Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 428

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

Stamper, Christina L., Masterson, Suzanne S.·2002·Journal of Organizational 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/job.175

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

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

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.