The relationship between self-reactiveness and workplace deviance among college interns

. The researcher’s purpose upon composing this research is to examine the relationship between Self-Reactiveness and Workplace Deviance among college interns. This is done because the researcher feels with the existence of an unsupportive and inadequate work environment, members who undergo an internship program intentionally and consciously choose not to show their optimal skills and abilities as a reaction and self-regulation. The researcher used a quantitative approach which is Pearson’s Correlation for this study, with the respondents being college students who are or had been undergoing an internship program. The technique used for data collection is voluntary response sampling. The number of participants in this study were 100 college students. The Self-Regulation Scale (SRS) and The Workplace Deviance Test (WDT) are two measuring tools used for the research’s measurement. The result of the study reveals that the correlation between self-reactiveness and workplace deviance is insignificant. The study concludes that the relationship between self-reactiveness and workplace deviance is insignificant.


Introduction
On Friday, October 21 st 2022, a preliminary survey was done towards 15 college students who are undergoing or had undergone an internship program at a company.It was found that as many as 5 students experienced overworking, 2 felt overwhelmed with work and 3 students experienced underworking while undergoing a company's internship program.These attitudes and behaviors are categorized within workplace deviance, considering the discrepancy with the company's expectations regarding employee work performance.It was found that there were problems for students while undergoing internship programs due to conditions of the work environment, such as the company's work climate and organizational culture, consisting of factors of lack of pay and low accessibility.When undergoing an internship program, if the work environment is unsupportive, there is a lack of motivation at work which results in the need for self-regulation in order to align with the company's needs.If the work environment encourages students to work to their most optimal, students push themselves beyond their limits to complete the tasks assigned so that they often feel overwhelmed.This condition decreases motivation level and job satisfaction.The college students feel it is important for a company to have a comfortable work environment for them to do work optimally as the company needs.If the work environment is inadequate, the environment becomes a stressor and the level of job satisfaction decreases, therefore making selfreactiveness intervene to regulate performance and motivation accordingly to the work environment in an effort to reduce the impact of the stressor.Even if said Corresponding author: msuprayogi@binus.eduregulation is not something the students want to begin with.The related research about self-reactiveness and workplace deviance among college interns is still scarce, therefore this study is an attempt to fill this research gap.This study will therefore meet the urgency in fulfilling this scarce research topic.Self-reactiveness is an aspect of cognitive construction upon adapting goal-achieving behavior consistently and proactively [1].Human agency, the concept responsible for the function of self-reactiveness, operates only when the individual self-reflects and identifies the external influences that are most nurturing for them.Said agency is present in a social structure and context, and with its existence capable of influencing change upon social, cultural and structural contexts [2].Self-regulation is a component of self-reactiveness.This can be said for self-reactiveness itself is a process of regulation, or precisely, self-regulation of motivation, influence and action which integrates thoughts and actions.Self-reactiveness refers to the excitability, responsiveness, or arousal of the behavioral and physiological systems of an organism while selfregulation refers to the neural and behavioral processes that function to modulate said reactivity [3].
Self-reactiveness is one of four functions of human agency drawn from Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory, a theory that outlines how behavioral responses are not externally triggered, but rather reactions to external stimuli implemented by the individual.When external reinforcement alters behavior, it is out of the individual's awareness of the response, emphasizing the systematic relevance of rewards and consequences towards modifying behavior.There is no direct relationship between behavior and reinforcement, rather a mechanism that mediates the two, which in this context is a person's cognitive processing.In addition to its focus on cognitive processing, behavior is also formed and modified based on social situations, seeing that social settings themselves are a source of external stimuli that bring reinforcement or consequences for individuals to react upon [4].The individual's ability upon making choices and acting on those choices in ways that make a difference in their lives is called Human Agency [2].According to Bandura [5], there are four functions where agency is utilized.Intentionality, where individuals form intentions that include actions, planning and strategies after realizing them.Second, Forethought, where individuals set goals and foresee possible outcomes in order to guide and motivate efforts.Then self-reactiveness, which essentially is a goal-oriented self-regulation process.Lastly is selfreflectiveness, where individuals are self-examiners of their own functioning, reflecting on their efficacy.
Culture is a group characteristic and is created as a result of the accumulated learning acquired by the group throughout its history.It can be interpreted that culture is applied based on aspects of learning that are then partially passed on to newcomers.This said learning is born specifically through basic assumptions, created and developed by the group, with some of the learning validated by the group then passed on to newcomers.The learning in question is based on the group's perspective on adaptation and their concept of integration [6].With that, there is certainly an organizational culture in companies, looking at how the organization itself is a form of a group.
In a strong culture, the core values of the organization are firmly embraced and implemented thoroughly.The more members who accept these core values, the greater and stronger the commitment and influence on the behavior of company members because high levels of togetherness and intensity create a climate of high behavioral control.Such control reduces turnover among company members which serves as a positive agreement with each other towards what the organization represents.It aims to build high qualities in organizational members such as loyalty, cohesiveness and organizational commitment.Therefore, these qualities in a weak culture are not met because of the formation of a climate with low behavioral control [7], looking at how the relationship between job satisfaction and turnover is generally how job dissatisfaction is more likely to take the form of turnover because employees view easy job transfers and other organizations as an alluring alternative [7].
