{"title":"利己主义在不道德亲组织行为中的作用:一项法理网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Logan M Steele, Rebecca Rees, Christopher M Berry","doi":"10.1037/apl0001139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To date, the unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB) literature has been guided by a prosocial perspective, which argues that people engage in UPB primarily to benefit the employers with whom they identify and have a positive social exchange. According to this perspective, employees who are characteristically self-interested are less likely to engage in UPB. However, recent evidence suggests self-interest may play a larger role in motivating UPB than originally theorized. To clarify this controversy, we offer two different, but not necessarily mutually exclusive, perspectives of UPB-one in which UPB is driven primarily by prosocial motives and one in which it is driven primarily by self-interest. We tested which of these accounts of UPB was more strongly supported by comparing UPB's relationships with two nomological networks: one containing relatively prosocially motivated constructs and the other containing relatively self-interest-motivated constructs. Two of the eight hypotheses from the prosocial perspective were supported, while seven of the eight hypotheses from the self-interest perspective were supported. Additionally, the average absolute value of UPB's correlations with prosocial perspective constructs was .09, while the comparable average correlation with self-interest perspective constructs was .33. Thus, the results favored the self-interest perspective. We discuss how these findings change our theoretical understanding of UPB by acknowledging both its prosocial and self-interest motivations, and we accordingly propose a revised definition for UPB that allows for both of these motivations. We also examined more broadly the relationship between UPB and other constructs to provide a comprehensive meta-analytic overview of this literature. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"362-385"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of self-interest in unethical pro-organizational behavior: A nomological network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Logan M Steele, Rebecca Rees, Christopher M Berry\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/apl0001139\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To date, the unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB) literature has been guided by a prosocial perspective, which argues that people engage in UPB primarily to benefit the employers with whom they identify and have a positive social exchange. According to this perspective, employees who are characteristically self-interested are less likely to engage in UPB. However, recent evidence suggests self-interest may play a larger role in motivating UPB than originally theorized. To clarify this controversy, we offer two different, but not necessarily mutually exclusive, perspectives of UPB-one in which UPB is driven primarily by prosocial motives and one in which it is driven primarily by self-interest. We tested which of these accounts of UPB was more strongly supported by comparing UPB's relationships with two nomological networks: one containing relatively prosocially motivated constructs and the other containing relatively self-interest-motivated constructs. Two of the eight hypotheses from the prosocial perspective were supported, while seven of the eight hypotheses from the self-interest perspective were supported. Additionally, the average absolute value of UPB's correlations with prosocial perspective constructs was .09, while the comparable average correlation with self-interest perspective constructs was .33. Thus, the results favored the self-interest perspective. We discuss how these findings change our theoretical understanding of UPB by acknowledging both its prosocial and self-interest motivations, and we accordingly propose a revised definition for UPB that allows for both of these motivations. We also examined more broadly the relationship between UPB and other constructs to provide a comprehensive meta-analytic overview of this literature. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"362-385\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001139\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001139","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
The role of self-interest in unethical pro-organizational behavior: A nomological network meta-analysis.
To date, the unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB) literature has been guided by a prosocial perspective, which argues that people engage in UPB primarily to benefit the employers with whom they identify and have a positive social exchange. According to this perspective, employees who are characteristically self-interested are less likely to engage in UPB. However, recent evidence suggests self-interest may play a larger role in motivating UPB than originally theorized. To clarify this controversy, we offer two different, but not necessarily mutually exclusive, perspectives of UPB-one in which UPB is driven primarily by prosocial motives and one in which it is driven primarily by self-interest. We tested which of these accounts of UPB was more strongly supported by comparing UPB's relationships with two nomological networks: one containing relatively prosocially motivated constructs and the other containing relatively self-interest-motivated constructs. Two of the eight hypotheses from the prosocial perspective were supported, while seven of the eight hypotheses from the self-interest perspective were supported. Additionally, the average absolute value of UPB's correlations with prosocial perspective constructs was .09, while the comparable average correlation with self-interest perspective constructs was .33. Thus, the results favored the self-interest perspective. We discuss how these findings change our theoretical understanding of UPB by acknowledging both its prosocial and self-interest motivations, and we accordingly propose a revised definition for UPB that allows for both of these motivations. We also examined more broadly the relationship between UPB and other constructs to provide a comprehensive meta-analytic overview of this literature. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Applied Psychology® focuses on publishing original investigations that contribute new knowledge and understanding to fields of applied psychology (excluding clinical and applied experimental or human factors, which are better suited for other APA journals). The journal primarily considers empirical and theoretical investigations that enhance understanding of cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral psychological phenomena in work and organizational settings. These phenomena can occur at individual, group, organizational, or cultural levels, and in various work settings such as business, education, training, health, service, government, or military institutions. The journal welcomes submissions from both public and private sector organizations, for-profit or nonprofit. It publishes several types of articles, including:
1.Rigorously conducted empirical investigations that expand conceptual understanding (original investigations or meta-analyses).
2.Theory development articles and integrative conceptual reviews that synthesize literature and generate new theories on psychological phenomena to stimulate novel research.
3.Rigorously conducted qualitative research on phenomena that are challenging to capture with quantitative methods or require inductive theory building.