Citizenship pressure and citizenship behaviours: examining different self-regulation process

Citizenship pressure and citizenship behaviours: examining different self-regulation process | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Citizenship pressure and citizenship behaviours: examining different self-regulation process Shenyang Liu, Dejun Cheng This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5004415/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 17 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted 17 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Purpose - The benefits of OCBs increase citizenship pressure in organizations. However, the relationships between citizenship pressure and citizenship behaviours (i.e., organizational and compulsory citizenship behaviours) are in controversy. Inspired by regulatory focus theory and "stressor-work regulatory focus-outcomes" framework, the purpose of this study is to examine how citizenship pressure is related to OCBs and compulsory citizenship behaviours through promotion and prevention work regulatory focus as well as the moderating role of individual's polychronicity in these relationships. Design/methodology/approach - Three-wave time-lagged data were collected from China's 241 fulltime employees. This study employed bootstrapping with SEM to test hypotheses. Findings - Results showed citizenship pressure is positively related to both OCBs and compulsory citizenship behaviours. In addition, promotion and prevention work regulatory focus play opposing mediating roles in the relationships between citizenship pressure and these two types of citizenship behaviour, and the mediating role of promotion work regulatory focus is enhanced when individuals exhibit higher polychronicity; however, the mediating role of prevention work regulatory focus is enhanced when individuals exhibit lower polychronicity. Practical implications - Guiding employees to form a promotion rather than prevention work regulatory focus by assigning employees with polychronicity to positions under citizenship pressure or training employees to improve polychronicity may yield citizenship pressure produce more benefits. Originality/value - Our findings provide new perspectives into the benefits and costs of citizenship pressure via regulatory focus theory and address the controversy over the relationship between citizenship pressure and citizenship behaviours by considering OCBs and compulsory citizenship behaviours simultaneously. Biological sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour Biological sciences/Biological techniques/Behavioural methods citizenship pressure organizational citizenship behaviours compulsory citizenship behaviours work regulatory focus polychronicity Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction In a dynamic and uncertain environment, organizations benefit from spontaneous behaviours on the part of employees that range beyond their responsibilities, which are defined as organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs) 1 . This definition emphasizes the spontaneity of OCBs. However, many organizations demand that employees perform OCBs due to the corresponding benefits, thus subjecting employees to pressure to engage in OCBs; this stressor is defined as citizenship pressure 2 . Consequently, employees gradually feel compelled to engage in OCBs; the resulting behaviours are defined as compulsory citizenship behaviours（CCB） 3 . The impacts of citizenship pressure on OCBs or CCBs have been controversial. For example, citizenship pressure has been reported to promote OCBs (e.g. 3,4 ) or impede OCBs 5 as well as to promote CCBs 6 . Hollman 7 once argued that employees who are willing to work overtime are more beneficial to organizations than employees who are unwilling. Scholars have also confirmed that OCBs entail benefits for organizations 8 , while CCBs have negative effects 9,10 . In light of the research gap mentioned above, the question of how citizenship pressure influences employees' OCBs and CCBs should be given more attention. These controversies regarding the relationships among citizenship pressure, OCBs and CCBs may be due to the ways in which OCBs are measured. In the literature, OCBs have often been defined as spontaneous behaviours and rated by colleagues or leaders (e.g. 2 ). Other-rated measurements are unable to identify the behavioural motivations underlying OCBs 1,11 . This situation indicates that the other-rated measurement of OCBs may also include CCBs, which in turn leads to the inconsistent conclusions that have been reported. For example, Dierdorff and Rubin 4 found OCBs may originate from perceived obligations to reciprocate, this OCBs may actually more consistent with the definition of CCBs. Therefore, according to Lepine et al. 1 and Carpenter et al. 11 , distinguishing between OCBs and CCBs and using self-report data can help us answer the question of how citizenship pressure impacts these two types of citizenship behaviours, thus addressing the research gap mentioned above. Due to the different formation paths of OCBs and CCBs, how citizenship pressure influences these two types of citizenship behaviours should be further studied. Scholars investigating how citizenship pressure influences employees in organizations have mainly focused on emotional and resource perspectives, such as the possibility that citizenship pressure influences employees through negative affect and cognitive depletion 8 or citizenship fatigue 12 . These studies have emphasized the negative pathways between citizenship pressure and its outcomes while ignoring positive pathways; thus, they have been unable to explain the motives underlying citizenship behaviours resulting from pressure. In fact, the process by an individual copes with pressure is known as self-regulation 13 . Higgins 14 proposed regulatory focus theory and suggested two types of self-regulation processes: promotion work regulatory focus and prevention work regulatory focus. Zhang et al. 13 developed a theoretical framework based on regulatory focus theory to illustrate how individuals’ work regulatory focus is shaped by stress events and their subsequent behaviours. According to regulatory focus theory 14 and Zhang et al.'s 13 framework, individuals may achieve their goals by engaging in citizenship behaviours in response to the pressure to do so 8,15 ; in this context, they regard such pressure as an opportunity and make proactive adjustments. In contrast, engaging in citizenship behaviours leads to resource consumption on the part of individuals 8 ; thus, individuals regard this pressure as a source of potential loss and make passive adjustments 13,14 . Accordingly, two self-regulation processes govern the relationship between pressure and individual behaviour, leading to different behavioural motivations. Thus, this study introduces work regulatory focus as a mediator with the goal of obtaining further insights into the influence of citizenship pressure on two types of citizenship behaviours. Moreover, perceptions of pressure and the self-regulation process are affected by individual characteristics such as continuance commitment 12 or motivation 16 . In fact, these two types of citizenship behaviour must be performed at the same time as in-role behaviours such as task performance. A certain personal characteristic reflects the individual’s preference for engaging in multiple activities simultaneously, which is defined as polychronicity 17 . Individuals with high polychronicity are willing to and skilled at playing multiple roles or featuring massive workflow interruptions 18,19 . According to regulatory focus theory, when individuals have the willingness and abilities necessary to cope with stressful events, they tend to exhibit promotion work regulatory focus. However, most research attentions have been paid on the influence of polychronicity on job-related behaviours such as OCBs and service behaviours 19 , only a few studies have examined the moderating role of polychonicity in the relationship between daily interruptions and daily satisfaction 18 , evidence regarding how individuals with different levels of polychronicity respond to citizenship pressure is scarce, Thus, this study includes individual polychronicity as a moderator to identify the individuals who tend to engage in OCBs or CCBs in response to citizenship pressure. The present study makes several contributions to the citizenship behaviour literature and regulatory focus theory based on the 'stressor-work regulatory focus-outcomes' framework. First, this study contributes to our understanding of citizenship behaviours by distinguishing between OCBs and CCBs and by examining the impacts of citizenship pressure on the two types of citizenship behaviours, thus answering the call of Bolino and Klotz 9 to focus on different citizenship behaviours and their common causes and resolve an ongoing controversy in the citizenship behaviour literature. Second, this study answers the call of Koopman et al. 16 for more research on the double-edged effect of citizenship pressure by examining the mediating role of work regulatory focus in the relationships between citizenship pressure and the two types of citizenship behaviours, thereby providing a framework that offers new insights. Finally, this study responds to the call of Mullins et al. 19 for more research on polychronicity in the OB and human resource management (HRM) fields by examining the moderating role of polychronicity, thus enhancing the applicability of regulatory focus theory. From a practical perspective, this study aims to elicit interest from organizations and managers who need management citizenship pressure, thus inspiring them to pay more attention to and guide employees' self-regulation processes. Theory and hypothesis development Regulatory focus theory 14 and "stressor-work regulatory focus-outcomes framework" 13 provide us with a systematic analytical perspective that enable us to understand how citizenship pressure influences an individual's citizenship behaviours via self-regulation processes. Stress events such as citizenship pressure are leading causes of self-regulation 20 and the formation of individual work regulatory focus 13 . Furthermore, when individuals exhibit promotion work regulatory focus, they have a tendency to strive for more achievements, adopt a long-term perspective and have the intrinsic motivation to pursue advancements 13,14 . In contrast, when individuals exhibit prevention work regulatory focus, they tend to avoid potential losses, adopt a short-term perspective and have the motivation to decrease their engagement and focus only on their duties. The "stressor-work regulatory focus-outcomes" framework, which is based on regulatory focus theory, specifies precisely how individuals react to stress based on different types of self-regulation. Promotion work regulatory focus refers to self-regulation in pursuit of achievement because it is formed by employees' perceptions of opportunities to achieve their goals and other clues associated with stress events 13 . It is crucial for individuals to perform spontaneous behaviour 21 . Whereas, prevention work regulatory focus refers to avoidant self-regulation, which is based on employees' perceptions of potential losses in stressful situations 13 , which is crucial for performing controlled behaviours 21 . We thus draw on the "stressor-work regulatory focus-outcomes" framework to explore how employees exhibit self-regulation in response to citizenship pressure and thus engage in OCBs or CCBs. Specifically, we examine promotion work regulatory focus as an example of proactive self-regulation and prevention work regulatory focus as an example of passive self-regulation in response to citizenship pressure. Citizenship Pressure, OCBs and CCBs Given that engaging in OCBs can improve employee feelings 22 , contribute to organizational functioning 23 , enhance organizational performance 11 and contribute to individual well-being 8 and career success 15 , individuals may perceive citizenship pressure citizenship as an opportunity to achieve growth opportunities and then engage in OCBs spontaneously due to their approaching motives 24 . In contrast, engaging in OCBs increases an individual's role overload and work-family conflict and can impede work progress 8 , individuals may perceive citizenship pressure as a threat of potential loss because OCBs are closely related to performance appraisal and income 25 . Thus, such individuals have no choice but to engage in OCBs just as they must fulfil their obligations 2 ; that is, they actually engage in CCBs. In summary, we propose the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1 : Citizenship pressure is positively related to OCBs (a) and CCBs (b). Promotion and prevention work regulatory focus as mediators Given the benefits of citizenship pressure discussed above, such as engaging in OCBs provides employees with opportunities to achieve goals such as career success 15 and better performance ratings 8 . These gainful cues may guide employees to form promotion work regulatory focus in response to citizenship pressure. However, engaging in