An empirical test of Goal-framing theory applied to collective performance: the mediating role of social well-being and joint production motivation
Master Thesis
Student: Lina María Bernal Fuentes / Student No. 11710497
MSc. Business Administration, Strategy track
University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business
Supervisor: Siri Boe-Lillegraven
University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business
1 Statement of Originality
This document is written by the student Lina María Bernal Fuentes, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ... 4 Introduction ... 5 Literature review ... 7 Goal-framing theory ... 7
Three overarching frames: hedonic, gain and normative ... 9
Goal-framing theory application to pro-social, pro-environmental and collective behaviours ... 10
Pro-social behaviours ... 11
Pro-environmental behaviours ... 11
Collective behaviours and organizational applications ... 13
Well-being ... 16
General definition ... 16
The appearance of social well-being ... 17
The conceptual framework ... 20
Hypotheses development ... 22
Part 1. Normative frame, joint production motivation and performance. ... 22
Part 2. Normative frame, social well-being, joint production motivation, and collective performance... 24
Methods ... 27
Participants ... 28
Materials and task ... 29
Operationalization of variables... 30
Independent variable – normative frame ... 30
Manipulation check ... 32
Mediator 1 – social well-being ... 33
Mediator 2 – goal commitment ... 34
Dependent variable – Contribution to collective performance ... 37
3
Experiment 1 – control condition ... 38
Experiment 2 – treatment condition.... 39
Pilot ... 40
Data collection ... 41
Results ... 42
Part 1. Normative frame, goal commitment and contribution to collective performance ... 45
Part 2. Normative frame, social well-being, goal commitment and contribution to collective performance... 47 Part 3. Observations ... 52 Discussion ... 54 Theoretical implications ... 54 Practical implications ... 57 Future research ... 58
Limitations of the study ... 59
Conclusion ... 60
4
Abstract
This thesis tests the application of goal-framing theory in a collective setting and the mediating
mechanisms of social well-being and joint production motivation. As proposed by Lindenberg
and Foss (2011), first I test if there is a positive relationship between the normative frame and
performance, and the mediating role of joint production motivation. Second, I propose using
social well-being as a second mediating mechanism that appears from the normative frame and
increases joint production motivation and performance. Through a between-subjects
experiment (N= 84) implemented with students from the faculty of economics and business at
the University of Amsterdam, I found that the normative frame did not lead to higher
performance. However, the examination of the normative frame antecedents explains this
unexpected result and provides empirical support for Lindenberg and Foss’s (2011) suggested
steps to create collective production situations, which is consistent with goal-framing theory.
Furthermore, social well-being proved to be a tool that can support or diminish motivation and
performance, and its effect largely depends on managers’ ability to manipulate it.
Keywords: goal-framing theory; normative frame; joint production motivation; social
5
Introduction
Organizations’ ability to pursue goals is one of the most important factors determining
high performance. This pursuit is a composite of individual-level goals and collective goals
that coexist within organizations and should remain aligned to guarantee success (Gottschalg
& Zollo, 2007). Problems arise when people prioritize their individual goals over the firm’s
interests. In this matter, goal-framing theory (Lindenberg & Frey, 1993; Lindenberg, 2000;
Lindenberg, 2001; Lindenberg & Steg, 2007; Lindenberg, 2008) states that managers can
trigger or design frames (environments) within organizations that increase awareness about
collective production and drive people’s motivation towards organizational goals achievement.
Goal-framing theory states that the normative frame, which focuses on safeguard
collective benefits through goals like ‘behaving in the right way’, ‘doing the right thing’, and ‘contributing to collective benefits’ (Lindenberg, 2008), is the most adequate frame to
guarantee value creation (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013). This is because it prompts the appearance
of pro-social behaviours, interest alignment, and, especially, joint production motivation (Foss
& Lindenberg, 2013; 2011). However, its stability can be easily threatened by the influences
of alternative forces like the hedonic frame and the gain frame, which are focused on
individual-level goals like “feeling good” or “improving one’s resource position”, respectively.
Lindenberg and Foss (2011) call manager’s attention to the importance of this issue and suggest
different forms of goals alignment to maintain people’s motivation focused on collective
production. In this matter, the hedonic frame is treated with special caution, because it is related
with low levels of value creation and is recognized to be especially capable of displacing the
normative frame (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013). Therefore, the authors limit the supporting role
of the hedonic frame to the normative frame to the use of incentives in a modest, non-contingent
6
However, in the application of goal-framing theory to social behaviours and
pro-environmental behaviours, authors find that social influences and values coming from the
hedonic frame can actually support the normative frame and make people endorse pro-social
and pro-environmental behaviours (Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg, 2011; Keizer, Lindenberg, &
Steg, 2013; Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg, 2008; Lindenberg, 2006; Lindenberg & Steg, 2007;
Lindenberg & Steg, 2013; Steg & Vlek, 2009). These alternative ideas of using the hedonic
frame to support the normative frame have not been considered yet in the ground of collective
performance, as the theoretical and empirical works in this field are still very limited. In fact, in firm’s contexts, the main positive relation between the normative frame and the levels of
performance still lacks empirical proof that will ensure the effectiveness of the goal-framing
theory in competitive environments.
Therefore, this thesis aims to contribute to goal-framing theory by testing the effect of
the normative frame on performance, and by suggesting an alternative way in which the
alignment of the hedonic and the normative frame can generate a positive impact on
performance. According to Lindenberg and Foss (2011), the normative frame is recreated by
applying two of the four antecedents proposed: task transparency and teams structure and
symbolic management. In a laboratory experiment, a frame manipulation is implemented to
increase people’s motivation for collective production and therefore their levels of contribution
to collective goals. Additionally, social well-being, as a kind of hedonic force, is proposed as
an alternative mechanism to impact motivation for collective production. In opposition to what
is claimed by goal-framing theory, social well-being as a hedonic element is expected to appear
from the normative frame and cause a positive effect in people’s joint production motivation
and performance.
