nach oben

Journal of Business and Psychology

Erschienen in:

01.03.2016

How Abusive Supervision Affects Workplace Deviance: A Moderated-Mediation Examination of Aggressiveness and Work-Related Negative Affect

verfasst von: Jesse S. Michel, Kerry Newness, Kris Duniewicz

Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology | Ausgabe 1/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

This research examines the linking mechanisms and conditional processes underlying the abusive supervision and workplace deviance relationship. Based primarily on Affective Events Theory, it was hypothesized that work-related negative affect would mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance, and that this indirect effect would be moderated by employee-based and organization-based aggressiveness.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Two independent studies were conducted, including diverse working samples and multi-wave data, to test these relationships through mediation and moderated-mediation bootstrapping procedures.

Findings

Both studies suggest that work-related negative affect mediates the abusive supervision and workplace deviance relationship. Mixed findings were found for the moderating effect of employee-based and organization-based aggressiveness. In Study 1 higher levels of employee-based aggressive beliefs and attitudes increased the magnitude of the indirect effect; however, in Study 2 when taking into account organization-based aggressive norms only the facet of social discounting bias increased this relationship. In Study 2 higher levels of organization-based aggressive norms also increased the magnitude of the indirect effect for supervisor-directed deviance.

Implications

Theoretical and practical implications of these findings suggest a movement toward an emotion-centered process-based theory of workplace deviance.

Originality/Value

A central question in organizational behavior research revolves around what drives employees to engage in various workplace behaviors. Replicating research that suggests abusive supervision is an important factor in this question, this research helps illuminate the processes underlying this perception-to-behavior link, as well as the boundary conditions of these processes.

Nächster Artikel Good Soldier or Good Actor? Supervisor Accuracy in Distinguishing Between Selfless and Self-Serving OCB Motives

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

In order to provide confidence that the three individual difference variables of trait anger/hostility, aggressive beliefs and attitudes, and work-related negative affect are meaningfully different we conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). Specifically, we conducted CFA on the proposed three-factor model (χ ² (1427) = 5466.57, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.089 (90 % CI of RMSEA = 0.087–0.092); AIC = 57,178.07) and a comparison one-factor model (χ ² (1430) = 7800.48, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.112 (90 % CI of RMSEA = 0.110–0.114); AIC = 59,505.98). All fit indices and the χ ² difference test indicate that the three-factor model fit the data better than the one-factor model (χ ² difference (3, N = 355) = 2333.91, p < 0.001) suggesting that these three variables are unique and independent constructs.

We also tested the moderated-mediation models from Study 1 without the control variable of trait anger and hostility. With the control variable removed all direct, indirect, and conditional indirect effects remained stable (i.e., nonsignificant effects remained nonsignificant, significant effects remained significant) or increased slightly in magnitude. Cumulatively, the index of moderated mediation for the organizational deviance model increased from 0.050 (CI_.95 = 0.017, 0.090) to 0.080 (CI_.95 = 0.028, 0.131), while the index of moderated mediation of the supervisor-directed deviance model increased from 0.058 (CI_.95 = 0.024, 0.102) to 0.096 (CI_.95 = 0.042, 0.152).

Similar to Study 1, we conducted CFA on the proposed three-factor model (χ ² (1427) = 4485.38, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.091 (90 % CI of RMSEA = 0.088–0.095); AIC = 43,870.80) and a comparison one-factor model (χ ² (1430) = 6337.30, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.116 (90 % CI of RMSEA = 0.113–0.119); AIC = 45,716.72). All fit indices and the χ ² difference test indicate that the three-factor model fit the data better than the one-factor model (χ ² difference (3, N = 256) = 1851.92, p < 0.001) suggesting that the three individual difference variables of trait anger/hostility, aggressive beliefs and attitudes, and work-related negative affect are unique and independent constructs.

Comparable facet level analyses from Study 1 indicate hostile attribution bias, potency bias, and social discounting bias were significant moderators of this relationship.

Comparable facet level analyses from Study 1 indicate hostile attribution bias, potency bias, retribution bias, victimization by powerful others bias, and social discounting bias were significant moderators of this relationship.

We also tested the moderated-mediation models from Study 2 without the control variables of trait anger and hostility and aggressive organizational norms. With the control variables removed all direct, indirect, and conditional indirect effects remained stable (i.e., nonsignificant effects remained nonsignificant, significant effects remained significant) or increased slightly in magnitude. Cumulatively, the index of moderated mediation for the supervisor-directed deviance model with the work-related negative affect and aggressive organizational norms interaction increased from 0.069 (CI_.95 = 0.016, 0.153) to 0.089 (CI_.95 = 0.026, 0.171).

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 947–965.CrossRef

Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 195–208.CrossRef

Aquino, K., Galperin, B. L., & Bennett, R. J. (2004). Social status and aggressiveness as moderators of the relationship between interactional justice and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1001–1029.CrossRef

Asher, H. B. (1983). Causal modeling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Bamberger, P. A., & Bacharach, S. B. (2006). Abusive supervision and subordinate problem drinking: Taking resistance, stress, and subordinate personality into account. Human Relations, 59, 1–30.CrossRef

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.PubMedCrossRef

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.PubMedCrossRef

Basch, J., & Fisher, C. D. (2000). Affective events-emotions matrix: A classification of work events and associated emotions. In N. Ashkanasy, C. Hartel, & W. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 36–48). Westport, CT: Quorum.

Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 373–400.PubMedCrossRef

Bennett, R. (1998). Perceived powerlessness as a cause of employee deviance. In R. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 221–240). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360.PubMedCrossRef

Bensimon, H. F. (1994). Crisis and disaster management: Violations in the workplace. Training and Development, 28, 27–32.

Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 613–636.PubMedCrossRef

Bettencourt, B. A., Talley, A., Benjamin, A. J., & Valentine, J. (2006). Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 751–777.PubMedCrossRef

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bing, M. N., LeBreton, J. M., Davison, H. K., Migetz, D. Z., & James, L. R. (2007). Integrating implicit and explicit social cognitions for enhanced personality assessment: A general framework for choosing measurement and statistical methods. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 346–389.CrossRef

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 998–1012.PubMedCrossRef

Bowling, N. A., & Michel, J. S. (2011). Why do you treat me badly? The effects of target attributions on responses to abusive supervision. Work & Stress, 25, 309–320.CrossRef

Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., & Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, disposition, and job attitudes: The effect of positive mood-inducing events and negative affectivity on job satisfaction in a field experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 55–62.CrossRef

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279–307.PubMedCrossRef

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.PubMedCrossRef

Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2006). Subordinate self-esteem and abusive supervision. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 340–355.

Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2011). Aggressive reactions to abusive supervision: The role of interactional justice and narcissism. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 389–398.PubMedCrossRef

Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459.PubMedCrossRef

Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 183–204.PubMedCrossRef

Chi, S. S., & Liang, S. (2013). When do subordinates’ emotion-regulation strategies matter? Abusive supervision, subordinates’ emotional exhaustion, and work withdrawal. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 125–137.CrossRef

Clay, D. L., Anderson, W. P., & Dixon, W. A. (1993). Relationship between anger expression and stress in predicting depression. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 91–94.CrossRef

Crampton, S., & Wagner, J. (1994). Percept–percept inflation in micro-organizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67–76.CrossRef

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.CrossRef

Cropanzano, R., Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K. J., & Grandey, A. A. (2000). Doing justice to workplace emotion. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. Härtel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 49–62). Westport, CT: Quorum.

Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23, 341–352.

Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 547–559.PubMedCrossRef

Duffy, M. K., & Ferrier, W. J. (2003). Birds of a feather…? How supervisor-subordinate dissimilarity moderates the influence of supervisor behaviors on workplace attitudes. Group and Organizational Management, 28, 217–248.CrossRef

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351.CrossRef

Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., Connelly, C. E., Barling, J., & Hoption, C. (2006). Workplace aggression in teenage part-time employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 987–997.PubMedCrossRef

Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22.PubMedCrossRef

Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., & Aselage, J. (2004). Who takes the most revenge? Individual differences in negative reciprocity norm endorsement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 787–799.PubMedCrossRef

Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305–323.CrossRef

Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Journal, 9, 47–53.

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. Advances in Organizational Justice, 1, 3–33.

Folger, R. G., & Kass, E. E. (2000). Social comparison and fairness: A counterfactual simulations perspective. In S. J. Wheeler (Ed.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 423–441). New York: Plenum.CrossRef

Forgas, J. P., & East, R. (2008). On being happy and gullible: Mood effects on skepticism and the detection of deception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1362–1367.CrossRef

Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915–931.CrossRef

Frost, B. C., Ko, C. H. E., & James, L. R. (2007). Implicit and explicit personality: A test of a channeling hypothesis for aggressive behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1299–1319.PubMedCrossRef

Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692–731.PubMedCrossRef

Glasø, L., Vie, T. L., Homdal, G. R., & Einarsen, S. (2011). The application of affective events theory to workplace bullying. European Psychologist, 16, 198–208.CrossRef

Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 486–496.CrossRef

Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 95–110.PubMedCrossRef

Gray, E. K., & Watson, D. (2001). Emotion, mood, and temperament: Similarities, differences, and a synthesis. In R. Payne & C. Cooper (Eds.), Emotions at work. New York: Wiley.

Harmon-Jones, E., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2010). On the relationship of trait PANAS positive activation and trait anger: Evidence of a suppressor relationship. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 120–123.CrossRef

Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., & Kacmar, K. M. (2011). Abusive supervisory reactions to co-worker relationship conflict. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1010–1023.CrossRef

Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. (2007). Coping with abusive supervision: The neutralizing effect of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 264–280.CrossRef

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

Hayes, A. F. (2014). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavior Research.

