Effects of work-related norm violations and general beliefs about the world on feelings of shame and guilt: A comparison between Turkey and the Netherlands: Effects of work-related

Effects of work-related norm violations and general beliefs aboutthe world on feelings of shame and guilt: A comparison betweenTurkey and the Netherlandsajsp_ 50..62

Nevra Cem Ersoy,1 Marise P.h. Born,1 Eva Derous1,2 and Henk T. van der Molen1

1Department of Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and 2Department of Psychology, GhentUniversity, Ghent, Belgium

This paper aimed at investigating the effects of work-related norm violations (i.e., violations of interpersonal andwork regulation norms) and individuals’ general beliefs about the world (i.e., social axioms: reward for appli-cation, social cynicism) on feelings of shame and guilt in Turkey and in the Netherlands. An experimental studyinvolving 103 Turkish and 111 Dutch participants showed that work norm violations elicited feelings of guilt andshame differently in Turkey and the Netherlands. Specifically, interpersonal norm violation in Turkey elicitedfeelings of shame and guilt more strongly than did violation of a work regulation norm, whereas no differentialeffects were found in the Netherlands. As expected, violation of a work regulation norm elicited feelings ofshame and guilt more strongly in the Netherlands than in Turkey, whereas violation of an interpersonal normelicited feelings of shame and guilt more strongly in Turkey than in the Netherlands. The findings provide furtherevidence for the moderating effects of social axioms: in both countries, participants high in social cynicism feltless ashamed when they violated a work regulation norm than did those low in social cynicism. Our findings arerelevant for understanding the underlying mechanisms of norm violations at work, thereby offering a new avenuefor investigating cultural differences in the workplace. The latter may be of particular relevance in times ofglobalization and diversity in the workplace.

Key words: guilt, shame, social axiom, the Netherlands, Turkey, work norm violation

When individuals act against norms in society, they expe-rience various feelings, such as shame and guilt (Bier-brauer, 1992). Organizations mirroring the characteristicsof society also function according to certain kinds ofnorms that employees are expected to follow. Violationsof work norms (either interpersonal or work-regulationnorms) are considered to be counterproductive workbehaviours (CWB; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Suchbehaviours can vary from spreading rumours and takingexcessive breaks to lying and stealing. Studies concerningCWB and the relationship to employees’; feelings have,until now, mainly focused on feelings as antecedents ofsuch behaviours (Fox & Spector, 2002; Miles, Borman,Spector, & Fox, 2002; Spector et al., 2006). Interestingly,these studies are not conclusive about how employees feelafter having engaged in counterproductive acts. Investigat-ing how one feels after such acts might shed light on thequestion of whether these experiences elicit feelings,which subsequently, as control mechanisms, mightprevent CWB to (re)occur. Therefore, as a first aim of this

study, we investigated the effects work norm violations onfeelings of guilt and shame.

Benedict (1946), and Triandis, Leung, Villareal, andClack (1985) have further argued that feelings of guilt andshame might function differently as mechanisms of socialcontrol, particularly so across individualistic and collectiv-istic cultures. However, it remains unclear why this is. Thesocial axiom approach offers one promising framework forexplaining differential effects of norm violations on feel-ings of shame and guilt in individualistic/collectivistic cul-tures. Social axioms are general beliefs that people haveabout the world, such as reward for application, whichsuggests adversity can be overcome by effort (see Leunget al., 2002). Although the specific role of social axioms indetermining feelings has remained under addressed, severalstudies have shown the importance of beliefs for one’sfeelings (Robinson & Clore, 2002; Sprecher, 1999; Tamir,John, Srivastava, & Gross, 2007). That is, people’s generalsocial beliefs have been shown to affect the way they seethemselves and the way they perceive and respond to others(Tamir et al.). The second purpose of this study thereforewas to examine social axioms as explanatory mechanismsin the effect of norm violations on feelings of guilt andshame in collectivistic Turkish and individualistic Dutchculture. In the remainder, we further expand upon types ofnorm violations, social axioms, and the effects of both

Correspondence: Nevra Cem Ersoy, Institute of Psychology,Erasmus University Rotterdam, Woudestein, T13-34, P.O. Box1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Email: [email protected] 3 April 2009; accepted 25 February 2010.

Asian Journal of Social Psychology

© 2010 Erasmus University Of RotterdamAsian Journal of Social Psychology © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology andthe Japanese Group Dynamics Association

Asian Journal of Social Psychology (2011), 14, 50–62 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01329.x

norm violations and social axioms on feelings of shame andguilt across two cultures (Turkey and the Netherlands).Several hypotheses are provided.

Types of work norm violations

CWB are generally seen as behaviours that violate signifi-cant norms at work and that threaten the well-being ofemployees, the organization, or both (Robinson & Bennett,1995). Ohbuchi et al. (2004) showed that two types of normviolations are recognized across many cultures (e.g. theUSA, Germany, Japan, and Hong Kong), namely the vio-lation of behavioural norms in personal relationships, andthe violation of laws and regulations (or societal norms).The first type of norm violation refers to the violation of aninterpersonal norm, whereas the second concerns the vio-lation of regulations. More specifically, in the work domain,researchers have differentiated between individually-oriented CWB, such as acting rudely towards other organi-zational members, and organizationally-oriented CWB,such as taking organizational property without permission,or intentionally endangering the work flow (Bennett &Robinson, 2000; Bennett & Stamper, 2001). In this study,we aim to investigate the effects of these two types ofwork-related norm violations, namely the violation of inter-personal norms at work vis-à-vis the violation of work-regulated norms on feelings of shame and guilt.

Feelings of shame and guilt and normviolations across cultures

Norm violations have differential effects on feelings acrosscultures, depending on the collectivistic or individualisticorientation of a culture (Bierbrauer, 1992). Bierbrauer pre-dicted that people with a collectivistic value orientationwould respond to norm violations with more shame,whereas people with an individualistic orientation wouldrespond with more guilt. In Bierbrauer’s study, people fromcollectivistic cultures indeed responded with a higher degreeof shame than people from an individualistic culture whenthey violated a religious, traditional, or state norm. Interest-ingly, collectivists also responded with a greater degree ofguilt than individualists when traditional and religiousnorms had been violated. Further, there was no significantdifference between people from individualistic and collec-tivistic cultures in terms of their feelings of guilt when a statelaw had been violated. The degree of felt guilt amongcollectivists after having violated a traditional norm showshow important such norms are to them. Apparently, in col-lectivistic cultures, the legitimate social control is formed bytraditional norms, which will lead people towards compli-ance and feelings, not only of shame, but also of guilt, whenthese norms are violated (Bierbrauer). Bierbrauer thusshowed that the relevance of high feelings of guilt for

collectivistic cultures is dependent on the type of norm thatis violated. Therefore, the type of norm seems to matterwhen the effect of norm violation on feelings of shame andguilt is examined across cultures.