The experiment delivered contradictory results in the relationship between the
7
affect motivation neither production. However, overall this thesis contributed to goal-framing
theory with evidence supporting Lindenberg and Foss’s (2011) propositions about the how task
transparency, team structures and symbolic management configure the normative frame and
interact between each other to preserve or not its stability. Symbolic management proved to be
especially powerful in directing individual’s attention, and it can seriously hamper the stability
of the normative frame if it deviates from collective goals. Social well-being proved to be a
source of joint production motivation and indirectly affected the levels of performance, but
managers should control it carefully if they want that this element positively affect the levels
of collective production. Individual preference for a task, as an alternative variable, was able
to positively affect the model and the levels of motivation and performance. Finally, some
practical implications and paths of future research are proposed.
Literature review
Goal-framing theory
Goal-framing theory was developed in first place by Siegwart Lindenberg and was later
elaborated and applied to organizational, prosocial and environmental contexts by Nicolai Foss
and Linda Steg (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013; Lindenberg, 2000; Lindenberg, 2006; Lindenberg
& Steg, 2007; Lindenberg, 2008; Lindenberg & Foss, 2011; Steg & Vlek, 2009). With this
theory, Lindenberg (2000) wants to give an explanation of the rationales behind people’s
decisions. He states that people’s actions respond to a collection of inner beliefs and immediate
conditions in which decisions are made. Those conditions affect people’s selective attention
and determine what ideas influence people’s final actions the most (Lindenberg, 2000). The
immediate conditions that influence actions are defined as frames (Lindenberg, 2000). Frames
are packs of ‘circumstantial conditions’ driving people’s attention, beliefs, and knowledge
8
different frames, which in turn allow the prevalence of different beliefs and therefore different
actions. This is defined as framing process.
According to the theory, different frames can coexist and interact with each other
depending on the external cues that are present in the environment (Lindenberg, 2000;
Lindenberg, 2008). The framing process creates two dimensions where frames operate: the
foreground and the background. The foreground is the dominant dimension where a specific
frame leads people’s attention, priorities and actions, and drives them towards a specific set of
goals and related sub-goals (Lindenberg, 2000). The background dimension remains in the
environment but becomes weaker than the foreground. It is still important because it contains
a set of goals that can be relevant for the foreground and can deteriorate or enhance the
prominence of a frame in the foreground if the environmental cues change (Lindenberg, 2000).
There are two characteristics of frames that allow them to operate in the two different dimensions, the salience and the porosity. The ‘salience of a frame’ refers to the level of
strength that the frame has in order to be in the foreground or in the background (Lindenberg,
2000). The salience is lower the greater the distance of the product of a behaviour from the
behaviour itself (Lindenberg, 2000). That means that the more time people need to wait to see
the effect of an action, the less strong the frame leading the action is.
The second characteristic, the ‘porosity’, refers to the capacity of all frames to affect
each other. Being porous means that each frame is exposed to the influence of the others
(Lindenberg, 2008). So, when a goal frame dominates the foreground, it pushes the other two
to the background but without making them fade. Instead, the porosity allows the frames to
remain active in the background and acquire relative strength depending on the situational
triggers appearing in the environment. This idea suggests that mixed goals are present in people’s motivations and they affect constantly their willingness to engage in certain
9
Lindenberg (2000) states that frames are composed of two types of goals, higher level
goals and lower level goals. The high-level goal governs people’s beliefs and actions and has
under its dominance a set of more concrete and related low-level goals. When the high-level
goal becomes ‘focal’ or an ‘overarching frame’ (Lindenberg, 2008), the lower-level goals point
to the same direction as the higher-level goal does. Those overarching frames are capable to
prompt automatic reactions in people when facing specific external circumstances.
Specifically, in an organization, an overarching frame is able to organize people’s cognitions
and evaluations, and they guide people’s responses in different types of situations.
Three overarching frames: hedonic, gain and normative
Lindenberg (2008) recognizes three main overarching frames: the hedonic goal-frame,
the gain goal-frame, and the normative goal-frame. The hedonic goal-frame has lower-level
goals focused on improving the way one feels at a specific moment. This frame has a high level
of salience, operates in the short term and is focused on chasing opportunities for satisfaction.
Satisfaction is understood as part of individual’s physical well-being, like avoiding pain and seeking physical pleasure, or as part of individual’s social well-being, like improving
self-esteem, looking for work motivation and behavioural approval (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011;
Ormel, Lindenberg, Steverink, & Verbrugge, 1999). The gain goal-frame drives people’s
attention towards sub-goals that improve people’s resources. This frame has a medium level of
salience and seeks to safeguard scarce resources by paying attention to opportunities to improve
the resource position. Pro-competition incentives focused on personal gains can trigger this
frame. Finally, the normative goal-frame has a low level of salience and has to do with the idea of ‘appropriateness’, like behaving in the right way, caring about group interests, and
complying with social norms (Lindenberg, 2000; Lindenberg, 2008). This frame has a low
10
The fact that each frame is associated with a different level of salience creates a sort of
hierarchy. On the top of it is the hedonic goal-frame, then it follows the gain goal-frame, and
finally, the normative goal-frame is at the bottom of the hierarchy. This means that if people
want to focus on normative goals, they have to displace hedonistic and lucrative goals to the
background. It also implies that people need to wait long periods of time to experience the
positive or negative effects of this decision (Lindenberg, 2000). Therefore, the sustainability
of the normative frame is weak and vulnerable to the effect of environmental forces.
The fact the frames are porous implies that they can influence each other while being
in the foreground or in the background. These interactions and the possible alignment between
frames can serve different purposes, for example in stimulating pro-social behaviours or
group-oriented behaviours. The following section will explain the different applications of the
goal-framing theory and the ways in which mutual support or alignments between frames have been
proposed so far.
Goal-framing theory application to pro-social, pro-environmental and collective behaviours
Goal framing theory has been used to understand the roots and functioning of pro-social
behaviours, pro-environmental behaviours, and collective (organizational) behaviours (Foss &
Lindenberg, 2013; Lindenberg, 2000; Lindenberg & Foss, 2011; Lindenberg & Steg, 2013;
Steg & Vlek, 2009). All these works highlight the role of the normative frame as the glue to
stick people to productive behaviours and to reinforce a collective orientation even when
11 Pro-social behaviours
Lindenberg (2006) explains how pro-social behaviours are strongly linked to the
creation of mental models, cognitive process and goals. Pro-social behaviours include actions
as sharing knowledge, helping others, expressing solidarity, among others (Lindenberg, 2006). Individuals’ actions are the result of a framing and cognitive process that connect the motives
to realize an action with the final pro-social behaviour. The motives can be influenced by the person’s and other people’s expectations of the action or by predictions over the effect of an
action. Therefore, all frames can lead to pro-social behaviours; however, the motives behind
the behaviours are different and are related to a different level of social support (Lindenberg,
2006).
