Relationship of Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Production Deviance: Role of Perceived Organizational Politics

Received 17 Apr, 2014

Accepted 18 Jul, 2018

Published 30 Jun, 2019

The present study was an endeavor to extend the literature of perceived organizational politics by examining its moderating role between the relationship of organizational citizenship behavior and production deviance. Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (Mackenzie, Podsakoff, & Paine, 1999), Production Deviance sub-scale of Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist-32 (Spector et al., 2006), and Perception of Organizational Politics Scale (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997) were used in present study. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that low levels of perceived organizational politics moderated the relationship between courtesy and production deviance by strengthening the negative relationship of these behaviors while perceived organizational politics did not act as a moderator for the relationship of civic virtue and conscientiousness with production deviance. High level of go-along-to-get-ahead as a moderator strengthened the relationship of civic virtue and conscientiousness with production deviance and its low level was found to be moderating the relationship between courtesy and production deviance. Future implications of the study were also discussed.

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) includes helping and supporting behaviors which are not part of formal job description and duties of a job but help in smooth development of an organization (Organ, 1988; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). It includes civic virtue (promoting the organization at macro-level even with high personal cost); conscientiousness (performing with more than minimally required effort); altruism (helping others voluntarily); courtesy (helping others before the problem occurs) and sportsmanship, (maintaining a positive attitude towards organization even in the face of hurdles and hardships) (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff, MacKanzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).

Its importance in organizational settings is evident as it enhances many positive outcomes, for example is positively associated with job satisfaction and retention of the employees, whereas it has negative relation with the level of absenteeism (Dash & Pardhan, 2014; Pavalache-Ilie, 2014). It is supposed to negatively associate with other type of workplace behaviors, which are negative for organizations.

One such negative workplace behavior is counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs), a work behavior that is performed with a deliberate aim to hurt the organization. Among other forms of CWBs, production deviance is a type of CWBs that is manifested when the employee/s deliberately do not perform assigned tasks in effective manner (Spector et al. 2006). It involves harming the production by not completing the assigned tasks (substandard work, noncompliance, and slowdowns). Production deviance is a passive and less visible form of CWB and is safer than all other types as it is difficult to be proven and brings less harm to the perpetrator (Spector et al., 2006).

OCB is expected to have a negative relationship with production deviance because it is characterized by volunteering for an extra duty whereas production deviance involves avoiding duties. Researchers have found a strong negative relationship between OCB and CWB (one form of which is production deviance) (e.g., Ariani, 2013; Bukhari & Ali, 2009; Dalal, 2005). Similarly, Hafidz, Hoesni, and Fatimah (2012) concluded that overall OCB had a significant negative relationship with different type of production deviance. However, doubts in the relationships appeared with the study of Fox, Spector, Goh, Brruursema, and Kessler (2012) who carried out two studies in order to explain this relationship. Their first study concluded a positive relationship between OCB and CWB. Their second study, failed to find any significant relationship between OCB and production deviance. This inconsistency in results gives room for possible presence of some third variable which might be a moderator.

Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Politics
The degree of perceiving a workplace as political and unfair is termed as perception of organizational politics (POP; Ferris, Russ, & Fandt, 1989). Go-along-to-get-ahead (GATGA) is one of dimension of POP which is depicted when the employee remains silent and takes no action for safety of his interests (Byrne, 2005). POP and GATGA have been found associated with many negative work outcomes (Goodman, Evans & Carson, 2011; Vigoda-Gadot & Talmud, 2010). Along with its individual negative outcomes (e.g., those explored by Atta & Khan, 2016; Danaaefard, Balutbzeh & Kashi, 2010), its interactive effects also have been explored by the researchers. Shrestha (2017) for example, studied the role of POP as moderator for the relationship of workplace spirituality and employee attitudes. Similarly, Ahmad (2010), observed the interaction effects of POP on the relationship between three types of justice and job performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, OCB and turnover intent among a sample from several organizations of Pakistan. Current study is an empirical endeavor to examine the moderating role of POP between the relationship of OCB and production deviance.

As Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964; West & Turner, 2000) suggests that individuals always indulge in give and take and while doing these transactions, they want to reciprocate the actions of others. If an employee perceives an organization negatively, the employee will reciprocate by showing negativity or reducing positivity towards the organization. As POP has often been perceived as negative phenomenon, the employees might react for it in a negative way. Thus, the employees who show deviant behavior are actually trying to reciprocate the actions of organization (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Moreover, when in response to POP it is not feasible for the employees to actually leave the organization, they take revenge from the organization by not fulfilling the assigned tasks and therefore, they indulge in production deviance. Several researchers have found that POP and CWB are strongly and positively linked to each other (e.g. Samad & Amri, 2011). In indigenous culture of Pakistan, various studies (e.g., Bodla & Danish, 2011; Rashid, Saleem, & Rashid, 2012) observed the strong positive relationship of POP with theft, turnover intent, and CWB.

Conversely, OCB yields many positive impacts on the organization by reducing the negativity of negative outcomes. But the situation is different in the environments where politics is high. The employees perceives that they are not being rewarded according to their struggles, and that the only criterion of getting rewards is defined on the bases of politics as they do not have confidence that their behavior might bring rewards for them (Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, & Toth, 1997). Moreover, they begin to believe that the perpetrators are enhancing their own self-interests by putting their interests at stake which increases the hostility of employees against their organization. Therefore, when level of POP is perceived as high in an organization, the intensity of production deviance is increased even in the presence of high levels of OCB. Therefore, the existing negative relationship between OCB and production deviance is supposed to increase.

Hypotheses

Following hypotheses were formulated in order to examine the moderating role of POP:

1. POP will moderate the relationship of civic virtue, conscientiousness and courtesy with production deviance such that the high level of POP will strengthen their existing negative relationship.

2. Go-along-to-get-ahead will moderate the relationship of civic virtue, conscientiousness, and courtesy with production deviance such that high level of go-along-to-get-ahead will strengthen their existing negative relationship.

METHOD

Sample
Sample of the study was composed of high school teachers (N = 284) including male (n = 150) and female (n = 134). Sample was taken from public (n = 114) and private (n = 170) schools. The base line for qualification of sample was BA/BSc with minimum one year teaching experience. The age of the respondents varied in the range of 20 to 50 years (M = 31.94, SD = 8.6).

Instruments
Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale. A 12 item scale developed by MacKenzie et al. (1993) was used in order to measure citizenship behaviors viz civic virtue, sportsmanship, altruism, and conscientiousness among employees. Courtesy was measured by a scale developed by Mackenzie, Podsakoff, and Paine (1999). Response format was 5-point Likert scale. Danaaefard et al. (2010) reported satisfactory reliabilities for Altruism (.75), Sportsmanship (.88), Civic Virtue (.75), Conscientiousness (.83), and Courtesy (.88). In the present study, alpha coefficient of .79 was acquired for the total scale.

Production Deviance Subscale. Production Deviance subscale of Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist-32 (Spector et al., 2006) was used in the present study. It consisted of 3 items which are anchored on 7-point Likert scale. Reliability coefficient as reported by Spector et al. (2006) was .81; while, for the current sample alpha coefficient of .81 was attained.

Perception of Organizational Politics Scale. Perception of Organizational Politics Scale (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997) was used to measure the level of POP among employees. Go-along-to-get-ahead was its sub-scale. All items were to be responded on a 5-point Likert scale. Reliability coefficient for General Political Behavior sub-scale was .78 (Danaaefard et al., 2010). In the present study, alpha coefficient of .74 was achieved for this scale.

PROCEDURE

Research was carried out in two phases. During first phase, all the scales were translated from English into Urdu, while second phase incorporated hypotheses testing. Committee approach for translation was used in present study following the guidelines provided by European Social Survey (2012). After translation, the instruments were administered on a sample of high school male and female teachers from public as well as private sectors. Sample was approached, using purposive convenient sampling, from different high schools in Sargodha. Teachers were directly approached in their offices or in staff rooms. After assuring informed consent, demographic information were obtained from them and questionnaires were handed over to them along with verbal as well as written instructions Some of the sample responded at once, some others were contacted again and filled questionnaires were taken back from them. Participants were also thanked for their cooperation.

RESULTS

Pearson Product Moment correlation and hierarchical regression was conducted to test the assumed relations.

Table 1 described inter-scale correlations among all the study variables. Significant correlations were observed between all the study variables except for the relationship of POP and GATGA with production deviance.

Table 1:	MCorrelation Matrix for All the Study Variables (N = 284)
Note. POP = Perception of Organizational Politics; GATGA = Go-Along-To-Get-Ahead; OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behavior *p < .01. **p < .001

Results of Table 2 demonstrated that Model 1 was found to be non-significant ∆F (3, 281) = .11, p > .05. The variables entered in predictor list of the model 2 did not contribute for any unique variance in production deviance.