The early notions of Benedict (1946), who labelled col-lectivistic cultures as shame cultures and individualisticcultures as guilt cultures, have been criticized by many otherresearchers as well (e.g. Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Stipek,Weiner, & Li, 1989). Specifically, Stipek et al. demonstratedthat people from a collectivistic Chinese culture felt moreguilt when they had hurt someone psychologically thanwhen they had violated a law. Furthermore, De Hooge,Breugelmans, and Zeelenberg (2008) demonstrated thatshame can have a useful interpersonal function, especiallyamong people who have a natural tendency to act in theirown interest (i.e. ‘pro-selfs’). De Hooge et al.) showed thatunless people can escape from shameful situations, they actmore socially in order to repair their damaged self-image.Especially pro-selfs have shown to act more socially to aperson who had seen their terrible presentation than to aperson who had not seen this presentation. Thus, thesestudies show that guilt can also be beneficial in collectivisticcultures and that shame can be functional in individualisticcultures. Elaborating on these studies, we argue that shameand guilt emotions are global moral emotions that are bothfunctional in collectivistic and individualistic societies.Therefore, norm violations might elicit feelings of shameand guilt in both Turkey and the Netherlands, but the strengthof these feelings might be dependent on the type of normviolation. That is, some norms (and norm violations) mightbe of particular importance for the feelings depending on theculture. For instance, Turkey is a collectivistic culture wherepeople define themselves in terms of their relationships withothers. Since interpersonal relationships are seen as highlyimportant in collectivistic cultures (Smith, Bond, &Kâgitçibasi, 2006), it can be argued that these relations aremore internalized, and therefore, violating such interper-sonal norms might strongly affect feelings of shame andguilt. Violating work-regulation norms, however, will berelatively less important in a collectivistic culture than vio-lating interpersonal norms. In the light of these arguments,the following hypothesis is formulated:Hypothesis 1a: In Turkey, violation of an interpersonal

work norm will affect feelings of shameand guilt more strongly than a violation ofa work-regulation norm.

Bierbrauer (1992) showed that in individualistic cultures,the legitimate social controls are represented by state lawsand regulations and will bring about feelings of guilt whenthese are violated. Since institutional practices are highlyvalued in the Netherlands (Gelfand, Bhawuk, Nishii, &Bechtold, 2004), we argue that organizational rules will haveimportance in Dutch individualistic culture. Stipek et al.(1989) even showed that violation of a law or moral rule

Effects of work-related norm violations 51

© 2010 Erasmus University Of RotterdamAsian Journal of Social Psychology © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and

the Japanese Group Dynamics Association

elicited more feelings of guilt than hurting someone inthe USA, which is another highly individualistic culture.Although the Netherlands is a highly individualisticculture, like the USA, it is also a defined as a ‘feminine’culture where people give importance to interpersonal rela-tionships (Hofstede, 1996). We therefore argue that bothtypes of norms might influence feelings of both shame andguilt in the Netherlands to a similar degree. In light of thesearguments, the following hypothesis is formulated:Hypothesis 1b: In the Netherlands, violation of an inter-

personal norm and violation of a work-regulation norm will affect feelings ofshame and guilt to the same degree.

In most Western cultures, people are expected to actcollectively according to the rules set by legal authorities(Gelfand et al., 2004). Since institutional practices arehighly valued in the Netherlands (Gelfand et al.), violationof organizational rules might have strong deterrent effectsthat affect both feelings of guilt and shame. As has beendemonstrated by Bierbrauer (1992) and Stipek et al.(1989), laws and regulations are more important in indi-vidualistic cultures than in collectivistic cultures. There-fore, violation of a work norm might elicit more feelings ofshame and guilt in the Netherlands than in Turkey (Gelfandet al.). Therefore, it is hypothesized that:Hypothesis 1c: In the Netherlands, violation of a work-

regulation norm will affect feelings of bothguilt and shame more strongly than inTurkey.

As mentioned earlier, the Netherlands is an individualis-tic culture that is also characterized as a feminine culture(Hofstede, 1996). In feminine cultures, people have fea-tures associated with women, such as kindness, patience,and gentleness. People in feminine cultures value relation-ships and they are less assertive and competitive in inter-personal relationships than people from masculine cultures(Hofstede). Therefore, interpersonal relationships areimportant in the Netherlands. Since Turkey is characterizedas both a collectivistic and feminine culture (Hofstede),where people define their self-concepts in terms of theirrelationships to others, effects of interpersonal norm viola-tion might be stronger in Turkey than in the Netherlands.Therefore, it makes sense to hypothesize that:Hypothesis 1d: Violation of an interpersonal norm will

affect feelings of shame and guilt to a largerextent in Turkey than in the Netherlands.

Social axioms, norm violations, andfeelings of shame and guilt

Social axioms

Leung et al., 2002 helped individuals to find explanationsfor interpersonal relations and the events they experience.

They identified five social axioms, namely reward for appli-cation, social complexity, fate control, social cynicism, andreligiosity. Reward for application characterizes a beliefthat hard work, knowledge, and thorough planning will leadto positive consequences. Social complexity symbolizes aworld view that suggests there are no firm rules, but severalways of achieving an outcome, and that discrepancy inhuman behaviour is common. Fate control represents abelief that events are predetermined and that there are someways for people to influence these outcomes by wishfulthinking. Social cynicism represents a negative view ofhuman nature, mistrust to social institutions, and a disre-spect of ethical ways for achieving aims. Finally, religiosityrefers to the belief in the existence of supernatural forcesand useful functions of religious beliefs (Leung et al.).

Relationship of social axioms with normviolations and feelings

Several studies have shown the importance of beliefs forone’s feelings (Robinson & Clore, 2002; Sprecher, 1999;Tamir et al., 2007). Robinson and Clore, for instance, dem-onstrated that people’s beliefs about situations and eventsaffect their interpretations of how they felt in a certainsituation. Furthermore, people’s general social beliefs havebeen shown to affect the way they see themselves and theway they perceive and respond to others (Tamir et al.,2007). In a similar vein, social axioms affect the way indi-viduals interpret the world and experience events (Leung &Bond, 2004). Thus, the way people make sense of the socialworld might also affect people’s feelings after the specificevent of a norm violation. Until now, however, the specificrole of social axioms in determining feelings has remainedunder addressed. We aim to investigate this role to a furtherextent.

