An Experimental Investigation of Abusive Supervision As an Emotional Reaction to Injustice Denise Marie Breaux

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2010 An Experimental Investigation of Abusive Supervision as an Emotional Reaction to Injustice Denise Marie Breaux

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS

AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISION AS AN

EMOTIONAL REACTION TO INJUSTICE

DENISE MARIE BREAUX

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Management in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2010

The members of the committee approve the dissertation of Denise Marie Breaux defended on December 11, 2009.

______Pamela L. Perrewé Professor Directing Dissertation

______Robert Brymer University Representative

______Gerald R. Ferris Committee Member

______Jack T. Fiorito Committee Member

______Chad Van Iddekinge Committee Member

Approved:

______Pamela L. Perrewé, Chair, Department of Management

______Caryn L. Beck-Dudley, Dean, College of Business

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members.

For my father, who always takes my side, without question. And my mother, who never stops asking.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who made this seemingly impossible dream a reality. I could not have accomplished this without the support of so many. Pam, thank you for holding my hand from day one. You provided guidance while always allowing me the freedom to pursue my own interests. You made sure I wasn’t alone on the holidays I spent here, and understood when I needed to leave town to be with my family. Thank you for the lunch meetings, assistance for conferences, advice, and remarkably speedy responses to any and all of my countless emails. You have navigated this field with immeasurable intelligence and grace. I will always look up to you as a woman, scholar, mentor, friend, and mom. I am eternally grateful to Bruce for his intuition. Good thing I didn’t want to study ethics! Art, you were a veritable Rosetta Stone during my first year. I passed my OB midterm because of you and never forgot it! When I stayed up all night because of that first OT quiz, you helped me study. When I needed help with statistics, you patiently explained things in a way I could understand. When I wanted to complain, you listened. When I felt defeated, you believed in me. And when I succeeded, you were truly happy for me. You have been my best friend and biggest fan. Thank you for being here. Thanks, also, to Holly – your constant companionship, positive attitude, and ever-wagging tail put a smile on my face even in the toughest of moments. Ben, thank you for taking me under your wing. I remember presenting my first paper at AOM, with you in the audience, and practically asking for your autograph when it was over. Thanks for not holding that against me! I have learned so much from you over emails, revisions, and conference lunches. You did not have to provide any of the many opportunities you’ve granted, and I am forever in your debt. You could not possibly be any more kind and genuine. And yes, you are a rock star. Thank you to my committee members. Jerry, you have been a constant presence in my program and I am a better scholar for it. Thank you for the opportunities, honest feedback, and willingness to share your network and experiences with all of us. Thank you for giving so freely to ensure that the students are able to take part in all the activities that help to develop us as scholars. Jack, I am continually perplexed by your ability to provide such astute, direct feedback while simultaneously remaining one of the most likeable people I know. If you told me my work was pure garbage I would still want to hug you. Your willingness to offer your wisdom at any time, and your patience with my queries, have been much appreciated. Chad, thank you for providing a unique perspective. So many pieces of the puzzle came together because of the insight you offered. No matter how busy you were, you always made time for me. I am lucky to have had you as an example of what my next few years should look like! Bob, thanks for giving up your time to participate in my endeavor. It has been a pleasure learning from your experience. Elliott, this study would not have happened without you. No amount of pleading, guilt, or offers of free food and beer could have persuaded any overloaded doctoral student to give up the amount of time you did. You were a pleasure to teach and a delight to work with. Your conscientiousness, motivation, and thirst for knowledge are unreal! I am so proud of you and all that I know you will accomplish. Thanks, also, to Lynsi. You came into this blind and trusted me so much that you showed up at school every day for three weeks in mismatched sweat suits, dirty hair, and extra “ugly!” You were a real trooper, and I’m glad you answered my casting call. Thank you to the scholars in various parts of the country who kindly offered their assistance to the little doctoral student who emailed. Russell, thank you for seeking out another

