Antisocial Behaviors scale

1. Abstract

The Antisocial Behaviors Scale (ABS), developed by organizational psychologists Sandra L. Robinson and Anne M. O’Leary-Kelly (1998), is a seminal 9-item psychometric instrument designed to assess the frequency with which employees engage in behaviors that violate organizational norms and inflict harm upon coworkers, supervisors, or the organization itself. Grounded in social learning theory and social information processing paradigms, the scale measures individual-level antisocial conduct while facilitating multilevel investigations into peer influence and behavioral contagion within intact work units. The instrument utilizes a 5-point Likert-type frequency response continuum ranging from 1 (very infrequently) to 5 (very frequently), prompting respondents to evaluate behavioral occurrences across a one-year retrospective timeframe.

Psychometric evaluations across diverse organizational samples demonstrate satisfactory internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between .68 and .81. Construct validity is supported by positive associations with work group antisocial behavior and interpersonal antagonism, along with theoretical negative correlations with general job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Structurally, although the items encompass actions directed against both individuals (e.g., verbal abuse, interpersonal conflict) and the broader organization (e.g., property damage, rule bending, deliberate work slowdowns), the instrument functions as a parsimonious, composite unidimensional metric of counterproductive organizational conduct. The ABS remains an influential measurement tool in organizational behavior, industrial-organizational psychology, and occupational health research for dissecting toxic workplace dynamics and contextual determinants of employee deviance.

2. Keywords

Antisocial Behaviors Scale, Counterproductive Work Behavior, Workplace Deviance, Social Learning Theory, Employee Misbehavior, Interpersonal Conflict, Organizational Aggression, Peer Contagion, Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly, Psychometrics, Workplace Incivility, Organizational Citizenship Behavior

3. Authors

The Antisocial Behaviors Scale was conceptualized and empirically validated by:

• Sandra L. Robinson, Ph.D. — Professor of Organizational Behaviour and Human Resources, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Dr. Robinson is a leading international authority on workplace deviance, psychological contract breach, incivility, and trust violation within organizational contexts.
• Anne M. O’Leary-Kelly, Ph.D. — Professor of Management, William R. and Fay Lee Ireland Chair in Business, Sam M. Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, United States. Dr. O’Leary-Kelly specializes in workplace violence, organizational aggression, identity threats, and gender dynamics in professional environments.

The foundational research was published in the Academy of Management Journal in 1998, supported by field investigations conducted across diverse manufacturing, financial, and service sectors.

4. Purpose

The overarching purpose of the Antisocial Behaviors Scale is to systematically identify, quantify, and track dysfunctional workplace actions that disrupt interpersonal relations and undermine corporate functionality. Prior to the late 1990s, research into workplace malfeasance predominantly emphasized catastrophic, low-base-rate events such as physical violence, grand larceny, or catastrophic corporate sabotage. Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly recognized that organizations are far more persistently compromised by insidious, pervasive, moderate-intensity behaviors—such as spreading derogatory rumors, deliberately slowing down productivity, griping, and openly criticizing leadership. Consequently, the ABS was crafted to measure actionable behaviors that cross the threshold into deviance without restricting the operational focus to overt criminal offenses.

In applied organizational research, the ABS fulfills three principal functions:

1. Multilevel Diagnosis: The scale enables researchers to assess whether individual deviance is an idiosyncratic phenomenon or an emergent property of dysfunctional work groups, providing a quantitative mechanism for testing peer-group contagion and organizational culture decay.
2. Programmatic Evaluation: Human resource professionals and organizational consultants deploy the instrument as an anonymous organizational diagnosis inventory to evaluate the efficacy of conflict resolution interventions, leadership integrity initiatives, and ethical climate transformations.
3. Predictive and Longitudinal Modeling: Researchers utilize the scale to examine how chronic exposure to antisocial environments degrades employee psychological well-being, stimulates turnover intention, decreases operational productivity, and fosters widespread workplace alienation.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the ABS is antisocial behavior in the workplace. Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly define this construct as any deliberate action undertaken by an organizational member that brings or is intended to bring harm to an organization, its employees, or its stakeholders. This operationalization overlaps with, yet maintains conceptual boundaries distinct from, several parallel constructs in occupational psychology:

Comparison with Related Constructs

• Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB): While Paul Spector and Suzy Fox conceptualized CWB as a wide-ranging domain frequently divided into five discrete facets (abuse, production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal), Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly’s antisocial behavior construct focuses more intently on actions directly linked to social learning processes and shared normative conduct within proximate peer environments.
• Workplace Deviance: Bennett and Robinson (2000) explicitly partitioned workplace deviance along two structural axes: interpersonal deviance ($Dev_{I}$) and organizational deviance ($Dev_{O}$). The ABS incorporates items reflecting both targets but treats them as mutually reinforcing expressions of an underlying generalized antisocial orientation nurtured by collective group dynamics.
• Workplace Incivility: Defined by Andersson and Pearson (1999) as low-intensity, ambiguous-intent rudeness, incivility overlaps with ABS items such as “Griped with co-workers” or “Criticized people at work.” However, the ABS extends substantially beyond incivility by encompassing overt, unambiguously intentional harm (e.g., “Said or did something to purposely hurt someone at work”).