Two of the social axioms, namely reward for applicationand social cynicism, seem to be specifically relevant to thetwo types of norm violations in the present research.Reward for application is a world view which states thatadversities in life can be overcome by hard work. Thus, itforms an answer to how to solve problems in life. It repre-sents a general evaluation of the costs and benefits of hardwork and sees hard work as the path to achievement in theend. Reward for application is positively related to thenumber of working hours per week and is reminiscent ofProtestant work ethic (Leung & Bond, 2004). The mainfocus of the Protestant work ethic and of the reward forapplication belief is on work. As the reward for applicationbelief is relevant to work-related issues, it thus seems rel-evant to issues of work related norm violations. Followingthis line of reasoning, we argue that people who have highreward for application beliefs are expected to feel guiltierand more ashamed when they violate interpersonal andwork-regulation norms (both in Turkey and in the Nether-

52 Nevra Cem Ersoy et al.


lands). Therefore, the following hypothesis was generatedfor Turkey, as well as for the Netherlands:Hypothesis 2a: Reward for application will positively

moderate the relationship between normviolations and feelings of shame and guilt.Specifically, the higher one’s reward forapplication belief, the stronger the effect ofboth types of norm violations will be onfeelings of shame and guilt.

Social cynicism appears to be a reaction to the basicrequirement of survival and adaptation in the social world.People high in social cynicism perceive the world in a rathernegative way, and this evaluation therefore brings about lesssocial engagement, more negative feedback, and a lower lifesatisfaction (Lai, Bond, & Hui, 2007). Social cynicism, bydefinition, is related to distrust in other people. People whoare high in social cynicism are likely to be unhappy and morelikely to run into interpersonal problems, which will implythat they will be less cooperative in interpersonal relation-ships (Chen, Fok, Bond, & Matsumoto, 2006; Leung et al.,2002). Furthermore, social cynicism represents a distrust ofsocial institutions. Indeed, research found that social cyni-cism is negatively related to one’s work satisfaction andattitudes towards the company (International SurveyResearch, 1995). Therefore, it can be argued that individualshigh in social cynicism will feel less guilty and ashamedwhen they violate interpersonal and work-regulation norms.Building further on this argument, it is hypothesized forTurkey, as well as the Netherlands, that:Hypothesis 2b: Social cynicism will negatively moderate

the relationship between norm violationsand feelings of shame and guilt. Specifi-cally, the higher one’s social cynicismbeliefs, the weaker the effects of bothtypes of norm violations on feelings ofshame and guilt.

Method

Participants

Bachelor Economy students from a Dutch public and acomparable Turkish public university participated in thestudy. The Turkish sample size equalled 103 (46% female,Mage = 21, SDage = 1.95), and the Dutch sample size equalled111 (45% female Mage = 22, SDage = 2.64). There were 50participants in Turkey and 55 participants in the Netherlandsin the interpersonal norm violation scenario condition.There were 53 participants in Turkey and 56 participants inthe Netherlands in the violation of a work-regulation sce-nario condition. Participants were randomly assigned intoeach scenario condition in both countries. Data were col-lected on a voluntary basis. The university instructors in bothcountries distributed the questionnaires during their class

hours and collected them after approximately 30 min. Thestudents were assured that their answers would be keptconfidential and would only be used for research purposes.

Design and procedure

We conducted a 2 (norm violations: interpersonal vs workregulation) ¥ 2 (country: Turkey vs the Netherlands) ¥ 2(social axioms: social cynicism, reward for application)mixed, factorial design, with country and norm violationsas the between-participants variables, and social axioms asthe covariates. Dependent variables were feelings of guiltand shame. First, we measured biographics, social axioms,and proneness to shame and guilt (shame 1 and guilt 1 aremeasured before the manipulation; see Table 1). After that,the same participants read either a scenario with a violationof an interpersonal norm or a scenario with a violation of awork-regulation norm (See Appendix I). Subsequently,they filled out a parallel version of the proneness to shameand guilt scale, but now as if they were the individualviolating either, the interpersonal or the work-regulationnorm (shame 2 and guilt 2).

Norm violation scenarios. Two scenarios were developedin which respondents had to imagine being an employee whohad violated an interpersonal norm (i.e. lying to a colleague;scenario A) or work-regulation norm (i.e. conveying confi-dential information; scenario B). Scenarios were equivalentin length (i.e. the length of scenarioAwas 1751 characters inDutch, and 1684 characters in Turkish; the length of scenarioB was 1638 characters in Dutch, and 1699 characters inTurkish). The participants were randomly assigned into eachscenario condition in both countries.

In accordance with the test translation guidelines, asadapted from Van de Vijver (2003), scenarios had beentranslated and back-translated by a group of six bilinguals(i.e. from English to Turkish, back-translated from Turkishto English and from English to Dutch, back-translated fromDutch to English). Two of these bilinguals were linguistswhose mother tongue was Turkish and who had studiedEnglish language linguistics; one was an industrial andorganizational psychologist. Three of the remaining bilin-guals were industrial and organizational psychologistswhose mother tongue was Dutch.

Measures

Following test translation guidelines (Van de Vijver, 2003),measures were translated and back-translated by the samegroup of six bilinguals mentioned earlier. Unless indicatedotherwise, all items were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale. Reliabilities overall were acceptable for researchpurposes (Nunnally, 1978) and can be found in Table 1.




Proneness to shame and guilt. An adapted version of thePersonal Feelings Questionnaire (Harder, 1990) was used tomeasure proneness to shame (seven items) and guilt (sixitems). Examples of items measuring proneness to shameare ‘feeling embarrassment’ and feelings of ‘blushing’.Examples of items measuring proneness to guilt are ‘feelingyou deserve criticism for what you did’ and ‘regret’.

Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to analysethe factorial structure of the shame and guilt scales. Fitindices were good for the two-factor model of these scales(Hu & Bentler, 1999). Specifically, items for shame andguilt showed a good fit in the Turkish sample: c2

(d.f. = 47) = 61.53, not significant; root mean square error ofapproximation (RMSEA) = 0.05; comparative fit index(CFI) = 0.93, and in the Dutch sample: c2 (d.f. = 44) = 54.14not significant; RMSEA = 0.03; CFI = 0.95.

General beliefs about the world (social axioms). Anadapted Dutch (Bond et al., 2004) and Turkish version(Bond et al.) of the short, social axiom scale was used tomeasure reward for application, and social cynicism. Eachaxiom was measured with five items (1 = do not believe atall; 5 = believe very much). Example items are: ‘hard-working people will achieve more in the end’ (reward forapplication) and ‘kind-hearted people usually suffer losses’(social cynicism).

Overall, fit indices were good for each of these scales(Hu & Bentler, 1999). Specifically, the reward for applica-tion scale showed a good fit in the Turkish sample:c2 (d.f. = 3) = 4.11, not significant; RMSEA = 0.06; CFI =0.99, and in the Dutch sample: c2 (d.f. = 3) = 5.07 not sig-nificant; RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.96. The social cynicismscale showed a good fit in the Turkish sample:c2 (d.f. = 3) = 4.95, not significant; RMSEA = 0.08;CFI = 0.98, and in the Dutch sample: c2 (d.f. = 6) = 4.35not significant; RMSEA = 0.00; CFI = 1.00.

