J Appl Psychol. 2018 Jan;103(1):36. doi: 10.1037/apl0000275. Epub 2017 Oct 2.
Reports an error in "Cheating Under Pressure: A Self-Protection Model of Workplace Cheating Behavior" by Marie S. Mitchell, Michael D. Baer, Maureen L. Ambrose, Robert Folger and Noel F. Palmer (, Advanced Online Publication, Aug 14, 2017, np). In the article, the fit statistics in Study 3 were reported in error. The fit of the measurement model is: Χ²(362) = 563.66, p = .001; CFI = .94; SRMR = .05; RMSEA = .04. The fit of the SEM model is: Χ²(362) = 563.66, p = .001; CFI = .94; SRMR = .05; RMSEA = .04. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2017-34937-001.) Workplace cheating behavior is unethical behavior that seeks to create an unfair advantage and enhance benefits for the actor. Although cheating is clearly unwanted behavior within organizations, organizations may unknowingly increase cheating as a byproduct of their pursuit of high performance. We theorize that as organizations place a strong emphasis on high levels of performance, they may also enhance employees' self-interested motives and need for self-protection. We suggest that demands for high performance may elicit performance pressure-the subjective experience that employees must raise their performance efforts or face significant consequences. Employees' perception of the need to raise performance paired with the potential for negative consequences is threatening and heightens self-protection needs. Driven by self-protection, employees experience anger and heightened self-serving cognitions, which motivate cheating behavior. A multistudy approach was used to test our predictions. Study 1 developed and provided validity evidence for a measure of cheating behavior. Studies 2 and 3 tested our predictions in time-separated field studies. Results from Study 2 demonstrated that anger mediates the effects of performance pressure on cheating behavior. Study 3 replicated the Study 2 findings, and extended them to show that self-serving cognitions also mediate the effects of performance pressure on cheating behavior. Implications of our findings for theory and practice are provided. (PsycINFO Database Record
报告了 Marie S. Mitchell、Michael D. Baer、Maureen L. Ambrose、Robert Folger 和 Noel F. Palmer 的文章“Cheating Under Pressure: A Self-Protection Model of Workplace Cheating Behavior”(压力下的欺骗:工作场所欺骗行为的自我保护模型)中的错误。在这篇文章中,研究 3 的拟合统计数据被错误报告。测量模型的拟合度为:Χ²(362)= 563.66,p =.001;CFI =.94;SRMR =.05;RMSEA =.04。SEM 模型的拟合度为:Χ²(362)= 563.66,p =.001;CFI =.94;SRMR =.05;RMSEA =.04。(原始文章的摘要如下出现在记录 2017-34937-001 中。)工作场所欺骗行为是一种不道德的行为,旨在为行为者创造不公平的优势并提高利益。尽管欺骗在组织中显然是不受欢迎的行为,但组织可能会在不知不觉中增加欺骗行为,因为这是追求高绩效的副产品。我们认为,随着组织对高水平绩效的强烈重视,他们也可能增强员工的自利动机和自我保护需求。我们认为,对高绩效的要求可能会引起绩效压力——员工必须提高绩效努力或面临重大后果的主观体验。员工对提高绩效的感知与潜在的负面后果相结合,具有威胁性,并加剧了自我保护需求。受自我保护的驱动,员工会感到愤怒,并产生更高的自利认知,这会激发欺骗行为。采用多研究方法来检验我们的预测。研究 1 开发并提供了欺骗行为衡量标准的有效性证据。研究 2 和 3 在时间上分离的实地研究中检验了我们的预测。研究 2 的结果表明,愤怒中介了绩效压力对欺骗行为的影响。研究 3 复制了研究 2 的发现,并扩展了研究结果,表明自利认知也中介了绩效压力对欺骗行为的影响。为理论和实践提供了我们研究结果的意义。