The two most remarkable contributions of the application of goal-framing theory to
pro-social behaviours are first the recognition that the normative frame requires a strong level
of relational signalling that approves or disapproves an action; and second, the recognition on
that the hedonic frame can support the normative frame, appealing to the fear of not being
socially approved (Lindenberg, 2006). In this case, the hedonic support takes the shape of social
sanctions that individuals try to avoid and lead them to endorse a collective orientation.
Pro-environmental behaviours
In the field of pro-environmental behaviour, Lindenberg and Steg (2007) proved that
mixed motives governed environmental actions. People’s motivations to act
pro-environmentally are heterogeneous and not constant. In the hedonic frame, Lindenberg and
Steg (2007) found that people engage in pro-environmental behaviours when they derive
pleasure and satisfaction from it, and also when endorsing the behaviour is congruent with a
personal value. Commonly this is called ‘having an emotional affinity with the environment’.
12
behaviours when it brings positive consequences for themselves, for example saving money
(Lindenberg & Steg, 2007). But even though the gain frame has a role in conditioning
pro-environmental behaviours, people are more willing to engage in them if they find an affective
relation with the cause (hedonic reason). That suggests a stronger effect from the hedonic frame than from the gain frame in people’s environmental behaviours. Finally, regarding the
normative frame, the main reason people acted pro-environmentally is due to the desire of behaving ‘appropriately’ and according to certain standards (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007). This
work is important because the authors conclude that environmental behaviours are mainly
based and prompted by the normative frame, but it is fundamental to get the hedonic and the gain frames aligned in the background, so they don’t displace the normative frame from the
focus.
Lindenberg and Steg (2013) propose two mechanisms to consolidate the influence of
the normative frame and align the gain and hedonic frames with it. The first one is the signalling
from leader figures and cross-norm activation, which states that other’s attitudes towards a norm affect one’s behaviour. The second mechanism is the moralization of behaviours which
defines how important is to comply with a social norm or not (Lindenberg & Steg, 2013). The
proposal of these two mechanisms is important because they highlight the role of social forces
in reinforcing the strength of the normative frame and therefore in the adoption of
pro-environmental behaviours.
Social values can indirectly support the feeling of joint production and moral obligation
(Lindenberg & Steg, 2013). Interestingly, the authors did not deepen on the idea that
individuals can also experience a sense of well-being when they act in a normative frame. This
well-being can be the result of complying with social norms or from behaving accordingly to
13 Collective behaviours and organizational applications
Regarding collective behaviours, Lindenberg & Foss (2011) introduce and elaborate on
the concept of ‘joint production motivation’. Joint production motivation is defined as the “human capacity to actively engage in collaborative activities, and it is based on the insight
that the motivation to engage in them is strongly related with cognitions about tasks, interdependencies and common goals” (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011, 502). The authors categorize
joint production motivation situations as settings with high a heterogeneity of efforts, that
imply complementary resources and interdependencies (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). The
perception that a common endeavour exists for a group of people triggers pro-social behaviours
as sharing cognitions and information, exerting efforts to coordinate, willing to support peers,
among others (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). As stated by the authors, the collaborative character
of joint production motivation makes it appealing to organizations and a tool to effectively
manage group-oriented behaviours.
Lindenberg & Foss (2011) explain that the interdependencies among tasks and people’s
orientation towards a collective long run imply that joint production requires a strong degree
of interest alignment (Bargh, Gollwitzer, Lee-Chai, Barndollar, & Trötschel, 2001; Lindenberg
& Foss, 2011). Then, individuals’ decisions to work for a collective goal can be prompted by
a proper normative frame that emphasizes collective goal achievement.
Lindenberg & Foss (2011) proposed four mechanisms to establish that normative frame
and therefore increase joint production motivation. The first one creates the setting in which people recognize that the situation is one of joint production motivation. This is ‘transparency
of task and team interdependencies’. When employees perceive that tasks are designed to
contribute to common goals and that everyone’s efforts are needed to succeed in the collective
14
The second aspect, ‘cognitive and symbolic management’, directly support the
normative frame and it refers to the importance of having a clear and shared vision on what is the goal, and to the role that leaders and peer’s play when promoting fair treatment and ensuring
productive behaviours. The clearer the vision, and the more normative-directed the peers’ and leaders’ behaviours, the higher the support to the normative frame and therefore to joint
production motivation (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011).
Third, ‘reward structures’ indirectly support the normative frame as they determine the
set of productive or negative incentives that conduce people towards collective goals or
individual goals. Rewards must be linked to joint outcomes and must be given in recognition
instead of monetary rewards. They also must be non-contingent, otherwise, the gain or hedonic
frame are triggered, and people perform tasks in the pursuit of personal interests (Lindenberg
& Foss, 2011).
Finally, a ‘knowledge-based authority structure’ is an organizational design that
legitimizes the task and teams’ structures and interdependencies. This is a hierarchy that serves
joint production purposes and is able to offer suitable solutions and guidance to achieve
organizational goals. Therefore, an authority structure based on knowledge and legitimate
expertise will strengthen the normative frame and therefore joint production motivation
(Lindenberg & Foss, 2011).
The benefits of raising joint production motivation in a collective context can be seen
in terms of value creation (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013). Joint production motivation promotes
the appearance of pro-social behaviours like knowledge sharing (Lindenberg, 2006) and affects
the types of activities people are willing to engage in, the amount of effort they are willing to
exert in a task, and how people strive to achieve coordination (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013). All
of this spurs productivity and innovation (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). In ambiguous situations,
15
respond faster and in a more coordinated manner, which reduces costs of planning and
formalization (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). The fact that people align themselves to others’ behaviours through peer’s signalling also reduces opportunism and the need to exert control
mechanisms over employees (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013). Therefore, the management of joint
production motivation becomes relevant as it can increase goals attainment and therefore
collective performance (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013).
