Is that how you see me? Identity non-verification outcomes of workplace interpersonal mistreatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this vignette-design study, we investigated some fundamental aspects of the relationship between targets’ experiences of workplace interpersonal mistreatment, and targets’ identities. Extending ideas from Identity control theory, we proposed and tested a perceptual control system model of the workplace interpersonal mistreatment-target’s identity-outcome relationship in which we argue that (i) different acts of workplace interpersonal mistreatment activate the different bases of targets’ identities: the person, social, and role identities, and that (ii) workplace interpersonal mistreatment results in the non-verification – a form of identity threat – of these activated identities. Furthermore, we situated targets’ negative emotional responses both as an outcome of the non-verification of targets’ identities, and a mediator of the relationship between identity non-verification and targets’ subsequent behavioral responses. We examined three behavioral responses: avoidance, retaliation, and reconciliation. We found that workplace interpersonal mistreatment activates targets’ person, social and role identities, and that when activated, workplace interpersonal mistreatment threatens each of these identities by not verifying the meanings targets attach to each of these identities. Additionally, findings from this study indicate that targets’ negative emotional response may mediate the relationships between identity non-verification and targets’ avoidance, reconciliatory and retaliatory behaviors. We discuss the various theoretical and practical implications of these results.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".