Journal of Applied Psychology © 2015 American Psychological Association

2016, Vol. 101, No. 1, 14 –34 0021-9010/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000029

Within-Individual Increases in Innovative Behavior and Creative,

Persuasion, and Change Self-Efficacy Over Time: A Social–Cognitive
Theory Perspective

Thomas W. H. Ng Lorenzo Lucianetti

The University of Hong Kong University of Chieti and Pescara

Studies of innovative behavior (the generation, dissemination, and implementation of new ideas) have
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

generally overlooked the agency perspective on this important type of performance behavior. Guided by
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

social– cognitive theory, we propose a moderated mediation relationship to explain why and how
employees become motivated to make things happen through their innovative endeavors. First, we
propose that within-individual increases in organizational trust and perceived respect by colleagues
promote within-individual increases in creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time. Second,
we propose that within-individual increases in self-efficacy beliefs promote within-individual increases
in idea generation, dissemination, and implementation over time. Finally, we propose that psychological
collectivism (a between-individual variable) is a moderator, and that a higher level of psychological
collectivism weakens the positive relationship between within-individual increases in self-efficacy
beliefs and within-individual increases in innovative behavior. Repeated measures collected from 267
employees in Italy at 3 time points over an 8-month period generally support our proposed dynamic
moderated mediation relationship.

Keywords: innovative behavior, self-efficacy, social– cognitive theory, trust, respect