Cajun in Philly and for patiently offering your time to help me develop my theory. So much of what is presented here was cultivated through a series of emails you so patiently engaged in with me. Your thorough, developmental comments, and your willingness to give up your time for someone you hardly knew, are the reasons this experiment came to life. Jason, thank you for sharing your wisdom on organizational justice and conducting experiments. Your success at such a young age is inspiring. Elizabeth, thank you for writing and sharing your theory! And thank you for taking an interest in the fact that I was testing it. I hope I’ve made you proud. Sharon, thanks for sharing your proposal presentation and your dissertation. I have kept them with me throughout this journey and have referred to them constantly for guidance. Yongmei and Jim, thank you both for taking the time to help me find the measures I needed. Thank you to the FSU faculty and staff who have supported me. Annette, thanks for the amazing teaching schedule that allowed me to keep my sanity during interviews. Randy, thanks for offering your students for data (thanks to Art, Tim, Jeremy, & Tina for doing the same). Kathy, thanks for working so hard to find free offices for the study. Chuck, thanks for lending out your equipment and for helping us with all our tedious VHS conversions. To my classmates – thank you for being the best group of friends I’ve ever had. Tim, you’ve been such an awesome cohort. I’m glad we got to experience this together. Jen Bunny, you are a fabulous office mate and never missed a birthday or significant event! Thanks for the cards, confetti, treats, and friendship. Jeremy, what fun we would’ve missed out on had we not ridden to SMA together! You’ve become one of my closest friends and I’m so grateful for your presence here. Laci, my dearest girl – you are so special to me. I can already envision many family vacations to Aunt Laci’s in future summers. Thanks for providing all of us with a place to wind down, watch sports, and play bag-o, and thanks for being such a wonderful friend. To Robyn, Bill, John, Mary-Dana, Vickie, and all the rest of the former students who mentored me in the beginning, I will always be grateful for your wisdom and kindness. Thank you to my professors from NSU. Sonya, Luke, John, Laynie, Chuck, Blaise, and Shawn – I am here because each of you saw something in me that I didn’t know was there. Thank you for encouraging my talents and remaining such a wonderful support system. To my parents – thank you for all the support, phone calls, and letters of encouragement, complete with much-needed checks, that always seemed to show up at just the right time. Thank you for instilling in me that failure was not an option and for teaching me to take responsibility for myself and my actions. And, finally, thank you for reading to me – every single day – it is the greatest gift you gave me. I admire and respect you both more than you know. To my sisters – Liz, Net, and Dree – thank you for providing such shining examples of what it means to be a successful woman, and for saving my life on innumerable occasions! And to my brother – I learned to work hard because you never let me win. Thank you for always giving me something to aspire to. Angéle, thank you for being the one who can finish all my sentences when I’m too tired to speak. I love you, dude. Ed, thanks for providing encouragement and always remaining a part of my life. Joe, thanks for being my editor and cheerleader and for making me laugh when things got tough. And thanks to my favorite girls, Lauren and Cydney, for being such amazing friends. An ancient proverb states that it takes a village to raise a child. In the past four years I have learned that the same holds true for a PhD. Thank you, most sincerely, to everyone who has supported my dream and made it a reality.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix LIST OF FIGURES...... x ABSTRACT ...... xi CHAPTER 1...... 1 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH STUDY...... 1 CHAPTER 2...... 3 LITERATURE REVIEW AND PROPOSED RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 3 Overview of Chapter...... 3 Abusive Supervision...... 3 Consequences of Abusive Supervision...... 3 Related Constructs...... 6 Antecedents to Abusive Supervision...... 10 Organizational Justice...... 11 Justice Dimensions...... 11 Trickle-Down Models of Organizational Justice ...... 12 Theoretical Explanations for Trickle-Down Models ...... 12 Problems with Current Theoretical Explanations for Trickle-Down Models ...... 13 An Alternative Theoretical Explanation...... 14 Displaced Aggression ...... 14 Emotions and Organizational Justice...... 15 The Affective Model of Justice Reasoning ...... 16 Hypotheses...... 17 Interpersonal Justice from the Organization and Anger ...... 18 Emotions, Justice Information, and Justice Perceptions...... 18 Justice Perceptions, Abusive Supervision, and the Hostile Attribution Bias...... 19 CHAPTER 3...... 20 METHOD ...... 20 Overview of Study...... 20 Subjects ...... 20 Procedure...... 21 Manipulations...... 23 Manipulation 1 – Anger...... 23 Manipulation 2 – Justice Information...... 24 Pilot Study...... 24 Manipulation 2...... 24 Development of the Abusive Supervision Coding Scheme...... 25 Measures ...... 26 Manipulated Variables...... 26 Measured Variables...... 26 CHAPTER 4...... 29 RESULTS ...... 29 Overview of the Data ...... 29 Manipulation Checks...... 30

Analysis of Hypothesis 1...... 31 Analysis of Hypotheses 2 – 4 ...... 31 Analysis of Hypotheses 5 – 6 ...... 34 CHAPTER 5...... 35 DISCUSSION ...... 35 Findings Concerning the Antecedents to Abusive Supervision ...... 35 Other Interesting Findings...... 36 Strengths and Limitations...... 36 Directions for Future Research ...... 38 Implications for Practice ...... 39 Conclusions...... 40 APPENDIX 1 ...... 41 SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES...... 41 APPENDIX 2 ...... 43 APPLICATION TO AND APPROVAL FROM HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE . 43 Application...... 44 Approval Letter...... 51 APPENDIX 3 ...... 52 EXTRA CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT ...... 52 APPENDIX 4 ...... 54 PRE EXPERIMENT QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 54 APPENDIX 5 ...... 57 REMINDER EMAIL SENT TO PARTICIPANTS...... 57 APPENDIX 6 ...... 59 INFORMED CONSENT FORM...... 59 APPENDIX 7 ...... 61 SUDOKU PUZZLES ...... 61 Training Puzzle ...... 62 Practice Puzzle ...... 63 Skills Test...... 64 APPENDIX 8 ...... 65 INSTRUCTIONS HANDED TO STUDY PARTICIPANTS ...... 65 APPENDIX 9 ...... 67 POST EXPERIMENT QUESTIONNAIRE...... 67 APPENDIX 10 ...... 70 DEBRIEFING SCRIPT...... 70 APPENDIX 11 ...... 72 ADMINISTRATOR SCRIPTS –MANIPULATION 1...... 72 No Anger Group...... 73 Anger Group...... 74 APPENDIX 12 ...... 75 ACTRESS SCRIPTS – MANIPULATION 2...... 75 Objective Justice Information ...... 76 Ambiguous Justice Information ...... 76 Objective Injustice Information ...... 76 APPENDIX 13 ...... 77

vii

PILOT STUDY 1 QUESTIONNAIRES ...... 77 Scenario 1...... 78 Scenario 2...... 79 Scenario 3...... 80 Scenario 4...... 81 Scenario 5...... 82 Scenario 6...... 83 APPENDIX 14 ...... 84 PILOT STUDY 2 QUESTIONNAIRES ...... 84 Scenario 1...... 85 Scenario 2...... 86 Scenario 3...... 87 Scenario 4...... 88 Scenario 5...... 89 Scenario 6...... 90 APPENDIX 15 ...... 91 ABUSIVE SUPERVISION CODING KEY ...... 91 APPENDIX 16 ...... 93 SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESIS TEST RESULTS ...... 93 APPENDIX 17 ...... 95 RESULTS OF ADDITIONAL MANIPULATION CHECKS...... 95 REFERENCES ...... 98 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 107

viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 3.1 – DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FOR THE SAMPLE...... 21

