonal context focus, their relationship with GMA will
be much weaker given the lack of construct fidelity.
With respect to CWB, an alternative argument is that higher
GMA individuals are more cognizant that CWB-I are more observable/detectable, because by definition they involve intentional
negative behaviors directed toward other individuals (Oh, Charlier,
Mount, & Berry, 2014). As such, higher GMA individuals are
more likely to avoid engaging in CWB-I in order to avoid sanctions (including lower overall job performance ratings) at work
than lower GMA individuals. This could lead to a stronger negative relationship between GMA and CWB-I than between GMA
and CWB-O. Given this, it is unclear which relationship will be
1226
more negative, the GMACWB-O relationship or the GMA

CWB-I relationship. Because of the difficulty in predicting which
target has a stronger relationship with GMA, we examine this
research question in an exploratory manner.
CWB rating source. Because there were only three studies in
our database that used self-reported OCB measures (we report the
results of the studies to be thorough for informational purposes),
we examine the moderating effect of rating source for CWB only.
The most frequently used method of collecting CWB is via selfreport primarily because individuals are in the best position to
report on the frequency of their own CWB (particularly targeted at
the organization; Berry et al., 2012; Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007;
Raver & Nishii, 2010). A recent meta-analysis provided support
for this logic, as individuals actually self-report engaging in more
(over one third of a standard deviation) CWB than observers report
them engaging in ( .35; Berry et al., 2012). However, scholars
have argued that high-GMA individuals will be less likely to
self-report their transgressions because they better understand the
possible negative consequences of doing so (Dilchert et al., 2007).
Thus, the negative GMACWB relationship that we hypothesized
may be even stronger when CWB are measured via self-reports
compared to other sources and methods.
In addition, non-self-report ratings of CWB could lead to different relationships with CWB. When individuals engage in CWB,
they typically do so with the explicit purpose of getting away with
it (e.g., theft, falsifying an expense report, shirking, using drugs
or alcohol on the job). Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the true
frequency of CWB engaged in by the individual will be fully
observed (or detected) by others, regardless of their perspective
(peers, subordinates bosses, or objective records). Further, as Moffitt and Silva (1988) discuss in their differential detection hypothesis, high-GMA individuals may be more likely to engage in
deviant behavior without being caught because of their superior
problem-solving skills. Moreover, given that high-GMA individuals are likely to be better performers, the GMACWB relationship based on supervisor ratings may reflect a halo effect whereby
CWB represent poor task performance, which leads to an inflated
negative relationship between GMA and CWB. Similarly, objective records of CWB suffer from their own form of deficiency
because they represent only major CWB that have been detected
and formally documented. As follows from the above discussion,
it is difficult to predict whether or in which direction the relationship between GMA and CWB will vary across different CWB
rating sources and methods. Thus, we will examine this moderating effect in an exploratory manner.
Job complexity. Although research has shown the validity of
GMA in predicting task performance to be relatively stable across
situational contexts, one moderator identified as affecting the
GMAtask performance relationship is job complexity. Research
shows that the validity of GMA, although relatively high for all
jobs, is even higher for more complex jobs compared to less
complex jobs (F. L. Schmidt & Hunter, 2004; F. L. Schmidt,
Shaffer, & Oh, 2008). This is because more complex jobs require
high levels of information processing and problem-solving skills
and broader domains of knowledge related to the job. Further,
individuals in more complex jobs (e.g., professors, scientists, engineers) are typically less constrained by situational factors (e.g.,
high autonomy, more flexible work schedules). This represents a
weak situation where individual differences (e.g., GMA, person-
ality traits) are more freely expressed in their behavior. However,

as discussed above, although we believe nontask performance is
influenced by GMA, the major driver of nontask performance is
likely motivation and self-regulatory mechanisms that are primarily determined by personality traits. Nonetheless, it is possible that
the aforementioned argument could apply to OCB and CWB. In
the current study, therefore, we examine this notion in an exploratory fashion.1
Method
Literature Search
We employed five strategies to identify all available published
and unpublished articles that might supply pertinent effect sizes.
First, we searched the PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge, and Dissertation Abstracts International databases for articles containing
keywords associated with GMA, such as cognitive ability, intelligence, general mental ability, and g factor, coupled with keywords
associated with CWB and OCB, such as counterproductive behavior, counterproductive work behavior, antisocial behavior, disruptive behavior, counterproductivity, delinquent behavior, deviance,
interpersonal deviance, noncompliant behavior, organizational
deviance, retaliation, rule compliance, theft, reprimands, grievances, workplace deviance, helping, interpersonal facilitation, job
dedication, extra-role behaviors, pro-social behavior, organizational citizenship behaviors, creativity (creative performance), innovation (innovative behavior), proactive behavior (performance),
adaptive performance, voice, taking charge, personal initiative,
and contextual performance, either in the abstract or article keywords. Second, we used Google Scholar to identify all the articles
that cited Bennett and Robinson (2000), Robinson and Bennett
(1995), Motowidlo et al. (1997), and Borman and Motowidlo
(1993), as well as the articles found in Step 1. These articles were
then searched to identify any pertinent coefficients. Third, we
manually searched all relevant major journals, such as the Journal
of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, and Personality and Individual Differences, published from
1995 to 2013. Fourth, we searched the conference programs for the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology and Academy of Management conferences for any pertinent articles. Fifth,
we consulted the reference sections of meta-analyses conducted on
CWB and OCB (e.g., Berry et al., 2007; Chiaburu et al., 2011;
Dalal, 2005; Salgado, 2002).
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To be included in the current meta-analysis, primary studies had
to meet the following criteria. First, we retained primary studies
that contained a correlation or other statistics (e.g., univariate t, F)
that could be converted into a correlation coefficient between
GMA and either CWB or OCB. Second, we also included only
samples where participants were adults who were employed at the
1
We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this
research question.
time of data collection. Third, only test (not self-report) measures

of GMA were considered, and fewer g-loaded perceptual abilities
(i.e., civil service exams common in police selection) were excluded from the current meta-analysis. Fourth, we only included
primary studies that measured naturally occurring CWB (OCB) in
work settings as opposed to primary studies based on contrived
CWB (OCB) lab tasks. Finally, given that early OCB measures
were often contaminated with CWB content (Dalal, 2005), we
included only those studies whose OCB measure could be distinguished from lack of CWB and only those studies whose criteria
clearly fit our definitions of CWB and OCB. These search techniques and decision criteria yielded 35 independent samples of the
GMACWB correlation encompassing 12,074 individuals. Of
these, 23 were published in peer-reviewed academic journals, one
was an unpublished raw data set, nine were doctoral dissertations, one was a military technical report, and one was a
conference presentation. For the GMAOCB meta-analyses, we
were able to identify 43 independent samples encompassing
12,507 individuals. Of these, 29 were published in peerreviewed academic journals, eight were dissertations, five were
from masters theses, and one was a conference presentation.
All the studies we included are reported in Appendices A
(CWB) and B (OCB), and studies that were considered but
ultimately excluded are reported in Appendix C.
Meta-Analytic Procedures
For each primary study, we coded or computed the correlation
between GMA and CWB and/or OCB. In addition, we coded the
criterions rating source, occupation and job complexity of the
sample, publication status, target of the criterion if not clearly
specified in the study (e.g., organizational deviance vs. interpersonal deviance), measure used for the criterion (e.g., Bennett &
Robinson, 2000), and measure used for GMA (e.g., the Wonderlic
Personnel Test). Because of the high number of studies on the
GMACWB relationship conducted in both military and police
settings, we coded and included these categories as moderators.
CWB and OCB measures from many of the primary studies could
not be coded according to their target because the measures in
those studies mixed both the interpersonal and organizational
targets and combined measures different in target. Further, many
of the samples were mixed in terms of their jobs and occupations
or did not provide sufficient information about the samples, despite
our effort to contact the authors of those studies. Therefore, the
first and third authors holistically categorized the level of job
complexity for each sample according to all the available information in the article into either low-, medium-, or high-complexity
categories (see Le et al., 2011); the interrater agreement was 91%.
Any remaining discrepancies were resolved through a series of
discussions. In terms of coding other information necessary for
data-analysis, the first author coded all the primary studies, and the
third author independently randomly double-checked 40% of the
primary studies for accuracy. The agreement rate was very high
(Cohens .98); all discrepancies involved subjective judgment
calls such as whether reliability estimates reported based on test
manuals should be coded (we decided to use them) and which
sample size should be coded if only the sample size range was
reported (we decided to use the lowest sample size to be conservative).
1227
We used the Hunter and Schmidt random-effects meta-analysis

method to synthesize correlation coefficients across the primary
studies (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; F. L. Schmidt, Oh, & Hayes,
2009). Because most primary studies reported reliability estimates,
we used individual correction methods (VG6 module; F. L.
Schmidt & Le, 2004). Because of recent criticism levied toward
this method (Erez, Bloom, & Wells, 1996; Kish-Gephart,
Harrison, & Trevio, 2010; LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002), we
also report the meta-analytic population effect size estimates and
accompanying confidence intervals (CIs) computed using Erez et
al.s (1996) random-effects method, where individual study correlations are treated as Level 1 variables and moderators as Level 2
variables in a hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) framework
(Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2004).2 The substantive conclusions across the two methods were nearly identical. Correlations
reported in primary studies were corrected for measurement error
in both the independent and dependent variables using local reliability (in most cases, coefficient alpha, and in a few cases,
testretest reliability) reported in the primary studies. For primary
studies that did not report the reliability for GMA, we used the
reliability estimate provided by the test manual. The mean reliability for GMA across the primary studies is .86 (SD .09, k
77). For studies reporting objective CWB measures (i.e., counts of
incidences of CWB), we used the reliability estimate of .83 calculated by Dilchert et al. (2007). This is likely a conservative
estimate, as many of the studies with an objective record criterion
included in the meta-analysis utilized a single count of the number
of grievances filed against an officer. Some primary studies that
did not use objective records also did not report a reliability
estimate. For these studies, we imputed the average criterion
reliability (.82 [SD .07, k 16] for CWB, .89 [SD .07, k
39] for OCB).
Further, we corrected the correlations for indirect range restriction in order to generalize our results to the general applicant
population. We used the ux value of .63 meta-analytically derived
by F. L. Schmidt et al. (2008), as the standard deviation ratio of the
GMA of applicants to incumbents was not available in any of the
primary studies. For those studies that reported different dimensions of GMA (i.e., verbal, quantitative) and their individual
relationships with CWB and OCB, we computed the composite
correlation. We followed the same procedure for studies reporting
specific dimensions of CWB or OCB. If the composite could not
be determined (i.e., no intercorrelations between dimensions were
given), we used the average.
Finally, we also separately computed and reported (see Appendix D) true-score correlations corrected for measurement error in
the criterion measure using a meta-analytic interrater reliability of
.53 (instead of local/alpha reliability) for supervisor ratings of
CWB and OCB in order to be fully comparable with prior metaanalyses that we chose to use in the RW analyses mentioned above
(Berry et al., 2012; Chiaburu et al., 2011; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000;
F. L. Schmidt et al., 2008).
We examined the standard error of the mean true-score correlations by computing their 95% CIs to determine if the estimated
true-score correlation differs from 0. To gauge the degree of a
2
We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting these
analyses.
1228
2002). If the HLM regression weight (B) associated with a given

moderator was significant, it can be interpreted as a significant
moderating effect.
moderating effect, we took several steps. First, we computed the

