The interaction between moral disengagement and individualism and/or indulgence and its influence on workplace deviance

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

The interaction between moral disengagement and individualism

and/or indulgence and its influence on workplace deviance

Master Thesis, MSc International Business and Management

Theme: Ethics

Abstract

Key words: Workplace deviance, moral disengagement, individualism, indulgence.

Table of Contents

I.

Introduction ... 1

II.

Literature Review ... 4

Workplace Deviance ... 4

Moral Disengagement ... 5

Cultural Differences…..………….…………...…………..……..6

III. Research Design……….10

Data collection..………..10

Measurements……….10

Participants………...…..11

Analysis………..13

IV.

Results……….14

Correlation………..14

Moderation Analysis………..15

V.

Discussion………18

Theoretical implications….………18

Practical implications….………19

Limitations and Future research.………....20

VI.

Conclusion…….……….23

VII. Reference List……….24

1

I.

Introduction

Organizations usually aim to create an atmosphere of conformity and teamwork to achieve maximum productivity and establish a healthy corporate culture. In all types of organizations, deviant behavior can occur, which can damage the effort and effectiveness of the organization. Therefore, managers need to be aware of indications of deviant behavior, in order for preventive measures to be taken. It is not surprising that the prevalence of workplace deviance poses a serious economic threat to organizations. The yearly costs of workplace deviant behavior for the global economy has been estimated to be already 4.2 billion dollar for violent workplace behavior alone (Bensimon, 1994), for theft this amount was estimated around 40 to 120 billion dollar (Buss, 1993; Camara & Schneider, 1994), and for other delinquent organizational behavior it was estimated to be around 6 to 200 billion dollar (Murphy, 1993; Bennett, 2000). This results in a total amount of between 50.2 and 324.2 billion dollars annually. This reveals the importance to further and more in depth research this type of behavior to gain insights for both academics and practitioners into why certain employees may commit workplace deviant behavior while others do not. This insight could potentially lead to a decrease in costs of workplace deviant behavior if preventive measures are taken. In order to recognize employees who are likely to act on workplace deviant behavior it is necessary to investigate the reasons of this type of behavior.

2 human group from another (Hofstede, 1980; Kirkman et.al., 2006). The selection of cultural dimensions, specifically individualism and indulgence of Hofstede has been chosen to understand how cultural differences are related to moral disengagement and workplace deviant behavior. According to Hofstede (1983) national cultures consist of four dimensions that are possible in nearly all combinations. The dimensions are largely independent of each other and consist of the following: individualism versus collectivism, large or small power distance, strong or weak uncertainty avoidance and masculinity versus femininity. In 2010 Hofstede added two more dimensions: long-term versus short-term orientation and indulgence versus self-restraint. It is expected that indulgence versus self-restraint could also affect this relationship. Husted and Allen (2008) and others suggest that individualism and collectivism have an effect on ethical decision making. Thus, in this research the interaction between moral disengagement and the Hofstede dimensions individualism and/or indulgence and its impacts on workplace deviant behavior will be investigated.

This leads to the following research question: “How does the interaction between moral disengagement and individualism and/or indulgence affect workplace deviant behavior?”

4

II.

Literature review

2.1 Workplace deviance

Workplace deviance refers to voluntary behavior that violates important organizational norms and threatens the well-being of the organization or members of the organization, or a combination of both (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). People engage in deviant behavior for a wide range of reasons (Bennett, 1998a, 1998b; Robinson & Bennett, 1997; Robinson & Greenberg, 1999), ranging from reactions to perceived injustice, dissatisfaction, role modeling, and thrill-seeking. However, deviant organizational behavior differs in that it is mostly behavior that is constrained to the workplace (Bennett, 2000). Another explanation of workplace deviant behavior is the suggestion that instrumental and expressive motives underlie this type of behavior, which allows for both cognition oriented (thoughts about work) and affect oriented (feelings about work) explanations of workplace deviant behavior (Greenberg & Scott, 1996; Robinson & Bennett, 1997; Sheppard, Lewicki, & Minton, 1992; Lee & Allen, 2002).

5 mechanism between ethical leadership and workplace deviance can be found in the personality trait moral disengagement. Specifically, that subordinates can learn cognitively and emotionally from ethical leaders to reduce moral disengagement and are therefore less likely to act on workplace deviant behavior.

