Cited by 69Workplace Violence and BullyingJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorOccupational Health and Safety Research

Abusive supervision, thwarted belongingness, and workplace safety: a group engagement perspective

Open access
Yang, Liu-Qin, Zheng, Xiaoming, Liu, Xin, Lu, Chang-qin, Schaubroeck, John M.·2020·Journal of Applied Psychology

Abstract

Drawing from the group engagement model of justice, we examine how and when higher abusive supervision relates to fewer safety behaviors and worse safety performance. In Study 1, a 2-wave survey study of 468 manufacturing technicians, we found that belongingness need satisfaction mediated the negative relationship between abusive supervision and safety behavior. In Study 2, a multiwave survey study of 589 airline pilots, we found that safety behavior mediated the adverse relationship between abusive supervision and downstream objective safety performance. Higher trait social standing uncertainty was associated with a stronger adverse relationship between abusive supervision and safety. Indirect relationships of abusive supervision with safety behavior (Study 1) and safety performance (Study 2) were stronger among individuals with higher social standing uncertainty. We discuss the theoretical implications of these findings for managing abusive supervision and safety at work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/apl0000436

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, L.-Q., Zheng, X., Liu, X., Lu, C.-Q., & Schaubroeck, J. M.
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Published
2020-03
Volume
105
Issue
3
Pages
230-244
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
OpenAlex
W2963179150
Cited by
69
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5
FWCI
15.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PDXScholar (Portland State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (T03OH008435)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (71771133)
  • China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2018M640213)
  • Renmin University of China (KYGJD2019001)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Workplace Violence and Bullying
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Occupational Health and Safety Research
Keywords
abusive supervision, occupational safety, safety behavior, safety performance, thwarted belongingness, need satisfaction, airline pilots
MeSH terms
Work Performance, Pilots, Adult, Employment, Group Processes, Hierarchy, Social, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Personnel Management, Safety, Organizational Culture, Workplace, Uncertainty, Bullying

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