Table 2:	Moderating Role of Go-Along-To-Get-Ahead in the Relationship of OCB with Production Deviance (N = 284)
Note. POP = Perception of Organizational Politics *p < .05. **p < .01

The model 2 presented an interaction of courtesy and POP predicting production deviance. Overall model was found to be significant with ∆F (3, 281) = 3.41, p < .05 suggesting a moderating impact of POP between the predictor and the outcome variable. The product of courtesy and POP causes 5.3% variance in the criterion variable, whereas the model 3 contribute for a negligible variance in production deviance (R² = .02) suggesting that neither POP alone nor the product of conscientiousness and POP were good predictors of the dependent variable.

Fig. 1: Moderating role of perceived organizational politics in the relation between courtesy and production deviance

Figure 1 presents the moderated relationship between courtesy and production deviance where low level of perception of organizational politics has caused a moderating effect by strengthening the relationship between courtesy and production deviance.

Table 3 showed that the model 1 presented an interaction of civic virtue and go-along-to-get-ahead predicting production deviance and was found to be significant with F(3, 280) = 2.77, p < .05 and product of civic virtue and go-along-to-get-ahead significantly predicts the dependent variable. The product of these variables contributes for 4.7% variance in the dependent variable (R² = .047).

Table 3:	Moderating Role of Go-Along-To-Get-Ahead in the Relationship of OCB with Production Deviance (N = 284)
Note. GATGA = Go-Along-To-Get-Ahead *p < .05. ***p < .001

The model 2 presented an interaction of conscientiousness and go-along-to-get-ahead predicting production deviance. Overall model was found to be significant with ∆F (3, 281) = 5.50, p < .05 and product of conscientiousness and go-along-to-get-ahead significantly predicts the dependent variable. The product of these variables contributes for 4% variance in the dependent variable (R² = .040).

The model 3 of Table 3 demonstrated an interaction of courtesy and go-along-to-get-ahead predicting production deviance and overall model 3 was found to be significant with ∆F (3, 281) = 3.18, p < .05 and product of courtesy and go-along-to-get-ahead significantly predicts the dependent variable. The product of these variables contributes for 5.2% variance in the dependent variable (R² = .052) which is production deviance. These findings provide substantial support for the assume relationship regarding predictors of production deviance.

Fig. 2: Moderating role of go-along-to-get-ahead in the relation between civic virtue and production deviance

Figure 2 illustrates that higher level of GATGA result in strengthening the negative relationship between civic virtue and production deviance.

Fig. 3: Moderating role of go-along-to-get-ahead in the relation between conscientiousness and production deviance

Figure 3 depicts that higher level of GATGA strengthen the negative relationship between conscientiousness and production deviance.

Fig. 4: Moderating Role of go-along-to-get-ahead in the relation between courtesy and production deviance

Figure 4 postulates the relationship of courtesy with production deviance where go-along-to-get-ahead is shown as a moderator. The figure depicts that go-along-to-get-ahead moderates the relationship between courtesy and production deviance where its low level strengthens the relationship of the two variables.

DISCUSSION

After translating the scales and assuring their psychometric soundness the moderating role of perceived organizational politics between the relationship of organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive behavior among a sample of high school teachers was studied. The first hypothesis stated that POP will moderate the relationship of civic virtue, conscientiousness and courtesy with, production deviance such that the high level of POP will strengthen their existing negative relationship was partially supported. The very first supposed moderating relationship (i.e., the role of POP as moderator for the relationship of civic virtue and production deviance) could not be accepted for the present study. This could be understood when we consider the definition of civic virtue, which involves having deep concerns about the organization (Organ et al., 2005). If an employee is the good citizen of an organization, s/he will, as common sense suggests, definitely own the organization and will inevitably not produce damage to its productions (i.e., production deviance), or any type of harm to it. This was observed by Hafiz et al. (2012) who found that among all types of CWB, poor quality work (in other words, production deviance) had strongest negative correlation with OCB. This relationship is too strong to be moderated even by perception of politics.