2.2 Moral disengagement

Moral disengagement refers to a set of cognitive justifications (referred to as cognitive mechanisms) which allows an individual to carry out activities such as social undermining while disregarding the self-sanctions (e.g. self-condemnation, self-loathing) that would normally discourage this type of behavior. When the moral disengagement mechanisms are used it reduces self-deterrents for behavior that is harming others and allows to enable a person for self-approval of antisocial behavior (Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper & Aquino, 2012). Moral disengagement does not prevent individuals to justify the negative effect of harmful actions (e.g. ‘he told me so’), it also encompasses moral justification (e.g. ‘I have a legitimate cause’), use of euphemistic language (e.g. ‘making things right or fair’), advantageous comparisons (e.g. ‘compared to others what I did wasn’t so bad’), and obscuring or distorting the effects of behavior that is harming others (e.g. ‘it was just gossiping’), to reduce the consequences (Duffy et al., 2012). Moreover, moral disengagement is the cognitive process involved in the prevention or evasion of moral decision making and moral behavior; it prevents uncomfortable self censure by cognitively re-conceptualizing behavior that would normally conflict with an individual’s moral standards in order for it to become morally acceptable (Claybourn, 2011).

6 research was extended and in this extension it was found that the indirect effect of envy on social undermining with moral disengagement only took place when team undermining was high and social identification was low. Furthermore, it elaborates on the understanding of the role of moral disengagement as a predictor of the willingness to harm others. Bandura (2002) examined the issue of selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. The result of this study suggests that the exercise of moral disengagement has two opposing aspects, namely; the power to refrain from inhumane behavior (inhibitive) and the power to behave humanely (proactive).

It is expected that moral disengagement positively influences people to conduct workplace deviant behavior. The reason that could explain this is that moral disengagement allows people to reduce self-deterrents to behavior that is harming others and that it enables self-approval for antisocial behavior (Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper & Aquino, 2012). This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Moral disengagement positively influences people to conduct workplace deviant behavior.

2.3 Cultural differences

7 The work of Hofstede has been criticized by Schwarz (1994) because the research data was obtained between 1967 and 1973 and thus in his opinion increases the likelihood that the dimensions are outdated, the cultural dimensions are not exhaustive, the IBM employees are not representative of a general population, the dimensions are theoretically comparable across cultures, and the current sample of countries does not produce the totality of national cultures. Nevertheless, the dimensions of Hofstede are still used to explain cultural differences, because cultures are expected to change simultaneously the dimensions would still be valid in comparison between cultures. Drogendijk and Slangen (2006) argue that it might not be accurate to dismiss Hofstede’s work as outdated or misrepresenting cultural differences. The GLOBE study of Parboteeah, Bronson and Cullen (2005) builds on the work of Hofstede and adds more dimensions, it was found that there are nine possible national cultural dimensions to distinguish countries. It consists of the following dimensions: uncertainty avoidance, power distance, societal collectivism, in-group collectivism, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, future orientation, performance orientation and humane orientation. Furthermore, cultural analyses should address the general issue of whether there is a universal human nature or many human natures derived from diverse cultural environments.Bandura (2002) argues that human nature is characterized by the possibility that it can be changed by direct and explicit experience into a diversity of forms within biological limits. For instance, biologically people can potentially be aggressive, but the cultural variation in aggressiveness lies more in ideology than in biology.

8 identities and values are the psychosocial systems via which experiences are sorted. Parboteeah, Bronson and Cullen (2005) examine the relationship of the GLOBE study national culture dimensions with the willingness to justify ethically suspect behaviors. The results of this research suggest that performance orientation, assertiveness, institutional collectivism and humane orientation aid in explaining the willingness to justify ethically suspect behaviors (Parboteeah, Bronson & Cullen, 2005). Furthermore, according to Linton (1999), the influence that culture has on the personality of a person can be either obtained from culturally patterned behavior towards a child which shapes deeper levels of personality, or those continuing throughout the individual's life. Therefore, culture can explain the behavior of an individual, which suggests that differences in culture could influence workplace deviant behavior. For the purpose of this research the dimensions individualism versus collectivism and indulgence versus self-restraint have been chosen.

