Breaking rules for the right reasons? An investigation of pro-social rule breaking

By Jason J. Dahling, S. Chau, David M. Mayer, J. Gregory. 2012

234 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Literature and Literary Theory, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d969a39490d17b4ed2cf744e469697f0066bf0da

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

1. B. Shuck
2. Thomas G. Reio Jr.
3. Michael G. Pratt
4. Russell S. Cropanzano
5. Suthinee Rurkkhum
6. K. Bartlett
7. Kim F. Nimon
8. Drea Zigarmi

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. B. Shuck
2. Michael G. Pratt
3. Thomas G. Reio Jr.
4. Russell S. Cropanzano

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Russell S. Cropanzano
2. B. Shuck
3. S. R. Daniels
4. Michael G. Pratt
5. Abhijeet K. Vadera
6. Alison V Hall
7. Thomas G. Reio Jr.
8. Erica L. Anthony

Citations in the corpus

• Exploratory Factor Analysis (2015, methodology): “Dahling et al. (2012), after conducting a PAF to support their development of the pro-social rule-breaking measure mentioned earlier, used an oblique rotation (direct oblimin).”
• Constructive Deviance in Organizations (2013, background): “…and prosocial rule breaking (e.g., Morrison, 2006, for Study 1), while others have found no (e.g., Moon et al., 2008; Morrison, 2011; Van Dyne et al., 2008) or a negative relationship (e.g., Dahling et al., 2012; Hall & Ferris, 2011) between gender and any of the constructively deviant behaviors.”
• Social Exchange Theory: A Critical Review with Theoretical Remedies (2017, background): “Moreover, in the case of pro-social rule breaking there is an intention to do something positive, though observers might be less optimistic about the worthiness of these sorts of behaviors (Dahling et al., 2012).”