The organization's actions in incorporating learning leads the organization to be highly diverse, creating a culture so strong that the organization's core values are strongly held and widely shared among members, creating a climate of high behavioral control [7].Climate in an organizational context refers to the similarity and togetherness of perceptions that organizational members have about the organization and their work environment, working with positive members can encourage a co-worker to do their best and working with slackers can drain their motivation.The psychological climate of an organization is closely related to a variety of individual performance factors such as job satisfaction, engagement, commitment and motivation [7].
Undeniably the state of an organization whether in culture, climate, structure and so on, has its definition because its members, their behavior and attitudes in the organization are generally determined based on their job satisfaction [7].Job satisfaction can be defined as the attitude of company members towards the company, their work, co-workers and other psychological atmosphere factors related to the work environment, with employees reacting positively to these factors and inhibited because of negative interactions [8].Therefore, job satisfaction is an indicator of job quality and performance.Job satisfaction describes positive feelings about a job based on an evaluation of its characteristics.Someone with a high level of job satisfaction holds positive feelings about their job, while someone with a low level has negative feelings.On a corporate scale, high levels of satisfaction can result in leverage and low levels of satisfaction can lead to deviance [7].All of these are aspects that define the overall ecosystem of the organization, thus making the level of job satisfaction of organizational members determined by their work environment.
The maximum level of job satisfaction can range from satisfaction to dissatisfaction.However, these levels are situation-dependent, implying that levels are based on emotional and organizational functions and variables [9].Job recognition, salary, advancement opportunities, and personal achievement and goals are all important factors of job satisfaction, strongly correlated with promotion opportunities, provide a direct positive relationship between job satisfaction and promotion, and increase the level of knowledge and skills in the employee's environment [8].The work environment, nature of work, and communication are also included as factors that play a role in employee job satisfaction.It can be seen how the importance of a good work environment can maximize the level of job satisfaction, deficiencies in one of these factors or aspects can lead to a decrease in job satisfaction levels which have an impact on employee and company work productivity negatively [10].The occurrence of decreased inter-company attachment and job performance can be harmful to the company, as they create uncertainty for the company that can conflict with the viability and sustainability of the organization's overall life [11].
A study was conducted at Islamic-based universities in Lampung with the aim of determining whether Islamic Workplace Spirituality (IWS) acts as a moderator in the relationship between Organizational Justice, Job Satisfaction and Workplace Deviant Behavior.IWS, or any concept of spirituality in the work environment, is applied and facilitated as a culture despite its rational systematic nature because it is based on the assumption that human attitudes to work are influenced by innate spirituality, aiming to create integration between spirituality and work such as the formation of meaning in the tasks performed and strong values to support positive attitudes in the work environment [12].Based on these studies, it can be confirmed that IWS does moderate the relationship between Organizational Justice, Job Satisfaction and DWB [13].
According to Ahmed Mohamed Fathi Agwa [14], Deviant Workplace Behaviour (DWB) is voluntary behavior that violates the organization's high values and norms that are considered to threaten the well-being of organizational members and the organization itself, negatively impacting psychologically, socially and tangibly on members and organizations, The deviation is conceptualized as a reaction to experiences in an organizational environment.The typology of deviant behavior in the workplace consists of two dimensional frameworks, Minor vs. Serious and Interpersonal vs. Organizational, where the combination of the two can be four types of deviant categories, namely Production Deviance, Property Deviance, Political Deviance and Personal Aggression [7], [15].The behavior of one type is not related to the others, but deviant behavior is generally born small and increases over time to take different and more destructive forms [15].Stress factors, generally work-related, contribute to deviant behavior, with workload or role overload allowing employees to show deviance in response to the increasing number of work stressors as well as work stress itself, an emotional experience full of negative emotions such as anxiety, frustration or irritation due to work, which ultimately makes employees more vulnerable to deviance, making work stress a big factor in causing Deviant Workplace Behaviour [16].Seeing that the social situation in an organization is its culture, the organizational climate can effectively reduce deviant behavior among employees if it is changed, but such changes will only be fruitful if they are done with the aim of addressing employee motivation and perceptions but focusing on reducing opportunities for deviant behavior [17].
A study that focuses on finding and identifying the relationship between employee emotional intelligence and Deviant Workplace Behaviour suggests that organizational members' personalities, such as sociability and impulsivity, are sources of deviant behavior in the work environment.Organizational factors such as job stressors, weak sanctions against rule violations, lack of control in the work environment, organizational frustration and changes in the organization such as downsizing are causes of deviation in the work environment.As a result, organizational factors make companies more vulnerable to Deviant Workplace Behaviour in employees.This is so because it was found that with the organization having full control over the organizational environment, the application of strong sanctions against violations, close supervision of employees by superiors and strong disciplinary procedures, leave little room for employees to exhibit Deviant Workplace Behaviour [14].
With that, the researcher took the title "The Relationship between Self-Reactiveness and Workplace Deviance Among College Interns" because the researcher felt that the work environment of the internship program in an organization did not have a sufficiently supportive environment.no matter what form it takes.The researcher feels, both based on his own experience and others, that often with the existence of a work environment that is not very supportive in the internship program, members who undergo an internship program in an organization often do not show optimal skills and abilities consciously and deliberately.The reason behind this behavior is because it has been regulated not to maximize skills and abilities due to organizational work environment factors in the internship program ultimately related to job stressors and job satisfaction of internship members.The researcher felt that the available journals did not cover what the researcher wanted to examine specifically and in detail.The researcher also concluded the hypothesis, namely H0: there is no relationship between Self-Reactiveness and Workplace Deviance among college interns and H1: there is a relationship between Self-Reactiveness and Workplace Deviance among college interns.