OCBs also leads to potential losses for employees due to additional resource consumption or punishment for their failure to complete tasks 8 . These losing cues may guide employees to form prevention work regulatory focus in response to citizenship pressure. Employees who exhibit promotion work regulatory focus are sensitive to the acquisition of resources and tend to invest their resources to obtain more benefits. Even engaging in OCBs entails the risk that employees will be impeded in the task of achieving their basic goals 8 , they still believe the benefits are more than losses and approach goals eagerly and are willing to take risks 14 . Thus, they invest spontaneous efforts in extra-role behaviour such as OCBs 24 . However, employees who exhibit prevention work regulatory focus concentrate on losses caused by engaging in OCBs and tend to protect their resources 14 . Citizenship pressure often regard citizenship behaviours as obligations that they must complete. Although they are unwilling to perform OCBs, they must behave like 'a good citizen' to avoid being regarded as poor performers and suffering further losses 25 . Thus, they are unwilling to invest resources in OCBs. Thus, they engage in citizenship behaviours due to controlled motivation, that is, CCBs. Accordingly, based on regulatory focus theory 14 and the "stressor-work regulatory focus-outcomes" framework 13 , citizenship pressure, as a stress event, can generate promotion work regulatory focus among employees for performing OCBs enables them to achieve their goals; however, it can also generate prevention work regulatory focus among employees for performing OCBs impeding their ability to complete their basic tasks or leading to resource depletion. In turn, employees who form promotion work regulatory focus proactively engage in OCBs to pursue these achievements, while employees who form prevention work regulatory focus passively engage in citizenship behaviours to discharge their duties and prevent losses. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 2 : Promotion work regulatory focus mediates the relationships between citizenship pressure and (a) OCBs and (b) CCBs. Hypothesis 3 : Prevention work regulatory focus mediates the relationships between citizenship pressure and (a) OCBs and (b) CCBs. Polychronicity as a moderator According to regulatory focus theory 14 and the "stressor-work regulatory focus-outcomes" framework 13 , promotion work regulatory focus results from the perceived benefits and achievements associated with stress events, while prevention work regulatory focus results from the perceived losses and obligations associated with stress events. Individuals with polychronicity have the ability and willingness necessary to perform both in- and extra-role behaviours 26 as well as are capable of coping with interruptions or switching between these two types of behaviours 18 , indicating that engaging in OCBs under citizenship pressure while completing basic tasks represents an opportunity for them to achieve their goals, and resource depletion during the interruptions or switching causes fewer resource losses. Their attention is diverted from losses, which helps them focus on pursuing achievements via OCBs. However, individuals with lower polychronicity tend to complete their obligations and perform one task at a time; in addition, they are not skilled at coping with task interruptions or switching. Thus, they perceive more resource losses due to citizenship pressure and exhibit prevention work regulatory focus. In summary, we propose the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 4 : When individuals have higher polychronicity, (a) the positive relationship between citizenship pressure and promotion work regulatory focus is stronger, while (b) the relationship between citizenship pressure and prevention work regulatory focus is weaker. We further propose that polychronicity moderates the indirect effects of citizenship pressure on OCBs and CCBs through promotion and prevention work regulatory focus. When individuals with high polychronicity are required to engage in multiple tasks simultaneously, they exhibit fewer compulsive perceptions 27 and negative stress reactions 28 . Accordingly, they tend to focus more on achieving their goals, which is conducive to promotion work regulatory focus and thus leads to spontaneous efforts in the form of OCBs. In contrast, individuals with low polychronicity tend to focus more on potential losses and their obligations, which is conducive to prevention work regulatory focus and thus causes them to feel that they have no choice but to engage in citizenship behaviours, that is, compulsory citizenship behaviours. Hypothesis 5 : Polychronicity moderates the mediating effects of promotion work regulatory focus on the relationships between citizenship pressure and (a) OCBs and (b) CCBs, such that when individuals have high polychronicity, these mediating effects are stronger. Hypothesis 6 : Polychronicity moderates the mediating effects of prevention work regulatory focus on the relationships between citizenship pressure and (a) OCBs and (b) CCBs such that when individuals have high polychronicity, these mediating effects are weaker. Methods Sample and procedures Data were collected from 2 organizations in central China across three time points. With the help of HR departments from both organizations, full-time employees were randomly selected as participants. All items were self-reported, allowing us to capture the spontaneous or compulsory motivation of citizenship behaviours 1,3 . Questionnaires were distributed online to 420 participants at time 1. In response, 359 completed questionnaires were received, for a response rate of 85.48%. Citizenship pressure, polychronicity and control variables were collected at time 1. At time 2 (1 month after time 1), questionnaires pertaining to promotion and prevention work regulatory focus were distributed to individuals who had responded to the time 1 survey, and 298 complete responses were received, for a response rate of 83.01%. At time 3 (1 month after time 2), questionnaires pertaining to OCBs and CCBs were distributed to individuals who had responded to the time 1 and 2 surveys, and 241 complete responses were received, for a response rate of 80.87%. An item pertaining to the last four digits of participants’ cell phone numbers was included in each questionnaire to enable us to match questionaries completed by one individual across different times. In total, 63.50% of participants were male, their average age was 30.62 years (SD = 4.02), and their average work experience was 5.25 years (SD = 3.55); in addition, 43.57% of participants had a bachelor's degree, while 17.84% had a master's degree or above. Measures All survey items underwent a translation-back-translation procedure, were validated for Chinese-speaking respondents (e.g. 2 ,29 ) and were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Citizenship pressure Bolino et al.'s 2 8-item scale was used to measure citizenship pressure. An example item was "I feel a lot of pressure to go the extra mile by doing a lot of things that, technically, I don’t have to do" (α = 0.91). Promotion and prevention work regulatory focus Wallace and Chen's 24 12-item scale was used to measure promotion and prevention work regulatory focus. Six items were used to measure promotion work regulatory focus, and an example item was "At work, I get a lot of work finished in a short amount of time" (α = 0.941). The other 6 items were used to measure prevention work regulatory focus, and an example item was "At work, I simply fulfil my work obligations" (α = 0.942). Organizational citizenship behaviour Farh et al .'s 29 20-item Chinese cultural context OCB scale was used to measure OCBs because these authors defined OCBs as spontaneous behaviours. An example item was "I'm willing to assist new colleagues in adjusting to the work environment" (α = 0.913). Compulsory citizenship behaviour Vigoda-Gadot's 30 5-item scale was used to measure CCBs. An example item was "I feel that I am expected to invest more effort in this job than I want to in a manner that lies beyond my formal job requirements" (α = 0.882). Polychronicity Arndt et al .'s 17 simplified 4-item scale was used to measure polychronicity. An example item was "I like to juggle several activities at the same time" (α = 0.909). Control variables We included participants' age, gender, work experiences and level of education as control variables since they have been proven to be relevant to citizenship behaviours (e.g. 10 ). Data Analysis We used SPSS 22.0 and Mplus 8.10 for all analyses. To reduce the variable-to-sample-size ratio and maintain a reasonable degree of freedom, we followed the recommendation of Little et al. 31 and used item parcel methods for variables associated with more than 4 items by combining the highest and lowest factor loading items. For determining reliability, we used Cronbach’s α, and all these coefficients were above 0.882, which indicated a good reliability. For determining discriminant validity, we used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and average variance extracted (AVE). The proposed 6-factor model fit the data well (c 2 = 468.840, df = 191, CFI = 0.934, TLI = 0.920, RMSEA = 0.078, SRMR = 0.075) and was better than other models. The square roots of AVE of our 6 variables were above 0.606 and exceeded all correlations among variables, thus indicating good discriminant validity. In addition, we conducted a common methods bias test according to Podsakoff et al. 32 . Harman’s single factor test explained 12.459% variance, far less than 50%, which showed the common method bias is not a cause of concern. Due to space constraints, full results for descriptive statistics and correlation analysis are not reported but are available from the researchers upon request. All the correlations between our focal variables are basically consistent with our hypotheses. For hypotheses testing, latent moderate structural equations (LMS) approach and the bootstrap method (bootstrap = 5000) were used 33 . We first compared the partial and full mediation models and found partial mediation model was significantly better (D c 2 = -42.511, D df = 2, DCFI = 0.010, DTLI = 0.010, DRMSEA = 0.003, DSRMR = 0.020, p <0.01). Based on it, we further compared the moderated mediation model (see Figure 1, -2ll = -4942.156, AIC = 10082.313, df = 99) and its alternative models (without the path linking interaction to promotion/prevention work regulatory focus; D H 0 : -2ll = 9.01, p <0.01; DAIC = -12.162), which indicated the moderated mediation model should be acceptable. Results As shown in Figure 1, citizenship pressure was positively related to OCBs (β= 0.278, p<0.01) and CCBs (β= 0.277, p<0.01); thus, Hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported. The indirect effect of citizenship pressure on OCBs via promotion regulatory focus was positively significant (β = 0.066, 95% CI = [0.019, 0.157]), while via prevention regulatory focus was negatively significant (β = -0.031, 95% CI = [-0.089, -0.004]). The indirect effect of citizenship pressure on CCBs via promotion regulatory focus was negatively significant (β = -0.030, 95% CI = [-0.074, -0.005]), while via prevention regulatory focus was positively significant (β = -0.030, 95% CI = [0.001, 0.079]). Therefore, Hypotheses 2a-3b were supported. [Insert Figure 1 about here] In addition, the interaction between citizenship pressure and polychronicity was positively related to promotion work regulatory focus (β = 0.389, p<0.05) and negatively related to prevention work regulatory focus (β = -0.290, p<0.05). A simple slope test verified the significant moderating effect of polychronicity on the relationships between citizenship pressure and both promotion (β = 0.750, p <0.05) and prevention (β = -0.560, p <0.05) work regulatory focus. Thus, Hypotheses 4a and 4b were supported. Figures 2(a) and 2(b) plot this moderating effect. [Insert Figure 2 about here] Table 1 presents the results of the moderated mediation bootstrap test. The difference in the indirect relationships between citizenship pressure and two types of citizenship behaviour via promotion and prevention work regulatory focus among individuals with different polychronicity was significant, as we assumed. Therefore, Hypotheses 5 and 6 were supported. Table 1 Conditional indirect effects of CP on its outcomes by LSM: Model 7(N=241) Moderator: POLY Path β 95%CI High CP → PMF → OCB 0.140 * [0.050, 0.300] Low -0.010 [-0.130, 0.070] Difference 0.150 * [0.030, 0.370] High CP → PVF → OCB -0.010 [-0.050, 0.040] Low -0.050 * [-0.120, -0.020] Difference 0.050 * [0.010, 0.150] High CP → PMF → CCB -0.070 * [-0.160, -0.010] Low 0.000 [-0.030, 0.070] Difference -0.070 * [-0.200, -0.010] High CP → PVF → CCB 0.010 [-0.050, 0.070] Low 0.060 * [0.010, 0.120] Difference -0.050 * [-0.170, -0.010] Note. * represents p < 0.05. CP = citizenship pressure; OCB = organizational citizenship behaviour; CCB = compulsory citizenship behaviour; PMF = promotion work regulatory focus; PVF = prevention work regulatory focus; POLY = polychronicity; Difference = high indirect effect minus low indirect