Winterich et al. (2013) argue that symbolization represents the level to which a person might tend to convey his moral identity to the external side via actions in the world. The one with a high level of symbolization dimension is the one who has the tendency to be involved in explicit activities that might transfer to others the commitment to specific moral ideas and goals. On the other side, when one has a low level of the symbolization dimension of moral identity, he would incline to get involved in such types of public activities. In the model developed by Aquino and Reed (2002), the levels of both dimensions, internalization, and symbolization, do not necessarily correspond to each other, even though there must be some sort of a positive relationship for both of them (Winterich et al., 2013). Rothbard (2001) connotes that intrinsic motivation can be distinguished from absorption as it is specifically task-oriented with a state of positive emotion while absorption is a neutral state. Self-regulation explains the mechanism of linking absorption and attention to engagement theoretically (Lee et al., 2003). Moreover, Kanfer (1990) further clarifies the concept of self-regulation as a process of converting inner impelling cause into behavior stimulus and performance. Resultantly, this order of attention enables an employee to allocate exclusive efforts for on-task and off-task performances related behaviors. According to Ryan and Deci (2001), well-being is optimal functioning and experience. It is parallel to the notion, that individual utility or wellbeing denotes the point of satisfaction where ones’ preferences are satisfied. The concept of wellbeing is based upon two philosophies termed hedonism and eudemonism. Kahneman et al. (2004) relate the hedonic view of wellbeing with positive emotions of happiness and pleasure. While on the other hand, eudemonism is seen as the cultivation of personal resources and their positive contribution, exercising efforts in compliance with one’s inner satisfaction and beliefs (Waterman, 1993). Thus, pleasure and happiness are the focus of hedonic approaches to wellbeing. Diener et al. (1985) state that the most well-known model established for this approach is subjective wellbeing, composed of three main components; the presence of positive affect, satisfaction with life, and the absence of negative affect. The beneficial treatment of the organization such as fairness and supervisor support results in favorable outcomes such as the development of positive emotions and overall satisfaction.

Moreover, the virtue of mindfulness (moral responsibility) assumes a sense of responsibility resulting in symbolization. As advocated by Pandey et al. (2018) in earlier research, mindfulness as moral responsibility has the potency to mitigate the egocentric bias. Moral responsibility can trigger employees to opt a rationalized decision-making, which further can provoke positive behaviors among employees (Jennings et al., 2015). However, moral judgment cannot truly portray how individuals will attempt to address moral issues in the first place (Jennings et al., 2015), but moral judgments can lead toward the betterment of others in the workplace. Moreover, the moral judgment does not automatically lead to moral action; moral actions are influenced by perceptions of individuals and their virtues because these promote moral responsibility. The reason is that when an employee feels that he or she is morally responsible due to the influence of moral principles (Williams and Gantt, 2012).

Past studies indicate that moral reasoning is embedded through three phases such as awareness, judgment, intent and behavior, and moral responsibility. The last component, i.e., moral responsibility, tends to deal with individual’s sense of accountability related to the betterment of others. While the second part of this concept, i.e., mindfulness states that the development of virtue is a trait as a result of through interventions. Internalization used to be a focus perception in social theory in psychology, anthropology, sociology, and linked fields. Previous studies indicate that cultural, social, and behavioral systems force an individual to act in a particular way ethic (Chen and Tang, 2006; Strand and Lizardo, 2015). Simply, society constrained people to act in particular (e.g., prosocial) ways. Thus society tends to constrain people from some potential behaviors within organizations via expected emotional, ethical, and intellectual forces. Through the expansion of the theory of the cultural system (Kuper, 2003), “internalization,” is the instrument by which people developed all types of social designs (expressive, normative, cognitive, and the like). Thus, it can be a motivating factor to maintain the psychological well-being of individuals across their lifetimes. The reason is that across the life span there come different stages. Thus with the passage of time and age stage the level of psychological wellbeing changes (Olekalns et al., 2014; Strand and Lizardo, 2015). Thus, in this regard, beliefs tend to represent the being “about” various things, events, or people. It is therefore very reasonable to assume that internalization will promote moral reasoning, moral responsibility which will further enhance the prosocial behavior of the employees. We conceptualized that moral reasoning would enhance the employee’s intention to be more inclined toward others’ betterment and would result in positive behaviors at the workplace, i.e., showing pro-social behaviors.

Internalization holds a central position under the domain of cultural theory in the fields of sociology, anthropology, and psychology. Based on the theory of cultural systems, internalization is regarded as a tool and mechanism by which the individuals at the workplace shape and adapt all types of patterns related to culture (Kuper, 2003). These patterns can be normative, cognitive, and expressive. Moreover, internalization is termed as a process by which individuals are encultured. Literature related to internalization states that characteristics of a culture are retained by individuals before and after internalization in a system and then these characteristics become properties of individuals (Kelly et al., 2011; Strand and Lizardo, 2015).