80% credibility interval (CrI) and the between-studies variance
(2) for each overall correlation (e.g., GMACWB, GMAOCB).
A CV that includes 0 and a significant between-studies variance
indicates that moderator effects are likely (Erez et al., 1996;
Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Second, we computed correlations and
associated 95% CIs in different moderator categories. We examined if the 95% CIs around two true-score correlations in a category (e.g., published vs. unpublished) overlap. Complete overlap
suggests the difference between two true-score correlations is fully
artifactual due to second-order sampling error and that there is no
meaningful moderating effect. In contrast, no overlap suggests the
difference between two true-score correlations is nonartifactual
and that there is a meaningful moderating effect. Third, we also
examined all moderators simultaneously while accounting for the
intercorrelations between moderators using a regression-based
method. To do this, we transformed individual correlations into
Fishers Z and regressed them on the proposed moderators in HLM
wherein each study was weighted by the inverse of the sampling
error variance (Erez et al., 1996; Steel & Kammeyer-Mueller,
Results
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the meta-analytic results for the
relationship of GMA with CWB and OCB, respectively. To be
consistent with prior meta-analytically derived correlations that we
use in our RW analyses, we refer to Hunter and Schmidt corrected
correlation coefficients in our description of results, but the results
using Erez et al.s (1996) method are also presented in Tables 1
and 2. None of our substantive conclusions differed across methods. Table 3 presents regression results for the moderators.
Relationships Between GMA and CWB

As shown in the first row of Table 1, the overall true-score
correlation between GMA and CWB was essentially 0 ( .02).
Further, its 95% CI as well as 80% CrI included 0 (95% CI [.09,
Table 1
Correlation Between General Mental Ability (GMA) and Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWB) and Moderator Analyses
HunterSchmidts method
Variable
SDr
SD
95% CI
GMACWB
CWB rating source
Self-rated
Non-self-rated
Objective record
Supervisor rated
Target of CWB
CWB-O
CWB-I
Job complexity
Low
Medium
High
Publication status
Published
Unpublished
GMA assessment
WPT
Other
CWB assessment
Bennett and Robinson
Other
Military
Military
Nonmilitary
Police
Police
Nonpolice
35
12,074
.02
.10
.02
.18
19
16
12
4
6,700
5,374
4,696
678
.03
.08
.08
.04
.08
.09
.09
.09
.05
.11a
.12
.08a
7
4
1,854
1,462
.11
.03
.12
.10
13
18
4
3,925
6,537
1,612
.03
.05
.00
23
12
8,307
3,767
12
23
Erez et al.s method

80% CrI
[.09 .04]
[.25 .21]
.03
[.10 .04]
.13
.17
.16
.14
[.01
[.20
[.17
[.24
[.13
[.34
[.33
[.26
.21]
.11]
.09]
.11]
.06
.15
.17
.09
[.01
[.28
[.31
[.27
.20
.09
.17
.18
[.34 .07]
[.27 .10]
[.42 .01]
[.32 .14]
.14
.02
[.43 .19]
[.25 .22]
.09
.10
.09
.04
.07
.01
.15
.18
.15
[.05 .13]
[.16 .02]
[.17 .15]
[.15 .23]
[.31 .16]
[.21 .18]
.08
.11
.00
[.02 .17]
[.25 .04]
[.21 .21]
.01
.04
.11
.08
.01
.06
.19
.13
[.08 .06]
[.14 .02]
[.25 .23]
[.22 .10]
.00
.09
[.15 .14]
[.20 .02]
2,776
9,298
.04
.01
.12
.09
.04
.02
.22
.16
[.17 .09]
[.09 .05]
[.32 .24]
[.22 .18]
.04
.03
[.22 .14]
[.11 .06]
7
29
1,003
11,071
.00
.02
.10
.10
.03
.02
.17
.17
[.19 .12]
[.09 .04]
[.26 .19]
[.25 .20]
.02
.03
[.18 .15]
[.12 .05]
10
25
5,200
6,874
.00
.03
.07
.12
.00
.04
.11
.22
[.08 .07]
[.12 .03]
[.15 .14]
[.33 .24]
.00
.05
[.11 .11]
[.15 .06]
10
25
3,758
8,316
.09
.01
.10
.08
.13
.02
.18
.13
[.25 .02]
[.03 .08]
[.37 .10]
[.15 .19]
.18
.03
[.34 .02]
[.03 .10]
.11]
.02]
.06]
.09]
95% CI
.14]
.02]
.02]
.10]
Note. CWB-O CWB directed at the organization; CWB-I CWB directed at individuals; WPT Wonderlic Personnel Test; k number of
statistically independent samples; N total sample size; r sample-size-weighted mean correlation; SDr sample-size-weighted observed standard
deviation of correlations; mean true-score correlation corrected for indirect range restriction on the predictor measure and measurement error in the
predictor and criterion measures; SD standard deviation of true-score correlations corrected for indirect range restriction on the predictor measure and
measurement error in both the predictor and criterion measures; CI confidence interval around the mean true-score correlation; CrI credibility interval;
2 estimate of between-studies variance for the GMACWB relationship .002 (p .05).
a
The true-score correlations corrected for indirect range restriction on the predictor measure and measurement error in both the predictor (using local
reliability) and criterion (using the interrater reliability of .53 for single supervisor ratings and .83 for objective records) measures are .12 (input to relative
weight analyses in Table 4) and .14 from top to bottom.
1229
Table 2
Correlation Between General Mental Ability (GMA) and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB) and Moderator Analyses
HunterSchmidts method
Erez et al.s method
Variable
SDr
SD
95% CI
GMAOCB
OCB rating source
Self-rated
Supervisor-rated
Target of OCB
OCB-O
OCB-I
OCB-CH
Job Complexity
Low
Medium
High
Publication status
Published
Unpublished
GMA assessment
WPT
Other
43
12,507
.13
.17
.23
.17
[.18 .29]
[.01 .45]
.29
[.21 .37]
7
36
2,103
10,404
.11
.14
.15
.17
.19
.24a
.18
.17
[.05 .33]
[.18 .30]
[.04 .42]
[.03 .46]
.29
.29
[.06 .49]
[.04 .50]
9
11
14
4,328
5,161
5,169
.10
.09
.14
.14
.12
.17
.18
.16
.24
.15
.14
.17
[.08 .29]
[.08 .25]
[.15 .33]
[.01 .38]
[.01 .33]
[.02 .46]
.32
.25
.33
[.10 .51]
[.12 .37]
[.13 .50]
19
20
4
5,541
6,693
273
.13
.13
.07
.17
.17
.16
.24
.23
.13
.16
.17
.23
[.16 .32]
[.15 .31]
[.12 .38]
[.03 .45]
[.01 .46]
[.16 .42]
.35
.27
.11
[.24 .45]
[.11 .42]
[.19 .39]
29
14
7,667
4,840
.14
.12
.18
.15
.25
.22
.19
.14
[.18 .32]
[.14 .29]
[.00 .49]
[.04 .39]
.24
.32
[.16 .32]
[.18 .45]
15
28
2,345
10,162
.13
.13
.19
.16
.22
.24
.23
.15
[.10 .35]
[.18 .30]
[.08 .52]
[.04 .43]
.30
.31
[.12 .47]
[.21 .40]
80% CrI
95% CI
Note. OCB-O OCB directed at the organization; OCB-I OCB directed at individuals; OCB-CH change-oriented OCB; WPT Wonderlic
Personnel Test; k number of statistically independent samples; N total sample size; r sample-size-weighted mean correlation; SDr
sample-size-weighted observed standard deviation of correlations;
mean true-score correlation corrected for indirect range restriction on the predictor
measure and measurement error in both the predictor and criterion measures; SD standard deviation of true-score correlations corrected for indirect range
restriction on the predictor measure and measurement error in both the predictor and criterion measures; CI confidence interval around the mean
true-score correlation; CrI 80% credibility interval; 2 estimate of between-studies variance for the GMA-OCB relationship .006 (p .001).
a
The true-score correlation corrected for indirect range restriction on the predictor measure and measurement error in both the predictor (using local
reliability) and criterion (using the interrater reliability of .53 for single supervisor ratings) measures is .31 (input to relative weight analyses in Table 4).
.04]; 80% CrI [.25, .21]), and the between-studies variance (.002,
p .05) was significant. These results failed to provide support for
Hypothesis 1. Next, as shown in Table 3, we investigated the
effects of our substantive moderators (e.g., rating source, job
complexity) as well as some methodological moderators (e.g.,
publication status, occupation of the sample, and type of scale used
to assess GMA and CWB) by regressing the correlations from our
database on our moderators and weighting them by the inverse of
the sampling error variance. We should note that we were unable
to evaluate the target moderator in this manner because many
studies did not provide the necessary information (i.e., reported an
overall CWB as opposed to CWB-O or CWB-I), and some studies
measured CWB-O, CWB-I, and overall CWBthus, one value
could not be assigned to each sample. We also report results for all
moderator categories in Table 1.
The correlation between GMA and CWB, as shown in Table
1, was small and positive when CWB were self-rated and the
95% CI included 0 (
.05; 95% CI [.01, .11]). The correlation was negative and small when CWB were non-self-rated
and the 95% CI did not include 0 (
.11; 95% CI
[.20, .02]). This is consistent with the regression results
shown in Table 3 (B .12, p .05). It is important to note
that the 95% CIs of the estimates did not overlap. Further, as
shown in Table 1, the correlations gleaned from different nonself-rating sources (objective records vs. supervisory ratings)
were not significantly different from one another
objective .12, 95% CI [.17, .06]; supervisor .08,