Head, E. (2009). The ethics and implications of paying participants in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12, 335–344.CrossRef

Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). ‘‘Incivility, social undermining, bullying.oh my!’’: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42, 499–519.CrossRef

Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 24–44.CrossRef

Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228–238.PubMedCrossRef

Hoobler, J., & Brass, D. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1125–1133.PubMedCrossRef

Inness, M., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2005). Understanding supervisor targeted aggression: A within-person between-jobs design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 731–739.PubMedCrossRef

James, L. R., & LeBreton, J. M. (2012). Assessing the implicit personality through conditional reasoning. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRef

James, L. R., & Mazerolle, M. D. (2002). Personality at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611.CrossRef

Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126–138.PubMedCrossRef

Krehbiel, P. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Procedural justice, outcome favorability and emotion. Social Justice Research, 13, 339–360.CrossRef

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, S120–S137.CrossRef

Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1–23.PubMedCrossRef

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748.CrossRef

Maurer, T. J., Lippstreu, M., & Judge, T. A. (2008). Structural model of employee involvement and skill development activity: The role of individual differences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 336–350.CrossRef

Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65, 325–357.CrossRef

Michel, J. S., & Bowling, N. A. (2013). Does dispositional aggression feed the narcissistic response? The role of narcissism and aggression in the prediction of job attitudes and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 93–105.CrossRef

Michel, J. S., Pace, V. L., Edun, A., Sawhney, E., & Thomas, J. (2014). Development and validation of an explicit aggressive beliefs and attitudes scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 327–338.PubMedCrossRef

Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Basic assumptions of posttraumatic stress among victims of bullying at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 87–111.CrossRef

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268.PubMedCrossRef

Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159–1168.PubMedCrossRef

Murphy, K., & Tyler, T. (2008). Procedural justice and compliance behavior: The mediating role of emotions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 652–668.CrossRef

Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2000). The bully at work. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.

Niven, K., Sprigg, C. A., & Armitage, C. J. (2013). Does emotion regulation protect employees from the negative effects of workplace aggression? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 88–106.CrossRef

Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. (2010). Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.

Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 126–134.CrossRef

Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36, 94–120.CrossRef

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 539–569.CrossRef

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.PubMedCrossRef

Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93–115.PubMedCrossRef

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.PubMedCrossRef

Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2011). When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 713–729.PubMedCrossRef

Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigating the role of individual differences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 233–243.PubMedCrossRef

Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1610–1624.PubMedCrossRef

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.CrossRef

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.PubMedCrossRef

Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1248–1264.CrossRef

Schat, A. C. H., Frone, M., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). The prevalence of workplace aggression in the U.S. workforce: Findings from a national study. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell Jr. (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 579–606). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRef

Shoss, M. K., Restubog, S. L., Eisenberger, R., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: The roles of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 158–168.PubMedCrossRef

Shrout, P., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Bulletin, 7, 422–445.

Slora, K. B. (1989). An empirical approach to determining employee deviance base rates. Journal of Business and Psychology, 4, 199–219.CrossRef

Spielberger, C. D. (1996). State-trait anger expression inventory. Professional manual. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Stanton, J. M., & Weiss, E. M. (2002).Online panels for social science research: An introduction to the Study Response project. (Technical report no. 13001; www.studyresponse.com). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, School of Information Studies.

Street, H., Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (2001). Exploring the relationship between difference psychosocial determinants of depression: A multinational scaling analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 64, 53–67.PubMedCrossRef

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.CrossRef

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289.CrossRef

Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employee’s workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 156–167.CrossRef

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101–123.CrossRef

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the relationship between coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455–465.PubMedCrossRef

Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 721–732.PubMedCrossRef

Thompson, S. (1996). Paying respondents and informants. Social Research Update, Autumn, (14).

Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850–863.CrossRef

Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York: Guilford Press.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). Affects separable and inseparable: On the hierarchical arrangement of the negative affects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 489–505.CrossRef

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.PubMedCrossRef

Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 820–838.CrossRef

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wilkerson, J. M. (2002). Organizational cynicism and its impact on human resources management. In G. R. Ferris, M. R. Buckley, & D. B. Fedor (Eds.), Human resources management: Perspectives, context, functions, and outcomes (pp. 532–546). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yagil, D., Ben-Zur, H., & Tamir, I. (2011). Do employees cope effectively with abusive supervision at work? An exploratory study. International Journal of Stress Management, 18, 5–23.CrossRef

Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068–1076.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: How Abusive Supervision Affects Workplace Deviance: A Moderated-Mediation Examination of Aggressiveness and Work-Related Negative Affect
verfasst von: Jesse S. Michel
Kerry Newness
Kris Duniewicz
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2016
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology / Ausgabe 1/2016
Print ISSN: 0889-3268
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-353X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9400-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Design/Methodology/Approach

Findings

Implications

Originality/Value

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2016

Supervisor Humor and Employee Outcomes: The Role of Social Distance and Affective Trust in Supervisor

The Technology Effect: How Perceptions of Technology Drive Excessive Optimism

Behavioral Expression of Job Interview Anxiety

Too Close for Comfort? Investigating the Nature and Functioning of Work and Non-work Role Segmentation Preferences

Re-examination of Motivation in Learning Contexts: Meta-analytically Investigating the Role Type of Motivation Plays in the Prediction of Key Training Outcomes

A Dispositional Approach to Applicant Reactions: Examining Core Self-Evaluations, Behavioral Intentions, and Fairness Perceptions

Premium Partner