Cited by 123Workplace Violence and BullyingJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorEmotional Labor in Professions

The whiplash effect: The (moderating) role of attributed motives in emotional and behavioral reactions to abusive supervision.

Yu, Lingtao, Duffy, Michelle K.·2021·Journal of Applied Psychology

Abstract

Although extant research shows a clear link between abusive supervision and detrimental consequences for organizations and their members, the popular press and media are replete with suggestions that abusive supervision can be positive and motivating. Drawing from the social functional view of emotions and emerging research on attributed motives of abusive supervision, we examine this phenomenon, which we refer to as the whiplash effect -the notion that subordinates may display different emotional and behavioral reactions to supervisory abuse depending on their attributions for abuse. We conduct 3 studies to examine this effect at both the between- and within person level. Results from a multisource, time-lagged field study (between-person) and a laboratory-based experiment (between-person) indicate that when subordinates believe that the abusive supervisor is motivated by desires to cause harm (i.e., injury initiation attribution is higher), abusive supervision is more likely to engender anger, which, in turn, elicits more deviant behaviors and fewer organizational citizenship behaviors; however, when subordinates believe the abusive supervisor is motivated by desires to improve performance (i.e., performance promotion attribution is higher), abusive supervision is more likely to evoke guilt, which, in turn, elicits fewer deviant behaviors and more organizational citizenship behaviors. These results were then expanded in an experience sampling study (within-person), which al…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/apl0000810

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Yu and Duffy's (2021) results revealed that employees' organizational citizenship behaviors can be enhanced by abusive supervision when a performance promotion attribution is made.

    “and Yu and Duffy ' s (2021) results revealed that employees ' organizational citizenship behaviors can be enhanced by abusive supervision when a performance promotion attribution is made.”

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yu, L., & Duffy, M. K.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Published
2021-05
Volume
106
Issue
5
Pages
754-773
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
OpenAlex
W3043581168
Cited by
123
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 6
FWCI
15.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Minnesota
  • University of British Columbia
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
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Emotional Labor in Professions
Keywords
abusive supervision, attribution theory, anger, guilt, deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, emotional responses
MeSH terms
Aggression, Emotions, Employment, Humans, Motivation, Social Behavior

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