Surviving Abusive Supervision: The Roles of Attribution and Impression Management
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
Abstract Drawing on attribution theory and impression management research, we investigate when and how abused employees engage in different coping strategies and what the interpersonal consequences of the coping strategies are for employees. Specifically, from an employee actor–based perspective, we develop and test a dual-path-mediated moderation model that represents the double-edged sword effect of abusive supervision. Using data from 444 front-line employees, we find that injury initiation motives attribution enhances the positive relationship between abusive supervision and revenge motivation, which in turn is positively related to intimidation, exemplification, and supplication. Conversely, performance promotion motives attribution strengthens the positive relationship between abusive supervision and motivation to reconcile, which in turn is positively associated with ingratiation, self-promotion, and exemplification. Intimidation and supplication are then related to increased interpersonal conflict with leaders, while ingratiation is related to reduced interpersonal conflict with leaders. Theoretical contributions, practical implications, and limitations are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it