The Effects of Exposure to Psychological Violence in the Workplace on Commitment and Turnover Intentions: The Moderating Role of Social Support and Role Stressors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure to workplace violence has been identified as a serious and universal issue facing modern organizations. The present study focuses more specifically on exposure to psychological violence, and its association with turnover intentions as mediated by workplace affective commitment. In addition, we also explore the moderating role of various facets of job demands (role stressors) and resources (social support) on the aforementioned relations. Data collected from 1,228 university employees indicated that experiencing psychological violence at work was associated with lower levels of workplace affective commitment and higher levels of turnover intentions, and that the relation between psychological violence and turnover intentions was partially mediated by commitment. Furthermore, role stressors and social support were found to moderate the negative relation between exposure to psychological violence and workplace affective commitment, as well as between commitment and turnover intentions, but not the direct relation between psychological violence and turnover intentions. Theoretical and research implications for the literature on psychological violence and practical suggestions for minimizing its damaging consequences are proposed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".