Auginis PPsychCSR

Received: 18 October 2017 Revised: 20 July 2018 Accepted: 20 July 2018
DOI: 10.1111/peps.12294
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Employee perceptions of corporate social

responsibility: Effects on pride, embeddedness,
and turnover
Thomas W. H. Ng1 Kai Chi Yam2 Herman Aguinis3
1 Department of Management, Faculty of
Business and Economics, The University of Hong Abstract

Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong We examined socioemotional microfoundations of perceived cor-
2 Department of Management and Organization,
porate social responsibility (CSR) and posited that employees’
National University of Singapore, Singapore perceived CSR triggers a perception-emotion-attitude-behavior
3 Department of Management, George
sequence. Drawing from appraisal theory of emotion, we hypoth-
Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
esized that perceived CSR relates to emotions (i.e., organizational
Correspondence
Thomas W. H. Ng, The University of Hong Kong,
pride), which relate to job attitudes (i.e., organizational embedded-
Faculty of Business and Economics, Pok Fu Lam, ness) that in turn relate to job behaviors (i.e., decreased turnover). To
Hong Kong. test this model, we conducted a multistudy investigation involving
Email: tng@business.hku.hk
different samples, designs, and data-analytic methods. In Study 1,
We thank James M. Diefendorff and two Personnel
we conducted an experiment and found that participants who
Psychology anonymous reviewers for highly
constructive feedback that allowed us to improve envisioned working in a firm that was active regarding CSR activities
our manuscript in a substantial manner. reported greater pride and organizational embeddedness. We then
Funding information conducted two field studies using a nonmanagerial sample (Study 2)
This research was funded by Hong Kong General
and a managerial sample (Study 3) and found that participants’ per-
Research Fund (GRF 17506316) awarded to
Thomas W. H. Ng. ceived CSR was positively related to their pride, which in turn was
related to stronger organizational embeddedness. Stronger organi-
zational embeddedness was related to lower turnover 6 months later
in Study 2 but not in Study 3. In Study 4, we conducted a longitudinal
four-wave 14-month study to test the proposed relationships from
a within-person conceptualization, and the results were also sup-
portive. Thus, the proposed perception-emotion-attitude-behavior
framework received broad support and illustrated that stronger
microfoundations of CSR research could be constructed through
understanding employees’ emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral
reactions to their perceptions of their employers’ CSR.
1 INTRODUCTION
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is broadly defined as corporate policies and actions that go beyond the orga-
nization's economic interest and aim to affect stakeholders positively (Turker, 2009a). CSR has received significant
research attention (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012, 2013; Gond, Akremi, Sawen, & Babu, 2017), which is not surprising because
many organizations incorporate it as a core strategic component (Bansal, 2005; Wang & Bansal, 2012). The increased
Personnel Psychology. 2019;72:107–137. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/peps

c 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 107
108 NG ET AL .
number of corporate scandals and societal concern over firms’ actions has also sparked research and managerial inter-
est in CSR. Its importance is also evident in findings that CSR has positive effects on many organizational outcomes,
including financial performance (Orlitzky, Schmidt, & Rynes, 2003), reputation (Bansal & Clelland, 2004; Brammer &
Pavelin, 2006), institutional investment (Graves & Waddock, 1994), and consumer loyalty (Deng & Xu, 2017; Park, Kim,
& Kwon, 2017).
Despite the growing number of studies on CSR, most research has primarily focused on the macro level of analysis
(Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Bansal & Roth, 2000; McWilliams & Siegel, 2000). However, as in other domains involving the
behavior of people in organizations (Foss & Pedersen, 2016), there is a strong need to understand the microfoundations
of CSR for theory development. In brief, microfoundations are examined in research aiming at unpacking the “black
box” or mediational processes in strategic management research by incorporating insights from organizational behav-
ior, human resource management, and applied psychology (OB/HRM/IO; e.g., Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2014; H2elfat &
Peteraf, 2015).
Recent reviews of the CSR literature indeed concluded that there is a need for additional empirical research aimed
at understanding the microfoundations of CSR (e.g., Aguinis & Glavas, 2017; Gond et al., 2017; Morgeson, Aguinis,
Waldman, & Siegel, 2013). For instance, Aguinis and Glavas (2012) identified only five empirical papers since 1970
that focused on the impact of CSR on employees. In addition, these authors noted that the “CSR literature thus far has
been much more focused on predictors, outcomes, and moderators than on mediators [italics added].” Gond et al. (2017,
p. 226) similarly noted that “ignoring CSR evaluation processes might limit insights into how people experience CSR,
cognitively and emotionally, yet these experiences can influence whether and how CSR initiatives produce effects.”
One important way to build the microfoundations of CSR is to understand employee perceptions of CSR. Perceived
CSR reflects how employees view the summed CSR activities in which their organizations have participated. It cap-
tures how employees perceive their firm's CSR efforts, rather than objective CSR from a firm's perspective. Although
both objective and perceived CSR are important and perceived CSR is built upon objective CSR, perceived CSR is a
more proximal predictor of individuals’ immediate reactions, which are the key to understanding the microfounda-
tions of CSR research. If employees are not aware of the firm's CSR practices or do not perceive an action to be a
form of CSR, then it is not meaningful to address their intrapsychic reactions (Glavas & Godwin, 2013; Morgeson
et al., 2013; Rupp, Shao, Thornton, & Skarlicki, 2013). Thus, perceived CSR shapes employees’ emotions, attitudes,
and behavior targeted at the organization. As Akremi, Gond, Swaen, De Roeck, and Igalens (2018, p. 621) highlighted,
employees, “as members of a corporation, are concerned about, contribute to, perceive, evaluate, and react to their
firm's CSR activities.” Supporting our focus on perceived CSR, Valentine and colleagues (Valentine & Fleischman, 2008;
Valentine & Godkin, 2016) found that although objective CSR, such as presence of an ethics code and hours of ethics
training, and employees’ perceptions CSR are moderately correlated (ranged from .11 to .68), perceived CSR con-
sistently outperforms objective CSR as a predictor of multiple work outcomes such as job satisfaction and turnover
intentions.
2 THE PRESENT MULTISTUDY INVESTIGATION
Drawing from appraisal theory of emotion (Lazarus, 1991; Scherer, Schorr, & Johnstone, 2001), we designed four stud-
ies to understand the relationship between perceived CSR and employee outcomes, thereby enhancing our under-
standing of the socioemotional microfoundations of CSR. As shown in the top portion of Figure 1, our overarching
conceptual framework is that a perception-emotion-attitude-behavior sequence allows us to unpack individual-level
mediational processes by incorporating insights from OB/HRM/IO. The general model posits that perceived CSR leads
employees to experience emotions. These emotional responses then trigger job attitudes. Finally, job attitudes result
in job behaviors.
Specifically, we link perceived CSR to the emotion of organizational pride, the attitude of organizational embeddedness
(OE), and the behavior of turnover. First, employee emotions are likely the most direct, immediate responses after wit-
nessing a firm's behavior (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and thus represent the central reasons why perceived CSR can
NG ET AL . 109
GENERAL THEORETICAL MODEL:
Perceptions Emotions Attitudes Behaviors
SPECIFIC EXEMPLAR CONSTRUCTS EXAMINED IN THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION:
Organizational Organizational
Perceived Turnover
Pride Embeddedness
CSR Behavior
FIGURE 1 Proposed model of socioemotional microfoundations of corporate social responsibility (CSR)
affect individual-level outcomes. Although there are many possible emotions to consider, we focus on organizational
pride in particular because of individuals’ tendency to be cognizant of cues that make them feel good about themselves
or about the groups to which they belong (Swann, Griffin, Predmore, & Gaines, 1987; Swann, Pelham, & Krull, 1989).
Self-enhancement is one of the most fundamental goals of human existence (Allport, 1937; McDougall, 1933). The
underlying premise is the “pleasure principle,” that positive views of oneself and one's group memberships are univer-
sally and hedonically preferred. Consequently, individuals as hedonic beings are sensitive to the positive information
about their organizations (Pfeffer & Fong, 2005; Wells, 2001) and are likely to actively look for cues of organizational
pride. CSR conveys these positive cues to employees, facilitating their development of organizational pride.
We chose OE as an exemplar job attitude construct because it captures a long-term psychological bond that is often
based on a constellation of cumulated positive experiences with the organization (Crossley, Bennett, Jex, & Burnfield,
2007). This gestalt focus of OE makes it especially relevant because positive emotions as a result of strong perceived
CSR might seep into every corner of an employment relationship, and OE collectively captures the global feelings of
attachment to an organization (Feldman & Ng, 2007; Ng & Feldman, 2012). This broad focus of OE helps explain how
very specific emotional experiences are gradually translated into functional job behavior that ultimately affects orga-
nizational outcomes. Specifically related to pride, this emotion can generate many reasons for individuals to develop
stronger attachment (Fischer & Manstead, 2008), such as favorable feelings about the organization's goals, manage-
ment philosophies, status and image, and management team (Branscombe, Spears, Ellemers, & Doosje, 2002; Tyler &
Blade, 2000). So et al. (2015) also suggested that pride emerges out of a “social connection” appraisal. OE captures
these diverse positive feelings as a global sense of being psychologically bonded with the organization. Thus, OE is dis-
tinct from other constructs (e.g., affective commitment), as it represents a broader construct that assesses the extent
to which people feel attached regardless of why they feel that way (Crossley et al., 2007).
Finally, we chose employee turnover as the exemplar-dependent variable because it affects many firm-level poli-
cies, initiatives, and outcomes. First, high employee turnover undermines organizational performance (Hom, Lee, Shaw,
& Hausknecht, 2017; Huselid, 1995; Kacmar, Andrews, Van Rooy, Steilberg, & Cerrone, 2006; Park & Shaw, 2013).
If employees’ perceived CSR reduces turnover, then the importance of a firm's social performance becomes readily
apparent (Bansal, 2005; Wang & Bansal, 2012). Second, whether employees stay with organizations that are deemed
as socially responsible is a salient feedback cue for managers to adjust and redesign their social initiatives. If these ini-
tiatives do not motivate internal stakeholders (e.g., employees, managers) to stay, it may indicate that those initiatives
are unlikely to be valuable to other stakeholders. Third, many social initiatives require employee participation (e.g.,
employee volunteerism, employee communication with local and personal ties; Jones, 2010). The question of whether
perceived CSR lowers employee turnover thus has practical implications: an organization that has sizable plans to
enhance their social initiatives but does not have the corresponding human resources to materialize those plans may
ultimately have to reduce or even retrench them.
In sum, although CSR is important in promoting sustainable firm performance, there is a need to understand the
microfoundations of CSR, which in turn requires a better understanding of the underlying effects of perceived CSR on
110 NG ET AL .
employees (Akremi et al., 2018). The perception-emotion-attitude-behavior model we examine in our studies unrav-
els the progressive stages of intrapsychic relations between variables that explain why broad perceptions of CSR are
eventually related to important work outcomes.
3 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
3.1 Cognitive appraisals of CSR