The gain and the hedonic frame play an important role in maintaining the strength of
the normative frame (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). The gain frame is associated with a medium
level of value creation because contains strategic goals that look for economic benefit and
improving the resource position (Lindenberg, 2000). In a competitive context, the gain frame
plays a role in directing attention towards profit opportunities and performance improvement
(Lindenberg & Steg, 2013). For these reasons, firms should find ways to ‘obliquely’ align the
gain frame with the normative frame, while taking care that the gain frame does not become
more relevant than the normative frame (Lindenberg & Steg, 2013). In contrast, the hedonic
frame is associated with the lowest levels of value creation and with dubious effects on
performance. Lindenberg and Foss (2013) state that “an organization which members take a
myopic perspective and are predominantly hedonically oriented is not conducive to value creation” (Lindenberg & Steg, 2013, 92-93). The consequences of letting the hedonic frame
comes to the foreground are that the “investments in human capital are not undertaken, helping
behaviours do not thrive, and rewards that are not directly linked to efforts [become] useless”
(Lindenberg & Steg, 2013, 93).
Lindenberg and Foss (2011) propose few ways to make the hedonic frame a useful tool
to support the normative frame. Individual rewards, for example, can be used to increase
motivation, but they have to be non-contingent, modest and directed to group goals and not
16
and not only due to the final output (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). In the same way, sanctions are
effective to monitor behaviour and ensure individuals’ contribution to collective goals, because
people are going to avoid the unpleasant penalties by contributing to the group. In the
application of this theory to value creation, Foss & Lindenberg (2013) recognize that the
hedonic frame also includes goals as improving the self-esteem, reacting to perceived
unfairness and seeking excitement. These goals can also increase joint production motivation
while the person operates in a normative frame; however, this aspect was not further studied in
their theoretical paper.
In conclusion, the review of the different applications of goal-framing theory in
pro-environmental behaviours and pro-social behaviours offers ideas in which the hedonic frame
turns to be beneficial for collective contexts, in contrast with the limited role assigned to this
frame by Lindenberg and Foss (2013; 2011). More specifically, the role of social values and
group-related feelings can have a positive effect on people’s willingness to engage in pro-social
behaviours. Therefore, this brings up the idea that a different conception of the hedonic frame
based on the idea of social well-being can increase people’s level of joint production motivation
and therefore can positively affect collective performance. The following section explores the
different conceptions of hedonism, and how they can be applied positively to goal-framing
theory and collective performance.
Well-being General definition
The concept of well-being has been broadly studied and deeply developed by many
theorists (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Diener, 1984; Keyes, 1998; Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, &
Ryan, 2000; Ryff, 1995; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). Warner Wilson (1967) was one of the
17
defines major categories and subfactors that contribute to well-being including aspects such as:
intelligence, socio-economic status, personality, values, environment and health. This
definition of well-being as a function of certain external and internal conditions is later
questioned by Diener (1984) and Houston (1981), who develop a different idea of well-being
based on ideas of pleasure and pain. The fulfilment of needs lead to high levels of satisfaction
and therefore to well-being (Diener, 1984; Houston, 1981). In the same line of thought, telic
theories try to explain subjective well-being as the fulfilment of needs, goals and desires.
Diener (1984) and Austin & Vancouver (1996) state an idea of well-being based on people’s
sensation of progress toward goals (Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Diener, 1984).
These theories are important for the development of the concept of well-being because
they find goals achievement to be strongly linked to the affection of individuals and therefore
to their levels of satisfaction. Ed Diener (1984) finally defines well-being as a subjective
construct with an important categorization: first, well-being as a normative external criterion
(as a virtue or quality) that defines what is a desirable thing; second, as a subjective idea defined
by people that allow them to evaluate life in positive terms; and third, as an everyday speech
about an ongoing dominance of positive affects over negative affects that entails pleasantness
experiences (Diener, 1984). Thus, well-being is a subjective concept; it is a positive measure;
and its measurement includes an assessment of the global state of an individual’s life (Diener,
1984).
The appearance of social well-being
Carol Ryff (1995) and Corey Lee Keyes (1995) make a step forward in this matter and
define well-being as multidimensional construct composed of six elements: self-acceptance,
positive relations, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth. This
18
(positive relations) and based on aspects related with feeling self-competent and skilful when
doing tasks (environmental mastery and personal growth). Building on this idea, Corey Lee M.
Keyes (1998) advances a model of social well-being defined as a conscious self-evaluation
taking into account that individuals understand themselves as part of social structures that have
collective goals. He narrows this construct to five main dimensions: social acceptance, social
integration, social contribution, social actualization, and social coherence. Social acceptance is
analogue to self-acceptance and refers to what idea of society someone forms in her mind from
the character and qualities of general people. For example, if someone thinks that others are
capable of good actions and kindness. People with high levels of social acceptance have a
positive view of human nature (Keyes, 1998). Social integration refers to the quality of the individual’s relationship with the community. A person who normally presents a good level of
well-being has a good relationship with the immediate community (Keyes, 1998). Social
contribution is the assessment of the individual’s social value. If the person feels valuable to
society and has something to offer, then she experiences a good level of social contribution.
This category is analogue to the idea of self-efficacy and the capacity to achieve objectives
(Keyes, 1998). Social actualization refers to the individual’s belief that society has a potential
to be realized in the future and that she is going to be a beneficiary of that growth (Keyes,
1998). Finally, social coherence refers to people’s understanding of how society operates, how
it is organized and what happens at a certain point in time. According to Keyes (1998), high
measures of these aspects lead to a good social well-being.
The major distinction of Keyes’ approach (1998) is that it establishes that well-being is related with the individuals’ interrelations with a society. This social well-being can be applied
to smaller scenarios like groups within organizations, and it is possible to argue that a big part of individual’s well-being and motivation is linked to healthy social relationships between the
19
person and the colleagues (social integration), and between the person and the task under her
responsibility (social contribution).