effect. [Insert Table 1 about here] Discussion Citizenship pressure has become a widespread phenomenon. However, the link between citizenship pressure and citizenship behaviours remains controversial. To address this issue, this study examined the links between citizenship pressure and two types of citizenship behaviours (OCBs and CCBs) as well as the underlying mechanism. As predicted, citizenship pressure was a common antecedent of OCBs and CCBs. Furthermore, we found that citizenship pressure could elicit promotion work regulatory focus and thus motivate OCBs; however, it could also elicit prevention work regulatory focus and further motivate CCBs. In addition, polychronicity enhanced the mediating role of promotion work regulatory focus while mitigating the mediating role of prevention work regulatory focus. Theoretical implications First, we contribute to the citizenship pressure literature and regulatory focus theory by dividing citizenship behaviours into spontaneous (traditional OCBs) and compulsory citizenship behaviours and simultaneously considering the relationships between citizenship pressure and the two types of citizenship behaviours. Regulatory focus theory explains how the self-regulation process occurs under conditions of stress and subsequently triggers different behavioural motivations. Our study supports and advances regulatory focus theory by illustrating how citizenship pressure encourages OCBs and CCBs. This contribution is importance since citizenship pressure research has drawn inconsistent conclusions regarding the relationship between citizenship pressure and OCBs, and prior research has defined OCBs as spontaneous behaviours while nevertheless adopting other-rated measurements that can confuse OCBs with CCBs 2 . By distinguishing OCBs from CCBs, our study not only responds to calls for research that distinguishes among different types of citizenship behaviours 9 , 10 and explorations of the common antecedents of these two types of citizenship behaviour 6 , 34 but also explains the inconsistent findings regarding the relationships between citizenship pressure and citizenship behaviours. Second, supporting the "stressor-work regulatory focus-outcomes" framework, our results show how the self-regulation process occurs in response to citizenship pressure, in turn leading to the emergence of different behavioural motivations for citizenship behaviours. Our study contributes to the "stressor-work regulatory focus-behaviour" framework by applying it to citizenship pressure to illustrate how citizenship pressure leads to different citizenship behaviours, a topic which has been ignored by previous studies (e.g. 16 ). Importantly, by exploring the two self-regulation processes, we extend previous research that has investigated the bright and dark sides of citizenship pressure simultaneously, thus providing a new perspective on the double-edged effect of citizenship pressure that can be adopted in the future. Finally, we contribute to polychronicity research and regulatory focus theory by identifying the moderating effect of polychronicity in the self-regulation process in the context of citizenship pressure. Extant research has focused on polychronicity and has rarely been conducted in the OB and HRM fields; thus, scholars have called for more attention to be given to polychronicity in these fields 18 . Our results show that citizenship pressure triggers positive self-regulation among individuals with higher polychronicity and negative self-regulation among individuals with lower polychronicity. These results extend the polychronicity literature by testing the moderating effect of this factor and contextualizing it with regard to regulatory focus theory. Practical implications First, due to the beneficial and negative effects of citizenship pressure on OCBs, organizations and their managers must be aware of both the dark and bright sides of citizenship pressure. Thus, organizations and managers can convey their OCB expectations to employees after clearly defining their job obligations and responsibilities, thereby decreasing the phenomenon of OCB escalation due to unclear job descriptions. Second, organizations and their managers must pay more attention to their employees' work regulatory focus and attempt to guide their employees to exhibit promotion rather than prevention work regulatory focus. For example, managers may provide positive feedback (e.g., "your assistance to others is worthwhile") or highlight the positive outcomes of OCB (e.g., "OCB helps you grow and develop"). In contrast, managers should avoid providing negative feedback (e.g., criticism, blame, or abuse), or highlighting responsibilities or obligations to engage in OCB; furthermore, they can reduce the association between OCB and individual loss (e.g., penalty for not performing OCBs) to decrease employees' prevention work regulatory focus. Finally, organizations and their managers should assign employees to tasks in a rational way because employees with a higher level of polychronicity may engage in more OCBs rather than CCBs in response to citizenship pressure. This finding implies that organizations and managers should identify the polychronicity of employees (e.g., by conducting polychronicity tests or taking polychronicity measurements when recruiting or reviewing talent). Subsequently, organizations and managers should assign employees with polychronicity to positions that require OCBs or are subject to citizenship pressure, and they should provide training and development projects such as time management skill training to improve individuals’ polychronicity 27 . Additionally, managers might also try to perform their own in-role and extrarole jobs simultaneously to set an example for their subordinates, thus enhancing the latter’s willingness to perform several tasks simultaneously. Limitations and directions for future research This study is subject to a number of limitations that may be addressed by future research. First, the study was conducted at the individual level based on cross-lagged data. Hence, future studies may develop a multilevel model as a theoretical framework for exploring the influence of citizenship pressure at the collective level or conduct a diary study to examine the corresponding impacts over time 34 , 35 . Furthermore, the study collected data only from China, which may limit the generalizability of the conclusions of this research to a cross-cultural context. Future research may explore contextual factors as moderators or collect questionnaires from multiple national or cultural contexts. In addition to these limitations, other mediators or moderators may also impact these relationships, such as leadership or individual intrinsic motivation. Thus, a three-way interaction moderated mediation model should be developed to explain the mechanism underlying citizenship pressure. Conclusion Citizenship pressure is a widely observed phenomenon due to the expectations of firms regarding OCBs; however, its impacts are not yet clear. Based on regulatory focus theory and the "stressor-work regulatory focus-behaviour" framework, this study responds to calls for research distinguishing between OCBs and CCBs and explores their common antecedents by examining how citizenship pressure impacts these two types of citizenship behaviour through promotion and prevention work regulatory focus. The findings reveal that citizenship pressure has beneficial effects by encouraging individuals with polychronicity to exhibit promotion work regulatory focus and motivating their OCBs; however, it also has deleterious effects by encouraging individuals without polychronicity to exhibit prevention work regulatory focus and motivating their CCBs. Declarations Authors’ Notes : We would also like to thank Songyang Qi for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 72072084, 72472070). Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Dejun Cheng ( [email protected] ). Data Availability Statement The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. Ethical Statement Conflict of Interest statement The authors declare no competing interests Informed Consent Verbal informed-consent was obtained for anonymized participants information to b published in this article. Ethical Approval Statement Ethical approval is not applicable for this article. All respondents were at least 18 years of age and provided informed consent to participate in the research by completing a- questionnaire, The information collected is strictly confidential and anonymous, used solely for research purposes. Author Contribution Liu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original draft preparation, Revising. Cheng: Writing-original draft preparation, Revising. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Acknowledgement We sincerely thank Songyang Qi for comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript. References LePine, J. A., Erez, A. & Johnson, D. E. The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 87 , 52–65 (2002). Bolino, M. C., Hsiung, H. H., Harvey, J. & LePine, J. A. Well, I’m tired of tryin’! Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue. J. Appl. Psychol. 100 , 56–74 (2015). Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., Gilstrap, J. B. & Suazo, M. M. Citizenship under pressure: What’s a good soldier to do? J. Organ. Behav. 31 , 835–855 (2010). Dierdorff, E. C. & Rubin, R. S. Revisiting Reciprocity: How Accountability, Proactivity, and Interpersonal Skills Shape Obligations to Reciprocate Citizenship Behavior. J. Bus. Psychol. 37 , 263–281 (2022). Chou, S. Y., Ramser, C., Chang, T. & Han, B. Emergence of interpersonal helping in times of crises: a theoretical model of prosperity and eradication of interpersonal helping in organizations. Manag. Decis. 58 , 2257–2273 (2020). Wang, H. & Huang, Q. The dark side of feeling trusted for hospitality employees: An investigation in two service contexts. Int. J. Hospitality Manage. 76 , 122–131 (2019). Hollman, R. W. Overtime Working: Employee Willingness. Empl. Relations . 2 , 26–29 (1980). Koopman, J., Lanaj, K. & Scott, B. A. Integrating the Bright and Dark Sides of Ocb: A Daily Investigation of the Benefits and Costs of Helping Others. Acad. Manag. J. 59 , 414–435 (2016). Bolino, M. C. & Klotz, A. C. The paradox of the unethical organizational citizen: the link between organizational citizenship behavior and unethical behavior at work. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 6 , 45–49 (2015). He, P., Peng, Z., Zhao, H. & Estay, C. How and When Compulsory Citizenship Behavior Leads to Employee Silence: A Moderated Mediation Model Based on Moral Disengagement and Supervisor–Subordinate Guanxi Views. J. Bus. Ethics . 155 , 259–274 (2019). Carpenter, N. C., Berry, C. M. & Houston, L. A meta-analytic comparison of self-reported and other-reported organizational citizenship behavior: SELF-REPORTED AND OTHER-REPORTED OCB. J. Organiz Behav. 35 , 547–574 (2014). De Clercq, D., Suhail, A., Azeem, M. U. & Haq, I. U. Citizenship pressure and job performance: roles of citizenship fatigue and continuance commitment. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Res. 59 , 482–505 (2021). Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Ng, T. W. H. & Lam, S. S. K. Promotion- and prevention-focused coping: A meta-analytic examination of regulatory strategies in the work stress process. J. Appl. Psychol. 104 , 1296–1323 (2019). Higgins, E. T. Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as A Motivational Principle. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (ed Zanna, M. P.) vol. 30 1–46 (Academic, (1998). Russo, M., Guo, L. & Baruch, Y. Work attitudes, career success and health: Evidence from China. J. Vocat. Behav. 84 , 248–258 (2014). Koopman, J. et al. Why and for whom does the pressure to help hurt others? Affective and cognitive mechanisms linking helping pressure to workplace deviance. Pers. Psychol. 73 , 333–362 (2020). Arndt, A., Arnold, T. J. & Landry, T. D. The effects of polychronic-orientation upon retail employee satisfaction and turnover. J. Retail. 82 , 319–330 (2006). Pachler, D. et al. Workflow interruptions and employee work outcomes: The moderating role of polychronicity. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 23 , 417–427 (2018). Mullins, R., Agnihotri, R. & Hall, Z. The Ambidextrous Sales Force: Aligning Salesperson Polychronicity and Selling Contexts for Sales-Service Behaviors and Customer Value. J. Service Res. 23 , 33–52 (2020). Bolino, M. C., Harvey, J. & Bachrach, D. G. A self-regulation approach to understanding citizenship behavior in organizations. Organ. Behav. Hum Decis. Process. 119 , 126–139 (2012). Lanaj, K., Chang, C. H. & Johnson, R. E. Daisy Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 138, 998–1034 (2012). Mousa, M., Massoud, H. K. & Ayoubi, R. M. Gender, diversity management perceptions, workplace happiness and organisational citizenship behaviour. Empl. Relations: Int. J. 42 , 1249–1269 (2020). Elamin, A. M. & Tlaiss, H. A. Exploring the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and organizational justice in the Islamic Saudi Arabian context. Empl. Relations . 