The second hypothesized relationship was the role of POP in the relationship of courtesy and production deviance. Results depicts that the relationship between courtesy and production deviance is stronger when the level of POP is low. The results are not strange that, in a non-political, favorable environment when an employee is showing courtesy to the organization (i.e., preventing problems at work even before they occur), s/he is giving a favor to the organization and thus will not destroy the effects of this favor by sabotaging the production of the work (i.e., production deviance). Similar results were observed by Bennet and Robinson (2000) who concluded that altruism and CWB targeted towards organizations are strongly negatively correlated. When the employees perceive more politics, the relationship between courtesy and production deviance becomes weak. This happens perhaps because, when politics is high in an organization, courtesy itself becomes a tactic of politics. For instance, Emmanuel, Gbadegesin, and Olabisi (2014), when discussing about strategies of politics stated that courtesy brings many favorable outcomes to the employee. Therefore, when the level of politics is perceived as high, perhaps the employees show courtesy not as an act of OCB, but an act of politics itself. Therefore, the relationship between courtesy and production deviance becomes weak when POP is high.

The third assumed relation of the first hypothesis was the role of POP between the relationship of conscientiousness and production deviance failed to be supported. It might be due to nature of conscientiousness. Conscientiousness, that is the punctuality, the regularity, fulfilling the responsibility (Barrick & Mount, 1991), is something that has to do with the personality (i.e., the Conscientiousness from The Big Five). Perhaps, if someone is high on this behavior, one can assume that s/he possibly will high on this personality dimension; and researchers have found this personality dimension as significantly correlated with CWBs. For example, Ferreira and Nascimento (2016) found that conscientiousness was strongly and negatively associated with CWBs either directed towards individuals or organizations. Therefore, we might assume that the effect f this personality is too strong on the behaviors that these cannot be moderated by politics of the organization.

POP moderated the relationship of courtesy with production deviance where low level of POP caused moderating impact between the independent and criterion variable (see Figure 2). The results are contrary to expectations suggesting that the relationship of courtesy with production deviance is high when level of POP is low. These results can be explained in terms of deontic model which suggests that individuals predispose intolerance for injustice and that; ethical principles shape our behaviors in response to injustice (Folger, Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2005). This intolerance makes the employees to react for injustice whether experienced or observed and restrain them from taking a reaction which might also be termed as injustice (Rupp & Bell, 2010; Tripp & Bies, 2010). Therefore, we can assume that when employees perceive a high level of organizational politics, they find it unethical to respond negatively, and do not increase the level of production deviance.

Go-along-to-get-ahead moderates the relationship of civic virtue and conscientiousness with production deviance in a sense that high level of GATGA strengthens the negative relationship of civic virtue and conscientiousness with production deviance. GATGA is, by definition, the process of securing the valued outcomes by remaining silent and apparently not acting politically (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997). Whereas, production deviance is a silent, less visible form of CWBs as it is less evident and one cannot easily measure this type of CWB (Spector et al., 2006). In the same way, GATGA is a silent, less visible form of POP. Kacmar and Carlson (1997) had defined, the employee high on GATGA wants to avoids conflict with other and thus, does not resist others’ influential political acts, and thus becomes a member of others’ in-group, which itself is a political act. When the employees are high at this silent political act, it is the level of their citizenship behaviors (i.e., conscientiousness and civic virtue) which decrease their production deviance. On the other hand, when the level of GATGA is low, the relationship becomes very week. Therefore, the research has concluded that high level of GATGA strengthens the relationship of civic virtue and conscientiousness and production deviance.

Findings suggest that GATGA moderated the relationship between courtesy and production deviance such that, its low levels contributed for a stronger relationship between courtesy and production deviance; whereas when level of GATGA is high, the relationship becomes weak.

Previous researches have suggested that courtesy negatively relates with CWBs (see e.g., Apaydin & Şirin, 2016; Fatimah et al., 2012). Simply stating, when an employee takes steps to prevent problems before they occur (i.e., high courtesy), it is not surprising that s/he will not deliberately harm his/her own part of work (i.e., low production deviance). However, when the level of GATGA is high, that is a political tact which is more subtle, silent (as stated by Kacmar & Karlson, 1997) and hence difficult to be directly measured act, is high; the acts of courtesy do not remain purely citizenship behaviors but can be used even as political acts too; and the consequence is, the weakened relationship of courtesy and production deviance.

LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Self-report measures are always prone to the great risk of social desirability which can deplete the true picture of the relationships among variables. Further studies should take social desirability into account which should be controlled by using sophisticated statistics or by using multi-method approach. Moreover, future researches should explore the role of courtesy as a political tact besides its role as a citizenship behavior.

CONCLUSION

The present study concluded that low levels of perceived organizational politics moderated the relationship between courtesy and production deviance by strengthening the negative relationship of these behaviors, whereas POP was not found to be a moderator for the relationship of civic virtue and conscientiousness with production deviance. Moreover high level of go-along-to-get-ahead escalated the relationship of civic virtue and conscientiousness with production deviance and its low level moderated the relationship between courtesy and production deviance.

