Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT. Research on positive psychology demonstrates that specific individual dispositions are associated
with more desirable outcomes. The relationship of positive psychological constructs, however, has not been applied to the areas of business ethics and social
responsibility. Using four constructs in two independent
studies (hope and gratitude in Study 1, spirituality and
generativity in Study 2), the relationship of these constructs to sensitivity to corporate social performance
(CSCSP) were assessed. Results indicate that all four
constructs significantly predicted CSCSP, though only
hope and gratitude interacted to impact CSCSP. Discussion focuses upon these findings, limitations of the
study, and future avenues for research.
Robert A. Giacalone
Karen Paul
Carole L. Jurkiewicz
Introduction
Defining and promoting worthwhile individual and
collective behavior has been a topic of discourse for
millennia, historically focused on diagnosing
pathologies and deficits and developing treatment
modalities. Breaking from this tradition, the field of
positive psychology has sought to direct attention
toward the attributes and traits that constitute individual strengths, those aspects of the human psyche
that improve the quality and meaning of life (Seligman, 1999a, b; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi,
2000). Positive psychology encompasses a variety of
different behaviors, including those with emotional
foci such as flow (Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi,
2001) and emotional intelligence (Salovey et al., 2001),
cognitive foci such as hope (Snyder et al., 2001),
interpersonal foci such as gratitude (Emmons and
Shelton, 2001), and transcendent foci such as
spirituality (Pargament and Mahoney, 2001). The
expansiveness of this purview is articulated in
three volumes that explicate the various dimensions
of positive psychology from both a psychological
(Lopez and Snyder, 2003; Snyder and Lopez, 2002)
and an organizational perspective (Cameron et al.,
2003), along with concept-specific treatises on areas
such as hope (Snyder, 2000) and generativity
(McAdams and de St. Aubin, 1998).
Organizational scholars have struggled with a related and parallel line of concern: What constitutes
296
an organizations social responsibility? Considerations within this applied field of positive psychology
have taken two rather divergent approaches, one
which posits that the primary corporate responsibility is financial performance (Friedman, 1970/
1983; Marcoux, 2003, and another which considers
financial performance as but one aspect of a much
broader matrix of corporations responsibility. This
latter configuration includes corporate responsibility
to constituencies such as employees, customers,
suppliers, and the broader community; this is generally referred to as stakeholder management
(Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics, 1999; Freeman, 1984) or multi-fiduciary management
(Freeman, 1994). Within the context of the present
study, this complexity is manifested in consumer
sensitivity to corporate social performance.
Present study
The present study extends the results of hope and
gratitude research toward an understanding of consumer sensitivity toward corporate social performance. If gratitude is associated with greater
prosocial behavior, grateful individuals could be
expected to demonstrate more concern for corporate
social performance. Additionally, because hope is
associated with both agency to accomplish a goal and
pathways for achieving that goal, hopeful individuals
should sense a greater ability to impact corporate
social responsibility and increased confidence in
the pathways to do so. Also, it is predicted that
the impact of gratitude on consumer sensitivity will
be moderated by individual level of hope, since
individuals who do not perceive that their prosocial actions can accomplish a goal (support of
socially responsible companies or punishment of
297
Method
Sample and procedures
The data was collected at two points in time. Time 1
(T1) consisted of measures assessing respondents
transcendent measures of hope and gratitude. Three
weeks later, at Time 2 (T2), consumer sensitivity to
corporate social performance was assessed.
Time 1 sample, procedure, and measures. As part of a
larger class assignment, 38 MBA students from a
large, public university in the southeastern U.S. each
volunteered to provide the e-mails of up to seven
adults living in the United States who were working
full-time and held managerial or technical/professional positions; students secured the permission
from their participants prior to submitting their addresses to the researchers. An e-mail cover letter was
sent to the resulting sample of 266 adults guaranteeing their confidentiality and asking them to
complete an attached questionnaire; fifteen surveys
were returned as undeliverable. Respondents were
advised that a second questionnaire would also be
sent to them in three weeks. Three days following
the original e-mail, a reminder e-mail was sent.