37 , 2–29 (2015). Wallace, C. & Chen, G. A. Multilevel Integration of Personality, Climate, Self-Regulation, and Performance. Pers. Psychol. 59 , 529–557 (2006). Bergeron, D. M., Shipp, A. J., Rosen, B. & Furst, S. A. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Career Outcomes: The Cost of Being a Good Citizen. J. Manag. 39 , 958–984 (2013). Velasco Vizcaíno, F., Martin, S. L., Cardenas, J. J. & Cardenas, M. Employees’ attitudes toward corporate social responsibility programs: The influence of corporate frugality and polychronicity organizational capabilities. J. Bus. Res. 124 , 538–546 (2021). Hecht, T. D. & Allen, N. J. Exploring links between polychronicity and well-being from the perspective of person–job fit: Does it matter if you prefer to do only one thing at a time? Organ. Behav. Hum Decis. Process. 98 , 155–178 (2005). Selin Atalay, A., Onur Bodur, H. & Bressoud, E. When and How Multitasking Impacts Consumer Shopping Decisions. J. Retail. 93 , 187–200 (2017). Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C. & Lin, S. C. Impetus for Action: A Cultural Analysis of Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Chinese Society. Adm. Sci. Q. 42 , 421–444 (1997). Vigoda-Gadot, E. Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace. J. Bus. Psychol. 21 , 377–405 (2007). Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G. & Widaman, K. F. To Parcel or Not to Parcel: Exploring the Question, Weighing the Merits. Struct. Equation Modeling: Multidisciplinary J. 9 , 151–173 (2002). Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Jeong-Yeon, L. & Podsakoff, N. P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 , 879 (2003). Sardeshmukh, S. R. & Vandenberg, R. J. Integrating Moderation and Mediation: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Organizational Res. Methods . 20 , 721–745 (2017). Germeys, L., Griep, Y. & De Gieter, S. Citizenship Pressure as a Predictor of Daily Enactment of Autonomous and Controlled Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Differential Spillover Effects on the Home Domain. Front. Psychol. 10 , (2019). Rosen, C. C. et al. When challenges hinder: An investigation of when and how challenge stressors impact employee outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 105 , 1181–1206 (2020). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 17 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 09 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 02 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 27 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 19 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 13 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 Apr, 2025 Reviews received at journal 13 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 13 Apr, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 11 Apr, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 12 Dec, 2024 Editor invited by journal 09 Sep, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 09 Sep, 2024 First submitted to journal 30 Aug, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5004415","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":359657028,"identity":"efe6371a-5ad7-480e-99d4-aba0869516ac","order_by":0,"name":"Shenyang Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nanjing University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shenyang","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":359657029,"identity":"f0e59e9e-592a-4ce1-835c-2423ae72ef2a","order_by":1,"name":"Dejun Cheng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nanjing University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dejun","middleName":"","lastName":"Cheng","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-08-30 13:59:44","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5004415/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5004415/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-48076-3","type":"published","date":"2026-04-17T15:57:52+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":66766341,"identity":"55ac39d8-98c6-4249-9190-0961dd986ecf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-16 09:25:36","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":43564,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePath analysis for the full model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e represents p \u0026lt; 0.05, \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e represents p \u0026lt; 0.01.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5004415/v1/4a29be1769b7f13cb7161358.png"},{"id":66766343,"identity":"721b021b-371e-4aee-98a5-d9e20cc3159c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-16 09:25:36","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":30168,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe moderating effect of polychronicity on the relationship between citizenship pressure and promotion(a)/prevention(b) work regulatory focus\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. \u003c/em\u003eCP = citizenship pressure; Poly = polychronicity.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5004415/v1/35a5447b5eeb12e79da80f04.png"},{"id":107352504,"identity":"02e4b155-cec0-4a65-bf25-f07279dea827","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-20 16:14:09","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":493888,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5004415/v1/65bf181a-75da-44bd-856c-6411afedd452.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Citizenship pressure and citizenship behaviours: examining different self-regulation process","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn a dynamic and uncertain environment, organizations benefit from spontaneous behaviours on the part of employees that range beyond their responsibilities, which are defined as organizational citizenship behaviours (OCBs)\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e. This definition emphasizes the spontaneity of\u0026nbsp;OCBs. However, many organizations demand that employees perform OCBs due to the corresponding benefits, thus subjecting employees to pressure to engage in OCBs; this stressor is defined as citizenship pressure\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. Consequently, employees gradually feel compelled to engage in OCBs; the resulting behaviours are defined as compulsory citizenship behaviours（CCB）\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e. The impacts of citizenship pressure on OCBs or CCBs have been controversial. For example, citizenship pressure has been reported to promote OCBs (e.g.\u003csup\u003e3,4\u003c/sup\u003e) or impede OCBs\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e as well as to promote CCBs\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e. Hollman\u003csup\u003e7\u003c/sup\u003e once argued that employees who are willing to work overtime are more beneficial to organizations than employees who are unwilling. Scholars have also confirmed that OCBs entail benefits for organizations\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e, while CCBs have negative effects\u003csup\u003e9,10\u003c/sup\u003e. In light of the research gap mentioned above, the question of how citizenship pressure influences employees\u0026apos; OCBs and CCBs should be given more attention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese controversies regarding the relationships among citizenship pressure, OCBs and CCBs may be due to the ways in which OCBs are measured. In the literature, OCBs have often been defined as spontaneous behaviours and rated by colleagues or leaders (e.g.\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e). Other-rated measurements are unable to identify the behavioural motivations underlying OCBs\u003csup\u003e1,11\u003c/sup\u003e. This situation indicates that the\u0026nbsp;other-rated\u0026nbsp;measurement of OCBs may also include CCBs, which in turn leads to the inconsistent conclusions that have been reported. For example, Dierdorff and Rubin\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e found OCBs may originate from perceived obligations to reciprocate, this OCBs\u0026nbsp;may actually\u0026nbsp;more consistent with the definition of\u0026nbsp;CCBs.\u0026nbsp;Therefore, according to Lepine et al.\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e and Carpenter et al.\u003csup\u003e11\u003c/sup\u003e, distinguishing between OCBs and CCBs and using self-report data can help us answer the question of how citizenship pressure impacts these two types of citizenship behaviours, thus addressing the research gap mentioned above.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDue to the different formation paths of OCBs and\u0026nbsp;CCBs, how citizenship pressure influences these two\u0026nbsp;types of citizenship behaviours\u0026nbsp;should be further studied.\u0026nbsp;Scholars investigating how citizenship pressure influences employees in organizations have mainly focused on emotional and resource perspectives, such as the possibility that citizenship pressure influences employees through negative affect and cognitive depletion\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e or citizenship fatigue\u003csup\u003e12\u003c/sup\u003e. These studies have emphasized the negative pathways between citizenship pressure and its outcomes while ignoring positive pathways; thus, they have been unable to explain the motives underlying citizenship behaviours resulting from pressure. In fact, the process by an individual copes with pressure is known as self-regulation\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003e. Higgins\u003csup\u003e14\u003c/sup\u003e proposed regulatory focus theory and suggested two types of self-regulation processes: promotion work regulatory focus and prevention work regulatory focus. Zhang et al.\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003e developed a theoretical framework based on regulatory focus theory to illustrate how individuals\u0026rsquo; work regulatory focus is shaped by stress events and their subsequent behaviours. According to regulatory focus theory\u003csup\u003e14\u003c/sup\u003e and Zhang et al.\u0026apos;s\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003e framework, individuals may achieve their goals by engaging in citizenship behaviours in response to the pressure to do so\u003csup\u003e8,15\u003c/sup\u003e; in this context, they regard such pressure as an opportunity and make proactive adjustments. In contrast, engaging in citizenship behaviours leads to resource consumption on the part of individuals\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e; thus, individuals regard this pressure as a source of potential loss and make passive adjustments\u003csup\u003e13,14\u003c/sup\u003e. Accordingly, two self-regulation processes govern the relationship between pressure and individual behaviour, leading to different behavioural motivations. Thus, this study introduces work regulatory focus as a mediator with the goal of obtaining further insights into the influence of citizenship pressure on two types of citizenship behaviours.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, perceptions of pressure and the self-regulation process are affected by individual characteristics such as continuance commitment\u003csup\u003e12\u003c/sup\u003e or motivation\u003csup\u003e16\u003c/sup\u003e. In fact, these two types of citizenship behaviour must be performed at the same time as in-role behaviours such as task performance. A certain personal characteristic reflects the individual\u0026rsquo;s preference for engaging in multiple activities simultaneously, which is defined as polychronicity\u003csup\u003e17\u003c/sup\u003e. Individuals with high polychronicity are willing to\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;skilled at playing\u0026nbsp;multiple roles\u0026nbsp;or\u0026nbsp;featuring massive workflow interruptions\u003csup\u003e18,19\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;According to regulatory focus theory, when individuals have the willingness and abilities necessary to cope with stressful events, they tend to exhibit promotion work regulatory focus. However,\u0026nbsp;most research attentions have been paid on the influence of polychronicity on job-related behaviours such as OCBs\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;service behaviours\u003csup\u003e19\u003c/sup\u003e, only a few studies have examined the moderating role of polychonicity in the relationship between daily interruptions and daily satisfaction\u003csup\u003e18\u003c/sup\u003e,\u0026nbsp;evidence regarding how individuals with different levels of polychronicity respond to\u0026nbsp;citizenship\u0026nbsp;pressure is scarce,\u0026nbsp;Thus, this study includes individual polychronicity as a moderator to identify the individuals who tend to engage in OCBs or CCBs in response to citizenship pressure.