06 Dec In Module Six, you will submit an initial draft of your introductio
For this assignment, you are not writing a research paper. You are writing a literature review.
Prompt: This assignment is another building block for the final project. In Module Six, you will submit an initial draft of your introduction and literature review. Your submission should include all of the critical elements noted in the rubric. Keep in mind the differences between research papers and literature reviews. For this assignment, you are not writing a research paper. You are writing a literature review. Research papers take a topic and describe all aspects of that topic. They use current articles and books to support the statements in the paper. A literature review is literally a review of current articles designed to support the topic. For example, if you wanted to investigate color preference among adult men and women, you would first need to review the current studies that are out there on the topic. Your paper would begin with an introduction, an explanation of the topic. You would find peer-reviewed journal articles, like the six in your annotated bibliography. You would summarize each article including what the researcher found, a brief description of the research design, the advantages and disadvantages of the design used, and how it compares to other articles in the literature review. This is essentially your annotations in your annotated bibliography. You will want to add more information to each annotation, but they are a great start. Then, you describe the gaps or pieces that are missing in the research (if any), ethical considerations (if any), and validity issues (if any). Each article becomes its own paragraph or two (or three) and then leads into the next article. Once you have described each of the articles in the literature review individually, you would collectively include a discussion of any gaps in the current body of research. This is where your research comes in. You are going to be investigating an area with a gap. So by discussing the gaps, you lead on to your research question and finally to your hypothesis and the key variable of the study that is being proposed. Now you have a literature review that contains an introduction to the topic, a review of each current article, a discussion of where there are gaps in the current literature, your research question and how that fits into the gaps, and a concluding hypothesis. Your literature review becomes the beginning of your research report. Guidelines for Submission: Your paper must be submitted as a Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, and one-inch margins. This paper should be a minimum of 4 pages in length (not including cover page and references), must follow APA format, and it should cite at least six peer-reviewed sources
1
Behave! You’re at Work!
A Study of the Differences in Behavior in the Workplace and Other Social Situations
PSY 510 Literature Review
Southern New Hampshire University
2
Behave! You’re at Work!
The study of psychology revolves a round behavior and thought processes. In their
experiments, researchers s et out to test the questions of how and what in an effort to understand
why a person behaves in a certain manner. Attitudes a nd predispositions may cause someone to
act in a certain way toward another. Social situations may also play a role in behavior,
specifically in the workplace. When on the clock, do people behave differently than they do at a
bar or at home? For example, a driver may become upset while behind the wheel and yell
profanities a t another driver (I admit I have been guilty of this myself). However, would that
same driver say the same things t o a customer that upsets them at his/her job? The answer here is
most likely “no,” because it would not be appropriate. There has be en research conducted on
many aspects that tie into behavior in different situations, literature that includes such topics as
work and family conflict, generational differences in the workplace, prejudgment, personality
conflict, teamwork, and more. Together, such articles o f research provide an excellent
background, and cohesive argument, for a noticeable difference in workplace behavior as
opposed to other social situations. As w ill shortly be explained, it all begins a t a young age as
children learn to accept others, and progresses a s t hey grow.
Dishion, Kim, O’Neill, and Stormshak (2014) examined the concept of social acceptance
using a sample of 998 middle school students a nd their families. They hypothesized that a
correlation would be visible between the two variables o f peer affiliation and the aforementioned
acceptance. A second hypothesis wa s t hat this r elationship would also be prevalent in the parents
of each child studied. Self-report studies we re used as t he students we re studied longitudinally.
Results d id show an overall correlation in peer affiliation and social acceptance (PASA).
The biggest limitation in this s tudy was t hat the PASA only measured four criteria. Using
3
additional criteria to assess a cceptance and behavior of each student could have closed some of
the gaps. For example, perhaps t he students c ould have been observed longer than just one class
year to see how they progressed throughout high school. However, Dishion et al. (2014) did
explain their findings o n the degree of construct validity, factorial invariance, and criterion
validity. While construct validity was a dmittedly an issue on some parts of this s tudy, criterion
validity between the PASA assessment and the degree of social acceptance was very strong. No
intervention was us ed in this s tudy, which minimized ethical concerns, and even though it
involved children, it fits into the concept of workplace behavior because everyone wants to be
accepted, and therefore may act differently in certain social situations because of feeling they
need to “fit in.” This notion of acceptance in the workplace is ve ry important for building a
successful team, and ties in to another very important value, respect, which is o ne of the key
points f or any successful relationship both at home and at work.
