1 s2.0 S0001879121001366 Main

Journal of Vocational Behavior 132 (2022) 103664
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb
Happy to help, happy to change? A meta-analysis of major

predictors of affiliative and change-oriented organizational
citizenship behaviors
Dan S. Chiaburu a, In-Sue Oh b, Adam C. Stoverink c, *, Hyesoo (Hailey) Park d,
Cody Bradley c, Brenda A. Barros-Rivera a
a
Independent Researcher, United States of America
b
Temple University, United States of America
c
University of Arkansas, United States of America
d
Governors State University, United States of America
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: We meta-analytically test the extent to which positive and negative affect predict change-oriented
Affect citizenship behaviors (OCB-CH). More importantly, we examine the predictive power of affect
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) versus established predictors, including (a) job satisfaction and (b) the five-factor model (FFM)
Change-oriented OCB
personality traits. For comparative purposes, we include as outcomes two affiliative forms of
Organizational change
Five-factor model (FFM) of personality
citizenship: directed at other individuals (OCB-I) and directed at the organization (OCB-O). Meta-
Job satisfaction analytic results show three noteworthy findings. First, OCB-CH is significantly more strongly
meta-analysis related to positive affect (̂
ρ = 0.27, k = 28) than to negative affect (̂ρ = − 0.11, k = 23), and
positive affect is more strongly related to OCB-CH (̂ ρ = 27, k = 28) than to OCB-I (̂ρ = 0.17, k =
12) and OCB-O (̂ ρ = 0.17, k = 9). Second, a large portion of the explained variance in OCB-CH is
dominated by positive and negative affect (47%), substantially more than by the FFM personality
traits (31%) or by job satisfaction (23%). Third, the incremental validity for predicting OCB-CH
above and beyond the other predictors is the largest for (a) positive and negative affect in
combination, followed by (b) the FFM personality traits and then (c) job satisfaction. These
findings indicate that affect (in particular, positive affect) is a relatively stronger driver of OCB-
CH compared to the FFM traits and job satisfaction.
1. Introduction
In contemporary work organizations, change is at the forefront and all employees are encouraged, if not required, to engage in
change for the collective good. Change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB-CH) consist of proactive employee actions
aimed at identifying and implementing changes in products, services, or work processes (Chiaburu et al., 2011; Bettencourt, 2004;
Choi, 2007; Van Dyne et al., 1995). OCB-CH is similar to traditional/affiliative forms of citizenship (individual-directed, OCB-I; or
ganization-directed, OCB-O; Lanaj et al., 2012; Organ & Ryan, 1995) in that these are all actions considered to be above and beyond an
employee's formal job requirements; they differ insofar affiliative forms of citizenship (OCB-I and -O) focus on helping others and the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.C. Stoverink).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103664
Received 9 February 2021; Received in revised form 11 November 2021; Accepted 19 November 2021
Available online 24 November 2021
0001-8791/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
D.S. Chiaburu et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 132 (2022) 103664
organization with maintaining existing processes and procedures, whereas OCB-CH is directed toward improving them. Typical OCB-
CH include positive proactive behavior (Crant, 2000), creative performance (Zhou & George, 2001), voice (speaking up with change
suggestions; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), personal initiative to solve work problems (Frese & Fay, 2001), adaptive performance
(Pulakos et al., 2000), and taking charge (Morrison & Phelps, 1999).
Because of its relevance to employees' overall performance (Chiaburu et al., 2017; Thomas et al., 2010) and organizational out
comes (MacKenzie et al., 2011), OCB-CH has been studied extensively, including through meta-analyses outlining their predictors (e.
g., Chiaburu et al., 2011). Yet a cumulative examination of the extent to which positive and negative affect predict OCB-CH is lacking.
This is surprising, as there are multiple reasons to believe affect has a meaningful influence on these critical organizational citizenship
behaviors. First, current cumulative research has established the predictive utility of affect-based constructs for affiliative forms of
citizenship (OCB-I and OCB-O; Lanaj et al., 2012; Organ & Ryan, 1995), rendering support to the “happy to help” notion. Second,
several affect-based theories, as reviewed below, highlight the importance of affect for change-oriented behaviors (Fredrickson et al.,
2008; for a review of several theories, see Lyubomirsky et al., 2005) or explicitly include affect as a predictor (Credé et al., 2007; Parker
et al., 2010). Taken together, considering prior research positioning affect as a driver of both affiliative citizenship and change-related
behaviors, it is reasonable to argue that affect will have a meaningful cumulative impact on OCB-CH. Yet no such meta-analytic ev
idence is available, thus limiting our systematic understanding of the “happy to change” idea.
To be sure, primary studies connecting positive and negative affect to OCB-CH exist (e.g., Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008; Griffin
et al., 2007), though reliance on primary studies can be misleading, given conflicting findings often found due to small and idio
syncratic samples. For example, although both Rego et al. (2012) and George and Zhou (2007) examined the relationship between
negative affect and creative performance – a form of OCB-CH (Chiaburu et al., 2013; see their Table 1) – the correlation in the former
study is strongly negative (r = − 0.53), but close to zero in the latter study (r = − 0.01). Such inconsistencies make salient the need for
cumulative evidence, which this meta-analysis intends to deliver.
Accordingly, one of our objectives is to provide a meta-analysis connecting employees' positive and negative affect and OCB-CH. In
so doing, we provide additional cumulative evidence to the literature in which positive and negative affect have been connected with
task performance and with affiliative citizenship (OCB-I and OCB-O; Kaplan et al., 2009; Lanaj et al., 2012; Organ & Ryan, 1995;
Shockley et al., 2012). While important, this may be seen as a trivial contribution if the prediction of OCB-CH is limited to affect instead
of being “pitched” against well-established predictors. This leads us to the second objective and contribution.
In line with calls to compare various theories – and the resulting sets of predictors – against one another and to not omit relevant
variables (e.g., Le et al., 2010; Newman et al., 2016; Schmidt, 2017), our second objective, then, is to determine the incremental
contribution (as well as the relative importance) of positive and negative affect in contrast with two established sets of predictors in the
OCB literature (Chiaburu et al., 2011; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Organ et al., 2006) using hierarchical multiple regression and general
dominance [GD] analyses (Budescu, 1993).1 Specifically, we focus on (a) job satisfaction (representing, in the OCB literature, one
aspect of morale) and (b) the five-factor model (FFM) personality traits (representing broad employee dispositions) as established
predictors. If affect, for example, is more important than the FFM traits in the prediction of OCB-CH, the theoretical basis will focus on
affect rather than on personality, along with a corresponding change in practice (management practices aimed at evaluating and
enhancing employee emotions).
Finally, the third objective and contribution is the focus on a full spectrum of OCB. In addition to OCB-CH, we also include – for
comparison and contrast – OCB-I and -O (Organ et al., 2006; Williams & Anderson, 1991). These OCB dimensions are all important for
organizational and individual effectiveness, by capturing contextual behaviors that are both prosocial (“good soldier”) and proactive
(“good change agent”) (Podsakoff et al., 2009; Chiaburu et al., 2017). The use of multiple citizenship outcomes aligns with researchers'
calls for broadening the criterion space by including a diverse set of performance dimensions (Harrison et al., 2006; Li et al., 2014).
Stated in a more technical manner, this study offers the first meta-analytic evidence for the respective relationships between positive
and negative affect and all major dimensions of OCB (OCB-I, -O, and -CH) based on non-self-reported data.
Fig. 1 (Table 1, for details) presents our overall conceptual model including (a) eight predictors (positive and negative affect; job
satisfaction; the FFM traits) and (b) three outcomes (OCB-CH, -I, and -O). Based on this model, we first present arguments for the
connection between positive affect and negative affect (respectively) and OCB-CH, followed by an outline of expected results for the
incremental contribution (as well as the relative importance) of positive and negative affect in contrast with job satisfaction and the
FFM traits.
2. Theoretical model
2.1. Affect and change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior
In the primary studies we reviewed, researchers have employed a variety of theories to connect positive and negative affect to
behaviors we classify under the mega-construct of OCB-CH. While some of the literature has exclusively focused on the relationship
1
The two analyses mentioned above are superior to evaluating the relative importance among predictors by comparing their bivariate corre
lations, because they can optimally partition the explained variance per predictor by accounting for predictor covariation (LeBreton et al., 2007). Of
note, our meta-analytic multiple regression and GD analyses are based on the most comprehensive meta-analytic effect sizes (both based on the new
meta-analyses done in this study and on results available from existing meta-analytic work), which has a favorable impact on the accuracy and
generalizability of our findings (Oh, 2020).
2
D.S. Chiaburu et al.
Table 1
Meta-analytic estimates of inter-correlations among study variables.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 CO
-.30a
2 NE (163/106,149)
.40a -.22a
3 AG (155/80,305) (144/76,460)
.25a -.34a .28a
4 EX (129/96,442) (136/100,228) (122/70,551)
.21a -.09a .29a .39a
5 OP (121/69,753) (114/68,068) (111/67,389) (114/68,152)
.31b -.35b .15b .54b .26b
6 PA (24/5,976) (57/11,788) (23/6,040) (53/12,898) (27/7,340)
3
-.26b .64b -.26b -.23b -.03b -.36c