Organizations today strive for high degrees of not only produc-
tivity and service excellence but also innovation (Greve & Taylor,
2000; Han, Kim, & Srivastava, 1998). Researchers have thus
increasingly examined both the factors that promote idea genera-
tion and those that encourage idea dissemination and implemen-
tation (Axtell et al., 2000; Ng, Feldman, & Lam, 2010; Yuan &
Woodman, 2010). Innovative behavior has also become a core
component of employee performance evaluations (Gong, Huang,
& Farh, 2009; Welbourne, Johnson, & Erez, 1998) and is thus an
important construct that deserves more attention in its own right.
Despite the importance of innovative behavior, it is not neces-
sarily easy to promote it in the workplace. Employees may believe
that their ideas do not matter, will not be well received by others,
and/or cannot be successfully implemented in practice (Baer,
2012). To engage in innovative behavior, employees must possess
a strong sense of agency (a desire to intentionally make things
happen through their own actions; Bandura, 2001). Although re-
search on employee creativity has shown that stronger beliefs in
one’s ability to generate ideas are associated with greater creativity
(Gong et al., 2009; Tierney & Farmer, 2002), whether and how a
sense of agency affects different types of innovative behavior
remains largely unaddressed.
This article was published Online First June 8, 2015.
Thomas W. H. Ng, Faculty of Business and Economics, The University
of Hong Kong; Lorenzo Lucianetti, Department of Management and Busi-
ness Administration, University of Chieti and Pescara.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Thomas
W. H. Ng, Faculty of Business and Economics, The University of Hong
Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong. E-mail: tng@business.hku.hk
14
Social– cognitive theory is particularly relevant to this topic.
Grounded in the agentic perspective (Bandura, 2001), social–
cognitive theory suggests that individuals hold beliefs about their
ability to make things happen through their own actions (also
known as self-efficacy). Three tenets pertinent to self-efficacy
beliefs posited in this theory guide us in developing a theoretical
model to explain why (and by what mechanism) individuals be-
come increasingly motivated to engage in innovative behavior
over time. These three tenets have not been tested before in the
innovative behavior literature. Figure 1 depicts the proposed
model.
First, social– cognitive theory suggests that self-efficacy beliefs
determine behavioral intensity, particularly when the domains of
those beliefs and the type of behavior in question are in accordance
(Bandura, 2012). Although research has shown creative self-
efficacy to be related to idea generation (Gong et al., 2009; Tierney
& Farmer, 2002), innovative behavior may require more than
creative self-efficacy alone, as it involves idea dissemination and
implementation in addition to idea generation. For instance, Stern-
berg (2001) posits that creativity adds more value when the indi-
viduals who generate new ideas can also persuade others of the
utility of those ideas and convince others to implement them. We
thus propose that whereas growth in creative self-efficacy is a
precursor to increased idea generation, growth in persuasion and
change self-efficacy are precursors to increased idea dissemination
and implementation, respectively.
Second, social– cognitive theory posits that individuals who
experience increases in anxiety and fear are unlikely to experience
growth in self-efficacy because negative emotions signal to them
that they are vulnerable to poor performance (Bandura, 1977,
 SOCIAL-COGNITIVE THEORY AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR
H2a
Increases in H3a
organizational
trust
H2b
H3b
Increases in
perceived respect
H2c
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
H3c
Figure 1. The proposed moderated mediation effects on three different types of innovative behavior.
1997). Accordingly, Bandura suggests that one way to build self-
efficacy is to help people overcome their anxiety and fear. This
tenet leads us to expect that increases in factors that lower em-
ployees’ anxiety and fear associated with attempts at innovation
should cultivate growth in self-efficacy beliefs about their inno-
vative capacity. Two such factors are trust and respect; for in-
stance, Edmondson (1999) suggests that both trust and respect
create a psychologically safe environment that enables employees
to speak up. We argue that when employees have increasing trust
in their organizations, they feel increasingly confident about pro-
moting innovation because they believe that their organizations
will value, rather than reject, such attempts. Similarly, when em-
ployees feel increasingly respected by their colleagues, they an-
ticipate less rejection or criticism and are thus less likely to
experience anxiety and fear that might stifle their confidence in
engaging in innovative endeavors. To examine these conjectures,
we investigate increases in organizational trust and perceived
respect as antecedents of increases in self-efficacy beliefs.
Third, social– cognitive theory considers how a collectivistic
orientation may affect the relationship between self-efficacy and
agentic behavior. Bandura (2001) emphasizes that personal agency
operates within the broader network of sociostructural influences.
He notes that, contrary to the popular belief that enhanced self-
efficacy (and increased engagement in agentic behavior) is indic-
ative of an individualistic orientation, a collectivistic orientation is
not necessarily agonistic to the need to feel agentic. For instance,
individuals with enhanced self-efficacy beliefs may increase their
performance to serve broader collective goals if they believe that
those collective goals are personally important. Bandura’s obser-
vation suggests that one’s collectivistic orientation is likely to
affect the efficacy– behavior relationship. To examine this issue,
we investigate psychological collectivism as a between-individual
moderator in the relationship between the within-individual in-
creases in self-efficacy beliefs and the within-individual increases
in innovative behavior.
Finally, we largely examine the aforementioned moderated me-
diation relationship from a within-individual change perspective
(except when we examine the between-individual variable of psy-
chological collectivism as a moderator). Ployhart and Vandenberg
(2010) question
15
Moderator (H4):
Psychological
collectivism
Increases in
creative self- Increases in idea
efficacy H1a generation
Increases in
persuasion self- Increases in idea
efficacy H1b dissemination
Increases in
change self- Increases in idea
efficacy H1c implementation
Whether most of the theories underlying the disciplines within the
organizational sciences have ever been truly tested, given that to do so
would mean examining actual change in the focal variables, which in
turn means using a longitudinal research design. (p. 96).
They urge researchers to collect repeated measures over time
from the same individuals and analyze the trajectory of changes in
those observations, as “developing theories of dynamic relation-
ships represents one of the next evolutions of management schol-
arship” (p. 98). Pitariu and Ployhart (2010) also call for more
studies to investigate the mediation effects from a change perspec-
tive. These authors call such a design dynamic mediated relation-
ships and argue that it is a much more rigorous approach to testing
mediations and theories. Although our research design largely
follows these scholars’ suggestions, we necessarily draw on some
evidence gathered from between-individual research studies in our
arguments. For the sake of simplicity, our theoretical focus in the
rest of this article remains consistently on increases in the study
variables over time. However, that perspective can be easily re-
versed to reflect decreases over time.
Criterion Variable of Innovative Behavior
Welbourne et al. (1998) suggest that the innovator role is at the
core of organizational adaptability and should thus be included as
a criterion in employee performance evaluations. They see it as
distinct from the other four core work roles an employee typically
assumes, including the roles of the worker, organizational citizen,
team player, and career achiever. Janssen (2000) further asserts
that innovative behavior has longer term effects that improve the
functioning of an organization and generate social-psychological
benefits for individual employees in the long run. Janssen high-
lights three important types of innovative behavior: (a) generating
new ideas, (b) disseminating one’s own ideas and those of others
throughout the organization, and (c) working to implement one’s
own ideas and those of others.
Although generating, spreading, and implementing ideas to-
gether constitutes a meaningful aggregate construct (Axtell et al.,
2000; De Jong & den Hartog, 2010; Zhou & George, 2001), the
three types of innovative behavior are distinct from one another. It
is even possible for an employee to engage in only one or two
 16 NG AND LUCIANETTI
types of behavior. For instance, although a senior engineer is
expected to come up with new ideas regularly, he may be less
expected to be involved in implementing those ideas, which is
often a matter for junior counterparts. As such, determining which
types of innovative behavior are more salient in a particular work
context is important (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). In other
scenarios (such as that considered here), the sample under study
may be diverse in nature and include employees who fulfill a range
of work roles, thus making it more difficult to pinpoint the most
important types of innovative behavior. In such cases, it is reason-
able to examine the three types of innovative behavior separately.
We also adopt this strategy.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Social-Cognitive Theory Perspective on
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Innovative Behavior
According to Bandura (2001, 2006), an agentic individual in-
tentionally makes things happen through his or her actions. Agen-
tic behavior is thus preceded by intentionality and forethought.
Because social– cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977, 1997, 2001)
addresses the cognitive beliefs underlying agentic behavior, it
offers a particularly suitable theoretical lens through which to
examine innovative behavior, which also involves an intentional
change to the external environment. Janssen (2004) emphasizes
that innovative behavior involves the intentional creation, intro-
duction, and application of new ideas, highlighting the fit between
social– cognitive theory and innovative behavior research.
Social– cognitive theory posits that self-efficacy is the key to
determining whether an individual can successfully shape the
reality in the way he or she wants. Self-efficacy comprises beliefs
in one’s capacities to organize and execute the courses of action
required to manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1995). It
represents one’s perceived competence, one’s conviction that he or
she can execute the action required to reach a goal, and an
optimistic assessment of one’s likelihood of success (Gist, 1987;
Hughes, Galbraith, & White, 2011). Bandura (2012) emphasizes
that self-efficacy beliefs vary across activity domains and situa-
tional conditions and do not manifest uniformly across contexts.
Because the dependent variables used in this study are innovative
types of behavior from three domains (idea generation, dissemi-
nation, and implementation), we consistently focus on domain-
specific self-efficacy (beliefs across different situations within the
same domain) rather than general (beliefs across domains and
situations), situation-specific (beliefs within one particular situa-
tion), and state (transient beliefs during a situation) self-efficacy.
Empirical studies from different disciplines have converged in
showing that domain-specific self-efficacy is susceptible to change
(decreases or increases) over time (e.g., Beck & Schmidt, 2012;
Chiou & Wan, 2007; Tierney & Farmer, 2011; van Beuningen, De
Ruyter, & Wetzels, 2011).
Domain-Specific Self-Efficacy and Innovative Behavior
Bandura (2012) emphasizes that individuals exert an influence
through different types of agency rooted in corresponding types of
self-efficacy beliefs. This supposition resonates with expectancy
theory, which suggests that individuals become increasingly mo-
tivated to exert effort when they have an increasing perception that
such effort is likely to lead to successful performance or rewards
(Vroom, 1964). Individuals with increased self-efficacy beliefs
related to different domains of their innovative capacity are in-
creasingly likely to engage in innovative behavior that comple-
ments those beliefs. For example, social– cognitive theory would
suggest that individuals who experience growth in creative self-
efficacy, which is the self-view that one has the ability to produce
novel ideas (Tierney & Farmer, 2002), are increasingly likely to
engage in idea-generation behavior and persist in the face of
setbacks (Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Sadri & Robertson, 1993). In-
deed, between-individual research has discovered a relationship
between creative self-efficacy and idea generation (e.g., Gong et
al., 2009; Liao, Liu, & Loi, 2010).
Persuasion self-efficacy is the extent to which employees are
confident in their ability to convince others to accept and adopt
their (or others’) new ideas. After developing or hearing about a
new idea, employees must spread that idea to their colleagues and
convince them of its value. The aim of this persuasion process is
to increase others’ acceptance of an idea (Jaccard, 1981). Persua-
sion that involves the use of arguments or evidence in favor of an
issue has been generally successful at changing the attitudes of
intended targets (Greenwald, 1965; Staub, 1972). Via their
between-individual research design, Yukl, Kim, and Chavez
(1999) find that people who are able to make the case to targets
that a proposed action is important and feasible are more success-
ful at increasing the targets’ commitment to the action. However,
persuading others to accept one’s opinions and suggestions is not
necessarily easy (Bednar & Parker, 1969) and requires the com-
municator to be confident (Petty, Briñol, & Tormala, 2002). To
become increasingly persuasive, employees must thus experience
growth in their persuasion self-efficacy.
Change self-efficacy refers to an individual’s perceived ability
to handle change in the workplace and to function well on the job
despite the demands of that change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000).
This construct has been examined in studies of organizational
changes (e.g., Fugate, Prussia, & Kinicki, 2012; Vardaman, Amis,
Dyson, Wright, & Randolph, 2012). Change self-efficacy is rele-
vant here, because having increased confidence in one’s capacity
to change is likely to promote increased idea implementation,
which often involves making incremental or even substantial
changes to established work practices, norms, and routines. In the
process of implementing novel ideas (such as experimenting with
a new work method), innovators may encounter many ambiguous
situations that create discomfort and distress (Janssen, 2004).
Individuals who experience increases in change self-efficacy are
increasingly able and motivated to overcome the negative feelings
associated with such situations. Indeed, much of the between-
individual research has found that employees’ favorable attitudes
toward change or receptivity to change are positively related to
their behavioral adoption (i.e., implementation) of technological
innovation (Coeurderoy, Guilmot, & Vas, 2014; Minsky & Marin,
1999; Neves, 2009).
In addition, in the idea-implementation stage, innovators may
encounter resistance from some individuals, as implementing new
ideas means changing the established ways of doing things at work
(Herold, Fedor, & Caldwell, 2007; van Dam, Oreg, & Schyns,
2008). Although some individuals may be excited about imple-
menting proposed innovations, others may be hesitant or even
resistant. Baer (2012) observes that “given their potential to elicit
controversy and to alter the dynamics in an organization, creative
 SOCIAL-COGNITIVE THEORY AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR
ideas, compared with ideas that are more mundane, are naturally
disadvantaged in harvesting the resources (funds, materials, etc.)
necessary for their implementation” (p. 1105). Thus, when imple-
menting new ideas, innovators must be able to handle transitions/
changes skillfully. They must set the direction of change for those
who are resistant, gain and reinforce others’ commitment, and
overcome any obstacles to the change (Paglis & Green, 2002). As
Bandura (1995) observes, “social reformers strongly believe that
they can mobilize the collective effort needed to bring social
change” (p. 13). Thus, feeling increasingly confident in one’s
ability to handle change appears to be the core driver of increased
idea implementation.
In brief, because the implementation of innovations requires
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
individuals to cope with changes in the workplace (Baer, 2012),
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
we expect increases in change self-efficacy to be positively asso-
ciated with increases in idea-implementation behavior. In indirect
support of this prediction, researchers have observed (in between-
individual research designs) that change self-efficacy is positively
related to one’s ability to successfully cope with changes at work,
including readiness for (Cunningham et al., 2002), acceptance of
(Wanberg & Banas, 2000), and commitment to (Herold et al.,
2007) organizational change, and the perception that such change
is controllable (Vardaman et al., 2012). The foregoing discussion
of the three types of domain-specific self-efficacy leads us to make
the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1a: Within-individual increases in creative self-
efficacy are positively related to within-individual increases in
idea generation.
Hypothesis 1b: Within-individual increases in persuasion self-
efficacy are positively related to within-individual increases in
idea dissemination.
Hypothesis 1c: Within-individual increases in change self-
efficacy are positively related to within-individual increases in
idea implementation.
Development of Self-Efficacy Through
Trust and Respect
Bandura (1977, 1997) identifies four major sources of self-
efficacy: mastery experience, vicarious learning, social persuasion,
and overcoming emotional barriers. Overcoming emotional barri-
ers entails the reduction of negative emotions that stifle the growth
of self-efficacy beliefs. Specifically, emotional arousal conveys
information that is instrumental for the construction or destruction
of domain-specific self-efficacy. As Bandura (1977) has pointed
out, “Because high arousal usually debilitates performance, indi-
viduals are more likely to expect success when they are not beset
by aversive arousal than if they are tense and viscerally agitated”
(Bandura, 1977, p. 198). That is, a positive mood enhances the
growth of self-efficacy beliefs, whereas a negative mood reduces
such beliefs (Kavanagh & Bower, 1985). Accordingly, to stimulate
the growth of self-efficacy beliefs about one’s innovative capacity,
it is important that the work environment facilitates the removal of
anxiety and fear associated with promoting innovation. Similarly,
Edmondson (1999) asserts that employees are willing to speak up
when they become confident that others will not embarrass, reject,
17
or punish them for doing so, noting that such confidence stems
from feelings of trust and respect in the workplace.
Organizational trust. Organizational trust refers to employ-
ees’ positive expectations of an organization’s behavior (Lewicki,
McAllister, & Bies, 1998). Such positive expectations reflect the
belief that the organization is benevolent and competent (Pirson &
Malhotra, 2011). Employees with increasing levels of trust in an
organization are increasingly willing to rely on the organization
despite the risk that it may not follow through on its obligations
and promises (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007; Mayer & Davis,
1999; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Thus, the willingness to
make oneself vulnerable to organizational actions is a core element
of organizational trust (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; McAllister, 1995).
Organizational trust is likely to aid the development of self-
efficacy beliefs. Individuals assess their work environments to
gauge whether it is safe to engage in innovative endeavors, as they
risk being seen as troublemakers disturbing the status quo (Detert
& Burris, 2007; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Milliken, Morrison, &
Hewlin, 2003). When individuals feel increasingly anxious and
fearful because they are unsure whether their organization wel-
comes or values attempts at innovation, they are unlikely to expe-
rience growth in self-efficacy beliefs about their innovative capac-
ity. Thus, to remove those aversive emotions that stifle the growth
of self-efficacy beliefs, an overall sense of trust in an organization
is required. Indeed, researchers argue that increases in organiza-
tional trust are associated with increases in employees’ willingness
to carry risk within the organization (Mayer et al., 1995). For
instance, between-individual research has shown that trust is re-
lated to the removal of psychological barriers that may limit
performance, such as the delegation of crucial tasks to others, full
disclosure of information, and rejection of safeguards (Colquitt et
al., 2007). When organizational trust grows, employees feel in-
creasingly safe to participate in attempts at innovation, thereby
promoting the growth of domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs.
Hypothesis 2: Within-individual increases in organizational
trust are positively related to within-individual increases in
creative (H2a), persuasion (H2b), and change (H2c)
self-efficacy.
Perceived respect. Another way to reduce the anxiety and
fear associated with attempts at innovation is to promote perceived
respect, which is an employee’s assessment of the degree to which
he is accepted, appreciated, and valued as a member of his orga-
nization (Boezeman & Ellemers, 2007). Large-scale surveys have
shown that employees place a high priority on interpersonal re-
spect in the workplace (van Quaquebeke, Zenker, & Eckloff,
2009). Those who feel increasingly respected are likely to perceive
themselves as having an elevated social status (Bartel, Wrzesni-
ewski, & Wiesenfeld, 2012). Unsurprisingly, researchers have
observed in between-individual studies that a positive reputation
among one’s peers is associated with a positive self-concept and
better task performance (Gest, Rulison, Davidson, & Welsh,
2008).
Being increasingly respected promotes the growth of self-
efficacy beliefs over time because it signals that one should expect
success in one’s attempts at innovation, which helps to overcome
the emotional barriers to self-efficacy construction. For instance,
high-quality relationships facilitate the growth of a “can-do” atti-
 18 NG AND LUCIANETTI
tude (Liao et al., 2010; Zhang & Zhou, 2014). In addition, a
communicator’s likability and credibility have been found to be
important determinants of his or her success in persuasion (Beut-
ler, Johnson, Neville, Elkins, & Jobe, 1975; Chaiken & Eagly,
1983). Consequently, increases in perceived respect signal to em-
ployees that they can make increased attempts at innovation with-
out having to worry that these attempts might upset their supervi-
sors and coworkers (Fuller et al., 2006). Colleagues may even
expect respected employees to display more innovative behavior.
This expectation, in turn, creates a psychologically safe environ-
ment for innovation. Using a within-individual research design,
Tierney and Farmer (2011) find that increases in others’ expecta-
tions of creativity are positively related to increases in creative
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
self-efficacy. In summary, when perceived respect grows, employ-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ees experience reduced anxiety about engaging in innovative be-
havior, thereby promoting the growth of their domain-specific
self-efficacy beliefs.
Hypothesis 3: Within-individual increases in perceived respect
are positively related to within-individual increases in creative
(H3a), persuasion (H3b), and change (H3c) self-efficacy.
Moderating Effects of Psychological Collectivism
Bandura (2012) emphasizes that social– cognitive theory does
not allege an invariant effect of self-efficacy. He acknowledges
that one does not necessarily always have direct control over
external conditions and may need to look more broadly at the
social environment to identify the most effective behavior in a
situation. Thus, it is inappropriate to contrast self-efficacy with
communal attachments and civic responsibility because
A sense of efficacy does not necessarily exalt the self or spawn an
individualistic lifestyle, identity, or morality that slights collective
welfare. . . . If belief in the power to produce results is put in the
service of relational goals and beneficial social purposes, it fosters a
communal life rather than eroding it. (Bandura, 2001, p. 15)
In other words, Bandura suggests that the influences of self-
efficacy on one’s behavior depend on one’s collective orientation.
Although collectivism has been extensively studied at the cul-
tural level, researchers have only just begun to examine psycho-
logical collectivism. A person with a high level of psychological
collectivism is strongly attracted to social groups, supports the
collective’s goals, and accepts social norms (Dierdorff, Bell, &
Belohlav, 2011; Hui, Cheng, & Gan, 2003; Jackson, Colquitt,
Wesson, & Zapata-Phelan, 2006; Love & Dustin, 2014). In con-
trast to their individualistic-oriented counterparts, who tend to hold
an independent self-concept, collectivistic-oriented individuals
tend to hold an interdependent self-concept (Brewer & Chen,
2007). For instance, between-individual research evidence has
shown that individuals who exhibit greater psychological collec-
tivistic tendencies report a greater person– organization value fit
(Astakhova, Doty, & Hang, 2014) and that person– organization
value and person– group fit have a stronger influence on collec-
tivists than on individualists (Oh et al., 2014; Ramesh & Gelfand,
2010). It is important to note that the between-individual variabil-
ity in psychological collectivism has typically been attributed to
stable individual differences (Jackson et al., 2006).
On the one hand, it can be argued that increases in domain-
specific self-efficacy beliefs are likely to have a weaker influence
on increases in the three types of innovative behavior for individ-
uals with stronger psychological collectivistic tendencies. First,
collectivistic employees are more likely to refer to the preferences
of others when allocating time and energy at work (Earley, 1989;
Earley & Gibson, 1998; Mortazavi, Pedhiwala, Shafiro, & Ham-
mer, 2009) because they believe social norms and the expectations
of others to be more important than individual preferences (Dier-
dorff et al., 2011; Wheeler, Reis, & Bond, 1989). Thus, changes in
collectivistic employees’ engagement in innovative behavior are
more likely to be determined by the strength of the perceived
social norms surrounding such behavior (e.g., the expectations of
supervisors and peers) than by changes in their own domain-
specific self-efficacy.
Second, collectivistic employees have a stronger desire to feel
attached to a large collective (Brewer & Chen, 2007; Earley,
1993). Consequently, they are more likely than their individualistic
counterparts to be concerned that innovative behavior may upset
the status quo and strain current social relationships. Oyserman,
Coon, and Kemmelmeier (2002) note that an important conse-
quence of collectivism is the restraint of the open and direct
expression of personal feelings, as such feelings are perceived to
be potentially threatening to in-group harmony. Goncalo and Staw
(2006) also argue that collectivists are more likely to feel the
pressure to conform, which stifles creativity. Extending this logic
to our moderating-effects argument, collectivists’ enhanced self-
efficacy beliefs may have only a limited influence on their in-
creases in innovative behavior because they may perceive the
proposal of new work practices as forcing others to accept a new
way to allocate resources. In other words, even if collectivists feel
increasingly confident in their ability to engage in such behavior,
their empathetic concern for others (Sullivan, Landau, Kay, &
Rothschild, 2012) may be a disincentive to doing so.
On the other hand, it can also be argued that increases in
domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs are likely to have a stronger
relationship with increases in the three types of innovative behav-
ior for individuals with stronger psychological collectivistic ten-
dencies. Collectivists who experience increases in self-efficacy
beliefs may be especially capable of innovating on behalf of their
organizations and motivated to do so because they are increasingly
confident in their innovative ability and the collective goal of
organizational success is important to them (Eisenberg, 1999).
Although both arguments are feasible, we propose a discordant
rather than concordant interaction effect, as such an effect is more
consistent with the empirical evidence. For instance, Goncalo and
Staw (2006) originally posit that because collectivists are more
responsive to social norms and expectations, they will be more
creative when given explicit instructions to be creative. However,
they find that individualists given the same instructions are more
creative than their collectivist counterparts. Via a between-
individual research design, Wennberg, Pathak, and Autio (2013)
find that entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy exerts stronger effects on
their entrepreneurial behavior when they endorse individualistic
values more strongly. Thus, we make the following prediction:
Hypothesis 4: The between-individual variable of psycholog-
ical collectivism moderates the relationships between within-
individual increases in creative (H4a), persuasion (H4b), and
change (H4c) self-efficacy and within-individual increases in
innovative behavior in such a way that the relationships are
 SOCIAL-COGNITIVE THEORY AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR
weaker for employees with a high (vs. low) level of psycho-
logical collectivism.
Method
Research Design
We collected repeated measures from employees in 60 organi-
zations in Italy at three time points over an 8-month period. This
longitudinal design matched our hypotheses, focusing on changes
over time. We adopted an 8-month study period based on Tierney
and Farmer’s (2011) argument that 6 months (or more) should be
sufficient for observing meaningful changes in creative self-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
efficacy. We expect the same to hold true for persuasion and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
change self-efficacy. At Time 1, we contacted the managers of 60
organizations in the authors’ personal networks and invited them
to distribute surveys to their employees. The managers were eager
to learn how to promote innovation in their organizations. The 60
participating organizations operated in several industries, includ-
ing manufacturing, banking and finance, information technology,
and the nonprofit sector. Four months later (Time 2), we sent
surveys to the respondents who completed the first survey. Eight
months after the first data collection (Time 3), we sent the third
survey to the respondents who completed the second survey. In
addition to the study variables, we also collected data (across the
three waves of surveys) on other variables that are not of interest
to this study. That is, this study is part of a larger data collection
process.
Sample
At Time 1, 350 employees were invited to participate, 303 of
whom agreed and completed surveys (response rate ⫽ 87%). We
then sent the Time 2 survey to all 303 employees. However, those
who had changed organizations in the interim were eventually
excluded from further participation, as they would have used
different employers as referents in their survey responses. After
these exclusions, we received 281 usable surveys at Time 2 for a
response rate of 93%. Finally, we sent the Time 3 survey to the 281
respondents who had participated in both previous surveys with
the aforementioned exclusion criterion again applied. We received
267 usable surveys, representing a 95% response rate at Time 3.
The high response rate for all three of the survey waves was
attributable to the salience of the topic to the organizations and
thus to the managers’ strong encouragement to participate (Roth &
BeVier, 1998).
We then matched the three waves of data and screened them for
unusual response patterns (e.g., giving the same responses to all of
the items), and found no such patterns. We also compared the
individuals who participated in all three of the surveys with the
individuals who withdrew at some point during the 8-month study
period. We found no significant differences in demographic vari-
ables between the respondents and nonrespondents.
The respondents were 39.2 years old on average (range ⫽ 20 to
66, SD ⫽ 10.4). In addition, 38% were women, 55% were married,
and 73% were high school graduates, with the remaining 23%
holding college degrees or more advanced qualifications. The
average organizational tenure was 10.8 years and the average job
tenure was 9.2 years. Furthermore, 97% of the respondents iden-
19
tified themselves as nonmanagers and 3% identified themselves as
managers.
Measures
The respondents were instructed to evaluate the survey items on
5-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). The items were translated into Italian (Brislin,
1980). Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, reliability
estimates, and correlations between the variables. All of the mea-
sures are provided in the Appendix.
We measured the first independent variable, organizational
trust, at the three time points using Robinson and Rousseau’s
(1994) seven-item scale. We measured the second independent
variable, perceived respect, at the three time points with seven
items adapted from Smith and Tyler’s (1997) scale. These items
indicated the respondents’ overall perceptions of respect from their
colleagues, including their supervisors and coworkers.
We measured the first mediator, creative self-efficacy, at the
three time points using three items developed by Tierney and
Farmer (2002). We measured the second mediator, persuasion
self-efficacy, at the three time points according to a five-item scale
adapted from studies by van Vienen (1999) and Lam, Chen, and
Schaubroeck (2002). Finally, we measured the third mediator,
change self-efficacy, at the three time points using five items
adapted from studies by Wanberg and Banas (2000) and Judge,
Thoresen, Pucik, and Welbourne (1999).
We measured the moderator variable, psychological collectiv-
ism, only at Time 1 with eight items adapted from a study by
Earley (1994). We measured the variable only once because we
treated it as a between-individual variable rather than a psycho-
logical state that varied over time (Jackson et al., 2006). As all of
the organizations (and respondents) were located in the same
country (Italy), we expected that the observed individual differ-
ences in psychological collectivism would not be confounded by
cultural-level differences in collectivism. Finally, we measured the
three types of innovative behavior, the dependent variables in this
study, at all three of the time points using the nine-item scale
created by Janssen (2001). These items focused on innovative
behavior rather than beliefs about one’s innovative capacity. To
confirm this focus, we recruited 50 Italian undergraduate students
to distinguish the self-efficacy belief items from the corresponding
innovative behavior items. We observed a 90% accuracy rate in
making the distinction, which increased our confidence that the
two sets of constructs (self-efficacy beliefs vs. innovative behav-
ior) were perceived to be different, as intended.
We controlled for age, job tenure, organizational tenure (each
measured in years), and job level (1 ⫽ nonmanagerial employee,
2 ⫽ first-line supervisor or middle manager, 3 ⫽ senior manager),
because the respondents with a greater amount of work experience
and more job responsibilities might have had more opportunities to
generate ideas at work and promote those ideas to others. We also
controlled for sex (0 ⫽ male, 1 ⫽ female) and education level (1 ⫽
some high school; 6 ⫽ postgraduate degree), because the male and
more educated employees might have been more willing to engage
in innovative behavior owing to their higher achievement orienta-
tion. In addition, we controlled for marital status (0 ⫽ single,
divorced, or widowed, 1 ⫽ married or partnered), because the
individuals without family might have had more psychological
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

