Disrespectful colleagues, dysfunctional parenting: The effect of workplace incivility on parental attitudes, well‐being and behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two dyadic studies address the link between workplace incivility and dysfunctional (i.e., authoritarian and permissive) parenting, and the role played by parent cognitions and well-being in these relationships. One hundred and forty-eight working mother-spouse dyads participated in Study 1. Mothers reported on their own workplace incivility experiences and parenting self-efficacy, while husbands rated mothers' authoritarian parenting behaviour. Results showed that parenting self-efficacy mediates the effects of workplace incivility on authoritarian parenting. Study 2 sought to replicate and extend these findings with a sample of one hundred and seventy-five working parent-spouse dyads. Working mothers and fathers reported on their own workplace incivility experiences, parenting self-efficacy and burnout, while their spouses rated their authoritarian and permissive parenting. The moderating effects of romantic relationship conflict were also assessed. Results supported the role of self-efficacy in mediating the relationship between workplace incivility and authoritarian parenting, with effects exacerbated among those experiencing higher levels of romantic relationship conflict. Moreover, incivility related to working parents' burnout, and in turn, permissive parenting. Our findings shed light on an understudied social context wherein workplace incivility may shape one's personal life, and broadens our understanding of the nature, scope, and impact of this workplace problem.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".