7 NA (28/7,749) (73/16,764) (27/7,036) (49/11,569) (26/8,008) (76/24,361)
.26d -.29d .17d .25d .02d .33e -.37e
8 JS (79/21,719) (92/24,527) (38/11,856) (75/20,184) (50/15,196) (71/22,148) (145/52,120)
.21f -.14f .18f .10f .18f .17g -.09g .23h
9 OCB-I (28/6,347) (13/3,073) (19/5,608) (13/3,129) (10/2,049) (12/2,700) (7/1,453) (43/12,136)
.17f -.12f .17f .02f .19f .17g -.17g .25h .75i
10 OCB-O (20/4,025) (10/2,139) (15/4,598) (9/2,017) (7/1,311) (9/1,681) (6/904) (37/9,789) (37/12,649)
.10f -.08f -.03f .13f .14f .27g -.11g .20f .57f .49f
11 OCB-CH (17/2,629) (7/1,732) (8/1,396) (6/1,144) (19/3,761) (28/7,348) (23/5,421) (11;1,843) (30/5,917) (23/4,455)
Note. Mean true-score correlations are reported along with their ks and Ns in parentheses. Superscripts indicate sources for such correlations: a Park et al. (2020); b
Journal of Vocational Behavior 132 (2022) 103664

Steel et al. (2008); c Thoresen et al. (2003); d Judge et al. (2002); e Kaplan et al. (2009); f Chiaburu et al. (2011); g Current Study; h Ilies et al. (2009); i Podsakoff et al.
(2009). CO: Conscientiousness; NE = Neuroticism; AG = Agreeableness; EX = Extraversion; OP = Openness; PA = Positive Affect; NA = Negative Affect; JS = Job
Satisfaction; OCB-I: Individual-directed OCB; OCB-O: Organization-directed OCB; OCB-CH: Change-oriented OCB.
Theoretical Model
AFFECT
Posive Aﬀect
Negave Aﬀect ORGANIZATIONAL

CITIZENSHIP
BEHAVIORS
ATTITUDE
• Change-oriented
cizenship (OCB-CH)
Job Sasfacon • Individual-directed
cizenship (OCB-I)
• Organizaon-directed
cizenship (OCB-O)
FFM PERSONALITY TRAITS
Conscienousness
Agreeableness
Neurocism
Openness
Extraversion
Fig. 1. Theoretical model.
between positive affect and OCB-CH to the exclusion of negative affect, other researchers proposed that affect across both (positive and
negative) valences needs to be considered when examining these relationships, with an even more pointed need when considering
specific components of OCB-CH such as creativity (George & Zhou, 2007; Madjar et al., 2002; Bledow et al., 2013; De Dreu et al.,
2008). We present several of these theories below, separating the discussion for positive and negative affect to parallel our empirical
tests and return to broader statements (in the discussion section) on joint effects. For our outcome, affect is an important predictor
given research showing its importance not only in initiating and maintaining change (resilience-generating) and changing the course of
employees' action toward change-directed tasks (refocusing) but also in acting as a broad currency for change (resource-enhancing) (e.
g., Lyubomirsky et al., 2005).
2.1.1. Positive affect

A commonly-used theory linking affect to OCB-CH is the “broaden and build theory” (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001), which suggests
that positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and cognition, with beneficial consequences of building personal resources in
social and work settings. Specifically, “positive emotions promote discovery of novel and creative actions, ideas and social bonds,
which in turn build that individual's personal resources; ranging from physical and intellectual resources, to social and psychological
resources” (Fredrickson, 2004: 1367). That is, employees high in positive affect will have an enhanced capacity to explore, play with,
and seek out new information, coupled with the ability to access existing resources and build new resources (Isen, 2000). Importantly,
and consistent with this view, other theories connect positive affect with ‘approach’ (rather than ‘avoidance’) attitudes and behaviors
(Elliot & Thrash, 2002; promotion vs. prevention, Lanaj et al., 2012). The proposed expansion – in the form of ‘broadening’ or
‘approaching’ – promotes creative actions and risk-taking and manifests itself across several domains important for OCB-CH.
First, employees high in positive affect will see themselves as being endowed with agency, confidence, self-efficacy and resilience
(Carver, 2006; Saavedra & Earley, 1991) and they will be more likely, as a result, to take a proactive stance. Second, they will see the
work environment as a place endowed with meaning, where achievement is possible, thus adjusting their goals upward and switching
to a different domain where improvements are needed (Carver, 2003; Staw et al., 1994). Third, in addition to higher levels of
engagement in social activities (Watson et al., 1992), positive affect is correlated with seeing proximal others as approachable and
open to what the focal employee has to propose (Lucas & Diener, 2004), an important feature for change-oriented actions at work, most
of which progress from idea to implementation in a collective or inter-personal (and thus social) environment.
Overall, positive affect provides ‘resources’ employees can draw on, impacting positively both informational and interpersonal
gains needed to navigate the intricacies of change, allowing them to recognize opportunities, identify, use, and build necessary
4
resources, initiate social contact and exercise influence, and exhibit persistence and resilience throughout the process. Reliance on and
utilization of such resources will positively impact OCB-CH, as demonstrated by research showing positive relationships with creativity
(Amabile et al., 2005; Baron & Tang, 2011), proactive behaviors (Lam et al., 2014; Bindl & Parker, 2010), individual initiative (Den
Hartog & Belschak, 2007), and taking charge (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009). Overall, in line with these arguments, we expect positive affect
to be positively related to OCB-CH.
2.1.2. Negative affect