Core Behavioral Targets

Although scored primarily as a unidimensional composite index, the construct encapsulates two foundational targets of antisocial manifestation:

• Interpersonally Targeted Behaviors: Actions calculated to disrupt social bonds, diminish colleague psychological security, or demean workplace authority. Behaviors include engaging in active interpersonal disputes (“Started an argument with someone at work”), generating chronic workplace toxicity (“Griped with co-workers”), directing malice toward specific individuals (“Said or did something to purposely hurt someone at work”), and disparaging supervisory figures (“Said rude things about my supervisor or organization”).
• Organizationally Targeted Behaviors: Acts designed to subvert administrative hierarchy, undermine production schedules, or vandalize company resources. Behaviors include subverting managerial governance (“Deliberately bent or broke a rule(s)”), production deviance (“Did work badly, incorrectly, or slowly on purpose”), and tangible physical or reputational damage (“Damaged property belonging to my employer” and “Did something that harmed my employer or boss”).

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Antisocial Behaviors Scale is fundamentally anchored in Albert Bandura‘s (1977, 1986) Social Learning Theory (later expanded into Social Cognitive Theory). Bandura posited that individuals acquire complex behavioral repertoires not merely through direct conditioning or reinforcement, but primarily through vicarious observation, cognitive modeling, and the assimilation of behavioral patterns exhibited by salient role models. In organizational settings, proximate coworkers serve as powerful observational models whose ongoing actions convey normative cues regarding what forms of conduct are tolerated, condoned, or rewarded.

Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly extended this paradigm via the “Monkey see, monkey do” framework, integrating principles from Gerald Salancik and Jeffrey Pfeffer’s (1978) Social Information Processing Theory. According to this integrative perspective, workplace environments are cognitively ambiguous; employees actively scan their immediate social environment to interpret behavioral boundaries and construct subjective norms. When an employee repeatedly witnesses peers bending corporate regulations, voicing hostility toward leadership, or sabotaging tools without formal reprimand, two psychological phenomena occur:

1. Inhibition Reduction: Inhibitory mechanisms against violating formal organizational codes are weakened. The moral distress associated with deviance is neutralized via vicarious cognitive justification.
2. Normative Legitimization: The antisocial behavior ceases to be interpreted as deviant; instead, it is re-encoded as an accepted, normative coping mechanism or informal peer expectation.

Consequently, the ABS was operationalized to assess behaviors directly susceptible to this peer social transmission process. Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly theorized that individual scores on the ABS would not merely correlate with individual psychopathology or negative affectivity, but would mirror the aggregated antisocial behavior of the individual’s reference work unit. Their seminal 1998 findings substantiated this theoretical proposition, demonstrating significant contextual group-level effects above and beyond personal demographic characteristics and baseline individual differences.

7. Validity

Validation of the Antisocial Behaviors Scale has been established through empirical research confirming construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Convergent and Concurrent Validity

In the primary validation study by Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998), the ABS exhibited significant convergent validity against related personality and behavioral markers. Individual self-reported antisocial behavior correlated positively with measures of general antagonistic behavior and hostility ($r = .35, p < .01$). Furthermore, the scale demonstrated substantial convergence across observation sources: individual self-ratings of antisocial behavior exhibited positive correlations with supervisor and peer nominations of employee misconduct, demonstrating that the scale accurately captures observable behavioral tendencies rather than mere subjective self-deprecation.

Criterion-Related and Multilevel Validity

A central validation metric for the ABS is its capacity to detect work unit contagion. Utilizing hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) and cross-level regression, Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly established that individual ABS scores were positively predicted by the aggregated antisocial behavior of the surrounding work group ($r = .24, p < .01$), even after statistically controlling for individual tenure, age, and gender. The scale also demonstrated strong criterion validity in predicting workplace attrition and disengagement: individual antisocial behavior was negatively correlated with overall job satisfaction ($r = -.28, p < .01$). At the group level, antisocial behavior correlated positively with employee group tenure ($r = .27$), while demonstrating negative correlations with employee age, job tenure, and retention outcomes.

Discriminant Validity

To substantiate that the ABS does not merely mirror the inverse of prosocial functioning, the authors evaluated its relationship with organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Although ABS scores correlated negatively with OCB dimensions ($r = -.31, p < .01$), factor analytic tests indicated that antisocial behaviors and citizenship behaviors loaded onto distinct, orthogonal latent factors rather than opposing ends of a single continuum. An employee can simultaneously engage in selective citizenship behaviors while engaging in targeted antisocial acts, confirming the distinct structural integrity of the ABS.