The cross-cultural equivalence of all scales was tested.Confirmatory factor analyses showed metric equivalenceacross both nations for shame, guilt, reward for application,and social cynicism. (Detailed results can be obtained uponrequest.)

Preliminary analyses: Manipulation andrandomization checks

First, we checked whether the scenarios were perceived aswe had intended, namely violating an interpersonal norm(i.e. scenario A: lying to a colleague) and violating a workregulation (i.e. scenario B: conveying confidential informa-tion). We used three items on a five-point Likert-type scale(1 = totally disagree; 5 = totally agree). The participantshad to answer the following question: ‘To what extent is thescenario. . . .’ The first item we used was ‘violation of aninterpersonal norm’, the second item was ‘violation of aT

ab

le1

Mea

ns,

stan

dar

dd

evia

tio

ns,

relia

bili

ties

,an

dco

rrel

atio

ns

amo

ng

all

vari

able

s

Tur

kish

sam

ple

Dut

chsa

mpl

e

12

34

56

Inte

rW

ork

a

Inte

rW

ork

aM

SDM

SDM

SDM

SD

1Sh

ame

11.

970.

451.

930.

410.

621.

940.

412.

020.

560.

71–

0.43

**0.

29**

0.32

**0.

120.

24*

2G

uilt

12.

450.

602.

440.

520.

722.

210.

472.

210.

470.

540.

52**

–0.

130.

160.

050.

113

Sham

e2

2.52

0.74

1.96

0.71

0.76

2.31

0.64

2.29

0.61

0.67

0.30

**0.

02–

0.70

**0.

08-0

.00

4G

uilt

23.

750.

993.

121.

010.

883.

410.

793.

300.

680.

760.

16-0

.05

0.73

**–

0.09

-0.0

85

RfA

4.40

0.50

4.45

0.65

0.79

3.75

0.56

3.71

0.58

0.63

0.01

0.16

0.03

0.16

–-0

.14

6SC

3.65

0.67

3.53

0.77

0.61

2.77

0.59

2.89

0.66

0.62

0.14

0.20

*0.

000.

030.

02–

Cor

rela

tions

for

the

Tur

kish

sam

ple

are

pres

ente

dbe

low

the

diag

onal

,whe

reas

corr

elat

ions

for

the

Dut

chsa

mpl

ear

epr

esen

ted

abov

eth

edi

agon

al*p

�0.

05;

**p

�0.

01.G

uilt

1,gu

iltm

easu

red

attim

e1;

guilt

2,gu

iltm

easu

red

attim

e2;

inte

r,in

terp

erso

nal

norm

viol

atio

n;R

fA,r

ewar

dfo

rap

plic

atio

n;SC

,soc

ial

cyni

cism

;sh

ame

1,sh

ame

mea

sure

dat

time

1;sh

ame

2,sh

ame

mea

sure

dat

time

2;w

ork,

viol

atio

nof

aw

ork-

regu

latio

nno

rm.



legal rule’, and the third item was ‘violation of an organi-zational rule. Manipulations were successful; scenario Awas understood as a violation of an interpersonal norm,rather than a violation of a work norm in Turkey[t (103) = 6.80, p � 0.05] and in the Netherlands[t (111) = 7.75 p � 0.05]. Scenario B was understood as aviolation of a work norm, rather than a violation of aninterpersonal norm in Turkey [t (103) = 7.61, p � 0.05] andin the Netherlands [t (111) = 2.43, p � 0.05]. The resultsalso showed that scenario A was interpreted as an interper-sonal norm violation, and this was equally clear to bothDutch and Turkish participants [F (1, 98) = 2.09, not sig-nificant]. In the same way, scenario B was interpreted as awork-regulation norm violation, and this was equally clearto both Dutch and Turkish participants [F (1, 98) = 0.41,not significant]. The results also showed that the intendedmeaning of the scenarios was evaluated as norm violationsin an equally strong way in both countries [F (1,202) = 0.07, not significant].

Second, we conducted paired-samples t-tests to investi-gate the effect of each scenario on feelings of guilt andshame in each country. In the Netherlands, shame 2 feelingsappeared significantly higher than shame 1 feelings in sce-nario A (i.e. violation of an interpersonal norm scenario)[t (111) = -4.82, p � 0.01] and scenario B (i.e. violationof a work-regulation norm scenario) [t (111) = -2.64,p � 0.01]. In Turkey, shame 2 feelings were significantlyhigher than shame 1 feelings in the scenario A condition [t(99) = -5.39, p � 0.01], but not so in the scenario B con-dition [t (99) = -0.39, not significant]. In the Netherlands,guilt 2 was significantly higher than guilt 2 in both scenarioA [t (111) = -10.78, p � 0.01] and scenario B conditions [t(111) = -10.16, p � 0.01]. In Turkey, guilt 2 was signifi-cantly higher than guilt 1 in both scenario A [t (99) = -7.30,p � 0.01] and scenario B conditions [t (99) = -4.41,p � 0.01].

Third, we checked whether participants in Turkey andthe Netherlands differed in terms of their social axioms.T-tests showed that Turkish students had higher social cyni-cism beliefs [t (198) = 8.17, p � 0.05] and higher rewardfor application beliefs [t (198) = 8.59, p � 0.05]. Theresults also showed that Turkish students were more proneto guilt than shame [t (100) = -11.96, p � 0.05], and thatDutch students were also more prone to guilt than shame[t (98) = -4.93, p � 0.05]. Furthermore, Turkish studentswere more prone to guilt than Dutch students [F (1,213) = 29.38, p � 0.05]. However, there was no significantdifference in proneness to feelings of shame between theTurkish and Dutch samples [F (1, 213) = 0.08, not signifi-cant] We also checked whether there were any age and sexdifferences among participants across scenario conditions.There were no age [F (1, 103) = 0.46, not significant] or sex[F (1, 103) = 0.13, not significant] differences across sce-nario conditions in Turkey. Similarly, there were no age [F

(1, 111) = 1.06, not significant] or sex [F (1, 111) = 0.03,not significant] differences across scenario conditions in theNetherlands. The age and sex distributions were alsoequivalent across countries [F (1, 214) = 0.19, not signifi-cant; F (1, 206) = 0.11, not significant, respectively]. Thus,there were no sex and age differences across scenario con-ditions and countries.

Hypotheses

To test the hypotheses, we performed a series of hierarchi-cal regression analyses on shame 2 while controlling for theeffect of shame 1 in the first step, and on guilt 2 whilecontrolling for the effect of guilt1 in the first step. Weconducted the analyses separately for each country forhypotheses 1a and 1b. For hypotheses 1c, 1d, 2a, and 2b, weconducted the analyses by combining the two countries inoverall analyses, while including the country as a dummyvariable. To test the moderation hypotheses, we meancentred the variables, as reported in Aiken and West (1991).Tables 2–5 show the results of the regression analyses.

