- Page 1 and 2:
TITLE PAGE A SOCIAL INFLUENCE ANALY
- Page 3 and 4:
Copyright by Thomas J. Zagenczyk 20
- Page 5 and 6:
with the expectation that reciproca
- Page 7 and 8:
LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Hypothesize
- Page 9 and 10:
PREFACE Thank you to my chair, Audr
- Page 11 and 12:
epresentatives of the organization
- Page 13 and 14:
Researchers also consider the conte
- Page 15 and 16:
Exploring the effects of social inf
- Page 17 and 18:
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW Orga
- Page 19 and 20:
Levinson’s work explained the lar
- Page 21 and 22:
Eisenberger and colleagues (1986) a
- Page 23 and 24:
In subsequent studies, researchers
- Page 25 and 26:
the organization is based on percei
- Page 27 and 28:
esearch exploring the antecedents o
- Page 29 and 30:
a manager with high formal status s
- Page 31 and 32:
to carry out tasks on their own, an
- Page 33 and 34:
occurs because the norm of reciproc
- Page 35 and 36:
on their daily tasks. Examining thi
- Page 37 and 38:
coworkers are able to provide infor
- Page 39 and 40:
when forming perceptions and evalua
- Page 41 and 42:
identifies with and interacts with
- Page 43 and 44:
Miles, and Grover (2003) showed tha
- Page 45 and 46:
instance, a researcher may find a p
- Page 47 and 48:
likely to discuss sensitive issues
- Page 49 and 50:
it does not require that the role m
- Page 51 and 52:
among tellers. In one branch, no se
- Page 53 and 54:
eside outside of the focal individu
- Page 55 and 56:
To test the effects of social influ
- Page 57 and 58:
disseminating organizational inform
- Page 59 and 60:
less positive. Thus, the POS of the
- Page 61 and 62:
ties (and other combinations of str
- Page 63 and 64:
Research Setting Hypotheses were te
- Page 65 and 66:
network data concerning recurring i
- Page 67 and 68:
I explored these different requirem
- Page 69 and 70:
or not the employees with whom they
- Page 71 and 72:
frequent contact with person j, or
- Page 73 and 74: employee held a leadership position
- Page 75 and 76: correlation analysis has two steps.
- Page 77 and 78: Organizational Support was .84, whi
- Page 79 and 80: Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for
- Page 81 and 82: Correlations. Two different types o
- Page 83 and 84: Control Variables Table 7: Pearson
- Page 85 and 86: Control Variables Table 9: Pearson
- Page 87 and 88: Results of Hypotheses Tests using Q
- Page 89 and 90: positions had perceptions of organi
- Page 91 and 92: CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLU
- Page 93 and 94: elationship may not have been consi
- Page 95 and 96: social learning theory (Bandura, 19
- Page 97 and 98: to provide false information is les
- Page 99 and 100: Fourth, when studying social influe
- Page 101 and 102: theoretical foundation of POS is so
- Page 103 and 104: consistent with past research (Ibar
- Page 105 and 106: employees who were widely regarded
- Page 107 and 108: etween employees, only strong frien
- Page 109 and 110: of structure and behavior. Academy
- Page 111 and 112: organizational support. In J. A-M.
- Page 113 and 114: Hammer, M. (1985). Implications of
- Page 115 and 116: Kohlberg, L. (1963). Moral developm
- Page 117 and 118: Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D.
- Page 119 and 120: Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of i
- Page 121 and 122: networks: An introduction to Markov
- Page 123: Name of employee Yes Yes No No Name