TABLE 3.2 – MANIPULATION CHECK FOR THE JUSTICE INFORMATION MANIPULATION: INDEPENDENT SAMPLES T-TEST...... 25

TABLE 3.3 – RELIABILITY STATISTICS FOR ABUSIVE SUPERVISION CODING...... 27

TABLE 3.4 – DESCRIPTION OF STUDY VARIABLES...... 28

TABLE 4.1 – DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR STUDY VARIABLES ...... 29

TABLE 4.2 – THE PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION MATRIX...... 30

TABLE 4.3 – MANIPULATION CHECK FOR THE EMOTION MANIPULATION: INDEPENDENT SAMPLES T-TEST ...... 30

TABLE 4.4 – RESULTS OF LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR HYPOTHESIS 1 PREDICTING STATE ANGER...... 31

TABLE 4.5 – RESULTS OF TWO-WAY ANOVA FOR HYPOTHESES 2 – 4 ...... 32

TABLE 4.6 – MULTIPLE COMPARISON RESULTS OF POST-HOC TESTS OF HYPOTHESES 2 – 4 ...... 33

TABLE 4.7 – RESULTS OF HIERARCHICAL MODERATED REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR HYPOTHESES 5 & 6 PREDICTING ABUSIVE SUPERVISORY BEHAVIORS...... 34

TABLE A.1 – EMOTION MANIPULATION CHECK FOR FIRST VS. SECOND HALF OF STUDY ...... 77

TABLE A.2 – EMOTION MANIPULATION CHECK FOR GUESS VS. NO GUESS ...... 77

TABLE A.3 – JUSTICE INFORMATION MANIPULATION CHECK FOR FIRST VS. SECOND HALF OF STUDY...... 78

TABLE A.4 – JUSTICE INFORMATION MANIPULATION CHECK FOR GUESS VS. NO GUESS...... 78

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1 – CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISION...... 2

FIGURE 2.1 – EXPERIMENTAL MODEL ...... 17

FIGURE 4.1 – GRAPH DEPICTING THE INTERACTION BETWEEN EMOTION AND SCENARIO...... 33

ABSTRACT

A recent trend in organizational research has shifted our focus toward dysfunctional behaviors in the workplace. We understand how and why many employees behave badly, and we acknowledge that at times, supervisors are to blame. Abusive supervision represents one such body of literature describing the effects of hostile management on employees and organizations. Our knowledge of the outcomes of this type of supervision is sound and based on an increasingly large number of investigative studies. However, we still have little awareness of the reasons abusive supervision continues to occur. The present study sought to provide an enhanced understanding of the antecedents to abusive supervision. Building on the work of three previous studies and incorporating recent theoretical developments, this research examined the effects of justice violations, emotions, and subordinate behaviors on abusive supervision. Experimental findings indicated that supervisors’ experiences of interpersonal justice from their own superiors determined their interpretations of and responses to subordinates’ behaviors through an underlying emotional mechanism. In addition, this study provided support for the Affective Model of Justice Reasoning and introduced a new lens through which to view the entire process of abusive supervision. The implications include a deeper understanding of the reasons supervisors engage in behaviors that are detrimental to their employees and organizations, and a more informed picture of the far-reaching effects of organizational justice.

CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH STUDY

In recent years, a growing body of scientific inquiry has focused attention on dysfunctional leadership. Numerous constructs capture this idea in some way, including petty tyranny (Ashforth, 1994) and workplace bullying (Hoel & Cooper, 2001). However, the majority of current research falls under the domain of abusive supervision, defined as subordinates’ perceptions of hostile actions, both verbal and nonverbal, aimed at them by their direct supervisors (Tepper, 2000; Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, & Ensley, 2004). In a recent review, Tepper (2007) summarized the current state of the abusive supervision literature, including antecedents, consequences, and an emergent model and research agenda. As evidenced by the review, most of what we know about abusive supervision involves its negative consequences, including decreased job satisfaction (Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 2004) and increased turnover intentions (Schat, Desmaris, & Kelloway, 2006). Also, through its effects on absenteeism, health care costs, and lost productivity, abuse costs U.S. corporations an estimated $23.8 billion per year (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006). Previous research has uncovered a plethora of negative repercussions stemming from abuse; this type of supervision has substantial damaging effects on organizations and the employees within them. Unfortunately, studies to date have discovered little regarding antecedents, with only three studies explicitly examining the predictors of abusive supervision (i.e., Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007; Hoobler & Brass, 2006; Tepper et al., 2006). Interestingly, findings from all three studies characterize abusive supervision as a reaction to some type of unfair treatment. The resulting abusive behaviors generally are believed to represent displaced aggression, defined as hostility aimed at innocent and convenient targets when retaliation against the source of frustration is not an option (Pedersen, Gonzales, & Miller, 2000). Several studies have labeled the abuse process as a “trickle-down model” of organizational justice. Specifically, when organizations treat their supervisory employees unfairly, those supervisors are more likely to treat their own subordinates abusively. Because abuse is viewed by subordinates as a justice violation, we can label this process a “trickle-down” model of organizational justice, with one organizational justice violation leading to another organizational justice violation at a lower level. Trickle-down models are not limited to the abuse literature and recently have been used to explain customer service interactions (Masterson, 2001) and the effects ethical leadership on group behaviors (Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009). Furthermore, although not explicitly defined as such, the process of aggression displacement may be labeled as a type of trickle-down model. Because trickle-down effects can occur for a number of reasons, different theories can be used explain them, thus presenting a variety of theoretical avenues for application. Additionally, the theoretical explanations for trickle-down effects offered in the two studies discussed above fail to include critical variables that may explain additional variance in abusive supervisory behaviors. The current research seeks to delve more deeply into our current understanding of the antecedents to abuse (See Figure 1.1) and its trickle-down effects by exploring the possible missing link between supervisors’ experiences of injustice and abusive supervision. This study suggests that initial reactions to organizational justice violations may be affective in nature, with