Hypothesis 1a predicted that interpersonal norm viola-tion would affect feelings of shame and guilt more stronglythan violation of a work regulation in Turkey. First, as canbe seen from Table 2, there is a main effect of type of normviolation on feelings of shame (b = -0.34; p � 0.01) andguilt (b = -0.30; p � 0.01). This means that interpersonalnorm violation affected feelings of shame and guilt morestrongly than violation of a work regulation in Turkey.Hypothesis 1a was therefore supported. Hypothesis 1b pre-dicted both norm violations to affect shame and guilt to thesame extent in the Netherlands. As can also be seen fromTable 2, the main effect of type of norm violation is notsignificant on feelings of shame (b = -0.04; not significant)and guilt (b = -0.07; not significant) in the Netherlands.This means that both types of norm violations affectedfeelings of shame and guilt to the same extent. Therefore,hypothesis 1b could not be rejected.

Further, hypothesis 1c predicted that violation of awork regulation would have a stronger effect on feelingsof shame and guilt in the Netherlands than in Turkey.According to hypothesis 1d, an interpersonal norm viola-tion would affect shame and guilt to the same extent inboth countries. As can be seen from Table 3, a significantmain effect was found for type of norm violation on feel-ings of shame (b = -0.20; p � 0.01), and the moderationterm (type of norm violation by country) was also signifi-cant (b = -0.58; p � 0.01), indicating that an interper-sonal norm violation had a stronger effect on shame inTurkey than in the Netherlands, and that the violation of awork-regulation norm had stronger effects on shame inthe Netherlands than in Turkey (see Fig. 1). Further, asalso can be seen from Table 3, a significant main effectwas found for type of norm violation on feelings of guilt




(b = -0.19; p � 0.01), and the moderation term (typeof norm violation by country) was also significant(b = -0.48; p � 0.05). As can be seen from Figure 2, thismeans that interpersonal norm violation had a strongereffect on feelings of guilt in Turkey than in the Nether-lands, and violation of a work-regulation norm had stron-ger effects on guilt in the Netherlands than in Turkey.Thus, both hypotheses 1c and 1d were supported.

Hypothesis 2a predicted that reward for applicationwould positively moderate the relationship between normviolations and feelings of shame and guilt in both countries.No significant interactions were found between type ofnorm violation, reward for application, and feelings ofshame (b = 0.01; n.s.) and guilt (b = 0.08; n.s.), includingwhen country was taken into account for shame (b = 0.00;

n.s.) and guilt (b = 0.08; n.s.). Reward for application had amain effect on feelings of guilt (b = 12; p = 0.07). Hypoth-esis 2a was partially supported, indicating that participantsfrom both countries who had high reward for applicationbeliefs felt more guilty when they violated norms thandid participants with low reward for application beliefs(b = 0.12; p = 0.07).

Hypothesis 2b anticipated that social cynicism wouldnegatively moderate the relationship between norm viola-tions and shame and guilt feelings. Regression analysessimilar to those conducted for reward for application wereconducted for social cynicism. The interaction of socialcynicism and type of norm violation on feelings of shamewas marginally significant (b = -0.18; p = 0.06), indicat-ing that participants who had high social cynicism beliefs

Table 2 Hierarchical regression of shame 2 on shame 1 and type of norm violation (hypotheses 1a and 1b)

Turkey The NetherlandsShame 2 Shame 2

b R2 DR2 B R2 DR2

Step 1 Shame 1 0.27** 0.09** 0.09** 0.29** 0.09** 0.09**Step 2 Type of norm violation -0.34** 0.21** 0.12** -0.04 0.09 0.00

Guilt 2 Guilt 2

b R2 DR2 B R2 DR2

Step 1 Guilt 1 -0.04 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.03 0.03Step 2 Type of norm violation -0.30** 0.09** 0.09** -0.07 0.03 0.00

*p � 0.05; **p � 0.01. Type of norm violation: 0, violation of an interpersonal norm; 1, violation of a work-regulation norm. Guilt 1, guiltmeasured at time 1; guilt 2, guilt measured at time 2; shame 1, shame measured at time 1; shame 2, shame measured at time 2.

Table 3 Hierarchical regression of shame 2 on shame 1, type of norm violation, and country (hypotheses 1c and 1d)

Shame 2

b R2 DR2

Step 1 Shame 1 0.29** 0.09** 0.09**Step 2 Type of norm violation -0.20** 0.13** 0.04**Step 3 Country -0.01 0.13 0.00Step 4 Type of norm violation ¥ country -0.58** 0.16** 0.03**

Guilt 2

b R2 DR2

Step 1 Guilt 1 0.03 0.00 0.00Step 2 Type of norm violation -0.19** 0.04** 0.04**Step 3 Country -0.01 0.04 0.00Step 4 Type of norm violation ¥ country -0.48* 0.06* 0.02*

*p � 0.05;**p � 0.01. Country: 0, Turkey; 1, the Netherlands. Type of norm violation: 0, violation of an interpersonal norm; 1, violation of awork-regulation norm. Guilt 1, guilt measured at time 1; guilt 2, guilt measured at time 2; shame 1, shame measured at time 1; shame 2,shame measured at time 2.



felt less ashamed when they violated a work regulationnorm than when they violated an interpersonal norm vio-lation (see Figure 3). Therefore, Hypothesis 2b was par-tially supported.

Discussion

This study showed the importance of the type of normthat is violated for examining feelings of guilt and shamein two cultures. Early notions about shame and guilt,which categorized collectivistic cultures simply as ‘shamecultures’ and individualistic cultures as ‘guilt cultures’,were disconfirmed by our results, since participants froma collectivistic culture also felt guilty and participantsfrom individualistic culture also felt ashamed when theyviolated norms. Interestingly, an interpersonal norm vio-lation more strongly affected feelings of guilt and shamethan a work-regulation norm violation in collectivisticTurkey. This finding demonstrates that norms about inter-personal relationships are of central importance, and seemto be more important than work regulations. This findingis line with Kâgitçibasi (1994), who described Turkishculture as a culture of relatedness, where dependent,interpersonal relationships go beyond personal familyboundaries.

Both types of norm violations affected shame and guilt inthe Netherlands. Specifically, no differential effects of thetype of norm violations on feelings of shame and guiltoccurred in this country. This might imply that for Dutchparticipants, both types of norms seem to be equally impor-tant. A potential explanation for this finding might be thatthe Netherlands is a country with high scores on ‘feminin-ity’, which means that interpersonal relations are valued inDutch society, whereas at the same time, individualism isalso valued (Hofstede, 1996).