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present study makes several contributions to the citizenship behaviour literature and regulatory focus theory based on the \u0026apos;stressor-work regulatory focus-outcomes\u0026apos; framework. First, this study contributes to our understanding of citizenship behaviours by distinguishing between OCBs and CCBs and by examining the impacts of citizenship pressure on the two types of citizenship behaviours, thus answering the call of Bolino and Klotz\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e to focus on different citizenship behaviours and their common causes and resolve an ongoing controversy in the citizenship behaviour literature. Second, this study answers the call of Koopman et al.\u003csup\u003e16\u003c/sup\u003e for more research on the double-edged effect of citizenship pressure by examining the mediating role of work regulatory focus in the relationships between citizenship pressure and the two types of citizenship behaviours, thereby providing a framework that offers new insights. Finally, this study responds to the call of Mullins et al.\u003csup\u003e19\u003c/sup\u003e for more research on polychronicity in the OB and human resource management (HRM) fields by examining the moderating role of polychronicity, thus enhancing the applicability of regulatory focus theory. From a practical perspective, this study aims to elicit interest from organizations and managers who need management citizenship pressure, thus inspiring them to pay more attention to and guide employees\u0026apos;\u0026nbsp;self-regulation processes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch1\u003eTheory and hypothesis development\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegulatory focus theory\u003csup\u003e14\u003c/sup\u003e and\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;stressor-work regulatory focus-outcomes framework\u0026quot;\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003e provide us with a systematic analytical perspective that enable us to understand how citizenship pressure influences an individual\u0026apos;s citizenship behaviours via self-regulation processes. Stress events such as citizenship pressure are leading causes of self-regulation\u003csup\u003e20\u003c/sup\u003e and the formation of individual work regulatory focus\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003e. Furthermore, when individuals exhibit promotion work regulatory focus, they have a tendency to strive for more achievements, adopt a long-term perspective and have the intrinsic motivation to pursue advancements\u003csup\u003e13,14\u003c/sup\u003e. In contrast, when individuals exhibit prevention work regulatory focus, they tend to avoid potential losses, adopt a short-term perspective and have the motivation to decrease their engagement and focus only on their duties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;stressor-work regulatory focus-outcomes\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;framework, which is based on regulatory focus theory, specifies precisely how individuals react to stress based on different types of self-regulation. Promotion work regulatory focus refers to self-regulation in pursuit of achievement because it is formed by employees\u0026apos;\u0026nbsp;perceptions of opportunities to achieve their goals and other clues associated with stress events\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003e. It is\u0026nbsp;crucial for individuals to perform\u0026nbsp;spontaneous behaviour\u003csup\u003e21\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;Whereas,\u0026nbsp;prevention work regulatory focus refers to avoidant self-regulation, which is based on employees\u0026apos;\u0026nbsp;perceptions of potential losses in stressful situations\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003e, which\u0026nbsp;is\u0026nbsp;crucial for performing\u0026nbsp;controlled behaviours\u003csup\u003e21\u003c/sup\u003e. We thus draw on the\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;stressor-work regulatory focus-outcomes\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;framework to explore how employees exhibit self-regulation in response to citizenship pressure and thus engage in OCBs or CCBs. Specifically, we examine promotion work regulatory focus as an example of proactive self-regulation and prevention work regulatory focus as an example of passive self-regulation in response to citizenship pressure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCitizenship\u0026nbsp;Pressure, OCBs and CCBs\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven that engaging in OCBs can\u0026nbsp;improve employee feelings\u003csup\u003e22\u003c/sup\u003e, contribute to organizational functioning\u003csup\u003e23\u003c/sup\u003e,\u0026nbsp;enhance organizational performance\u003csup\u003e11\u003c/sup\u003e and\u0026nbsp;contribute to individual well-being\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e and career success\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e, individuals may perceive citizenship pressure citizenship as\u0026nbsp;an opportunity to\u0026nbsp;achieve\u0026nbsp;growth opportunities and then\u0026nbsp;engage in OCBs spontaneously due to their approaching motives\u003csup\u003e24\u003c/sup\u003e. In contrast, engaging in OCBs increases an individual\u0026apos;s role overload and work-family conflict and can impede work progress\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e,\u0026nbsp;individuals may perceive citizenship pressure as a threat of potential loss because OCBs are closely related to performance appraisal and income\u003csup\u003e25\u003c/sup\u003e. Thus, such individuals have no choice but to engage in OCBs just as they must fulfil their obligations\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e; that is, they actually engage in CCBs. In summary, we propose the following hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 1\u003c/em\u003e: Citizenship pressure is positively related to OCBs\u0026nbsp;(a) and\u0026nbsp;CCBs\u0026nbsp;(b).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003ePromotion and prevention work regulatory focus as mediators\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven the benefits of citizenship pressure discussed above, such as\u0026nbsp;engaging in OCBs provides employees with opportunities to achieve goals such as career success\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e and better performance ratings\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;These gainful cues may guide employees to form promotion work regulatory focus\u0026nbsp;in response to citizenship pressure. However, engaging in OCBs\u0026nbsp;also\u0026nbsp;leads to potential losses for employees due to additional resource consumption or punishment for their failure to complete tasks\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;These losing cues may guide employees to form prevention work regulatory focus in response to citizenship pressure.\u0026nbsp;Employees who exhibit promotion work regulatory focus are sensitive to the acquisition of resources and tend to invest their resources to obtain more benefits.\u0026nbsp;Even engaging in OCBs\u0026nbsp;entails the risk that employees will be impeded in the task of achieving their basic goals\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e, they still believe the benefits are more than losses and\u0026nbsp;approach goals eagerly and are willing to take risks\u003csup\u003e14\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;Thus, they invest spontaneous efforts in extra-role behaviour such as OCBs\u003csup\u003e24\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;However, employees who exhibit prevention work regulatory focus concentrate on losses\u0026nbsp;caused by engaging in OCBs\u0026nbsp;and tend to protect their resources\u003csup\u003e14\u003c/sup\u003e.\u0026nbsp;Citizenship pressure often regard citizenship behaviours as obligations that they must complete. Although\u0026nbsp;they\u0026nbsp;are unwilling to\u0026nbsp;perform OCBs, they must\u0026nbsp;behave like\u0026nbsp;\u0026apos;a good citizen\u0026apos;\u0026nbsp;to avoid being regarded as\u0026nbsp;poor performers\u0026nbsp;and suffering further losses\u003csup\u003e25\u003c/sup\u003e. Thus, they are unwilling to invest resources in OCBs. Thus, they engage in citizenship behaviours due to controlled motivation, that is, CCBs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccordingly, based on regulatory focus theory\u003csup\u003e14\u003c/sup\u003e and the\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;stressor-work regulatory focus-outcomes\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;framework\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003e, citizenship pressure, as a stress event, can generate promotion work regulatory focus among employees for performing OCBs enables them to achieve their goals; however, it can also generate prevention work regulatory focus among employees for performing OCBs impeding their ability to complete their basic tasks or leading to resource depletion. In turn, employees who form promotion work regulatory focus proactively engage in OCBs to pursue these achievements, while employees who form prevention work regulatory focus passively engage in citizenship behaviours to discharge their duties and prevent losses. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 2\u003c/em\u003e: Promotion work regulatory focus mediates the relationships between citizenship pressure and (a) OCBs and (b) CCBs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 3\u003c/em\u003e: Prevention work regulatory focus mediates the relationships between citizenship pressure and (a) OCBs and (b) CCBs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003ePolychronicity as a moderator\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to regulatory focus theory\u003csup\u003e14\u003c/sup\u003e and the\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;stressor-work regulatory focus-outcomes\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;framework\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003e, promotion work regulatory focus results from the perceived benefits and achievements associated with stress events, while prevention work regulatory focus results from the perceived losses and obligations associated with stress events. Individuals with polychronicity have the ability and willingness necessary to perform both in- and extra-role behaviours\u003csup\u003e26\u003c/sup\u003e as well as\u0026nbsp;are capable of coping with interruptions or switching\u0026nbsp;between these two types of behaviours\u003csup\u003e18\u003c/sup\u003e, indicating that engaging in OCBs\u0026nbsp;under citizenship pressure\u0026nbsp;while completing basic tasks represents an opportunity for them to achieve their goals,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;resource depletion during\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;interruptions or switching causes fewer resource losses. Their attention is diverted from losses, which helps them focus on pursuing achievements via OCBs. However, individuals with lower polychronicity tend to complete their obligations and perform one task at a time; in addition, they are not skilled at coping with task interruptions or switching. Thus, they perceive more resource losses due to citizenship pressure and exhibit prevention work regulatory focus. In summary, we propose the following hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 4\u003c/em\u003e: When individuals have higher polychronicity, (a) the positive relationship between citizenship pressure and promotion work regulatory focus is stronger, while (b) the relationship between citizenship pressure and prevention work regulatory focus is weaker.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe\u0026nbsp;further\u0026nbsp;propose that polychronicity moderates the indirect effects of citizenship pressure on OCBs and CCBs through promotion and prevention work regulatory focus. When individuals with high polychronicity are required to engage in multiple tasks simultaneously, they exhibit fewer compulsive perceptions\u003csup\u003e27\u003c/sup\u003e and negative stress reactions\u003csup\u003e28\u003c/sup\u003e. Accordingly, they tend to focus more on achieving their goals, which is conducive to promotion work regulatory focus and thus leads to spontaneous efforts in the form of OCBs. In contrast, individuals with low polychronicity tend to focus more on potential losses and their obligations, which is conducive to prevention work regulatory focus and thus causes them to feel that they have no choice but to engage in citizenship behaviours, that is, compulsory citizenship behaviours.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 5\u003c/em\u003e: Polychronicity moderates the mediating effects of promotion work regulatory focus on the relationships between citizenship pressure and (a)\u0026nbsp;OCBs\u0026nbsp;and (b) CCBs, such that when individuals have high polychronicity, these mediating effects are stronger.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 6\u003c/em\u003e: Polychronicity moderates the mediating effects of prevention work regulatory focus on the relationships between citizenship pressure and (a) OCBs and (b) CCBs such that when individuals have high polychronicity, these mediating effects are weaker.