Ryan and Deci (2000) through the Self-determination theory also explore how the sense
of well-being is linked with the satisfaction of the psychological needs of competence,
relatedness and autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000), which are similar to Keyes’s categories of
social contribution and social integration. Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan (2000)
empirically show that the fulfilment of the needs of relatedness and competence lead to higher
levels of daily well-being, which in turn affect positively the levels of long-term well-being
(Reis et al., 2000). Therefore, in scenarios of daily social interaction, the satisfaction of the
needs of competence, relatedness and autonomy, leads to the realization of people’s well-being
(Reis et al., 2000).
For this thesis, the most remarkable contribution of this empirical work is that it proves
that some individuals are more responsive than others to the variations of the factors that
contribute to the daily well-being. The sensitivity of each person to the circumstances that
affect well-being determines to what extent environmental clues make someone more (or less)
inclined to behave accordingly to them. Therefore, the way people experience well-being is not
homogeneous and can be affected by the overarching frame that dominates an environment.
This aspect is relevant because it determines that people can experience well-being in
organizations from being in a normative frame similar to if they were in a hedonic frame.
Finally, Harter, Schmidt & Keyes (2003) explore in detail the role of well-being and its
potential positive effect on organizational performance. The authors proved that workers that
experience positive feelings (i.e. motivation or commitment) and have their social needs and
affective needs satisfied, translate these emotions in higher business performance. The study
20 The conceptual framework
In goal-framing theory, well-being is present in the hedonic frame (Lindenberg, 2000), and its strength is such that it can be “involved in almost everything people do” (Lindenberg,
2000, 187). Hedonic well-being can take the form of the realization of pleasures and sensorial
goals like seeking satisfaction, avoiding pain, avoiding effort, among others (Foss &
Lindenberg, 2013). But, it can also appear from reactions in the normative or gain frame that
derive in contentment or unpleasantness. The role of the hedonic frame proposed in this thesis
is not a reinforcement in forms of incentives or rewards as proposed by Lindenberg and Foss
(2011), but it is a consequence of the normative frame. The normative frame entails the
existence of a shared purpose within teams, and it is based in strong relational signalling and
social forces (Lindenberg & Steg, 2013). Therefore, the common purpose, the social regulation
and the opportunity to reinforce interpersonal relationships, make the normative frame a fertile
ground for social well-being to raise. People can experience social well-being because they
belong to a group and because they feel capable to contribute to collective outcomes (Keyes,
1998), or more precisely because they are immersed in a normative frame. The possibility of
improving the social well-being in different frames allows the hedonic frame to co-exist in a
normative situation without necessarily resulting prejudicial for performance. In such situation,
the frames are not completely differentiated, and their different effects on people behaviours
do not have to be incompatible with the idea of value creation.
As social well-being is based on the idea of being able to contribute to a group and
being part of a collective, a high level of social well-being will increase the chances that people
engage in collaborative activities inside their group (Keyes, 1998). This is because the group
is configured around a shared goal, and because collaborating with others to achieve the goal improves and strengthen group members’ interrelationships. Goal-framing theory conceives
21
the interrelated activities. Therefore, an individual’s good level of social well-being can
positively affect the levels of joint production motivation.
In this way, an individual that operates in a normative frame that belongs to a group
and works with others for a collective outcome can find in the normative frame an ongoing
source of satisfaction. In turn, the social environment can incentivize people to stay in the
normative frame and find pleasure from it while they possibly also express this motivation in
forms of cooperation, adaptability, extra efforts and proactivity. All of these are expressions of
joint production motivation (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011), and these behaviours can positively
impact organizational performance. These ideas can be better understood in the following
conceptual model (figure 1).
Figure 1. Conceptual framework
It is important to clarify that the effect of this social well-being is not going to diminish
directly the negative effects of hedonic goals proposed by Lindenberg and Foss (2011). The authors’ ideas of hedonic well-being are more focused on short-term sensorial satisfaction. The
social well-being proposed here is focused on providing joy based on relationships and
interactions which can go beyond instant pleasure.
Social well-being *Social contribution: self-efficacy, being able to contribute to a team *Social integration – feeling part of a group, having good relationships
Joint production motivation *engage in collaborative tasks with others because of the existence of a common goal and team interdependencies Normative frame *Common goal *Interrelated tasks (collaborative tasks) *team existence (teams structures) Better collective performance *The result of coordinate efforts, mutual support, cooperation, coordination, less opportunism
22
I expect that individuals in a normative frame will get a satisfactory experience derived
from the appraisal of themselves immersed in a collective context and contributing to a
collective endeavour. This satisfaction raising from their social context will make them feel
more motivated to participate in the joint production activities. The high motivation for
performing collaborative activities will make them cooperate, be proactive, share knowledge,
coordinate with each other, be helpful and exert extra efforts. These attitudes then will produce
a higher collective performance.
Social well-being, analogue to the concept of employee “engagement” that is based on
cognitive and motivational antecedents, can also contribute to improving collective
performance. Finally, the total effect of the normative frame on social well-being and joint
production motivation is expected to cause a better collective performance. The following
section will establish the hypotheses of this conceptual framework.
Hypotheses development
This section is divided into two parts. The first part presents the model to test the
relationships proposed by goal-framing theory, regarding the effect of the normative frame on
collective performance, and the mediating effect of joint production motivation. The second
part presents a model to test the effect of the normative frame on collective performance
through the serial mediation effect of social well-being and joint production motivation.
Part 1. Normative frame, joint production motivation and performance.
In the context of collective production, the normative frame focuses on the efforts to
particularly contribute to others and seek to the best result for collective goals (Lindenberg &
Foss, 2011). This frame is built on the cognition of a common purpose and in the interrelation
23
focused on collective production. This frame establishes the rules and procedures that people
are supposed to follow and prevents them to pursue individual goals like improving the
resources position and obtaining pleasure from a given situation (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011).
