| Literature DB >> 34201661 |
Mengmeng Song1, Joseph Ugrin2, Man Li1, Jinnan Wu1, Shanshan Guo1, Wenpei Zhang1.
Abstract
Despite the documented individual, job, and organizational antecedents of cyberloafing at the workplace, few studies have addressed whether, how and when group factors affect employees' cyberloafing behaviors. Drawing on social learning theory and general deterrence theory, the purpose of this study is to test if observability of coworkers' cyberloafing behavior affects employees' perceptions of norms related to cyberloafing and subsequent cyberloafing behaviors and to test if sanctions can play a role in buffering these effects. An investigation of 335 employees working at Chinese enterprises establishes that observing others engaging in cyberloafing influences the employees' perceived norms and cyberloafing behaviors and that employees' perceived norms related to cyberloafing play a partial mediating role in the relationship between observability and employees' cyberloafing. As predicted, we also found that perceived certainty and severity of potential sanctions for cyberloafing moderate the effect of observability on employees' cyberloafing as well as the indirect effect of observability on employees' cyberloafing via perceived norms related to cyberloafing. This study enriched the cyberloafing literature by revealing how observability of cyberloafing influences employees' cyberloafing and by unveiling two boundary conditions under which the cyberloafing learning effect can be buffered.Entities:
Keywords: certainty of sanctions; cyberloafing; observability; perceived norms; severity of sanctions
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34201661 PMCID: PMC8268153 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18136751
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Research model.
Fit indices of the factor models.
| Model | χ2 | df | χ2/df | CFI | TLI | SRMR | RMSEA | ∆χ2(∆df) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single-factor model | 1365.244 | 90 | 15.169 | 0.349 | 0.241 | 0.174 | 0.206 | 1200.4 (10) *** |
| Two-factor model | 1104.685 | 89 | 112.412 | 0.482 | 0.389 | 0.169 | 0.185 | 939.9(9) *** |
| Three-factor model | 900.956 | 87 | 10.356 | 0.585 | 0.499 | 0.169 | 0.167 | 736.1 (7) *** |
| Four-factor model | 321.003 | 84 | 3.821 | 0.879 | 0.849 | 0.060 | 0.092 | 156.2(4) *** |
| Five-factor model | 164.808 | 80 | 2.061 | 0.957 | 0.943 | 0.041 | 0.056 |
Notes: OS, observability; PN, perceived norms; CS, perceived certainty of sanctions; SS, perceived severity of sanctions; EC, employees’ cyberloafing; single-factor model: OS + PN + CS + SS + EC; two-factor model: OS + PN + CS + SS, EC; three-factor model: OS + CS + SS, PN, EC; four-factor model: OS, PN, CS + SS, EC; and five-factor model: OS, PN, CS, SS, EC. *** p < 0.001.
Means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients of all variables.
| Variables | Mean | SD | OS | PN | CS | SS | EC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OS | 4.221 | 1.266 |
| ||||
| PN | 3.908 | 0.901 | 0.568 *** |
| |||
| CS | 4.228 | 1.211 | −0.148 ** | −0.090 |
| ||
| SS | 4.895 | 0.977 | −0.034 | −0.080 | 0.506 *** |
| |
| EC | 3.309 | 1.174 | 0.387 *** | 0.308 *** | −0.216 *** | −0.247 *** |
|
Note: OS, observability; PN, perceived norms; CS, perceived certainty of sanctions; SS, perceived severity of sanctions; and EC, employees’ cyberloafing. The square roots of AVE values are bold and reported in diagonal. ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001.
Multiple regression analyses of the mediation effect.
| Variables | EC | PN | EC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | t | β | t | β | T | |
| GD | −0.094 | −0.761 | 0.024 | 0.276 | −0.099 | −0.798 |
| ED | −0.118 | −0.750 | 0.040 | 0.367 | −0.125 | −0.797 |
| IC | 0.064 | 1.112 | −0.019 | −0.482 | 0.067 | 1.175 |
| MS | −0.283 | −1.625 | 0.071 | 0.591 | −0.295 | −1.703 |
| WY | 0.129 | 2.077 | −0.004 | −0.085 | 0.1298 * | 2.098 |
| PS | −0.141 | −1.627 | −0.056 | −0.934 | −0.131 | −1.522 |
| OS | 0.368 *** | 7.823 | 0.402 *** | 12.349 | 0.299 *** | 5.279 |
| PN | 0.172 * | 2.160 | ||||
| R2 | 0.170 | 0.326 | 0.182 | |||
| F | 9.592 *** | 22.589 *** | 9.070 *** | |||
Notes: OS, observability; PN, perceived norms; CS, perceived certainty of sanctions; SS, perceived severity of sanctions; and EC, employees’ cyberloafing; * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
The moderating effect of CS and SS.
| PN | EC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | T | β | t | |
| GD | 0.024 | 0.276 | 0.025 | 0.230 |
| ED | 0.040 | 0.367 | −0.196 | −1.418 |
| IC | −0.019 | −0.482 | 0.017 | 0.337 |
| MS | 0.071 | 0.591 | −0.199 | −1.313 |
| WY | −0.004 | −0.085 | 0.095 | 1.731 |
| PS | −0.056 | −0.934 | −0.069 | −0.907 |
| OS | 0.402 *** | 12.349 | 0.359 *** | 6.989 |
| CS | −0.037 | −0.715 | ||
| OS*CS | −0.085 * | −2.008 | ||
| SS | −0.190 ** | −3.037 | ||
| OS*SS | −0.123 * | −2.094 | ||
| PN | 0.236 * | 3.327 | ||
| PN*CS | −0.142 * | −2.174 | ||
| PN*SS | −0.171 * | −1.990 | ||
| R2 | 0.326 | 0.390 | ||
| F | 22.589 *** | 14.589 *** | ||
Notes: OS, observability; PN, perceived norms; CS, perceived certainty of sanctions; SS, perceived severity of sanctions; and EC, employees’ cyberloafing; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2The interaction effect of OS and CS, as well as SS, on EC. Note: OS, observability; CS, perceived certainty of sanctions; SS, perceived severity of sanctions; and EC, employees’ cyberloafing.
Figure 3The interaction effect of PN and CS, as well as SS, on EC. Note: PN, perceived norms; CS, perceived certainty of sanctions; SS, perceived severity of sanctions; and EC, employees’ cyberloafing.
The moderated mediation effect of CS and SS.
| Moderator Variable | Conditional indirect effects | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effect | Boot SE | 95% CI | ||
| LLCI | ULCI | |||
| Low CS, Low SS | 0.231 | 0.046 | 0.143 | 0.326 |
| Low CS, High SS | 0.097 | 0.058 | −0.030 | 0.200 |
| High CS, Low SS | 0.093 | 0.062 | −0.017 | 0.227 |
| High CS, High SS | −0.041 | 0.043 | −0.122 | 0.046 |
| Indices of partial moderated mediation | ||||
| Index | Boot SE | 95% CI | ||
| LLCI | ULCI | |||
| CS | −0.057 | 0.027 | −0.107 | −0.0003 |
| SS | −0.069 | 0.032 | −0.134 | −0.011 |
Notes: CS, perceived certainty of sanctions; and SS, perceived severity of sanctions.