intense emotional experiences increasing the likelihood of abuse. Additionally, abusive behavioral reactions to justice violations may partially be attributable to the actions of the subordinates with whom supervisors come into contact. This study will investigate the antecedents to abusive supervision from a new theoretical perspective. I will explain how a recent theory, the Affective Model of Justice Reasoning (Mullen, 2007), addresses weaknesses of current explanations. I will account for the critical role of emotions in the experience of justice violations. I will investigate how emotions arising from one justice experience may skew perceptions of justice in another unrelated situation. I will demonstrate how this process can engender abusive behaviors, providing valuable insight into the trickle-down process of abusive supervision. Finally, I will specifically account for the role that subordinates play in this process.

Subordinate Supervisor Subordinates’ Characteristics and Characteristics and Work Context Behaviors Behaviors

Outcomes

Job Satisfaction Supervisor Abusive Attitudes Perceptions of Supervision Resistanc e Injustice or A ggression/D e viance Contract Violation Performance Contributions Psychological Distress Fam ily W ell-Being

Subordinate Perceptions of Procedural Justice

FIGURE 1.1 – CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISION (TEPPER, 2007)

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND PROPOSED RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Overview of Chapter This chapter reviews relevant literature and presents a set of original research questions. I begin with a discussion of abusive supervision, including its consequences, antecedents, and related constructs. I then conceptualize abusive supervision as a trickle-down model of organizational justice. Finally, I highlight an alternative theoretical model yet to be applied to this line of research along with a set of proposed research questions. Abusive Supervision Abusive supervision represents supervisors’ hostile behaviors (Tepper, 2000). These behaviors can be verbal or non-verbal and are aimed at supervisors’ direct subordinates. Examples of abusive supervisory behaviors include belittling, yelling at, and lying to subordinates, along with taking credit for subordinates’ successes, blaming subordinates for mistakes they did not make, telling subordinates their thoughts and feelings are stupid, and gossiping about subordinates with other employees. Previous research illustrates the damaging effects of abuse on employees and organizations. Consequences of Abusive Supervision The first published study of abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000) shed light on several negative outcomes. Subordinates who experienced abuse were more likely to leave their jobs than those who were not abused. Those who did not turnover displayed decreased organizational commitment, lower job and life satisfaction, and increased work-family conflict and psychological distress. In addition, job mobility was found to moderate the direct effect of abuse on subordinates’ job satisfaction and depression. Specifically, abused subordinates with lower perceived job mobility experienced greater decreases in job satisfaction and increases in depression than abused subordinates with higher perceived job mobility, indicating that those who feel trapped in their jobs may experience more detrimental effects of abuse than those who feel they have options. This initial study also established abuse as a type of organizational justice violation, with procedural, interactional, and distributive justice mediating most of its effects. Following Tepper’s seminal work were a multitude of studies examining additional negative consequences of abuse. Two such studies have demonstrated a link between abuse and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), defined by Organ (1988) as discretionary behaviors that promote organizational effectiveness. For example, abused subordinates’ feelings of procedural injustice may lead them engage in fewer OCBs than non-abused subordinates, especially when they view the OCBs as beyond the scope of their job requirements (Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002). Furthermore, watching other employees engage in OCBs may have decidedly negative effects on the attitudes of subordinates experiencing abuse (Tepper et al., 2004). Workers who are mistreated seem to view the discretionary, helpful behaviors of those around them as especially self-serving in nature and feel significant decreases in job satisfaction as a result. Interestingly, coworkers’ OCBs conducted in a non-hostile environment actually bolster subordinates’ job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. Another study of effects on employee attitudes examined abuse in an accountability context. Defined as the perceived level of answerability employees feel for decisions and actions at work (Hochwarter, Ferris, Gavin, Perrewé, Hall, & Frink, 2007), accountability has been

viewed as a necessary part of organizational functionality that can offer positive outcomes for employees. Unfortunately, those experiencing abuse may find it particularly difficult to deal with the reality that work rewards and punishments lay in the hands of the same supervisors who are mistreating them. As evidence, Breaux, Perrewé, Hall, Frink, and Hochwarter (2008) found that accountability was associated with increased job tension and emotional exhaustion as well as decreased job satisfaction when employees reported higher levels of abusive supervision. An outcome of abuse that has sparked significant interest in researchers of late is employee deviance. Several recent studies have examined the relationship between abuse and deviant workplace behaviors, which represent any actions that violate organizational norms and are enacted with the intent of causing harm to the organization and/or its members (Bennett & Robinson, 2003). Workplace deviance can be directed at the supervisor, the organization, or other organizational members, and Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) found that abusive supervision led to all three types. Furthermore, the relationship between abuse and deviance directed at the supervisor was particularly strong for employees with negative reciprocity beliefs (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Thus, subordinates who believed negative treatment should be matched with negative treatment were even more likely to respond in a deviant manner toward supervisors than those who did not hold negative reciprocity beliefs. A similar study found that the relationships between abuse and deviant behaviors directed both at the supervisor and the organization were stronger for employees with higher intentions to quit their jobs (Tepper, Carr, Breaux, Geider, Hu, & Hua, 2009). A power/dependence perspective was used to explain why subordinates with higher intentions to quit may feel less of a power disadvantage than those who do not intend to leave their jobs. Those who intend to leave the organization are less dependent on both the supervisor and the organization for rewards, making these individuals more likely to act in self-interested, deviant ways when they become victims of abuse. In addition to personal factors such as reciprocity beliefs and turnover intentions, deviant reactions to abuse also may depend upon situational variables. Uncertainty Management Theory (van den Bos, 2001) states that fairness is most important when feelings of uncertainty are high. As the general feeling of uncertainty decreases, reactions to unfairness become less severe. This theory was used to explain the recent finding that both supervisor and organization directed deviance, in response to abusive supervision, were highest when employees viewed the organization’s accepted management style as non-authoritative (Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2009). In organizations that used more authoritative management styles, the relationship between abuse and deviant behaviors was lower. Thau and colleagues suggested that organizations that embody an authoritarian style act in predictable, decisive ways, thus creating a more certain environment for employees and mitigating some of the negative effects of justice violations. Different explanations have been offered for how abuse affects employee deviance. For example, Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) suggested that some forms of deviant action in the face of abuse represent displaced aggression. Specifically, deviant behaviors directed at the organization and/or other workers may arise because the abused subordinates feel unable to retaliate against the original source – the supervisor. Interestingly, another study found that deviance directed at the organization may represent a more direct form of retaliation than aggression displacement. Abuse was found to lead to decreases in affective organizational commitment, which then manifested as organization-directed deviance (Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008). The finding that abusive supervision decreases commitment to the