20

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among the Study Variables (N ⫽ 267)

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1. OT (Time 1) 3.36 0.99 (.95)

2. OT (Time 2) 3.32 0.86 .72 (.94)
3. OT (Time 3) 3.28 0.87 .72 .83 (.94)
4. PR (Time 1) 3.62 0.67 .35 .28 .28 (.88)
5. PR (Time 2) 3.56 0.66 .20 .31 .28 .59 (.89)
6. PR (Time 3) 3.60 0.66 .15 .19 .35 .63 .74 (.89)
7. CRSE (Time 1) 3.59 0.69 .22 .15 .14 .26 .14 .19 (.76)
8. CRSE (Time 2) 3.48 0.74 .09 .13 .12 .08 .25 .26 .46 (.81)
9. CRSE (Time 3) 3.51 0.68 .10 .13 .16 .16 .23 .35 .54 .71 (.81)
10. PSE (Time 1) 3.38 0.68 .25 .26 .18 .33 .25 .21 .53 .31 .30 (.78)
11. PSE (Time 2) 3.28 0.61 .14 .21 .10 .21 .27 .25 .37 .48 .37 .54 (.76)
12. PSE (Time 3) 3.31 0.62 .13 .14 .21 .17 .17 .35 .38 .38 .53 .52 .69 (.77)
13. CHSE (Time 1) 3.56 0.64 .25 .16 .16 .26 .21 .19 .50 .27 .39 .44 .28 .33 (.80)
14. CHSE (Time 2) 3.45 0.61 .21 .22 .23 .19 .25 .25 .28 .41 .45 .27 .42 .37 .50 (.80)
15. CHSE (Time 3) 3.46 0.63 .18 .21 .29 .15 .20 .30 .26 .38 .55 .26 .35 .49 .52 .69 (.83)
NG AND LUCIANETTI