Appraisal theory of emotion (Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1991; Scherer et al., 2001) seeks to understand factors that deter-
mine a person's emotional experience from a cognitive perspective. Its main tenet is that the appraisal of an event,
rather than the objective reality of the event itself, drives whether and why people experience certain emotions. In
other words, the same stimuli can drive dramatically different emotional responses across different individuals. For
example, an organization that donates a sizeable amount to the charity is an objectively positive event (Adams &
Hardwick, 1998), but whether an employee feels pride, and how much pride, is filtered by how the employee inter-
prets the event (Glavas & Godwin, 2013). Put differently, the cognitive appraisal of charitable donation, rather than
charitable donation per se, serves as the determinant of emotional responses.
We similarly suggest that employees’ emotional reactions to CSR are based on the cognitive appraisals of CSR rather
than the objective level of CSR activities, which are often described in a company report, the company Web site, state-
ments by the CEO to shareholders, or through other official channels. For cognitive appraisals to occur, appraisers must
be aware of the stimuli (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). However, employees might simply be unaware of certain CSR activ-
ities of their firms. For example, frontline employees of a multinational corporation might overlook their organization's
CSR effort in a foreign country. Moreover, for the same CSR activity, different employees might appraise it differently,
such as when employees do not consider certain activities to fall within the realm of CSR. For example, after a major
scandal, an organization might increase its objective CSR efforts, but employees might cognitively categorize these
as public relations, rather than CSR, efforts. Crucially, it is the appraisers’ subjective perceptions of CSR, such as its
nature, motives, and beneficiaries, that are mainly responsible for the appraisers’ reactions (Aguinis & Glavas, 2017;
Edwards, 2016; Glavas & Godwin, 2013; Glavas & Kelley, 2014; Habel, Schons, Alavi, & Wieseke, 2016; Sheel & Vohra,
2016). Consequently, when studying CSR from a micro as opposed to macro perspective, perceptions of CSR should
be preferred over objective CSR (Akremi et al., 2018; Morgeson et al., 2013; Rupp et al., 2013). Corroborating these
arguments, decades of research in social psychology has suggested that perceptions affect how one feels and reacts
to an event more so than the objective reality (e.g., Clarkson, Hirt, Jia, & Alexander, 2010). Thus, adopting a cognitive
appraisal perspective to study perceived CSR appears especially suitable.
Finally, researchers have acknowledged that emotional changes as a result of cognitive appraisals should eventu-
ally lead to attitudes and behaviors that are congruent with those emotions (Ballinger & Schoorman, 2007; Krantz,
1983). Emotions first directly lead to job attitudes (Brief & Weiss, 2002; Isen & Baron, 1991; Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky,
Warren, & de Chermont, 2003), which in turn affect job behavior (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006). It is especially
likely that emotions eventually trigger job behavior of the same valence: Positive emotions cultivate positive atti-
tudes toward the target, thereby motivating positive or functional work behavior (Forgas & George, 2001; Weiss &
Cropanzano, 1996). In brief, cognitive appraisal theory, as summarized in Figure 1, is the fundamental building block of
a perception-emotion-attitude-behavior sequence that we advocate in our investigation.
3.2 Perceived CSR and organizational pride

Organizational pride (hereafter “pride”) refers to “the pleasure taken in being associated with one's employer” (Helm,
2013, p. 544). It captures “the extent to which individuals experience a sense of pleasure and self-respect arising from
their organizational membership” (Jones, 2010, p. 859). Thus, pride emerges when employees are given cues and infor-
mation that help them appraise their organizational membership in a positive light. As self-enhancement is a universally
NG ET AL . 111
endorsed principle in humans (Swann et al., 1987, 1989), individuals are motivated to look for pride in their associated
group memberships because pride can enhance their self-evaluation and signal higher social status to others (Shariff &
Tracey, 2009; Zander, Fuller, & Armstrong, 1972).
Pride is regularly evoked in cognitive appraisals (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985; So et al., 2015) and thus is highly relevant
in understanding reactions to CSR. That is, employees formulate perceptions of CSR to appraise whether they should
feel positive about being associated with the organization. These evaluation processes are likely to be affirmative and
therefore lead to pride because employees may see social initiatives as strong evidence of high capability and resource-
fulness. Pride is enhanced when one feels that the organization is doing something beyond what average firms can do
(Jones, Willness, & Madey, 2014; Tsachouridi & Nikandrou, 2016). Perceived CSR assures employees that the organi-
zation is willing and able to dedicate resources to serve its stakeholders’ interests (Barnett, 2007; Godfrey, Merrill, &
Hansen, 2009). Being associated with such a competent and responsible organization, therefore, is likely to elicit pride.
As many employees today have strong ideological needs (Costas & Kärreman, 2013), such as wanting to make a posi-
tive impact on society (Aguinis & Glavas, 2017; Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2015), efforts to construct pride through their
employers’ CSR are likely to be ubiquitous.
There are other positive symbolic cues that likely result from perceived CSR. Specifically, working for an orga-
nization that is seen as caring and considerate should also strengthen one's pride in organizational membership, as
these management philosophies are socially valued and morally praiseworthy (Boezeman & Ellemers, 2008; De Roeck,
Akremi, & Swaen, 2016). When perceived CSR is strong, employees should see strong evidence of kindness, moral-
ity, and selflessness on the part of the firm. For example, engaging in CSR suggests to employees that the organiza-
tion values a caring and fair management approach (Jones, Willness, & Heller, 2016; Rupp et al., 2013; Thornton &
Rupp, 2016). These important symbolic benefits should then lead to feelings of pride. As Bauman and Skitka (2012)
noted, “discretionary activities that indicate a prosocial rather than an instrumental orientation have the potential to
elicit attributions of morality, which can strengthen the social ties between individuals and the organization” (p. 64).
Likewise, Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, Halevy, and Eidelson (2008) noted that group-based pride is built on the virtuous-
ness of the group. Empirically, in a recruitment context, Jones et al. (2014) found that anticipatory pride mediated the
effects of a firm's social performance and organizational attractiveness. As reported in the consumer behavior litera-
ture, high-CSR brands are more able to satisfy consumers’ face concerns (Wan, Poon, & Yu, 2016) and enhance con-
sumers’ evaluations of the firm's identity attractiveness (Marin, Ruiz, & Rubio, 2009). These studies provide indirect
evidence to suggest that pride is a likely emotional reaction to witnessing the organization's CSR. In sum,
Hypothesis 1: Greater perceived CSR is associated with greater employee pride in the organization.
3.3 Pride and OE

OE is the extent to which employees are enmeshed with their employers (Crossley et al., 2007; Ng & Feldman, 2010).
Three major forces are core to the original conceptualization of OE, including social links with people and activities
at work, fit with the organization and the job, and sacrifice if the person leaves the organization (Mitchell, Holtom,
& Lee, 2001; Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001). Crossley et al. (2007), however, contended that these
three components did not capture all of the key reasons why OE develops over time. Rather, Crossley et al. (2007)
postulated that perceptions of OE, as stable job attitudes, capture the overall sense of attachment to the organization
irrespective of the underlying reasons. OE, thus, is a binding force that is not confined to any specific rationales such
as those captured by affective, normative, and continuance commitment (Meyer, Allen, & Gellatly, 1990). Instead, it
is an overall attitude that reflects the mixture of positive feelings toward the firm. For instance, meta-analytic results
showed a correlation between OE and affective organizational commitment of .61 (Jiang, Liu, McKay, Lee, & Mitchell,
2012), suggesting that there is 63% of unique variance across these constructs (i.e., .612 = .37 and 1 – .37 = .63).
The social psychology literature suggests that emotions form important bases for job attitudes (Lebowitz & Dovidio,
2015; Smith, Seger, & Mackie, 2007). Van Kleef (2009) similarly suggested that emotions tend to trigger an inferential
process with downstream consequences on attitudes. We thus propose that pride is particularly likely to promote the
112 NG ET AL .
development of the job attitude of OE. Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) suggested that organization-targeted positive
emotions were likely to positively filter employees’ organization-directed attitudes. When employees are proud of the
organization as a result of high perceived CSR, those intense positive feelings are likely to accumulate to create OE
because organizational membership has become central to employees’ self-conceptualization (Kraemer & Gouthier,
2014; Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010). Likewise, when employees are proud of their part in their organizations
and assimilate the organization entity into their self-evaluations, they are more willing to stay to help the organization
survive and prosper, as the well-being of the organization directly affects the well-being of the employee (Brickson,
2013). Thus, feeling proud provides a strong impetus for an employee to develop a strong bond with his or her organi-
zation (Helm, 2013; Kraemer & Gouthier, 2014).
Pride in an organization can also act as a buffer to absorb negative workplace experiences, further embedding the
employee. Pride has been associated with many other positive personal feelings, such as feeling powerful, superior,
and self-confident, which can favorably color how one sees the world (Tracey & Robins, 2007). As such, pride in an
organization directs employees’ attention to positive experiences in the employment relationship (Gouthier & Rhein,
2011) and creates a positive lens through which employees evaluate all of their workplace experiences. Pride also has
a strong motivational function, particularly in promoting perseverance in the face of setbacks and adversity (Williams
& DeSteno, 2008). This is important because the perseverance stemming from one's pride in his or her organization
makes an employee willing to “tough out” negative situations or experiences at work, thereby creating an embedding
force that keeps him or her tethered to the organization. In short,
Hypothesis 2: Greater employee pride in the organization is associated with greater OE.
3.4 Downstream consequences on turnover

When employees are embedded as a result of pride, they are more likely to stay in the organization (Mitchell, Holtom,
Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001) so that they can continue to help it attain its goals. This mechanism is analogous to “facil-
itative action” (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007, p. 633) as a result of the social emotions experienced (i.e., pride due to
strengthened perceptions of CSR). More generally, OE is an intense psychological bond that attaches employees to
their employers, becoming a stabilizing force that motivates an employee to hold onto the current job (Ng, 2016; Ng &
Lucianetti, 2018). Crossley et al. (2007) reported that global perceptions of OE predicted turnover above and beyond
objective forces of embeddedness. A meta-analysis (Jiang et al., 2012) likewise showed that embeddedness, whether
operationalized as the three components proposed by Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, and Erez (2001) or as global
perceptions proposed by Crossley et al. (2007), negatively predicted employees’ voluntary exits. Thus,
Hypothesis 3: Greater OE is associated with a lower likelihood of turnover.
As summarized in Figure 1, we propose a serial mediation model of the effects of employees’ perceived CSR on
their turnover to help us elucidate socioemotional microfoundations of CSR. That is, perceived CSR lowers employee
turnover because it enhances employees’ pride, which then translates to strengthened OE that lowers the tendency to
leave. This mediating process follows a more general perception-emotion-attitude-behavior sequence espoused by us
and others (Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989; Lebowitz & Dovidio, 2015; Smith et al., 2007; Weiner, 1980; Weiss &
Cropanzano, 1996). Thus, we also offer the following hypothesis regarding the downstream effects of perceived CSR
on turnover:
Hypothesis 4: Perceived CSR is associated with lower employee turnover through the serial mediating effects of
pride in the organization and OE.
NG ET AL . 113
4 OVERVIEW OF THE MULTISTUDY INVESTIGATION
We conducted a multistudy investigation involving different samples, designs, and data analysis approaches. Our goal
was to both establish causality (i.e., internal validity) and explore generalizability (i.e., external validity). Furthermore,
following guidelines set by the Open Science Collaboration (Nosek et al., 2015), we sought to replicate our findings in
different ways (e.g., using experimental and nonexperimental designs, varying organizational hierarchical positions of
the participants, using both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs). Through this triangulation approach (Scandura &
Williams, 2000), we can more firmly gather evidence for the proposed model.
In Study 1, we tested Hypotheses 1 and 2 in a U.S. sample with an experiment in which we manipulated CSR using
vignettes. In Study 2, we collected field data from nonmanagerial employees in Hong Kong to test the proposed model.
Study 3 replicated Study 2 using a managerial sample. Studies 1–3 adopted between-person designs. In contrast,
within-person designs reveal “the extent to which domains covary over time within an individual” (Hoffman, 2007,
p. 610). In fact, “many, perhaps even most, research questions in psychology and micro-organizational behavior are
in reality within-person questions” (Dalal, Bhave, & Fiset, 2014, p. 1399). Thus, in Study 4 we conducted a four-wave,
14-month within-person investigation in Hong Kong.
5 STUDY 1: METHOD
5.1 Participants and procedure

We followed best-practice recommendations by Aguinis and Bradley (2014) to recruit a theoretically appropriate sam-
ple for conducting this experimental vignette study. In our context, the scenarios presented to the participants should
be familiar to them. In other words, participants should have appraised, or at least be aware of, their organizations’
CSR. To obtain such a relevant sample, we first recruited full-time employees from Qualtrics, a third-party online sur-
vey administration company in the United States (for a recent study using this same approach, see Yam, Christian, Wu,
Liao, & Nai, 2018). We then prescreened participants with seven questions which asked whether they have worked
for an organization that adopted CSR policies (such as an organization which contributed to campaigns and projects
that promoted the well-being of the society; see the manipulation check below for the seven CSR policies captured).
Participants who responded “no” to four or more questions were screened out, given that they might not be familiar
with our CSR scenarios. Across 450 full-time employees who were initially contacted, 210 were eligible to participate
(Mage = 37.87, 70% White, 63.3% female). Next, we randomly assigned participants to one of two experimental con-
ditions. In both conditions, we asked participants to assume they were working in the organization described in the
vignette. We then asked them to read the organization's mission statement, in which we manipulated the levels of CSR
activities. After reading the mission statement, the participants completed survey measures of pride, OE, and manipu-
lation checks.
5.2 CSR manipulation