9 Therefore, individualism and/or indulgence should have a positive effect on moral disengagement and this interaction should enhance the likelihood of an individual to conduct workplace deviant behavior. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The interaction effect between moral disengagement and individualism and/or indulgence positively influences people to conduct workplace deviant behavior.

The two hypotheses discussed above lead to a conceptual model proposed for this research, the graphical representation can be found in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual Model

(+) (+) Independent Variable Moral disengagement Moderator Individualism/Indulgence Dependent Variable Workplace Deviance Control Variables Age, Gender, Educational background, Tenure, level of

10

III. Research design

3.1 Data collection

The proposed research design is to conduct an online questionnaire to ensure the highest confidentiality of the identity of the participants and in order to prevent biased answers. The quantitative data for this online questionnaire should be collected from people who are working at least part time to be able to be representative for behavior of employees. Furthermore, the people in this sample should be from different national cultures in order to be representative for different cultures to be able to make a distinction between collectivistic and individualistic cultures. The questionnaire should be completely anonymous due to the sensitive information asked about a person’s tendency to engage in workplace deviant behavior. The questionnaire has been distributed online via various channels. The questionnaire consisted of four blocks of questions. The first block consisted of questions regarding moral disengagement such as “Taking property from work is really the same as borrowing”. The second block consisted of questions regarding workplace deviance of colleagues including questions such as “My colleagues put little effort into their work”. The third block consisted of questions regarding workplace deviance of the person himself or herself including questions such as “I put little effort into my work”. The fourth block consisted of questions regarding demographics including questions about gender, age, nationality, educational background and work related questions such as tenure and level of work responsibility.

3.2 Measurements

11 person himself or herself (𝛼 = 0.77). Because there was enough consistency among the two variables they have been placed in one variable, namely the total of Workplace deviance. The result for the dependent variable Workplace deviance provided that the scale of this research was highly reliable (𝛼 = 0,84). The questions for the variable Moral disengagement are derived from Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper and Aquino (2012), measured by means of 18 items on a 7 point Likert Scale from Never to Daily. The result for the independent variable Moral disengagement provided that the scale of this research was highly reliable (𝛼 = 0,86). For the variable cultural differences, more specifically individualism and indulgence, these measurements are derived from Hofstede’s (1983) national culture dimensions scores. The respondents were given the country comparison scores according to Hofstede’s country comparison tool relevant to individualism and indulgence based on their country of origin. 3.3 Participants

12 Table 1 provides an overview of the different countries involved in this research and the country comparison scores of Hofstede (1983 and 2010) of individualism and indulgence that are related to that country.

Table 1. Dimension scores Individualism and Indulgence

13 3.4 Analysis

First, a correlation analysis needs to be conducted to examine the reliability of the scale. Followed by a moderation analysis to show the direction of the relationship, and to find out whether the interaction is significant or not. Finally, in order for the moderation’s completeness control variables need to be included. For this purpose the control variables age, educational background, gender and organizational tenure have been added because previous research has shown the relevance of age, education, organizational tenure (Lee & Allen, 2002) and gender (Aquino, Reed, Thau, Freeman, 2007). Even though, the level of work responsibility has not been used in prior research, it has been added because is it likely to be relevant. After the analysis, it was found that the majority (84.2%) of the respondents has a high level of educational background, therefore it can be expected that this control variable does not provide much contribution to this research. Furthermore, two respondents could not receive a country score on the dimension indulgence because there are no known country comparison scores for Suriname. However, because it is a low amount of missing values the correlation and moderation analysis could still be conducted.

14

IV. Results

4.1 Correlation

Table 2 gives an overview of the correlations between the different variables including the control variables. In order to show the extent to which the variables workplace deviance, moral disengagement and the level of individualisms and/or indulgence are related to each other, and as well how strongly the variables are related to each other, the correlation has been included in this research.