95% CI [.24, .09]). Thus, our results indicate that the rela-
tionship between GMA and CWB is moderated by the source of

the CWB, with self-ratings and non-self-ratings (including both
supervisor ratings and objective records) yielding correlations
that were different from each other.
Second, as shown in Tables 1 and 3, the GMACWB correlation in police samples was negative (
.13; 95% CI
[.25, .02]), compared to a correlation of .02 (95% CI [.03,
.08]) in nonpolice samples. Although their 95% CIs overlapped
only slightly and the regression indicated a significant moderating effect (B .12, p .05), these results should be
interpreted with caution because the police samples utilized
objective records exclusively as measures of CWB.
As shown in Table 1, we did not detect any meaningful
moderating effects in terms of the target of CWB (CWB-O vs.
CWB-I), job complexity, publication status, GMA measures,
and military versus nonmilitary samples. However, as shown in
Table 3, the regression showed that the military versus nonmilitary samples moderator was significant (B .11, p .05)
when entered with the other moderators into the regression; in
military samples, the relationship is 0, but it was slightly
negative in nonmilitary settings. Given the small difference in
effect size, it should be interpreted with caution, but it may
suggest that in strong situations like the military, the GMA
CWB relationship is close to 0.
Relationships Between GMA and OCB

As shown in the first row of Table 2, the overall correlation
between GMA and OCB was positive and moderate in magnitude
1230
Table 3
Omnibus Moderator Hierarchical Linear Model
Regression Results
Coefficient (B)
Moderator
OCB
.05
.10
.03
.12
.12
.05
.01
.00
.10
.11
.12
Rating source
Publication status
WPT
Complexity
B&R
Military
Police
CWB
Note. Two hierarchical linear model regression results are reported together. In each regression (i.e., counterproductive work behaviors [CWB],
organizational citizenship behaviors [OCB]), all moderators are entered
simultaneously. For rating source, 1 nonself, 0 self. For publication
status, 1 published, 0 unpublished. For the Wonderlic Personnel Test
(WPT), 1 used WPT, 0 other general mental ability measure used. For
job complexity, 1 low, 2 medium, 3 high. For the Bennett and
Robinson (B&R) scale, 1 used B&R, 0 other CWB measure used. For
military, 1 military sample, 0 other. For police, 1 police sample,
0 other. The moderating effects of the behavioral target (e.g., CWB-O
vs. CWB-I; OCB-O vs. OCB-I vs. OCB-CH; see Table 2 for definitions)
could not be tested here because only a few primary studies provided the
necessary information.
p .05.
(
.23; 95% CI [.18, .29]), thereby providing support for
Hypothesis 2. However, the 80% CrI was very wide (80% CrI [.01,
.45]), and the between-studies variance (.004, p .05) was significant, suggesting the presence of moderators. As such, we
followed the same procedure described above to evaluate the effect
of our a priori specified moderators (OCB target, job complexity),
as well as the same moderators that we evaluated in the GMA

CWB relationship to determine if they affect the GMAOCB
relationship. As was the case with GMACWB, we were unable to
include the target moderator in the regression analysis. As shown
in Tables 2 and 3, all of the 95% CIs of our hypothesized moderators overlapped and none of the moderator coefficients were
significant. This suggests that the GMAOCB relationship is
highly generalizable across all examined moderator classes. In
sum, the correlations between GMA and the two nontask performance criteria (CWB
.02 and OCB .23) were much
smaller than the correlation between GMA and task performance
(
.69; F. L. Schmidt et al., 2008), providing support for
Hypothesis 3.
Relative Importance of the FFM and GMA

One of the major purposes of this study is to determine the
relative importance of GMA and the FFM in predicting CWB and
OCB, and compare the results to those obtained in previous metaanalytic studies for task performance and overall job performance.
As described in the Method section, the footnote of Table 4, and
Appendix D, we took two steps to make our meta-analytic estimates comparable to the other elements in the matrix. First, we
only included non-self-report criterion measures for the GMA
OCB and GMACWB true-score correlations corrected for measurement error in both the measures and range restriction on the
predictor measure. Second, we corrected these estimates with the
same interrater reliability estimate of .53 used by the FFMOCB,
FFMCWB, FFMtask performance, and GMAtask performance
meta-analyses included in our matrix from Berry et al. (2012),
Chiaburu et al. (2011), F. L. Schmidt et al. (2008; reanalysis of
Hunter, 1986), and Hurtz and Donovan (2000), respectively. Be-
Table 4
Relative Weight Analysis of the Five-Factor Model (FFM) and General Mental Ability (GMA)
Predicting Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWB), Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
(OCB), Task Performance, and a Job Performance Composite
CWBa
(reverse coded)
Task
performancea
OCB
Job
performance
compositeb
Predictor
RW
%RW
RW
%RW
RW
%RW
RW
%RW
Emotional stability
Extraversion
Openness/intellect
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
GMA
All FFM traitsc
Total R2
2
RGMA
over FFM
2
RFFM
over GMA
.007
.018
.028
.052
.032
.013
.137
.149
.015
.135
4
12
19
35
21
9
91
.005
.003
.024
.012
.024
.079
.070
.149
.073
.053
3
2
16
8
17
53
47
.006
.007
.021
.003
.024
.499
.061
.561
.527
.085
1
1
4
1
4
89
11
.005
.001
.005
.023
.040
.176
.073
.249
.177
.073
2
0
2
9
16
71
29
Note. The meta-analytic input matrix is presented in Appendix D. We reversed correlations involving CWB
before conducting relative weight analyses to ease interpretation. RW relative weight (Johnson, 2000);
%RW percentage of relative weight calculated by dividing individual relative weights by their sum (total R2)
2
and multiplying by 100 (RWs add up to R2 and %RWs add up to 100%, respectively); RGMA
over FFM change
2
2
in R2 due to adding GMA to the FFM; RFFM
over GMA change in R due to adding the FFM to GMA.
a
We used meta-analytic results only based on non-self-report CWB (reverse coded), OCB, and task performance
(see Appendix D for more details). b This is a composite of CWB (reversed coded), OCB, and task performance (see Appendix D for more details). c This is the sum of RWs (and %RWs) of all FFM traits.
cause part of the purpose of the RW analyses was to compute an