Following Rupp et al. (2013), we manipulated a firm's CSR using two different scenarios. In the high-CSR condition
(n = 105), we described the firm as active in its CSR activities on a few dimensions, including respecting the environ-
ment, its external stakeholders, and the communities in which it did business. For instance, the firm was described as
having supported 99% of employee volunteering initiatives, matched employees’ donations to charity for up to $10,000
per employee, set up a one-million dollar fund to finance a green foundation, and reinvested 20 % of profits into local
educational programs. In the low-CSR condition (n = 105), we described the firm with the same CSR dimensions and
examples, except that the intensity was specified to be weak, such as having supported 10% of volunteering initia-
tives, matched employees’ donation of $50, set up a $3,000 green fund, and reinvested .01% of profit into the commu-
nity. Before administering the CSR manipulation to our main sample, we conducted a pilot study (N = 49) on Amazon
114 NG ET AL .
Mechanical Turk and results showed that the manipulation was in fact successful, using the same manipulation check
items described later. We include the two scenarios in Appendix A.
5.3 Measures
We measured all of the items using 5-point Likert scales, with anchors from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Scale items used in this and all other studies are included in Appendix B.
5.3.1 Pride
We measured pride with four items taken from Cable and Turban's (2003) and Helm's (2013) studies (𝛼 = .96). A sample
item is “I would feel proud to be an employee of this organization.”
5.3.2 OE
We measured OE with six items taken from Ng and Feldman (2012) (𝛼 = .93). A sample item is “I would feel attached to
this organization.”
5.3.3 Additional measures

To check whether our manipulation was successful, we asked the participants whether they believed that the described
organization was likely to engage in CSR activities using a seven-item scale (Turker, 2009b; 𝛼 = .94). A sample item is
“The organization that I read is likely to make investment to create a better life for future generations.” To ensure that
our manipulation did not spillover to affect other firm-level perceptions, we further asked participants to rate the firm's
(a) innovation, (b) efficiency, (c) performance, (d) global presence, and (5) customer-centric culture.
6 STUDY 1: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
6.1 Manipulation checks

As expected, the participants in the high-CSR condition rated the firm they read as engaging in more CSR activities
(M = 4.12, SD = .93) than the participants in the low-CSR condition (M = 3.77, SD = .95) (t (208) = 2.69, p < .01, d = .37).
Moreover, there were no significant between-group differences between the high- and low-CSR subjects in the eval-
uation of the firm's (a) innovation, (b) efficiency, (c) performance, (d) global presence, and (e) customer-centric culture
(all p’s > .10), suggesting that our manipulation did not spillover to affect subjects’ perceptions of other dimensions of
the firm.
6.2 Tests of hypotheses

Participants in the high-CSR condition reported greater pride (M = 3.98, SD = 1.10) than participants in the low-CSR
condition (M = 3.61, SD = 1.21) (t (208) = 2.31, p < .05, d = .32). These results provided support for Hypothesis 1. We
also found that participants in the high-CSR condition reported greater OE (M = 3.71, SD = .94) than participants in
the low-CSR condition (M = 3.27, SD = 1.01) (t (208) = 3.29, p < .01, d = .45). Pride, in turn, was positively related to
OE (r = .64, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 2. A mediation test showed that pride mediated the relationship between
perceived CSR and OE (indirect effect = .19, SE = .09, 95% CI [.04, .39]).
6.3 Discussion
Study 1 provided experimental evidence to support Hypotheses 1 and 2. Employees experienced higher levels of pride
when perceptions of CSR were high, and greater pride, in turn, was associated with greater OE. Scandura and Williams
NG ET AL . 115
(2000) highlighted the importance of testing theories using both experimental (in a lab setting) and nonexperimental
(in a field setting) data. We thus designed Study 2 to replicate our results in the field. In addition, we collected turnover
data in Study 2 to test Hypotheses 3 and 4.
7 STUDY 2: METHOD

We collected data from 271 nonmanagerial employees. At Time 1, employees completed measures of perceived CSR,
pride, and OE. Six months later (Time 2), employees provided data on turnover. We adopted the same procedure used in
Butts, Becker, and Boswell (2015) and Panaccio and Vandenberghe (2012), and recruited 271 nonmanagerial employ-
ees from our personal and professional networks. We explained to them the general nature of the study but did not
disclose any specific hypotheses and assured them of confidentiality.
Participants had the following sociodemographic background: most (95%) were less than 35 years old, with the
majority (54%) between 25 and 30 years old; 62% were female; and 79% reported having tenure of 3 years or less.
Example jobs included office assistant, translator, social worker, therapist, teacher, officer, and sales associate.
7.2 Measures
7.2.1 Perceived CSR
Perceived CSR was measured using a 7-item scale (𝛼 = .87) from Turker (2009b). These items capture perceived CSR
germane to society, natural environment, future generations, and NGOs. Turker (2009b) developed this scale through
a standard scale validation process (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991), including initial item generation based on a com-
prehensive literature review, an open-ended exploratory survey, multiple focus group discussions to refine the items,
pilot studies to select items, and validation surveys in a working sample to finalize the scale. She reported a reliability
estimate of .89, and all items had factor loadings of .60 or above, demonstrating strong psychometric properties. This
scale has also been used extensively in other empirical studies (Farooq, Payaud, Merunka, & Valette-Florence, 2014;
Lin, Baruch, & Shih, 2012; Turker, 2009a; Wu, Kwan, Yim, Chiu, & He, 2015). A sample item is “This organization partic-
ipates in activities which aim to protect and improve the quality of the natural environment.” The scale options ranged
from 1 (not at all) to 5 (always).
We gathered an additional small sample from our personal network (N = 33) and found that, first, our perceived
CSR scale (𝛼 = .89) was strongly correlated with Jones et al.’s (2014) 8-item scale (𝛼 = .91) at .81 (p < .05), providing
convergent validity evidence. Second, our perceived CSR scale predicted pride (p < .01) above and beyond affective
organizational commitment, organizational identification, and positive mood, suggesting that perceived CSR did not
just capture a positive attitude toward the organization that reflected their existing psychological attachment to the
firm.1
7.2.2 Pride and OE

We used the same anchors for pride and OE: from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). As in Study 1, the four items
for pride (𝛼 = .95) were again taken from Cable and Turban's (2003) and Helm's (2013) studies. Similarly, we again
measured OE with six items taken from Ng and Feldman (2012) (𝛼 = .88).
7.2.3 Voluntary turnover

We asked respondents whether they had voluntarily exited the organization in the six months following the Time 1
survey and 9% had done so. We considered 6 months sufficient to examine variability in employees’ exit, as it is a time-
frame consistent with past turnover research (Allen & Shanock, 2013; Chau, Dahling, Levy, & Diefendorff, 2009).
116 NG ET AL .
TA B L E 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables in Studies 2 and 3
Variable 1 2 3 4 Mean SD
Study 2
1. Perceived CSR (.87) 3.29 .74
(Time 1)
2. Pride (Time 1) .53** (.95) 3.27 .90
3. OE (Time 1) .42** .64** (.88) 2.77 .76
4. Turnover (1 = no, −.13* −.22** −.20** – 1.09 .29
2 = yes, Time 2)
Study 3
1. Perceived CSR (.91) 3.39 .71
(Time 1)
2. Pride (Time 1) .55** (.95) 3.41 .84
3. OE (Time 1) .49** .69** (.90) 3.14 .82
4. Turnover (1 = no, −.01 −.05 −.12 – 1.06 .23
2 = yes, Time 2)
Notes: N = 271 for Study 2 and N = 214 for Study 3; CSR = corporate social responsibility; OE = organizational embeddedness;
internal consistency estimates are provided in the parentheses.
**
p < .01; * p < .05.
69**(.07) 57** (.04) -.53** (.14)

Perceived Organizational Organizational Turnover
CSR .56** Pride .69** Embeddedness -.38** Behavior
F I G U R E 2 Standardized and unstandardized path estimates in Study 2

Notes: ** p < .01; N = 271; unstandardized coefficients and standard errors in parenthesis are above each path and the
standardized coefficients are below each path; CSR = corporate social responsibility.
8.1 Preliminary analyses

Table 1 includes descriptive statistics. We first conducted confirmatory factor analyses to assess the fit of the measure-
ment model. As shown in Table 2, the hypothesized three-factor model (perceived CSR, pride, and OE) had acceptable
fit: TLI = .96, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .09. In addition, as shown in Table 2, this three-factor model had a superior fit com-
pared with a model in which perceived CSR and pride were combined, a model in which perceived CSR and OE were
combined, and a model in which pride and OE were combined. Model fit worsened for each of the three alternative
measurement configurations, suggesting the constructs were empirically distinct.

We conducted path analyses to test the entire proposed sequence using Mplus 8.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). Because
turnover is a categorical dependent variable, we used logistic regression to examine our hypotheses. Figure 2 shows the
standardized path coefficients. Employees’ perceived CSR was positively correlated with their pride (𝛽 = .56, p < .01).
Hypothesis 1 was thus supported. Pride, in turn, was positively related to OE (𝛽 = .69, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis
2. OE, in turn, was negatively related to turnover six months later (𝛽 = –.38, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 3. As
turnover is a binary variable, the last coefficient was based on a logistic regression. The interpretation of this coefficient
is that, for a one-unit increment in OE, the log odds of voluntary turnover decreases by .38. Next, we conducted a
serial mediation analysis. The results showed that employee pride and OE significantly and serially mediated the effect
NG ET AL . 117
TA B L E 2 Fit indices for models tested in Studies 2, 3, and 4
𝝌2 df 𝚫𝝌 2 / 𝚫df TLI CFI RMSEA

Study 2
Measurement model 344.85 116 .96 .96 .09
**
Measurement model – 1493.43 118 1148.58/2 .74 .77 .21
combining CSR and
pride
Measurement model – 1108.06 118 763.21/2** .81 .84 .18
combining CSR and OE
combining pride and OE
Path analysis: Perceived 6.36 3 .97 .98 .06
CSR→pride→OE→turnover
Controlling for 6.31 3 .98 .99 .06
organizational exchange
quality
Study 3
**
combining CSR and
pride
Path analysis: Perceived 5.58 3 .97 .99 .06
CSR→pride→OE→turnover
Study 4
**
combining CSR and
pride
Path analysis: Perceived – – – – –
CSR→pride→OE→turnovera
Controlling for trait positive – – – – –
affecta
Notes: 𝜒 2 = chi-squared value; df = degree of freedom; Δ = change relative to the measurement model. TLI = Tucker-Lewis
Index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean squared error of approximation; CSR = corporate social responsibility;
OE = organizational embeddedness.
a Fit indices are not available for a mixed-level model.
** p < .01.
of perceived CSR on their turnover (indirect effect = –.15, SE = .04, 95% CI [−.23, −.07]), supporting Hypothesis 4.
Perceived CSR did not have a direct effect on turnover (𝛽 = –.09, p = .42) despite a significant zero-order correlation
(r = –.13, p < .05), suggesting that its effect is indirect, partially via our proposed pride-OE mechanism.
In addition to the main hypothesis testing, we also asked the focal employees’ coworkers to provide ratings of
the firms’ CSR (N = 271). Coworkers’ ratings of CSR (𝛼 = .89) were positively related to focal employees’ ratings
(r = .37, p < .01). When we substituted focal employees’ self-ratings of CSR with coworker ratings of CSR in the model,
118 NG ET AL .
perceived CSR was still positively related to employee pride (𝛽 = .32, p < .01). These findings suggest that (a) the cor-
relation between employees’ and coworkers’ perceptions of CSR was not strong and (b) the effect of perceived CSR on
pride was still evident even after we have removed the potential biases in self-ratings.
8.3 Supplementary analyses