organization suggests that abused subordinates do hold their organizations at least partly responsible for their supervisors’ behaviors, thus ruling out a strict displacement explanation. In addition to milder behavioral reactions such as deviant behaviors, abuse may engender more severe, aggressive reactions in abused subordinates. Dupre, Inness, Connelly, Barling, and Hoption (2006) found that abuse resulted in supervisor-directed aggression, and this relationship was stronger when employees reported higher financial, as opposed to personal fulfillment, reasons for working. Subordinates who relied on their jobs mostly for financial support seemed to react more aggressively toward abusive supervisors than those who were less financially dependent. Even when abuse does not provoke directly deviant or aggressive actions, more subtle behavioral changes may result. One such example surfaced in a study that focused on the effects of abuse on different types of supervisor—subordinate communication patterns (Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, & Carr, 2007). In relationships, direct maintenance communication consists of behaviors such as communicating expectations and discussing problems and is considered a positive, assertive form of interaction. Regulative maintenance communication, on the other hand, carries a decidedly negative connotation and includes engaging in superficial conversations or avoiding contact with the other party. Results of the study suggested that abusive supervision led to increases in regulative maintenance communication. Additionally, the relationship between abuse and psychological distress was stronger for those engaging in regulative maintenance communication (Tepper et al., 2007). Thus, abuse affected the ability of some employees to communicate effectively with their supervisors, and the resulting communication problems created additional psychological dysfunctions for these workers. Two other forms of communication difficulties that have been linked to abuse are dysfunctional and constructive resistance (Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001). When abusive supervisors tried to exert downward influence (i.e., social control), their subordinates were found to resist the influence attempts either through passive-aggressive responses (i.e., dysfunctional resistance) or through negotiating and questioning (i.e., constructive resistance). These findings also suggested that subordinates’ personality characteristics be accounted for when studying reactions to abusive supervision, as conscientious employees responded with more constructive resistance, and those with low levels of both conscientiousness and agreeableness responded with more dysfunctional resistance. Bamberger and Bacharach (2006) also included conscientiousness and agreeableness in their study of abuse and non-work outcomes. Their research found that abused subordinates were more likely to engage in personally or socially harmful alcohol consumption than non-abused subordinates. Results also indicated that the effects were weaker for subordinates high in agreeableness and conscientiousness, indicating that drinking was less likely to result from abuse when subordinates were more concerned with perpetuating good relations or were more hardworking and reliable. In another study of abuse’s effects beyond the confines of the work environment, Hoobler and Brass (2006) found that abused subordinates were more likely to engage in family undermining, defined as actions that directly diminish a family member’s sense of self-worth. The authors explained their findings as a case of displaced aggression whereby negative interactions with supervisors at work led to negative interactions with family members in the home.

The relationship between abuse and personality variables explained above may go beyond simple moderating effects, as was found in one study of abuse and self-esteem. Although normally viewed as a more stable trait, self-esteem can vary contextually. State self-esteem represents momentary fluctuations in self-esteem in response to a particular situation (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991). Burton and Hoobler (2006) found that abused subordinates were more likely to experience decreases in state self-esteem than non-abused subordinates, with particularly strong effects found for female workers. Their study also identified abuse as a workplace stressor. Related Constructs As evidenced by the above review, abusive supervision represents a type of workplace behavior that has affected many organizations, workers, and homes in a negative way. However, abuse is not the only type of dysfunction costing organizations and employees their health and happiness. Due to a substantial increase in popularity of research capturing abusive, deviant, antisocial, and other types of dysfunctional behaviors at work, researchers have suggested the need for investigation into the underlying similarities and differences between these constructs (i.e., Shapiro, Duffy, Kim, Lean, & O’Leary-Kelly, 2008). In a recent review, Tepper (2007) presented a list of constructs similar to abusive supervision, delineating those constructs included in the definition of abuse as well as those not included. Tepper (2000) defined abusive supervision as the extent to which subordinates perceive that their supervisors engage in repeated hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors. This conceptualization is distinct from other forms of dysfunctional workplace behavior in several ways. The following paragraphs provide a more detailed review and explanation of the constructs that are highly related to, yet conceptually distinct from, abusive supervision. Workplace Bullying. Workplace bullying consists of persistent negative, humiliating, aggressive acts perpetrated by one individual or group at work against another (Adams, 1992; Einarsen, 2000). Bullying behaviors can occur at all levels of an organization and between individuals and groups of varying hierarchical statures (Rayner & Hoel, 1997). Central to the definition is the element of persistence, as bullying is characterized not by single instances, but by repeated behaviors (Salin, 2003; Vartia, 1996; Olweus, 1991). Bullying at work has been conceptualized in various ways. Leymann’s (1990) categorization of bullying/psychological terror in the workplace seems to capture the essential elements. Leymann suggests that bullying consists of acts that can (1) interfere with victims’ reputations, (2) hinder their ability to perform work tasks, (3) deter them from communicating with other workers, (4) alter their social circumstances, and (5) involve physical coercion, assault, or the threat of these things (Einarsen, 2000). More recent work puts a different spin on the traditional view presented above and adds quite another dimension to Leymann’s framework. Research by Ferris, Zinko, Brouer, Buckley, and Harvey (2007) acknowledged that bullying behaviors may facilitate all of the aforementioned negative consequences, but suggested that bullying also may be used as a strategic type of impression management used to bolster worker and organizational performance. Aside from calculated, tactical motivations, bullying has been said to occur for a number of other reasons including those related to the individual perpetrating the act, the victim, and the work environment. Citing research on school children, Olweus (1991) described bullies as self- confident, impulsive, and having general aggressive tendencies, and suggested that victims of bullying may have higher levels of insecurity and anxiousness and lower levels of self-esteem than other individuals. Environmental characteristics that may contribute to the incidence of