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003ch2\u003eSample and\u0026nbsp;procedures\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were collected from 2 organizations in central China across three time points. With the help of HR departments from both organizations, full-time employees were randomly selected as participants. All items were self-reported, allowing us to capture the spontaneous or compulsory motivation of citizenship behaviours\u003csup\u003e1,3\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestionnaires were distributed online to 420 participants at time 1. In response, 359 completed questionnaires were received, for a response rate of 85.48%. Citizenship pressure, polychronicity and control variables were collected at time 1. At time 2 (1 month after time 1), questionnaires pertaining to promotion and prevention work regulatory focus were distributed to individuals who had responded to the time 1 survey, and 298 complete responses were received, for a response rate of 83.01%. At time 3 (1 month after time 2), questionnaires pertaining to OCBs and CCBs were distributed to individuals who had responded to the time 1 and 2 surveys, and 241 complete responses were received, for a response rate of 80.87%. An item pertaining to the last four digits of participants\u0026rsquo; cell phone numbers was included in each questionnaire to enable us to match questionaries completed by one individual across different times. In total, 63.50% of participants were male, their average age was 30.62 years (SD = 4.02), and their average work experience was 5.25 years (SD = 3.55); in addition, 43.57% of participants had a bachelor\u0026apos;s degree, while 17.84% had a master\u0026apos;s degree or above.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eMeasures\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll survey items underwent a translation-back-translation procedure, were validated for Chinese-speaking respondents (e.g.\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003csup\u003e,29\u003c/sup\u003e) and were scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCitizenship\u0026nbsp;pressure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBolino et al.\u0026apos;s\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e 8-item scale was used to measure citizenship pressure. An example item was \u0026quot;I feel a lot of pressure to go the extra mile by doing a lot of things that, technically, I don\u0026rsquo;t have to do\u0026quot; (\u0026alpha; = 0.91).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePromotion and prevention work regulatory focus\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWallace and Chen\u0026apos;s\u003csup\u003e24\u003c/sup\u003e 12-item scale was used to measure promotion and prevention work regulatory focus. Six items were used to measure promotion work regulatory focus, and an example item was \u0026quot;At work, I get a lot of work finished in a short amount of time\u0026quot; (\u0026alpha; = 0.941). The other 6 items were used to measure prevention work regulatory focus, and an example item was \u0026quot;At work, I simply fulfil my work obligations\u0026quot; (\u0026alpha; = 0.942).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eOrganizational citizenship behaviour\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFarh \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026apos;s\u003csup\u003e29\u003c/sup\u003e 20-item Chinese cultural context OCB scale was used to measure OCBs because these authors defined OCBs as spontaneous behaviours. An example item was \u0026quot;I\u0026apos;m willing to assist new colleagues in adjusting to the work environment\u0026quot; (\u0026alpha; = 0.913).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCompulsory citizenship behaviour\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVigoda-Gadot\u0026apos;s\u003csup\u003e30\u003c/sup\u003e 5-item scale was used to measure CCBs. An example item was \u0026quot;I feel that I am expected to invest more effort in this job than I want to in a manner that lies beyond my formal job requirements\u0026quot; (\u0026alpha; = 0.882).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePolychronicity\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArndt \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026apos;s\u003csup\u003e17\u003c/sup\u003e simplified 4-item scale was used to measure polychronicity. An example item was \u0026quot;I like to juggle several activities at the same time\u0026quot; (\u0026alpha; = 0.909).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eControl\u0026nbsp;variables\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe included participants\u0026apos;\u0026nbsp;age, gender, work experiences and level of education as control variables since they have been proven to be relevant to citizenship behaviours (e.g.\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe used SPSS 22.0 and Mplus 8.10 for all analyses.\u0026nbsp;To reduce the variable-to-sample-size ratio and maintain a reasonable degree of freedom, we followed the recommendation of Little et al.\u003csup\u003e31\u003c/sup\u003e and used item parcel methods for variables associated with more than 4 items by combining the highest and lowest factor loading items.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor determining reliability, we used Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha;, and all these coefficients were above 0.882, which indicated a good reliability. For determining discriminant validity, we used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and average variance extracted (AVE). The proposed 6-factor model fit the data well (c\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 468.840, df = 191, CFI = 0.934, TLI = 0.920, RMSEA = 0.078, SRMR = 0.075) and was better than other models. The square roots of AVE of our 6 variables were above 0.606 and exceeded all correlations among variables, thus indicating good discriminant validity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, we conducted a common methods bias test according to Podsakoff et al.\u003csup\u003e32\u003c/sup\u003e. Harman\u0026rsquo;s single factor test explained 12.459% variance, far less than 50%, which showed the common method bias is not a cause of concern.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDue to space constraints,\u0026nbsp;full results for\u0026nbsp;descriptive statistics and correlation analysis are not reported but are available from the researchers upon request. All the correlations between our focal variables are basically consistent with our hypotheses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor hypotheses testing, latent moderate structural equations (LMS) approach and the bootstrap method (bootstrap = 5000)\u0026nbsp;were\u0026nbsp;used\u003csup\u003e33\u003c/sup\u003e. We first compared the\u0026nbsp;partial and full mediation models\u0026nbsp;and found\u0026nbsp;partial mediation model was significantly better (D\u0026nbsp;c\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e =\u0026nbsp;-42.511,\u0026nbsp;D\u0026nbsp;df = 2,\u0026nbsp;DCFI = 0.010,\u0026nbsp;DTLI = 0.010,\u0026nbsp;DRMSEA = 0.003,\u0026nbsp;DSRMR = 0.020, p \u0026lt;0.01). Based on it, we further compared the\u0026nbsp;moderated mediation model\u0026nbsp;(see Figure\u0026nbsp;1, -2ll = -4942.156, AIC = 10082.313, df =\u0026nbsp;99)\u0026nbsp;and its alternative models\u0026nbsp;(without the path linking interaction to promotion/prevention work regulatory focus;\u0026nbsp;D\u0026nbsp;H\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e: -2ll = 9.01, p \u0026lt;0.01; DAIC = -12.162), which indicated the moderated mediation model should be acceptable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs shown in Figure 1, citizenship pressure was positively related to OCBs\u0026nbsp;(\u0026beta;= 0.278, p\u0026lt;0.01) and\u0026nbsp;CCBs\u0026nbsp;(\u0026beta;= 0.277, p\u0026lt;0.01); thus, Hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported.\u0026nbsp;The indirect effect of citizenship pressure on OCBs via promotion regulatory focus was positively significant\u0026nbsp;(\u0026beta; =\u0026nbsp;0.066,\u0026nbsp;95% CI =\u0026nbsp;[0.019, 0.157]), while via prevention regulatory focus was negatively significant\u0026nbsp;(\u0026beta; =\u0026nbsp;-0.031,\u0026nbsp;95% CI =\u0026nbsp;[-0.089,\u0026nbsp;-0.004]).\u0026nbsp;The indirect effect of citizenship pressure on CCBs via promotion regulatory focus was negatively significant\u0026nbsp;(\u0026beta; =\u0026nbsp;-0.030,\u0026nbsp;95% CI =\u0026nbsp;[-0.074,\u0026nbsp;-0.005]), while via prevention regulatory focus was positively significant\u0026nbsp;(\u0026beta; =\u0026nbsp;-0.030,\u0026nbsp;95% CI =\u0026nbsp;[0.001,\u0026nbsp;0.079]).\u0026nbsp;Therefore, Hypotheses 2a-3b were supported.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Insert Figure 1 about here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, the interaction between citizenship pressure and polychronicity was positively related to promotion work regulatory focus (\u0026beta; = 0.389, p\u0026lt;0.05) and negatively related to prevention work regulatory focus (\u0026beta; = -0.290, p\u0026lt;0.05). A simple slope test verified the significant moderating effect of polychronicity on the relationships between citizenship pressure and both promotion (\u0026beta; = 0.750, p \u0026lt;0.05) and prevention (\u0026beta; = -0.560, p \u0026lt;0.05) work regulatory focus. Thus, Hypotheses 4a and 4b were supported. Figures\u0026nbsp;2(a) and\u0026nbsp;2(b) plot this moderating effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Insert Figure 2 about here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;presents the results of the moderated mediation bootstrap test. The difference in the indirect relationships between citizenship pressure and two types of citizenship behaviour via promotion and prevention work regulatory focus among individuals with different polychronicity was significant, as we assumed. Therefore, Hypotheses 5 and 6 were supported.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eConditional indirect effects of CP on its outcomes by LSM: Model 7(N=241)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"center\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModerator: POLY\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePath\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95%CI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCP \u0026rarr; PMF \u0026rarr; OCB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.140\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.050,\u0026nbsp;0.300]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.130,\u0026nbsp;0.070]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.150\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.030,\u0026nbsp;0.370]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCP \u0026rarr; PVF \u0026rarr; OCB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.050,\u0026nbsp;0.040]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.050\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.120,\u0026nbsp;-0.020]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.050\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.010,\u0026nbsp;0.150]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCP \u0026rarr; PMF \u0026rarr; CCB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.070\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.160,\u0026nbsp;-0.010]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.030,\u0026nbsp;0.070]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.070\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.200,\u0026nbsp;-0.010]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCP \u0026rarr; PVF \u0026rarr; CCB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.050,\u0026nbsp;0.070]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.060\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.010,\u0026nbsp;0.120]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 32%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 12%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.050\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 22%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.170,\u0026nbsp;-0.010]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e represents p \u0026lt; 0.05. CP = citizenship pressure; OCB = organizational citizenship behaviour; CCB = compulsory citizenship behaviour; PMF = promotion work regulatory focus; PVF = prevention work regulatory focus; POLY = polychronicity; Difference = high indirect effect minus low indirect effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Insert Table 1 about here]\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eCitizenship pressure has become a widespread phenomenon. However, the link between citizenship pressure and citizenship behaviours remains controversial. To address this issue, this study examined the links between citizenship pressure and two types of citizenship behaviours (OCBs and CCBs) as well as the underlying mechanism. As predicted, citizenship pressure was a common antecedent of OCBs and CCBs. Furthermore, we found that citizenship pressure could elicit promotion work regulatory focus and thus motivate OCBs; however, it could also elicit prevention work regulatory focus and further motivate CCBs. In addition, polychronicity enhanced the mediating role of promotion work regulatory focus while mitigating the mediating role of prevention work regulatory focus.