In another study that examined the role of group-based status i n job satisfaction, Henry
(2011) used data from the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS), which interviewed United States
residents. The sample was c omprised of 1,724 Americans, representative of the population, with
varying age range, ethnicity, males a nd females, and those with or without college education.
Henry (2011) hypothesized that respectful treatment in the workplace would lead to a higher
level of job satisfaction for an employee. Stigmatism was us ed as a variable between
participants, be it male or female, white or non-white, and college education or no college. He
was a ttempting to determine if certain groups we re treated better than others whi le at work. The
data from the GSS determined three factors: job satisfaction, pay, and respectful treatment in the
workplace, the last of which was c omprised of four categories.
4
Results s howed no correlation between pay and respect (Henry, 2011). An interesting
find, however, was t hat the stigmatized groups a ppeared to be paid less t han the non-stigmatized
groups (white vs. non-white, college vs. no college). On the issue of respect, gender and ethnicity
carried no weight for receiving less, but those without college education reported feeling less
respected than those with college education (Henry, 2011). One may consider it a limitation that
this s tudy consisted only of United States r esidents; however, it can still be related to the global
population. There was a wide variety of ethnicity, and therefore different cultures, within this
study. Ethical concerns we re not noticeable and validity was v ery solid overall, with the study
measuring what it set out to measure and allowing for greater generalizability. However, being
that this wa s a survey, it is po ssible that some responses weren’t completely honest, which can
lead to gaps i n the research and results t hat are not completely reliable, yet this is not known.
Workplace respect can be crucial to the success o f a business. It is a behavior that, when not
being exhibited properly, can lead to feelings o f exclusion.
Chinese researchers Kwan, Lee, Liu, and Wu (2015) conducted a study in which they
examined 732 employees a nd 244 supervisors from two large oil companies in China for the
effect of such exclusion, or workplace “ostracism,” as they termed it. Hypotheses, of which there
were three, first stated that organizational identification would help to ease, or regulate, the
negative correlation between exclusion and citizenship in the workplace (Kwan et al., 2015).
The second stated that the level of job mobility would moderate this r elationship, arguing there is
a stronger negative correlation when there is a higher degree of mobility in the job. The third
hypothesis pr oposed that job mobility would also moderate the mediation effect addressed in
hypothesis o ne (Kwan et al., 2015). Moving around from one job to another, working from
home, or traveling a great deal may cause one to feel that he/she is n ot part of a cohesive team.
5
Workplace ostracism was measured using a 1-10 Likert scale, using statements in a
questionnaire such as “people avoid me at work.” Results showed that those workers who felt
more excluded were more likely to exhibit different behaviors of citizenship when they felt they
had no other alternatives to their current job. There were limitations to this study, specifically
using only one type of company as well as one certain culture, believed to be such because there
is no mention of diversity. This caused a lack of external validity. There were also gaps
regarding exclusion. It can be a gray area; some may feel excluded when they are in fact
included, and vice versa, based on one’s own perception. This research does fit very well,
however, into another discovered article that examined personality conflicts and their effects on
teamwork. If a certain employee on a team does not feel included in the workplace, or if
personalities clash, it can affect how well the entire group works together as one cohesive unit.
In an attempt to determine whether a person’s personality can in fact cause conflict in a
relationship or within teams, CurSeu, Macsinga, Mägurean, Maricutoiu, Sava, and Vîrga (2014)
proposed four hypotheses for a study. Initially, they stated that relationship conflict would lead a
team to not work together. Secondly, conscientiousness would buffer the association between the
conflict and “negative shift” of teamwork (CurSeu et al., 2014). Hypothesis three was identical
to hypothesis two, but substituted “agreeableness” for conscientiousness. Finally, it was stated
that neuroticism “accentuates the relationship” (CurSeu et al., 2014). Two hundred and sixteen
college students with the average age of 20 were used as the participants for this study. Students
were given a task to complete as a group, which consisted of creating a device with given
materials that would prevent an egg from dropping on the floor. Participant personalities were
measured using the Big Five model (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion,
6
agreeableness, and neuroticism, or the acronym OCEAN). Relationship and teamwork was
measured with four- and five-point scales, respectively (CurSeu et al., 2014).
The discovered results did in fact show that conflict decreased a team’s effectiveness.