Respondents were administered the Gratitude
Questionnaire (GQ-6) (McCullough et al., 2002), a
six-item self-report questionnaire designed to assess
individual differences in inclination to experience
gratitude in daily life. Respondents rated each item
on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and their ratings were
summed. Previous studies have shown acceptable
Cronbachs alpha estimates (McCullough et al.,
2002). Representative items include I have so
much in life to be thankful for and If I had to list
everything that I felt grateful for, it would be a very
long list.
Respondents also were administered the 12 item
Adult Dispositional Hope Scale (Snyder et al. 1996).
298
TABLE I
Summary table of descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the predictor variables (hope, pathways, agency,
and gratitude) and criterion variable (Consumer sensitivity)
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hope
Pathways
Agency
Gratitude
Consumer sensitivity
SD
25.92
12.61
13.31
37.99
37.15
2.52
1.54
1.44
4.41
6.71
(0.69)
0.86***
0.84***
0.35***
0.19*
(0.51)
0.44***
0.23**
0.20**
(0.64)
0.37***
0.12
(0.71)
0.18*
(0.88)
N = 133. Cronbachs alpha levels for each scale are reported in parenthesis on the diagonal. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
***p < 0.001.
TABLE II
Agency X gratitude, pathways X gratitude, and hope X gratitude multiple regression results
Agency X gratitude multiple
regression results
Agency
Gratitude
Interaction
Df
F
4R2
Step 1
Step 2
0.06
0.16
)2.06*
)1.85
3.43*
3,128
3.17*
0.03*
2,129
2.46
0.04
Pathways X gratitude
multiple regression results
Pathways
Gratitude
Interaction
Df
F
4R2
Step 1
Step 2
0.17
0.15
)1.66
)1.52
2.74
3,128
4.05**
0.03
2,129
4.12*
0.06*
N =133. Tabled values are standardized regression weights. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Hope
Gratitude
Interaction
Df
F
4R2
Step 1
Step 2
0.15
0.13
0.08
0.25*
0.23*
2,128
4.26**
0.04*
2,129
3.52*
0.05*
299
Results
Study 2
Descriptive statistics
Table I summarizes the means, standard deviations,
and correlations among the variables.
Regression
The CSCSP score was regressed on hope and
gratitude (Step 1) and on the interaction term of
hope and gratitude (Step 2). Table II shows that
while the overall R2 for the first step explained a
significant amount of variance, neither hope nor
gratitude were significant predictors. In the second
step, as predicted, we find a significant interaction
of the two which explains an additional 4% of the
variance. To determine the nature of this interaction, it was probed and plotted using the method
recommended by Aiken and West (1991). First, the
regression equation was restructured to represent
the regression of CSCSP on idealism at low and
high levels of hope. Low and high values of hope
were computed as one standard deviation below
the mean and one standard deviation above the
mean, respectively. Then, the simple slopes of the
equations were evaluated to determine if they differed from zero. We found that when hope is high,
increasing levels of gratitude result in increases on
the CSCSP score. When hope is low, however,
there is no impact of gratitude on the CSCSP
score.
In order to determine whether the interaction
effect was a function of the agency or pathways
subscores, two additional regressions were performed, using each of the hope subscores, respectively. As Tables II demonstrates, only the agency X
gratitude interaction was shown to significantly
predict CSCSP scores. Using the method described
above, low and high values of agency were computed as one standard deviation below the mean and
one standard deviation above the mean, respectively. Then, the simple slopes of the equations
were evaluated to determine if they differed from
zero. We found that the interaction results were
virtually identical to those found in the overall hope
x gratitude interaction. That is, when agency is
high, increasing levels of gratitude result in increases
on the CSCSP score. When agency is low, however, there is no impact of gratitude on the CSCSP
score.
Generativity
An enhanced emphasis on transcendence can be
found in those with higher levels of generativity
(Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2003a, b; McAdams, 1985).
300
As part of a required class project, 123 students enrolled in graduate courses at business schools at two
large southern United States universities were
administered and completed each of the measures
that were given to each respondent at one week
intervals. None of the participants in Study 1 were
part of this sample. Each respondent received an
optical scan sheet for each of the measures administered. The sample was 53% female and 61% reported 2635 as their age range.