It is possible to argue that the abovementioned supportive results reflected employees’ favorable perceptions of their
organizations or employment relationships. For instance, employees who treated the employment relationship as a
high-quality relational exchange might be more likely to believe that the firm engaged in a high level of CSR, more likely
to report pride and OE, and less likely to leave the organization. To investigate this possibility, we included employees’
perceptions of organizational exchange quality, or whether employees perceived their relationship with the organiza-
tion as being characterized by strong mutual trust and care (Colquitt, Baer, Long, & Halvorsen-Ganepola, 2014), as a
control variable. We measured it with six items recommended by Colquitt et al. (2014) (𝛼 = .87) at Time 1 (items are
included in Appendix B). A sample item is “I do not have to specify the exact conditions to know this organization will
return a favor.” This variable was specified to relate to each of the four main variables in the proposed model.
As shown in Table 2, the fit of this model was acceptable. More important, we observed that the pattern of statisti-
cally significant findings reported earlier was unchanged. Each of the proposed links remained statistically significant,
including the perceived CSR-pride link (𝛽 = .34, p < .01), the pride-OE link (𝛽 = .48, p < .01), the OE–turnover link
(𝛽 = –.47, p < .01), and the entire serial mediation effect (indirect effect = –.08, SE = .03, 95% CI [−.13, −.02]). These
results suggest that our findings were not confounded by employees’ favorable perceptions of the organization or the
employment relationship.
8.4 Discussion
Study 2 provided support for all four hypotheses. Specifically, employees reported greater pride when they worked for
organizations that were perceived as engaging in more CSR; pride was positively related to OE, and these two variables
serially mediated the link between perceived CSR and subsequent turnover. Study 2 involved nonmanagerial employ-
ees because managerial and nonmanagerial employees could develop different perceptions of a firm's CSR (Sheel &
Vohra, 2016). Therefore, we designed and conducted Study 3 in an attempt to replicate our findings with a managerial
sample.
9 STUDY 3: METHOD

We collected data from 214 managers. Similar to Study 2, they completed measures of perceived CSR, pride, OE at
Time 1 and reported turnover behavior 6 months later (Time 2). The 214 managers were recruited from the authors’
contact networks, using a similar recruitment strategy to the one in Study 2. We explained the research goal to them
and assured them of data confidentiality. The managers had the following sociodemographic characteristics: A majority
(79%) was between 25 and 35 years old, 52% were female, and 47% had worked for their organizations for 3 years
or less. Examples of occupations included accounting, law enforcement, social work, nursing, education, counseling,
consulting, and engineering.
9.2 Measures
We used the same measures as in Study 2: perceived CSR (𝛼 = .91), pride (𝛼 = .95), and OE (𝛼 = .90) were measured at
Time 1, whereas turnover behavior was measured at Time 2 (a total of 6% of managers had exited their organizations
at that time).
NG ET AL . 119

Table 1 includes descriptive statistics for all variables, and Table 2 includes fit indices. Confirmatory factor analyses
showed that the three-factor measurement model had acceptable fit: TLI = .96, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .09. In addition, as
shown in Table 2, this three-factor model had a superior fit compared to models in which each pair of the study variables
was alternately combined, suggesting that our constructs were empirically distinct.

As shown in Figure 3, managers’ perceived CSR was positively correlated with their pride (𝛽 = .59, p < .01),
which in turn was positively related to their OE (𝛽 = .75, p < .01). Hypotheses 1 and 2 were thus supported
but Hypothesis 3 was not supported, as OE was not significantly related to turnover (𝛽 = –.23, p = .09). Finally,
when we examined the entire chain of variables, the serial indirect effect of employees’ perceived CSR on their
turnover via their pride, and OE was not statistically significant at the traditional .05 level (indirect effect = –.10,
SE = .06, 95% CI [−.23, .02]). As in Study 2, perceived CSR did not have a direct effect on turnover (𝛽 = .09,
p = .57).
Finally, to remove concerns about the use of only self-ratings, we asked the managers’ subordinates to provide
ratings of the firm's CSR (N = 214). First, we found that subordinates’ ratings of CSR (𝛼 = .89) were positively
associated with managers’ ratings (r = .33, p < .01). Second, when we used subordinate ratings of CSR instead of
managers’ self-ratings of CSR in the testing model, we found that CSR remained positively associated with pride
(𝛽 = .23, p < .01). As in Study 2, then, the correlation between managers’ and subordinates’ perceptions of CSR
was not strong. In addition, the effect of perceived CSR on pride was present regardless of the source of CSR
ratings.
10.3 Discussion
Study 3 extended Study 2 and provided additional support for the proposed relationships among perceived CSR, pride,
and OE in a managerial sample. However, OE did not significantly predict turnover in this sample. Both Studies 2
and 3 used a between-person design. Alternatively, in Study 4 we conducted a four-wave, 14-month investigation in
Hong Kong to test our serial mediation model in a within-person context. For instance, when employees see an espe-
cially high level of CSR, do they also report a level of pride that is higher than their within-person average? A within-
person design allowed us to address whether or not such within-person fluctuations in perceived CSR relate to within-
person fluctuations in outcomes. In addition, we used Study 4 to address the limitation of common method variance
in Studies 2 and 3, as the focal variables except turnover were collected at the same time point in those two stud-
ies. The longitudinal design in Study 4 allowed us to strengthen our causal inferences through testing a time-lagged
model.
.70** (.07) .71** (.05) -.29 (.18)

CSR .59** Pride .75** Embeddedness -.23 Behavior

120 NG ET AL .
11 STUDY 4: METHOD

We collected longitudinal data from 470 employees in a four-wave research project that spanned over 14 months. The
alumni office of a university in Hong Kong contacted these employees on our behalf and invited them to participate. In
the first three waves, we collected repeated measures of perceived CSR, pride, and OE. Based on previous studies that
used similar intervals (Schaubroeck, Peng, & Hannah, 2013; Volmer, Niessen, Spurk, Linz, & Abele, 2011), we expected
to observe variability in the perception-emotion-attitude-behavior sequence. Six months after Time 3, we contacted
the respondents again and asked about their turnover.
We received 729 responses out of 2,000 invitations at Time 1. We then received 646 and 549 responses 4 and 8
months later (Times 2 and 3), respectively. Finally, 6 months after Time 3 (and 14 months after Time 1), we received
470 responses on turnover. The overall response rate across the four waves was 24%.
Between Times 1 and 3, we dropped those participants who indicated they had changed jobs. Next, we matched the
four waves of data and compared the sociodemographic backgrounds of the respondents and nonrespondents (that is,
those who did not respond after Wave 1). Based on a nonresponse bias analysis (Rogelberg & Stanton, 2007), we found
no differences in age, gender, job tenure, and job level (all p’s > .10). In addition, respondents and nonrespondents had
the same level of perceived CSR and pride. However, the two groups differed in their organizational tenure and Wave
1 OE, with nonrespondents reporting shorter organizational tenure and lower level of OE.
The mean age in the final sample was 27 years old, and 57% of the sample was female. The mean organizational
tenure was 2.4 years and the mean job tenure was 1.7 years. Overall, 28% of participants reported that they had man-
agerial responsibilities. Participants’ jobs included highly skilled positions such as teachers, information technology
professionals, lawyers, consultants, government officials, doctors, and engineers.
11.2 Measures
We measured all variables except turnover three times, using the same scales as in Studies 2 and 3: Perceived CSR
(𝛼 = .92, .91, and .94), pride (𝛼 = .95, .94, and .95), and OE (𝛼 = .89, .89, and .92). We collected turnover data by asking
the respondents whether they had voluntarily exited the organization in the six months following the Time 3 survey
and 8% had done so.

Table 3 includes descriptive statistics. The measurement model, which contains all nine variables (perceived CSR at
Times 1, 2, and 3, pride at Times 1, 2, and 3, and OE at Times 1, 2, and 3), had a strong fit: TLI = .98, CFI = .99,
RMSEA = .05 (see Table 2). This model had a better fit compared to each of the other models in which the variables
were alternately combined.
Given the nested nature of our data (470 individuals, each reported three waves of data), we conducted a multi-
level path analysis to test the proposed effects. Perceived CSR, pride, and OE were treated as within-person variables,
whereas turnover behavior was treated as a between-person variable. We centered individuals’ scores on perceived
CSR, pride, and OE around their own means so that data represented one's deviation from one's own average. We used
Mplus 8.1 for all analyses.

Figure 4 shows the standardized path estimates. Within individuals, perceived CSR was positively related to pride
(𝛽 = .26, p < .01), which in turn was positively related to OE (𝛽 = .42, p < .01). Finally, OE was negatively related to
NG ET AL . 121
TA B L E 3 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables in Study 4
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Perceived CSR (.92)
(T1)
2. Perceived CSR .72** (.91)
(T2)
3. Perceived CSR .71** .73** (.94)
(T3)
4. Pride (T1) .38** .32** .33** (.95)
5. Pride (T2) .34** .35** .40** .75** (.94)
** ** ** **
6. Pride (T3) .29 .30 .43 .65 .75** (.95)
7. OE (T1) .32** .28** .32** .56** .50** .47** (.89)
8. OE (T2) .28** .33** .39** .47** .61** .56** .67** (.89)
9. OE (T3) .27** .29** .41** .42** .52** .67** .64** .74** (.92)
10. Turnover −.07 −.10 *
−.10 *
−.08 −.11 *
−.14 **
−.11 *
−.18 **
−.21** –
Mean 3.00 2.89 2.92 3.49 3.41 3.36 2.96 2.89 2.93 1.08
SD .96 .93 .98 .81 .82 .87 .80 .81 .89 .27
Notes: N = 470; CSR = corporate social responsibility; OE = organizational embeddedness; T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; T3 = Time
3; internal consistency estimates are provided in the parentheses.
**
p < .01; * p < .05.
Between-
Within-Person .25** (.05) Within-Person .32** (.09) Within-Person -1.12** (.30) Person
CSR . 2 6 ** Pride . 42 * * Embeddedness -.63** Behavior

turnover (𝛽 = –.63, p < .01). Thus, Hypotheses 1–3 were all supported. A mediation test showed that the serial media-
tion effects of pride and OE in the relationship between perceived CSR and turnover was statistically significant (indi-
rect effect = –.09, SE = .04, 95% CI [−.17, −.01]), supporting Hypothesis 4. As in Studies 2 and 3, perceived CSR did not
have a direct effect on turnover (𝛽 = .003, p = .99).
12.3 Supplementary analyses

We conducted two supplementary analyses. First, it could be argued that individuals who had greater trait positive
affect were more likely to see their employers’ CSR in a positive light because trait positive affect reflects one's gen-
eral level of pleasurable engagement with the environment (Watson, 1988, 2000). Thus, to more rigorously test our
proposed model, we first measured respondents’ trait positive affect at Time 1 using Watson, Clark, and Tellegen's
(1988) 10-item scale (𝛼 = .91) and then included it as a between-person control variable by specifying it to be related
to each of the four main variables in the proposed model (items are in Appendix B). We observed that the pattern of
findings reported above remained unchanged. That is, within individuals, perceived CSR was positively related to pride
(𝛽 = .34, p < .01), which was in turn related to OE (𝛽 = .56, p < .01). Finally, OE was negatively related to turnover even
after controlling for trait positive affect (𝛽 = –.73, p < .01). The entire serial mediation effect was significant (indirect
effect = –.11, SE = .05, 95% CI [−.20, −.02]). These results suggest that our findings were not a function of employees’
stable tendency to experience positive mood.
Second, the longitudinal data allowed us to probe the causal effects through controlling for the effects of the
same variables at the previous time points so that the predictor variables’ effects would not be confounded by their
122 NG ET AL .
existing levels. Baseline measures represent a stringent set of control variables, because controlling for them essen-
tially removes all preexisting between-person differences among these variables (Bernerth & Aguinis, 2016; Neumeier,
Brook, Ditchburn, & Sckopke, 2017; Van Gool, Kempen, Bosma, Van Eijk, & Van Boxtel, 2007). We also controlled for
trait positive affect in this analysis. First, we found that perceived CSR at Time 1 positively affected pride at Time 2
(𝛽 = .32, p < .01) after controlling for the effects of pride at Time 1 and trait positive affect. Second, pride at Time 2 pos-
itively affected OE at Time 3 (𝛽 = .25, p < .01) after controlling for the effects of OE at Time 2 and trait positive affect.
Finally, OE at Time 3 negatively predicted turnover at Time 4 (𝛽 = –.43, p < .01) after controlling for trait positive affect.
The serial indirect effect of CSR (Time 1) on turnover (Time 4) via pride (Time 2) and then OE (Time 3) was likewise sta-
tistically significant (coefficient = –.04, SE = .01, 95% CI [−.06, −.01]), after controlling for Time 1 pride, Time 2 OE, and
trait positive affect. In sum, these additional results supported the proposed causal directions.
12.4 Discussion
Study 4 provided longitudinal evidence to support the proposed model in a within-person context. Specifically, the
proposed perceived CSR-pride-OE-turnover sequence was upheld within individuals. Furthermore, using lagged data,
we showed that the proposed sequence was supported even after we had controlled for the mediators’ baseline values.
13 GENERAL DISCUSSION
13.1 Contributions of the present research

