Øystein Løvik Hoprekstad

Psychologia Społeczna 19 p. 1-24 Doi: https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.12875

As the climate change crisis has become more evident, a growing number of businesses and organizations have gotten involved in sustainability efforts. But not all corporate sustainability efforts are applauded: sometimes the public accuses companies of greenwashing, i.e., overstating the extent to which the company is environmentally friendly. There is little research on the factors that influence perceived greenwashing amongst the public. Here, we report a replication and extension of one of the few studies of this topic, Experiment 2 in de Vries et al. (2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1327). The original study found that people perceived more greenwashing when an oil company communicated an environmental motive for a sustainability investment (carbon capture and storage), as opposed to a profit motive, d = 0.98 [0.37, 1.59]. The present pre-registered replication (n = 516) did not find support for this effect, with very little difference in perceived greenwashing depending on communicated motive, d = -0.09 [-0.38, 0.21]. As extensions, we included a condition where a mixed motive (both environment and profits) was communicated, tested the effect using a different type of company than the original, included a measure of general attitudes to the company in addition to perceived greenwashing, and included measures of individual differences in attitudes towards corporate social responsibility and belief in climate change. The most noteworthy exploratory finding was that attitudes were more positive when an environmental or a mixed motive was communicated rather than a profit motive.

Applied Psychology 72(3) Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12410

Building on the three-way model of workplace bullying and its underlying theories, this study investigates the role of trait anger and trait anxiety in the link between daily interpersonal conflicts and daily exposure to bullying behaviors. Using a quantitative diary study design, we approached 57 military naval cadets participating in a tall-ship voyage across the Atlantic, from Europe to North America, in 2017. They responded to a questionnaire on a daily basis over a period of 30 days—yielding 1428 measurement points. Prior to the voyage, participants also responded to a general questionnaire including measures of trait anger and trait anxiety. As hypothesized, multilevel analyses showed positive main effects of daily interpersonal conflicts on interpersonal conflicts the next day and exposure to bullying behaviors the same day. However, daily involvement in interpersonal conflicts did not predict exposure to bullying behaviors the next day. Moreover, and in support of the hypothesized moderating effects, trait anger (but not trait anxiety) interacted positively with daily interpersonal conflicts in the prediction of interpersonal conflicts the next day as well as exposure to bullying behaviors the same day. The study suggests that interpersonal conflicts persist and have an immediate effect on exposure to bullying behaviors and that this is particularly the case for individuals high (vs. low) on trait anger. We discuss how these findings contribute to the three-way model of workplace bullying, as well as possible practical implications.

Current Psychology 42 p. 1-17 Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02453-5

The present study examines employees’ prior victimization from bullying in school or at work as a predictor of 1) their current exposure to negative social acts at work and 2) the likelihood of labelling as a victim of workplace bullying, and 3) whether the link between exposure to negative acts at work and the perception of being bullied is stronger among those who have been bullied in the past. We tested our hypotheses using a probability sample of the Norwegian working population in a prospective design with a 5-year time lag (N = 1228). As hypothesized, prior victimization positively predicted subsequent exposure to negative acts, which in turn was related to a higher likelihood of developing a perception of being a victim of workplace bullying. However, contrary to our expectations, prior victimization from bullying did not affect the relationship between current exposure to negative acts at work and the likelihood of self-labelling as a victim. Taken together, the results suggest that employees’ prior victimization is a risk factor for future victimization, yet overall plays a rather modest role in understanding current exposure to negative acts and self-labelled victimization from bullying at work.

Safety Science 138(June) p. 1-8 Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105100

The leadership literature suggests that passive leadership undermines employee safety performance; because passive leadership behavior signals that the leader is not committed to organizational safety goals. We tested this hypothesis and investigated the role of two possible moderators, moral disengagement and intolerance of uncertainty. Participants were 78 naval cadets who responded to daily surveys during a 30 days voyage on board of a sailing ship (N occasions is 2166 for H1 and 1910 for H2– H4). The results of multilevel analyses showed as expected that a substantial portion (49%) of the daily safety non-compliance was caused by variation within each crewmember from day to day, and that an increase in daily passive avoidant leadership was related to increased daily safety non-compliance. More unexpectedly, those crewmembers high (and not low) on moral disengagement and intolerance of uncertainty were less influenced by passive avoidant leadership in terms of daily safety violations. Several explanations for the results are discussed.

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH) 17:2587(7) p. 1-12 Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072587