The Focus Theory of Normative Conduct and Employees’ Projected Use of Work-Life Policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Work-life policies (e.g., flexible schedule, onsite childcare) are implemented by organizations, but unfortunately, many employees still decide to abstain from taking advantage of such benefits (Magnaye, Kim, Eales, & Fast, 2023), positioning the importance of understanding the barriers and enablers affecting employees decisions making processes when it comes to deciding to use or not work-life policies, one of which could be social norms (Mandeville, Halbesleben, & Whitman, 2016). However, current research has yet to show the impact of social norms in this context. Harnessing the focus theory of normative conduct (Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991; Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990), we investigate, in two scenario-based experiments, the distinctive (Study 1, N = 168) and additive (Study 2, N = 119) effects of injunctive and descriptive social norms to predict individuals’ projected use of work-life policies. Our results reveal that, when controlling for work centrality, gender, parenthood status and managerial status, injunctive and descriptive social norms do have significant effects of employees projected use of work-life policies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".