This research contributes to CSR research by both extending the existent approaches to examining CSR and guiding
future theory development in this area.
13.1.1 Extending the existent approach

CSR studies often focus on objective CSR activities but not employees’ perceptions of or reactions to those CSR activ-
ities. This omission is noteworthy because, if employees are not aware of a firm's CSR activities, then those activities
are unlikely to affect employees’ emotions, attitudes, and behaviors. As different individuals might develop different
perceptions of a firm's CSR activities, there is likely to be a great deal of variability in their emotional, attitudinal, and
behavioral reactions to the same CSR activities. This underscores the importance of examining perceptions of CSR
(Akremi et al., 2018). The effects of perceptions of CSR on observers’ emotions and behavioral decisions have been
documented in other disciplines (e.g., consumer behavior; Chernev & Blair, 2015; Newman & Brucks, 2018), although
empirical research on those effects on employees is still scant. We extend the current research paradigm by directing
researchers’ focus from firms’ objective CSR to employees’ perceptions of CSR.
We also extend prior studies through probing whether and why emotions are central components of the microfoun-
dations of CSR. Although a few studies have used organization-directed attitudes such as organizational identification
(e.g., Carmeli, Gilat, & Waldman, 2007), trust (e.g., Hansen, Dunford, Boss, Boss, & Angermeier, 2011), and commitment
(e.g., Vlachos, Panagopoulos, & Rapp, 2014) as their mediating mechanisms to explain employee reactions to CSR, we
contend that simply examining job attitudes is not sufficient. We thus build upon this work and make a value-added
contribution by offering a perception-emotion-attitude-behavior framework, and suggest that employees first expe-
rience positive emotions when they witness their firms’ CSR. For instance, our results highlight the important role of
pride that emerged following perceived CSR. In fact, despite its importance, organizational pride has not received suf-
ficient attention in organizational behavior research, in part because organizational pride is developed based on some
extraordinary actions of a firm (Boezeman & Ellemers, 2008; Helm, 2013), and such extraordinary actions are not nec-
essary commonly observed. However, in the context of CSR, the emotion of pride is especially relevant because organi-
zations that engage in CSR are likely to be seen as competent, responsible, considerate, caring, and moral. Pride, once
developed, gives employees many psychological rewards (e.g., meaningfulness, esteem, excitement; Gouthier & Rhein,
NG ET AL . 123
2011; Kraemer & Gouthier, 2014), thereby strengthening the psychological bond between employees and employers,
as we have shown. In brief, exploring the emotion of pride extends our understanding of why employees’ reactions to
perceptions of CSR are likely to be persistently positive.
We further extend the existent CSR research by incorporating felt embeddedness as a stable and influential out-
come of perceived CSR. Results showed that OE is one plausible reason why perceived CSR resulted in favorable behav-
ioral outcomes (lower turnover). Like Weiss and Cropanzano (1996), we argued that intense, positive emotions are
likely to translate into favorable job attitudes that drive employees’ behaviors. We also argued that OE is an important
job attitude because it captures a stabilizing psychological force that ties individuals to their organization (Crossley
et al., 2007; Ng & Feldman, 2013). Through tethering employees to their organizations, OE frames employees’ percep-
tions of their organizations in functional ways that provide employees with purpose and direction to their jobs (Lee,
Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton, & Holtom, 2004), binding an individual to a course of action specified within the terms of
the employment relationship. Thus, OE is informative in explaining why perceived CSR is likely to result in positive job
behavior.
Our results also extend CSR research by identifying perceived CSR as a novel predictor of turnover and its
associated mechanisms in reducing employee turnover. In several major quantitative and qualitative reviews of the
employee turnover literature (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Hausknecht, & Trevor, 2010; Holtom, Mitchell, Lee,
& Eberly, 2008; Hom et al., 2017; Maertz & Griffeth, 2004; Shaw, 2011), perceived CSR has not been considered as
an antecedent, in part because empirical research in this area is, to our knowledge, virtually nonexistent. Although
researchers have advocated embeddedness as an effective way to retain employees, how embedding forces can be
constructed proactively by managers is still poorly understood. Mitchell, Holtom, and Lee (2001) and Mitchell, Holtom,
Lee, Sablynski, and Erez (2001) suggested that employees could be embedded through increased fit, links, and sacri-
fice. However, our results suggest that OE is affected by factors beyond these three components, such as perceived
CSR (and the resulting emotional and attitudinal changes). Thus, our findings contribute to the CSR literature by show-
ing that perceived CSR can strengthen employee embeddedness, which in turn lowers turnover behavior. That is, per-
ceived CSR is a noteworthy antecedent of employee turnover.
13.1.2 Guiding future theory development

Although there is an overall agreement that CSR is important in promoting sustainable firm performance, the micro-
foundations (i.e., employee-level mediators) linking CSR with employee-relevant outcomes are still underexplored
(Aguinis & Glavas, 2012, 2017). Our proposed perception-emotion-attitude-behavior sequence helps unpack the
underlying mechanisms of the positive effects of CSR. This perception-emotion-attitude-behavior framework can
guide researchers to develop models that examine the effects of different perceptions of CSR (e.g., CSR breadth, effec-
tiveness, and downsides) on different emotions, attitudes, and behaviors. Although our framework is sufficiently gen-
eral to accommodate different perceptions, emotions, attitudes, and behaviors, it highlights the important roles of per-
ceived CSR, pride, OE, and turnover. Specifically, our results demonstrate that perceived CSR is indirectly related to
employee turnover, which is one of the most important behavioral outcomes that has direct implications for orga-
nizational performance (Huselid, 1995; Kacmar et al., 2006; Park & Shaw, 2013). By supporting a serial mediation
model linking perceived CSR to employee turnover, we offer empirical support and theoretical insights into why CSR
is often beneficial for organizations at the macro level. The major reason we examined is that employees feel proud
following their perceptions of CSR. Pride, in turn, becomes OE, which in turn motivates them to stay longer with the
organization.
We also demonstrate to researchers the strengths of broadening methodological approaches in this area. Specif-
ically, we conducted a multistudy investigation that tested the proposed socioemotional microfoundations model
of CSR using different samples, designs, and data-analytic methods. First, we emphasize that there is much to be
gained by addressing employees’ perceptions of CSR, rather than objective CSR because employee reactions to CSR
are likely to emerge based on that perceived rather than actual reality. Second, we show perceived CSR's effects
on employees in experimental and passive observation field studies, in cross-sectional and longitudinal designs, in
124 NG ET AL .
nonmanagerial and managerial samples in the United States and Hong Kong, and adopting between- and within-
person data-analytical approaches. Most, if not all, empirical studies of CSR have used a monomethod design, which
may not serve as a strong test of theories (Scandura & Williams, 2000). Our manuscript contributes to the CSR
literature by illustrating the feasibility and benefits of a multimethod, multisample approach to testing the pro-
posed theory of socioemotional foundations of CSR, paving the way for additional microfoundations research in the
future.
13.2 Implications for practice

Aguinis et al. (2010, p. 530) recommended that “[t]o demonstrate a study's practical significance, there is a need to
describe results in a way that makes sense for practitioners.” The current set of results from multiple studies together
show managers that the entire model (Fig. 1) is a reasonable representation of the process by which employees
appraise a firm's CSR. That is, the perception-emotion-attitude-behavior sequence illustrates intrapsychic experiences
of employees when they witness a firm's CSR, revealing how CSR affects employees and in turn affects their behav-
iors. Gaining knowledge about the CSR-pride-OE-turnover sequence is especially important for managers for several
reasons.
First, managers must be aware that there is a great deal of variability in their employees’ perceptions of CSR.
In addition, individuals who perceive a higher level of CSR report more favorable emotional, attitudinal, and behav-
ioral reactions than those who perceive a low level of CSR. For instance, increased employee awareness of CSR ini-
tiatives can lead to enhanced employee meaningfulness (Aguinis & Glavas, 2017). To be clear, we are not advocat-
ing for organizations to manipulate employees’ CSR perceptions to achieve these desire outcomes. Instead, man-
agers should periodically monitor employees’ perceptions of CSR. As Akremi et al. (2018, p. 650) noted, “firms need
to give heed to, assess, and manage CSR perceptions among their employees and other stakeholders” and, in the
event of misalignment, managers should “revise their communication practices through forums, internal reports,
training, and targeted communication” (p. 650). For instance, Jones et al. (2014) observed that even the web sites
of those Fortune 500 companies with strong social performance did not contain much information about CSR,
whereas other researchers found that consumers were not aware of the CSR activities engaged by the organiza-
tions they frequently patronized (Parsa, Lord, Putrevu, & Kreeger, 2015). These findings suggest that firms need
to significantly enhance their communication efforts to attract outside talent and to enhance existing employees’
reactions.
Second, when designing CSR initiatives, managers seldom consider whether the initiatives may affect the turnover
tendency of their workforce. This is a significant oversight, as without sufficient human resources to assist in imple-
mentation, CSR plans are unlikely to be successfully realized (Voegtlin & Greenwood, 2016). Our results provide man-
agers with empirical evidence that perceived CSR can lower the tendency of employees to exit. The evidence is espe-
cially relevant, given that our focus is on external CSR, not internal CSR. If employees are willing to stay as a result of
perceptions of the organization's external CSR, managers can envision that the retention effects are likely to be even
stronger if the perceptions of CSR cover the internal environment of the organization and provide positive effects for
employees’ work lives. In the current U.S. economy in which unemployment rate is declining, and workers have more
job alternatives, it is important that organizations develop more attractive profiles to retain talent. Our study shows to
managers that engaging in more CSR is one possible way to do so.
Third, we not only showed that perceived CSR matters for employee turnover but also helped managers understand
the psychological mechanisms that lead to favorable responses. We showed that employees are likely to experience
pride when they perceive that their firm engages in strong CSR. This is an important discovery because it explains why
job attitudes (e.g., commitment, identification, trust) improve as a result of seeing a firm's CSR. We uncovered the imme-
diate emotional responses that lead to such attitudinal changes. In other words, we show managers that pride is the
lynchpin that links perceived CSR to an employee's willingness to stay. To appraise CSR effectiveness, then, managers
should determine whether employees feel proud as a result of their perceptions of CSR. Organization-wide surveys
and open discussions can be useful to that end.
NG ET AL . 125
13.3 Limitations and additional suggestions for future research

