Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

  2. 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).

  3. 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.

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

  5. 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.

  6. 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).

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Auburn University, 226 Thach Hall, Auburn, AL, 36849-5214, USA

    Jesse S. Michel

  2. Department of Psychology, Florida Southern College, Lakeland, USA

    Kerry Newness

  3. Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, USA

    Kris Duniewicz

Authors
  1. Jesse S. Michel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kerry Newness
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kris Duniewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesse S. Michel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Michel, J.S., Newness, K. & Duniewicz, K. How Abusive Supervision Affects Workplace Deviance: A Moderated-Mediation Examination of Aggressiveness and Work-Related Negative Affect. J Bus Psychol 31, 1–22 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9400-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9400-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation