Workplace offense and victims' reactions: the effects of victim‐offender (dis)similarity, offense‐type, and cultural differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examined the effects of workplace offenders' characteristics and offense‐type on victims' reactions. Responses from 352 employed graduate students in the U.S. and South Korea to a hypothetical offense incident revealed that employees from the U.S. and Korea differ in their expressed desirability of avoiding, seeking revenge against, and reconciling with an offending coworker depending on the offenders' similarity/dissimilarity to the victim and on the type of offense. As expected, Koreans (but not U.S. Americans) were more likely to avoid and to seek revenge on a coworker whose offensive remark was group‐ rather than personally‐directed. In addition, Koreans were most motivated to reconcile when an offensive remark came from a similar rather than dissimilar coworker and when the offense targeted them personally (not their group). However, U.S. Americans were most motivated to reconcile when an offensive remark came from a similar rather than dissimilar other and when the offense targeted their group (not them personally). Copyright © 2008 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".