Understanding the impact of witnessed workplace mistreatment: A meta-analysis of observer deontic reactions and employee outcomes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meta-analysis aims to understand the impact of witnessed workplace mistreatment. Bringing together two streams of research, it examines (a) the boundary conditions of observer reactions that reflect a principled moral disapproval of violations of interpersonal justice (i.e., deontic reactions) and (b) the extent to which witnessed mistreatment explains incremental variance in a range of employee outcomes beyond the effects of experienced mistreatment. The results demonstrate that observer psychological and behavioral deontic reactions are not straightforward. For example, while observers have negative reactions toward perpetrators, they fail to intervene and have mixed reactions toward targets. Findings from a series of moderator analyses illuminate the role of perpetrator rank, mistreatment severity, and study context in explaining these disparate observer deontic reactions. Further, although experienced mistreatment explains more variance in most employee outcomes than witnessed mistreatment, witnessed mistreatment still has a unique and sizable contribution. The implications of these findings and future directions for research on witnessed mistreatment are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 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 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 | 0.018 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".