16. IG (Time 1) 2.71 0.97 .20 .11 .10 .30 .24 .23 .37 .25 .21 .34 .21 .23 .32 .27 .21 (.79)
17. IG (Time 2) 2.71 0.98 .07 .05 .08 .10 .26 .28 .33 .40 .35 .15 .25 .27 .18 .29 .25 .52 (.85)
18. IG (Time 3) 2.73 0.94 .06 .01 .11 .20 .21 .29 .31 .38 .35 .10 .15 .20 .12 .24 .27 .53 .74 (.85)
19. ID (Time 1) 2.58 1.07 .23 .13 .11 .28 .22 .17 .31 .14 .13 .36 .20 .16 .33 .30 .20 .75 .35 .40 (.86)
20. ID (Time 2) 2.47 0.99 .21 .19 .16 .21 .29 .32 .29 .32 .30 .21 .29 .21 .22 .36 .30 .51 .74 .62 .48 (.86)
21. ID (Time 3) 2.55 0.98 .11 .05 .11 .18 .24 .29 .20 .25 .32 .06 .10 .18 .16 .27 .33 .47 .56 .76 .48 .71 (.87)
22. II (Time 1) 2.62 1.03 .23 .18 .14 .30 .24 .21 .33 .17 .20 .35 .19 .20 .35 .30 .19 .72 .37 .41 .83 .48 .49 (.83)
23. II (Time 2) 2.52 1.02 .13 .16 .14 .20 .32 .33 .27 .38 .33 .23 .26 .23 .19 .32 .26 .47 .76 .56 .36 .81 .58 .42 (.86)
24. II (Time 3) 2.54 1.01 .09 .05 .11 .17 .25 .30 .25 .33 .37 .11 .12 .22 .12 .24 .30 .44 .60 .76 .42 .67 .84 .48 .70 (.87)
25. PCOL (Time 1) 3.33 0.87 ⫺.01 .10 .05 .12 .10 .07 ⫺.03 ⫺.08 ⫺.03 .02 ⫺.02 ⫺.07 ⫺.06 ⫺.00 ⫺.04 .11 .02 .05 .12 .06 .03 .11 .05 ⫺.03 (.89)
Note. Correlations ⱖ|.12| are significant at ␣ ⫽ .05. Correlations ⱖ|.16| are significant at ␣ ⫽ .01. OT ⫽ organizational trust; PR ⫽ perceived respect; CRSE ⫽ creative self-efficacy; PSE ⫽ persuasion
self-efficacy; CHSE ⫽ change self-efficacy; IG ⫽ idea generation; ID ⫽ idea dissemination; II ⫽ idea implementation; PCOL ⫽ psychological collectivism.
 SOCIAL-COGNITIVE THEORY AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR
resources to engage in innovative behavior. Finally, because 87 of
the 267 respondents were from the same organization (the remain-
ing 180 were from 59 different organizations), we created a
dummy variable in which “1” designated those 87 respondents,
and “0” designated the remaining 180 respondents. Including this
variable removed any effects that the idiosyncratic characteristics
of that single organization might have had on the data set.
Validity of the Self-Reported Measures of
Innovative Behavior
Although such a methodology has been adopted before (Axtell
et al., 2000; Ng et al., 2010; Parker et al., 2006), it is important to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
present both theoretical reasons and empirical evidence to justify
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
the use of employees’ self-ratings of innovative behavior. First,
employees themselves may be more aware of the subtleties of their
innovative suggestions/behavior than others, and thus better able to
judge whether their innovative endeavors are fundamentally or
incrementally novel in the context of work. Janssen (2001) makes
a similar argument that self-ratings of innovative behavior are
useful because employees’ cognitive representation and reports of
their own innovative behavior consider the idiosyncratic historical
and contextual factors embedded in their own work activities.
Second, non-self-reports of innovative behavior are often unavail-
able, in which case, self-reports are feasible alternatives (Shalley,
Gilson, & Blum, 2009). For instance, as Janssen (2001) observes,
self-ratings of innovative behavior are especially useful when there
is reason to expect that supervisors may overlook genuine inno-
vative activities and only capture those activities that are intended
to impress the supervisors.
Third, there is evidence of convergent validity between self-
ratings and supervisor ratings, and between self-ratings and objec-
tive measures. We have found that across six studies (N ⫽ 884)
that provide both self- and supervisor-ratings of creativity or
innovative behavior, the average observed correlation is .29 (with
confidence intervals excluding zero). Regarding the convergence
between self-ratings and objective measures, Ettlie and O’Keefe
(1982) observe that self-ratings of creativity are positively related
(.16, p ⬍ .01) to an unobtrusive (word count) measure of creativ-
ity, whereas Jennings and Young (1990) observe that self-ratings
of entrepreneurial innovation are positively related to archival
records of product innovation at .73 (p ⬍ .01). In addition, several
studies have shown that self-ratings converge with the scores
assigned by external raters who are not organizational members.
Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, and Staw (2005) argue that “this
coder-rated measure of creative thinking . . . has a more objective
basis than observers’ ratings” (p. 380). For instance, Binnewies,
Ohly, and Sonnentag (2007) find that employees’ self-rated idea
dissemination behavior is positively related to coder-rated employ-
ees’ creative thoughts (.34, p ⬍ .05). Similarly, Parker et al. (2006)
find that self-rated proactive change-oriented behavior is related to
the ratings assigned by interviewers who separately assess respon-
dents based on their responses to interview questions (.45, p ⬍
.01).
Fourth, to further validate the scales we used, we collected extra
data from an independent sample of 50 supervisor–subordinate
dyads in Italy. Both the subordinates and their supervisors were
instructed to rate the subordinates’ innovative behavior. The sub-
ordinates’ self-ratings of their innovative behavior were highly
21
convergent with their supervisors’ ratings. The correlation between
the two sources was .75 (p ⬍ .01) for idea generation, .77 (p ⬍ .01)
for idea dissemination, and .80 (p ⬍ .01) for idea implementation.
Fifth, we examined whether the self-reported measures of inno-
vative behavior were influenced by the common method biases
identified by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003),
including impression management, trait affect, and acquiescence
bias (the tendency to agree with survey items regardless of the item
content). To that end, we collected self-reported measures from
200 Italian working adults through a marketing research organi-
zation. We used Blasberg, Rogers, and Paulhus’s (2014) 20-item
scale to measure agentic impression management (exaggerating
one’s social or intellectual status) and communal impression man-
agement (denying socially deviant impulses and claiming pious
attributes), the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)
20-item scale (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) to measure trait
affect, and Winkler, Kanouse, and John’s (1982) method to assess
acquiescence bias.
We observed that the relationships of the three self-efficacy
beliefs with the corresponding three types of innovative behavior
were not moderated by any of the aforementioned common
method biases. The null results suggested that whether individuals
had a high degree of impression management, trait positive and
negative affect, and acquiescence bias did not affect the strength of
the relationships between self-reported efficacy beliefs and self-
reported innovative behavior. In addition, we specified self-
efficacy beliefs as predictors of innovative behavior in structural
equation modeling and controlled for the influences of these vari-
ables on the self-reported items of innovative behavior. Self-
efficacy beliefs had significant positive effects on the correspond-
ing innovative behavior, even after we controlled for those three
sets of variables at the item level. Moreover, the partial correla-
tions after controlling for the three sets of response biases were
statistically significant: .35 (p ⬍ .01) for the relationship between
creative self-efficacy and idea generation, .29 (p ⬍ .01) for the
relationship between persuasion self-efficacy and idea dissemina-
tion, and .23 (p ⬍ .01) for the relationship between change
self-efficacy and idea implementation.
Finally, we recontacted the respondents (N ⫽ 154) 2 months
later and measured their self-esteem and narcissism. Although
these two traits are not identified by Podsakoff et al. (2003) as
response biases, individuals in whom the traits are strong might be
overly optimistic in their ratings of self-efficacy beliefs and inno-
vative behavior. We used Rosenberg’s (1989) 10-item scale to
assess self-esteem, and Wales, Patel, and Lumpkin’s (2013) 15-
item scale to assess narcissism. We found that (a) the two traits did
not interact with self-efficacy beliefs to affect innovative behavior;
(b) they did not change the pattern of findings after we controlled
for their effects at the item level; and (c) the partial correlation
after controlling for these two traits was .40 (p ⬍ .01) for the
relationship between creative self-efficacy and idea generation, .27
(p ⬍ .05) for the relationship between persuasion self-efficacy and
idea dissemination, and .23 (p ⬍ .05) for the relationship between
change self-efficacy and idea implementation. In summary, based
on the preceding reasons and evidence, we established some con-
fidence that a person’s assessment of his or her own innovative
behavior is not necessarily biased or contaminated.
 22 NG AND LUCIANETTI
Assessing the Psychometric Properties of Measures
To examine the psychometric properties of the scales we used,
we specified all of the latent variables via confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) and assessed the model fit (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988). Each variable was specified as a latent construct repre-
sented by its corresponding scale items. We evaluated the model
using the various fit indices recommended by Hu and Bentler
(1998): the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), Bollen’s Fit Index (BL89),
the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean squared error of
approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean squared
residual (SRMR). According to Hu and Bentler (1999), a model fit
is good if the TLI, BL89, and CFI are .95 or higher, the RMSEA
is .06 or lower, and the SRMR is .08 or lower.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
The overall measurement model (containing all of the scales
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
used in the study) had an acceptable degree of fit. The chi-square
value was 10,030.35 (df ⫽ 6,146), the TLI, BL89, and CFI were
.96, the RMSEA was .04, and the SRMR was .06. Moreover, all of
the factor loadings were statistically significant. These results
suggest that the psychometric properties of our measurement
scales were generally acceptable.
In addition, we examined whether the scales demonstrated mea-
surement invariance longitudinally (Chan, 1998; Vandenberg &
Lance, 2000). Chi-square difference tests showed only one item in
the scale of organizational trust and one item in the scale of
persuasion self-efficacy to have significantly different factor load-
ings at the three time points. For both theoretical and practical
reasons, this partial scale invariance should not substantively affect
the interpretation of our results. Theoretically, it would be overly
stringent to expect full-scale invariances for all of the study vari-
ables in a longitudinal study when the underlying assumption
holds that the variables change over time (Pentz & Chou, 1994).
Methodologically, because we allowed factor loadings to be freely
estimated in the subsequent latent growth modeling (LGM) anal-
yses, the parameter estimates controlled for the lack of full metric
invariance at the first-order factor level, which in turn defined the
true change at the second-order factor level.
Assessing the Discriminant Validity of Measures
We assessed the empirical distinctiveness of the various con-
structs by alternately constraining a certain pairwise factor corre-
lation to a value of 1 in the aforementioned CFA model, and then
examining whether the model fit would be significantly worse in
terms of a change in chi square (James, Mulaik, & Brett, 1982;
Mallard & Lance, 1998). Using this analytical method, we found
that (a) the three types of domain-specific self-efficacy were
empirically distinct (p ⬍ .001 in each case), (b) the three types of
innovative behavior were empirically distinct (p ⬍ .001 in each
case), and (c) the three types of domain-specific self-efficacy
beliefs and the three corresponding types of innovative behavior
were empirically distinct (p ⬍ .001 in each case). This latter
finding was also consistent with our findings from the undergrad-
uate sample. The respondents were able to distinguish between the
content of the two sets of items.
Assessing the Effects of Common Method Variance
Podsakoff et al. (2003) observe that the inclusion and specifi-
cation of a latent common method variance factor is a useful
approach for detecting common method variance. The results
showed that specifying a common method factor underlying all of
the measurement items at Time 1 did not dramatically change the
significant factor loading patterns from those observed in the CFA
model excluding that factor. All of the factor loadings were sta-
tistically significant and in the expected direction even after we
controlled for the influence of the latent common method factor.
We repeated these procedures for the data at Times 2 and 3, and
found that all of the factor loadings remained significant after the
inclusion of the common method factor. Common method variance
did not seem to pose a serious threat to any survey wave. It is
important to note that the intercorrelations between the three types
of innovative behavior at each of the three time points were quite
high (between .72 and .84), despite these three constructs being
empirically distinct, as shown previously. However, such strong
correlations between subdimensions of innovative behavior are not
infrequently observed (Daniels, Wimalasiri, Cheyne, & Story,
2011; Holman et al., 2012), as together they represent a global
behavior construct.
Data Analysis Strategies
We used a two-step approach to examine our dynamic moder-
ated mediation hypotheses. The first step involved using LGM to
estimate the rates of change over time for each study construct.
Because LGM is not designed to test moderated mediation effects,
the second step involved using estimates of the changes in the
multiple regression models to examine the moderated mediation
effects.
LGM. In the first step, we used LGM to generate linear
change estimates. LGM provides estimates of the latent intercept
(representing the initial status of individuals on a measure) and
slope (representing the rate of change over time on a measure)
factors for each individual. We followed Duncan, Duncan, and
Strycker’s (2006) approach to obtain these estimates. First, we set
the loadings from the intercept factor of each of the first-order
latent constructs (purportedly measured by the respective scale
items) to 1 to ensure that it influenced all three equally. Second, we
set the loadings from the slope factor of the three first-order latent
constructs to values of 0, 1, and 2 to represent linear positive
changes. Thus, consistent with our hypotheses, our subsequent
analyses focused on how increases in one variable affected in-
creases in another. (If the factor loadings had been fixed to values
of 0, ⫺1, and ⫺2, we would have focused on how the decreases in
one variable affected the decreases in another.)
We adopted a second-order-factor LGM approach in which the
second-order latent intercept and slope factors were represented by
the three first-order latent variables purportedly measured across
the three time points (with the factor loadings set to 0, 1, and 2, as
noted). The next step involved representing each first-order latent
factor by its respective measurement items. We permitted corre-
lations among the error variances of the measurement items used
repeatedly across the time points. We also allowed all of the factor
loadings to be freely estimated because, as previously noted, our
scales did not demonstrate full measurement invariance across the
three time points. Readers are referred to several additional studies
for more technical details on the use of LGM: Bentein, Vanden-
berghe, Vandenberg, and Stinglhamber (2005); Bollen and Curran
(2006); Chan (1998); Chan, Ramey, Ramey, and Schmitt (2000);
 SOCIAL-COGNITIVE THEORY AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR 23

Chan and Schmitt (2000); Duncan et al. (2006); and Lance, Van-
denberg, and Self (2000).
Multiple regression models. In the second step of analysis,
we exported the estimates of the latent slope factors for use in the
multiple regression models, which in turn allowed us to test our
study hypotheses and assess the conditional indirect effects fol-
lowing the approach outlined by Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes
(2007). To test Hypotheses 1a through 1c, we regressed the in-
creases in each type of innovative behavior on the corresponding
increases in self-efficacy belief and the sociodemographic vari-
ables. To test Hypotheses 2a through 2c and 3a through 3c, we
regressed the increases in self-efficacy beliefs on the increases in
both organizational trust and perceived respect along with the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
error residual), 34% versus 6% for perceived respect, 33% versus
8% for creative self-efficacy, 22% versus 12% for persuasion
self-efficacy, 24% versus 16% for change self-efficacy, 40% ver-
sus 1% for idea generation, 39% versus 4% for idea dissemination,
and 37% versus 6% for idea implementation. The much larger
between-individual variance relative to the within-individual vari-
ance is consistent with observations in other longitudinal studies
(Cranford et al., 2006; Sherry, Mackinnon, Macneil, & Fitzpatrick,
2013). In addition, although the variance attributable to within-
individual change is not large in general, the variability in the
increase rate is statistically significant (p ⬍ .01) for all variables,
suggesting that researchers need to understand the factors (be they
between- or within-individual factors) that explain this variability.