Based on the same theoretical tenets, conversely, “negative emotions have long been known to narrow peoples' attention, making
them miss the forest for the trees” (Fredrickson, 2004: 1370). That is, when employees maintain high levels of negative affect, their
scope of attention and quality of cognition decreases. Such a reduction in focus may reduce their task performance, another outcome of
interest, different from yet related to the ones included in our criterion space. Indeed, as reported by Kaplan et al. (2009) in their meta-
analysis, negative affect had a slightly negative impact on employees' task performance. Consistent with these results and with the
underlying theory, we expect the deleterious impact of negative affect to be even larger for OCB-CH. This is based on the already noted
inhibitory and avoidance-directed (and thus restrictive rather than expansive) influence of negative affect caused by the reduction in
the scope of attention and cognition as resources (as noted, missing the forest for the trees; Fredrickson, 2001, 2004).
Specifically, negative affect is associated with a preventive orientation (and related modes of self-regulation), which predisposes
individuals toward ‘tried-and-true’ conventional paths rather than toward riskier routes of change and – overall – toward a prevention
(vs. promotion) focus (Gorman et al., 2012; Lanaj et al., 2012). Further, negative affect will increase a self-centered and narrowly-
focused task perspective, a position characterized by rumination and negatively-valanced thoughts not conducive to thinking about
or enacting change (Gable & Harmon-Jones, 2010; Mor & Winquist, 2002; Whitmer & Gotlib, 2013). In addition, negative affect
depresses resilience and a relational orientation (Hagger et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2013), both of which are needed to drive and maintain
change, from idea to implementation. Notably, for these two variables, the depressing effect of negative affect takes place through
various mechanisms, including ego depletion (Hagger et al., 2010), an inhibitory dimension characterized by a general lack of energy,
diminished tonus, and reduced self-control. Overall, in line with the arguments provided, we expect negative affect to be negatively related
to OCB-CH.
2.2. Relative importance of affect, job satisfaction, and personality traits
While some previous research suggests that cognition may be more important for citizenship behaviors than affect is (Organ &
Konovsky, 1989), we rely on the afore-mentioned theoretical arguments to present a more nuanced view (e.g., Fredrickson, 1998,
2001, 2004). We base our prediction, first, on theoretical underpinnings related to the nature of OCB-CH. Studies establishing job
satisfaction as a predictor did so using the “good soldier” (prosocial) citizenship outcomes, relying on social exchange theory and
reciprocation (directed either at other individuals or toward the organization). As Organ and Konovsky (1989) state, “OCB (in its
affiliative form) has a deliberate, controlled character and does not represent expressive behavior owing to emotional states” (157;
parenthesis added). Conversely, the theoretical underpinnings for OCB-CH are qualitatively different given its focus on change rather
than maintenance, as we outlined above, with affect playing a comparatively larger role.
Second, and related to the theoretical focus just noted, OCB-CH propels change in an organization and, as a result, should be
motivated to a greater extent by the “hot” properties of affective states such as joy and discontent, as opposed to “cold” cognitive
processes (Mittal & Ross, 1998). The hot emotional system is also considered to be the “go” system and specializes in responding to
situations as opposed to reflecting on and understanding them (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Cognition, on the other hand, “pre
dominates in measures of job attitudes” such as job satisfaction (Organ & Konovsky, 1989: 158).
Third, for OCB-CH to be enacted, arguments can be made for the presence of both a certain level of satisfaction, to allow for the
possibility of creative change, and of dissatisfaction, providing a concrete situational stimulus for the change efforts; expectedly, such
mixed predictions can depress the strength of the prediction of OCB-CH. In fact, this line of argumentation is adduced by Frese et al.
(1997) in their pioneering study on personal initiative, leading them to posit a null relationship between personal initiative and job
satisfaction (“there is no relationship”: 146). To advance beyond job satisfaction and cognitive calculations, other researchers con
trasted calculative (“cost-benefit analyses”) and spontaneous (“intense affective experiences”) predictors and called for additional
research (Grant & Ashford, 2008: 23). Overall, based on the actionable – and potentially affect-based – undertone of OCB-CH, we expect
for affect to be a better predictor of OCB-CH, compared to job satisfaction.
From another direction, the FFM personality traits have also been examined in relation to OCB-CH (e.g., Chiaburu et al., 2011;
Chiaburu et al., 2018). The extent to which individuals are open to experience or conscientious can predispose them to either embrace
or reject change due to their mental schemas and attitudes, both of which are anchored cognitively (Organ & Konovsky, 1989).
Further, the FFM traits related to OCB-CH (e.g., openness and conscientiousness) lack the “hot” properties of affective states that are
used as a basis to propel individuals toward action and change. Similar to the argument presented above for job satisfaction, this
suggests that affect should be positioned as a stronger predictor of OCB-CH than the FFM traits (and job satisfaction, both of which
influence OCB via cognition-based pathways). Accordingly, we expect affect (as a composite of both positive affect and negative affect) to
predict OCB-CH above and beyond (a) job satisfaction and (b) the FFM traits (as a composite).
2.3. Relationships with a broader set of citizenship outcomes
As evident from the above arguments, our predictions are focused on OCB-CH. Yet employee effectiveness consists of other
5
established work effectiveness outcomes, including traditional (affiliative) forms of citizenship (directed at other individuals and at the
organization; OCB-I, OCB-O; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Even though we do not provide formal predictions for affiliative OCB (OCB-I
and -O) by our tripartite predictor set (affect, job satisfaction, and the FFM traits), we report results for completeness and, possibly,
contrast.
3. Methods
The model we tested (Fig. 1) is based on a meta-analytic correlation matrix (Table 1), which consists of (i) six new meta-analytic
effect sizes connecting positive and negative affect with all three main forms of citizenship (OCB-I, -O, and -CH) reported in Table 2 and
on (ii) other existing meta-analytic effect sizes connecting the FFM and job satisfaction to the three forms of OCB (see Chiaburu et al.,
2011) and connecting the predictors to one another (e.g., Park et al., 2020). That is, both new and existing meta-analytic effect sizes,
given their comprehensiveness and psychometric comparability (e.g., non-self-reported OCB), are used to populate the meta-analytic
correlation matrix in Table 1 (see Table 1's footnote for more details). Below, we describe the literature search and coding procedures
for our new meta-analyses.
3.1. Literature search and inclusion criteria
We used several methods to identify relevant studies for inclusion. First, we searched for published studies using the PsycINFO and
Business Source Complete databases. A range of keywords was identified for the predictor, including but not limited to: negative/
positive affect, Positive and Negative Affect Schedule or PANAS (a measure of the affect trait; Watson et al., 1988). For the outcomes,
our first task was to connect positive and negative affect with OCB-CH. To find primary studies examining OCB-CH as an outcome, we
based our search on the dimensions reported by Chiaburu et al. (2013) (see their Table 1). A separate task was to find primary studies
assessing the relationship between positive and negative affect and traditional (affiliative) forms of citizenship (OCB-I and -O). Second,
we reviewed references of recent meta-analyses with relevant constructs (e.g., Kaplan et al., 2009; Baas et al., 2008) and manually
searched articles in the references to determine whether they included our relationships of interest. Third, a search for dissertations
through ProQuest Digital Dissertations was conducted, along with identifications of conference paper proceedings through Google
Scholar. We finally accumulated more than 50 relevant studies with criteria of affiliative citizenship behaviors (OCB-I and -O) out
comes and more than 100 studies for OCB-CH for further screening.
To be included in the meta-analysis, a primary study had to report (a) the correlation coefficient or statistics that can be trans
formed to an effect size and (b) examine a relationship between positive/negative affect and at least one of our three criteria (e.g., OCB-
I, OCB-O, and OCB-CH; the coding mechanism is discussed below) and (c) measure the outcome construct using a non-self-reported
source (typically, a supervisor), to avoid common method bias (Cooper et al., 2020) and to be consistent with relevant prior
research (e.g., Chiaburu et al., 2011). Given that no previous meta-analysis provided effect sizes based exclusively on non-self-reported
data for the outcomes, we filled the data for the relationships between positive and negative affect and our three OCB dimensions (-CH,
-I, and -O) based on our search for primary studies that met the non-self-report criterion (see Table 1). We excluded studies examining
daily citizenship behaviors using experimental sampling design (e.g., Conway et al., 2009; Glomb et al., 2011; Spence et al., 2014).
Furthermore, facets of OCB had to be teased out in primary studies instead of reporting overall citizenship (e.g., Spence et al., 2014).
Additionally, we excluded studies examining the motives for engaging in citizenship behaviors (using the measure of Citizenship
Motivation Scale; Rioux & Penner, 2001). In line with previous meta-analyses, we included employee behaviors rather than constructs of
individual traits. This led to the exclusion of proactive personality – a trait – as a citizenship dimension. Overall, we included 87
bivariate relationships for affect and OCB-I, OCB-O, and OCB-CH.
Table 2
Meta-analytic results for positive affect (PA) predicting organizational citizenship (OCB-CH, OCB-I, OCB-O).
Variable k N r SDr ̂
ρ SD̂ρ CVLL CVUL CILL CIUL %Var
OCB-CH
Positive affect 28 7348 0.24 0.21 0.27 0.24 -0.03 0.58 0.18 0.36 7%
Negative affect 23 5421 − 0.09 0.22 − 0.11 0.24 − 0.42 0.21 − 0.21 0.00 9%
OCB-I
Positive affect 12 2700 0.15 0.09 0.17 0.07 0.08 0.26 0.12 0.23 53%
Negative affect 7 1453 − 0.08 0.06 − 0.09 0.00 − 0.09 − 0.09 − 0.14 − 0.04 100%
OCB-O
Positive affect 9 1681 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.15 − 0.02 0.36 0.07 0.28 25%
Negative affect 6 904 − 0.15 0.06 − 0.17 0.00 − 0.17 − 0.17 − 0.24 − 0.11 100%
Note. k = number of statistically independent samples; N = total sample size; r = sample-size-weighted mean observed (uncorrected) correlation; SDr
= sample-size-weighted standard deviation of observed correlations; ̂ρ = mean true-score correlation (estimated population correlation); SD̂ρ = true
standard deviation (estimated population standard deviation); CVLL and CVUL = lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 80% credibility interval.
CILL and CIUL = lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 95% confidence interval; %Var = percentage of the variance in individually corrected
correlations for measurement error that is attributable to sampling error variance. OCB-I: Individual-directed OCB; OCB-O: Organization-directed
OCB; OCB-CH: Change-oriented OCB.
6
3.2. Coding procedure
For predictors, we coded both state and dispositional positive/negative affect because there is a lack of consistency in terms of the
time frame in differentiating state vs. dispositional affect across studies. For example, the cutoff for state vs. trait was four weeks in Steel
et al. (2008) vs. one week in Thoresen et al. (2003). Our coding decision is in line with the meta-analysis of Shockley et al. (2012),
where there was no statistically significant difference in the relationship of the state vs. trait affect predictors and OCB.
For outcomes, drawing on current literature (e.g., Choi, 2007; Coleman & Borman, 2000; Van Dyne et al., 1995), we examined
three categories of OCBs: OCB-I, OCB-O and OCB-CH. In addition to coding isomorphic measures for the OCB facets, respectively (e.g.,
OCB-I and OCB-O; Lee & Allen, 2002), we coded constructs such as altruism, helping, coworker support, and individual consideration
as OCB-I and civic virtue, compliance, and sportsmanship as OCB-O. Proactive behaviors, taking charge, creativity, voice, innovative
performance, and personal initiative were classified into the OCB-CH category (e.g., Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007; George & Zhou,
2002). However, we did not include silence as the converse of voice as meta-analytic evidence shows that they are distinct from each
other (̂ρ = − 0.15, k = 22; Sherf et al., in press). Coding was done independently by the fifth and sixth coauthors to ensure coding
accuracy. The initial agreement rate was 96.67% (=493/510). Coding discrepancies (e.g., minor typos, sign of correlations) were
solved through double-checking original studies, discussions among the coauthors, and further consultation with the other coauthors.
The main codes and input values for the primary studies included in the current meta-analysis are provided in Appendix A.
3.3. Meta-analytic techniques
We used Schmidt and Hunter's (2015) psychometric random-effects meta-analysis method. The sample-weighted mean uncorrected
correlations (r) were reported along with the estimated mean population/true-score correlations (̂ ρ ) obtained by correcting each effect
size for measurement error individually using local reliability (coefficient alpha in most cases) estimates (if unavailable, mean reli
ability based on the rest of primary studies). The mean reliability based on all available primary studies is 0.83 [SD = 0.12, k = 39] for
positive affect; 0.81 [SD = 0.06, k = 30] for negative affect; 0.87 [SD = 0.05, k = 16] for OCB-I; 0.83 [SD = 0.06, k = 10] for OCB-O;
0.91 [SD = 0.06, k = 35] for OCB-CH. The sample-weighted standard deviations of observed correlations were reported along with the
estimated population/true-score standard deviations used in constructing the 80% credibility interval. Additionally, to ensure the
statistical independence of effect sizes, each sample contributed one meta-analytic estimate to a focal predicted relationship either by
using a composite or mean correlation. The standard error of the sample-weighted mean correlation was computed using the formula
in Whitener (1990) and used to compute the 95% confidence interval representing the accuracy of the estimated mean population
correlation. The 80% credibility interval representing the dispersion around the estimated mean population correlation was formed by
using the estimated population/true-score standard deviations. The percentage of the variance in individually corrected correlations
for measurement error attributable to sampling error variance was reported; the lower percentage, along with the wide 80% credibility
interval, suggests the potential existence of some moderator(s).
3.4. Relative importance analysis
Given (a) that positive and negative affect and their respective FFM counterparts (extraversion and neuroticism) covary and form
the dispositional basis of job satisfaction (Kaplan et al., 2009) and (b) in order to answer whether certain predictors matter more than
others in predicting OCB-CH behaviors, we used Budescu's (1993) general dominance [GD] weights analysis to determine the relative
importance of the FFM, affect, and job satisfaction. In particular, the GD analysis is a useful method to empirically assess the relative
importance of an optimal set of correlated predictors (Braun et al., 2019). Each GD weight refers to that predictor's average incre
mental contribution in the form of squared semi-partial correlation across all possible combinations of predictors, that is “the average
contribution of a predictor to a criterion, both on its own and when taking all other predictors into account” (Braun et al., 2019: 595,
parenthesis added). The GD weights add up to total R2, and their percentage-based GD weights (%GDs) add up to 100%. These features
make the %GD weights appealing as an index of relative importance among an optimal set of predictors. We report the percentage of
general dominance weights (%GD), obtained by dividing individual raw relative weights by the total variance explained and multi
plied by 100, the total R2 (total explained variance). For triangulation purposes, we also report relative importance indices calculated
via hierarchical regression analysis – i.e., standardized regression (beta) weights and the incremental R for each of the FFM traits,
positive and negative affect, and job satisfaction above and beyond the others as done in prior research (Chiaburu et al., 2011). Table 1
served as input to the analyses mentioned above and includes a meta-analytic matrix connecting our predictors, including (a) positive
and negative affect, (b) FFM personality traits, and (c) job satisfaction with the outcomes: all three major OCB dimensions including
OCB-I, OCB-O, and OCB-CH; the shaded cells were derived from this study (detailed results are in Table 2).
4. Results
Before reporting our expected results, we highlight the overall pattern of meta-analytic effect sizes for the relationships between
our two predictors (positive and negative affect) and our three outcomes (OCB-CH, -I, and -O). As we noted at the outset, one
contribution of our meta-analysis is to provide meta-analytic effect sizes based on non-self-reported data for these relationships, given
that these effect sizes are not provided in previous meta-analyses. As presented in Table 2 and Fig. 2, the cumulative evidence shows a
positive mean corrected correlation (i.e., the estimated mean population correlation) between positive affect and OCB-CH ( ρ̂ = 0.27, k
7
= 28, N = 7348, 95% CI = 0.18, 0.36 and 80% CV = − 0.03, 0.58) and a negative mean corrected correlation between negative affect
and OCB-CH (̂ ρ = − 0.11, k = 23, N = 5421, 95% CI = − 0.21, − 0.00, and 80% CV = − 0.42, 0.21).
To summarize our findings in a more concise manner, Fig. 2 presents our plotted corrected mean correlations connecting positive
and negative affect with all three outcomes. Positive affect has the largest effect size in magnitude when predicting OCB-CH (̂
ρ = 0.27),
compared with when predicting OCB-I and OCB-O (̂ ρ = 0.17 for both). The relationship between negative affect and OCB-CH (̂ρ =
− 0.11) is closer in magnitude to the relationship between negative affect and OCB-I (̂ ρ = − 0.09) than for negative affect and OCB-O (̂ρ
= − 0.17). Further, positive (vs. negative) affect is larger in magnitude for OCB-CH (0.27 vs. 11; effect sizes as absolute values) and for
OCB-I (0.17 vs. 0.09) compared with OCB-O (0.17 for both positive and negative affect). The above results are qualified and extended
by what we further show in Table 3: even in the presence of other predictors (e.g., FFM traits and job satisfaction), positive affect has a
significant positive relationship with OCB-CH (β = 0.22; %GD = 43%); however, negative affect has a non-significant negative
relationship with OCB-CH (β = − 0.03; %GD = 4%). These results support our theory-based expectations stated at the outset for
positive affect but not for negative affect. Comparisons with OCB-I and -O are, again, instructive. There is a significant effect that is
much weaker for the relationship between positive affect and OCB-I (β = 0.09; %GD = 10%) and OCB-O (β = 0.12; %GD = 10%). Both
negative affect relationships are significant, with the one predicting OCB-CH (β = − 0.03; %GD = 4%) of a bit lower magnitude to the
one predicting OCB-O (β = − 0.05; %GD = 7%). Interestingly, despite their negative correlation (̂ ρ = − 0.09 as shown in Table 3), the
beta weight of negative affect for OCB-I is positive (β = 0.10; %GD = 3%), a case of statistical suppression; the total explained variance
is realized only when this positive beta weight is used.
In the final part of this section, we report results based on a direct comparison of (a) affect (positive and negative, taken together),
(b) job satisfaction, and (c) the FFM traits (based on all five traits). We used the meta-analytic matrix reported in Table 1 as input for
testing this last prediction set. As noted above, we posited that affect (as a composite of both positive and negative affect) would predict
OCB-CH over-and-above the other two predictors. As presented in Table 3 (and summarized in Fig. 3), we found support for the
expected relationship. The GD weights analysis results show that positive and negative affect together explain a total of 47% of the
explained variance in OCB-CH (compared with 31% for FFM personality traits and 23% for job satisfaction). Comparatively, combined
affect comes in last, with 13% and 17% (respectively) in the prediction of OCB-I and -O, superseded by attitude (job satisfaction; 31%
for both) and, more importantly, by the combination of FFM personality traits (57% and 52%). The hierarchical regression analysis
results show that positive and negative affect together account for a relatively larger incremental validity (ΔR) in OCB-CH above and
beyond FFM traits and job satisfaction (ΔR = 0.016) than the incremental contribution of FFM personality traits and of job satisfaction
(ΔR = 0.011 and 0.008, respectively). For affiliative OCB dimensions, the opposite is true; the incremental R value associated with
positive and negative affect (ΔR = 0.013 for OCB-I; 0.017 for OCB-O) is smaller than the other two incremental R values (ΔR =
0.049–0.087 for OCB-I; 0.053–0.102 for OCB-O; see the lower panel of Table 3. These two sets of analyses suggest that affect is the most
important driver of OCB-CH, whereas affect is the least important driver of OCB-I and -O (FFM traits being the most important).
5. Discussion
Our meta-analysis extends research on positive and negative affect, heretofore connected only to task performance and overall
affiliative OCB (Kaplan et al., 2009; Organ & Ryan, 1995), by further providing effect sizes linking (a) affect with OCB-CH and (b) with
two dimensions of affiliative OCB. Such clarifications are important given the prominence of affect in theoretical models of proactivity
True-score Correlations of PA and NA with