First, despite the use of an experiment (Study 1), two field studies (Studies 2 and 3), and a 14-month longitudinal study
(Study 4), our results do not provide definitive causal evidence. Study 1 was helpful in this regard, as participants who
envisioned working in a firm with strong CSR reported more positive reactions than the low-CSR subjects. Although
this design allowed us to disentangle the causal effects of perceived CSR on pride and OE, and mitigate the effects
of several potential confounding variables, it did not test the causal effects of perceived CSR on turnover. In addition,
although Study 1 involved employee participants, the design necessarily required them to report their anticipatory,
rather than actual, emotions and attitudes. Reassuringly, we conducted field studies (Studies 2–4), and the results mir-
rored those of Study 1.
Second, Studies 2 and 3 relied on self-ratings, and perceived CSR, pride, and OE were measured at the same time
point, raising concerns about the influence of common method bias. Nevertheless, we suggest that employees are in
the best position to appraise their own emotions (pride) and organization-directed attitudes (OE). Turnover, as a one-
item status variable, should be less susceptible to the influence of biases inherent in self-ratings. We have also provided
evidence in Studies 2 and 3 that nonself-ratings of CSR still had significant effects on pride. Moreover, Studies 2 and 3
involved convenience sampling, as we relied on our personal and professional networks to recruit study participants.
Such a recruitment strategy could have resulted in a sample that is not generalizable to other contexts. However, such
a recruitment strategy has the advantage of increasing the response rate and sampling employees from heterogeneous
backgrounds.
Third, our measure of perceived CSR (Turker, 2009b) captured multiple CSR initiatives, such as efforts to preserve
the natural environment, to help nongovernment organizations, and to improve the well-being of future generations.
However, this scale focuses slightly more on CSR initiatives targeted at the natural environment; as Turker (2009b)
argued, “the notion of CSR starts with the increasing concerns of people about environmental degradation” (p. 417).
Thus, placing slightly more emphasis on the natural environment in the scale seems reasonable. However, the estimates
we obtained might have been more conservative than when we used a scale that comprehensively covered all areas of
external CSR. In addition, this measure, did not allow us to pinpoint perceptions of which CSR activities have stronger
effects on employees. An event paradigm that focuses on one specific type of CSR initiatives, such as corporate volun-
teering programs (Jones, 2010), can be especially helpful in this regard. Another possible approach to supplement our
focus on perceived CSR is to examine the mission statements and web sites of the organizations involved to identify
whether or not perceived CSR and objective CSR converge.
Fourth, the proposed sequence might have manifested in different intensities for different people. For example, one
moderator to consider in future research is the perceived sincerity of the firm's CSR from the employees’ perspectives.
In a recruitment context, job applicants who believed that a firm's CSR was motivated by prosocial motives reported
stronger feelings about the firm's justice (Joo, Moon, & Choi, 2016). In contrast, some firms engage in CSR for enhancing
their public relations or images (Bice, 2017; Fassin & Buelens, 2011), and there is indeed evidence that consumers react
negatively when an organization's CSR is perceived to be insincere (Scholder, Webb, & Mohr, 2006; Yoon, Gurhan-Canli,
& Schwartz, 2006). Thus, it is possible that the effects of perceived CSR on pride, OE, and turnover are weaker when
such CSR initiatives were deemed insincere.
Fifth, we have largely focused on external CSR, as the emotion of pride is especially likely to grow when external
prestige of the firm is strong. Internal CSR, on the contrary, might enhance other types of emotions, such as gratitude.
Future research comparing the effects of external and internal CSR is therefore strongly needed. More broadly, future
research should consider examining other emotions, attitudes, and behaviors to further build the microfoundations of
CSR.
Sixth, one finding emerged to be different between Studies 2 and 3 that requires further scrutiny in the future.
Namely, OE was negatively related to turnover in Study 2 (the nonmanagerial sample), whereas it was unrelated to
turnover in Study 3 (the managerial sample). There are at least two possible explanations. First, perhaps managers are
naturally more embedded (longer tenures, more institutional capital) that makes them less affected by their company's
CSR efforts. In other words, their turnover decisions might be driven by other factors as a result of their higher job
level rather than by the embeddedness force resulted from perceived CSR. Second, the divergent findings may indicate
126 NG ET AL .
that perceived CSR is perhaps a more salient factor in determining turnover for employees than for managers. For
nonmanagerial employees, they might be motivated to actively look for cues (e.g., dependability; support) to help them
identify an employer with which they can feel bonded and in which they can feel comfortable getting embedded in
the long run (Campbell & Campbell, 2003), and CSR helps communicate these positive cues. Managers, having already
somewhat embedded in their organizations because of their managerial roles, might be less responsive to the positive
signaling effects of CSR.
Seventh, we did not control for other predictors of turnover. Our rationale was that OE, as a stable job attitude, has
been shown to consistently predict turnover (Allen & Shanock, 2013; Crossley et al., 2007; Jiang et al., 2012; Mitchell,
Holtom, & Lee, 2001; Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001; Tanova & Holtom, 2008). Thus, by relating per-
ceived CSR to OE (and then to turnover), we showed that perceived CSR was a legitimate, though indirect, predictor
of one's decision to exit. Future research could test the robustness of our findings by demonstrating the incremen-
tal predictive power of perceived CSR above and beyond other turnover antecedents. First, researchers can include
some of the main predictors of turnover identified in the literature as control variables, such as job dissatisfaction,
job alternatives, and organizational commitment (Griffeth et al., 2000; Hom & Kinicki, 2001; Lee, Mitchell, Holtom,
McDaniel, & Hill, 1999). Second, researchers can include other variables in our proposed model and contrast their
effects on turnover with that of perceived CSR. For instance, it is possible that receiving unfair treatments from the
direct supervisor might invoke strong turnover decisions (Jones & Skarlicki, 2003), despite the presence of the positive
cues signaled by the firm's CSR.
Finally, there is room for improvement regarding the measurement of perceived CSR. First, although most scales of
perceived CSR capture the perceived frequency with which organizations engage in CSR, there are a few scales that
serve to measure respondents’ overall impression of the organization as a responsible entity (e.g., “This organization
is concerned with improving the well-being of stakeholders and society at large; De Roeck et al., 2016; Wagner, Lutz,
& Weitz, 2009). Future measure development efforts will benefit from clarifying whether a scale assessing perceived
frequency of CSR or a more global trait-like CSR judgment of a firm has greater predictive power. Second, CSR activi-
ties covered by existing measures vary substantially, including employee-, community-, natural environment-, supplier-,
consumer-, future generation-, and public institution-oriented CSR (e.g., Akremi et al., 2018; Alvarado-Herrera, Bigne,
Aldas-Manzano, & Curras-Perez, 2017; Carmeli et al., 2007; D'Aprile & Talò, 2014; Maignan & Ferrell, 2000; Turker,
2009b). The field is thus in need of developing greater consensus on which dimensions are most valid and in which
contexts. Third, there are additional dimensions that are not yet included in most of the existing scales. For instance,
many studies examined whether employees or stakeholders perceived a firm's CSR initiatives as sincere and found that
whether CSR was perceived to be sincere versus insincere led to drastically different outcomes (Scheinbaum, Lacey, &
Liang, 2017; Scholder et al., 2006; Yoon et al., 2006). Thus, a scale that integrates perceptions of motives would be use-
ful (e.g., “This organization sincerely engages in activities that protect the natural environment”) given that a majority
of researchers and practitioners are interested in employees’ reactions to genuine CSR activities (Akremi et al., 2018).
Finally, because many employees are unaware of organizations’ CSR efforts, a low level of CSR perception does not
necessarily mean that employees see the organization as not interested in or care about CSR; it might merely reflect
employees’ lack of awareness of a firm's CSR efforts. Thus, it would be useful for future measure development efforts
to remove the confounding role of CSR awareness. In other words, an item that says “I am not aware of my firm's CSR
activities” is not identical to an item that says “my firm does not engage in CSR activities.”
14 CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is clear that CSR is a prominent research topic in organizational behavior and that multiple authors have called for
additional research in understanding the microfoundations of CSR (Aguinis & Glavas, 2017; Morgeson et al., 2013).
We answered this call and showed that employees’ responses to perceptions of CSR can be systematically analyzed
and understood using a perception-emotion-attitude-behavior framework. We hope our multimethod, multisample
approach to theory development paves the way for additional contributions of organizational behavior studies to
NG ET AL . 127
microfoundations research on CSR, especially employees’ emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral reactions to percep-
tions of a firm's CSR activities.
NOTE
1 Detailed results regarding these analyses are available from the authors upon request.
ORCID
Thomas W. H. Ng http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7972-0761
Kai Chi Yam http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7381-8039
Herman Aguinis http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3485-9484
REFERENCES
Adams, M., & Hardwick, P. (1998). An analysis of corporate donations: United Kingdom evidence. Journal of Management Studies,
35, 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00113
Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette
methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17, 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research
agenda. Journal of Management, 38, 932–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311436079
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2013). Embedded versus peripheral corporate social responsibility: Psychological foundations. Indus-
trial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6, 314–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12059
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2017). On corporate social responsibility, sensemaking, and the search for meaningfulness through
work. Journal of Management, https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317691575
Aguinis, H., Werner, S., Abbott, J. L., Angert, C., Park, J. H., & Kohlhausen, D. (2010). Customer-centric science: Reporting sig-
nificant research results with rigor, relevance, and practical impact in mind. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 515–539.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109333339
Akremi, A. E., Gond, J., Swaen, V., De Roeck, K., & Igalens, J. (2018). How do employees perceive corporate responsibility?
Development and validation of a multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. Journal of Management, 44,
619–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315569311
Allen, D. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2013). Perceived organizational support and embeddedness as key mechanisms connecting
socialization tactics to commitment and turnover among new employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 350–369.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1805
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York, NY: Holt.
Alvarado-Herrera, A., Bigne, E., Aldas-Manzano, J., & Curras-Perez, R. (2017). A scale for measuring consumer perceptions of
corporate social responsibility following the sustainable development paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics, 140, 243–262.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2654-9
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 36, 421–458. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393203
Ballinger, G. A., & Schoorman, F. D. (2007). Individual reactions to leadership succession in workgroups. Academy of Management
Review, 32, 118–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159284
Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Jour-
nal, 26, 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.441
Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the
natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159562
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 717–736. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556363
Barnett, M. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility.
Academy of Management Review, 32, 794–816. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275520
Bauman, C. W., & Skitka, L. J. (2012). Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee satisfaction. Research in Organiza-
tional Behavior, 32, 63–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.002
128 NG ET AL .
Bernerth, J., & Aguinis, H. (2016). A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel
Psychology, 69, 229–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12103
Bice, S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility as institution: A social mechanisms framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 143,
17–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2791-1
Boezeman, E. J., & Ellemers, N. (2008). Pride and respect in volunteers’ organizational commitment. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 38, 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.415
Brammer, S. J., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Corporate reputation and social performance: The importance of fit. Journal of Management
Studies, 43, 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00597.x
Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Doosje, B. (2002). Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on group behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 744–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289004
Brickson, S. L. (2013). Athletes, best friends, and social activists: An integrative model accounting for the role of identity in
organizational identification. Organization Science, 24, 226–245. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0730
Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2014). Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous
motives. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2089
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 78, 402–412.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135156
Butts, M. M., Becker, W. J., & Boswell, W. R. (2015). Hot buttons and time sinks: The effects of electronic communi-
cation during nonwork time on emotions and work-nonwork conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 763–788.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0170
Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. (2003). The value of organizational reputation in the recruitment context: A brand-equity perspec-
tive. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2244–2266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01883.x
Campbell, D. J., & Campbell, K. M. (2003). Global versus facet predictors of intention to quit: Differences in a sample of male and
female Singaporean managers and non-managers. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 1152–1177.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519032000114246
Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). The role of perceived organizational performance in organiza-
tional identification, adjustment and job performance. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 972–992. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00691.x
Chau, S. L., Dahling, J. J., Levy, P. E., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). A predictive study of emotional labor and turnover. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30, 1151–1163. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.617
Chernev, A., & Blair, S. (2015). Doing well by doing good: The benevolent halo of corporate social responsibility. Journal of
Consumer Research, 41, 1412–1425. https://doi.org/10.1086/680089
Clarkson, J. J., Hirt, E. R., Jia, L., & Alexander, M. B. (2010). When perception is more than reality: The effects of per-
ceived versus actual resource depletion on self-regulatory behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 29–46.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017539
Colquitt, J. A., Baer, M. D., Long, D. M., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. K. (2014). Scale indicators of social exchange relationships:
A comparison of relative content validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 599–618. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036374
Costas, J., & Kärreman, D. (2013). Conscience as control: Managing employees through CSR. Organization, 20, 394–415.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413478584
Crossley, C. D., Bennett, R. J., Jex, S. M., & Burnfield, J. L. (2007). Development of a global measure of job embedded-
ness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1031–1042.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1031
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS Map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
D'Aprile, G., & Talò, C. (2014). Measuring corporate social responsibility as a psychosocial construct: A new multidimensional
scale. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 26, 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-013-9228-8
Dalal, R. S., Bhave, D. P., & Fiset, J. (2014). Within-person variability in job performance: A theoretical review and research
agenda. Journal of Management, 40, 1396–1436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314532691
De Roeck, K., Akremi, A. E., & Swaen, V. (2016). Consistency matters! How and when does corporate social
responsibility affect employees’ organizational identification. Journal of Management Studies, 53, 1141–1168.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12216
Deng, X., & Xu, Y. (2017). Consumers’ responses to corporate social responsibility initiatives: The mediating role of consumer-
company identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 142, 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2742-x
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2015). Corporate social responsibility, multi-faceted job-products, and employee out-
comes. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2286-5
NG ET AL . 129
Edwards, M. R. (2016). The Olympic effect: Employee reactions to their employer's sponsorship of a high-profile global sporting
event. Human Resource Management, 55, 721–740. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21702
Farooq, O., Payaud, M., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2014). The impact of corporate social responsibility on
organizational commitment: Exploring multiple mediation mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 563–580.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1928-3
Fassin, Y., & Buelens, M. (2011). The hypocrisy-sincerity continuum in corporate communication and decision mak-
ing: A model of corporate social responsibility and business ethic practices. Management Decision, 49, 586–600.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741111126503
Feldman, D. C., & Ng, T. W. H. (2007). Careers: Mobility, embeddedness, and success. Journal of Management, 33, 350–377.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300815
Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. R. (2008). Social functions of emotion. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. Barrett (Eds.),
Handbook of emotions ( 3rd ed., pp. 456–468). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behaviors in organizations: An information process-
ing perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2971
Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. (2016). Microfoundations in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 22–34.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2362
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.212
Glavas, A., & Godwin, L. N. (2013). Is the perception of “goodness” good enough? Exploring the relationship between per-
ceived corporate social responsibility and employee organizational identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 15–27.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1323-5
Glavas, A., & Kelley, K. (2014). The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee attitudes. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 24, 165–202. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq20143206
Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and
shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 425–445.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.750
Gond, J., Akremi, A. E., Sawen, V., & Babu, N. (2017). The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A
person-centric systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2170
Gouthier, M. H. J., & Rhein, M. (2011). Organizational pride and its positive effects on employee behavior. Journal of Service
Management, 22, 633–649. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231111174988
Graves, S. B., & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal,
37, 1034–1046. https://doi.org/10.5465/256611
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover:
Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463–488.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00043-X
Habel, J., Schons, L. M., Alavi, S., & Wieseke, J. (2016). Warm glow or extra charge? The ambivalent effect of cor-
porate social responsibility activities on customers’ perceived price fairness. Journal of Marketing, 80, 84–105.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0389
Hansen, S. D., Dunford, B. B., Boss, A. D., Boss, R. W., & Angermeier, I. (2011). Corporate social responsibil-
ity and the benefits of employee trust: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 29–45.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0903-0
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytical compar-
isons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305–325.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20786077
Hausknecht, J. P., & Trevor, C. O. (2010). Collective turnover at the group, unit, and organization levels: Evidence, issues, and
implications. Journal of Management, 37, 352–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310383910
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strate-
gic Management Journal, 36, 831–850. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2247
Helm, S. (2013). A matter of reputation and pride: Associations between perceived external reputation, pride in