sociodemographic variables. To test Hypothesis 4a, we regressed The hypothesis testing results presented in this study help to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

the increases in idea generation (the dependent variable) on the
increases in creative self-efficacy (the corresponding mediator),
psychological collectivism (the moderator), and the interaction
between increases in creative self-efficacy and psychological col-
lectivism, along with the increases in organizational trust and
perceived respect (the independent variables) and the sociodemo-
graphic variables as control variables. We then repeated these
procedures using idea dissemination and persuasion self-efficacy
(to test Hypothesis 4b) and idea implementation and change self-
efficacy (to test Hypothesis 4c).
Results
A variance decomposition analysis (Shavelson, Webb, & Row-
ley, 1989) reveals that the proportion of variance attributable to
between-individual differences versus within-individual changes
(across all items and all three waves) is as follows: 54% versus 1%
for organizational trust (the remaining proportion is attributed to
the interaction of between- and within-individual variance and
explain how the within-individual increases in the study variables
affect one another.
Examining the Main Effect Hypotheses
Tables 2 and 3 present the regression results for the main effects
in our proposed moderated mediation relationships. Hypothesis 1
predicts that within-individual increases in creative self-efficacy
are positively related to within-individual increases in idea gener-
ation (H1a), within-individual increases in persuasion self-efficacy
to within-individual increases in idea dissemination (H1b), and
within-individual increases in change self-efficacy to within-
individual increases in idea implementation (H1c). Table 2 shows
that all three subhypotheses are supported. The increases in cre-
ative self-efficacy are significantly and positively related to the
increases in idea generation behavior (␤ ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .05), and the
increases in persuasion and change self-efficacy are significantly
and positively associated with the increases in idea dissemination

Table 2
Main Effects of the Increases in Different Types of Self-Efficacy on the Increases in Different
Types of Innovative Behavior

Dependent variable
Increases in Increases in idea Increases in idea
idea generation dissemination implementation

Sociodemographic variables
Age ⫺.08 (.00) ⫺.07 (.00) .06 (.00)
Female ⫺.09 (.05) ⫺.02 (.06) ⫺.04 (.05)
Married ⫺.06 (.05) ⫺.03 (.06) ⫺.10 (.06)
Education level .09 (.02) .02 (.02) ⫺.07 (.02)
Job tenure .12 (.01) .19 (.01) .18 (.01)
Organizational tenure ⫺.05 (.01) ⫺.21 (.01) ⫺.25ⴱ (.01)
Job level .03 (.09) .05 (.11) .07 (.10)
Organizational membership ⫺.10 (.06) ⫺.13 (.07) ⫺.21ⴱⴱ (.06)
R2 .04 .04 .07ⴱ
Main effects
Increases in creative self-efficacy .13ⴱ (.08) (H1a) — —
Increases in persuasion self-efficacy — .32ⴱⴱ (.12) (H1b) —
Increases in change self-efficacy — — .22ⴱⴱ (.09) (H1c)
⌬R2 .02ⴱ .10ⴱⴱ .05ⴱⴱ
Note. The regression coefficients represent standardized parameters. The values in parentheses following the
regression coefficients represent standard errors of the estimates. A dash (–) indicates that the variable was not
included in the regression model. CHSE ⫽ change self-efficacy; CRSE ⫽ creative self-efficacy; H1a ⫽
Hypothesis 1a; H1b ⫽ Hypothesis 1b; H1c ⫽ Hypothesis 1c; PSE ⫽ persuasion self-efficacy.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 24 NG AND LUCIANETTI

Table 3
Main Effects of the Increases in Both Organizational Trust and Perceived Respect on the
Increases in Different Types of Self-Efficacy

Dependent variable
Increases in CRSE Increases in PSE Increases in CHSE

Sociodemographic variables
Age .06 (.00) ⫺.02 (.00) ⫺.08 (.00)
Female .07 (.03) .08 (.03) .09 (.03)
Married .08 (.04) .02 (.03) .01 (.04)
Education level ⫺.03 (.01) .05 (.01) .01 (.02)
Job tenure ⫺.06 (.00) ⫺.21ⴱ (.00) ⫺.03 (.00)
Organizational tenure ⫺.10 (.00) .19 (.00) .00 (.00)
Job level .11 (.06) ⫺.00 (.05) .02 (.07)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Organizational membership ⫺.15ⴱ (.04) .10 (.03) ⫺.01 (.04)

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

R2 .05 .02 .02

Main effects
Increases in organizational trust .10 (.05) (H2a) .17ⴱⴱ (.05) (H2b) .21ⴱⴱ (.06) (H2c)
Increases in perceived respect .25ⴱⴱ (.08) (H3a) .31ⴱⴱ (.06) (H3b) .18ⴱⴱ (.08) (H3c)
⌬R2 .08ⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱ .09ⴱⴱ
Note. The regression coefficients represent standardized parameters. The values in parentheses following the
regression coefficients represent standard errors of the estimates. CHSE ⫽ change self-efficacy; CRSE ⫽
creative self-efficacy; H2a ⫽ Hypothesis 2a; H2b ⫽ Hypothesis 2b; H2c ⫽ Hypothesis 2c; H3a ⫽ Hypothesis
3a; H3b ⫽ Hypothesis 3b; H3c ⫽ Hypothesis 3c; PSE ⫽ persuasion self-efficacy.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

and implementation (␤ ⫽ .32, p ⬍ .01, and ␤ ⫽ .22, p ⬍ .01),
respectively.
Hypotheses 2 and 3 predict that the within-individual increases
in organizational trust and perceived respect are positively related
to the within-individual increases in creative (H2a, H3a), persua-
sion (H2b, H3b), and change (H2c, H3c) self-efficacy. As shown
in Table 3, the increases in organizational trust are positively
related to the increases in persuasion (␤ ⫽ .17, p ⬍ .01) and
change (␤ ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .01) self-efficacy, even after controlling for
the effects of increases in perceived respect and sociodemographic
variables. However, increases in organizational trust are not sig-
nificantly related to increases in creative self-efficacy (␤ ⫽ .10,
ns). Thus, H2b and H2c are supported, but H2a is not. Table 3 also
shows that the increases in perceived respect are positively related
to the increases in creative (␤ ⫽ .25, p ⬍ .01), persuasion (␤ ⫽
.31, p ⬍ .01), and change (␤ ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .01) self-efficacy, even
when we controlled for the effects of the increases in organiza-
tional trust and sociodemographic variables. Hence, H3a, H3b, and
H3c are supported.
Figure 2 shows that the positive relationship between the in-
creases in persuasion self-efficacy and increases in idea dissemi-
nation is weaker for the employees who exhibit highly collectiv-
istic tendencies (1 SD above the mean). Post hoc analyses reveal
the strength of the positive relationship between the increases in
persuasion self-efficacy and increases in idea dissemination to be
significantly weaker (p ⬍ .01) for the highly collectivistic employ-
ees (1 SD above the mean) than for their less collectivistic coun-
terparts (1 SD below the mean). Thus, Hypothesis 4b is supported.
Figure 3 similarly shows that the positive relationship between the
increases in change self-efficacy and increases in idea implemen-
tation is weaker for the employees who exhibit more collectivistic
tendencies (1 SD above the mean). The post hoc analysis results
suggest that the positive relationship between the increases in
change self-efficacy and increases in idea implementation is also
significantly weaker (p ⬍ .05) for this group relative to their less
collectivistic counterparts (1 SD below the mean), thus providing
support for Hypothesis 4c. However, we find no support for
Hypothesis 4a.

Examining the Moderation Effect Hypotheses Supplementary Analyses: Assessing Conditional

Hypothesis 4 predicts that the relationships between the within-
individual increases in creative (H4a), persuasion (H4b), and
change (H4c) self-efficacy and the within-individual increases in
innovative behavior are weaker for individuals with a high (vs.
low) level of psychological collectivism. We tested these predic-
tions, and Table 4 presents the results. The interaction between the
increases in persuasion self-efficacy and psychological collectiv-
ism is significantly and negatively associated with the increases in
idea dissemination (␤ ⫽ ⫺.33, p ⬍ .01). Furthermore, the inter-
action between the increases in change self-efficacy and psycho-
logical collectivism is significantly and negatively associated with
the increases in idea implementation (␤ ⫽ ⫺.11, p ⬍ .05). Figures
2 and 3 plot these interaction effects.
Indirect Effects
We followed the approach used by Preacher et al. (2007) to
obtain the estimated indirect effects at different levels of the
moderator. Table 5 presents the results. There are six possible
moderated mediation relationships to be evaluated. The results
show significant moderated mediation effects in four of the six
cases, with the exception of the two cases in which the increases
in creative self-efficacy were used as the mediators.
First, the indirect effect of the increases in organizational trust
on the increases in idea dissemination via the increases in persua-
sion self-efficacy is .09 (p ⬍ .05), .05 (p ⬍ .05), and .02 (ns) when
the degree of psychological collectivism is low (1 SD below the
mean), medium (at the mean), and high (1 SD above the mean),
 SOCIAL-COGNITIVE THEORY AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR 25

Table 4
Interaction Effects of the Increases in Different Types of Self-Efficacy and Psychological
Collectivism on the Increases in Different Types of Innovative Behavior

Dependent variable
Increases in idea Increases in idea Increases in idea
generation dissemination implementation

Sociodemographic variables
Age ⫺.00 (.00) ⫺.00 (.00) .05 (.00)
Female ⫺.04 (.05) ⫺.00 (.06) .01 (.05)
Married ⫺.03 (.05) ⫺.02 (.06) ⫺.09 (.06)
Education level .02 (.02) .01 (.02) ⫺.08 (.02)
Job tenure .00 (.00) .01 (.01) .16 (.01)
Organizational tenure ⫺.00 (.00) ⫺.01 (.01) ⫺.24ⴱ (.01)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Job level .04 (.09) .09 (.10) .07 (.10)

⫺.20ⴱⴱ (.06)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Organizational membership ⫺.06 (.06) ⫺.13 (.07)

R2 .05 .04 .07ⴱ
Main effects
Increases in organizational trust .20ⴱⴱ (.07) .11 (.09) .06 (.08)
Increases in perceived respect ⫺.02 (.11) .07 (.13) .10 (.12)
PCOL ⫺.03 (.03) ⫺.06 (.03) ⫺.20ⴱⴱ (.03)
Increases in CRSE .13 (.08) — —
Increases in PSE — .43ⴱⴱ (.13) —
Increases in CHSE — — .17ⴱⴱ (.09)
⌬R2 .05ⴱⴱ .12ⴱⴱ .10ⴱⴱ
Interaction effects
Increases in CRSE ⫻ PCOL ⫺.14 (.10) (H4a) — —
Increases in PSE ⫻ PCOL — ⫺.33ⴱⴱ (.10) (H4b) —
Increases in CHSE ⫻ PCOL — — ⫺.11ⴱ (.10) (H4c)
⌬R2 .01 .03ⴱⴱ .01ⴱ
Note. The regression coefficients represent standardized parameters. The values in parentheses following the
regression coefficients represent standard errors of the estimates. – indicates that the variable was not included
in the regression model. CHSE ⫽ change self-efficacy; CRSE ⫽ creative self-efficacy; H4a ⫽ Hypothesis 4a;
H4b ⫽ Hypothesis 4b H4c ⫽ Hypothesis 4c; PCOL ⫽ psychological collectivism; PSE ⫽ persuasion
self-efficacy.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

respectively. Second, the indirect effect of the increases in orga- medium, and high, respectively. Third, the indirect effect of the
nizational trust on the increases in idea implementation via the increases in perceived respect on the increases in idea dissemina-
increases in change self-efficacy is .07 (p ⬍ .05), .04 (p ⬍ .05), tion via the increases in persuasion self-efficacy is .21 (p ⬍ .01),
and .01 (ns) when the degree of psychological collectivism is low, .13 (p ⬍ .01), and .04 (ns) when the degree of psychological

Figure 2. Interaction effect of the increases in persuasion self-efficacy and
psychological collectivism on the increases in idea dissemination. Both the
vertical and horizontal axes indicate units of change; ⫺0.5 indicates a 50%
decrease in the variable over the 8-month period, and 0.5 indicates a 50%
increase in the variable over the same period. PSE ⫽ persuasion self-efficacy;
ID ⫽ idea dissemination; PCOL ⫽ psychological collectivism.
Figure 3. Interaction effect of the increases in change self-efficacy and
psychological collectivism on the increases in idea implementation. Both the
vertical and horizontal axes indicate units of change; ⫺0.5 indicates a 50%
decrease in the variable over the 8-month period, and 0.5 indicates a 50%
increase in the variable over the same period. CHSE ⫽ change self-efficacy;
II ⫽ idea implementation; PCOL ⫽ psychological collectivism.
 26 NG AND LUCIANETTI

