The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance
Abstract
The authors developed an integrated model of the relationships among abusive supervision, affective organizational commitment, norms toward organization deviance, and organization deviance and tested the framework in 2 studies: a 2-wave investigation of 243 supervised employees and a cross-sectional study of 247 employees organized into 68 work groups. Path analytic tests of mediated moderation provide support for the prediction that the mediated effect of abusive supervision on organization deviance (through affective commitment) is stronger when employees perceive that their coworkers are more approving of organization deviance (Study 1) and when coworkers perform more acts of organization deviance (Study 2).
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“this could lead to retaliatory actions against the organization (e.g., Tepper et al., 2008; Bowling & Michel, 2011).”
From Blame or Justification: A Conceptual Model of How Attributions Shape Observers’ Deviant Responses to Abusive Supervision (2026) · cites this paper as Tepper et al., 2008
Citations
Cites
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-3352 · Cited by 36,647
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Cohen, P., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2014) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410606266 · Cited by 20,870
Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.4.422 · Cited by 11,335
A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83 · Cited by 9,406
The measurement of organizational commitment
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1 · Cited by 8,911
Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698 · Cited by 7,592
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001 · Cited by 1,245
Ethical and Unethical Leadership: Exploring New Avenues for Future Research
Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010) · Business Ethics Quarterly · doi:10.5840/beq201020439 · Cited by 881
Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206315573997 · Cited by 706
Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.004 · Cited by 630
Self-citationTepper, B. J., Simon, L., & Park, H. M. (2017) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062539 · Cited by 698
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K.
- Affiliations
- Georgia State University (US)
- University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
- Temple University (US)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2008-07
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 721-732
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2104869547
- Cited by
- 468
- References
- 67
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 30.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Workplace Violence and Bullying
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employee Performance and Management
- Keywords
- abusive supervision, organizational deviance, affective commitment, mediation, moderated mediation, staff supervision
- MeSH terms
- Administrative Personnel, Adult, Aggression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Personnel Management, Surveys and Questionnaires, Organizational Culture, Workplace
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