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB-CH, -I, and -O)
.11 Negative affect

OCB-CH
Positive affect .27
.09
OCB-I
.17
.17
OCB-O
.17
.00 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35
Fig. 2. True-score correlations of PA and NA with organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB-CH, -I, and -O).
Note. For symmetry, values for negative affect are depicted using their absolute values, while being reported using their true scores in Table 2 (e.g.,
− 0.11 for negative affect to OCB-CH).
8
Table 3
Meta-analytic general dominance of FFM traits, affect, and job satisfaction in predicting OCB-I, OCB-O, and OCB-CH.
Predictors OCB-CHa OCB-Ib OCB-O c
β GD %GD β GD %GD β GD %GD
FFM traits
Conscientiousness 0.03 0.003 3% 0.09* 0.019 17% 0.04* 0.010 7%
Neuroticism 0.04 0.002 2% − 0.09* 0.007 6% − 0.01 0.004 3%
Agreeableness − 0.13* 0.009 8% 0.09* 0.014 12% 0.09* 0.013 9%
Extraversion − 0.04 0.006 5% − 0.11* 0.004 3% − 0.23* 0.015 11%
Openness 0.13* 0.014 13% 0.15* 0.021 18% 0.21* 0.031 22%
Affect
Positive affect 0.22* 0.047 43% 0.09* 0.011 10% 0.12* 0.014 10%
Negative affect − 0.03 0.004 4% 0.10* 0.003 3% − 0.05* 0.010 7%
Attitude
Job satisfaction 0.15* 0.025 23% 0.20* 0.036 31% 0.22* 0.044 31%
Total R 0.100 0.339 0.376
ΔRAffect over FFM and JS 0.016 0.013 0.017
ΔRJS over FFM and Affect 0.008 0.049 0.053
ΔRFFM over Affect and JS 0.011 0.087 0.102
Note. The meta-analytic input matrix is presented in Table 1. β = standardized regression coefficients; GD = General dominance weight (Budescu,
1993); %GD = percentage of general dominance weight calculated by dividing individual general dominance weight by their sum (total R2) and
multiplying by 100 (GDs add up to R2 and %GDs add up to 100%, respectively); ΔR Affect over FFM and JS: change in R due to adding Affect over FFM traits
and Job satisfaction; ΔR JS over FFM and Affect: change in R due to adding Job satisfaction over FFM traits and Affect; ΔR FFM over Affect and JS: change in R
due to adding FFM traits over Affect and Job satisfaction.
a
Harmonic mean N = 6938.
b
c
*
p < .05, two-tailed.
Percent-based General Dominance Weights Comparisons: Affect, Job Satisfaction, and

