[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 103(1) of (see record 2017-44052-001). In the article, the fit statistics in Study 3 were reported in error. The fit of the measurement model is: Χ²(362) = 563.66, p = .001; CFI = .94; SRMR = .05; RMSEA = .04. The fit of the SEM model is: Χ²(362) = 563.66, p = .001; CFI = .94; SRMR = .05; RMSEA = .04.] Workplace cheating behavior is unethical behavior that seeks to create an unfair advantage and enhance benefits for the actor. Although cheating is clearly unwanted behavior within organizations, organizations may unknowingly increase cheating as a byproduct of their pursuit of high performance. We theorize that as organizations place a strong emphasis on high levels of performance, they may also enhance employees' self-interested motives and need for self-protection. We suggest that demands for high performance may elicit performance pressure-the subjective experience that employees must raise their performance efforts or face significant consequences. Employees' perception of the need to raise performance paired with the potential for negative consequences is threatening and heightens self-protection needs. Driven by self-protection, employees experience anger and heightened self-serving cognitions, which motivate cheating behavior. A multistudy approach was used to test our predictions. Study 1 developed and provided validity evidence for a measure of cheating behavior. Studies 2 and 3 tested our predictions in time-separated field studies. Results from Study 2 demonstrated that anger mediates the effects of performance pressure on cheating behavior. Study 3 replicated the Study 2 findings, and extended them to show that self-serving cognitions also mediate the effects of performance pressure on cheating behavior. Implications of our findings for theory and practice are provided. (PsycINFO Database Record

Although social exchange theory has become one of the most oft-evoked theories in industrial and organizational psychology, there remains no consensus about how to measure its key mechanism: social exchange relationships (Blau, 1964). Drawing on Cropanzano and Byrne's (2000) review of contemporary social exchange theorizing, we examined the content validity of perceived support, exchange quality, affective commitment, trust, and psychological contract fulfillment as indicators of social exchange relationships. We used Hinkin and Tracey's (1999) quantitative approach to content validation, which asks participants to rate the correspondence between scale items and definitions of intended (and unintended) constructs. Our results revealed that some of the most frequently utilized indicators of social exchange relationships--perceived support and exchange quality--were significantly less content valid than rarely used options like affect-based trust. Our results also revealed that 2 direct measures--Bernerth, Armenakis, Feild, Giles, and Walker's (2007) scale and a scale created for this study--were content valid. We discuss the implications of these results for future applications of social exchange theory.

The construct of feeling trusted reflects the perception that another party is willing to accept vulnerability to one's actions. Although the construct has received far less attention than trusting, the consensus is that believing their supervisors trust them has benefits for employees' job performance. Our study challenges that consensus by arguing that feeling trusted can be exhausting for employees. Drawing on conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 2001), we develop a model where feeling trusted fills an employee with pride-a benefit for exhaustion and performance-while also increasing perceived workload and concerns about reputation maintenance-burdens for exhaustion and performance. We tested our model in a field study using a sample of public transit bus drivers in the London, England. Our results suggest that feeling trusted is a doubleedged sword for job performance, bringing with it both benefits and burdens. Given that recommendations for managers generally encourage placing trust in employees, these results have important practical implications.

No abstract

No abstract