bullying include highly stressful work situations, role ambiguity, and/or incompatible role demands and expectations that contribute to higher levels of negative affect, frustration and conflict among workers (Einarsen, 2000). As research on workplace bullying evolves, scholars are suggesting that these types of behaviors most likely stem not from either individual or environmental characteristics, but from an interplay of person and situation variables (Salin, 2003; O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew, 1996). Also, an exploration of relationships between bullies and victims may provide additional understanding. For example, bullying is most likely to occur when either real or perceived power differentials exist. Bullies are seen as unaffected by consequence, and victims feel without recourse. These differences can arise from formal or informal hierarchical, physical, economic, or personality differences between the involved parties (Einarsen, 2000). In terms of its detrimental effects, bullying has been cited as one of the most devastating issues faced by employees (Wilson, 1991). Brodsky (1976) divided the effects into three distinct patterns, including physical, emotional, and psychological symptoms. Physical manifestations include loss of strength and pains/aches, emotional symptoms include loss of both sleep and self- esteem, and psychological effects include memory loss, nervousness, and social avoidance. Interestingly, recent researchers have suggested that the effects also can extend beyond direct victims to include witnesses of the bullying behaviors (Hoel, Faragher, & Cooper, 2004). In addition to victim outcomes, bullying also is costly to organizations. Higher turnover and turnover intent, increased absenteeism, and decreased worker commitment and productivity are several of the means through which bullying behaviors impact organizational results (Salin, 2003). In many ways, workplace bullying and abusive supervision are markedly similar. Most notably, each can involve hostile behaviors perpetrated on a subordinate by a supervisor. Also, both are represented by sustained, rather than isolated, incidence. Finally, characteristic behaviors of bullies and supervisors include those that are embarrassing, public, and coercive, and those that hinder victims’ ability to interact with other workers and to perform necessary work tasks. However, these constructs should be studied separately for at least two reasons. First, most definitions of bullying include, albeit are not limited to, various forms of physical and sexual aggression. Abusive supervision strictly excludes any form of legally-defensible behavior, thus excluding physical and sexual harassment. Also, although bullying can occur among workers at any organizational level (Hoel, Cooper, & Faragher, 2001), abuse is defined as hostility perpetrated by direct supervisors on direct reports (Tepper, 2000). Incivility. In a general sense, incivility involves disregard for others during interpersonal interaction (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Workplace incivility, more specifically, is defined as deviant behavior of low intensity that violates workplace norms for mutual respect and carries with it ambiguous intent (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Unlike overt, aggressive behaviors such as physical violence, incivility is more subtle and includes such acts as ignoring or staring at others (Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008). Incivility in the workplace violates norms of respect in a particular organization. Although no universal norms for behavior at work exist, individual organizations do rely on a shared understanding of what constitutes appropriate, moral behavior (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), and these norms can be violated. Finally, acts of incivility at work can be perpetrated even if no specific, harmful intent exists. As Lim and colleagues (2008) pointed out, incivility may occur due to oversight or ignorance, with negative outcomes remaining entirely unintentional.