FFM Traits Predicting Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB-CH, -I, and -O)
Affect 47%
OCB-CH 23% Job Satisfaction
31% FFM Traits
13%
OCB-I 31%
57%
17%
OCB-O 31%
52%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Fig. 3. Percent-based general dominance weights comparisons: affect, job satisfaction, and FFM traits predicting organizational citizenship be
haviors (OCB-CH, -I, and -O).
Note. (a) Affect is a composite of positive affect and negative affect, (b) job satisfaction, and (c) the FFM traits in combination.
(Bindl & Parker, 2010; Parker et al., 2010). Second, by embedding positive and negative affect in a richer predictor set (including job
satisfaction and FFM personality traits), we extend prior meta-analyses where only two of these sets of predictors were compared (e.g.,
Chiaburu et al., 2011). Our findings can also clarify the relationship between OCB-CH and negative affect. Whereas some researchers
suggested that negative affect could be conducive to outcomes belonging to the OCB-CH domain (Bindl & Parker, 2010; To et al.,
2012), our results do not support this assertion (at least in a linear fashion). As we elaborate below, future research is necessary to have
a greater understanding of how and why negative affect enhances OCB-CH and when it acts as a deterrent. Finally, this research
contributes to the organizational change literature, because OCB-CH and its dimensions (e.g., voice, personal initiative, taking charge)
fit into the structure of constructs used to explain organizational change initiatives.
9
5.1. Theoretical implications
A first contribution is providing precise effect sizes for the relationship between positive and negative affect and OCB-CH. Even
though affect is considered essential for OCB-CH and proactivity (e.g., Bindl & Parker, 2010), without meta-analyzing effect sizes
across primary studies it is difficult to estimate just how large such influences may be. Other researchers connected positive affect with
typical (task, or in-role) performance in domains as diverse as labor economics and psychology, using various methods from experience
sampling to experiments to correlational studies (Oswald et al., 2015). Closer to our outcomes of interest, Kaplan et al. (2009) provided
meta-analytic estimates connecting positive and negative affect (both as a “trait”) with task performance and citizenship (yet, unlike
the current study, they did not break OCB down into OCB-I, OCB-O, and OCB-CH, and they mixed self- and non-self-ratings of OCB).
Comparing the strength of the correlations between positive and negative affect and OCB, our study shows somewhat larger effect sizes
between affect and OCB-CH (0.27 for positive affect and –0.11 for negative affect) than those between affect and traditional/affiliative
forms of citizenship (OCB-I and -O in combination) reported by Kaplan et al. (2009) (0.23 for positive affect and − 0.10 for negative
affect). We also provide, for researchers whose theoretical predictions are based on non-self- (or other-) reported data, new effect sizes
for the relationship between positive affect and other-reported OCB-I and OCB-O (0.17 for both) and between negative affect and
other-reported ratings of OCB-I and OCB-O (− 0.09 and − 0.17, respectively) that were lower than the corresponding effect sizes re
ported in Kaplan et al. (2009). In another meta-analysis, Shockley et al. (2012) examined the relationships between positive and
negative affect (both as a “state”) and OCB. However, similar to Kaplan et al. (2009), they also did not zoom into OCB components and
mixed self- and other-ratings. Likewise, Chiaburu et al. (2011) focused on only two predictors, job satisfaction and FFM traits. Even
though their OCB criterion is as broad as ours, including both affiliative (OCB-I and -O) and OCB-CH, their model is limited as it did not
include affect as a predictor. Apart from the broader meta-analytic model and results presented here, additional research is warranted
for these relationships, for empirical (increasing the number of primary studies) and theoretical reasons, as discussed below.
Overall, our results suggest that OCB-CH is more prominently triggered by affect, and provide preliminary support for the above-
mentioned framework of cognition (‘cold,’ knowledge-related) vs. affect (‘hot,’ action-related) processes that can propel change
(Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Classic ‘good soldier’ forms of citizenship (OCB-I and -O) are more likely triggered by cognitive processes
that are evaluative in nature and could be better explained by using theories related to dispositions and social exchange theory.
Conversely, OCB-CH is generated and maintained to a greater extent by affect-driven processes. Such explanations extend prior research
(i.e., meta-analyses) whereby OCB-CH was predicted by agentic traits from the FFM (extraversion and openness; Chiaburu et al., 2011)
and by proactivity (conceptualized as a “proactive personality” trait; Marinova et al., 2015).
Second, for affiliative citizenship behaviors (OCB-I and -O), our relative importance comparison of affect, job satisfaction, and the
FFM reveals an interesting pattern, with the FFM (combined) emerging as the main predictor followed by job satisfaction (second
place) and affect (third place). For OCB-CH, the relative importance analysis indicates that positive and negative affect combined are
indeed useful, contributing with the highest relative importance in explaining the outcome (47%), with the number coming close to the
relative importance of the other two predictors combined (31% for FFM and 23% for job satisfaction). This is an important finding,
because OCB-CH and proactivity researchers have focused predominantly on the FFM traits as antecedents (Chiaburu et al., 2011;
Crant et al., 2011; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Shalley et al., 2004) and less on affect as a predictor of OCB-CH. As we elaborate below in the
section related to future research directions, affect should be further researched in connection to OCB-CH. A corollary is the poor
predictive power of FFM traits compared to affect, possibly because OCB-CH, given its potential to challenge authorities and disrupt the
status quo, require not only the “stable” tendency/ability to attend to problems in their surroundings (e.g., attention to detail, pref
erence for novelty), but also the “hot and dynamic” impetus to initiate change. While the FFM traits may capture the stable driver of
OCB-CH (Costa & McCrae, 1988), affect is likely to include both its stable and dynamic aspects.
Third, one unexpected finding is the low predictive power of employees' job satisfaction for OCB-CH. While there are reasons for
positive affect to positively predict OCB-CH (based on broaden and build arguments; Bindl & Parker, 2010; Fredrickson, 1998, 2001),
for change to be enacted, some level of dissatisfaction is necessary. One major reason to engage in proactivity is to influence and
control the environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993) via forward-thinking and action (Frese & Fay, 2001). In the absence of such
dissatisfaction, OCB-CH may diminish. Lambert (2000), for example, found that employees' suggestions were – unexpectedly –
diminished when they were supported by their organization, prompting her to speculate that workers “took the organization for
granted” (812). Other research along similar lines reported that high organizational support was associated with lower levels of
employees' taking charge, noting that excessive levels of support for employees could reduce their agency (Burnett et al., 2015). It is,
therefore, possible that high levels of satisfaction and associated perceptions of control may cue employees that their proactivity is not
needed. At the same time, moderate levels of dissatisfaction may fuel, in line with control theory, OCB-CH (see also Parker et al., 2010).
Testing curvilinear and interactive models is therefore warranted, to establish either optimal levels of satisfaction or possible con
tingencies acting on its relationship with OCB-CH.
5.2. Practical implications
While future research is still necessary to understand whether there is a difference between trait affect and state affect for optimal
levels of OCB-CH, our results offer preliminary implications for employee selection and for managerial decisions. With affect emerging
as a clear “winner” compared with job satisfaction and the FFM traits, managers who desire high levels of OCB-CH are at an advantage
if they assess their employees' state affect (for promotion and intervention purposes). More speculatively (because it would require
disentangling predictions by state and trait affect), positive affect may be induced, with similar benefits. And if effects at the group-
level are encountered, firms seeking strategic flexibility (and thus striving to retain competitive advantage) may benefit from hiring
10
individuals high in trait affect and also look for ways to increase state affect, as we noted. Evidently, employees in organizations may be
subject to different utility functions for their overall effectiveness, requiring unique combinations of optimal task performance,
affiliative OCB (OCB-I and -O), and change-oriented OCB (OCB-CH). In such situations, if selection strategies are to be employed, a
combination of affect and the FFM traits would work better than relying on either of them separately, and additional meta-analytic
effect sizes need to be adduced from existing meta-analyses for task performance (Kaplan et al., 2009; Shockley et al., 2012).
5.3. Study limitations
This study has several limitations. First, we could not examine interactions among the predictors because of the insufficient number
of studies providing such data. Second, small numbers of studies for some of the relationships in the meta-analytic correlation table
may point toward a need for future research examining scarcely-studied relationships (e.g., between other-reported ratings of OCB-I
and OCB-O and negative affect). Third, longitudinal and quasi-experimental studies being unavailable, we cannot confidently state
cause-and-effect connections, an issue to be addressed in future studies.
Despite limitations, this research has a number of strengths. First, we address an important issue in the proactivity literature, where
theoretical models connect affect with proactive behaviors (Bindl & Parker, 2010; Parker et al., 2010), without having as counterpart a
meta-analysis integrating results from primary studies. Second, we compare a richer predictor set, including the FFM traits, job
satisfaction and affect, connected with a comprehensive set of citizenship behaviors (OCB-CH, -I, and -O). Finally, we use two sets of
relative importance tests for triangulation, to account for the inter-correlation among the predictors. This is important for our specific
set of predictors, and especially for some of the high correlations (e.g., negative affect and neuroticism have a strong positive asso
ciation, ̂
ρ = 0.64; see Table 1).
5.4. Future research directions
One issue to be examined concerning positive and negative affect is their simultaneous effect, or their succession. Lack of primary
studies examining positive affect in conjunction with negative effect precluded any analysis of their joint effect. Yet models where their
joint effect is considered are needed. The “affective shift” dynamics reported by Bledow et al. (2013) for creativity, could extend to
OCB-CH. Specifically, creativity (and possibly other forms of OCB-CH) is triggered by negative followed by positive affect. More
precisely, Bledow et al. (2013) found that high levels of creativity were prompted by an “episode of negative affect that is followed by a
decrease in negative affect and an increase in positive affect” (432). Emotional ambivalence can be predictive as well given that in
dividuals experiencing two opposing emotions (happiness and sadness in this instance) are more likely to recognize relationships
between two concepts that were unusual, a precursor to creativity (Fong, 2006). Overall, dynamic models are necessary, where the
state aspect of affect is clearly theorized and captured in corresponding research designs. In addition to this simultaneity, researchers
can take advantage of existing meta-analytic results whereby discrete positive and negative emotions are shown to be connected
differentially to OCBs (e.g., envy emerging as the most deleterious negative emotion for OCB; Shockley et al., 2012).
Other possible extensions have to do with employees' engagement in OCB-CH based on their momentary affective states. Expe
rience sampling studies can capture such momentary changes, including the degree of activation, shown to be important for our
outcome, as it may be important not only to have ideas, but also to develop them and find support for their execution (Madrid et al.,
2014). Resilience-generating, refocusing, and resource-enhancing aspects of change may be better captured by day-level studies
because, as researchers noted, when the behaviors fluctuate and depend on other conditions, results based on between-individual
designs can be “highly questionable” (Ohly et al., 2010: 79; see also Sonnentag, 2015). Meta-analyses also show a large amount of
intra-individual variance (39.5% for positive affect and 53.2% for negative affect) not captured in between-person designs (Shockley
et al., 2012; see also McCormick et al., 2020). New theoretical and methodological developments allow researchers not only to
measure momentary positive and negative affect (as states), as proposed here, but also momentary personality states (Huang & Ryan,
2011) and momentary job satisfaction (Simon et al., 2010), thus generating a more complex comparison than provided in this research.
In addition, the weak relationship between negative affect and OCB-CH (̂ ρ = − 0.11) can be revisited by using a framework that
combines repeated assessments of negative affect in its various forms (Ng et al., 2019), adopting longer periods of time, and
considering curvilinear effects. It is also possible for one or several (negative) discrete emotions to be responsible (Shockley et al.,
2012), which can be uncovered by zooming in on discrete emotions beyond assessing broad (negative) affect.
A characteristic of this research is its focus on ‘micro’ dimensions, including affect and personality traits, without accounting (other
than via the inclusion of job satisfaction) for the fact that employees are constrained by particular job, social, and organizational
contexts when they decide to enact OCB-CH. First, from a relative importance analysis standpoint, future research may be able to
examine with more precision how a broader factor such as “morale” (as posited in the OCB-related literature; Organ, 1997, and
including more than job satisfaction) fares against the two other predictors examined in this study. Second, integrations are possible,
by drawing correspondences between affect and job characteristics, given that other meta-analyses have provided information about
the role of job characteristics in predicting OCB-CH (Marinova et al., 2015). Predictably, Marinova et al. found that enriched jobs (high
in task significance, autonomy, and complexity) are associated with OCB-CH. Yet it is possible for a self-selection process to operate,
with employees higher in positive affect actively seeking these jobs (or actively attempting to change these job dimensions to better
match their affect and its consequences). Future research, then, is needed to disentangle the influence of individual (e.g., affect) and
contextual (e.g., job design characteristics) factors (Starzyk & Sonnentag, 2019).
11
6. Conclusion
Our research sought to meta-analytically establish positive and negative affect as a meaningful predictor of OCB-CH and pit it
against the established predictors of the FFM and job satisfaction. Our findings supported affect as a better predictor of OCB-CH than
the FFM and job satisfaction, suggesting affect should occupy a more prominent role in the relevant literature and practice. However,
our findings also suggest that affect plays a non-negligible role in enacting affiliative OCB, while controlling for the FFM and job
satisfaction. Overall, our findings render support to both the “happy to help” and “happy to change” notions, but the latter is more
strongly supported than the former. Future research may attempt to better understand the mechanisms through which affect propels or
impedes change via OCB-CH. From a practical perspective, change is inevitable, and firms that wish to succeed and sustain a
competitive advantage must be able to respond to various changes and sometimes initiate them, both efficiently and effectively.
Focusing on affect as a micro-foundation of change is, as we demonstrated, one important option.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Dan Chiaburu, In-Sue Oh, and Adam Stoverink initiated and conceptualized the research. Cody Bradley and Brenda Barros-Rivera
identified and coded relevant input studies under the supervision of Adam Stoverink. HyeSoo (Hailey) Park analyzed data and
tabulated the results under the supervision of In-Sue Oh. Dan Chiaburu and In-Sue Oh took the lead on writing and revising the paper
with the assistance of the other authors.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Main codes and input values for the primary studies included in the meta-analysis on positive and negative
affect (PA and NA) and OCBs (OCB-CH, OCB-I, and OCB-O)
Source PA/NA OCB n r rxx ryy
Abdelmotaleb et al. (2018) PA CH 208 0.55 0.85 0.95

