The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: a field study of restaurant employees
Abstract
This survey‐based field study of 257 service employees developed and tested a model of differences in the organizational citizenship behavior of full‐time and part‐time employees based on social exchange theory. Questionnaire data from matched pairs of employees and their supervisors demonstrated that part‐time employees exhibited less helping organizational citizenship behavior than full‐time employees, but there was no difference in their voice behavior. We also predicted that both preferred work status (an individual factor) and organizational culture (a contextual factor) would moderate the relationships between work status and citizenship. For helping, results demonstrated that preferred status mattered more to part‐time workers than to full‐time. For voice, preferred work status was equally important to part‐time and full‐time workers, such that voice was high only when actual status matched preferred status. Contrary to our expectations, work status made more of a difference in both helping and voice in less bureaucratic organizations. We discuss the implications of work status for social exchange relationships, differences in the social exchange costs and benefits of helping compared to voice, and ramifications of our findings for future research. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A theory of social comparison processes
Festinger, L. (1954) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 · Cited by 20,926
The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement
Gouldner, A. W. (1960) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2092623 · Cited by 12,001
Adams, J. S. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60108-2 · Cited by 10,818
Perceived organizational support.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 · Cited by 10,023
Moorman, R. H. (1991) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037//0021-9010.76.6.845 · Cited by 3,422
Cited by
Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206305279602 · Cited by 10,068
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0013079 · Cited by 2,356
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.413 · Cited by 2,385
Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door Really Open?
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2007.26279183 · Cited by 2,250
Employee Voice Behavior: Integration and Directions for Future Research
Morrison, E. W. (2011) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2011.574506 · Cited by 1,803
Metadata
- Authors
- Stamper, C. L., & Dyne, L. V.
- Venue
- Journal of Organizational Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-06-26
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 517-536
- ISSN
- 0894-3796 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1379
- OpenAlex
- W2076157139
- Cited by
- 375
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 7.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: a field study of restaurant employees. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/job.100
- The paper
- Stamper, C. L., & Dyne, L. V. (2001). Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: a field study of restaurant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.100
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.