Table 5
Estimates of Conditional Indirect Effects

The indirect effect of IV on DV

(via MED) when MOD is
1 SD below At the 1 SD above
IV MED MOD DV IV ¡ MED MED ⫻ MOD ¡ DV the mean mean the mean Summary
ⴱⴱ
⌬OT ⌬CRSE PCOL ⌬IG ns — — — No moderated mediation effects
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
⌬OT ⌬PSE PCOL ⌬ID .09ⴱ .05ⴱ .02 A significant moderated mediation effect
ⴱⴱ ⴱ
⌬OT ⌬CHSE PCOL ⌬II .07ⴱ .04ⴱ .01 A significant moderated mediation effect
ⴱⴱ
⌬PR ⌬CRSE PCOL ⌬IG ns — — — No moderated mediation effects
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
⌬PR ⌬PSE PCOL ⌬ID .21ⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ .04 A significant moderated mediation effect
ⴱⴱ ⴱ
⌬PR ⌬CHSE PCOL ⌬II .09ⴱ .05ⴱ .01 A significant moderated mediation effect
Note. ns ⫽ nonsignificant; ⌬ ⫽ increases over time; IV ⫽ independent variable; MED ⫽ mediator; MOD ⫽ moderator; DV ⫽ dependent variable; SD ⫽
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

standard deviation; OT ⫽ organizational trust; PR ⫽ perceived respect; CRSE ⫽ creative self-efficacy; PSE ⫽ persuasion self-efficacy; CHSE ⫽ change
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

self-efficacy; PCOL ⫽ psychological collectivism; IG ⫽ idea generation; ID ⫽ idea dissemination; II ⫽ idea implementation.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

collectivism is low, medium, and high, respectively. Fourth, the
indirect effect of the increases in perceived respect on the increases
in idea implementation via the increases in change self-efficacy is
.09 (p ⬍ .05), .05 (p ⬍ .05), and .01 (ns) when the degree of
psychological collectivism is low, medium, and high, respectively.
In sum, the increases in persuasion and change self-efficacy me-
diate the effects of the increases in organizational trust and per-
ceived respect on the increases in idea dissemination and imple-
mentation, respectively, except among the highly collectivistic
individuals (1 SD above the mean).
increases in trust/respect and self-efficacy, and in the relationship
between the increases in self-efficacy and innovative behavior.
Thus, the updated testing model had two between-individual mod-
erators: psychological collectivism (as originally posited) and or-
ganizational tenure. We examined the two-moderator model fol-
lowing Hayes’s (2013) approach. The patterns of the previously
reported significant findings are unchanged and organizational
tenure has no significant moderating effects on any of the study
relationships. Thus, organizational tenure does not seem to exert a
confounding effect.