membership, job satisfaction and turnover intentions. British Journal of Management, 24, 542–556. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00827.x
Hoffman, L. (2007). Multilevel models for examining individual differences in within-person variation and covariation over time.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 609–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701710072
130 NG ET AL .
Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly, M. B. (2008). Turnover and retention research: A glance at the
past, a closer review of the present, and a venture into the future. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 231–274.
https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211552
Hom, P. W., & Kinicki, A. J. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of how dissatisfaction drives employee turnover. Academy
of Management Journal, 44, 975–987. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069441
Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of employee turnover theory and research.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 530–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635–672. https://doi.org/10.5465/256741
Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13, pp. 1–54). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Jiang, K., Liu, D., McKay, P., Lee, T., & Mitchell, T. (2012). When and how is job embeddedness predictive of turnover? A meta-
analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1077–1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028610
Jones, D., Willness, C. R., & Heller, K. W. (2016). Illuminating the signals job seekers receive from an employer's commu-
nity involvement and environmental sustainability practices: Insights into why most job seekers are attracted, others are
indifferent, and a few are repelled. Frontiers in Psychology, Organizational Psychology Specialty Section, 7, Article, 426, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00426
Jones, D. A. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational identification and social
exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism programme. Journal of Occupational and Organi-
zational Psychology, 83, 857–878. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X477495
Jones, D. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2003). The relationship between perceptions of fairness and voluntary turnover among retail
employees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1226–1243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01947.x
Jones, D. A., Willness, C., & Madey, S. (2014). Why are job seekers attracted by corporate social performance?
Experimental and field tests of three signal-based mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 383–404.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0848
Joo, Y. R., Moon, H. K., & Choi, B. K. (2016). A moderated mediation model of CSR and organizational attractiveness among job
applicants. Management Decision, 54, 1269–1293. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2015-0475
Kacmar, K. M., Andrews, M. C., Van Rooy, D. L., Steilberg, R. C., & Cerrone, S. (2006). Sure everyone can be replaced…but
at what cost? Turnover as a predictor of unit-level performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 133–144.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785670
Kraemer, T., & Gouthier, M. H. J. (2014). How organizational pride and emotional exhaustion explain turnover intentions in
call centers: A multi-group analysis with gender and organizational tenure. Journal of Service Management, 25, 125–148.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-07-2013-0173
Krantz, S. E. (1983). Cognitive appraisals and problem-directed coping: A prospective study of stress. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 44, 638–643. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.3.638
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 819–834.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Lebowitz, M. S., & Dovidio, J. F. (2015). Implications of emotion regulation strategies for empathic concern, social attitudes, and
helping behavior. Emotion, 15, 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038820
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., McDaniel, L. S., & Hill, J. W. (1999). The unfolding model of voluntary turnover: A repli-
cation and extension. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 450–462. https://doi.org/10.5465/257015
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Sablynski, C. J., Burton, J. P., & Holtom, B. C. (2004). The effects of job embeddedness on organizational
citizenship, job performance, volitional absences, and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 711–722.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20159613
Lin, C., Baruch, Y., & Shih, W. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and team performance: The mediating role of team efficacy
and team self-esteem. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1068-6
Maertz, C. P., & Griffeth, R. W. (2004). Eight motivational forces and voluntary turnover: A theoretical synthesis with implica-
tions for research. Journal of Management, 30, 667–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.04.001
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2000). Measuring corporate citizenship in two countries: The case of the United States and France.
Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006262325211
Marin, L., Ruiz, S., & Rubio, A. (2009). The role of identity salience in the effects of corporate social responsibility on consumer
behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9673-8
McDougall, W. (1933). The energies of men: A study of the fundamentals of dynamic psychology. New York, NY: Scribner's.
NG ET AL . 131
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlations
or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 603–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266
(200005)21:5<603::AID-SMJ101>3.0.CO;2-3
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Gellatly, I. R. (1990). Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Evalua-
tion of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 710–720.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.710
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., & Lee, T. W. (2001). How to keep your best employees: Developing an effective retention policy.
Academy of Management Executive, 15, 96–108. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2001.5897929
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using organizational embeddedness
to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102–1121. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069391
Morgeson, F. P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. S. (2013). Extending corporate social responsibility research to the
human resource management and organizational behavior domains: A look to the future. Personnel Psychology, 66, 805–
824. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12055
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Neumeier, L. M., Brook, L., Ditchburn, G., & Sckopke, P. (2017). Delivering your daily dose of well-being to the workplace: A
randomized controlled trial of an online well-being programme for employees. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 26, 555–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1320281
Newman, K. P., & Brucks, M. (2018). The influence of corporate social responsibility efforts on the moral behavior of high self-
brand overlap consumers. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28, 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1027
Ng, T. W. H. (2016). Embedding employees early on: The importance of workplace respect. Personnel Psychology, 69, 599–633.
https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12117
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). The effects of organizational embeddedness on development of social and human capital.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 696–712. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019150
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). The effects of organizational and community embeddedness on work-to-family and family-
to-work conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1233–1251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029089
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). Changes in perceived supervisor embeddedness: Effects on employees’ embeddedness,
organizational trust, and voice behavior. Personnel Psychology, 66, 645–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12025
Ng, T. W. H., & Lucianetti, L. (2018). Are embedded employees active or passive? The roles of learning goal orientation and
preferences for wide task boundaries and job mobility in the embeddedness-voice link. Human Resource Management, 57,
1251–1269. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21898
Nosek, B. A., Aarts, A. A., Anderson, C. J., Anderson, J. E., Kappes, H. B.… & Yarkoni, T. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of
psychological science. Science, 349, 943–951. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization
Studies, 24, 403–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024003910
Panaccio, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2012). Five-factor model of personality and organizational commitment: The medi-
ating role of positive and negative affective states. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 647–658. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jvb.2012.03.002
Park, E., Kim, K. J., & Kwon, S. J. (2017). Corporate social responsibility as a determinant of consumer loyalty:
An examination of ethical standard, satisfaction, and trust. Journal of Business Research, 76, 8–13. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.02.017
Park, T., & Shaw, J. D. (2013). Turnover rates and organizational performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98,
268–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030723
Parsa, H. G., Lord, K. R., Putrevu, S., & Kreeger, J. (2015). Corporate social and environmental responsibility in services: Will con-
sumers pay for it? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.08.006
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2005). Building organization theory from first principles: The self-enhancement motive and under-
standing power and influence. Organization Science, 16, 372–388. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0132
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S., Halevy, N., & Eidelson, R. (2008). Toward a unifying model of identifica-
tion with groups: Integrating theoretical perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 280–306.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308319225
Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Introduction: Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse.
Organizational Research Methods, 10, 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106294693
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001
132 NG ET AL .
Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Thornton, M. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). Applicants’ and employees’ reactions to corporate social respon-
sibility: The moderating effects of first-party justice perceptions and moral identity. Personnel Psychology, 66, 895–933.
https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12030
Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for
future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1248–1264. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556348
Schaubroeck, J. M., Peng, A. C., & Hannah, S. T. (2013). Developing trust with peers and leaders: Impacts on
organizational identification and performance during entry. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1148–1168.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0358
Scheinbaum, C. A., Lacey, R., & Liang, M. (2017). Communicating corporate social responsibility to fit consumer
perceptions: How sincerity drives event and sponsor outcomes. Journal of Advertising Research, 57, 410–421.
https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2017-049
Scherer, K. R., Schorr, A., & Johnstone, T. (2001) (Eds.). Series in affective science. Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods,
research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Scholder, E. P., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions
for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 147–157.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305284976
Shariff, A. F., & Tracey, J. L. (2009). Knowing who's boss: Implicit perceptions of status from nonverbal expression of pride.
Emotion, 9, 631–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017089
Shaw, J. D. (2011). Turnover rates and organizational performance: Review, critique, and research agenda. Organizational Psy-
chology Review, 1, 187–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386610382152
Sheel, R. C., & Vohra, N. (2016). Relationship between perceptions of corporate social responsibility and organizational
cynicism: The role of employee volunteering. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27, 1373–1392.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1072102
Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
813–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.4.813
Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group level? Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.431
So, J., Achar, C., Han, D., Agrawal, N., Duhachek, A., & Maheswaran, D. (2015). The psychology of appraisal: Specific emotions
and decision-making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25, 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.04.003
Swann, W. B., Griffin, J. J., Predmore, S. C., & Gaines, B. (1987). The cognitive-affective crossfire: When
self-consistency confronts self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 881–889.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.881
Swann, W. B., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1989). Agreeable fancy or disagreeable truth? Reconciling self-enhancement and
self-verification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 782–791. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.782
Tanova, C., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Using job embeddedness factors to explain voluntary turnover in four European countries.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 1553–1568. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802294820
Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings
of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914–945.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.914
Thornton, M. A., & Rupp, D. E. (2016). The joint effects of justice climate, group moral identity, and corporate
social responsibility on the prosocial and deviant behaviors of groups. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 677–697.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2748-4
Tracey, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92, 506–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.506
Tsachouridi, I., & Nikandrou, I. (2016). Organizational virtuousness and spontaneity: A social identity view. Personnel Review,
45, 1302–1322. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2014-0192
Turker, D. (2009a). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 89,
189–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9993-8
Turker, D. (2009b). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85,
411–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9780-6
Tyler, T. R., & Blade, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia:
Psychology Press.
Valentine, S., & Fleischman, G. (2008). Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. Journal of
Business Ethics, 77, 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9306-z
NG ET AL . 133
Valentine, S., & Godkin, L. (2016). Ethics policies, perceived social responsibility, and positive work attitudes. Irish Journal of
Management, 35, 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijm-2016-0013
Van Gool, C. H., Kempen, G. I. J. M., Bosma, H., Van Eijk, J. T. M., Van Boxtel, M. P. J., Jolles, J., & Van Eijk, J. T. (2007). Associations
between lifestyle and depressed mood: Longitudinal results from the Maastricht Aging Study. American Journal of Public
Health, 97, 887–894. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.053199
Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The emotions as social information (EASI) model. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 18, 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01633.x
Vlachos, P. A., Panagopoulos, N. G., & Rapp, A. A. (2014). Employee judgments of and behaviors toward corporate social respon-
sibility: A multi-study investigation of direct, cascading, and moderating effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 990–
1017. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1946
Voegtlin, C., & Greenwood, M. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and human resource management: A systematic review
and conceptual analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 26, 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.12.003
Volmer, J., Niessen, C., Spurk, D., Linz, A., & Abele, A. E. (2011). Reciprocal relationships between leader-member
exchange (LMX) and job satisfaction: A cross-lagged analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 522–545.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00446.x
Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., & Weitz, B. A. (2009). Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social
responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73, 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.6.77
Wan, L. C., Poon, P. S., & Yu, C. (2016). Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility brands: The role of face concerns.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 33, 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-03-2013-0493
Wang, T., & Bansal, P. (2012). Social responsibility in new ventures: Profiting from a long-term orientation. Strategic Management
Journal, 33, 1135–1153. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1962
Watson, D. (1988). Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positive and negative affect: Their relation to
health complaints, perceived stress, and daily activities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1020–1030.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1020
Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The
PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Weiner, B. (1980). A cognitive (attribution)-emotion-action model of motivated behavior: An analysis of judgments of help-
giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.2.186
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and conse-
quences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.
Wells, L. E. (2001). Self-esteem and social inequality. In T. J. Owens, S. Stryker, & N. Goodman (Eds.), Extending self-esteem theory
and research: Sociological and psychological currents (pp. 301–329). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2008). Pride and perseverance: The motivational role of pride. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94, 1007–1017. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.1007
Wu, L., Kwan, H. K., Yim, F. H., Chiu, R. K., & He, X. (2015). CEO ethical leadership and corporate social responsibility: A moder-
ated mediation model. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 819–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2108-9
Yam, K. C., Christian, M., Wu, W., Liao, Z., & Nai, J. (2018). The mixed blessing of leader sense of humor: Examining costs and
benefits. Academy of Management Journal, 61, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1088
Yoon, Y., Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Schwartz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies
with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_9
Zander, A., Fuller, R., & Armstrong, W. (1972). Attributed pride or shame in group and self. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 23, 346–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033169
How to cite this article: Ng TWH, Yam KC, Aguinis H. Employee perceptions of corporate social responsi-
bility: Effects on pride, embeddedness, and turnover. Personnel Psychology. 2019;72:107–137. https://doi.org/
10.1111/peps.12294
134 NG ET AL .
APPENDIX A: SCENARIOS USED IN STUDY 1
High-CSR Condition
The D. J. Reynolds Corporation is composed of three major divisions: manufacturing, marketing and public relations,
and research and development. Each one, contributing with its own expertise, creates a unique group delivering inno-
vative solutions to appliance manufacturing with emphasis on cooking, dishwashing, laundry, and refrigeration prod-
ucts. D. J. Reynolds Corporation has a global presence and operates in 25 countries around the world. At D. J. Reynolds
Corporation we adhere to the principles of high productivity and CSR—of achieving success in ways that honor ethi-
cal values and respect people, communities, and the natural environment. For instance, we monitor all of our facilities
to make sure we maximize productivity and minimize the environmental impact of our production activities, including
maintaining a close-to-zero carbon footprint, such as using solar energy and upgrading facilities with LED lights. Not
only are we in compliance with all applicable environmental regulations, but we also go beyond minimum regulation
standards to ensure that our environmental practices lead the industry. In addition, we have made it a priority to sup-
port a wide range of employee volunteering initiatives; last year, we supported 99% of such activities. We also match
employees’ donations to charity for up to $10,000 per employee annually. Furthermore, we have set up a one-million
dollar fund to support a foundation aimed at increasing environmental awareness (e.g., recycling). Finally, we engage
with the local community by reinvesting 20% of our profits into local educational programs, and ensuring that all prod-
ucts are safe for society at large.
Low-CSR Condition
The D. J. Reynolds Corporation is composed of three major divisions: manufacturing, marketing and public relations,
and research and development. Each one, contributing with its own expertise, creates a unique group delivering inno-
vative solutions to appliance manufacturing with emphasis on cooking, dishwashing, laundry, and refrigeration prod-
ucts. D. J. Reynolds Corporation has a global presence and operates in 25 countries around the world. At D. J. Reynolds
Corporation, we adhere to the principles of high productivity. For instance, we monitor all of our facilities to make sure
we maximize productivity. We also ensure that we are in compliance with at least some environmental regulations. In
addition, we selectively support some employee volunteering initiatives; last year, we supported 10% of such activi-
ties. We also match employees’ donations to charity for up to $50 per employee annually. Furthermore, we have set up
a $3,000 fund to support a foundation aimed at increasing environmental awareness (e.g., recycling). Finally, we engage
with the local community by reinvesting .01% of our profits into local educational programs, and ensuring that our most
popular products are safe for society at large.
APPENDIX B: SCALE ITEMS USED in STUDIES 1–4
Study 1
Pride
(1) I would feel proud to be an employee of this organization.