Therefore, the normative frame limits the appearance of non-productive practices like
opportunism, while it reinforces the right type of cooperation to achieve joint endeavours
(Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). Therefore:
Hypothesis 1a. The normative frame has a positive effect on collective performance. The normative frame creates the conditions in which collective production situations
can appear. The cognition of being in a collective production situation and the behavioural
reinforcement towards collective performance lead people to experience higher levels of
motivation towards joint production (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). These high levels of
motivation incentivize people to endorse behaviours like knowledge sharing, cooperation,
altruism, proactiveness, willingness to help others, and additional efforts to find solutions to
collective problems (Lindenberg, 2006; Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). At an organizational level,
the normative frame and join production motivation could conditionate the tasks that
individuals are willing to engage in and the effort and coordination that they exert to make
those tasks. The net effect of this prosocial behaviours will be noted as higher collective
performance. Therefore:
Hypothesis 1b. The normative frame has a positive effect on joint production motivation
Hypothesis 1c. Joint production motivation has a positive effect on collective performance
Hypothesis 1d. The normative frame has an indirect and positive effect on collective performance, and this relation is mediated by joint production motivation.
24 Figure 2. Model Part 1
Part 2. Normative frame, social well-being, joint production motivation, and collective performance
In goal-framing theory, the hedonic frame is the frame that relates to people’s emotions
and well-being. Goals in this frame are especially salient given that they impact people’s
affections instantly. Lindenberg and Foss (2011) identify situations in which the hedonic frame
can displace the normative frame to the background leading to negative consequences for the
organization. For example, reward structures can look arbitrary if not managed properly, which
lead people to feel mistreated and develop retaliation towards the organization (Lindenberg &
Foss, 2011). Codes of conduct and sanctions can be signified as unfair and have negative
consequences that have to be avoided, pushing people towards a hedonic frame (Lindenberg &
Foss, 2011). Additionally, ambiguous authority structures can be understood an impetus of
superiority which deteriorates relational bonds and undermines joint production motivation.
Taking into consideration this evidence, the authors suggest using those mechanisms with
special care of not incentivising people to satisfy their hedonic goals.
However, the literature review also suggests that there are alternative ways to make people’s hedonic goals and well-being a positive support for the sustainability of the normative
frame. Well-being is increased with the achievement of goals and progress in tasks (Austin &
Vancouver, 1996; Diener, 1984) which is why the normative frame is endorsed by
Normative frame Joint Production motivation Collective performance
25
organizations. Those achievements generate pleasure and satisfaction at the same time (Austin
& Vancouver, 1996; Diener, 1984). Well-being is also the result of social interactions, which
can be found in social settings but also in collective production situations based on a normative
frame. Social interactions and peers’ relationships increase well-being in people (Ryff &
Keyes, 1995), which is also linked to the enjoyment that people experience when their
contributions are qualified as useful and become relevant for a collective goal (Keyes, 1998).
Two aspects from the normative frame may have an effect on individuals’ levels of
social well-being. First, the task transparency and team interrelations allow team members to
recognized themselves as part of a collective effort with an objective of social contribution.
Therefore, individuals acting under a normative frame can experience higher social well-being
because they feel useful and capable of contributing to a collective task. Second, by recognizing
themselves as part of a collectively, individuals experience higher social well-being because
the feel integrated within a team. In the same way, peer’s signalling and symbolic management
provide a sense of approval and social support. Besides, the ongoing joint work towards the
collective work produces social interactions that can strengthen the relationships between
peers. Therefore:
Hypothesis 2a. A normative frame will have a positive effect on individuals’ social well-being
Social well-being rises with the awareness of oneself being involved in a social setting
(Keyes, 1998). The relationships with others, with the context, with oneself and with collective
endeavours, determine the level of social well-being of one individual. Therefore, feeling confident of one’s role within a group, and being confident of one’s capacity to contribute to
others and be useful, will produce a high level of well-being. The capacity to recognize oneself in such situation can affect individuals’ willingness and motivation to engage in collaborative
26
activities that are proper from joint production motivation (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011).
Therefore:
Hypothesis 2b. Social well-being will have a positive effect on joint production motivation.
As It was stated before, joint production motivation will make people focus on
collective goals and will allow them to create a shared representation of actions, which will
reduce their need of coordination (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013). People will engage in creative
activities to achieve collective goals and will assist peers in dealing with ambiguous situations
(Foss & Lindenberg, 2013). Therefore, joint production motivation facilitates the appearance
of actions that contribute to collective goal attainment:
Hypothesis 2c. Joint production motivation has a positive effect on collective performance.
Danna & Griffin’s (1999) review of the literature on well-being and productivity, found
a link between peers’ working relationships with the existence of positive affects and
well-being, which turns into better performance. This relation also works in the opposite sense, poor
communication or negative stimuli from peers derives in poor well-being and this impacts
negatively productivity. Therefore:
Hypothesis 2d. Social well-being has a positive effect on collective performance Finally, according to Harter, Schmidt & Keyes (Harter et al., 2003; Ryff & Keyes,
1995), high levels of well-being leads to first higher motivation towards tasks, and second, it
turns in higher collective performance due to better individual performance and overall better
collective goal attainment.
Social well-being has an effect on motivation and productivity. Harter, Schmidt &
Keyes (2003) found that the presence of well-being in employees in form of positive
27
charge of tasks that allow them to grow and feel well and productive show higher performance.
The authors state that employees emotional antecedent generates a positive affect, as
commitment or motivation, and this leads to efficiency and creativity, and ultimately to better
performance (Harter et al., 2003). Therefore:
Hypothesis 2e. The normative frame has an indirect and positive effect on collective performance, and this relation is mediated first by social well-being and second by joint production motivation.
Figure 3. Model Part 2
Thus, this model, represented in Figure 3, can be understood as a sequential mediation
model, where social well-being and joint production motivation act as mediators of the
relationship between the normative frame and collective performance.
Methods
The experimental study was a lab experiment using a one-way between-subjects design.
Due to the use of frames and priming, the between-subjects form is the best way to ensure the results in the treatment condition won’t be biased by participants' learning curves. The control
condition was used to capture the level of joint production motivation in a neutral frame (where
at least I could control that the elements of the normative frame were not present) and later it
was used to contrast the changes in the motivation in the treatment condition due to the Normative frame Social well-being Joint Production motivation Collective Performance
28
intervention. The treatment condition consisted of implementing two of the four aspects that
create the normative frame proposed by Lindenberg and Foss (2011), which were the peer’s
signalling and the task transparency and team structures. This chapter explains in detail the
experiment design for each of the conditions, the operationalization of the variables, and the
procedures.