Alessandri et al. (2012) PA I 372 0.13 0.85 0.82
Alessandri et al. (2012) PA O 372 0.09 0.85 0.82
Amabile et al. (2005) PA CH 222 0.18 0.79 0.81
Baranik and Eby (2016) PA I 301 0.10 0.79 0.85
Bolino et al. (2015) NA CH 273 − 0.01 0.90 0.96
Bolino and Turnley (2005) NA CH 98 0.04 0.87 0.91
Brant (2018) (Sample 2) PA I 30 − 0.11 0.91 0.87
Brant (2018) (Sample 2) NA I 30 − 0.40 0.85 0.87
Brant (2018) (Sample 2) PA O 30 0.07 0.91 0.74
Brant (2018) (Sample 2) NA O 30 − 0.20 0.85 0.74
Carlson et al. (2013) PA I 205 0.30 0.83 0.88
Carlson et al. (2013) PA O 205 0.33 0.83 0.79
Deery et al. (2017) NA I 79 − 0.18 0.79 0.87
Deery et al. (2017) NA O 79 − 0.27 0.79 0.88
Den Hartog and Belschak (2007) (Sample 2) NA CH 80 − 0.03 0.84 0.92
Den Hartog and Belschak (2007) (Sample 2) PA CH 80 0.24 0.86 0.92
Fluegge-Woolf (2014) PA CH 205 0.29 0.93 0.97
Fritz et al. (2010) NA CH 107 − 0.19 0.84 0.90
Gardner and Pierce (2010) PA CH 212 0.17 0.91 0.94
George (1991) PA I 169 0.25 0.87 0.93
George and Zhou (2002) NA CH 161 0.08 0.80 0.94
George and Zhou (2002) PA CH 161 0.11 0.82 0.94
George and Zhou (2002) NA CH 67 0.03 0.79 0.98
George and Zhou (2002) PA CH 67 0.23 0.91 0.98
Gilmore et al. (2013) PA CH 212 0.20 0.85 0.89
Gong and Zhang (2017) NA CH 264 0.50 0.88 0.92
Gong and Zhang (2017) PA CH 264 0.41 0.87 0.92
Grant et al. (2009) NA CH 103 − 0.24 0.80 0.79
Hong et al. (2016) PA CH 664 0.28 0.93 0.93
Huang and Huang (2016) NA CH 272 − 0.13 0.85 0.83
(continued on next page)
12
(continued )
Huang and Huang (2016) PA CH 272 0.05 0.76 0.83

Janssen et al. (2010) PA I 241 0.25 0.84 0.93
Janssen et al. (2010) NA I 241 − 0.08 0.81 0.93
Janssen et al. (2010) PA O 241 0.19 0.84 0.89
Janssen et al. (2010) NA O 241 − 0.14 0.81 0.89
Jiang and Law (2013) PA I 149 0.20 0.83 0.79

Jiang and Law (2013) PA O 149 0.19 0.83 0.80
Kiewitz et al. (2016) NA CH 143 − 0.48 0.75 0.92
Lam et al. (2014) (Sample 2) NA CH 128 − 0.04 0.83 0.97
Lam et al. (2014) (Sample 2) PA CH 128 − 0.07 0.85 0.97
Lebel (2016) (Sample 1) NA CH 183 − 0.16 0.86 0.87
Lee (2014) NA CH 207 − 0.06 0.84 0.97
Lee and Allen (2002) PA I 149 0.18 0.83 0.83
Lee and Allen (2002) NA I 149 − 0.02 0.81 0.83
Lee and Allen (2002) PA O 149 0.24 0.83 0.88
Lee and Allen (2002) NA O 149 − 0.05 0.81 0.88
Li et al. (2014) PA CH 283 0.21 0.91 0.80
Liang and Gong (2013) NA CH 169 − 0.05 0.78 0.76
Liu et al. (2017) PA CH 248 0.08 0.92 0.90
Liu et al. (2017) NA CH 640 0.00 0.83 0.79
Liu et al. (2017) PA CH 640 0.11 0.95 0.79
Madjar et al. (2002) NA CH 265 − 0.07 0.69 0.99
Madjar et al. (2002) PA CH 265 0.20 0.71 0.99
Meyer et al. (2012) PA I 180 0.24 0.91 0.91
Meyer et al. (2012) NA I 180 − 0.10 0.89 0.91
Meyer et al. (2012) PA O 180 0.30 0.91 0.92
Meyer et al. (2012) NA O 180 − 0.19 0.89 0.92
Moorman et al. (1993) PA I 225 − 0.03 0.81 0.81
Moorman et al. (1993) NA I 225 − 0.03 0.77 0.81
Moorman et al. (1993) PA O 225 − 0.16 0.81 0.87
Moorman et al. (1993) NA O 225 − 0.13 0.77 0.87
Ng and Feldman (2009) NA CH 162 − 0.13 0.92 0.93
Ngand Feldman (2009) PA CH 162 0.87 0.21 0.93
Parke et al. (2015) PA CH 129 0.10 0.78 0.96
Rego et al. (2012) NA CH 595 − 0.53 0.80 0.97
Rego et al. (2012) PA CH 595 0.60 0.88 0.97
Rego et al. (2012) PA CH 219 0.59 0.82 0.94
Rioux and Penner (2001) PA O 130 0.12 0.92 0.79
Rioux and Penner (2001) PA I 130 0.10 0.92 0.81
Schmitt et al. (2015) NA CH 138 − 0.21 0.77 0.93
Schmitt et al. (2015) PA CH 138 0.41 0.85 0.93
Schraub (2011) NA CH 83 0.10 0.71 0.89
Schraub (2011) PA CH 83 0.30 0.75 0.89
Schraub et al. (2014) PA CH 300 0.10 0.72 0.89
Smith et al. (2016) PA I 549 0.10 0.88 0.94
Smith et al. (2016) NA I 549 − 0.07 0.79 0.94
Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) NA CH 640 − 0.04 0.70 0.95

Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) PA CH 640 − 0.03 0.82 0.95
Tavares (2016) (Sample 1) PA CH 170 0.29 0.83 0.94
Thundiyil et al. (2016) NA CH 459 − 0.02 0.87 0.97
Thundiyil et al. (2016) PA CH 459 0.18 0.88 0.97
Venkataramani and Tangirala (2010) NA CH 184 − 0.17 0.74 0.90
Venkataramani and Tangirala (2010) PA CH 184 − 0.03 0.70 0.90
Wu (2013) PA CH 138 0.53 0.91 0.79
Note. PA = Positive Affect; NA = Negative Affect; OCB-I: Individual-directed OCB; OCB-O: Organization-directed OCB; OCB-CH: Change-oriented
OCB; n = sample size; r = observed correlation coefficient; rxx = predictor reliability; ryy = criterion reliability.
13
References
**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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024004
**Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time
sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305–325. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20786077
**Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.869
**Ilies, R., Fulmer, I. S., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. D. (2009). Personality and citizenship behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 945–959. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013329
**Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530
**Kaplan, S., Bradley, J. C., Luchman, J. N., & Haynes, D. (2009). On the role of positive and negative affectivity in job performance: A meta-analytic investigation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013115
**Park, H.(. H.)., Wiernik, B. M., Oh, I.-S., Gonzalez-Mulé, E., Ones, D. S., & Lee, Y. (2020). Meta-analytic five-factor model personality intercorrelations: Eeny, meeny,
miney, moe, how, which, why, and where to go. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105, 1490–1529. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000476
**Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013079
**Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138–161. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138
**Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic
review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.914
*Abdelmotaleb, M., Metwally, A. B. E. M., & Saha, S. K. (2018). Exploring the impact of being perceived as a socially responsible organization on employee creativity.
Management Decision, 56, 2325–2340. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2017-0552
*Alessandri, G., Vecchione, M., Tisak, J., Deiana, G., Caria, S., & Caprara, G. V. (2012). The utility of positive orientation in predicting job performance and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Applied Psychology, 61, 669–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00511.x
*Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403. https://doi.org/
10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367
*Baranik, L. E., & Eby, L. (2016). Organizational citizenship behaviors and employee depressed mood, burnout, and satisfaction with health and life. Personnel Review,
45, 626–642. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-03-2014-0066
*Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and
work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.740
*Bolino, M. C., Hsiung, H. H., Harvey, J., & LePine, J. A. (2015). “Well, I’m tired of tryin’!” Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 100, 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037583
*Brant, K. K. (2018). Entitlement in the workplace. Florida Atlantic University. Doctoral dissertation.
*Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Grzywacz, J. G., Tepper, B., & Whitten, D. (2013). Work-family balance and supervisor appraised citizenship behavior: The link of
positive affect. Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management, 14, 87–106. https://doi.org/10.21818/001c.17924
*Deery, S., Rayton, B., Walsh, J., & Kinnie, N. (2017). The costs of exhibiting organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management, 56, 1039–1049.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21815
*Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2007). Personal initiative, commitment and affect at work. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 80, 601–622.
https://doi.org/10.1348/096317906x171442
*Fluegge-Woolf, E. R. (2014). Play hard, work hard: Fun at work and job performance. Management Research Review, 37, 682–705. https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-11-
2012-0252
*Fritz, C., Yankelevich, M., Zarubin, A., & Barger, P. (2010). Happy, healthy, and productive: The role of detachment from work during nonwork time. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95, 977–983. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019462
*Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (2010). The core self-evaluation scale: Further construct validation evidence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 291–304.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409344505
*George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.76.2.299
*George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don't: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 687–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.687
*George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee
creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 605–622. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.25525934
*Gilmore, P. L., Hu, X., Wei, F., Tetrick, L. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2013). Positive affectivity neutralizes transformational leadership's influence on creative performance
and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 1061–1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1833
*Gong, Z., & Zhang, N. (2017). Using a feedback environment to improve creative performance: A dynamic affect perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1398–1409.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01398
*Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel
Psychology, 62, 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.01128.x
*Hong, Y., Liao, H., Raub, S., & Han, J. H. (2016). What it takes to get proactive: An integrative multilevel model of the antecedents of personal initiative. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 101, 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000064
*Huang, L., & Huang, W. (2016). Interactional justice and employee silence: The roles of procedural justice and affect. Social Behavior and Personality: An International
Journal, 44, 837–852. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.5.837
*Janssen, O., Lam, C. K., & Huang, X. (2010). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The moderating roles of distributive justice and positive affect. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 31, 787–809. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.614
*Jiang, J. Y., & Law, K. S. (2013). Two parallel mechanisms of the relationship between justice perceptions and employees' citizenship behaviour: A comparison of the
organizational identification and social exchange perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1359432x.2012.658157
*Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Shoss, M. K., Garcia, P. R. J. M., & Tang, R. L. (2016). Suffering in silence: Investigating the role of fear in the relationship between
abusive supervision and defensive silence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 731–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000074
*Lam, C. F., Spreitzer, G., & Fritz, C. (2014). Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear effect of positive affect on proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
35, 530–546. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1906
*Lebel, R. D. (2016). Overcoming the fear factor: How perceptions of supervisor openness lead employees to speak up when fearing external threat. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 135, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.001
*Lee, K. Y. (2014). When and how does workplace envy promote job performance? A study on the conditions and mechanisms for the functional role of envy in workplace
behavior. University of Minnesota. Doctoral dissertation.
*Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
131–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131
14
*Li, J., Wu, L. Z., Liu, D., Kwan, H. K., & Liu, J. (2014). Insiders maintain voice: A psychological safety model of organizational politics. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 31, 853–874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-013-9371-7
*Liang, J., & Gong, Y. (2013). Capitalizing on proactivity for informal mentoring received during early career: The moderating role of core self-evaluations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 34, 1182–1201. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1849
*Liu, W., Song, Z., Li, X., & Liao, Z. (2017). Why and when leaders' affective states influence employee upward voice. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 238–263.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1082
*Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There's no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees’ creative
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 757–767. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069309
*Meyer, J. P., Stanley, L. J., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2012). Employee commitment in context: The nature and implication of commitment profiles. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 80, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.002
*Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01419445
*Parke, M. R., Seo, M.-G., & Sherf, E. N. (2015). Regulating and facilitating: The role of emotional intelligence in maintaining and using positive affect for creativity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 917–934. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038452
*Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & Cunha, M. P. (2012). Optimism predicting employees’ creativity: The mediating role of positive affect and the positivity ratio.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 244–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2010.550679
*Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1306–1314.
*Schmitt, A., Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2015). Is outcome responsibility at work emotionally exhausting? Investigating employee proactivity as a
moderator. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20, 491–500. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039011
*Schraub, E. M. (2011). Affect at work-the impact of emotion regulation on employees' well-being, proactive and adaptive performance. University of Heidelberg. Doctoral
dissertation.
*Schraub, E. M., Michel, A., Shemla, M., & Sonntag, K. (2014). The roles of leader emotion management and team conflict for team members' personal initiative: A
multilevel perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2012.728700
*Smith, M. B., Wallace, J. C., & Jordan, P. (2016). When the dark ones become darker: How promotion focus moderates the effects of the dark triad on supervisor
performance ratings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2038
*Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Explaining nonlinearity in employee voice: The effects of personal control and organizational identification. Academy of
Management Journal, 51, 1189–1203. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.35732719
*Tavares, S. M. (2016). How does creativity at work influence employee's positive affect at work? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 4, 525–539.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2016.1186012
*Thundiyil, T. G., Chiaburu, D. S., Li, N., & Wagner, D. T. (2016). Joint effects of creative self-efficacy, positive and negative affect on creative performance. Chinese
Management Studies, 4, 726–745. https://doi.org/10.1108/cms-06-2016-0126
*Venkataramani, V., & Tangirala, S. (2010). When and why do central employees speak up? An examination of mediating and moderating variables. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95, 582–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018315
*Wu, C. H. (2013). A secure base for proactivity: How supportive leaders compensate for individual's insecure attachment styles. University of Western Australia. Doctoral
dissertation.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological
Bulletin, 134, 779–806. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012815
Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. (2011). The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: Joint effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of
Business Venturing, 26, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.06.002
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202
Bettencourt, L. A. (2004). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors: The direct and moderating influence of goal orientation. Journal of Retailing, 80,
165–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2003.12.001
Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 567–598). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12170-019.
Bledow, R., Rosing, K., & Frese, M. (2013). A dynamic perspective on affect and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 432–450. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amj.2010.0894
Braun, M. T., Converse, P. D., & Oswald, F. L. (2019). The accuracy of dominance analysis as a metric to assess relative importance: The joint impact of sampling error
variance and measurement unreliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 593–602. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000361
Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114,
542–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.542
Burnett, M. F., Chiaburu, D. S., Shapiro, D. L., & Li, N. (2015). Revisiting how and when perceived organizational support enhances taking charge: An inverted U-
shaped perspective. Journal of Management, 41, 1805–1826. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313493324
Carver, C. S. (2003). Pleasure as a sign you can attend to something else: Placing positive feelings within a general model of affect. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 241–261.
Carver, C. S. (2006). Approach, avoidance, and the self-regulation of affect and action. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-
9044-7
Chiaburu, D. S., Lorinkova, N. M., & Van Dyne, L. (2013). Employees' social context and change-oriented citizenship: A meta-analysis of leader, coworker, and
organizational influences. Group & Organization Management, 38, 291–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113476736
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I.-S., Wang, J., & Stoverink, A. (2017). A bigger piece of the pie: The relative importance of affiliative and change-oriented citizenship and task
performance in predicting overall job performance. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.006
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I.-S., & Marinova, S. (2018). Five-Factor Model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behavior: Current research and future
directions. In P. Podsakoff, S. MacKenzie, & N. P. Podsakoff (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational citizenship behavior (pp. 203–220). Oxford University
Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.433
Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10,
25–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-4822(99)00037-6
Conway, J. M., Rogelberg, S. G., & Pitts, V. E. (2009). Workplace helping: Interactive effects of personality and momentary positive affect. Human Performance, 22,
321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280903120279
Cooper, B., Eva, N., Fazlelahi, F. Z., Newman, A., Lee, A., & Obschonka, M. (2020). Common method variance in vocational behavior research: Reviewing the state of
the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 121, Article 103472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103472
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO personality inventory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.853
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600304
Crant, J. M., Kim, T.-Y., & Wang, J. (2011). Dispositional antecedents of demonstration and usefulness of voice behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26,
285–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9197-y
15
Credé, M., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Dalal, R. S., & Bashshur, M. (2007). Job satisfaction as mediator: An assessment of job satisfaction's position within the
nomological network. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 515–538. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317906x136180
De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 739–756. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.739
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 804–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.804
Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1016–1030. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amj.2006.22798182
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.56.3.218
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B: Biological Sciences, 359,
1367–1377. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1512
Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation,
build consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1045–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013262
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133–187. https://
doi.org/10.1016/s0191-3085(01)23005-6
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00639.x
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A look at job stressors and positive affect during the workday. Journal of Management,
35, 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308911
Gable, P., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2010). The blues broaden, but the nasty narrows: Attentional consequences of negative affects low and high in motivational intensity.
Psychological Science, 21, 211–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609359622
Glomb, T. M., Bhave, D. P., Miner, A. G., & Wall, M. (2011). Doing good, feeling good: Examining the role of organizational citizenship behaviors in changing mood.
Personnel Psychology, 64, 191–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01206.x
Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A. L., Park, P., & Godbey, J. N. (2012). A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological
network: Work-related antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.005
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002
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, 327–347. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634438
Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136,
495–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019486
Huang, J. L., & Ryan, A. M. (2011). Beyond personality traits: A study of personality states and situational contingencies in customer service jobs. Personnel Psychology,
64, 451–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01216.x
Isen, A. M. (2000). Positive affect and decision making. In M. Lewis, & J. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions: 417–435 (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Lambert, S. J. (2000). Added benefits: The link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 801–815.
Lanaj, K., Chang, C.-H., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 998–1034.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027723
Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., Harter, J. K., & Lauver, K. J. (2010). The problem of empirical redundancy of constructs in organizational research: An empirical investigation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112, 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.003
LeBreton, J. M., Hargis, M. B., Griepentrog, B., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2007). A multidimensional approach for evaluating variables in organizational
research and practice. Personnel Psychology, 60, 475–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00080.x
Lee, J. H., Nam, S. K., Kim, A. R., Kim, B., Lee, M. Y., & Lee, S. M. (2013). Resilience: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 269–279.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00095.x
Li, N., Barrick, M. R., Zimmerman, R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2014). Retaining the proactive employee: The role of personality. Academy of Management Annals, 8,
347–395. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.890368
Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2004). The happy worker hypothesis about the role of positive affect in worker productivity. In M. R. Barrick, & A. M. Ryan (Eds.),
Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 30–59). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Challenge-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational effectiveness: Do challenge-
oriented behaviors really have an impact on the organization's bottom line? Personnel Psychology, 64, 559–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2011.01219.x
Madrid, H. P., Patterson, M. G., Birdi, K. S., Leiva, P. I., & Kausel, E. E. (2014). The role of weekly high-activated positive mood, context, and personality in innovative
work behavior: A multilevel and interactional model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 234–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1867
Marinova, S. V., Peng, C., Lorinkova, N., Van Dyne, L., & Chiaburu, D. (2015). Change-oriented behavior: A meta-analysis of individual and job design predictors.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.02.006
McCormick, B. W., Reeves, C. J., Downes, P. E., Li, N., & Ilies, R. (2020). Scientific contributions of within-person research in management: Making the juice worth the
squeeze. Journal of Management, 46, 321–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318788435
Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106, 3–19. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0033-295x.106.1.3
Mittal, V., & Ross, W. T. (1998). The impact of positive and negative affect and issue framing on issue interpretation and risk taking. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 76, 298–324. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2808
Mor, N., & Winquist, J. (2002). Self-focused attention and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 638–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.128.4.638
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–419. https://
doi.org/10.2307/257011
Newman, D. A., Harrison, D. A., Carpenter, N. C., & Rariden, S. M. (2016). Construct mixology: Forming new management constructs by combining old ones. Academy
of Management Annals, 10, 943–995. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1161965
Ng, T. W., Sorensen, K. L., Zhang, Y., & Yim, F. H. (2019). Anger, anxiety, depression, and negative affect: Convergent or divergent? Journal of Vocational Behavior,
110, 186–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.11.014
Ng*, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2009). Occupational embeddedness and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 863–891. https://doi.org/10.1002/
job.580
Oh, I.-S. (2020). Beyond meta-analysis: Secondary uses of meta-analytic data. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7, 125–153.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045006
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1027/
1866-5888/a000009
16
Organ, D. W. (1997). Toward an explication of ‘morale’: In search of the M factor. In C. L. Cooper, & S. E. Jackson (Eds.), Creating tomorrow's organizations (pp.
493–504). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157–164.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48,
775–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Oswald, A. J., Proto, E., & Sgroi, D. (2015). Happiness and productivity. Journal of Labor Economics, 33, 789–822. https://doi.org/10.1086/681096
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827–856. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0149206310363732
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.612
Saavedra, R., & Earley, P. C. (1991). Choice of task and goal under conditions of general and specific affective inducement. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 45–65. https://
doi.org/10.1007/bf00991475
Schmidt, F. L. (2017). Beyond questionable research methods: The role of omitted relevant research in the credibility of research. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 5,
32–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000033
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of
Management, 30, 933–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007
Sherf et al., in pressE. N. Sherf M. R. Parke S. Isaakyan (in press). Distinguishing voice and silence at work: Unique relationships with perceived impact, psychological
safety, and burnout. Academy of Management Journal. doi:10.5465/amj.2018.1428.
Shockley, K. M., Ispas, D., Rossi, M. E., & Levine, E. L. (2012). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between state affect, discrete emotions, and job
performance. Human Performance, 25, 377–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2012.721832
Simon, L. S., Judge, T. A., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. K. (2010). In good company?: A multi-study, multi-level investigation of the effects of coworker relationships
on employee well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 534–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.01.006
Sonnentag, S. (2015). Dynamics of well-being. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 261–293. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
orgpsych-032414-111347
Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., Keeping, L. M., & Lian, H. (2014). Helpful today, but not tomorrow? Feeling grateful as a predictor of daily organizational citizenship
behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 67, 705–738. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12051
Starzyk, A., & Sonnentag, S. (2019). When do low-initiative employees feel responsible for change and speak up to managers? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115,
Article 103342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103342
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5, 51–71. https://doi.org/
10.1287/orsc.5.1.51
Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910x502359
To, M. L., Fisher, C. D., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Rowe, P. A. (2012). Within-person relationships between mood and creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 599–612.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026097
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41,
108–119. https://doi.org/10.5465/256902
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddy waters). Research
in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215–285. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2021.82
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., McIntyre, C. W., & Hamaker, S. (1992). Affect, personality, and social activity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 1011–1025.
Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 315–321. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.315
Whitmer, A. J., & Gotlib, I. H. (2013). An attentional scope model of rumination. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1036–1061. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030923
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682–696.
17