In order to maintain anonymity and still be able to
match each respondents weekly survey to those
previously completed, respondents were asked to
create a fictitious name. This alias became their code
name and allowed us to match individual responses for
each measure to measures completed in later weeks.
The Human Spirituality Scale (HSS) (Wheat,
unpublished doctoral dissertation) was used to assess
substantive individual attributes constituting personal
spirituality (e.g. beliefs and attitudes). Previous work
(Belaire and Young, 2000) showed that this measure
was successful in assessing spirituality. The HSS is a
20-item instrument with Likert-type scaling, ranging
from 1 (constantly) to 5 (never) for each item.
Respondent scores can range from 20 to 100 and are
attained by summing the ratings given to all 20 items
(Belaire and Young, 2000; Wheat, unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Representative items for this
scale are I experience a sense of the sacred in living
things and I set aside time for personal reflection
and growth.
The Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS) (McAdams
and de St. Aubin, 1992) was used to assess generativity. The LGS is a 20-item scale that assesses the
concern for and commitment to the next generation
TABLE III
Summary table of descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the predictor variables (personal spirituality
and generativity) and criterion variable (consumer sensitivity)
Variable
1. Personal Spirituality
2. Generativity
3. Consumer Sensitivity
SD
76.72
59.63
38.51
9.10
7.66
5.13
(0.86)
0.43**
0.39**
(0.82)
0.48**
(0.77)
N = 123. Alpha levels for each scale are reported in parenthesis on the diagonal. **p < 0.001.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table III summarizes the means, standard deviations,
and correlations among the variables.
Regression
The CSCSP score was regressed on the personality
spirituality (HSS) and generativity (LGS) scores
(Step 1). For the sake of consistency of analysis, we
also regressed CSCSP on the interaction term of the
HSS and LGS scores (Step 2). Table IV shows that
both personal spirituality and generativity explained
significant variance 27% in the CSCSP score.
However, as expected, there was no significant
interaction effect (p > 0.05).
TABLE IV
Personal spirituality X generativity
multiple regression results
Personal spirituality
Generativity
Interaction
Df
F
AR2
Step 1
Step 2
0.39**
0.22*
0.46
0.31
)0.14
3,119
14.78**
0.00
2,120
22.35**
0.27**
301
Discussion
The study demonstrates a clear relationship between
positive psychological dispositions and consumer
sensitivity to corporate social performance. As predicted, increasing levels of gratitude, typically associated with prosocial behavior, interact with higher
levels of hope to increase individual sensitivity to
corporate social performance. Similarly, both generativity and personal spirituality are positively related to consumer sensitivity as well.
These results show that sensitivity to corporate
performance is, in part, a function of a positive
psychological worldview. Hope and gratitude, as
dispositional elements, promote concern for big
picture issues and impact sensitivity to social performance. Gratitude is moderated by hope, such that
those who are hopeful are more willing to engage in
activities that will have a positive social impact.
Similarly, those with transcendent values should be
engaged in activities that consider the long-term
impact of their behaviors; our data demonstrated
these values are associated with sensitivity to social
performance. What is unknown, given the construction of the study, is whether hope and gratitude
will interact with the transcendent values.
The implications of these results points toward an
understanding of consumer social responsibility as
driven by individual differences. As expected, how
consumers respond to socially irresponsible corporate behavior may not be solely a function of what
they learn from press reports and activists, but of
dispositions which predate the corporate misbehavior and are based in a more positive worldview.
More importantly, the relationship between positive dispositions and behaviors may not be simple
main effect relationships, but as in this study, more
complicated relationships involving interactions.
Previous work has shown that behaviors consistent
with positive psychology traits may be moderated by a
host of other factors, including a belief in the goodness
and worth of human life (Erikson, 1963; Giddens,
1991; McAdams et al., 1998) and social/cultural
context (Cohler et al., 1998; Moran, 1998). The life
domain in which the issue of social responsibility is
placed may be extremely important. Both in the area
of generativity (McAdams et al., 1998; McDermid
et al., 1998; Peterson and Stewart, 1993) and hope
(Campbell and Kwon, 2001; Snyder et al., 1997), we
302
find that life domain issues impact the form and level
of these variables. An individuals sensitivity to corporate social performance may be a function of how a
questionable corporate activity relates to the individuals level of hope or perceived role within a
particular life domain. Thus, an individual may exhibit high levels of hope or generative concern for
children and may be sensitive to corporate abuses in
this area. Conversely, this same individual may have
low levels of hope or generative concern for the
quality of life of the poor and therefore react different
to corporate abuses related to mistreatment of the
underprivileged. Therefore, these results must be
viewed cautiously, realizing that further research will
need to determine the extent to which life domain
issues may augment or diminish sensitivity.