Table 2. Correlations including Control variables

* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01

From Table 2 it can be interpreted that there is a positive, however, not a significant relation between the level of individualism and workplace deviance ( r = 0.08, p > 0.01 ). This means that the level of individualism has no influence on workplace deviant behavior. Furthermore, there is a negative, however, not significant relation between the level of individualism and moral disengagement ( r = -0.15, p > 0.01 ). This means that individualism has no influence on moral disengagement. Also, there is a positive significant relation between the level of individualism and the level of indulgence ( r = 0.51, p < 0.01 ). This means that the level of individualism has a positive influence on the level of indulgence. Furthermore, it can be interpreted that there is a negative, however, not significant relation between indulgence and moral disengagement ( r = -0.06, p > 0.01 ). This means that the level of indulgence has no influence on moral disengagement. Moreover, there is a significant positive relation between indulgence and workplace deviance ( r = 0.18, p < 0.05 ). Thus, when the enjoyment of human drives is permitted it enables voluntary behavior that violates

15 important organizational norms and threatens the well-being of the organization or members of the organization, or a combination of both. Also, it can be interpreted that there is a significant positive relation between moral disengagement and workplace deviance ( r = 0.41, p < 0.01 ). This means that a person who allows him or herself to justify the negative impact of harmful actions enables self-approval for antisocial behavior which as a consequence results in voluntary behavior that violates important organizational norms and threatens the well-being of the organization or members of the organization, or a combination of both.

From table 2 it can also be interpreted that all control variables have some significance to the other control variables. Tenure is positively affected by age ( r = 0.72, p < 0.01 ) and level of work responsibility ( r = 0.29, p < 0.01 ) and negatively affected by gender ( r = 0.18, p < 0.05 ). The level of work responsibility is positively affected by age ( r = 0.44, p < 0.01 ). It can also be interpreted that the control variables have significance towards the dependent variable and the independent variable. Age has a negative significant relation to workplace deviance ( r = -0.29, p < 0.01 ). Furthermore, tenure has a negative but low significant relation to workplace deviance ( r = -0.21, p < 0.05). Tenure also has a negative significant relation to moral disengagement ( r = -0.24, p < 0.01 ). The level of work responsibility has a negative significant relation to moral disengagement ( r = -0.24, p < 0.01 ).

4.2 Moderation Analysis

In order to gain more insights on whether the level of individualism and/or the level of indulgence influence the relationship between moral disengagement and workplace deviance the moderation effect has been tested. The moderation test reveals whether the level of individualism and/or the level of indulgence strengthens or weakens the existence of the relation between moral disengagement and workplace deviance.

16 Table 3. Coefficients (dependent variable Workplace Deviance)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Steps and Variables B SE B SE B SE

Intercept 4.65** (0.48) 4.29** (0.46) 4.23** (0.46) Control Gender -0.32 (0.17) -0.30 (0.16) -0.29 (0.16) Age -0.03* (0.01) -0.02* (0.01) -0.02* (0.01) Tenure Work responsibility -0.00 -0.01 (0.01) (0.09) 0.00 0.04 (0.01) (0.08) 0.00 0.05 (0.01) (0.08) Main effects Moral disengagement 0.35** (0.08) 0.37** (0.08) Level Individualism 0.09 (0.09) 0.12 (0.11) Level Indulgence 0.19* (0.09) 0.16 (0.10) Two-way interaction Moral_disengagement x Level Individualism -0.01 (0.10) Moral_disengagement x Level Indulgence 0.15 (0.08) R Square 0.11 0.28 0.30 Δ R Square 0.24** 0.24 * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01

Model 1 of Table 3 shows that age has a negative impact on workplace deviance and that this relation is significant ( B = -0.03, p = 0.02 ). This means that for a younger person it is more likely that he or she is to engage in workplace deviant behavior.

17 have been included in the model. Table 3 shows that with regard to the expected main effects the R Square explains 27.6%. This shows an increase and the increase is significant ( R Square = 0.28, p = 0.00 ).

18

V.