However, moderation of agreeableness was not supported by the research conducted. This study
was very well constructed, and while the participants were college students, both internal and
external validity were high. No glaring gaps were present, and this was a direct observation of
behavior when given a task. Teamwork was assessed based on what the researchers saw during
the procedure from the students. The only possible ethical concerns could have come from an
egg breaking near a student who possessed an egg allergy. This study focused on college
students, but what about other generations? Can they all work together equally? Is it possible that
generational differences could be a factor in workplace conflict?
Examining such differences between generations in the workplace, Becton, Jones-Famer,
and Walker (2014) proposed three hypotheses for just such an experiment. They first stated that
baby boomers exhibit less job mobility than millennials. Secondly, those same boomers would
show more signs of compliance and would be less often fired from their jobs than would
millennials (Becton et al., 2014). The third hypothesis was that Generation X participants would
be less likely to work overtime as opposed to the other two generations (Becton et al., 2014).
Participants in this study were job applicants in the Southeastern United States applying for an
array of job categories. The sample was chosen randomly, comprised of the three
aforementioned generations, varying ethnicities, and both male and female (however, there were
far more females in this study than males). The participants totaled 6,828 in number.
Differences in behavior were measured in bio data on the participants’ job applications.
Results supported hypotheses one and three, and also gave partial support to hypothesis two. It
7
was determined that while generational differences do occur in the workplace, the stereotypes of
each generation are not always correct. Gender was a limiting factor in this study, with 83% of
the participants being female. This can allow for generalizing to females, but perhaps led to a
lack of greater external validity overall, because it could not be generalized to males as equally
as females. A large ethical problem was avoided, which could have occurred if the researchers
would have publicized private information about the participants in their results. However, they
were very careful to only report their findings in general terms so as not to divulge any private
information about the more than 6,800 participants. The generational gaps and differing
personalities can also be a factor in how enjoyable the workplace can be.
Choi, Junehee, and Wansoo (2013) studied Generation Y members, classified as those
born between 1977 and 1994 (though the sample targeted only those born between 1977 and
1981), in an attempt to examine how attitudes can have an effect on fun in the workplace, work
performance, and job satisfaction. Specifically, several hypotheses were proposed which
surmised relationships existed between workplace fun and attitude, job satisfaction, task
performance, and voluntary helping among team members, the last process referred to in the
study as OCBI (Choi et al., 2013). They developed a questionnaire that was given to 234 workers
and college students in the hospital industry.
Choi and colleagues (2013) found that those who exhibited a more positive attitude did
have more fun in the workplace. If they had more fun, they also enjoyed their job, which
therefore led to a higher level of job satisfaction. While no ethical violations were committed,
this study did, however, leave several gaps, all of which were related to the sample
demographics. It was a small sample size and focused solely on the hospitality industry. Many
questions were left unanswered by this study, the most glaring of which is if these results could
8
be generalized to all career fields. Is the hospitality industry different from the healthcare
industry, for example? The obvious answer is yes. However, the idea and design of this study
can be very useful in determining whether attitudes in the workplace differ from one employee to
another, and to what effect that may have on a specific company. What else could lead to
workplace conflict? Familiarity can also be a factor in workplace attitudes; one may feel more
comfortable with the old regime. What happens when protocol and procedure changes?
A study to examine attitude differences as well as cognition when people are familiar or
unfamiliar with particular objects of situations hypothesized that attitudes would be affected
more by something unfamiliar than would cognition (Fischer, van Dijk, van Giessen, & van
Trijp, 2015). The second hypothesis (and its countering null) stated that for familiar attitude
objects cognition would have a stronger association with overall attitudes (Fischer et al., 2015).
Hypothesis three stated (also complete with a countering null) that familiar attitude objects
would have a stronger association overall with attitude (Fischer et al., 2015).
1,870 participants in the Netherlands we re randomly selected from a panel of volunteers
that consisted of approximately a total of 12,000. The demographics o f this s tudy were highly
varied, yielding a good representation of age, education level, and gender. The participants we re
asked to rate applications o f familiar or unfamiliar objects ( nanotechnology or non-
nanotechnology, in this c ase). Results s howed that only 39% of the participants a ctually knew
the meaning of the word “nanotechnology,” although nearly 72% had previously heard the term.
The researchers d iscovered that familiarity had a positive effect on attitude (Fischer et al., 2015).