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheoretical implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, we contribute to the citizenship pressure literature and regulatory focus theory by dividing citizenship behaviours into spontaneous (traditional OCBs) and compulsory citizenship behaviours and simultaneously considering the relationships between citizenship pressure and the two types of citizenship behaviours. Regulatory focus theory explains how the self-regulation process occurs under conditions of stress and subsequently triggers different behavioural motivations. Our study supports and advances regulatory focus theory by illustrating how citizenship pressure encourages OCBs and CCBs. This contribution is importance since citizenship pressure research has drawn inconsistent conclusions regarding the relationship between citizenship pressure and OCBs, and prior research has defined OCBs as spontaneous behaviours while nevertheless adopting other-rated measurements that can confuse OCBs with CCBs\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. By distinguishing OCBs from CCBs, our study not only responds to calls for research that distinguishes among different types of citizenship behaviours\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and explorations of the common antecedents of these two types of citizenship behaviour\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e but also explains the inconsistent findings regarding the relationships between citizenship pressure and citizenship behaviours.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, supporting the \"stressor-work regulatory focus-outcomes\" framework, our results show how the self-regulation process occurs in response to citizenship pressure, in turn leading to the emergence of different behavioural motivations for citizenship behaviours. Our study contributes to the \"stressor-work regulatory focus-behaviour\" framework by applying it to citizenship pressure to illustrate how citizenship pressure leads to different citizenship behaviours, a topic which has been ignored by previous studies (e.g.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e). Importantly, by exploring the two self-regulation processes, we extend previous research that has investigated the bright and dark sides of citizenship pressure simultaneously, thus providing a new perspective on the double-edged effect of citizenship pressure that can be adopted in the future.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, we contribute to polychronicity research and regulatory focus theory by identifying the moderating effect of polychronicity in the self-regulation process in the context of citizenship pressure. Extant research has focused on polychronicity and has rarely been conducted in the OB and HRM fields; thus, scholars have called for more attention to be given to polychronicity in these fields\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Our results show that citizenship pressure triggers positive self-regulation among individuals with higher polychronicity and negative self-regulation among individuals with lower polychronicity. These results extend the polychronicity literature by testing the moderating effect of this factor and contextualizing it with regard to regulatory focus theory.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePractical implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, due to the beneficial and negative effects of citizenship pressure on OCBs, organizations and their managers must be aware of both the dark and bright sides of citizenship pressure. Thus, organizations and managers can convey their OCB expectations to employees after clearly defining their job obligations and responsibilities, thereby decreasing the phenomenon of OCB escalation due to unclear job descriptions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, organizations and their managers must pay more attention to their employees' work regulatory focus and attempt to guide their employees to exhibit promotion rather than prevention work regulatory focus. For example, managers may provide positive feedback (e.g., \"your assistance to others is worthwhile\") or highlight the positive outcomes of OCB (e.g., \"OCB helps you grow and develop\"). In contrast, managers should avoid providing negative feedback (e.g., criticism, blame, or abuse), or highlighting responsibilities or obligations to engage in OCB; furthermore, they can reduce the association between OCB and individual loss (e.g., penalty for not performing OCBs) to decrease employees' prevention work regulatory focus.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, organizations and their managers should assign employees to tasks in a rational way because employees with a higher level of polychronicity may engage in more OCBs rather than CCBs in response to citizenship pressure. This finding implies that organizations and managers should identify the polychronicity of employees (e.g., by conducting polychronicity tests or taking polychronicity measurements when recruiting or reviewing talent). Subsequently, organizations and managers should assign employees with polychronicity to positions that require OCBs or are subject to citizenship pressure, and they should provide training and development projects such as time management skill training to improve individuals\u0026rsquo; polychronicity\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, managers might also try to perform their own in-role and extrarole jobs simultaneously to set an example for their subordinates, thus enhancing the latter\u0026rsquo;s willingness to perform several tasks simultaneously.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and directions for future research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study is subject to a number of limitations that may be addressed by future research. First, the study was conducted at the individual level based on cross-lagged data. Hence, future studies may develop a multilevel model as a theoretical framework for exploring the influence of citizenship pressure at the collective level or conduct a diary study to examine the corresponding impacts over time\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the study collected data only from China, which may limit the generalizability of the conclusions of this research to a cross-cultural context. Future research may explore contextual factors as moderators or collect questionnaires from multiple national or cultural contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to these limitations, other mediators or moderators may also impact these relationships, such as leadership or individual intrinsic motivation. Thus, a three-way interaction moderated mediation model should be developed to explain the mechanism underlying citizenship pressure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eCitizenship pressure is a widely observed phenomenon due to the expectations of firms regarding OCBs; however, its impacts are not yet clear. Based on regulatory focus theory and the \"stressor-work regulatory focus-behaviour\" framework, this study responds to calls for research distinguishing between OCBs and CCBs and explores their common antecedents by examining how citizenship pressure impacts these two types of citizenship behaviour through promotion and prevention work regulatory focus. The findings reveal that citizenship pressure has beneficial effects by encouraging individuals with polychronicity to exhibit promotion work regulatory focus and motivating their OCBs; however, it also has deleterious effects by encouraging individuals without polychronicity to exhibit prevention work regulatory focus and motivating their CCBs.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; Notes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c/strong\u003e We would also like to thank Songyang Qi for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 72072084, 72472070). Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Dejun Cheng ([email protected]).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConflict\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;Interest\u0026nbsp;statement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVerbal informed-consent was obtained for anonymized participants information to b published in this article.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eApproval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval is not applicable for this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll respondents were at least 18 years of age and provided informed consent to participate in the research by completing \u0026nbsp;a- questionnaire, The information collected is strictly confidential and anonymous, used solely for research purposes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eLiu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing \u0026ndash; original draft preparation, Revising. Cheng: Writing-original draft preparation, Revising. All authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe sincerely thank Songyang Qi for comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLePine, J. A., Erez, A. \u0026amp; Johnson, D. E. The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eJ. Appl. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e87\u003c/b\u003e, 52\u0026ndash;65 (2002).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBolino, M. C., Hsiung, H. H., Harvey, J. \u0026amp; LePine, J. A. Well, I\u0026rsquo;m tired of tryin\u0026rsquo;! Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue. \u003cem\u003eJ. Appl. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e100\u003c/b\u003e, 56\u0026ndash;74 (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., Gilstrap, J. B. \u0026amp; Suazo, M. M. Citizenship under pressure: What\u0026rsquo;s a good soldier to do? \u003cem\u003eJ. Organ. Behav.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e31\u003c/b\u003e, 835\u0026ndash;855 (2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDierdorff, E. C. \u0026amp; Rubin, R. S. Revisiting Reciprocity: How Accountability, Proactivity, and Interpersonal Skills Shape Obligations to Reciprocate Citizenship Behavior. \u003cem\u003eJ. Bus. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e37\u003c/b\u003e, 263\u0026ndash;281 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChou, S. Y., Ramser, C., Chang, T. \u0026amp; Han, B. Emergence of interpersonal helping in times of crises: a theoretical model of prosperity and eradication of interpersonal helping in organizations. \u003cem\u003eManag. Decis.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e58\u003c/b\u003e, 2257\u0026ndash;2273 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang, H. \u0026amp; Huang, Q. The dark side of feeling trusted for hospitality employees: An investigation in two service contexts. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Hospitality Manage.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e76\u003c/b\u003e, 122\u0026ndash;131 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHollman, R. W. Overtime Working: Employee Willingness. \u003cem\u003eEmpl. Relations\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e, 26\u0026ndash;29 (1980).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoopman, J., Lanaj, K. \u0026amp; Scott, B. A. Integrating the Bright and Dark Sides of Ocb: A Daily Investigation of the Benefits and Costs of Helping Others. \u003cem\u003eAcad. Manag. J.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e59\u003c/b\u003e, 414\u0026ndash;435 (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBolino, M. C. \u0026amp; Klotz, A. C. The paradox of the unethical organizational citizen: the link between organizational citizenship behavior and unethical behavior at work. \u003cem\u003eCurr. Opin. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e6\u003c/b\u003e, 45\u0026ndash;49 (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHe, P., Peng, Z., Zhao, H. \u0026amp; Estay, C. How and When Compulsory Citizenship Behavior Leads to Employee Silence: A Moderated Mediation Model Based on Moral Disengagement and Supervisor\u0026ndash;Subordinate Guanxi Views. \u003cem\u003eJ. Bus. Ethics\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e155\u003c/b\u003e, 259\u0026ndash;274 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarpenter, N. C., Berry, C. M. \u0026amp; Houston, L. A meta-analytic comparison of self-reported and other-reported organizational citizenship behavior: SELF-REPORTED AND OTHER-REPORTED OCB. \u003cem\u003eJ. Organiz Behav.