Research
At the data collecting stage, potential participants were given informed consent which contained the availability of voluntary participation and participant confidentiality.Informed consent is given to potential participants before data collection.Pre-registration is carried out by researchers on the Open Science Framework (OSF) site as proof that the researcher avoids manipulating research data in any form.

Participants
Potential participants selected by the researcher are individuals who are currently or have undergone an internship program at a Perseroan Terbatas (PT) domiciled in the DKI Jakarta area.For participants who have undergone an internship program, the questionnaire will be given to them if they still have the status of a college student when undergoing the internship program.The study requires a total of 100 college students as participants.The criteria for the respondents involved in the research are as follows: • 18-30 years old • Interns who are or have been working in DKI Jakarta • An active college student • Studying in the Jabodetabek area The demographics for the total participants of 100 college students can be seen in Table 1:

Measurement Tool
The measuring instrument used by the researcher to measure self-reactiveness is The Self-Regulation Scale (SRS) developed by Ralf Schwarzer.The Self-Regulation Scale measures attentional control at the goal pursuit stage [18].The scale refers to cognitions and behaviors that arise after an individual has formulated their intention to pursue a particular goal [19].This is so because maintenance situations require individuals to focus attention on the task at hand and maintain emotional balance for self-beneficial outcomes.This scale contains 10 items.However, the 10-item scale is not unidimensional across cultures because 3 unfavorable items are negative.Therefore, a version of the scale was used in which these three items were eliminated to make it more appropriate and unidimensional.The scale contains 7 items and is answered with 4 points ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (completely true) with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.77 at the highest and 0.73 at the lowest [19].The scores of the 7 items are then averaged and will range from 1 to 4.
The higher an individual scores, the higher the individual's self-reactiveness.The reliability test results for The Self-Regulation Scale (SRS) used to measure the self-reactiveness is shown in Table 2 and 3: The Self-Regulation Scale (SSR) measuring instrument with a total of 7 items has a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.757 based on the Cronbach's alpha test, meaning that the measuring instrument is reliable due to the fact that Cronbach's alpha value> 0.6.
The measuring instrument that will be used to measure the Workplace Deviance variable is the Workplace Deviance Test, a measurement that measures the frequency of employees in deviant behavior that refers to the organization and individuals in the organization.Finding out the relationship between employee experiences because constraints are situational with unproductive behavior based on frustration [20].The purpose of this measure is to assess a broad range of deviant behaviors found in the workplace, therefore the measure contains two aspects of workplace deviance, one for organizational deviance with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.81 and one for interpersonal deviance with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.78 [21].This measure contains 19 items ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (daily) with the result that a high individual score determines the high workplace deviance of the individual.The reliability test results for The Workplace Deviance Test (WDT) used for the workplace deviance variable is shown in Table 4 and 5.
The Workplace Deviance Test (WDT) measuring instrument with a total of 19 items has a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.973 based on the Cronbach's alpha test, meaning that the measuring instrument is reliable because the Cronbach's alpha value is> 0.6.