(2) I would feel proud to tell others that I work for this organization.
(3) I would feel proud to identify myself personally with this organization.
(4) I would be proud to be part of this organization.
Organizational embeddedness
(1) I would feel attached to this organization.
(2) It would be difficult for me to leave this organization.
NG ET AL . 135
(3) I would be too caught up in this organization to leave.

(4) I would feel tied to this organization
(5) I simply would not leave this organization.
(6) I would be tightly connected to this organization.
Manipulation check
(1) The organization that I read is likely to participate in activities which aimed to protect and improve the quality of
the natural environment.
(2) The organization that I read is likely to make investment to create a better life for future generations.
(3) The organization that I read is likely to implement special programs to minimize its negative impact on the natural
environment.
(4) The organization that I read is likely to target sustainable growth which considered future generations.
(5) The organization that I read is likely to support nongovernmental organizations working in problematic areas.
(6) The organization that I read is likely to contribute to campaigns and projects that promoted the well-being of the
society.
(7) The organization that I read is likely to encourage its employees to participate in volunteer work.
Studies 2, 3, and 4
Perceived CSR
(1) This organization participates in activities which aim to protect and improve the quality of the natural environ-
ment.
(2) This organization makes investment to create a better life for future generations.
(3) This organization implements special programs to minimize its negative impact on the natural environment.
(4) This organization targets sustainable growth which considers future generations.
(5) This organization supports nongovernmental organizations working in problematic areas.
(6) This organization contributes to campaigns and projects that promote the well-being of the society.
(7) This organization encourages its employees to participate in volunteer work.
Pride
(1) I feel proud to be an employee of this organization.
(2) I feel proud to tell others that I work for this organization.
(3) I feel proud to identify myself personally with this organization.

(4) I am proud to be part of this organization.
Organizational embeddedness
(1) I feel attached to this organization.
(2) It would be difficult for me to leave this organization.

(3) I am too caught up in this organization to leave.
(4) I feel tied to this organization.
(5) I simply could not leave this organization.
(6) I am tightly connected to this organization.
136 NG ET AL .
Voluntary turnover
Have you voluntarily changed organizations in the last 6 months?
Additional Scales Used in Study 2
Affective organizational commitment
(1) I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.
(2) I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own.
(3) I feel a strong sense of “belonging” to this organization.
(4) I feel emotionally attached to this organization.
(5) I feel like “part of the family” at this organization.
(6) This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
Organizational identification
(1) When someone criticizes this organization, it feels like a personal insult.
(2) I am very interested in what others think about this organization.
(3) When I talk about this organization, I usually say “we” rather than “they.”
(4) This organization's successes are my successes.
(5) When someone praises this organization, it feels like a personal compliment.
Positive mood
(1) Alert
(2) Excited
(3) Interested
(4) Inspired
(5) Strong
(6) Determined
(7) Attentive
(8) Active
(9) Enthusiastic
(10) Proud
Organizational exchange quality

(1) I do not have to specify the exact conditions to know this organization will return a favor.
(2) This organization and I have a sharing relationship; managers here and I can freely share our ideas, feelings, and
hopes.
(3) My relationship with this organization is based on mutual trust.

(4) If I share my problems with this organization, I know that managers here would respond constructively and
caringly.
(5) My working relationship with this organization is effective.
(6) I would have to say that this organization and I have both made considerable emotional investments in our working
relationship.
NG ET AL . 137
Additional Scales Used in Study 4
Trait positive affect

(1) Alert
(2) Excited
(3) Interested
(4) Inspired
(5) Strong
(6) Determined
(7) Attentive
(8) Active
(9) Enthusiastic
(10) Proud

Auginis PPsychCSR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Auginis PPsychCSR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Auginis PPsychCSR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 18 October 2017 Revised: 20 July 2018 Accepted: 20 July 2018

Employee perceptions of corporate social

1 Department of Management, Faculty of

Business and Economics, The University of Hong Abstract

Personnel Psychology. 2019;72:107–137. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/peps

2 THE PRESENT MULTISTUDY INVESTIGATION

GENERAL THEORETICAL MODEL:

Perceptions Emotions Attitudes Behaviors

SPECIFIC EXEMPLAR CONSTRUCTS EXAMINED IN THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION:

FIGURE 1 Proposed model of socioemotional microfoundations of corporate social responsibility (CSR)

3 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

3.1 Cognitive appraisals of CSR

3.2 Perceived CSR and organizational pride

3.3 Pride and OE

3.4 Downstream consequences on turnover

Hypothesis 3: Greater OE is associated with a lower likelihood of turnover.

4 OVERVIEW OF THE MULTISTUDY INVESTIGATION

5.1 Participants and procedure

5.2 CSR manipulation

5.3.3 Additional measures

6 STUDY 1: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 Manipulation checks

6.2 Tests of hypotheses

7.1 Participants and procedure

7.2.2 Pride and OE

7.2.3 Voluntary turnover

TA B L E 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables in Studies 2 and 3

69**(.07) 57** (.04) -.53** (.14)

F I G U R E 2 Standardized and unstandardized path estimates in Study 2

8 STUDY 2: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

8.1 Preliminary analyses

8.2 Tests of hypotheses

TA B L E 2 Fit indices for models tested in Studies 2, 3, and 4

𝝌2 df 𝚫𝝌 2 / 𝚫df TLI CFI RMSEA

8.3 Supplementary analyses

9.1 Participants and procedure

10 STUDY 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

10.1 Preliminary analyses

10.2 Tests of hypotheses

.70** (.07) .71** (.05) -.29 (.18)

F I G U R E 3 Standardized and unstandardized path estimates in Study 3

11.1 Participants and procedure

12 STUDY 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

12.1 Preliminary analyses

12.2 Tests of hypotheses

TA B L E 3 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables in Study 4

F I G U R E 4 Standardized and unstandardized path estimates in Study 4

12.3 Supplementary analyses

13.1 Contributions of the present research

13.1.1 Extending the existent approach

13.1.2 Guiding future theory development

13.2 Implications for practice

13.3 Limitations and additional suggestions for future research

APPENDIX A: SCENARIOS USED IN STUDY 1

APPENDIX B: SCALE ITEMS USED in STUDIES 1–4

(1) I would feel proud to be an employee of this organization.

(3) I would be too caught up in this organization to leave.

(7) This organization encourages its employees to participate in volunteer work.

(3) I feel proud to identify myself personally with this organization.

69(.07) 57 (.04) -.53** (.14)

.70 (.07) .71 (.05) -.29 (.18)