The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A social exchange perspective
Abstract
The aim of this article is to introduce a social exchange perspective to the study of workplace bullying. Much of the existing research on bullying has had a strong empirical focus, leaving the concept relatively under-theoretized. By applying the social exchange theory based concepts of justice, psychological contract breach, and perceived organizational support, we aim to shed light on a number of aspects of bullying that to date have remained poorly understood. First, drawing on the concepts of justice and contract breach, we highlight the perceptual and subjective element in workplace bullying. Second, the concepts of justice and contract breach allow us to provide insights into how bullying is experienced and the mechanisms through which bullying leads to negative outcomes for both targets and bystanders. Third, the concept of perceived organizational support highlights the importance of appropriate and timely responses to workplace bullying. Finally, we discuss implications for both research and practice.
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
“Stress: appraisal and coping,”
Folkman, S. (2013) · Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_215 · Cited by 27,833
The Job Demands‐Resources model: state of the art
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007) · Journal of Managerial Psychology · doi:10.1108/02683940710733115 · Cited by 12,996
Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206305279602 · Cited by 10,068
Perceived organizational support.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 · Cited by 10,023
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425 · Cited by 5,942
Consequences of abusive supervision.
Tepper, B. J. (2000) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/1556375 · Cited by 3,810
Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements
Rousseau, D. (1995) · doi:10.4135/9781452231594 · Cited by 3,453
Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation.
Berkowitz, L. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59 · Cited by 2,283
Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: test of a trickle-down model.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L.-Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.191 · Cited by 914
Metadata
- Authors
- Parzefall, M.-R., & Salin, D. M.
- Venue
- Human Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-03-02
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 761-780
- ISSN
- 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-282X
- OpenAlex
- W2117463585
- Cited by
- 353
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 43.82
- 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.