overall job performance composite from task performance, OCB,
and CWB, we needed meta-analytic estimates of these intercorrelations from non-self-report sources so that they are more directly
compatible with the other correlations in our matrix. To our
knowledge, there is no meta-analysis between specifically nonself-rated task performance and CWB in the literature. Therefore,
we conducted this meta-analysis (k 10, N 3,752, r .49,
.56, 95% CI [.66, .45]).3 See Appendix D for the full
meta-analytic correlation matrix used in the RW analyses along
with details of the correlations sources. Note that we used the
GMAnontask performance correlations derived with the Hunter
Schmidt method to conduct the RW analyses. We also reversed all
the correlations with CWB to aid interpretation before conducting
RW analyses.
As shown in Table 4, GMA (RW .013; %RW 9) accounted
for 9% of the explained variance in CWB, whereas the FFM
(RW .137; %RW 91) accounted for 91% of the explained
variance in CWB. In addition, GMA (RW .079; %RW 53)
and the FFM (RW .070; %RW 47) each explained approximately half of the explained variance in OCB. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was only supported in the case of CWB and not OCB.
Further, GMA accounted for 89% of the explained variance in task
performance, whereas the FFM accounted for only 11% of the
explained variance in task performance, providing support for
Hypothesis 5. When job performance is operationalized as a composite of task performance, OCB, and CWB, results showed GMA
(RW .176; %RW 71) accounted for over twice as much
explained variance as the FFM (RW .073; %RW 29). Further,
as shown in the bottom of Table 4, hierarchical multiple regression
2
2
analyses (RGMA
over FFM and RFFM over GMA) provided virtually the
same results as the corresponding RW results. As an additional test
of the differential prediction of task versus nontask performance
by GMA, we created a database of our GMACWB and GMA
OCB correlations in addition to seven meta-analytically derived
GMAtask performance correlations from F. L. Schmidt et al.
(2008). We then dummy-coded the different criteria with task
performance as the referent and regressed the correlations on the
dummy codes. These analyses showed that the GMACWB and
GMAOCB correlations are significantly different from the
GMAtask performance relationships.4
Discussion
The general conclusion in the industrial organizational psychology literature is that GMA is the best single predictor of job
performance. As F. L. Schmidt (2002, p. 207) stated, the purely
empirical research evidence in I/O psychology showing a strong
link between [GMA] and job performance is so massive that there
is no basis for questioning the validity of [GMA] as a predictor of
job performance. Yet, most of the cumulative knowledge about
the validity of GMA is based on the criterion of task performance,
which raises questions about whether GMA is a valid predictor of
nontask performance. As a result, our major goal in this study was
to respond to the long overdue call by Salgado (1999) to further
develop cumulative knowledge regarding the relationship of GMA
with job performance by expanding the criterion space to include
nontask performance such as OCB and CWB. As F. L. Schmidt
and Kaplan (1971; see Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Viswesvaran &
1231
Ones, 2000) suggested, it is beneficial to understand the relationships of GMA with specific job performance dimensions (such as
CWB and OCB) for enhancing our theoretical understanding of
both GMA and work behaviors.
The results of the meta-analyses revealed that the relationships
between GMA and nontask performance criteria are modest, especially relative to the strong relationship between GMA and task
performance. First, counter to our expectations, the omnibus truescore correlation between GMA and CWB, overall, is essentially 0
( .02), although it is modestly negative (
.11) when
CWB are measured by non-self-report methods (e.g., supervisors
or objective records). This finding calls into question the characterization by some that GMA is an all-purpose tool that can be
used to solve any kind of problem including delinquency (L. S.
Gottfredson, 1997b; Jensen, 1998). However, this finding requires
further explanation, which we discuss later. Second and in line
with our expectations, the omnibus true-score correlation between
GMA and OCB is positive but moderate in magnitude ( .23),
which shows that more intelligent people have a tendency to be
more helpful to coworkers and more likely to do more than the job
requires. Third, the meta-analytic RW and regression analyses
showed that the FFM is substantially more important than GMA in
predicting CWB and that the FFM and GMA are about equal in
predicting OCB. These findings provide mixed support for Borman et al.s (1993, 1997) theory as well as our hypotheses. As
expected, results showed that GMA is substantially more important than the FFM for task performance and, to a lesser extent,
overall job performance. These findings have several implications
for both theory and practice.
Theoretical Implications
The overall, null true-score correlation between GMA and CWB
runs contrary to our predictions derived from the inhibitory effect
from the criminology literature. One explanation, albeit speculative, is that the inhibitory effect has limited applicability to working adults. Sociologists postulate that the inhibitory effect of GMA
begins to manifest itself in adolescencewell before individuals
enter the workforce (Walsh & Ellis, 2003). The implication of this
is that if GMA acts as an inhibitory mechanism, many low-GMA
individuals may begin a criminal career early in their lives (e.g.,
M. R. Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) and be less likely (or less able)
to be employed later when they become adults. That is, it seems
that the inhibitory effect-based explanation is more suitable for
delinquent behaviors among adolescents, not necessarily CWB
among working adults (behaviors that can happen in adulthood
when people are at work).
Accordingly, in order to more completely understand the GMA
CWB relationship, it is helpful to consider other important aspects
of the employment context. One such aspect is that for individuals
to be sanctioned for engaging in CWB, they must be detected by
other individuals at work. This means that the operational measure
of CWB actually is the extent to which the individual has been
detected engaging in CWB, not necessarily the actual frequency of
3
Full results of the task performanceCWB meta-analysis are available
from the first author.
4
We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting these
analyses. The full results are available from the first author on request.
1232
doing so. Relatedly, Moffitt and Silvas (1988) differential detection hypothesis posits that more intelligent individuals do not
necessarily engage in fewer CWB but rather are better able to
avoid being caught engaging in CWB by using their superior
problem-solving ability to skirt any organizational monitoring
systems. That is, the differential detection hypothesis suggests that
these differences in the detection rate then manifest themselves in
a negative overall correlation between GMA and the frequency of
detected CWB, although low-GMA individuals do not actually
engage in less deviance at work than high-GMA individuals.
Consistent with this hypothesis, the true-score correlation of GMA
with non-self-rated CWB (supervisor, archival) is modest yet
negative at .11 (its 95% CI excludes 0), but that between GMA
and self-rated CWB is essentially 0 (its 95% CI includes 0).
Although this effect is relatively small, it means that smarter
people are seen by others as engaging in fewer CWB despite there
being no difference in the way smart versus less smart individuals
report the frequency of their own deviant behavior.
A plausible alternative explanation is that, as a dimension of job
performance, ratings of CWB are influenced by an overall, latent
job performance construct such that when supervisors (or others)
rate CWB, they are influenced by the individuals overall level of
performance, which tends to be higher for smart people. In other
words, this explanation would suggest that the negative correlation
observed between GMA and non-self-rated CWB may be artifactually influenced by halo error. Although the present study cannot
definitively answer whether this is the case, it is informative to
examine the GMACWB relationship gleaned from formal personnel records versus supervisor ratings. The magnitude of the
true-score correlation for personnel records was similar to that for
supervisor ratings (.12 vs. .08), and their 95% CIs fully overlapped. Compared to supervisor ratings of CWB, personnel records of counterproductivity are less likely to be influenced by
halo error because they are often reported by a variety of sources
(e.g., coworkers, customer complaints), usually document specific
infractions the individual in question committed, and are usually
reported at a different time than an evaluation of performance.
Therefore, the explanation whereby ratings of CWB are due to
halo error seems less plausible. Overall, we believe that our results
are consistent with the differential detection hypothesis.
The result that GMA is moderately correlated with OCB supports our hypotheses. Further, the finding that the FFM traits,
collectively, are about equal in importance to GMA in predicting
OCB provides mixed support for Borman and Motowidlo (1993)
and Motowidlo et al.s (1997) theory. On the one hand, in accordance with their theory, the FFM performs much better in comparison to GMA when considering nontask as opposed to task
performance, and on the other hand, their theory stipulates that the
FFM will be a stronger predictor than GMA for nontask behaviors,
which we found not to be the case. We also found that the modest
true-score correlation of GMA with OCB was similar in magnitude
to that of the correlations for the individual FFM traits (Chiaburu
et al., 2011). Overall, this is consistent with the idea that higher
GMA individuals are better able to acquire and apply contextual
job knowledge, and this leads to more helping and volunteering
behaviors (Motowidlo et al., 1997). Consistent with the theory and
our hypothesis, this correlation is also substantially lower than that
between GMA and task performance. The GMAOCB relationship was not moderated by any of the moderators we investigated.
Considering both the magnitude and direction of the GMA

CWB and GMAOCB relationships, as well as the relative importance of GMA and the FFM in predicting task performance, our
findings provided partial support for the construct fidelity principle
(Cronbach, 1960). Namely, CWB are influenced primarily by
will-do predictors, task performance is influenced primarily by
can-do factors, and OCB are influenced by both will-do and can-do
factors. This finding corroborates previous arguments that CWB
and OCB are related yet distinct constructs (Dalal, 2005) and
augments the existing nomological nets of CWB and OCB.
From a personnel selection standpoint, it is important to know
the relative importance of GMA and FFM for overall job performance (F. L. Schmidt & Kaplan, 1971). Our finding shows that
when overall performance is operationalized as a composite of
task, OCB, and CWB, GMA is the strongest predictor, as it is
about 2 times more important than the FFM. Nonetheless, the
results showed that the FFM was more important in predicting
overall job performance (when it explicitly includes nontask performance measures) than previous studies have shown (e.g., F. L.
Schmidt et al., 2008). Overall these findings provide essential
information for theories of job performance by estimating the
relationship between GMA and two nontask performance criteria
and showing the relative importance of GMA and the FFM traits
in predicting both task and nontask performance criteria.
Finally, when interpreting the present findings, it is noteworthy
that the results are based on self-reports of the FFM traits, which
can be biased due to faking, particularly in high-stakes settings
(e.g., employment; Morgeson et al., 2007). Recent meta-analytic
evidence presented by Oh, Wang, and Mount (2011) has shown
that observer ratings of the FFM are substantially more valid than
the corresponding self-reports. Therefore, we conducted additional
analyses whereby we simply replaced the composite correlations
between self-reports of the FFM and overall job performance in
Appendix D (input to the RW and regression analyses in Table 4)
with corresponding meta-analytic correlations between single observer ratings of the FFM and overall job performance based on
Oh et al. (2011). The results of the RW analysis changed dramatically. We found that the FFM traits, collectively, are somewhat
more important than GMA (%RW 55 and 45, respectively) in
predicting the overall performance composite (detailed results are
available from the first author upon request). This clearly shows
that when predicting overall performance, the FFM traits, when
measured via non-self-report methods, are substantially more important relative to GMA than previously thought.
Practical Implications
Although GMA is the single best individual difference predictor
of task performance, it appears to have only small utility in
predicting CWB and moderate usefulness in predicting OCB compared to task performance. However, despite these limitations, the
results of the current study could prove to be quite useful for
practical purposes. For example, the finding that there is little
difference between high- and low-GMA individuals in selfreported CWB, yet high-GMA individuals are reported by other
sources to engage in the behavior less frequently than low-GMA
individuals, should signal to managers that it is important to
monitor their smart, presumably high-performing employees for
counterproductive behaviors just as they would other employees,
as it would be erroneous to assume that smart people engage in

fewer CWB. With regard to OCB, the findings further affirm the
ubiquity of GMA as a selection instrument. Although the relationship is modest, when an organization uses GMA to select individuals, it is likely to select individuals who are likely to engage in
satisfactory task performance and OCB as well. In addition, the
results of this study suggest the equally critical role of noncognitive as well as cognitive predictors in a selection battery. Practitioners wishing to select employees with a selection battery that
optimizes prediction of all three dimensions of job performance
would be well served by using noncognitive predictors, such as the
FFM, in addition to GMA.
Limitations and Future Research Directions

As with all meta-analytic studies, the current study was limited
by the extent of the current research literature. First, we identified
35 correlations between GMA and CWB and 43 correlations
between GMA and OCB that met our inclusion criteria. Some
moderator analyses could be conducted and reliably interpreted
with this number of studies, but there were some moderators that
had only a handful of studies. It is likely that the relationship
between GMA and nontask behaviors is quite complex and there
are other situational moderators and/or mediators of the relationship. For example, it could be that CWB that are more calculative
in nature (e.g., falsifying an expense report) are more strongly
related to GMA, whereas those CWB more spontaneous in nature
(e.g., yelling at a coworker) are more strongly related to personality. Similarly, nontask performance behaviors that are more
impactful (e.g., suggestions to the organization that result in major
improvements) may be more strongly related to GMA as opposed
to the frequency counts frequently studied in nontask performance
research. This latter point also suggests that GMA could moderate
the relationship between OCB and job performance, with higher
GMA individuals better able (versus more willing) to engage in
OCB that directly benefit the organization (e.g., OCBCH).5 Future primary research should explore this possibility.
Further, because of a lack of primary studies, we were unable to
test plausible mediators (e.g., delayed gratification, contextual
knowledge) to more fully examine why GMA might relate to
nontask performance. A recent primary study found initial support
for the premise that contextual knowledge is one of critical mediators of the GMAOCB relationship (Bergman, Donovan, Drasgow, Overton, & Henning, 2008), yet this stream of research is in
its infancy, and future research is needed to explore the role of
knowledge in the GMAOCB performance relationship. We were
also unable to locate any studies examining the role of any of our
proposed mediators on CWB in a work setting. Thus, it is our
sincere hope that more primary studies will be conducted on the
mediating mechanisms between GMA and nontask performance
and that a future meta-analysis will ultimately test the theoretical
relationships we propose in their entirety.
Second, another limitation stems from our use of extant metaanalytic estimates to derive our regression equations. One such
issue is that the correlations available in the literature for GMA
and task performance ratings are likely contaminated with OCB
and CWB. As Rotundo and Sackett (2002) showed, managers
likely use many different sources of information to derive employee performance ratings. As such, if ratings of task perfor-
1233
mance subsume ratings of OCB and CWB, it could be that the

validity of GMA in predicting task performance is actually underestimated because the relationship of GMA with either CWB or
OCB is substantially lower than that between GMA and task
performance. Future research should explore these possibilities, as
we had difficulty locating meta-analytic evidence for the GMA
(pure) task performance relationship. Relatedly, our relative importance analyses were confined to those variables for which we
could locate meta-analytic relationships with nontask performance.
One variable that has enjoyed a recent surge in scholarly interest is
emotional intelligence, which relates to ones ability to function
effectively in ones social environment at work (Joseph & Newman, 2010). It is likely that this variable predicts nontask performance and operates within the can-do versus will-do predictor
distinction, yet it is unknown how important it is in predicting
nontask criteria relative to GMA or the FFM. Future research
should examine this question.6
Third, as shown in Table 4, GMA and the FFM in combination
explained a substantial amount of variance in task performance,
but explained substantially less for CWB and OCB. Given that
performance is a function of ability, motivation, and opportunity,
we may need to further explore each of these factors and their
interactions. For example, researchers have commonly viewed
CWB as the consequence of the violation of a social exchange
contract (e.g., Blau, 1964; Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick,
2004; Dalal, 2005) and stressful conditions (Fox & Spector, 1999;
Spector & Fox, 2005; Spector et al., 2010). For example, assuming
that high-GMA individuals are more likely to be high-performing
employees, they may engage in CWB if they perceive an asymmetric social exchange contract, as in the case where their organization does not provide them with adequate rewards or advancement opportunities. On the other hand, low-GMA individuals may
be generally less satisfied with and feel more stress from their
work because low-GMA individuals are more likely to have less
complex and less fulfilling jobs or to be low performers who
obtain fewer rewards (e.g., Judge, Klinger, Simon, 2010), and,
thus, may disengage or perform work poorly as opposed to engaging in CWB for revenge motives (frustrationaggression;
Spector & Fox, 2005). Future research should explore the different
motives underlying nontask behaviors for low- or high-GMA
individuals.
Fourth, it is now widely accepted that OCB has three components: OCB-I, OCB-O, and OCB-CH (Chiaburu et al., 2011).
However, as an anonymous reviewer suggested, it may be possible
to apply this typology to the domain of CWB. A recently developed construct titled prosocial rule-breaking behavior, defined
as any instance where an employee intentionally violates a formal
organizational policy, regulation or prohibition with the primary
intention of promoting the welfare of the organization or one of its
stakeholders (Morrison, 2006, p. 6) could be a type of changeoriented CWB (CWB-CH). Smart or socially adroit people may be
better at identifying and doing behaviors of this type in a more
acceptable manner (Oh et al., 2014). Unfortunately, we were
unable to locate any relevant primary study that measured GMA
5
We would like to thank Sharon Parker for suggesting this.

We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this
future stream of research.
6
1234
and prosocial rule-breaking behavior. However, we believe that it

is a fruitful research avenue to further conceptualize and study the
construct of change-oriented CWB.
Finally, although we found some support for the differential
detection hypothesis, we cannot definitively conclude that it is why
there is a negative correlation between GMA and non-self-rated
CWB. A fruitful avenue of future research might involve experimental studies aimed at understanding whether high-GMA people
are better able to conceal their CWB from others.
Summary and Conclusion

The purpose of this meta-analytic study was to enhance our
understanding of the way GMA predicts job performance criteria
by expanding the criterion space to include two nontask performance criteria: OCB and CWB. Our results show that GMA is a
weak predictor of CWB and is a moderately useful predictor of
OCB. Additional results also show that GMA is a less important
predictor of CWB than the FFM and roughly equivalent with the
FFM when predicting OCB. This finding augments the evidence
that CWB and OCB are related yet distinct from each other.
Overall, these results address a void in the industrial
organizational psychology literature by providing essential information about the way GMA relates to the three major domains of
job performance. We hope that this information aids scholars in
refining existing theories of job performance and in informing
relevant personnel selection practices.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
Abod, E. T. (2001). Interpersonal characteristics and citizenship climate

as predictors of contextual performance in organizations (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Allworth, E., & Hesketh, B. (1999). Construct-oriented biodate: Capturing

change-related and contextually relevant future performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7, 97111. doi:10.1111/
1468-2389.00110
Arthur, W., Jr., & Villado, A. J. (2008). The importance of distinguishing
between constructs and methods when comparing predictors in personnel selection research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,
435 442. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.435
Avis, J. M. (2001). An examination of the prediction of overall, task, and

contextual performance using three selection measures for a servicetype occupation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg.
Avis, J. M., Kudisch, J. D., & Fortunato, V. J. (2002). Examining the

incremental validity and adverse impact of cognitive ability and conscientiousness on job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology,
17, 87105. doi:10.1023/A:1016200317002
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness
and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects
of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715722. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.715
Becker, T. E., & Randall, D. M. (1994). Validation of a measure of
organizational citizenship behavior against an objective behavioral criterion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 160 167. doi:
10.1177/0013164494054001021
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349 360. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349
Bergman, M. E., Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., Overton, R. C., &

Henning, J. B. (2008). Test of Motowidlo et al.s (1997) theory of
individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 21, 227253. doi:10.1080/08959280802137606
Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports
of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution
over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 613 636. doi:10.1037/a0026739
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance,
organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410 424. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Blickle, G., Kramer, J., Shneider, P. B., Meurs, J. A., Ferris, G. R.,
Mierke, J., . . . Momm, T. D. (2011). Role of political skill in job
performance prediction beyond general mental ability and personality in
cross-sectional and predictive studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 488 514. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00723.x
Blickle, G., Meurs, J. A., Zettler, I., Solga, J., Noethen, D., Kramer, J., &
Ferris, G. R. (2008). Personality, political skill, and job performance.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 377387. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.11
.008
Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., & Hedge, J. W. (1997). Personnel
selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 299 337. doi:10.1146/
annurev.psych.48.1.299
Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., Oppler, S. H., & Pulakos, E. D. (1993).
The role of early supervisor experience in supervisor performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 443 449. doi:10.1037/0021-9010
.78.3.443
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion
domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt &
W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 7198).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Borman, W. C., White, L. A., Pulakos, E. D., & Oppler, S. H. (1991).

Models of supervisor job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 863 872. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.863
Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the
victims perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 998 1012. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998
Burke, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2011). Crime and
corruption in organizations: Why it occurs and what to do about it.
Farnham, England: Gower.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). The role of theory in industrial and organizational
psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 39 73).
Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Cellar, D. F., DeGrendel, D. J. G., Klawsky, J. D., & Miller, M. L. (1996).

The validity of personality, service orientation, and reading comprehension measures as predictors of flight attendant training performance.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 11, 4354. doi:10.1007/
BF02278254
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2002). Situational judgment and job performance. Human Performance, 15, 233254. doi:10.1207/S15327
043HUP1503_01
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I.-S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011).
The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship
behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1140
1166. doi:10.1037/a0024004
Choi, J. N. (2007). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior:
Effects of work environment characteristics and intervening psychological processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 467 484. doi:
10.1002/job.433

Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R.
(2004). Interactive effects of personality and perception of the work
situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
599 609. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.599
Ct, S., DeCelles, K. A., McCarthy, J. M., Van Kleef, G. A., & Hideg,
I. (2011). The Jekyll and Hyde of emotional intelligence: Emotionregulation knowledge facilitates both prosocial and interpersonally deviant behavior. Psychological Science, 22, 10731080. doi:10.1177/
0956797611416251
Ct, S., & Miners, C. T. H. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive

intelligence, and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51,
128.
Cronbach, L. J. (1960). Essentials of psychological testing. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Cuttler, M. J., & Muchinsky, P. M. (2006). Prediction of law enforcement

training performance and dysfunctional job performance with general
mental ability, personality, and life history variables. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 33, 325. doi:10.1177/0093854805282291
Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2008). The development

and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35, 219 257. doi:10.1177/0149206308318618
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 12411255. doi:10.1037/0021-9010
.90.6.1241
Daley, R. E. (1978). The relationship of personality variables to suitability for police work (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida Institute
of Technology, Melbourne.
Day, D. V., & Silverman, S. B. (1989). Personality and job performance:

Evidence of incremental validity. Personnel Psychology, 42, 2536.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb01549.x
Dilchert, S., Ones, D. S., Davis, R. D., & Rostow, C. D. (2007). Cognitive
ability predicts objectively measured counterproductive work behaviors.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 616 627. doi:10.1037/0021-9010
.92.3.616
Dunlop, P. D., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational
citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: The bad apples do
spoil the whole barrel. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 67 80.
doi:10.1002/job.243
Erez, A., Bloom, M. C., & Wells, M. T. (1996). Using random rather than
fixed effects models in meta-analysis: Implications for situational specificity and validity generalization. Personnel Psychology, 49, 275306.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01801.x
Fallon, J. D. (2004). An examination of the construct and concurrent

validity of an organizational citizenship scale (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg.
Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2001). The concept of personal initiative: An

overview of validity studies. Human Performance, 14, 97124. doi:
10.1207/S15327043HUP1401_06
Ferris, G. R., Witt, L. A., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2001). Interaction of

social skill and general mental ability and job performance and salary.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 10751082. doi:10.1037/0021-9010
.86.6.1075
Ford, J. K., & Kraiger, K. (1993). Police officer selection validation

project: The Multijurisdictional Police Officer Examination. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 7, 421 429. doi:10.1007/BF01013756
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustrationaggression.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915931. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1099-1379(199911)20:6915::AID-JOB9183.0.CO;2-6
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept
of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two
German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139 161. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00639.x
1235
Frese, M., Garst, H., & Fay, D. (2007). Making things happen: Reciprocal
relationships between work characteristics and personal initiative in a
four-wave longitudinal structural equation model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 1084 1102. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1084
Fritzsche, B. A., Powell, A. B., & Hoffman, R. (1999). Person

environment congruence as a predictor of customer service performance.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 59 70. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998.1645
Gardner, J. F. (1994). The predictive validity of psychological testing in

law enforcement (Unpublished masters thesis). University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa.
Goffin, R. D., Jang, I., & Skinner, E. (2011). Forced-choice and conventional personality assessment: Each may have unique value in preemployment testing. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 840
844. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.012
Gonzalez-Mul, E. (2010). [The relationship between GMA and CWB].