Participants
Participants in this experiment were master students from the Faculty of Economics
and Business of the University of Amsterdam. Given that goal-framing theory is concerned
with goal attainment and is applied to organizational performance and value creation (Foss &
Lindenberg, 2013), I focused on this type of population because they typically occupy the job
vacancies in firms after graduation, and it is expected that business students and business
professionals share a common background and have similar mental orientations. I decided not
to approach firms directly because I had very limited access to contacts that could facilitate the
experiment implementation and due to limited time for the data collection. Students were not
offered any kind of individual incentive to participate in the experiment, since I did not want
to activate any gain or hedonic frame in them before and during the experiment. Only a general
Amazon voucher of 30 euros was offered to be raffled among all participants (84 people).
Students were approached during the breaks of tutorial sessions to increase the chances that
they were willing to participate. The classes were chosen randomly from general timetables of
the master program of business administration of the University of Amsterdam having between
20 or 25 people. Once the classes were chosen, the professors were approached and asked for
permission to perform the experiment. Participation was not mandatory, and students were
29 Materials and task
The task was designed to be performed in groups to simulate the collective setting in
which goal-framing theory is applied. It consisted of filling a matrix with the outcome of sums
of two-digits numbers just as the Figure 4 shows. Each piece of paper had three rows of
matrices. Participants had to decide whether they wanted to attain their individual goal by
filling one of the empty matrices, or if they also wanted to contribute to their team goal by
filling the three empty matrices.
All groups had a team goal and each person had an individual goal. All the participants
were informed about the two goals at the beginning of the experiment. The group goal consisted
of filling 15 matrices, which meant that, in order to reach the team goal, each team member
needed to fill the 3 matrices in his/her piece of paper. If this was not done for at least one team
member, then the team goal was not going to be achieved. The individual goal was achieved
by filling only 1 matrix.
Sums of two-digit numbers were chosen for the task in order to minimize effects of
increasing efficiency and learning behaviour when doing an activity many repeated times
(Benndorf, Rau, & Sölch, 2014). In this way, I wanted to avoid that people obtained satisfaction
for doing the task more efficiently and for getting used it. Two-digit sums were chosen for the
task because of two reasons. First, summing numbers was a basic mathematical calculation for
the level of education of the participants, therefore no previous knowledge was needed to
participate. Second, making sums with two-digit numbers required more time and mental effort
than just summing one-digit numbers, therefore the possibility that participants enjoyed the
task was lower. In that way, with that real-effort task, I intended to increase the level of external
30 Figure 4. Calculations
Besides the piece of paper with the task, participants required a pen to make the
calculations and an envelope only for the control condition. The envelope per person was given
to each student at the beginning of the experiment.
Operationalization of variables Independent variable – normative frame
The establishment of the normative frame was done using two of the four antecedents
of the normative frame proposed by Lindenberg and Foss (2011). More exactly, the antecedents of ‘task transparency and team interdependencies’ and ‘symbolic management’ in terms of
peer’s signalling were applied; the antecedents of ‘rewards structures’ and the
‘knowledge-based authority structure’ were not applied. The rationales for this decision are explained in
the following paragraphs.
I used task transparency and teams’ interdependencies to set the field where joint
production motivation can appear. Without this element, there cannot be a collective
production (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). This antecedent activated people’s cognition about the
existence of a collective effort, which is a fundamental part of goal-framing theory. Symbolic
management took the form of peer’s signalling which offers a direct support to the normative
frame and ensures that it does not decay easily. Symbolic management could also rise joint
production motivation by a sort of contagion effect (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). So, individuals
that express keen interest for the joint task influence others willingness to work and collaborate
31
Regarding the reward structures in goal-framing theory, these are advised to be used to
indirectly support the normative frame. However, there is always a high risk that they end up
strengthening the gain and the hedonic frame. Given the risk it represented and the fact that
their role was to provide indirect support to motivation, in this experiment I didn’t base the
normative frame in this antecedent.
Related to the knowledge-based structures, Lindenberg and Foss (2011) advice to use
them to compensate the top-down authority structures that can hamper the effect of the
normative frame. A top-down authority structure is reinforced by contractual agreements that
may lead people to shrink or skip rules, which indirectly increases the salience of the hedonic
or gain frame. Therefore, if organizations are too complex to prescind from the contractual
agreements and their authority structure cannot be simplified, knowledge-based structures can
compensate in favour of the normative frame (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). If the organization
is small enough to avoid the top-down contractual authority structure, then flattening the
organization is sufficient to protect the salience of the normative frame (Lindenberg & Foss,
2011). Therefore, due to the moderate size and scope of the teams used in this experiment, the
knowledge-based antecedent was not applied.
The collective production situation was created by establishing a group setting and by
operationalizing the antecedents of tasks transparency and team structure and symbolic
management. First, groups were created to carry out a collective task. Knowing that group size
affects the effectiveness and performance of teams due to lack of coordination, lack of
leadership, loss of relational sense, problems of communication, among others, (Hackman &
Vidmar, 1970; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Mueller, 2012), the number of people per group was
chosen with the purpose of creating a minimum need of coordination and communication
among members without resulting in the inability to set an agreement. Hackman & Vidmar
32
five people because the more people were added to the group beyond that number, the less
comfortable people found them due to coordination and communication challenges.
Second, task transparency and team interrelations were achieved by asking participants
to collect all the pieces of paper with the individual calculation within the group. In this way,
people could observe if others decided to contribute to the team goal or not. Third, symbolic
management in form of peer signalling was achieved by telling participants that they were allowed to talk along the experiment. In that way, communication and people’s attitudes
created a contagion effect that was expected to impact each other’s frame, accordingly to
Lindenberg and Foss (2011). That implied that participants could agree on working all together
to achieve the team goal. These two last elements made people aware of the need for all
individual contributions in order to achieve the collective goal and allow them to influence each other’s decisions.
In this experiment, however, peer’s signalling was allowed to ‘run free’ in the treatment
condition. It was not controlled because that implied first bringing extra people to the
experiment that could exert the positive peer’s signalling, which was not feasible due to the people’s limited willingness to participate; or second, assigning to any team member the role
of creating a positive signalling, which was difficult to control and ensure uniformity across all
the groups. Still, even when the type of signalling was not controlled, I expected that the
collective production situation and the awareness of the collective goal were going to induce
the peer’s signalling towards the support of the collective goal.
