规范性标准的广度:对个人和组织的影响

IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104181
Shilpa Madan , Shankha Basu , Sharon Ng , Krishna Savani
{"title":"规范性标准的广度:对个人和组织的影响","authors":"Shilpa Madan ,&nbsp;Shankha Basu ,&nbsp;Sharon Ng ,&nbsp;Krishna Savani","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Normative standards refer to ideals to which people, products, and organizations are held. The present research (<em>N</em><span> = 2,224) investigates a novel construct—the breadth of normative standards, or the number of criteria that normative standards need to meet. Using archival and primary data in both organizational and consumer contexts, Studies 1–2 found that Indians’ and Singaporeans’ normative standards in several domains (e.g., a good job, a good body wash) needed to satisfy more criteria than those of Americans and the British. Using incentive-compatible designs, Studies 3–5 identified two downstream consequences of broader normative standards; decision-makers with broader standards pay greater attention to detail when evaluating others’ work, and people with broader standards search for more options, even at a cost, before making a choice. This research complements past work on norms as prevalent behaviors, values, and attitudes by examining norms as standards, and documents consequences of the breadth of normative standards for employees and organizations.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"172 ","pages":"Article 104181"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The breadth of normative standards: Antecedents and consequences for individuals and organizations\",\"authors\":\"Shilpa Madan ,&nbsp;Shankha Basu ,&nbsp;Sharon Ng ,&nbsp;Krishna Savani\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104181\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Normative standards refer to ideals to which people, products, and organizations are held. The present research (<em>N</em><span> = 2,224) investigates a novel construct—the breadth of normative standards, or the number of criteria that normative standards need to meet. Using archival and primary data in both organizational and consumer contexts, Studies 1–2 found that Indians’ and Singaporeans’ normative standards in several domains (e.g., a good job, a good body wash) needed to satisfy more criteria than those of Americans and the British. Using incentive-compatible designs, Studies 3–5 identified two downstream consequences of broader normative standards; decision-makers with broader standards pay greater attention to detail when evaluating others’ work, and people with broader standards search for more options, even at a cost, before making a choice. This research complements past work on norms as prevalent behaviors, values, and attitudes by examining norms as standards, and documents consequences of the breadth of normative standards for employees and organizations.</span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48442,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\",\"volume\":\"172 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104181\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597822000656\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597822000656","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

规范性标准指的是人们、产品和组织所遵循的理想。目前的研究(N = 2224)调查了一个新的结构——规范标准的广度,或者规范标准需要满足的标准的数量。研究1-2使用了组织和消费者背景下的档案和原始数据,发现印度人和新加坡人在几个领域的规范标准(例如,一份好工作,一款好的沐浴露)需要比美国人和英国人满足更多的标准。使用激励兼容设计,研究3-5确定了更广泛的规范标准的两个下游后果;拥有更广泛标准的决策者在评估他人的工作时更注重细节,而拥有更广泛标准的人在做出选择之前会寻找更多的选择,即使是付出代价。本研究通过将规范作为标准进行考察,补充了过去关于规范作为普遍行为、价值观和态度的研究,并记录了规范标准对员工和组织的广度的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The breadth of normative standards: Antecedents and consequences for individuals and organizations

Normative standards refer to ideals to which people, products, and organizations are held. The present research (N = 2,224) investigates a novel construct—the breadth of normative standards, or the number of criteria that normative standards need to meet. Using archival and primary data in both organizational and consumer contexts, Studies 1–2 found that Indians’ and Singaporeans’ normative standards in several domains (e.g., a good job, a good body wash) needed to satisfy more criteria than those of Americans and the British. Using incentive-compatible designs, Studies 3–5 identified two downstream consequences of broader normative standards; decision-makers with broader standards pay greater attention to detail when evaluating others’ work, and people with broader standards search for more options, even at a cost, before making a choice. This research complements past work on norms as prevalent behaviors, values, and attitudes by examining norms as standards, and documents consequences of the breadth of normative standards for employees and organizations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes publishes fundamental research in organizational behavior, organizational psychology, and human cognition, judgment, and decision-making. The journal features articles that present original empirical research, theory development, meta-analysis, and methodological advancements relevant to the substantive domains served by the journal. Topics covered by the journal include perception, cognition, judgment, attitudes, emotion, well-being, motivation, choice, and performance. We are interested in articles that investigate these topics as they pertain to individuals, dyads, groups, and other social collectives. For each topic, we place a premium on articles that make fundamental and substantial contributions to understanding psychological processes relevant to human attitudes, cognitions, and behavior in organizations. In order to be considered for publication in OBHDP a manuscript has to include the following: 1.Demonstrate an interesting behavioral/psychological phenomenon 2.Make a significant theoretical and empirical contribution to the existing literature 3.Identify and test the underlying psychological mechanism for the newly discovered behavioral/psychological phenomenon 4.Have practical implications in organizational context
期刊最新文献
The inclusion of anchors when seeking advice: Causes and consequences Joining disconnected others reduces social identity threat in women brokers Retraction notice to “Don’t stop believing: Rituals improve performance by decreasing anxiety” [Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 137C (2016) 71–85] The confrontation effect: When users engage more with ideology-inconsistent content online A Numeracy-Task interaction model of perceived differences
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1