A framework, proposed by Schwartz (2016) explains that ethical decision making based on moral reasoning promotes positive behaviors, which can be termed “retrospection” and this process follows a pattern of activities and during this process, emotion, intuition, reason, and rationalization hold a pivotal position and play a crucial role. Moreover, during this process, both individual and organizational factors play a moderating role, thus moral capacity at an individual level and an environment of the organization help to improve this process.

Thus, an individual who internalizes a belief then tends to show or represent the world the picture based on that belief. Hence based on the above argument it can be drawn that:

Based on the above literature support and hypothesis development the following framework (see Figure 1) has been established.

College students were selected as participants in this study. A two-wave strategy was followed to collect data. To set a suitable and well representative sample size, we followed various sample size recommendations based on previous studies. In this regard Krejcie and Morgan (1970), recommendations were kept under consideration. Although a sample size of 384 is considered suitable according to this criteria, however, we have selected a sample size of 600 to be on the safer side. Moreover, according to the general rule of thumb, a benchmark of five to ten respondents against each study construct is considered reasonable and in this case, a sample size of 50 was sufficient. However, we escalated from this sample size recommendation and selected a larger respondent pool. In the first wave of questionnaire distribution, 600 college students were contacted to complete the response. This hidden and secret code was related to the high school of the respondents so that they could be traced easily. At this stage, demographic characteristics and questions related to both the independent variables were asked from the respondents. However, in the second wave questions related to mediating variables and dependent variables were asked from the respondents and at this wave, 448 questionnaires were received back from the redistributed 507 questionnaires. After discarding the incomplete and partially filled questionnaires (17 questionnaires) there were left only 431 useable responses.

This helped us to reduce the potential measurement error of common method biases (Ng and Feldman, 2013; Newman et al., 2015; Feng and Wang, 2019). Moreover, we used reverse coded questions, to potentially restrict the participants from giving monotonic responses. Additionally, we provide a brief purpose statement to the respondents regarding study objectives and their contribution to the literature (Malhotra et al., 2006). These measures helped us to potentially reduce the common method biases.

Respondents were requested to rate their demographic characteristics. From the perspective of gender, female respondents were slightly higher than the male respondents, i.e., 53% female students and 47% male students. While talking about the age group, all the students were under the age limit of 18–25 years indicating an adult population. All the students were enrolled in their undergraduate study courses.

Responses were recorded on 5 (5-1) point Likert Scale with a range from strongly agree to strongly disagree where 5 indicates strongly agree and 1 indicates strongly disagree. The first independent variable of this study, i.e., symbolization was assessed based on five items scale. Sample item to measure symbolization includes, “The types of things I do in my spare time (e.g., hobbies).” This scale has been developed by Aquino and Reed (2002) and later on validated by Reed et al. (2007). A second independent variable of this study, internalization is assessed based on four items scale and the sample item for this scale is, “Being someone who has these characteristics is an important part of who I am.” This scale is also developed by Aquino and Reed (2002) and later on validated by Reed et al. (2007). Mediating variable in this study is operationalized based on ten items scale covering the dimension of Conventional Morality. This scale is developed by Christie and Geis (2013), and is known as the Machiavellian IV scale (Mach IV). Previously this scale has been tested and validated by Athota et al. (2009). The dependent variable, prosocial behavior is measured based on pro-sociality in groups. This dimension is most suitable in the context of college students as students tend to form groups in their academic and personal circles. A sample item for this scale includes, “I have shared knowledge with colleagues to help them get ahead.” Initially, this scale is developed by Johnson et al. (1989). However, this scale is validated by researchers in the past, most recently this scale is used by Gotowiec and van Mastrigt (2019). This scale has four items. The last dependent variable (psychological wellbeing) of this study is measured based on five items scale recently used by Akram (2019).

