Abusive supervision and workplace deviance: The mediating role of interactional justice and the moderating role of power distance
Abstract
This study replicates previous studies by examining the effects of abusive supervision on employee deviant behaviours in the C hinese organisational context. It extends the existing research of abusive supervision by investigating the mediating role of the perception of interactional justice and the moderating role of individual‐level power distance in the link between abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Regression analyses on data of 283 employee–supervisor dyads revealed that the perception of interactional justice mediates the link between abusive supervision and workplace deviance. We also found that abusive supervision has a stronger negative relationship with the perception of interactional justice for employees low in power distance than for employees high in power distance. These findings provide both replications of and extensions to western theories of abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Practical implications of this study include hints for reducing both financial and psychological costs of deviant behaviour.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Employees who had lower power distance beliefs perceived more interactional injustice about abusive supervision, and because of that, they engaged in more deviant behaviors than those who had higher levels of power distance.
“W. Wang et al. (2012) found that employees who had lower power distance beliefs perceived more interactional injustice about abusive supervision, and because of that, they engaged in more deviant behaviors than those who had higher levels of power distance.”
From Blame or Justification: A Conceptual Model of How Attributions Shape Observers’ Deviant Responses to Abusive Supervision (2026) · cites this paper as W. Wang et al., 2012
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 60 · Cited by 168
- Authors
- Wang, W., Mao, J., Wu, W., & Liu, J.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- School of Business Renmin University of China Beijing China
- Tsinghua University (CN)
- Renmin University of China (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Liu, Jun
- Venue
- Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-01
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 43-60
- ISSN
- 1038-4111 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-7941
- OpenAlex
- W2141703813
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7
- FWCI
- 12.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (70972025)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Workplace Violence and Bullying
- Social Sciences › Demography › Cyberloafing and Workplace Behavior
- Keywords
- abusive supervision, workplace deviance, interactional justice, power distance, mediation, moderation, supervisor-subordinate dyads, Chinese employees, replication
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