Supplementary Analyses: Temporal Effects and Discussion

Confounding Influence of Tenure
Finally, we conducted two analyses to address two important
issues. First, we explored whether it is reasonable to treat trust and
respect as preceding domain-specific self-efficacy, which precedes
innovative behavior. We find trust at Time 1 to be significantly
related to change self-efficacy (␤ ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .05), but not to
creative or persuasion self-efficacy at Time 2 in the presence of
perceived respect and the sociodemographic variables. We also
find respect at Time 1 to be significantly related to persuasion
(␤ ⫽ .19, p ⬍ .05) and change (␤ ⫽ .20, p ⬍ .01) self-efficacy, but
not to creative self-efficacy at Time 2 in the presence of trust and
the sociodemographic variables. Creative self-efficacy at Time 2 is
significantly related to idea generation at Time 3 (␤ ⫽ .62, p ⬍
.01) in the presence of trust, respect, and the sociodemographic
variables. Change self-efficacy at Time 2 is also significantly
related to idea implementation at Time 3 (␤ ⫽ .31, p ⬍ .01) in the
presence of the same variables. In contrast, persuasion self-
efficacy at Time 2 is only marginally related to idea dissemination
at Time 3 (␤ ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .10). Overall, there is modest evidence to
suggest that trust and respect precede domain-specific self-
efficacy, which in turn precedes innovative behavior.
Second, we examined whether organizational tenure moderated
our proposed relationships. Because individuals with shorter orga-
nizational tenures may be less bound by the “organizational mind-
set,” and more closely in touch with the environment external to
the organization, they may have a stronger capacity to engage in
innovative behavior. To test this supposition, we included organi-
zational tenure as a moderator in the relationship between the
Implications for Theory Development
The research related to innovative behavior has largely over-
looked the agentic perspective on this important type of perfor-
mance behavior. An increased display of innovative behavior
indicates that an individual is intentionally making things happen
through his or her own actions (Janssen, 2004). Our findings show
that employees who are increasingly confident in their ability to be
creative, persuade others, and successfully handle change demon-
strate increasing amounts of three types of innovative behavior.
We contribute to the literature related to innovative behavior by
taking the first step toward substantiating an agentic perspective
that emphasizes employees’ cognitive beliefs about their
domain-specific innovative capacity. As pointed out by Ban-
dura (1995) in his discussion of social changes, innovative
achievements require “a resilient sense of efficacy” because
“innovations demand heavy investment of effort over a long
period with uncertain results” (p. 13).
We also contribute to the innovative behavior literature by
directing researchers’ attention beyond creative self-efficacy to
consider persuasion and change self-efficacy as ingredients for
effective overall innovative performance. Increases in creative
self-efficacy are certainly a core precursor of increases in idea
generation, which is arguably a prerequisite for any other type of
innovative behavior to occur. However, similar to the important
role that increased creative self-efficacy plays in promoting idea
generation (Tierney & Farmer, 2002), employees who hope to
 SOCIAL-COGNITIVE THEORY AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR
increase their participation in idea dissemination and implementa-
tion may first need to feel an enhanced confidence in their ability
to do so. Consequently, to promote increases in overall innovative
performance, employees should experience growth in all three
types of domain-specific self-efficacy. Although our study did not
directly test the matching principle that domain-specific self-
efficacy has the strongest effects only on corresponding domain-
specific innovative behavior, it highlights the potential value of
differentiating domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs about one’s
innovative capacity.
We further contribute to the innovative behavior literature by
identifying two important psychosocial factors—within-individual
increases in organizational trust and perceived respect—that may
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
decrease employees’ anxiety and fear about attempts at innovation,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
build a psychologically safe environment in which they may be
innovative, and facilitate growth in their self-efficacy beliefs.
Consistent with Edmondson’s (1999) observation that individuals
feel safer speaking up when they feel that trust and respect exist
within the workplace, we find that enhanced feelings of trust and
respect are associated with increases in domain-specific self-
efficacy beliefs about one’s innovative capacity. These results are
also consistent with social– cognitive theory in that domain-
specific self-efficacy beliefs grow over time with increases in
positive psychosocial conditions that help to reduce aversive emo-
tions. As Bandura (1977, 1997) emphasizes, when individuals do
not feel anxious and fearful about a situation (e.g., promoting
innovation)—for example, when they increasingly perceive their
organization as being trustworthy and themselves as being
respected—they are likely to experience growth in their per-
ceived ability to control that situation.
According to Bandura (2001, 2012), personal agency operates
within the broader network of sociostructural influences, and self-
efficacy effects may depend on the degree to which an individual
values the collective goals. This study provides full support for
Bandura’s claim. We observe that the relationships between the
within-individual increases in persuasion and change self-efficacy,
and the within-individual increases in idea dissemination and
implementation, respectively, are weaker for individuals with high
levels of psychological collectivism. Indeed, when these levels are
high (1 SD above the mean), there are no mediating relationships
between the increases in trust and respect, self-efficacy, and inno-
vative behavior. In other words, collectivists may be more hesitant
to increase their innovative behavior even when they have strong
domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs, presumably because they are
concerned that increasing such behavior may disrupt social har-
mony. Thus, this study highlights the between-individual variabil-
ity in the extent to which individuals’ confidence in their innova-
tive capacity affects their innovative behavior, a variability that
partially stems from whether the individuals are predisposed to
consider the interests of others.
The interaction effect of increases in creative self-efficacy and
psychological collectivism on increases in idea generation is not
significant in this study. However, the two interaction effects
involving increases in persuasion and change self-efficacy are
significant. One possible explanation is that psychological collec-
tivism is less likely to interfere with the increased motivation to
generate new ideas than with the increased motivation to persuade
others of the value of those ideas or to actually implement them, as
idea generation is arguably the least disruptive type of innovative
27
behavior. Because the new ideas in question are only created and
neither spread nor implemented, an employee’s strong interper-
sonal concerns may exert little effect because he or she (or his or
her colleagues) does not consider this type of innovative behavior
as overly disruptive to the status quo. In contrast, because in-
creases in idea dissemination and implementation obviously in-
volve others and affect the workplace, psychological collectivism
becomes a more salient moderator of the effects of the increases in
self-efficacy beliefs on the increases in these two types of inno-
vative behavior.
Finally, we hope that this study stimulates further investigations
of innovative behavior from a dynamic perspective. Most of the
literature related to innovative behavior has relied either on cross-
sectional research designs or designs that involve separate mea-
sures of the independent and dependent variables (e.g., Scott &
Bruce, 1994; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). However, scholars have
noted that these static research designs do not truly test organiza-
tional theories, which invariably imply that when one variable
changes, the other variables also change (Pitariu & Ployhart, 2010;
Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010). Thus, researchers have been asked
to instead examine the changes in constructs over time. This study
contributes to the literature by providing evidence to show that
such a within-individual change perspective on innovative behav-
ior is both useful and informative, that dynamic mediation effects
involving innovative behavior do occur, and that such a change
perspective can be extended to incorporate between-individual
moderators.
Limitations of the Research
Interpretations of the findings of this study are subject to several
methodological constraints. First, although our data were some-
what nested in nature (267 respondents from 60 organizations), we
examined no cross-level relationships. For instance, although we
collected all of our data from one country, there might have been
organization-level differences in the collectivistic values we con-
sidered. However, owing to our use of convenience sampling, only
a few of the respondents represented one organization in many
cases (24 firms had only one respondent, 17 firms had two or three
respondents, 13 firms had four to six respondents, five firms had
nine to 12 respondents, and one firm had 87 respondents), render-
ing cross-level analyses less meaningful. We did control for the
influence of 87 respondents being from the same organization, to
address the concern that the idiosyncratic characteristics of that
organization might have affected whether and how psychological
collectivism moderates the relationship between increases in self-
efficacy and increases in innovative behavior.
Second, we relied on our personal networks to recruit respon-
dents. As a result of the strong encouragement by the managers of
the participating firms, response rates were high (87% to 95%
across the three waves). There were two particular reasons why the
managers were motivated to participate in our research. First, a
majority of the firms (78%) were small and medium-sized orga-
nizations with fewer than 500 employees; such firms are particu-
larly eager to innovate to foster organizational growth. Indeed,
researchers observe that innovations do successfully enhance per-
formance in small and medium-sized firms in Italy (Cozza, Mal-
erba, Mancusi, Perani, & Vezzulli, 2012). Second, the recent
financial crisis in Europe has also heightened decision makers’
 28 NG AND LUCIANETTI
sensitivity to the need for innovation (Lodigiani & Pesenti, 2014).
For instance, a recent study of European nations (including Italy)
shows that innovations enhance a country’s economic stability and
promote investors’ confidence in a country’s ability to cope with a
financial crisis (Adcock, Hua, Mazouz, & Yin, 2014).
To assess whether our convenience sampling method and the
contextual factors relating to Italy might have any systematic
influence on our data, it is important for future studies to examine
our research questions in other countries. Such studies would
strengthen the external validity of the results reported herein. For
instance, because we collected data from only one nation, we could
not examine the influence of national cultures. Following other
researchers, we treated psychological collectivism as an individual
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
difference rather than as a cultural characteristic (e.g., Clugston,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Howell, & Dorfman, 2000; Lam, Schaubroeck, & Aryee, 2002).
Thus, we fully expected there to be significant between-individual
variability in the levels of psychological collectivism. Nonetheless,
future research should examine the cross-national differences in
collectivistic values (Hofstede, 1980; House, Hanges, Javidan,
Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004).
Third, although the empirical results gathered here suggest that
the proposed theoretical model is partially supported by the em-
pirical data, we cannot infer definite causality because our research
design was nonexperimental in nature. However, in the supple-
mentary analyses of temporal effects, we observe modest evidence
that trust and respect precede self-efficacy, which in turn precedes
innovative behavior. Fourth, although we examined increases in
organizational trust and perceived respect as predictors of in-
creases in self-efficacy, we certainly could have considered
changes in other psychological variables. Fifth, although we fol-
lowed the change approach recommended by Ployhart and Van-
denberg (2010), we did not examine different forms of change,
such as linear versus nonlinear change trajectories.
Sixth and finally, all of the data were self-reported by the
respondents at each time point. Although we demonstrate that
common method variance is not a significant threat in our data
analyses, the use of self-report instruments may have affected our
results. As such, future research must examine outside ratings or
objective counts of innovative behavior. We also observe in the
correlation matrix (see Table 1) that the correlations between the
repeated measures administered at Times 2 and 3 are generally
larger than the correlations between the same repeated measures
administered at Times 1 and 2. This pattern may reflect genuine
intraindividual changes, in which the respondents’ answers at
Times 2 and 3 converged more than their answers at Times 1 and
2. However, this pattern may also reflect the influence of a history
effect, in which the respondents became more familiar with the
survey questions and format as a result of using a self-reporting
methodology at all three time points. Thus, we examined the
influences of common method variance using the aforementioned
CFA technique, that is, specifying a latent common method factor
to underlie the repeated measures administered at Times 1, 2, and
3. Including a common method variance factor does not change the
factor loadings of any item except in the case of idea dissemina-
tion, in which one item at Time 3 changes from significant to
nonsignificant. This indicates that the use of the same methodol-
ogy at all three of the time points did not create a substantial or
threatening common method variance.
Managerial Implications
Our findings also have several managerial implications. First,
they inform managers of the need to understand the agency
perspective on innovative behavior if they want to encourage
additional such behavior in their employees. Promoting such
cognitive beliefs about one’s innovative capacity is the key to
determining whether employees will continuously exhibit inno-
vative behavior. In addition, our finding that increases in cre-
ative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy are related to in-
creases in idea generation, dissemination, and implementation,
respectively, suggests that creativity training should not be
limited to improving creative self-efficacy. Simply focusing on
any one of the three types and neglecting the other two is likely
to yield low returns on human resource investment in this area
(Scott & Bruce, 1994).
Second, our finding that increases in both organizational trust
and peer respect are related to increases in self-efficacy suggests to
managers that employees are greatly concerned with the conse-
quences of engaging in innovative behavior. They are unlikely to
experience increased confidence in doing so if the work environ-
ment appears to be unwelcoming of innovative behavior, in turn
creating anxiety and fear. On the contrary, they are likely to feel
increasingly confident in doing so when they increasingly feel that
their organizations are trustworthy overall, and when they increas-
ingly enjoy positive reputations among their peers. Thus, firms
hoping to promote innovative behavior among their employees
should focus leaders’ attention on this particular aspect of their
management style (that is, on cultivating a growth in trust and
creating a friendly workplace environment in which employees
feel respected).
Third, our finding that psychological collectivism moderates
the dynamic relationship between self-efficacy and innovative
behavior should inform managers of the need to consider indi-
vidual differences in social orientation if they wish to boost
within-individual growth in innovative behavior. If employees
have a strong orientation toward preserving social harmony (as
collectivists do), even promoting within-individual growth in
domain-specific self-efficacy is unlikely to promote such be-
havior. This situation creates a management dilemma, as from
an organization’s perspective, it is beneficial to recruit and
retain employees who prioritize collective goals. However, if
psychological collectivism impedes innovation, as we find it to
do, then managers must consider additional ways of promoting
innovation, such as the use of rewards that are linked to inno-
vative performance.
Finally, our findings highlight the importance of a managerial
cognizance of the dynamic relationships between innovative
behavior and other variables, as they suggest that employees
engage in the three types of behavior to varying extents at
different times. Increases or decreases in innovative behavior
among employees are not necessarily persistent. Rather, the
level of innovative behavior is subject to change as time passes.
The strategies for promoting innovative behavior must be pe-
riodically revised, and the workplace conditions and psycho-
logical climates that may inhibit such behavior must be moni-
tored regularly.
 SOCIAL-COGNITIVE THEORY AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR
Conclusion
We hope that the findings presented herein stimulate further
studies to adopt an agentic perspective on innovative behavior and
examine how domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs are nurtured
internally. We also hope that future studies examine the between-
individual difference in psychological collectivism in greater depth
to provide a better understanding of when and why employees
engage in more or less innovative behavior to varying extents over
time. More broadly, we encourage scholars to extend the social–
cognitive theory perspective by identifying and examining addi-
tional ways in which employees construct domain-specific self-
efficacy through social cues in the workplace, and how and why
domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs are important precursors of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
innovative behavior.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
References
Adcock, C., Hua, X., Mazouz, K., & Yin, S. (2014). Does the stock market
reward innovation? European stock index reaction to negative news
during global financial crisis. Journal of International Money and Fi-
nance, 49, 470 – 491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2014.06.004
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005).
Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50,
367– 403. http://dx.doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367
Anderson, C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 411– 423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Astakhova, M. N., Doty, D. H., & Hang, H. (2014). Understanding the
antecedents of perceived fit at work in the United States, Russia, and
China. European Management Journal, 32, 879 – 890. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.emj.2014.03.005
Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson,
P. E., & Harrington, E. (2000). Shop floor innovation: Facilitating the
suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 73, 265–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/
096317900167029
Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative
ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1102–
1119. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0470
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal control and collective efficacy in
changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing soci-
eties (pp. 1– 45). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527692.003
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:
Y. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 1, 164 –180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
6916.2006.00011.x
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy
revisited. Journal of Management, 38, 9 – 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0149206311410606
Bartel, C. A., Wrzesniewski, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2012). Knowing
where you stand: Physical isolation, perceived respect, and organiza-
tional identification among virtual employees. Organization Science, 23,
743–757. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0661
Beck, J. W., & Schmidt, A. M. (2012). Taken out of context? Cross-level
effects of between-person self-efficacy and difficulty on the within-
29
person relationship of self-efficacy with resource allocation and perfor-
mance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119,
195–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.009
Bednar, R. L., & Parker, C. A. (1969). Client susceptibility to persuasion
and counseling outcome. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 16, 415–
420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0028000
Bentein, K., Vandenberghe, C., Vandenberg, R., & Stinglhamber, F.
(2005). The role of change in the relationship between commitment and
turnover: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 90, 468 – 482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.468
Beutler, L. E., Johnson, D. T., Neville, C. W., Jr., Elkins, D., & Jobe, A. M.
(1975). Attitude similarity and therapist credibility as predictors of
attitude change and improvement in psychotherapy. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 43, 90 –91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
h0076326
Binnewies, C., Ohly, S., & Sonnentag, S. (2007). Taking personal initiative
and communicating about ideas: What is important for the creative
process and for idea creativity? European Journal of Work and Orga-
nizational Psychology, 16, 432– 455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
13594320701514728
Blasberg, S. A., Rogers, K. H., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). The Bidimen-
sional Impression Management Index (BIMI): Measuring agentic and
communal forms of impression management. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 96, 523–531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013
.862252
Boezeman, E. J., & Ellemers, N. (2007). Volunteering for charity: Pride,
respect, and the commitment of volunteers. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 92, 771–785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.771
Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural
equation perspective. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
0471746096
Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y. R. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in
collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and col-
lectivism. Psychological Review, 114, 133–151. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.133
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written
materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-
cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389 – 444). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1983). Communication modality as a deter-
minant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 241–256. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.241
Chan, D. (1998). The conceptualization and analysis of change over time:
An integrative approach incorporating longitudinal mean and covariance
structures analysis (LMACS) and multiple indicator latent growth mod-
eling (MLGM). Organizational Research Methods, 1, 421– 483. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442819814004
Chan, D., Ramey, S., Ramey, C., & Schmitt, N. (2000). Modeling
intraindividual changes in children’s social skills at home and at
school: A multivariate latent growth approach to understanding
between-settings differences in children’s social skill development.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 365–396. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1207/S15327906MBR3503_04
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2000). Interindividual differences in intraindi-
vidual changes in proactivity during organizational entry: A latent
growth modeling approach to understanding newcomer adaptation. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 85, 190 –210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.85.2.190
Chiou, W. B., & Wan, C. S. (2007). The dynamic change of self-efficacy
in information searching on the Internet: Influence of valence of expe-
rience and prior self-efficacy. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisci-
plinary and Applied, 141, 589 – 603. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.141
.6.589-604
 30 NG AND LUCIANETTI
Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural social-
ization predict multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Man-
agement, 26, 5–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)00034-3
Coeurderoy, R., Guilmot, N., & Vas, A. (2014). Explaining factors affect-
ing technological change adoption. Management Decision, 52, 1082–
1100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2013-0540
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness,
and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships
with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 909 –927. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
Cozza, C., Malerba, F., Mancusi, M. L., Perani, G., & Vezzulli, A. (2012).
Innovation, profitability and growth in medium and high-tech manufac-
turing industries: Evidence from Italy. Applied Economics, 44, 1963–
1976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2011.556594