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e35\u003c/b\u003e, 547\u0026ndash;574 (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Clercq, D., Suhail, A., Azeem, M. U. \u0026amp; Haq, I. U. Citizenship pressure and job performance: roles of citizenship fatigue and continuance commitment. \u003cem\u003eAsia Pac. J. Hum. Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e59\u003c/b\u003e, 482\u0026ndash;505 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Ng, T. W. H. \u0026amp; Lam, S. S. K. Promotion- and prevention-focused coping: A meta-analytic examination of regulatory strategies in the work stress process. \u003cem\u003eJ. Appl. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e104\u003c/b\u003e, 1296\u0026ndash;1323 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHiggins, E. T. Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as A Motivational Principle. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (ed Zanna, M. P.) vol. 30 1\u0026ndash;46 (Academic, (1998).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRusso, M., Guo, L. \u0026amp; Baruch, Y. Work attitudes, career success and health: Evidence from China. \u003cem\u003eJ. Vocat. Behav.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e84\u003c/b\u003e, 248\u0026ndash;258 (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoopman, J. et al. Why and for whom does the pressure to help hurt others? Affective and cognitive mechanisms linking helping pressure to workplace deviance. \u003cem\u003ePers. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e73\u003c/b\u003e, 333\u0026ndash;362 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArndt, A., Arnold, T. J. \u0026amp; Landry, T. D. The effects of polychronic-orientation upon retail employee satisfaction and turnover. \u003cem\u003eJ. Retail.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e82\u003c/b\u003e, 319\u0026ndash;330 (2006).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePachler, D. et al. Workflow interruptions and employee work outcomes: The moderating role of polychronicity. \u003cem\u003eJ. Occup. Health Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e23\u003c/b\u003e, 417\u0026ndash;427 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMullins, R., Agnihotri, R. \u0026amp; Hall, Z. The Ambidextrous Sales Force: Aligning Salesperson Polychronicity and Selling Contexts for Sales-Service Behaviors and Customer Value. \u003cem\u003eJ. Service Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e23\u003c/b\u003e, 33\u0026ndash;52 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBolino, M. C., Harvey, J. \u0026amp; Bachrach, D. G. A self-regulation approach to understanding citizenship behavior in organizations. \u003cem\u003eOrgan. Behav. Hum Decis. Process.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e119\u003c/b\u003e, 126\u0026ndash;139 (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLanaj, K., Chang, C. H. \u0026amp; Johnson, R. E. Daisy Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e 138, 998\u0026ndash;1034 (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMousa, M., Massoud, H. K. \u0026amp; Ayoubi, R. M. Gender, diversity management perceptions, workplace happiness and organisational citizenship behaviour. \u003cem\u003eEmpl. Relations: Int. J.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e42\u003c/b\u003e, 1249\u0026ndash;1269 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElamin, A. M. \u0026amp; Tlaiss, H. A. Exploring the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and organizational justice in the Islamic Saudi Arabian context. \u003cem\u003eEmpl. Relations\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e37\u003c/b\u003e, 2\u0026ndash;29 (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWallace, C. \u0026amp; Chen, G. A. Multilevel Integration of Personality, Climate, Self-Regulation, and Performance. \u003cem\u003ePers. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e59\u003c/b\u003e, 529\u0026ndash;557 (2006).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBergeron, D. M., Shipp, A. J., Rosen, B. \u0026amp; Furst, S. A. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Career Outcomes: The Cost of Being a Good Citizen. \u003cem\u003eJ. Manag.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e39\u003c/b\u003e, 958\u0026ndash;984 (2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVelasco Vizca\u0026iacute;no, F., Martin, S. L., Cardenas, J. J. \u0026amp; Cardenas, M. Employees\u0026rsquo; attitudes toward corporate social responsibility programs: The influence of corporate frugality and polychronicity organizational capabilities. \u003cem\u003eJ. Bus. Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e124\u003c/b\u003e, 538\u0026ndash;546 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHecht, T. D. \u0026amp; Allen, N. J. Exploring links between polychronicity and well-being from the perspective of person\u0026ndash;job fit: Does it matter if you prefer to do only one thing at a time? \u003cem\u003eOrgan. Behav. Hum Decis. Process.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e98\u003c/b\u003e, 155\u0026ndash;178 (2005).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSelin Atalay, A., Onur Bodur, H. \u0026amp; Bressoud, E. When and How Multitasking Impacts Consumer Shopping Decisions. \u003cem\u003eJ. Retail.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e93\u003c/b\u003e, 187\u0026ndash;200 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFarh, J. L., Earley, P. C. \u0026amp; Lin, S. C. Impetus for Action: A Cultural Analysis of Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Chinese Society. \u003cem\u003eAdm. Sci. Q.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e42\u003c/b\u003e, 421\u0026ndash;444 (1997).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVigoda-Gadot, E. Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace. \u003cem\u003eJ. Bus. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e21\u003c/b\u003e, 377\u0026ndash;405 (2007).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLittle, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G. \u0026amp; Widaman, K. F. To Parcel or Not to Parcel: Exploring the Question, Weighing the Merits. \u003cem\u003eStruct. Equation Modeling: Multidisciplinary J.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e9\u003c/b\u003e, 151\u0026ndash;173 (2002).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePodsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Jeong-Yeon, L. \u0026amp; Podsakoff, N. P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. \u003cem\u003eJ. Appl. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e88\u003c/b\u003e, 879 (2003).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSardeshmukh, S. R. \u0026amp; Vandenberg, R. J. Integrating Moderation and Mediation: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Res. Methods\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e20\u003c/b\u003e, 721\u0026ndash;745 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGermeys, L., Griep, Y. \u0026amp; De Gieter, S. Citizenship Pressure as a Predictor of Daily Enactment of Autonomous and Controlled Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Differential Spillover Effects on the Home Domain. \u003cem\u003eFront. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e10\u003c/b\u003e, (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRosen, C. C. et al. When challenges hinder: An investigation of when and how challenge stressors impact employee outcomes. \u003cem\u003eJ. Appl. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e105\u003c/b\u003e, 1181\u0026ndash;1206 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"citizenship pressure, organizational citizenship behaviours, compulsory citizenship behaviours, work regulatory focus, polychronicity","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5004415/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5004415/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePurpose\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e-\u003c/strong\u003e The benefits of OCBs increase citizenship pressure in organizations. However, the relationships between citizenship pressure and citizenship behaviours (i.e., organizational and compulsory citizenship behaviours) are in controversy. Inspired by regulatory focus theory and \"stressor-work regulatory focus-outcomes\" framework, the purpose of this study is to examine how citizenship pressure is related to OCBs and compulsory citizenship behaviours through promotion and prevention work regulatory focus as well as the moderating role of individual's polychronicity in these relationships.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDesign/methodology/approach\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e-\u003c/strong\u003e Three-wave time-lagged data were collected from China's 241 fulltime employees. This study employed bootstrapping with SEM to test hypotheses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFindings -\u003c/strong\u003e Results showed citizenship pressure is positively related to both OCBs and compulsory citizenship behaviours. In addition, promotion and prevention work regulatory focus play opposing mediating roles in the relationships between citizenship pressure and these two types of citizenship behaviour, and the mediating role of promotion work regulatory focus is enhanced when individuals exhibit higher polychronicity; however, the mediating role of prevention work regulatory focus is enhanced when individuals exhibit lower polychronicity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePractical implications -\u003c/strong\u003eGuiding employees to form a promotion rather than prevention work regulatory focus by assigning employees with polychronicity to positions under citizenship pressure or training employees to improve polychronicity may yield citizenship pressure produce more benefits.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOriginality/value \u003c/strong\u003e-\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003eOur findings provide new perspectives into the benefits and costs of citizenship pressure via regulatory focus theory and address the controversy over the relationship between citizenship pressure and citizenship behaviours by considering OCBs and compulsory citizenship behaviours simultaneously.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Citizenship pressure and citizenship behaviours: examining different self-regulation process","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-10-16 09:25:31","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5004415/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-01-09T06:43:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-12-02T17:59:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-27T06:03:49+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-19T08:43:01+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"75225959031605400651345137987615649647","date":"2025-11-17T10:25:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"211130449570441619991967921825965387987","date":"2025-11-13T07:58:51+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"269474582655807944742620581891693644546","date":"2025-11-12T13:33:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"199337933332332394741094880391961820932","date":"2025-07-06T13:28:37+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"14775036480552212857298551755808030109","date":"2025-07-06T08:33:34+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"315884135584977223676826252407709043912","date":"2025-04-15T07:56:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-04-13T11:42:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"305987386670171757657204876342575216016","date":"2025-04-13T11:05:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-04-11T12:28:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-12-12T05:09:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2024-09-09T08:14:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-09-09T08:05:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Scientific Reports","date":"2024-08-30T13:58:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"70fce451-20c9-4db7-8ed8-decbef8b05fe","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 16th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":38271635,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour"},{"id":38271636,"name":"Biological sciences/Biological techniques/Behavioural methods"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-20T16:12:56+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-5004415","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-48076-3","journal":{"identity":"scientific-reports","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Scientific Reports"},"publishedOn":"2026-04-17 15:57:52","publishedOnDateReadable":"April 17th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-10-16 09:25:31","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41598-026-48076-3","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-48076-3","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5004415","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5004415","identity":"rs-5004415","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}