Yet violation of an interpersonal norm had strongereffects on feelings of shame and guilt in Turkey than in theNetherlands. This shows that obeying interpersonal normsis more important in Turkey than in the Netherlands.Although the Netherlands is a feminine country wherepeople care about obeying rules in interpersonal relation-ships and respect each other (Hofstede, 1996), our resultsalso showed that interpersonal norms are less crucial in theNetherlands than in Turkey. Although the feminine natureof Dutch society might bring about kindness and tendernessin interpersonal relations, our findings showed that peoplein collectivistic cultures are more concerned with the harmthey cause in interpersonal relationships than people froman individualistic culture. Furthermore, violation of a work-regulation norm had a stronger effect on feelings of guiltand shame in the Netherlands than in Turkey. This finding

Table 4 Effects of reward for application on feelings of shame and guilt (hypothesis 2a)

Shame 2

b R2 DR2

Step 1 Shame 1 0.29** 0.09** 0.09**Step 2 Reward for application 0.03 0.08 0.00Step 3 Type of norm violation -0.20** 0.12** 0.04**Step 4 Country -0.02 0.12 0.00Step 5 Type of norm violation ¥ country -0.58** 0.15** 0.03**Step 6 Reward for application ¥ type of norm violation 0.01 0.15 0.00Step 7 Reward for application ¥ country 0.02 0.16 0.01Step 8 Reward for application ¥ type of norm violation ¥ country 0.00 0.16 0.00

Guilt 2

b R2 DR2

Step 1 Guilt 1 0.03 0.00 0.00Step 2 Reward for application 0.12*** 0.02*** 0.02***Step 3 Type of norm violation -0.19** 0.05** 0.03**Step 4 Country -0.02 0.05 0.00Step 5 Type of norm violation ¥ country -0.49* 0.07* 0.02*Step 6 Reward for application ¥ type of norm violation 0.08 0.07 0.00Step 7 Reward for application ¥ country 0.14 0.08 0.01Step 8 Reward for application ¥ type of norm violation ¥ country 0.08 0.09 0.01

*p � 0.05; **p � 0.01; ***p � 0.10. Country: 0, Turkey; 1, the Netherlands. Type of norm violation: 0, violation of an interpersonalnorm; 1, violation of a work-regulation norm. Guilt 1, guilt measured at time 1; guilt 2, guilt measured at time 2; shame 1, shame measuredat time 1; shame 2, shame measured at time 2.




supports the general idea that rules set by legal authoritieshave central importance, and therefore result in more feel-ings of shame and guilt in the Netherlands than in Turkey(Gelfand et al., 2004).

Reward for application only had a marginal main effecton feelings of guilt, but not on feelings of shame. Becausereward for application implies that people get what theydeserve, it makes sense that people who highly endorse this

Table 5 Effects of social cynicism on feelings of shame and guilt (hypothesis 2b)

Shame 2

b R2 DR2

Step 1 Shame 1 0.29** 0.08** 0.08**Step 2 Social cynicism -0.06 0.09 0.01Step 3 Type of norm violation -0.20** 0.13** 0.04**Step 4 Country -0.02 0.13 0.00Step 5 Type of norm violation ¥ country -0.58** 0.16** 0.03**Step 6 Social cynicism ¥ type of norm violation -0.18*** 0.17*** 0.01***Step 7 Social cynicism ¥ country 0.07 0.17 0.00Step 8 Social cynicism ¥ type of norm violation ¥ country -0.33 0.18 0.01

Guilt 2

b R2 DR2

Step 1 Guilt 1 0.03 0.00 0.00Step 2 Social cynicism -0.02 0.00 0.00Step 3 Type of norm violation -0.18** 0.04** 0.04**Step 4 Country -0.01 0.04 0.00Step 5 Type of norm violation ¥ country -0.47* 0.06* 0.02*Step 6 Social cynicism ¥ type of norm violation -0.05 0.06 0.00Step 7 Social cynicism ¥ country 0.11 0.06 0.00Step 8 Social cynicism ¥ type of norm violation ¥ country -0.35 0.07 0.01

*p � 0.05; **p � 0.01; ***p � 0.10. Country: 0, Turkey; 1, the Netherlands. Type of norm violation: 0, violation of an interpersonalnorm; 1, violation of a work-regulation norm. Guilt 1, guilt measured at time 1; guilt 2, guilt measured at time 2; shame 1, shame measuredat time 1; shame 2, shame measured at time 2.

Figure 1 Effect of type of norm viola-tion on feelings of shame (Turkish andDutch samples).



belief feel guiltier when they violate norms. This finding isin line with previous research which showed that reward forapplication is positively related to an internal locus ofcontrol (Smith, Trompenaars, & Dugan, 1995), being theattribution of the causes of events to one’s own behaviours,rather than to external factors (Rotter, 1966). Furthermore,a feeling of guilt is regarded as an internally focusedemotion that reflects a deeper cognitive analysis of situa-tions, including self-reproach, regret, and attempts tocorrect one’s faulty behavior (Fontaine et al., 2006). Giventhese findings, people with high reward for applicationbeliefs (an internal focus) might feel more responsible fortheir actions, and thus feel guiltier. Feelings of shame,however, include a more superficial analysis of situationson the spot, characterized by an orientation on significantothers and feelings of being gazed at, willing to disappear

(Fontaine et al.), and trying to repair one’s damaged self-image in the eyes of others (De Hooge et al., 2008). Thismight explain research findings for feelings of guilt, but notso for feelings of shame. Another plausible explanation ofour finding might be that reward for application is con-cerned with an internalized belief about the importance ofeffort. It therefore makes sense that reward for applicationshows a stronger effect on guilt than on shame, becausenorm violation involves a lapse of effort.

We expected social cynicism to negatively affect feelingsof shame and guilt in both countries. Our results showedthat people who had high social cynicism beliefs felt lessashamed when they violated a work-regulation norm thanpeople who had low social cynicism beliefs. No effectswere found for feelings of guilt. This finding could beexplained by differences in the selfversus other-related

Figure 2 Effect of type of norm viola-tion on feelings of guilt (Turkish andDutch samples).

