Sex and position status differences in workplace aggression
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to examine sex and position status differences in the experience of workplace aggression. Based on the imbalance of power thesis, the aim is to posit that: women would report targeting other women; men would report targeting either sex; supervisors would report targeting a peer or subordinate; victims would report that a supervisor more often uses indirect forms of aggression; a peer more often uses direct forms of aggression; and; after controlling for position status, men would report using direct forms of aggression more often than women who, in turn, would report using indirect forms of bullying more often than men. Design/methodology/approach A sample of 180 Canadian supervisory and non‐supervisory workers from several industries completed a questionnaire that included measures of aggressive acts. Findings Most men reported being targeted by another man, and most women reported being targeted by another woman. Similarly, most men reported that they targeted another man, and most women reported that they targeted another woman. Most respondents reported that their aggressor had either higher or the same position status as them, whereas, if the respondents targeted others, their victim had the same or lower status. Compared to similar status aggressors, higher status aggressors were reported by the respondents as using both direct and indirect forms of aggression more often. After controlling for position status, compared to women, men reported using both forms more often as well. Originality/value The findings have implications for how victims cope with workplace aggression and for developing organizational anti‐harassment policies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it