Wide-ranging research into antisocial behaviours at work (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Berry, Ones & Sackett, 2007; Courcy, Savoie & Brunet, 2004; Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Hershcovis et al., 2007) has revealed distinctions between anti-organizational and anti-individual behaviours. Similar distinctions can be found for prosocial behaviours, although these are rarely studied (Birehoff, 2002; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000). In order to understand the inductors of these two kinds of behaviours, our study had two goals. The first was to explore and to develop a nomological way for the validation of a first version of two scales to measure pro- and antisocial behaviours. In accordance with the model put forward by Leblanc et al. (2004), the second goal aimed to test the links between organizational variables (organizational justice, commitment) and individual ones (personality, satisfaction) with both antisocial and prosocial behaviors at work. A questionnaire of 205 items was submitted to 256 employees in Northern France. Two separate data analyses on pro- and antisocial behaviours validated two scales. On each scale, four factors were included. The first analysis of prosocial behaviours showed: F1: Mobilisation-Dynamisation-Autonomisation, F2: Prosocial property behaviors, F3: Production/Political Prosocial Behaviours, and F4: Help. A contrast between F1 (pro-individual behaviors) and F2 (pro- organizational behaviours) was found. The prosociality property was very important in factor 2, whilst production and prosociality properties were found in F3. An analysis of deviant behaviours showed four factors: F1: Aggression, F2: Production and Property deviant behaviours, F3: Property deviant behaviours, and F4: Political deviant behaviours. The classic F1/F2 (organizational/individual behaviours) opposition that is relevant to antisocial behaviours justifies the idea of making a distinction between these two large categories by their targets (individual/organizational) in the pro- and antisocial fields.
A regressions analysis showed, on the one hand, that there were links between prosocial behaviours and all kinds of involvement and procedural justice. On the other hand, anti-social behaviours could be explained by different kinds of organizational justice and extraversion.