Discussion

The aim of this research was to examine the effect of moral disengagement on workplace deviant behavior and to test whether this relation is affected by the level of individualism and/or the level of indulgence. It was hypothesized that the interaction effect between moral disengagement and individualism and/or indulgence positively influences people to conduct workplace deviant behavior. However, this interaction effect was not found to be significant. Therefore, it cannot be argued that a person from an individualistic and/or indulgent culture has a higher probability for self-approval to behave in an antisocial manner which results in voluntary behavior that violates important organizational norms and threatens the well-being of the organization or members of the organization, or a combination of both. Nonetheless, this research did find a significant positive relation between moral disengagement and workplace deviant behavior. Thus, suggesting that an individual who morally disengages the self-sanctions that would normally discourage them from harming others is more likely to act on voluntary behavior that violates important organizational norms and threatens the well-being of the organization or members of the organization, or a combination of both. This result confirms the research of Liu, Lam and Loi (2012) who suggested that the key mechanism between ethical leadership and workplace deviance can be found in the personality trait moral disengagement. Specifically, that subordinates can learn cognitively and emotionally from ethical leaders to reduce moral disengagement and are therefore less likely to act on workplace deviant behavior. This research confirms the result that there is indeed a positive significant impact on the relation between moral disengagement and workplace deviant behavior. Furthermore, this research found a low significant positive relation between the level of indulgence and workplace deviant behavior. Thus, suggesting that a person who has weak control over acting on his or her desires and impulses is more likely to act on voluntary behavior that harms the organization or the members of the organization, or a combination of both.

5.1 Theoretical implications

19 deviant behavior. However, individualism has been found significant in research concerning other forms of ethics. Alas (2006) has found that the dimensions of national culture can be used in a specific society to predict the desired ethical standards. Furthermore, Swaidan (2012) has found that consumers who score high on collectivism are more likely to refrain from questionable activities than consumers who score low on collectivism. Consequently, this could suggest that an individualistic consumer is less likely to refrain from questionable activities. Also, Husted and Allen (2008) argue that individualism moderates the relation between moral reasoning and behavior because people from an individualistic culture have a stronger relation between moral reasoning and moral behavior. Consequently, this suggests that there should have been found a significant negative impact of individualism on moral disengagement and workplace deviant behavior.

This research revealed something else that could allow for further research, namely the fact that age had a negative and significant effect ( p = 0.02 ) on workplace deviant behavior. This result could suggest that a young age is a negative influencing factor on workplace deviant behavior and this should be further investigated. Furthermore, this research revealed that there is a positive relation of low significance ( p = 0.04 ) between the level of indulgence and workplace deviant behavior. Thus, suggesting that people who do not try to control their desires and impulses are more likely to act on voluntary behavior that violates important organizational norms and threatens the well-being of the organization or members of the organization, or a combination of both. This could be further investigated in order to reveal whether this significance will be stronger with a different or larger sample of respondents. This research further revealed that the level of work responsibility has a negative significant impact on moral disengagement. Therefore, this suggests that the higher the level of work responsibility is the less likely that person is to morally disengage. This relation could be further investigated as a factor that decreases moral disengagement.

5.2 Practical implications

20 damage to an organization it is important to be aware of the fact that a person with a tendency to morally disengage is more likely to hurt an organization. Therefore, the organization should take caution when hiring a person who displays this type of behavior.

Furthermore, because individualism was not found to be a predictor for workplace deviant behavior, organizations should further investigate other personality traits or characteristics that could predict this type of behavior. Thus, the advice is to investigate whether and how a specific age group could influence this relation of moral disengagement and workplace deviant behavior. This could result in a different or adapted hiring strategy where people who are younger might be asked more questions during a job interview to examine whether or not they are likely to engage in workplace deviant behavior. Moreover, it would still be difficult to select employees based on the tendency to behave in a workplace deviant manner or even terminate employees when they act on workplace deviant behavior. Consequently, even though employers might be able to reduce workplace deviant behavior or avoid employees who are most likely to act on workplace deviant behavior it would probably still occur. The level of indulgence however, was found to be a weak predictor of workplace deviant behavior. Therefore, organizations should take caution when hiring a person who stems from a culture with a high level of indulgence.

5.3 Limitations and Future research

21 participated in the survey for this research. Moreover, the firm sector in which the respondents work was almost evenly divided, 51.1% works in a public firm sector, and 48.9% works in a private firm sector. Also, the FTE (how many hours per week the respondents work) consisted of 10.5% who works between 4 and 20 hours per week, 73.7% works between 20 and 40 hours per week and 15% works 44 hours per week or more to a maximum of 67 hours per week. Thus, overall the results of this research can be used for generalizability purposes. Secondly, due to the anonymous nature of this research the respondents were able to refrain from the social desirability response bias (Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987). Because the respondents were ensured that their answers would be anonymous they were able to answer according to their thoughts instead of choosing the answer that is expected to be the ethical answer. Moreover, the survey was presented as research aimed at gaining insights on organizational culture and behavior, therefore it was not obvious that it was about ethics and people were able to give unbiased answers.