1 s2.0 S0001879121001366 Main

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0001879121001366 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0001879121001366 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Vocational Behavior 132 (2022) 103664

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

Happy to help, happy to change? A meta-analysis of major

2.1. Affect and change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior

-.26b .64b -.26b -.23b -.03b -.36c

Journal of Vocational Behavior 132 (2022) 103664

Negave Aﬀect ORGANIZATIONAL

Fig. 1. Theoretical model.

2.1.1. Positive affect

2.1.2. Negative affect

2.2. Relative importance of affect, job satisfaction, and personality traits

2.3. Relationships with a broader set of citizenship outcomes

3.1. Literature search and inclusion criteria

3.2. Coding procedure

3.3. Meta-analytic techniques

3.4. Relative importance analysis

True-score Correlations of PA and NA with

.11 Negative affect

.00 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35

β GD %GD β GD %GD β GD %GD

Percent-based General Dominance Weights Comparisons: Affect, Job Satisfaction, and

5.1. Theoretical implications

5.2. Practical implications

5.3. Study limitations

5.4. Future research directions

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Declaration of competing interest

Source PA/NA OCB n r rxx ryy

Abdelmotaleb et al. (2018) PA CH 208 0.55 0.85 0.95

Huang and Huang (2016) PA CH 272 0.05 0.76 0.83

Source PA/NA OCB n r rxx ryy

Jiang and Law (2013) PA I 149 0.20 0.83 0.79

Source PA/NA OCB n r rxx ryy

Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) NA CH 640 − 0.04 0.70 0.95

You might also like