Figure 3 Effect of social cynicism onthe relationship between type of normviolation and feelings of shame.




nature of shame and social cynicism. In the literature, adistinction is made between feelings that focus on othersand those that focus on oneself, as well as its differentialeffects on several outcomes (e.g. see Proost, Derous,Schreurs, Hagtvet, & De Witte, 2008, for a discussion onthis distinction in the context of anxiety). Feelings of shamefocus on the immediate situation and include beliefs aboutwhat others would think about oneself after doing some-thing wrong. Thus, feelings of shame are more other ori-ented in nature. Social cynicism, however, is basically moreself-referenced in nature: cynical people are less able toreact in an empathic way, considering others’; viewpoints(Bond, Leung, Au, Tong, & Chemonges-Nielson, 2004).People high in social cynicism would also care less aboutothers’; thoughts because they do not believe or trust them.Therefore, those high in social cynicism (a self-referencedbelief) might feel less ashamed (an other-referencedfeeling) when violating norms than those low in socialcynicism beliefs. Effects, however, were only found forviolation of a work-regulation norm and not for interper-sonal norm violations. We suggest that work norm viola-tions might be more prone to effects of social cynicism onfeelings of shame because work norm violations are per-ceived as less important compared to interpersonal normviolations. Additional research may test assumptionsfurther with regard to the interplay of self- and other-related feelings and to beliefs. The main effect of reward forapplication and the moderation effect of social cynicismwere marginal. The small sample sizes on which thesefindings are based can be considered as a limitation,because the statistical power might be low for detectingsignificant effects.

In sum, the added value of this research is threefold.First, this study showed the importance of differentiatingbetween types of norms in the analyses of feelings of shameand guilt across two different cultures. Second, this studyinvestigates the effects of norm violations on people’s feel-ings of shame and guilt. This is particularly important inunderstanding and preventing the (re)occurrence of CWB.Finally, this study showed that there are differential mod-erating effects of social axioms on the relationship betweennorm violations and feelings of shame and guilt.

Limitations and future researchopportunities

This is one of the first studies investigating the effects ofnorm violations and social axioms on feelings of shameand guilt across two different cultures. As with any study,however, some limitations and further research opportuni-ties need to be mentioned. A first limitation relates to thesample investigated. We agree that student samples can bea serious threat to the external validity of study findings,particularly so if undergraduates are used as participants.

However, in the current study, Business students fromEconomics/Management departments participated whowere well acquainted with workplace simulations andwho already had relevant work experience. Our manipu-lation checks also showed that participants perceived thescenarios as intended. Therefore, we believe our findingsmight not imply a great threat to external validity. Never-theless, we still suggest future research to include realemployees, if possible. To this end, another researchdesign could be used than policy capturing.

Another potential limitation relates to the number ofsocial axioms investigated. We only included rewardfor application and social cynicism, as these axiomsseemed highly relevant to the type of norm violations andfeelings investigated. However, further research mightexplore the theoretical and practical value of othersocial axioms, such as social complexity, fate control, andreligiosity (Leung et al., 2002) in explaining type ofnorm violations on feelings of guilt and shame in theworkplace.

Finally, it would also be interesting to examine theeffects of norm violations on feelings of shame and guiltamong ethnic Turkish minorities in the Netherlands,because Turkish minorities form one of the largest minori-ties in the Netherlands (Myors et al., 2008). It is feasiblethat patterns of integration and acculturation might affectfindings. For instance, Turkish minorities in the Nether-lands might adhere to the Dutch work ethos to some extent,and this is interesting to investigate for a better understand-ing and increasing intercultural communication and cul-tural awareness among ethnic minority–majority groups inthe workplace.

Practical relevance

Our results show that violation of an interpersonal normseems more delicate than violation of work-regulationnorms in the Turkish culture. One practical implication ofthis finding is that Turkish organizations might need moretime and effort in building a good social climate at work, asthis might prevent CWB. Violation of a work rule, such asconveying confidential information, can be as important asa violation of an interpersonal norm if Turkish employeescare about their relationships with the person who is incharge of communicating the rule. Thus, people who areresponsible for communicating the rules in organizationsshould take into account how important interpersonal rela-tionships are within Turkish society. Furthermore, viola-tions of work-regulation norms more strongly affectedfeelings of guilt in the Netherlands than in Turkey. Thesefindings are highly important for intercultural awareness inmulticultural workplaces and international organizations,where people have to take into account these culturalnuances in work norms.



By investigating the effects of work-related norm viola-tions and social axioms on feelings of guilt/shame in twodifferent cultures, we have furthered insights into theunderlying mechanisms of work behaviours, and also offer

a new avenue for investigating acculturation at theworkplace. The latter could be particularly relevant in atime of globalization, and could support diversity in theworkplace.

References

Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991). MultipleRegression: Testing and Interpreting Inter-actions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Benedict, R. (1946). The Chrysanthemum andthe Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture.Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Bennett, R. J. & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Devel-opment of a measure of workplace deviance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360.

Bennett, R. J. & Stamper, C. L. (2001). Corpo-rate citizenship and deviancy: A study ofdiscretionary work behavior. In: C. Gal-braith & M. Ryan, eds. InternationalResearch in the Business Disciplines: Strat-egies and Organizations in Transition, pp.269–290. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Bierbrauer, G. (1992). Reactions to violationof normative standards: A cross-culturalanalysis of shame and guilt. InternationalJournal of Psychology, 27, 181–193.

Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K. &Chemonges-Nielson, Z. (2004). Combiningsocial axioms with values in predictingsocial behaviours. European Journal of Per-sonality, 18, 177.

Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K. K.,de Carrasquel, S. R., Murakami, F., et al.(2004). Culture-level dimensions of socialaxioms and their correlates across 41 cul-tures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-ogy, 35, 548–570.

Chen, S. X., Fok, H. K., Bond, M. H. & Matsu-moto, D. (2006). Personality and beliefsabout the world revisited: Expanding thenomological network of social axioms. Per-sonality and Individual Differences, 41, 201–211.

De Hooge, I. E., Breugelmans, S. M. &Zeelenberg, M. (2008). Not so ugly after all:When shame acts as a commitment device.Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 95, 933–943.

Fontaine, R. J., Luyten, P., Boeck, P., Corve-leyn, J., Fernandez, M., Herrera, D., et al.(2006). Untying the gordian knot of guiltand shame. Journal of Cross Cultural Psy-chology, 37, 273–292.

Fox, S. & Spector, P. E. (2002). Emotions inthe workplace: The neglected side of orga-

nizational life. Human Resource Manage-ment Review, 12, 167–171.

Gelfand, M. J., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Nishii, L. H.& Bechtold, D. J. (2004). Individualism-collectivism. In: R. J. House, P. W. Hanges,M. Javidan, P. Dorfman & V. Gupta, eds.Culture, Leadership, and Organizations:The GLOBE Study of 92 Cultures, pp. 437–512. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harder, D. W. (1990). Additional constructvalidity evidence for the harder personalfeelings questionnaire measure of shameand guilt proneness. Psychological Reports,67, 288–290.

Hofstede, G. (1996). Cultures and Organiza-tions: Software of the Mind: InterculturalCooperation and Its Importance for Sur-vival. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteriafor indexes in covariance structure analysis:Conventional criteria versus new alterna-tives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6,1–55.