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Cranford, J. A., Shrout, P. E., Iida, M., Rafaeli, E., Yip, T., & Bolger, N.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(2006). A procedure for evaluating sensitivity to within-person change:
Can mood measures in diary studies detect change reliably? Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 917–929. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0146167206287721
Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J., Lend-
rum, B., Rosenbloom, D., & Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational
change: A longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioral
correlates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75,
377–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317902321119637
Daniels, K., Wimalasiri, V., Cheyne, A., & Story, V. (2011). Linking the
demands-control-support model to innovation: The moderating role of
personal initiative on the generation and implementation of ideas. Jour-
nal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 581–598.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317910X494269
De Jong, J., & den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behav-
ior. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19, 23–36. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee
voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50,
869 – 884. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279183
Dierdorff, E. C., Bell, S. T., & Belohlav, J. A. (2011). The power of “we”:
Effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over time.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 247–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0020929
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational
settings. Organization Science, 12, 450 – 467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/
orsc.12.4.450.10640
Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Strycker, L. A. (2006). An introduction to
latent variable growth curve modeling: Concepts, issues, and applica-
tions (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of
United States and the People’s Republic of China. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 34, 565–581. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393567
Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations
of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 36, 319 –348. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256525
Earley, P. C. (1994). Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self-
efficacy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 89 –
117. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393495
Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. (1998). Taking stock in our progress on
individualism-collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community.
Journal of Management, 24, 265–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
014920639802400302
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work
teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350 –383. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/2666999
Eisenberg, J. (1999). How individualism-collectivism moderates the effects
of rewards on creativity and innovation: A comparative review of
practices in Japan and the US. Creativity and Innovation Management,
8, 251–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00144
Ettlie, J. E., & O’Keefe, R. D. (1982). Innovative attitudes, values, and
intentions in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 19, 163–
182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1982.tb00066.x
Fugate, M., Prussia, G. E., & Kinicki, A. J. (2012). Managing employee
withdrawal during organizational change: The role of threat appraisal.
Journal of Management, 38, 890 –914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0149206309352881
Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Relyea, C., & Beu, D. (2006).
Perceived external prestige and internal respect: New insights into the
organizational identification process. Human Relations, 59, 815– 846.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726706067148
Gest, S. D., Rulison, K. L., Davidson, A. J., & Welsh, J. A. (2008). A
reputation for success (or failure): The association of peer academic
reputations with academic self-concept, effort, and performance across
the upper elementary grades. Developmental Psychology, 44, 625– 636.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.625
Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior
and human resource management. The Academy of Management Review,
12, 472– 485.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of
its determinants and malleability. The Academy of Management Review,
17, 183–211.
Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and
group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 100, 96 –109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.11.003
Gong, Y., Huang, J., & Farh, L. (2009). Employee learning orientation,
transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating
role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 52, 765–778. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670890
Greenwald, A. G. (1965). Behavior change following a persuasive com-
munication. Journal of Personality, 33, 370 –391. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-6494.1965.tb01392.x
Greve, H. R., & Taylor, A. (2000). Innovations as catalysts for organiza-
tional change: Shifts in organizational cognition and search. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 45, 54 – 80. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
2666979
Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. K. (1998). Market orientation and
organizational performance: Is innovation a missing link? Journal of
Marketing, 62, 30 – 45. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252285
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and condi-
tional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Caldwell, S. D. (2007). Beyond change
management: A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal
influences on employees’ commitment to change. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 942–951. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.942
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in
work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holman, D., Totterdell, P., Axtell, C., Stride, C., Port, R., Svensson, R.,
& Zibarras, L. (2012). Job design and the employee innovation
process: The mediating role of learning strategies. Journal of Busi-
ness and Psychology, 27, 177–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-
011-9242-5
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V.
(2004). Culture, leader-ship, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62
societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure
modeling: Sensitivity to unparameterized model misspecification. Psy-
chological Methods, 3, 424 – 453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X
.3.4.424
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criterion for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alterna-
 SOCIAL-COGNITIVE THEORY AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR
tives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/10705519909540118
Hughes, A., Galbraith, D., & White, D. (2011). Perceived competence: A
common core for self-efficacy and self-concept? Journal of Personality
Assessment, 93, 278 –289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011
.559390
Hui, C. H., Cheng, K., & Gan, Y. (2003). Psychological collectivism as a
moderator of the impact of supervisor-subordinate personality similarity
on employees’ service quality. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 52, 175–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00130
Jaccard, J. (1981). Toward theories of persuasion and belief change.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 260 –269. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.260
Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(2006). Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation and link-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
age to group member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
884 – 899.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. S., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis:
Assumptions, models, and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness
and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Orga-
nizational Psychology, 73, 287–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/
096317900167038
Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear
relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satis-
faction. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1039 –1050. http://dx.doi
.org/10.2307/3069447
Janssen, O. (2004). How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior
more or less stressful. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 201–215.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.238
Jennings, D. F., & Young, D. M. (1990). An empirical comparison between
objective and subjective measures of the product innovation domain of
corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15,
53– 66.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999).
Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspec-
tive. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.107
Kavanagh, D. J., & Bower, G. H. (1985). Mood and self-efficacy: Impact
of job and sadness on perceived capabilities. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 9, 507–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01173005
Lam, S. S. K., Chen, X., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participative decision
making and employee performance in different cultures: The moderating
effects of allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 45, 905–914. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069321
Lam, S. S. K., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between
organizational justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national
study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/job.131
Lance, C. E., Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (2000). Latent growth
models of individual change: The case of newcomer adjustment. Orga-
nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 107–140.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2904
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853– 868. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.853
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust:
New relationships and realities. The Academy of Management Review,
23, 438 – 458.
Liao, H., Liu, D., & Loi, R. (2010). Looking at both sides of the social
exchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of
relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 53, 1090 –1109. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010
.54533207
31
Lodigiani, R., & Pesenti, L. (2014). Public resources retrenchment and
social welfare innovation in Italy: Welfare cultures and the subsid-
iarity principle in times of crisis. Journal of Contemporary European
Studies, 22, 157–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2014
.903833
Love, M. S., & Dustin, S. L. (2014). An investigation of coworker rela-
tionships and psychological collectivism on employee propensity to take
charge. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25,
1208 –1226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.826712
Mallard, A. G. C., & Lance, C. E. (1998). Development and evaluation of
a parent– employee interrole conflict scale. Social Indicators Research,
45, 343–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006914418251
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance
appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.84.1.123
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative
model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20,
709 –734.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations
for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 24 –59. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256727
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory
study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate
upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1453–1476.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387
Minsky, B. D., & Marin, D. B. (1999). Why faculty members use
e-mail: The role of individual differences in channel choice. Journal
of Business Communication, 36, 194 –211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
002194369903600204
Mortazavi, S., Pedhiwala, N., Shafiro, M., & Hammer, L. (2009). Work-
family conflict related to culture and gender. Community, Work &
Family, 12, 251–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13668800902779023
Neves, P. (2009). Readiness for change: Contributions for employee’s level
of individual change and turnover intentions. Journal of Change Man-
agement, 9, 215–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697010902879178
Ng, T. W. H., Feldman, D. C., & Lam, S. S. K. (2010). Psychological
contract breaches, organizational commitment, and innovation-related
behaviors: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95, 744 –751. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018804
Oh, I., Guay, R., Kim, K., Harold, C. M., Lee, J., Heo, C., & Shin, K.-H.
(2014). Fit happens globally: A meta-analytic comparison of the rela-
tionships of person-environment fit dimensions with work attitudes and
performance across East Asia, Europe, and North America. Personnel
Psychology, 67, 99 –152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/peps.12026
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking
individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions
and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.
Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and manag-
ers’ motivation for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
23, 215–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.137
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the
antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 91, 636 – 652.
Pentz, M. A., & Chou, C. P. (1994). Measurement invariance in longitu-
dinal clinical research assuming change from development and interven-
tion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 450 – 462.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.62.3.450
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Tormala, Z. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a
determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 722–741. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.722
 32 NG AND LUCIANETTI
Pirson, M., & Malhotra, D. (2011). Foundations of organizational trust:
What matters to different stakeholders? Organization Science, 22, 1087–
1104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0581
Pitariu, A. H., & Ployhart, R. E. (2010). Explaining change: Theorizing and
testing dynamic mediated longitudinal relationships. Journal of Man-
agement, 36, 405– 429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206308331096
Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The
theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36,
94 –120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352110
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 879 –903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing mod-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
erated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Mul-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00273170701341316
Ramesh, A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2010). Will they stay or will they go? The
role of job embeddedness in predicting turnover in individualistic and
collectivistic cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 807– 823.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019464
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological
contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15, 245–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150306
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image. Middletown,
CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Roth, P. L., & BeVier, C. A. (1998). Response rates in HRM/OB survey
research: Norms and correlates, 1990 –1994. Journal of Management,
24, 97–117.
Sadri, G., & Robertson, I. (1993). Self-efficacy and work-related behavior:
A review and meta-analysis. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 42, 139 –152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1993
.tb00728.x
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior:
A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 580 – 607. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256701
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of
growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported
creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 489 –505.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.41330806
Shavelson, R. J., Webb, N. M., & Rowley, G. L. (1989). Generalizability
theory. American Psychologist, 44, 922–932. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0003-066X.44.6.922
Sherry, S. B., Mackinnon, S. P., Macneil, M. A., & Fitzpatrick, S. (2013).
Discrepancies confer vulnerability to depressive symptoms: A three-
wave longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 112–
126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030439
Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1997). Choosing the right pond: The impact
of group membership on self-esteem and group-oriented behavior. Jour-
nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 146 –170. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1006/jesp.1996.1318
Staub, E. (1972). Effects of persuasion and modeling on delay of gratifi-
cation. Developmental Psychology, 6, 166 –177. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/h0032212
Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity? Its
dialectical relation to intelligence and wisdom. American Psychologist,
56, 360 –362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.360
Sullivan, D., Landau, M. J., Kay, A. C., & Rothschild, Z. K. (2012).
Collectivism and the meaning of suffering. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 103, 1023–1039. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030382
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential
antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 45, 1137–1148. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069429
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development
and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96,
277–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020952
van Beuningen, J., De Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2011). The power of
self-efficacy change during service provision: Making your customers
feel better about themselves pays off. Journal of Service Research, 14,
108 –125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094670510379037
van Dam, K., Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. (2008). Daily work contexts and
resistance to organizational change: The role of leader-member ex-
change, developmental climate, and change process characteristics. Ap-
plied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 313–334. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00311.x
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the
measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recom-
mendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Meth-
ods, 3, 4 –70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
van Quaquebeke, N., Zenker, S., & Eckloff, T. (2009). Find out how much
it means to me! The importance of interpersonal respect in work values
compared to perceived organizational practices. Journal of Business
Ethics, 89, 423– 431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-0008-6
van Vienen, A. E. M. (1999). Managerial self-efficacy, outcome expec-
tancies, and work-role salience as determinants of ambition for a man-
agerial position. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 639 – 665.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb01406.x
Vardaman, J. M., Amis, J. M., Dyson, B. P., Wright, P. M., & Van de
Graaff Randolph, R. (2012). Interpreting change as controllable: The
role of network centrality and self-efficacy. Human Relations, 65, 835–
859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726712441642
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
Wales, W. J., Patel, P. C., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2013). In pursuit of
greatness: CEO narcissism, entrepreneurial orientation, and firm perfor-
mance variance. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 1041–1069. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/joms.12034
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of
openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 132–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.132
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based
performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 41, 540 –555. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
256941
Wennberg, K., Pathak, S., & Autio, E. (2013). How culture moulds the
effects of self-efficacy and fear of failure on entrepreneurship. Entre-
preneurship and Regional Development, 25, 756 –780. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/08985626.2013.862975
Wheeler, L., Reis, H. T., & Bond, M. H. (1989). Collectivism-
individualism in everyday social life: The middle kingdom and the
melting pot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 79 – 86.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.1.79
Winkler, J. D., Kanouse, D. E., & Ware, J. E. (1982). Controlling for
acquiescence response set in scale development. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67, 555–561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.5
.555
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the work-
place: The role of performance and image outcome expectations. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 53, 323–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/
AMJ.2010.49388995
Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Chavez, C. (1999). Task importance, feasibility, and
agent influence behavior as determinants of target commitment. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 84, 137–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.84.1.137
 SOCIAL-COGNITIVE THEORY AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and
employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrin-
sic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management
Journal, 53, 107–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.48037118
Zhang, X., & Zhou, J. (2014). Empowering leadership, uncertainty
avoidance, trust, and employee creativity: Interaction effects and a
Appendix
Measurement Scales
Organizational Trust
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
In general, I believe my employer’s motives and intentions
are good.
My employer is always honest and truthful.
I fully trust my employer.
My employer is open and upfront with me.
I believe my employer has high integrity.
I think my employer treats me fairly.
I can expect my employer to treat me in a consistent and
predictable fashion.
Perceived Respect
My colleagues respect my values.
I believe that I have a good reputation among my colleagues.
I believe that my colleagues react well to me, to what I say
and do.
I believe that I make a good impression on my colleagues.
I believe that most colleagues here like me.
Most colleagues are impressed by what I have accomplished
at work.
Most colleagues respect me.
Creative Self-Efficacy
I have confidence in my ability to solve problems creatively.
I feel that I am good at generating novel ideas.
(Appendix continues)
33
mediating mechanism. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 124, 150 –164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.02
.002
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to
creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 44, 682– 696. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069410
I have a knack for further developing ideas of others.
Persuasion Self-Efficacy
I am always successful at persuading others to take my
suggestions.
I feel confident when I defend an opinion at work.
When I have to do the talking at work, I always feel enthu-
siastic.
I do not feel nervous when I have to give instructions to other
colleagues.
I have excellent persuasion skills and tactics.
Change Self-Efficacy
Wherever an organizational change takes place, I’m sure I can
handle it.
I think I cope with change better than most of those with
whom I work.
When dramatic changes happen in this organization, I feel I
can handle them with ease.
I have little doubt I can perform well following an organiza-
tional change.
I believe I will perform well in my job situation following an
organizational change.
Psychological Collectivism
I like to work by myself rather than in a group. (reverse-
coded)
If a group is slowing me down, it is better to leave it and work
alone. (reverse-coded)
 34 NG AND LUCIANETTI

To be superior, I must stand alone. (reverse-coded) I generate original solutions to problems.

I do better work when working alone than in a group. Idea Dissemination

(reverse-coded)
I mobilize support for innovative ideas.
I would rather struggle through a personal problem by myself
than discuss it with my friends. (reverse-coded) I acquire approval for innovative ideas.
I shouldn’t accept the group’s decision when personally I I make important organizational members enthusiastic for
have a different opinion. (reverse-coded) innovative ideas.
Problem solving by myself gives better results than problem
solving by groups. (reverse-coded)
Idea Implementation

I transform innovative ideas into useful applications.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

The needs of people close to me should not take priority over

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

my personal needs. (reverse-coded) I introduce innovative ideas into the work environment in a
systematic way.
Idea Generation
I evaluate the utility of innovate ideas.
I create new ideas for improvements.
Received May 13, 2014
I search out new working methods, techniques, or instru- Revision received April 8, 2015
ments. Accepted April 13, 2015 䡲