The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Insider or outsider? how employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior
Abstract
Many researchers have used the insider–outsider distinction when discussing employment relationships (e.g., Graen & Scandura, 1987; Pfeffer & Baron, 1988). However, there is no known empirical research directly assessing employees' perceptions of their status as organizational insiders. This article is intended as an initial step to theoretically and empirically explore the concept of perceived insider status (PIS). First, we build theoretical arguments describing how organizations may differentiate between insider and outsider employees, leading to differences in perceptions of insider status. We then hypothesize and show empirical evidence that contrasts, but relates, actual inclusion and perceived organizational support to PIS. We subsequently examine two types of discretionary employee behavior, altruism and production deviance, as potential consequences of PIS. Our results suggest that both actual inclusion, as well as perceived insider status, have implications for organizational functioning via discretionary employee behaviors. Copyright © 2002 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
The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement
Gouldner, A. W. (1960) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2092623 · Cited by 12,001
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 · cited 1×
“Perceived organizational support (POS) refers to the global belief held by an employee concerning the extent to which the organization values the employee's contributions and cares about the employee's well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986).”
BackgroundThe Social Psychology of Procedural Justice
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988) · Critical Issues in Social Justice · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4 · Cited by 6,585
Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements
Rousseau, D. (1995) · doi:10.4135/9781452231594 · Cited by 3,453
Cited by
The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.392 · Cited by 1,224
Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002 · Cited by 955
2 Old Assumptions, New Work: The Opportunities and Challenges of Research on Nonstandard Employment
Ashford, S. J., George, E., & Blatt, R. (2007) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.1080/078559807 · Cited by 288
Perceived organizational membership and the retention of older workers
Armstrong‐Stassen, M., & Schlosser, F. (2011) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.647 · Cited by 202
Does perceived inclusion matter in the workplace?
Chen, C., & Tang, N. (2018) · Journal of Managerial Psychology · doi:10.1108/jmp-02-2017-0078 · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Authors
- Stamper, C. L., & Masterson, S. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Organizational Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-11-19
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 875-894
- ISSN
- 0894-3796 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1379
- OpenAlex
- W2009535107
- Cited by
- 428
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 5.10
- 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: Insider or outsider? how employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/job.175
- The paper
- Stamper, C. L., & Masterson, S. S. (2002). Insider or outsider? how employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.175
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.