International Survey Research (1995).Employee Attitudes Towards Their Employ-ers: An International Perspective. London:Author.

Kâgitçibasi, Ç. (1994). A critical appraisal ofindividualism and collectivism: Toward anew formulation. In: U. Kim, H. C. Triandis,Ç. Kâgitçibasi, S. Choi & G. Yoon, eds.Individualism and Collectivism: Theory,Method, and Application, pp. 52–65. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lai, J. H. W., Bond, M. H. & Hui, N. H. (2007).The role of social axioms in predicting lifesatisfaction: A longitudinal study in HongKong. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 517–535.

Leung, K. & Bond, M. H. (2004). Socialaxioms: A model for social beliefs inmulticultural perspective. Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, 36, 119–197.

Leung, K., Bond, M. H., Reimel de Car-rasquel, S., Munoz, C., Hernandez, M.,Murakami, F., et al. (2002). Social axioms:The search for universal dimensions ofgeneral beliefs about how the world func-tions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-ogy, 33, 286–302.

Markus, H. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Cultureand the self: Implications for cognition,emotion, and motivation. PsychologicalReview, 98, 224–253.

Miles, D. E., Borman, W. E., Spector, P. E. &Fox, S. (2002). Building an integrativemodel of extra work behaviors: A compari-son of counter-productuve work behaviourwith organizational citizenship behavior.International Journal of Selection andAssessment, 10, 51–57.

Myors, B., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., VanHoye, G., Cronshaw, S. F., Mladinic, A.,et al. (2008). International perspectives onthe legal environment for selection. Indus-trial and Organizational Psychology: Per-spectives on Science and Practice, 1, 206–246.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ohbuchi, K., Tamura, T., Quigley, B. M.,Tedeschi, J. T., Madi, N., Bond, M. H., et al.(2004). Anger, blame, and dimensions ofperceived norm violations: Culture, gender,and relationships. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 34, 1587–1603.

Proost, K., Derous, E., Schreurs, B., Hagtvet,K. A. & De Witte, K. (2008). Selection testanxiety: Investigating applicants’; selfversus other-referenced anxiety in a realselection setting. International Journal ofSelection and Assessment, 16, 14–26.

Robinson, M. D. & Clore, G. L. (2002).Beliefs, situations, and their interac-tions: Towards a model of emotion report-ing. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 934–960.

Robinson, S. L. & Bennett, R. J. (1995). Atypology of deviant workplace behaviors:A multidimensional scaling study. AcademyofManagement Journal, 38, 55–72.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectanciesfor internal versus external control of rein-forcement. Psychological Monographs, 80,1–28.

Smith, P. B., Bond, M. H. & Kâgitçibasi, Ç.(2006). Understanding Social Psychologyacross Cultures. Living and Working in aChanging World. London: Sage.

Smith, P. B., Trompenaars, F. & Dugan, S.(1995). The Rotter locus of control scale in




43 countries: A test of cultural relativity.International Journal of Psychology, 30,377–400.

Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M.,Bruursema, K., Goh, A. & Kessler, S. (2006).The dimensionality of counter-productivity:Are all counter-productive behaviors createdequal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68,446–460.

Sprecher, S. (1999). ‘I love you more than yes-terday’: Romantic partners’; perceptions ofchanges in love and related affect over time.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 76, 46–53.

Stipek, D., Weiner, B. & Li, K.-X. (1989).Testing some attribution emotion relations inthe peoples-republic-of-China. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 56,109–116.

Tamir, M., John, O. P., Srivastava, S. & Gross,J. J. (2007). Implicit theories of emotion:Affective and social outcomes across amajor life transition. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 92, 731–744.

Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. J. &Clack, F. L. (1985). Allocentric versus idi-ocentric tendencies: Convergent and dis-crimination validation. Journal of Researchin Personality, 19, 395–415.

Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Test adaption/translation methods. In: R. Fernandez-Ballesteros, ed. Encyclopedia ofPsychological Assessment, pp. 960–964.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Appendix I

Work norm violation scenarios

Scenario A (violation of an interpersonal norm). You areworking as an insurance sales agent. You sell life, property,health, and other types of insurance, and arrange interviewswith prospective customers to sell these insurances. Beforeconducting the interviews, you customarily make an inter-view plan with a team of four colleagues. You are thecoordinator of the team. You then inform the managementabout the interview plan in order to receive their confirma-tion, stating that each team member can individuallyengage in interviewing customers.

You work in the same office as your colleague Ahmet(Jan in the Dutch version). He is a member of your inter-view planning team and also your best friend. You shareboth work and personal problems. You spend most of theweekends with him and his family. You help each other outwhen moving house and lend each other money.

Ahmet receives bad news from management. Manage-ment does not want to prolong his work contract. Althoughyou personally did not like this decision, you think that itwas a fair decision. Ahmet had knowledge on presentingand selling insurances, he also had lots of knowledge onmarketing strategies, but he could not catch up with recentdevelopments, such as computer knowledge.

Ahmet requests that you to talk with management tochange their decision. You feel responsibility and want tomaintain your harmonious relationship. However, you sayto Ahmet that you talked to management, but could notchange their decision. You lie to him. You see that yourfriend becomes very desperate and hopeless because he wasdismissed. After a while, he and the others realize your lie.Although you were not totally responsible from the situa-tion, you could have supported and comforted him insteadof getting rid of the responsibility with a lie.

Scenario B (violation of a work-regulation norm). You areworking as an insurance sales agent. You sell life, property,health, and other types of insurance, and arrange interviewswith prospective customers to sell these insurances. Beforeconducting the interviews, you customarily make an inter-view plan with a team of four colleagues. You are thecoordinator of the team. You then inform managementabout the interview plan in order to receive their confirma-tion, stating that you can individually engage in interview-ing customers.

The economical conditions become worse in Turkey (orin The Netherlands). The company you are working for hasalso been affected by this situation. The number of custom-ers of the insurance company has declined. Therefore, thenumber of employees needed for interviews has decreasedas well.

You learn from management that three people from yourinterview planning team are going to be laid off. As theleader of the team, you are informed about this situation,and your comments have also been taken into account.Management want to keep this confidential because theywant the employees to complete the project they havestarted. They also want to maintain the general unity andharmony of the team. Management is planning to informthe employees 8 weeks in advance, according to law.

While you are talking to one of the members of the teamyou tell him of the lay-off decision. You cannot keep yourmouth shut. You disobey a work rule by doing this. Youcannot resist your demand to tell someone about this lay-offdecision. What you do is against company policies. Youcannot keep the information confidential and you break anorganizational rule. The lay-off decision has been diffusedat the organization and everyone knew about the lay-offdecision of management.



Documents

Effects of work-related norm violations and general beliefs about the world on feelings of shame and guilt: A comparison between Turkey and the Netherlands: Effects of work-related