All three of the research hypotheses we re supported, which conversely led to the rejection of
both nulls. This s tudy, while limited to the Netherlands a nd the concept of nanotechnology, did
not lack validity. On the contrary, the concepts c an indeed be generalized to the rest of the
9
population. When at work, net tools and changes are implemented frequently. In fact, change is
the only constant. When faced with something new, most employees will learn it, but the
attitudes toward such changes may be more negative in the beginning. This can lead to conflicts
at work between the employees who are willing to learn and those who are not, therefore
affecting teamwork. However, are these the only reasons for conflict, or could it also be brought
in from home, or conversely brought home from work?
In an effort to study work-family conflict experienced by different cultures, Dollard,
Winefield, and Zaiton (2010) studied 506 Malaysians working in various sectors of employment.
Their aim was to determine if people in Malaysia experienced less family interference with work
than Western cultures. The researchers hypothesized that work interference with family (WIF)
would be greater than family interference with work (FIW) across the cultures (Dollard et al.,
2010). A second hypothesis was also proposed, which stated that FIW and WIF would be
negatively correlated with job, family, community, and life satisfaction (Dollard et al., 2010). A
questionnaire was used as a survey to gather data, consisting of 18 questions in six sections, nine
items for each conflict direction, and three for each conflict dimension (Dollard et al., 2010).
Items were scored using a Likert scale. Databases were used to find studies conducted in the
Western Hemisphere to compare results across cultures.
The results of this study confirmed the hypothesis that work interfered with family more
so than the reverse. It did not appear to have any noticeable gaps and was conducted very well,
showing results from differing cultures on opposite sides of the world, though studying more
countries would have increased generalizability even more. That said, however, the cross-
cultural analysis still led to an increase in external validity. Extending to other countries would
allow one to determine if there is a consensus in the findings between Malaysia and Western
10
culture. It provided insight into how people learn to check their feelings at the door when they
are at work, not allowing problems at home to impact their job performance.
Collectively, the above studies all provide insight into behavior in some aspect, whether
they focus on social acceptance, attitude, cognition, teamwork, conflict, personality, or
something else. However, the one liaison that appears to be absent is whether a difference exists
in a person’s behavior when faced with different social situations. There is nothing that links
these together. Specifically, the question here to be researched is: do people behave differently at
work as opposed to at home or in public? Based on the above research and the knowledge gained
from it, the research hypothesis is that there is a difference in a person’s behavior between work
and home or play. The null hypothesis for this study, in contrast, is that a person’s behavior does
not change regardless of the social situation. The two variables that will be tested are social
situation (work, home, or public), which will be independent, and participant response behavior,
which will be the dependent variable for the study.
11
References
Becton, J. B., Jones-Farmer, A., & Walker, H. J. (2014). Generational differences in workplace
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(3), 175-189.
Choi, Y. G., Junehee, K., & Wansoo, K. (2013). Effects of attitudes vs. experience of workplace
fun on employee behaviors. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality, 25(3),
410-427
CurSeu, P. L., Macsinga, I., Mägurean, S., Maricutoiu, L., Sava, F. A., & Vîrga, D. (2014).
Personality, relationship conflict, and teamwork-related mental models. PLoS ONE, 9(11),
1-10.
Dishion, T. J., Kim, H., O’Neill, M., & Stormshak, E. A. (2014). A brief measure of peer
affiliation and social acceptance (PASA): Validity in an ethnically diverse sample of
early adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 43(4), 601-612.
Dollard, M. F., Winefield, A. H., & Zaiton, H. (2010). Work-family conflict in east vs. western
countries. Cross Cultural Management, 17(1), 30-49.
Fischer, A. R. H., van Dijk, H., van Giessen, R. I., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2015). Affect and
cognition in attitude formation toward familiar and unfamiliar attitude objects. PLoS ONE,
10(10), 1-14.
Henry, P. J. (2011). The role of group-based status in job satisfaction: Workplace respect matters
more for the stigmatized. Social Justice Research, 24(3), 231-238.
Kwan, H. K., Lee, C., Liu J., & Wu, C. H. (2015). Why and when workplace ostracism inhibits
organizational citizenship behaviors: An organizational identification perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 362-378.
- Behave! You’re at Work!
- References
,
1
Milestone Three:
Cell Phone Usage and Customer Service with the Workplace
Southern New Hampshire University
May 15, 2016
<
Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.
About Wridemy
We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.
How It Works
To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Are there Discounts?
All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.