Manipulation check
Six sentences of manipulation check were included to be sure that the operationalization
of the normative frame was effective. The sentences were written following the example of
33
performance. The measurement scale ranged from 1- completely disagree to 5- completely
agree. The sentences were:
• The instructions were clear to me and I was aware of the difference between the individual goal and the team goal.
• I felt that my effort was needed to achieve the team goal. • I felt like it is appropriate to contribute to the team goal.
• Someone in the group showed special interest in completing the team task.
• Overall, I perceived that the other team members were motivated to achieve the team goal.
• What I was doing was visible for the team.
Mediator 1 – social well-being
The concept of social well-being is defined by Keyes as “a self-appraisal of one’s circumstance and functioning with society” (Keyes, 1998, 122), and it is measured in different
dimensions including: social integration, social acceptance, social contribution, social
actualization and social coherence. Keyes (1998) proposes and test a social well-being scale to
demonstrate the social structural sources of well-being. The scale was applied and adapted to
different studies to test its validity, and in those occasions, its alpha reliability was 0.57, 0.84,
and 0.86 (Keyes, 1998). The same scale was used in this experiment to measure the two
dimensions pertinent to the context of this thesis. Those dimensions were social integration and social contribution. Social integration, defined as the “quality of one’s relationship with the
society” (Keyes, 1998, 122), gave a measure to which extent people felt they had
commonalities with others, and to what extent they felt a sense of belonging to the team. Social
contribution, defined as the evaluation of the individuals’ social value as vital members of a
34
individuals’ perception of their capability to perform tasks and contribute to collective goals
(Keyes, 1998). Both dimensions were measured in a scale from 1- strongly disagree to
7-strongly agree. The sentences were the following:
Social Integration
• You didn't feel you belong to anything you'd call a team. • You felt like you were an important part of your team.
• If you had something to say, you believe people in your team would have listened to you.
• You felt close to other people in your team. • You saw your team as a source of comfort.
• If you had something to say, you don't think your team would have taken you seriously.
Social contribution
• Your behaviour had some impact on other people in your team. • You think you had something valuable to give to the team.
• Your activities did not produce anything worthwhile for your team. • You didn't have the time or energy to give to your team.
• You thought that your work provided an important product for your team. • You felt you had nothing important to contribute to your team.
Mediator 2 – goal commitment
Giving the scarce pool of empirical work in goal-framing theory, there is not an
established scale that can be used to measure join production motivation as a dependent
variable. Lindenberg & Steg (2013) made an attempt to explain the effect of the normative
frame in terms of types of behaviour people adopted towards environmental issues. In Keiser,
35
were measured with factual observations of actions in a field experiment. None of these works
precisely focused on joint production motivation, but they focused on the which antecedent
frames lead to specific behaviour.
The literature of goal commitment and motivation offers an alternative way to
operationalize joint production motivation. Meyer, Becker & Vanderberghe (2004) analysed,
compared and integrated concepts of commitment and motivation. They defined work motivation as a “set of energetic forces that originates both within as well as beyond an
individual’s being, to initiate work-related behaviour, and to determine its form, direction,
intensity and duration” (Meyer et al., 2004, 992). The authors highlight two main characteristics of this concept: first, it is an ‘energizing force’ that drives actions, and second,
it has implications for the form, directions, intensity and duration of those actions.
Meyer et al. (2004) integrated the models of commitment and motivation and provided
explanations on how the motivational process happens and can be reinforced in a working field.
One particular model of commitment was relevant in this case, goal commitment. According
to the authors, goal commitment as many other forms of commitment appeared to have a
moderating effect when achieving work motivation (Meyer et al., 2004). It had the ability to
influence the attention people gave to the activities that served to achieve a goal, and therefore
the amount of effort put to attain it (Meyer et al., 2004).
By comparing the definitions and the theoretical frameworks behind those two
concepts, the authors came to the conclusion that both commitment and motivation were
energizing forces, but commitment was a type of force that linked an individual to a specific
sequence of behaviours. Therefore, motivation was a broader concept where commitment lied
within (Meyer et al., 2004).
The definition of goal commitment used in Meyers et al. (2004) paper is the traditional concept of “one's attachment to or determination to reach a goal, regardless of the goal's origin”
36
(Locke, Latham, & Erez, 1988, 24), except because in Meyer’s work the degree of commitment
is affected by additional factors that conditionate attention, intentions of effort, and willingness
to develop innovative solutions (Meyer et al., 2004). In this study, I focused on Meyer et al.
(2004) argument of this variable as a component of motivation, and how a positive or negative change in goal commitment will affect also the individuals’ motivation. Therefore, a proxy
way to measure joint production motivation is by assessing the commitment people feel
towards a collective goal.
There is not a unique way to measure goal commitment. Hollenbeck, Williams & Klein
(1989) developed a nine-item self-report measure of goal commitment that was widely used in
subsequent empirical works. The coefficient alpha of reliability for the scale in this study was
0.76. The items were: (1) I am strongly committed to pursuing this GPA goal; (2) I am willing
to put forth a great deal of effort beyond what I'd normally do to achieve this GPA goal; (3)
quite frankly, I don't care if I achieve this GPA goal or not; (4) there is not much to be gained
by trying to achieve this GPA goal; (5) it is quite likely that this GPA goal may need to be
revised, depending on how things go this quarter; (6) it wouldn't take much to make me
abandon this GPA goal; (7) it's unrealistic for me to expect to reach this GPA goal; (8) since
it's not always possible to tell how tough courses are until you've been in them a while, it's hard
to take this goal seriously; (9) I think this GPA goal is a good goal to shoot for (Hollenbeck et
al., 1989). For example, Sue-Chang & Ong (2002), in their work on goal assignment and
performance, measured goal commitment as a substitute of goal acceptance (Locke et al., 1988;
Sue-Chan & Ong, 2002) and adapted the seven points measure of goal commitment from
Hollenbeck et al. (1989). Sholihin, Pike, Mangena & Li (2011), in their study of goal-setting
participation and goal commitment, also referred to Hollenbeck et al. (1989) to measure goal
commitment. They used only three of the nine statements of the scale (items 1, 2 and 3).
