Towards a multi‐foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta‐analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using meta‐analysis, we compare three attitudinal outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, affective commitment, and turnover intent), three behavioral outcomes (i.e., interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and work performance), and four health‐related outcomes (i.e., general health, depression, emotional exhaustion, and physical well being) of workplace aggression from three different sources: Supervisors, co‐workers, and outsiders. Results from 66 samples show that supervisor aggression has the strongest adverse effects across the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Co‐worker aggression had stronger effects than outsider aggression on the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, whereas there was no significant difference between supervisor, co‐worker, and outsider aggression for the majority of the health‐related outcomes. These results have implications for how workplace aggression is conceptualized and measured, and we propose new research questions that emphasize a multi‐foci approach. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".