Unpublished raw data.
Gooty, J. (2006). Development and test of a model linking emotions and

work behaviors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997a). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24,
1323. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997b). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday
life. Intelligence, 24, 79 132. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90014-3
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gough, H. G. (1976). Studying creativity by means of word association

tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 348 353. doi:10.1037/00219010.61.3.348
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 334. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008
.04.002
Greco, L., Lolkus, S., & Mount, M. K. (2013, April). Moderating effects
of engagement on the relationship between GMA and CWB. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX.
Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. (2004). Why openness to experience is not a
good predictor of job performance. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 12, 243251. doi:10.1111/j.0965-075X.2004.278_1.x
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role
performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327347. doi:10.5465/AMJ
.2007.24634438
Grim, A. M. (2010). Use of situational judgment test to measure individual adaptability in applied settings (Unpublished masters thesis).
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of
counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 11, 30 42. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00224
Gutkowski, J. M. (1997). Investigating a three-component model of job

performance: A construct-oriented approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Houston, Houston, TX.
Hankey, R. O. (1968). Personality correlates in a role of authority: The

police (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Hattrup, K., OConnell, M. S., & Labrador, J. R. (2005). Incremental

validity of locus of control after controlling for cognitive ability and
conscientiousness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 461 481.
doi:10.1007/s10869-005-4519-1
Hattrup, K., OConnell, M. S., & Wingate, P. H. (1998). Prediction of

multidimensional criteria: Distinguishing task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 11, 305319. doi:10.1207/s15327
043hup1104_1
1236
Hess, L. R. (1972). Police entry tests and their predictability of score in

police academy and subsequent job performance (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI.
Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007).
Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 555566. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.92.2.555
Hooper, M. K. (1988). The relationship of college education to police

officer job performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Claremont
Graduate School, Claremont, CA.
Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2000). Personnel selection: Looking
toward the futureRemembering the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 631 664. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.631
Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge,
and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 340 362.
doi:10.1016/0001-8791(86)90013-8
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hunthausen, J. M. (2000). Predictors of task and contextual performance:

Frame-of-reference effects and applicant reaction effects on selection
system validity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Portland State University, Portland, OR.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance:
The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869 879.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.869
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative
weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 119. doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3501_1
Johnson, J. W. (2001). The relative importance of task and contextual

performance dimensions to supervisor judgments of overall performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 984 996. doi:10.1037/00219010.86.5.984
Joseph, D. L. (2011). Emotional intelligence, leadermember exchange,

and behavioral engagement: Considering mediation and reciprocity
effect (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An
integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54 78. doi:10.1037/a0017286
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance
motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
797 807. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.797
Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scot, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007).
Self-efficacy and work-related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 107127. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.107
Judge, T. A., Klinger, R. L., & Simon, L. S. (2010). Time is on my side:
Time, general mental ability, human capital, and extrinsic career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 92107. doi:10.1037/a0017594
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Trevio, L. K. (2010). Bad apples,
bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of
unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 131.
doi:10.1037/a0017103
Kluemper, D. H., DeGroot, T., & Choi, S. (2013). Emotion management

ability: Predicting task performance, citizenship, and deviance. Journal
of Management, 39, 878 905. doi:10.1177/0149206311407326
Kwok, C.-K., Au, W. T., & Ho, J. M. C. (2005). Normative controls and
self-reported counterproductive behaviors in the workplace in China.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 456 475. doi:
10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00220.x
Lance, C. E., & Bennett, W., Jr. (1998). Replication and extension of
models of job performance ratings. Unpublished manuscript.
Le, H., Oh, I.-S., Robbins, S. B., Ilies, R., Holland, E., & Westrick, P.
(2011). Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear relationships between
personality traits and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96, 113133. doi:10.1037/a0021016
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and
workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 131142. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52 65. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.87.1.52
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as
contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential
relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive
ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326 336. doi:10.1037/00219010.86.2.326
Lievens, F., Conway, J. M., & De Corte, W. (2008). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to job
performance ratings: Do rater source and team-based culture matter?
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 1127.
doi:10.1348/096317907X182971
Marcus, B., Schuler, H., Quell, P., & Humpfner, G. (2002). Measuring
counterproductivity: Development and initial validation of a German
self-report questionnaire. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 18 35. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00191
Marcus, B., Wagner, U., Poole, A., Powell, D. M., & Carswell, J. (2009).
The relationship of GMA to counterproductive work behavior revisited.
European Journal of Personality, 23, 489 507. doi:10.1002/per.728
Mills, A. (1990). Predicting police performance for differing gender and

ethnic groups: A longitudinal study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
California School of Professional Psychology, San Francisco.
Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1988). IQ and delinquency: A direct test of
the differential detection hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
97, 330 333. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.97.3.330
Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R.,
Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality
tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60, 683
729. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00089.x
Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting
individuals in team settings: The importance of social skills, personality
characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58,
583 611. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.655.x
Morrison, E. W. (2006). Doing the job well: An investigation of pro-social
rule breaking. Journal of Management, 32, 528. doi:10.1177/
0149206305277790
Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of
individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71 83. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_1
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005).
Higher-order dimensions of the Big Five personality traits and the Big
Six vocational interest types. Personnel Psychology, 58, 447 478. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00468.x
Mount, M. K., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality
traits and counterproductive behaviors: The mediating effects of job
satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59, 591 622. doi:10.1111/j.17446570.2006.00048.x
Mount, M. K., Oh, I.-S., & Burns, M. (2008). Incremental validity of

perceptual speed and accuracy over general mental ability. Personnel
Psychology, 61, 113139. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00107.x
OConnell, M. S., Hartman, N. S., McDaniel, M. A., Grubb, W. L., III, &
Lawrence, A. (2007). Incremental validity of situational judgment tests

for task and contextual job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 19 29. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00364.x
Oh, I.-S., Charlier, S. D., Mount, M. K., & Berry, C. M. (2014). The two
faces of high self-monitors: Chameleonic moderating effects of selfmonitoring on the relationships between personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35,
92111. doi:10.1002/job.1856
Oh, I.-S., Le, H., Kim, C.-S., & Yoo, T.-Y. (2006, May). Honesty
humility and emotional competencies as predictors of task and contextual performance over general mental ability and the Big Five personality. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
Oh, I.-S., Le, H., Whitman, D. S., Kim, K., Yoo, T.-Y., Hwang, J.-O., &
Kim, C.-S. (2014). The incremental validity of HonestyHumility over
cognitive ability and the Big Five personality traits. Human Performance, 27, 206 224. doi:10.1080/08959285.2014.913594
Oh, I.-S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. (2011). Validity of observer ratings
of the five-factor model of personality traits: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96, 762773. doi:10.1037/a0021832
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature. antecedents, and consequences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal
and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775 802. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995
.tb01781.x
OToole, B. I. (1990). Intelligence and behaviour and motor vehicle
accident mortality. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 22, 211221.
doi:10.1016/0001-4575(90)90013-B
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and
differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management,
36, 633 662. doi:10.1177/0149206308321554
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the
antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636 652. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009).
Individual- and organization-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
122141. doi:10.1037/a0013079
Postlethwaite, B., Robbins, S., Rickerson, J., & McKinniss, T. (2009). The
moderation of conscientiousness by cognitive ability when predicting
workplace safety behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 47,
711716. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.008
Pulakos, E. D., Schmitt, N., Dorsey, D. W., Arad, S., Hedge, J. W., &
Borman, W. C. (2002). Predicting adaptive performance: Further tests of
a model of adaptability. Human Performance, 15, 299 323. doi:
10.1207/S15327043HUP1504_01
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 6 for
Windows [Computer software]. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International.
Raver, J. L., & Nishii, L. H. (2010). Once, twice, or three times as harmful?
Ethnic harassment, gender harassment, and generalized workplace harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 236 254. doi:10.1037/
a0018377
Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1992). Intelligence is the best predictor of job
performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 86 89.
doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768746
Roberts, B. W., Harms, P. D., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2007).

Predicting the counterproductive employee in a child-to-adult prospective study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 14271436. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.92.5.1427
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 555572. doi:10.2307/256693
1237
Roland, D. K. (2010). Relationships between personality dimensions

assessed by the Navy Computer Adaptive Personality Scales and supervisor ratings of job performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task,
citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job
performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66 80. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66
Sackett, P. R., Berry, C. M., Wiemann, S. A., & Laczo, R. M. (2006).
Citizenship and counterproductive behavior: Clarifying relations between the two domains. Human Performance, 19, 441 464. doi:
10.1207/s15327043hup1904_7
Sackett, P. R., & Lievens, F. (2008). Personnel selection. Annual Review of
Psychology, 59, 419 450. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006
.093716
Salgado, J. F. (1999). Personnel selection methods. In C. L. Cooper & I. T.
Robertson Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational
psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 154). New York, NY: Wiley.
Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 117125. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00198
Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., Moscoso, S., Bertua, C., de Fruyt, F., &
Rolland, J. P. (2003). A meta-analytic study of general mental ability
validity for different occupations in the European Community. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88, 1068 1081. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.6
.1068
Scherbaum, C. A., Goldstein, H. W., Yusko, K. P., Ryan, R., & Hanges,
P. J. (2012). Intelligence 2.0: Reestablishing a research program on g in
IO psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 128 148.
doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01419.x
Schmidt, F. L. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job
performance: Why there cannot be a debate. Human Performance, 15,
187210. doi:10.1080/08959285.2002.9668091
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2004). General mental ability in the world
of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 162173. doi:10.1037/00223514.86.1.162
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Outerbridge, A. N. (1986). Impact of job
experience and ability on job knowledge, work sample performance, and
supervisory ratings of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
71, 432 439. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.432
Schmidt, F. L., & Kaplan, L. B. (1971). Composite versus multiple criteria:
A review and resolution of the controversy. Personnel Psychology, 24,
419 434. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1971.tb00365.x
Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2004). Software for HunterSchmidt metaanalysis methods. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa, Department of
Management and Organizations.
Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I.-S., & Hayes, T. L. (2009). Fixed- versus randomeffects models in meta-analysis: Model properties and an empirical
comparison of differences in results. British Journal of Mathematical
and Statistical Psychology, 62, 97128. doi:10.1348/000711
007X255327
Schmidt, F. L., Shaffer, J. A., & Oh, I.-S. (2008). Increased accuracy for
range restriction corrections: Implications for the role of personality and
general mental ability in job and training performance. Personnel Psychology, 61, 827 868. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00132.x
Schmidt, L. L. (2006). Self-reported emotional intelligence as an indicator of social exchange quality at work (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Houston, Houston, TX.
Shaver, L. A. (1980). A descriptive study of police officers in selected

towns of northwest Arkansas (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arkansas.
Shoss, M., & Witt, L. A. (2010, April). Predicting adaptive performance:

The interactive effects of ability and leadership. Poster presented at the
1238
annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
Shoss, M. K., Witt, L. A., & Vera, D. (2012). When does adaptive
performance lead to higher task performance? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 33, 910 924. doi:10.1002/job.780
Slaughter, A. J. (2005). Cognitive ability, personality, and experience:

Evidence for differential impact on job performance factors (Unpublished masters thesis). Texas A&M University, College Station.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653 663. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653
Spector, P. E., Bauer, J. A., & Fox, S. (2010). Measurement artifacts in the
assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think we know? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95, 781790. doi:10.1037/a0019477
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp.
151174). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:
10.1037/10893-007
Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic
moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of
Stokes, C. K., Schneider, T. R., & Lyons, J. B. (2010). Adaptive performance: A criterion problem. Team Performance Management, 16, 212
230. doi:10.1108/13527591011053278
Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of
and a complete guide for the use of the Stanford revision and extension
of the BinetSimon Intelligence Scale. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

doi:10.1037/10014-000
Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W., & Lyons, B. D. (2010). Beyond personality:

The impact of GMA on performance for entry-level service employees.
Journal of Service Management, 21, 344 362. doi:10.1108/
09564231011050797
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation

and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 81, 525531. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.5
.525
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job
performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8,
216 226. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00151
Walsh, A., & Ellis, L. (2003). Biosocial criminology: Challenging environmentalisms supremacy. New York, NY: Nova Science.
Wesman, A. G. (1947). Personnel Classification Test (Form B). New
York, NY: Psychological Corporation.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role
behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601 617. doi:10.1177/
014920639101700305
Yoo, T.-Y., & Kim, D.-Y. (2004, April). The components of contextual
performance in Korean work organizations. Paper presented at the 19th
Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Yu, J. (2008). A process model of applicant faking on overt integrity tests

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, College
Station.
Thorndike Form A
WPT
WPT
WPT
AGCT
WPT
SAT
WPT
ASVAB
WPT
German WPT
PAF
CFIT
WPT
ACTs WorkKeys
WAIS
GCAT
WPT
.01
.07
.20
.12
.01
.05
.03
.05
.05
.09
.03
.03
.10
.09
.06
.08
.13
.00
86
185
106
801
122
122
220
100
838
174
268
186
720
133
219
838
31
154
B&R
B&R
B&R
Number of disciplinary incidents
Number of grievances
B&R short form
Number of disciplinary infractions
German CWB scale (created in this study)
Adapted from B&R
Scale from Marcus et al. (2002)
Number of complaints during first 3 years of service
Ad hoc CWB scale
Proprietary CWB scale
Ad hoc CWB scale
B&R
Self-report number of infractions

B&R
Dichotomous split of engaging in CWB versus not
Fox & Spector (1999)
8812 split of engaging in CWB versus not
Ad hoc
Total number of infractions
Total number of grievances and disciplinary incidents
Adapted from Kwok et al. (2005)
CWB scale used
Self
Self
Supervisor
Objective
Objective
Objective
Supervisor
Objective
Objective
Self
Self
Self
Objective
Supervisor
Supervisor
Self
Objective
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Objective
Self
Objective
Objective
Objective
Objective
Self
Rating
source
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Published
Police
Police
Military
Police
Police
Police
Police
Police
Police
Police
Police
Military
Military
Military
Military
Military
Military
Military
Military
Military
Police or
military?
CWB-O
CWB-O and CWB-I
CWB-O/CWB-I
CWB-O
CWB-O
CWB-O
CWB-O and CWB-I
CWB-I
CWB type
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
Medium
High
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Complexity
.60
.88
.88
.88
.97
.88
.87
.88
.94
.88
.88
.87
.78
.86
.90
.97
.80
.87
.94
.94
.94
.94
.94
.94
.94
.94
.94
.88
.88
.88
.88
.78
.95
.80
.87
Predictor
reliability
.91
.80
.78
.65
.83
.88
.83
.92
.74
.80
.84
.79
.85
.83
.89
.77
Criterion
reliability
(Appendices continue)
Note. n sample size; r observed correlation. For general mental ability (GMA) scale used, ASVAB Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery; WPT Wonderlic Personnel Test; SILS
Shipley Institute of Living Scale; MPOE Multijurisdictional Police Officer Examination; PAF Personnel Assessment Form; AGCT Army General Classification Test; SAT Scholastic
Achievement Test; CFIT Culture Fair Intelligence Test; ACT American College Testing; WAIS Wechslers Adult Intelligence Scale; GCAT General Cognitive Ability Test. For
counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) scale used, B&R Bennett and Robinson (2000) scale. The police/military column coded the professions of the sample as to whether they were police,
military, or neither. The CWB type column indicates whether an estimate of CWB directed at the organization (CWB-O) and/or CWB directed at individuals (CWB-I) could be reliably coded from
the study. Complexity refers to the job complexity of the sample. Predictor reliability estimates were internal consistency reliabilities and were given in the studies or, when not reported, taken from
test manuals. Criterion reliability estimates were alpha reliability estimates and were given in the studies. All of the studies with no reliability estimate either used objective criterion measures that were
a count of disciplinary infractions or did not provide reliability. For the calculations in the meta-analysis, an alpha reliability estimate of .83 derived by Dilchert et al. (2007) was entered for studies
with objective records, and the average reliability of .82 was entered otherwise.
ASVAB
ASVAB
ASVAB
ASVAB
ASVAB
ASVAB
ASVAB
ASVAB
ASVAB
WPT
WPT
WPT
Otis Beta Test
SILS
MPOE
SILS
PAF
.09
.00
.02
.07
.10
.00
.13
.05
.03
.15
.17
.33
.07
.19
.19
.04
.15
529
529
440
544
444
310
548
416
602
252
400
81
578
816
144
24
114
GMA scale used
Borman et al. (1991)

Ct et al. (2011)
Cuttler & Muchinsky (2006)
Dahling et al. (2008)
Daley (1978)
Dilchert et al. (2007)
Ford & Kraiger (1993)
Gardner (1994)
Goffin et al. (2011)
Unpublished data-Reference
omitted for blinding purposes
Gooty (2006)
Greco et al. (2013)
Hankey (1968)
Hess (1972)
Hooper (1988)
Kluemper et al. (2013)
Kluemper et al. (2013)
Lance & Bennett (1998)
Marcus et al. (2002)
Mills (1990)
Mount et al. (2008)
Postlethwaite et al. (2009)
Roberts et al. (2007)
Shaver (1980)
Yu (2008)
Study
Studies Included in the General Mental AbilityCounterproductive Work Behaviors Meta-Analyses
Appendix A
1239
.04
.36
.47
.01
.09
.33
325
160
175
81
43
512
152
106
117
215
73
90
68
45
101
295
103
Cellar et al. (1996)
Chan & Schmitt

(2002)
Ct & Miners
(2006)
Dahling et al. (2008)
Day & Silverman
(1989)
Fallon (2004)
Fay & Frese (2001)
Ferris et al. (2001)
Frese et al. (2007)
Frese et al. (2007)
Frese et al. (2007)
Fritzsche et al.
(1999)
Goffin et al. (2011)
Gough (1976)
Grim (2010)
Gutkowski (1997)
Hattrup et al. (1998)
.15
.05
.19
.05
.13
.42
.02
.14
.36
.02
.17
.16
.04
148
202
.14
.24
.12
245
203
Allworth & Hesketh

(1999)
Avis (2001)
.24
370
467
Abod (2001)
Avis et al. (2002)

Bergman et al.
(2008)
Blickle et al. (2011)
Study
Numerical reasoning and

Ravens Matrices
Terman Concept Mastery

Test
ASVAB
Ad hoc
WPT
PAF
Ravens Progressive
Matrices
Connecting Numbers Test
Wechsler Digit Span Test
PCT (Wesman, 1947)

Learning ability test
Ravens Progressive
Matrices
WPT
CFIT
WPT
Reading comprehension
test
GMAT verbal
Applied arithmetic test

WPT
Ravens Matrices
Language and verbal
reasoning test
Problem-solving test
EAS
GMA scale used
Rating
source
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Self
Self
Self
Supervisor
Supervisor
Self
Self
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Ad hocadaptive performance
Ad hoc, based on Motowidlo &
Van Scotter (2004)
Becker & Randall (1994)
Punctuality, maturity teamwork

Provision of helpful input and
facilitation of team performance
Creativity
Ad hocjob dedication and

interpersonal facilitation
Personal initiative (Frese et al.,
1997)
1997)
1997)
Cooperation
Fallon (2004)
Personal initiative (interview)
Lee & Allen (2002)

Williams & Anderson (1991)

Service performance
Blickle et al. (2008) adaptive
performance
Teamwork
Ad hoc contextual performance

Motowidlo & Van Scotter (1994)

OCB scale used
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Published
OCB-CH
OCB-CH
OCB-O and OCB-I
OCB-CH
OCB-CH
OCB-CH
OCB-O and OCB-I
OCB-CH
OCB-O and OCB-I
OCB-O and OCB-I
OCB-I
OCB-CH
OCB-CH
OCB-O and OCB-I
OCB type?
Low
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
High
Low
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Complexity
Studies Included in the General Mental AbilityOrganizational Citizenship Behaviors Meta-Analysis
Appendix B
.49
.85
.9
.94
.67
.96
.69
.9
.84
.9
.74
.74
.9
.79
.82
.72
.90
.72
.9
.82
.85
Predictor
reliability
.89
.98
.84
.77
.78
.86
.88
.87
.79
.87
.92
.9
.77
.89
.9
.86
.97
.94
.96
.94
Criterion
reliability
1240
.01
.19
457
92
262
148
79
147
65
132
139
508
Shoss & Witt (2010)

Slaughter (2005)
Slaughter (2005)
Slaughter (2005)
Slaughter (2005)
Stokes et al. (2010)
Tews et al. (2010)
Van Scotter &