Hypotheses testing have been done based on t and p statistics. Table 4 in this regard provides details regarding direct, indirect, and total paths, while Table 5 discusses the hypotheses testing. In the case of mediation analysis, we have opted to test the significance of indirect effects while simple hypotheses have been tested based on direct path effects. Thus, the first hypothesis (H1) of this study which is related to the impact of symbolization on psychological wellbeing has been found statistically significant as evident by p and t statistics (t = 10.684 and p = 0.000). Path coefficient in this relationship indicates that one unit change in symbolization will bring 0.516 unit change in the psychological welling among the college students. Moreover, a sign of this path is positive which indicates that symbolization has a positive impact on psychological wellbeing, thus, H1 is accepted. Similarly, H2 of this study is related to the impact of symbolization on the prosocial behavior of college students. Statistical data indicates that statistical parameters for this path are significant (t = 3.031 and p = 0.002) and depict that one unit change in symbolization will bring 0.169 unit change in prosocial behavior of the college students, thus, H2 is accepted. Similarly, the third hypothesis (H3) of this study is related to the relationship between internalization and psychological wellbeing. Statistical parameters indicate that internalization brings positive change in psychological wellbeing and one unit change in internalization will bring 0.123 unit change in psychological wellbeing. Moreover, this path is statistically significant as evident by p and t statistics (t = 3.543 and p = 0.000). Thus, H3 of this study is supported by the results. While talking to the fourth hypothesis of this study (H4) it has been observed that the impact of internalization of prosocial behavior of the college students is not statistically significant as evident by the t and p statistics of this path (Table 5). P-value escalated in this case from the threshold value, thus, H4 is not supported in this case. The reason for this behavior might be the fact that human beings get irrational (Mazar and Ariely, 2006) when they encounter the opportunity to act opportunistically for their interest, and humans usually are tempted to act in this way (Jensen and Meckling, 1976).

While mediation hypotheses have been tested based on indirect effects. The first mediation hypothesis (H5) is related to mediating role of moral reasoning in the relationships of symbolization and psychological wellbeing (SMB MR PWB). This path was assessed based on indirect effect, for which both t and p statistics are significant which indicates that moral reasoning mediates the relationship between symbolization and psychological wellbeing. Thus, H5 is supported by the study results. Similarly, H6 is related to the mediating role of moral reasoning between the relationships of symbolization and prosocial behavior (SMB MR PSB). This path was also assessed based on indirect effect, for which both t and p statistics are significant which indicates that moral reasoning mediates the relationship between symbolization and prosocial behavior. Thus, H6 is supported by the study results.

The other two mediating hypotheses are related to the mediating role of moral reasoning between the relationship of internalization and psychological wellbeing, prosocial behavior. H6 in this regard was assessed based on indirect effect and it has been found moral reasoning mediates the relationship between internalization and psychological wellbeing as evident by t and p statistics related to H7 (indirect path). Thus, H7 is supported. The last and final hypothesis of this study is based on the mediating role of moral reasoning between the relationships of internalization and prosocial behavior. The indirect effect of this path is found statistically significant as evident by p and t statistics (see Table 5). Thus, H8 of this study is supported by the results. In this regard, beliefs tend to represent the being “about” various things, events, or people. It is therefore very reasonable to assume that internalization will promote moral reasoning moral responsibility and which will further enhance the prosocial behavior of the employees. Our conceptualization has been found true that moral reasoning would enhance the employee’s intention to be more inclined toward others’ betterment and would result in positive behaviors at the workplace, i.e., showing pro-social behaviors.

The findings of the study support the relationship which is in line with (Cropanzano et al., 1997). These findings are in connection with the previous studies and indicate that employees may show wellbeing for others when they internalize themselves with the organizational culture (Dahling et al., 2009, 2012).

Internalization holds a central position under the domain of cultural theory in the fields of sociology, anthropology, and psychology. Based on the theory of cultural systems, internalization is regarded as a tool and mechanism by which the individuals at the workplace shape and adapt all types of patterns related to culture (Kuper, 2003). These patterns can be normative, cognitive, and expressive. Moreover, internalization is termed as a process by which individuals are encultured. Literature related to internalization states that characteristics of a culture are retained by individuals before and after internalization in a system and then these characteristics become properties of individuals (Strand and Lizardo, 2015).

In alignment with the previous studies, this study also endorses the findings that organizational structure and setup can affect the employees’ pro-social behaviors (Jones and Paulhus, 2009). The reason might be that due to the perspective of high-level Machiavellians and the fact that they are prone to involve in politics with organizations, they tend to look at the moves of others, superiors, peers, and subordinates, as political moves (O’connor and Morrison, 2001; O’Connor et al., 2017). One more reason might be that they tend to use manipulative tactics to be in the spotlight as favorable to others, peers, and superiors (O’Hair and Cody, 1987). As moral identity plays the role of a self-regulatory mechanism to propagate moral actions as argued by Reed et al. (2007), people who position high self-importance on the moral identity get less involved in unethical opportunistic behaviors than do those who place less importance of self-concept (Reed et al., 2007; Burris et al., 2008). Findings are also endorsed by the theory of the cultural system (Kuper, 2003), which states that “internalization,” is the instrument by which people developed all types of social designs (expressive, normative, cognitive, and the like). So, internalization in culture can be a motivating factor to maintain the psychological well-being of individuals across their lifetimes. The reason is that across the life span there come different stages. Thus with the passage of time and age stage the level of psychological wellbeing changes (Strand and Lizardo, 2015).