23

VI.

24

VII. Reference list

Alas, R., Ethics in countries with different cultural dimensions, Journal of Business Ethics, 2006, Vol. 69, No. 3, p. 237-247.

Aquino, K., Reed, A., Thau, S., Freeman, D., A grotesque and dark beauty: How moral identity and mechanisms of moral disengagement influence cognitive and emotional reactions to war, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2007, Vol. 43, p. 385-392.

Bandura, A., Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities, Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 1999, Vol. 3, p. 193–209.

Bandura, A., Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency, Journal of

Moral Education, 2002, Vol. 31, No. 2, p. 101-119.

Bandura, A., Social Cognitive Theory in Cultural Context, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002, Vol. 51, No. 2, p. 269-290.

Bennett, R.J., Robinson, S.L., Development of a Measure of Workplace Deviance, Journal of

Applied Psychology, 2000, Vol. 85, No. 3, p. 349-360.

Bensimon, H. F., Crisis and disaster management: Violations in the workplace, Training and

Development, 1994, Vol. 28, p. 27-32.

Buss, D., Ways to curtail employee theft, Nation's Business, 1993, p. 36-38.

Camara, W. J., Schneider, D. L., Integrity tests: Facts and unresolved issues, American

Psychologist, 1994, Vol. 49, p. 112-119.

Claybourn, M., Relationships Between Moral Disengagement, Work Characteristics, and Workplace Harassment, Journal of Business Ethics, 2011, Vol. 100, p. 283–301.

Drogendijk, R., Slangen, A., Hofstede, Schwartz, or managerial perceptions? The effects of different cultural distance measures on establishment mode choices by multinational Enterprises, International Business Review, 2006, Vol. 15, p. 361–380.

25 Hofstede, G., The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories, Journal of

International Business Studies, 1983, Vol. 14, No. 2, p. 75-89.

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., Gupta, V., Culture, Leadership, and

Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, SAGE Publications, April 29th_{, 2004.}

Husted, B.W., Allen, D.B., Toward a Model of Cross-Cultural Business Ethics: The Impact of Individualism and Collectivism on the Ethical Decision-Making Process, Journal of Business

Ethics, 2008, Vol. 82, no. 2, p. 293-305.

Judge, T.A., Brent, A.S., Ilies, R., Hostility, Job Attitudes, and Workplace Deviance: Test of a Multilevel Model, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006, Vol. 91, No. 1, p. 126-138.

Lee, K., Allen, N.J., Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Workplace Deviance: The Role of Affect and Cognitions, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002, Vol. 87, No.1, p. 131-142. Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B., Gibson, C.B., A quarter century of Culture’s Consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework, Journal of

International Business Studies, 2006, Vol. 37, p. 285-320.

Linton, R., Cultural Background of Personality, KY: Routledge, 1999, Florence

Liu, Y., Lam, L.W., Loi, R., Ethical Leadership and Workplace Deviance: The Role of

Moral Disengagement, Advances in Global Leadership, Emerald Group Publishing Limited,

2012, Vol. 7, p. 37-56.

Parboteeah, K.P., Bronson, J.W., Cullen, J.B., 2005, Does National Culture Affect Willingness to Justify Ethically Suspect behaviors? A focus on the GLOBE national culture scheme, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 5, p. 123–138.

Poortinga, Y., Towards a Conceptualization of Culture for Psychology, Innovations in

Cross-cultural Psychology, 1992, p. 3–17.

Robinson, S.L., Bennett, R.J., A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: A Multidimensional Scaling Study, Academy of Management, 1995, Vol. 38, No. 2, p. 555-572.

Schwartz, S. H., Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values,

26 Swaidan, Z., Culture and Consumer Ethics, Journal of Business Ethics, 2012, Vol. 108, No. 2, p. 201-213.

Zerbe, W.J., Paulhus, D.L., Socially Desirable Responding in Organizational Behavior: A Reconception, Academy of Management Journal, 1987, Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 250–264.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/common-kinds-workplace-deviance-10178.html http://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html

27

VIII. Appendices

Appendix A. Tables SPSS output