Mitigating or Magnifying the Harmful Influence of Workplace Aggression: An Integrative Review
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
As a substantial amount of research has accumulated on the harmful consequences of workplace aggression for target employees, we believe it is now of particular importance to examine moderators that alleviate or amplify these harmful effects. We ask the following questions: For whom is workplace aggression more or less detrimental? Moreover, what can target employees and the organization do to mitigate the harmful effects of aggression? We propose to address these questions with an integrative review of empirical research on moderators of the harmful effects of workplace aggression on targets. In this review, we identify and illustrate five broad perspectives that existing research has primarily used to explain the moderating effects: resource-depletion, social-relational, appraisal, self-regulation, and social-influence perspectives. In addition, we identify a large number of moderators and synthesize them into three categories of individual moderators—trait-based, intrapersonal, and coping-based—and three categories of contextual moderators—collective, interpersonal, and job-based. We address research findings on each category of moderators organized around the theoretical perspectives. We conclude with a general discussion of an overarching summary, redundant and saturated findings, as well as research gaps and future directions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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