Examining Nurses’ Vengeful Behaviors: The Effects of Toxic Leadership and Psychological Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toxic leadership is becoming increasingly common in healthcare organizations and there is strong need for studies focusing on organizational factors that can trigger revenge. Additionally, how psychological well-being functions in shielding against toxicity has not been adequately studied. Hence, this study aims to examine the relationship between toxic leadership and vengeful behaviors of nurses, along with the contingency of psychological well-being on the relationship during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this exploratory cross-sectional study, we attempt to examine the antecedent effect of toxic leadership on vengeful behaviors based on self-reports from 311 nurses. Using partial least squares and moderation analyses, the results show that toxic leadership is an important antecedent of vengeful behaviors among nurses. However, the results provide no statistical evidence to support a moderating role of psychological well-being in the relationship between toxic leadership and vengeful behaviors. This study reveals that nurses exposed to toxic behaviors by their superiors are more likely to engage in vengeance and highlights the fact that nurses are suffering psychologically during the pandemic.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".