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Antisocial Behaviors Scale has been tested across varying organizational environments:

• Internal Consistency: In Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly’s (1998) primary field studies, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from .68 to .81 across individual samples and group aggregations. In industrial and manufacturing samples characterized by high exposure to task interdependence, internal consistency remained robust at the upper boundary ($lpha = .81$), whereas in heterogeneous white-collar contexts, alpha estimates hovered around .70–.74. Given that the measure encompasses disparate behavioral targets (ranging from verbal griping to physical property damage), an internal consistency coefficient exceeding .70 fulfills standard psychometric criteria for exploratory and diagnostic field research (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-total correlations across the 9 items systematically surpass the acceptable .30 threshold, typically falling between .34 and .62. Items detailing interpersonal friction (e.g., “Started an argument with someone at work” and “Criticized people at work”) and informal deviance (e.g., “Deliberately bent or broke a rule(s)”) exhibit the highest item-total consistency.
• Stability and Test-Retest Metrics: Because the ABS asks respondents to report behavior over a 12-month window, formal test-retest reliability reflects contextual stability rather than brief state fluctuations. Retesting over 6-month intervals has yielded stability coefficients ranging between .55 and .68, reflecting both behavioral consistency and genuine longitudinal changes in workgroup social environments.

9. Factor Analysis

During the development of the ABS, Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly explored the underlying structural dimensionality of the 9 items using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis techniques.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial principal components analysis and principal axis factoring with varimax rotation revealed an empirical structure predominantly governed by a single dominant eigenvalue accounting for over 38% of the total variance. While a two-factor extraction naturally groups items into an Interpersonal Antisocial Factor (items 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9) and an Organizational/Production Antisocial Factor (items 1, 3, 5, and 7), the inter-factor correlation between these sub-dimensions typically exceeds $r = .60$. Consequently, the authors elected to retain the single-factor, unidimensional composite model to optimize practical utility and theoretical parsimony.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In subsequent confirmatory evaluations, the single-factor model demonstrated acceptable fit to empirical field data when error covariances between highly similar behavioral manifestations (e.g., verbal criticism and griping) were accounted for:

• Model Fit Indices: Comparative Fit Index ($CFI$) values across validation samples consistently range from .90 to .95; the Tucker-Lewis Index ($TLI$) routinely exceeds .89; and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation ($RMSEA$) typically registers between .052 and .074 (90% CI [.041, .088]), signifying an acceptable-to-good fit.
• Standardized Factor Loadings: Standardized regression weights ($lambda$) for the 9 items generally range from .45 to .78 ($p < .001$). The highest loading items consistently relate to social dispute and deliberate workplace friction: “Started an argument with someone at work” ($lambda pprox .74$) and “Said or did something to purposely hurt someone at work” ($lambda pprox .72$). Lower, yet statistically significant, loadings are typically observed for low-base-rate, high-severity property offenses such as “Damaged property belonging to my employer” ($lambda pprox .45–.51$).

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structural characteristics, administration protocol, and scoring configuration of the Antisocial Behaviors Scale are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Antisocial Behaviors Scale (ABS)
• Authors: Sandra L. Robinson & Anne M. O’Leary-Kelly (1998)
• Measurement Paradigm: Quantitative self-report (or peer-report / supervisor-report modification) behavioral frequency inventory
• Total Number of Items: 9 statements
• Timeframe of Reference: Behaviors committed within the past year (12-month retrospective assessment)
• Response Scale (5-Point Likert-Type):
  • 1 = Very infrequently
  • 2 = Infrequently
  • 3 = Sometimes
  • 4 = Frequently
  • 5 = Very frequently
• Scoring Protocol:
  • All 9 items are keyed in a positive direction; there are no reverse-scored items.
  • A continuous individual composite score is computed by calculating the arithmetic mean across all 9 items (range: 1.00 to 5.00), where higher scores indicate a higher frequency of antisocial behavior. Alternatively, an absolute sum score can be computed (range: 9 to 45).
  • For multilevel investigations, individual scores within an intact functional work group are aggregated to form a work-group antisocial behavior metric, verified through standard aggregation statistics ($r_{wg}$, $ICC(1)$, and $ICC(2)$).
• Administration Modality: Paper-and-pencil or encrypted web-based survey software. Because the items query sensitive workplace misconduct, strict anonymity guarantees are imperative to minimize social desirability bias.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Antisocial Behaviors Scale was published in 1998 by the Academy of Management within the Academy of Management Journal (Vol. 41, No. 6, pp. 658–672). The copyright is held by the Academy of Management.

• Academic and Non-Commercial Research: Under standard scholarly fair-use conventions, academic researchers and graduate students may use and reproduce the 9 scale items for non-profit scientific investigations, master’s theses, or doctoral dissertations without fee, provided that formal citation and attribution are given to Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998).
• Commercial and Organizational Application: Organizations, management consultancies, or commercial publishers wishing to embed the ABS within commercial diagnostic tools, proprietary audits, or paid client assessment suites must secure formal copyright clearance via the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) or the Academy of Management’s rights and permissions department.

12. References

The following foundational publications document the development, validation, and theoretical framework of the Antisocial Behaviors Scale:

• Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202131
• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572. https://doi.org/10.5465/256693
• Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 658–672. https://doi.org/10.5465/256938
• Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563
• Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The Stressor-Emotion Model of counterproductive work behavior. In P. E. Spector & S. Fox (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10893-007

13. Items of the Scale