Motowidlo (1996)
ASVAB
WPT
WPT
WPT
WPT
WPT
WPT
WPT
WPT
WPT
KPOAB
ASVAB
ASVAB
ASVAB
WPT
Four reasoning subtests
(references in article)
Analytical reasoning,
numerical reasoning,
and applied reasoning
tests
WPT
Unspecified
ETS Kit of FactorReferenced Cognitive
Tests
GMA scale used
Ad hocinterpersonal facilitation
Smith et al. (1983) altruism

Griffin et al. (2007) adaptive
performance
Griffin & Hesketh (2004) adaptive
performance scale
Yoo & Kim (2004)

Navy Rating Protocol


Lee & Allen (2002)

OCB scale used
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Self
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Self
Supervisor
Rating
source
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Published
OCB-I
OCB-O and OCB-I
OCB-CH
OCB-CH
OCB-CH
OCB-CH
OCB-O and OCB-I
OCB-CH
OCB-O and OCB-I
OCB type?
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
High
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Complexity
.94
.9
.90
.85
.85
.85
.85
.90
.90
.90
.73
.94
.94
.94
.86
.79
.9
.83
.78
Predictor
reliability
.9
.79
.90
.96
.96
.96
.96
.91
.89
.86
.72
.97
.95
.8
.87
.96
.91
.83
Criterion
reliability
Note. n sample size; r observed correlation. For general mental ability (GMA) scale used, EAS Employee Aptitude Survey; WPT Wonderlic Personnel Test; GMAT Graduate
Management Admission Test; CFIT Culture Fair Intelligence Test; PCT Personnel Classification Test; PAF Personnel Assessment Form; ASVAB Armed Services Vocational Aptitude
Battery; ETS Educational Testing Service; KPOAB Korean Police Officer Aptitude Battery. The organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) type column indicates whether an estimate of OCB
directed at the organization (OCB-O) and/or OCB directed at individuals (OCB-I) could be reliably coded from the study. Complexity refers to the job complexity of the sample. Predictor reliability
estimates were internal consistency reliabilities and were given in the studies or, when not reported, taken from test manuals. OCB-CH change-oriented OCB. Criterion reliability estimates were
alpha reliability estimates and were given in the studies. All of the studies with no reliability estimate did not provide reliability. For the calculations in the meta-analysis, the average reliability of .89
was entered for these studies.
.05
.31
.29
.21
.30
.02
.12
.31
.03
.14
.08
217
327
1315
.10
.12
.12
.15
.02
.07
212
1777
577
Hunthausen (2000)
Johnson (2001)
Joseph (2011)
.33
421
133
1140
121
Hattrup et al. (2005)
Motowidlo & Van

Scotter (1994)
Mount et al. (2008)
OConnell et al.
(2007)
Oh et al. (2006),
(2014)
Pulakos et al. (2002)
Roland (2010)
L. L. Schmidt
(2006)
Shoss et al. (2012)
Study
1241
1242
Appendix C
References of the Studies Considered but Excluded
Unemployed Participants and/or Lab Task (Seven)

Brown, R. D., & Cothern, C. M. (2002). Individual differences in faking
integrity tests. Psychological Reports, 91, 691702. doi:10.2466/pr0
.2002.91.3.691
Kirby, E. G., & Kirby, S. L. (2006). Improving task performance: The
relationship between morningness and proactive thinking. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 36, 27152729. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029
.2006.00124.x
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as
contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326 336. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.2
.326
McCormick, P. B. (1996). Predicting a multivariate performance variable
using cognitive ability and integrity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Spain, S. M. (2010). Multivariate dynamic criteria: A process model of job
performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign.
Stokes, C. K. (2008). Adaptive performance: An examination of convergent
and predictive validity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Wright State
University, Fairborn, OH.
Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 315330. doi:10.2307/3069349
Nontest or Job Knowledge-Type Measure of General

Mental Ability (Five)
Billings, S. W. (2001). Clarifications of the relationship between conscientiousness and integrity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Wayne
State University, Detroit, MI.
Henson, B., Reyns, B. W., Klahm, C. F., IV, & Frank, J. (2010). Do good
recruits make good cops? Problems predicting and measuring academy
and street-level success. Police Quarterly, 13, 526. doi:10.1177/
1098611109357320
Poncheri, R. M. (2006). The impact of work context on the prediction of job
performance (Unpublished Masters thesis). North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
Truxillo, D. M., Bennett, S. R., & Collins, M. L. (1998). College education
and police job performance: A ten-year study. Public Personnel Management, 27, 269 280.
Werner, S. H., Jones, J. W., & Steffy, B. D. (1989). The relationship
between intelligence, honesty, and theft admissions. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 49, 921927. doi:10.1177/
001316448904900415
Performance Criteria Not Clearly Organizational

Citizenship Behaviors or Counterproductive Work
Behaviors (Three)
Beehr, T. A., Ivanitskaya, L., Hansen, C. P., Erofeev, D., & Gudanowski, D. M. (2001). Evaluation of 360 degree feedback ratings:
Relationships with each other and with performance and selection
predictors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 775788. doi:
10.1002/job.113
Owens, W. A., Schumacher, C. F., & Clark, J. B. (1957). The measurement
of creativity in machine design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41,
297302. doi:10.1037/h0040668
Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1999). Staffing work teams: Development and validation of a selection test for teamwork settings.
Journal of Management, 25, 207228. doi:10.1016/S01492063(99)80010-5
1243
Appendix D
Meta-Analytic Correlation Matrix Used for Relative Weight and Regression Analyses
Variable
1. Emotional Stability
2. Extraversion
3. Openness/Intellect
4. Agreeableness
5. Conscientiousness
6. GMA
7. CWB (reverse scored)
8. OCB
9. Task Performance
Job performance composite
.24a
.19a
.42a
.52a
.09b
.06c
.15e
.14f
.13k
.45a
.26a
.17a
.02b
.04c
.11e
.07f
.05k
.17a
.09a
.22b
.15c
.17e
.01f
.12k
.39a
.00b
.25c
.17e
.08f
.19k
.04b
.21c
.22e
.16f
.22k
.12d
.31d
.69g
.42k
.71h
.56i
.74j
Note. We reversed correlations involving counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) before conducting relative weight analyses to ease interpretation. All
the correlations are true-score correlations. All correlations were calculated with the HunterSchmidt method. Predictor criterion correlations are all from
non-self-report criterion sources to enhance comparability and, in the case of those involving general mental ability (GMA), corrected for indirect range
restriction on the predictor measure and measurement error in both the predictor (using local reliability) and criterion (using interrater reliability) measures.
OCB organizational citizenship behaviors.
a
Mount et al. (2005). b Judge et al. (2007). c Berry et al. (2012). d Current study (Tables 1 and 2). e Chiaburuet al. (2011). f Hurtz & Donovan
(2000). g F. L. Schmidt et al. (2008; medium complexity jobs; reanalysis of Hunter, 1986). h Dalal (2005). i Current study (k 10, N 3,752, r
.49, 95% CI [.45, .66]; detailed results are available from the first author upon request). j Hoffman et al. (2007). k Composite correlations based on the
information in the matrix.
Received April 22, 2013

Revision received June 2, 2014
Accepted June 24, 2014

A Metaanalysis of The Relationship

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A Metaanalysis of The Relationship

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of Applied Psychology

2014, Vol. 99, No. 6, 12221243

2014 American Psychological Association

A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between General Mental Ability and

that the robust, well-established findings regarding the GMA

There is broad scientific consensus that general mental ability

This article was published Online First August 18, 2014.

GMA AND NONTASK PERFORMANCE

gap in the applied psychology literature. Despite the widely held

to each. Then we formulate our hypotheses pertaining to the

Theoretical Perspectives and Research Hypotheses

GONZALEZ-MUL, MOUNT, AND OH

engaging in OCB-CH contribute to heightened organizational

Relationship of GMA With CWB

organizational and interpersonal CWB based on organizational

Relationship of GMA With OCB

Magnitude of the Relationships of GMA With

GMA AND NONTASK PERFORMANCE

Relative Importance of GMA and Personality in

To test these arguments, we gauge the relative importance of

Moderators for the Relationship Between GMA and

GONZALEZ-MUL, MOUNT, AND OH

more negative, the GMACWB-O relationship or the GMA

ality traits) are more freely expressed in their behavior. However,

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

GMA AND NONTASK PERFORMANCE

time of data collection. Third, only test (not self-report) measures

We used the Hunter and Schmidt random-effects meta-analysis

GONZALEZ-MUL, MOUNT, AND OH

2002). If the HLM regression weight (B) associated with a given

moderating effect, we took several steps. First, we computed the

Relationships Between GMA and CWB

Erez et al.s method

GMA AND NONTASK PERFORMANCE

Erez et al.s method

objective .12, 95% CI [.17, .06]; supervisor .08,

tionship between GMA and CWB is moderated by the source of

Relationships Between GMA and OCB

GONZALEZ-MUL, MOUNT, AND OH

as well as the same moderators that we evaluated in the GMA

Relative Importance of the FFM and GMA

GMA AND NONTASK PERFORMANCE

cause part of the purpose of the RW analyses was to compute an

GONZALEZ-MUL, MOUNT, AND OH

Considering both the magnitude and direction of the GMA

GMA AND NONTASK PERFORMANCE

as it would be erroneous to assume that smart people engage in

Limitations and Future Research Directions

mance subsume ratings of OCB and CWB, it could be that the

We would like to thank Sharon Parker for suggesting this.

GONZALEZ-MUL, MOUNT, AND OH

and prosocial rule-breaking behavior. However, we believe that it

Summary and Conclusion

Abod, E. T. (2001). Interpersonal characteristics and citizenship climate

Allworth, E., & Hesketh, B. (1999). Construct-oriented biodate: Capturing

Avis, J. M. (2001). An examination of the prediction of overall, task, and

Avis, J. M., Kudisch, J. D., & Fortunato, V. J. (2002). Examining the

Bergman, M. E., Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., Overton, R. C., &

Borman, W. C., White, L. A., Pulakos, E. D., & Oppler, S. H. (1991).

Cellar, D. F., DeGrendel, D. J. G., Klawsky, J. D., & Miller, M. L. (1996).

GMA AND NONTASK PERFORMANCE

Ct, S., & Miners, C. T. H. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive

Cuttler, M. J., & Muchinsky, P. M. (2006). Prediction of law enforcement