Similar to scholars in the workplace bullying literature, incivility researchers acknowledge that the perpetrator, victim, and environment all may contribute to the incidence of workplace incivility (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Carter, 1998; Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Furthermore, some have suggested that simply witnessing uncivil acts in the workplace may eventually infect the entire organizational culture, leading to what Andersson and Pearson (1999, p. 458) referred to as an “incivility spiral.” Those who experience incivility tend to report lower levels of satisfaction with their supervisors, coworkers, and their work, and these lowered levels of satisfaction may generate increased intentions to quit and mental health problems (Lim et al., 2008). Furthermore, those who are treated disrespectfully at work may lower their productivity levels, either consciously or subconsciously, and may resort to violence or sabotage of organizational equipment (Pearson & Porath, 2005), providing evidence of the effects of incivility on organizations in addition to individuals. Although at times subtle and difficult to detect, incivility is considered important and detrimental in the workplace. An interesting point of note, however, is the notion that uncivil, disrespectful behaviors at work may serve to help certain individuals actually build their power base (Pearson & Porath, 2005). This idea has not received substantial investigation, but stands in agreement with work discussed earlier (cf., Ferris et al., 2007) suggesting that bullying behaviors may be strategic and performance-enhancing under the appropriate conditions. Future studies in these areas may consider investigating these counterintuitive offerings more fully. Conceptually, incivility shares some overlap with abusive supervision. For example, both constructs include behaviors such as ignoring and rudeness. Both also produce some of the same effects on workers, including turnover intentions, actual turnover, and productivity losses, and neither is enacted to produce a specific outcome. However, like many related constructs, incivility includes behavioral interactions between workers at all points in the organizational hierarchy. Abusive supervision, as discussed previously, is defined as supervisory behavior aimed at direct subordinates. Therefore, comparing empirical results of the effects of incivility on workers with those from the abusive supervision literature would not be appropriate, as the outcomes of incivility may stem from sources other than the supervisor. Negative Mentoring Experiences. A mentor at work can broadly be defined as a senior employee who expresses interest in and takes some responsibility for the cultivation of a junior worker’s career (Kram, 1985; Scandura, 1998). Mentors can be formally assigned by the organization, but more often mentoring relationships arise informally. This relationship is suggested to grant both career and psychological support to the protégé (Eby, Butts, Lockwood, & Simon, 2004), bolstering the probability of career success and providing a trusted confidante and friend. A review of the outcomes of positive mentoring relationships provides evidence of increased job and career satisfaction, salary growth, and career progression for protégés (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lima, & Lentz, 2004). Mentoring relationships also benefit mentors, who may gain increased feelings of self-worth from the guidance they provide to up-and-comers (Ragins & Scandura, 1994; Scandura, 1998). Finally, organizations often rely on mentoring relationships as an integral part of training and development initiatives (Scandura, 1992). In spite of its many benefits for employees and organizations, mentoring, like any other class of relationship in and beyond the workforce, also can turn ugly. Scandura’s (1998) typology of the outcomes of negative mentoring experiences includes (1) negative relations between mentor and protégé, (2) sabotage of the relationship on the part of the mentor, (3)

difficulties in relating to one another, and (4) spoiling of the relationship. Documented consequences of negative mentoring experiences include decreased job satisfaction along with increased stress and turnover intentions (Eby & Allen, 2002). Reasons for the decline in quality of certain mentoring relationships are presented in Eby and colleagues’ (2000) taxonomy of negative mentoring experiences, summarized by Scandura (1998). Dyadic mismatch in terms of personality, work style, and/or values emerged as the most important determinant of relational decay. Second was distancing on the part of mentors, which included neglecting protégés or providing inadequate time to nurture the relationship. Ranked third was manipulation, which included tyrannical power displays and political behaviors that were self-interested and harmful to the protégé. Lack of expertise emerged as the fifth component and possessed both interpersonal and technical components. Finally, general dysfunction included negative mentor attitudes and personal issues that prevented mentors from providing effective guidance. Interestingly, several of the specific behaviors included in the above taxonomy also appear in Tepper’s measure of abusive supervision. For example, Eby and colleagues’ dimension of manipulation includes behaviors such as lying to protégés and taking credit for their successes, both of which represent abusive supervision. Negative mentoring experiences also foster some of the same negative outcomes as abuse (e.g., decreased satisfaction and increased psychological stress). However, because mentoring relationships can be informal and do not necessarily occur between a supervisor and subordinate, they are conceptually distinct from abusive supervisory relationships. Supervisor Undermining. Supervisor undermining occurs when supervisors engage in behaviors specifically intended to thwart their subordinates’ abilities to engage in positive relationships, enjoy work success, and garner reputational capital (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002). An important aspect of the definition is that this type of behavior is expressly designed to hinder its target. Also key is the fact that undermining can include a single isolated incident. However, in order to enact real damage, undermining behaviors must persist over time, as they are subtle and covert and may not hinder measurable target outcomes if used infrequently. Although supervisor undermining is a relatively new topic in the organizational literature, empirical studies have supported its existence and negative impacts. For example, victims of supervisor undermining displayed increased somatic complaints and counterproductive work behaviors, along with decreased self-efficacy (Duffy et al., 2002). Interestingly, supervisor undermining seemed to intensify these negative employee outcomes when supervisors simultaneously offered high amounts of social support to their workers. The authors suggested that conflicting messages create elevated levels of uncertainty for employees which many theorists would characterize as highly stressful (e.g., van den Bos, 2001). Also, employees who view their supervisors as important sources of social support may be especially frightened when undermining behaviors surface and signal an impending loss of that support (Duffy et al., 2002). Undermining behaviors such as gossiping about subordinates, rejecting their opinions, and belittling them, share significant overlap with abusive supervision. The two constructs diverge, however, in the area of intent. Supervisor undermining is, by definition, enacted for a very specific purpose, whereas abusive supervision is not. Furthermore, while supervisor undermining can include an isolated occurrence, abusive supervision is a sustained behavior. Summary of Areas of Convergence/Divergence between Abuse and Related Constructs. Abusive supervision is distinct from other forms of dysfunctional supervision in several ways. First, unlike related constructs such as incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999) and workplace