Future directions
Overall, the results must be considered in terms of
limitations in the study itself. In calling attention to
these limitations, directions for future research suggest
themselves. First, this is self-report data, and, as such,
subject to potential biases and problems with common
method variance, where both measures come from
the same source (e.g. Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).
Additional work, using independent ratings of
CSCSP, will be needed to determine whether this is a
factor that may moderate the findings reported here.
Second, while the results were significant, the R2 in
the analyses were relatively low in the first study and
modest in the second study. The amount of R2 indicates that while these positive psychological constructs
play a role in CSCSP, a considerable amount of variance remains unaccounted. While this is certainly not
uncommon in behavioral research, it does warrant the
investigation of other variables, such as ethical ideology (Forsyth, 1992) that may account for additional
variance. Still, it is worth noting that even small effect
sizes may have a meaningful practical consequence
(Endler, 1973), particularly in a domain such as
CSCSP, where consumer responses may have significant ramifications for the organizations bottom line.
Third, although this study provides provocative
results, a weakness is that actual behaviors were
not measured, and thus it is not possible to say that
positive psychological dispositions are associated
with socially responsible behaviors. Still, previous
303
304
Cliffs, NJ). (Reprinted from New York Times Magazine, 13 September 1970].
Froelich, K. S. and J. L. Kottke: 1991, Measuring Individual Beliefs About Organizational
Ethics, Educational and Psychological Measurement 51,
377383.
Giacalone, R. A., and C. L. Jurkiewicz (eds.): 2003a,
Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational
Performance (M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY).
Giacalone, R. A. and C. L. Jurkiewicz: 2003b, Right
from Wrong: The Influence of Spirituality on Perceptions of Unethical Business Activities, Journal of
Business Ethics 46, 8597.
Giddens, A.: 1991, Modernity and Self Identity (Stanford
University Press, Stanford, CA).
Hart, H. M., D. McAdams, B. J. Hirsch and J. J. Bauer
2001, Generativity and Social Involvement Among
African Americans and White Adults, Journal of
Research in Personality 35, 208230.
Hatfield, E., J. T. Cacioppo and R. L. Rapson: 1993,
Emotional Contagion, Current Directions in Psychological Science 2, 9699.
Inglehart, R.: 1977, The Silent Revolution: Changing Values
and Political Styles Among Western Publics (Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ).
Inglehart, R.: 1990, Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial
Society (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).
Inglehart, R.: 1997, Polarized Priorities of Flexible
Alternatives: A Comment, International Journal of Public
Opinion Research 6, 289292.
Jackson, K. T.: 1999, Spirituality as a Foundation for
Freedom and Creative Imagination in International Business Ethics, Journal of Business Ethics 19,
6170.
Jurkiewicz, C. L. and R. A. Giacalone: 2004, A Values
Framework for Measuring the Impact of Workplace
Spirituality on Organizational Performance, Journal of
Business Ethics 49, 129142.
Kotre, J.: 1984, Outliving The Self: Generativity and the
Interpretation of Lives (John Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore).
Kurtz, L: 2002, Review of Ray and Andersons The Cultural
Creatives. Retrieved July 1, 2004 from the Studies in
the Field of Responsible Investing Web Site: http://
www.sristudies.org/bib_frameset.html.
Kurtz, L.: 1997, (Winter), No Effect, or No Net Effect?
Studies on Socially Responsible Investing, The Journal
of Investing, 37.
Lampe, F. and S. French: 2002, New Market Segment
Turns on Sustainability and Social Consciousness,
Natural Foods Merchandiser. Retrieved July 1, 2004
from http://www.newhope.com/nfm_backs/oct_02/
LOHAS.cfm.
305