CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 162Workplace Violence and BullyingJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorBullying, Victimization, and Aggression

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why do you treat me badly? The role of attributions regarding the cause of abuse in subordinates’ responses to abusive supervision

Bowling, Nathan A., Michel, Jesse S.·2011·Work & Stress
DOI 10.1080/02678373.2011.634281
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study examined the relationships between attributions of targets regarding the causes of abusive supervision and their responses. Following Bowling and Beehr's (2006) Attribution-Based Model of Workplace Harassment, we hypothesized that the relationships between abusive supervision and (a) subordinate well-being, (b) behaviours directed at harming the supervisor, and (c) behaviours directed at harming the organization would be moderated by self-directed, supervisor-directed, and organization-directed attributions, respectively. Data collected in two waves from a sample of 381 participants employed in a variety of different work settings were analysed using moderated regression analysis. These analyses suggest that abusive supervision was more strongly related to counterproductive work behaviour directed at the organization among subordinates who attributed the abuse to the organization than among those who did not attributed it to the organization. Contrary to our predictions, abusive supervision was more strongly related to employee well-being among subordinates who were low in self-directed attributions than in subordinates who were high in self-directed attributions. We conclude that subordinate attributions play a potentially important role in how workers respond to abusive supervision.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02678373.2011.634281

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Goldberg D.P., 1978, Manual of the General Health Questionnaire
  2. Janoff-Bulman R., 1979, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1798, 10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1798 · DOI
  3. Young D.M., 1983, New direction for child development, 61–69
  4. Zellars K.L., 2002, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068, 10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1068 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–162 of 162

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bowling, N. A., & Michel, J. S.
Affiliations
  • Wright State University (US)
  • Florida International University (US)
Corresponding author
Bowling, Nathan A.
ORCID
Venue
Work & Stress
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2011-10
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
309-320
ISSN
  • 0267-8373 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5335
DOI
10.1080/02678373.2011.634281
OpenAlex
W2086668575
Cited by
162
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
20.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Work & Stress (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • 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 › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Keywords
abusive supervision, attribution, counterproductive work behavior, employee well-being, workplace harassment

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