U.S. organizations often employ deterrence mechanisms to regulate workers’ technology use, but such approaches are not always effective (Sommestad, Hallberg, Lundholm, & Bengtsson, 2014). The theory of psychological reactance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981) was explored as a potential explanation for the inconsistencies in the effectiveness of deterrence mechanisms. It was postulated that workers expect the freedom to use certain types of technology within the workplace and that restricting such use would result in opposition. This possibility was investigated in the context of intentions to use social media, a technology popular among U.S. workers.
A 3 (personal social media use restriction) x 3 (sanctions) between-subject experimental design was used to test the effect of restrictive personal social media use guidelines and sanctions on workers’ compliance and use intentions. U.S. workers (N = 715) recruited through MTurk completed an online survey in which they were randomly assigned to one of nine conditions. The IVs were manipulated through the use of vignettes. The DVs were measured using both scales modified from previous studies and newly constructed scales.
The results suggest that the average worker does not engage in freedom restoration when social media is restricted. Overall, participants were more compliant, had lower social media intentions, and social media’s valence was lowest when social media was restricted and sanctions were used. Explanations for the findings are provided with extensions to conservation of resource, deterrence, and justice theories.
|Commitee:||Aramovich, Nicholas, Glaser, Dale|
|School:||Alliant International University|
|Department:||San Diego, CSPP|
|School Location:||United States -- California|
|Source:||DAI-A 77/06(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Information Technology, Psychology, Organizational behavior|
|Keywords:||Cyberloafing, Policy compliance, Psychological reactance, Sanctions, Social media, Technology|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be