The whiplash effect: The (moderating) role of attributed motives in emotional and behavioral reactions to abusive supervision.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
-the notion that subordinates may display different emotional and behavioral reactions to supervisory abuse depending on their attributions for abuse. We conduct 3 studies to examine this effect at both the between- and within person level. Results from a multisource, time-lagged field study (between-person) and a laboratory-based experiment (between-person) indicate that when subordinates believe that the abusive supervisor is motivated by desires to cause harm (i.e., injury initiation attribution is higher), abusive supervision is more likely to engender anger, which, in turn, elicits more deviant behaviors and fewer organizational citizenship behaviors; however, when subordinates believe the abusive supervisor is motivated by desires to improve performance (i.e., performance promotion attribution is higher), abusive supervision is more likely to evoke guilt, which, in turn, elicits fewer deviant behaviors and more organizational citizenship behaviors. These results were then expanded in an experience sampling study (within-person), which allowed us to further examine how general interpretations of supervisors' motives behind abusive supervision shape employees' momentary emotional and behavioral responses toward daily abusive supervisor behavior. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".