The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Getting even for customer mistreatment: The role of moral identity in the relationship between customer interpersonal injustice and employee sabotage.
Abstract
Research on the "dark side" of organizational behavior has determined that employee sabotage is most often a reaction by disgruntled employees to perceived mistreatment. To date, however, most studies on employee retaliation have focused on intra-organizational sources of (in)justice. Results from this field study of customer service representatives (N = 358) showed that interpersonal injustice from customers relates positively to customer-directed sabotage over and above intra-organizational sources of fairness. Moreover, the association between unjust treatment and sabotage was moderated by 2 dimensions of moral identity (symbolization and internalization) in the form of a 3-way interaction. The relationship between injustice and sabotage was more pronounced for employees high (vs. low) in symbolization, but this moderation effect was weaker among employees who were high (vs. low) in internalization. Last, employee sabotage was negatively related to job performance ratings.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
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
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
Adams, J. S. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60108-2 · Cited by 10,818
On the Meaning of within-Factor Correlated Measurement Errors
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1984) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/208993 · Cited by 526 · cited 1×
“Following recommendations by Gerbing and Anderson (1984), in all models we correlated the errors (a) for two indicators on the internalization scale that were reverse-coded and (b) for two sabotage indicators because both indicators involved terminating a customer’s call.”
MethodBoundary spanners’ identification, intergroup contact, and effective intergroup relations
Richter, A. W., West, M. A., van Dick, R., & Dawson, J. F. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.23478720 · Cited by 376
Cited by
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0031757 · Cited by 1,462
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
Does moral identity effectively predict moral behavior?: A meta-analysis
Hertz, S. G., & Krettenauer, T. (2016) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/gpr0000062 · Cited by 401
Electronic monitoring and surveillance in call centres: a framework for investigation
Ball, K. S., & Margulis, S. T. (2011) · New Technology, Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/j.1468-005x.2011.00263.x · Cited by 102
Feeling Guilty and Entitled: Paradoxical Consequences of Unethical Pro-organizational Behavior
Chen, M., Chen, C. C., & Schminke, M. (2023) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-022-05109-x · Cited by 83
Metadata
- Authors
- Skarlicki, D. P., van Jaarsveld, D. D., & Walker, D. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2008-11
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1335-1347
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2099693091
- Cited by
- 477
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 13.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