Research Design
The approach used by the researcher is a quantitative approach, using this approach the researcher is able to explain how one variable can affect the other.The researcher used a correlational research design for they want to determine the causal relationship that exists between the independent variable, namely selfreactiveness, and the dependent variable, namely workplace deviance.The sampling technique used is non-probability sampling because there is no equal opportunity to be a sample.The type of non-probability sampling used is voluntary response sampling, where the sample consists of participants who voluntarily choose to participate in responding to the questionnaire.Researchers use the so-called sampling technique with the aim of not making equal opportunities between fellow samples in order not to bias how a company member reacts to the conditions of the company's scope.The correlation test used to test the correlation between the two variables is the Pearson correlation test because of the researcher's desire to see the significance of the correlation between the two variables.

Procedure
The research procedure is carried out by providing questionnaire questions, then the questionnaire's links were distributed to participants, which were done by them in Google Forms.In the process of distributing the questionnaire's link, the researcher then distributes the questionnaire to fellow student acquaintances through various social media platforms such as Instagram, Whatsapp, Facebook and so on, privately through existing social media-based groups.The respondent criteria were attached along with the questionnaire link during the link distribution process.Once the link was accessed, participants were required to read the informed consent beforehand.Participants could only proceed to complete the questionnaire after agreeing to the informed consent.When the number of participants was reached, the researcher then collected the participant's response and processed the data.With the data collected, the researcher then conducted reliability tests for both measuring instruments using Cronbach's alpha and conducted correlation analysis using Pearson's correlation.

Results
Based on the results of Pearson's Correlation Analysis, it can be interpreted that there is no significant correlation between self-reactiveness and workplace deviance (r=0.049,p=0.631).Pearson's Correlation indicates a significant correlation between two variables so that the value of r=0.049 and r<0.199 means a very low correlation, it can be seen in Table 6.With that, it is known that the correlation between self-reactiveness and workplace deviance is very low because the correlation is not significant between the two variables.Therefore, the first hypothesis (H1) formulated by the researcher, namely "there is a relationship between selfreactiveness and workplace deviance in student interns" is rejected.Instead, the H0 formulated by the researcher, namely "there is no relationship between selfreactiveness and workplace deviance in college student interns" is accepted.

Discussion
The researcher conducted a study to see if there was a correlation between the self-reactiveness of a college intern and workplace deviance.The purpose of the research was designed to bring awareness to the importance of work climate factors and the effects that follow.The researcher expected the study to show a correlation that was at least high enough between the two variables to indicate that students intentionally regulate themselves to not perform to their utmost abilities, resulting in workplace deviance while on their internship program.However, the results obtained from the study beg to differ.
Based on the data obtained, the hypothesis "there is a relationship between self-reactiveness and workplace deviance among college interns" formulated by the researcher is rejected due to the correlation being insignificant and very low.Based upon the demographic data of the participants, the research participants came from various universities in the Greater Jakarta area.It is possible that with different universities there are different priorities of interests in undergoing an internship program, such as how a university requires students to take part in an internship program.As a result, the motivation and tolerance for the work climate that students have is different.The researcher did not expect to obtain results that showed a very low correlation between self-reactiveness and workplace deviance in student interns, seeing how the discovery of the relationship between individual personality and workplace deviance with organizations was a factor in the results of the studies presented in the previous chapters.
In relation to no significant relation between selfreactiveness and workplace deviance among college interns, this study raises the issue for organizations to not to worry about the work deviance among college interns.
The limitations of the study refer to the scope of the study and the number of participants.The researcher did not consider that with different companies, there are also different cultures, as a result, the response and reactivity of each student who is interning at the company also varies.With that, random sampling is not appropriate, given the existence of these differences.The insufficient number of participants is also likely to have an influence on the results of the analysis.Therefore, the suggestions that researchers convey for further research are the addition of other variables that can limit the differences that have been mentioned, adjusting the use of sampling techniques according to the context of adding variables and increasing the range of respondents for the data collection process.

Table 3 .
SRS items reliability statistics.