REFERENCES

1. Ariani, D. W. (2013). The relationship between employee engagement, organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Business Administration, 4(2), 46-56.
2. Atta, M., & Khan, M. J. (2016). Perceived organizational politics, organizational citizenship behavior and job attitudes among university teachers. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 26(2), 21-38.
3. Ahmad, R. U. (2010). Direct and indirect effects of organizational justice and perceptions of politics on personal and organizational outcomes (Unpublished doctoral thesis), International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
4. Apaydin, C., & Şirin, H. (2016). The relationship between organizational citizenship behavior, group cohesiveness and workplace deviance behavior of Turkish teachers. International Education Studies.
5. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). The development of measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360.
6. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
7. Bodla, M. A., & Danish, R. Q. (2011). Moderating role of social exchange perceptions between perceived organizational politics and antisocial behavior. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 3(5), 279-286.
8. Bukhari, Z., & Ali, U. (2009). Relationship between organizational citizenship behavior & counterproductive work behavior in the geographical context of Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(1), 85-92.
9. Byrne, Z. (2005). Fairness reduces the negative effects of organizational politics on turnover intentions, citizenship behavior and job performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 175-200.
10. Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159-180.
11. Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241-1255.
12. Dash, S., & Pardhan, R. K. (2014). Determinants and consequences of organizational citizenship behavior: A theoretical framework for Indian manufacturing organizations. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 3(1), 17-27.
13. Danaaefard, H., Balutbzeh, A., & Kashi, K. H. (2010). Good soldiers' perceptions of organizational politics understanding the relation between organizational citizenship behaviors and perceptions of organizational politics: Evidence from Iran. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 18, 146-162.
14. Emmanuel, O. A., Gbadegesin, M. A., & Olabisi, F. O. (2014). Politics and politicking: The organizational perspective. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 20(5), 1051-1062.
15. European Social Survey (2012). ESS Round 6 Translation Guidelines. Mannheim, European Social Survey GESIS.
16. Ferreira, M. F., & Nascimento, E. (2016). Relationship between personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors. Psico-USF, Bragança Paulista, 21(3), 677-685.
17. Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacolone, & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization, (pp. 143-170). Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.
18. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., Bruursema, K., & Kessler, S. R. (2012). The deviant citizen: Measuring potential positive relationships between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 199-220.
19. Goodman, J. M., Evans, W. R., & Carson, C. M. (2011). Organizational politics and stress: Perceived accountability as a coping mechanism. The Journal of Business Inquiry, 10(1), 6680.
20. Hafiz, S. W. M., Hoesni, S. M., & Fatimah, O. (2012). The relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Asian Social Science, 8(9), 32-37.
21. Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale: A multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management, 23(5), 627-658.
22. Law, S. K., Wong, C., & Chen, X. Z. (2005). The construct of organizational citizenship behavior: Should we analyze after we have conceptualized? In D. L. Turnipseed (Ed.), Handbook of organizational citizenship behavior, (pp. 47-65). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
23. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of sales performance. Journal of Marketing, 57, 70-80.
24. Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Paine, J. B. (1999). Do citizenship behavior matter more for managers than for salespeople? Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 27(4), 396-410.
25. Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159-1168.
26. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
27. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
28. Pavalache-Ilie, M. (2014). Organizational citizenship behavior, work satisfaction and employees’ personality. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.
29. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Paine, B. P., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.
30. Rashid, U., Saleem, Z., & Rashid, S. (2012). Perception of organizational politics and workplace deviance: Mediating effect of job stress and low job satisfaction. Asian Journal of Business Management, 4(4), 396-406.
31. Hafiz, S. W. M., Hoesni, S. M., & Fatimah, O. (2012). The relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Asian Social Science.
32. Samad, S., & Amri, S. (2011). Examining the influence of organizational politics on job performance. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5(12), 1353-1363.
33. Shrestha, A. K. (2017). Workplace spirituality and employee attitudes: Moderating role of organizational politics. Journal of Business and Management Research.
34. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counter productivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446-460.
35. Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Talmud, I. (2010). Organizational politics and job outcomes: The moderating effect of trust and social support. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(11), 2829-2861.
36. West, R. & Turner, L. (2000). Introducing communication theory. Mountain View, C. A. : Mayfield Publishing Company.