bullying (Hoel & Cooper, 2001), abusive supervision captures only those behaviors directed downward at subordinates. Second, although the definition specifically refers to hostile behaviors, abusive supervision excludes physical forms of hostility captured by constructs such as bullying (Hoel & Cooper, 2001). Finally, the related definitions of supervisor undermining (Duffy et al., 2002) and negative mentoring experiences (Eby, McManus, Simon, & Russell, 2000) capture behaviors intended to produce specific outcomes. Although Tepper’s (2000) conceptualization frames abusive supervision as willful behavior executed for a purpose, no specific intended outcomes are proposed. Antecedents to Abusive Supervision Researchers have focused a great deal of attention on the consequences of abusive supervision. Existing studies have established abuse as a destructive and pervasive occurrence, providing strong support for the importance of serious attempts aimed at reducing these behaviors. However, these efforts cannot rightly begin without sound investigation into the reasons these behaviors occur, suggesting that abusive supervision warrants the continued attention of organizational scholars. With a solid foundation of knowledge constructed over the past nine years, this research stream deserves a shift in focus. Now that we see and understand the harmful effects of abuse, what can we do to curtail it? This question can only be answered when we develop a greater understanding of the causes of abuse. In other words, what are the antecedents to abusive supervision? At present, only three empirical studies have examined antecedent conditions. Tepper and colleagues (2006) investigated the effects of supervisors’ experiences of procedural justice on abusive supervision. Results indicated that procedural justice violations increased supervisors’ depressive symptoms and subsequent abusive behaviors toward subordinates. Interestingly, this mediated framework was only significant when subordinates displayed high levels of negative affectivity, defined as the predisposition to experience negative emotions such as hostility, anger and fear (Watson & Clark, 1984). Simply put, depression aroused by procedural justice violations only manifested as abuse against certain types of subordinates – those with more negative emotional and cognitive tendencies. This particular finding was explained as a case of victim precipitation which represents the belief that certain victims of mistreatment actually elicit perpetrators’ hostility, albeit unconsciously (Elias, 1986). Another interesting aspect of Tepper and colleagues’ (2006) study is that the partially mediated relationships found suggest the need for investigation of additional mediating variables in the organizational justice—abuse relationship. Research conducted by Hoobler and Brass (2006) suggested that supervisors who experienced a psychological contract breach with their employers also were more likely to be abusive. Specifically, when supervisors did not receive that to which they felt entitled based on implicit or explicit organizational promises, they were more likely to abuse their subordinates. In addition, the authors investigated supervisors’ hostile attribution biases as a moderator in the psychological contract breach—abuse relationship. The hostile attribution bias represents the tendency to interpret behaviors of others as hostile, regardless of whether they actually are (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). Those with this bias are more likely to displace aggression by blaming others for their own failures (Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides, & Elliott, 2000). Findings supported the hypothesis that supervisors with a hostile attribution bias were more likely to be abusive when experiencing a breach of psychological contract. In the most recent study of the antecedents to abusive supervision, Aryee and colleagues (2007) identified interactional justice violations as a predictor of abuse. When supervisors felt

their organizations had provided less-than-adequate justifications for decisions and/or failed to treat them with dignity and respect (Bies, 2001), they were more likely to treat their subordinates abusively. In addition, this effect was moderated by authoritarian leadership style, defined as leaders’ preferences for behaviors that elicit absolute control and authority over unquestioning subordinates (Cheng, Chou, Wu, Huang, & Farh, 2004). Findings suggested that these types of supervisors were especially likely to abuse their employees as a means of exercising their need for power, especially when their feelings of control were threatened by negative interactions with the organization. Although only a small number of studies have focused on the antecedents to abuse, they share a common bond. Specifically, each suggests that abusive supervision may represent a behavioral reaction to some type of unfair treatment in the workplace. Thus, organizational justice is an important antecedent to abusive supervision. Organizational Justice Over 40 years of justice research reveals a critical truth about organizational actors; fairness matters (Ambrose, 2002). At a broad level, just treatment seems to strike a fundamental chord in human beings (Folger, 1998). Indeed, empirical work has provided strong support for relationships between justice violations and increased workplace deviance (Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), as well as decreases in performance, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors, and job satisfaction (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Still, the abundance of findings on the negative outcomes associated with organizational justice violations begs a crucial question about the importance of fair treatment: why does justice matter? In an extensive review of the theoretical underpinnings of organizational justice research, Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, and Rupp (2001) outlined Williams’ (1997) multiple needs model, which suggests that the centrality of fairness to the human actor can be attributed to four interrelated psychological needs. First, fair treatment provides a sense of control that allows individuals to better predict the outcomes of interpersonal interactions. Second, justice fulfills the basic human need for belonging and meaningful attachment, with fair treatment signaling inclusion in valued social groups (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Third, justice boosts the coveted sense of self-regard as it strengthens individuals’ standing in social circles (Tyler & Lind, 1992). Finally, fair treatment acts as an indication that individuals are moral actors governed by transcendent principles of right and wrong, tapping into the human desire for meaningful existence (Folger, 1998). Justice Dimensions Much of the existing knowledge base divides organizational justice into three distinct forms. Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of actual versus expected decision outcomes relative to costs (Adams, 1965; Homans, 1961). Those experiencing distributive justice violations deem their outcomes unequal to what they felt entitled to based on the amount of input they contributed. Procedural justice centers on perceptions of fairness regarding organizational allocation decisions and includes voice, trustworthiness, and the opportunity to influence outcomes as key facets (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Procedural justice violations occur when employees feel they were not provided adequate control over or input into organizational processes and the decisions arising from those processes. Interactional justice refers to the interpersonal treatment received when procedures are implemented (Bies & Moag, 1986). When employees feel they have not been treated with dignity or respect by organizational decision makers, they experience interactional justice

violations. Although traditionally measured as a single factor, interactional justice is composed of both informational and interpersonal elements. Informational justice captures justification for and truthfulness in the enactment of procedures. Interpersonal justice captures respectful treatment during the enactment of procedures. In recent years, organizational scientists have suggested that interactional justice be divided into these two elements and measured accordingly. As Colquitt (2001) pointed out, although informational justice and interactional justice are highly correlated, they each explain incremental variance in perceptions of fairness and therefore represent distinct factors. Organizational justice has played a central role in the abusive supervision literature since its inception. Tepper (2000) conceptualized and validated empirically that abuse represented a justice violation inflicted upon employees; his work demonstrated connections between abuse and all three justice dimensions. Numerous studies have since corroborated this finding. Later studies on antecedent conditions (e.g., Tepper et al., 2006; Aryee et al., 2007) discovered that justice violations often preceded abusive behaviors, meaning that abuse is not only the cause of injustice, but also the outcome. When results from antecedent and consequence studies are viewed holistically, we can see that justice violations permeate the entire process of abusive supervision; from beginning to end, justice is as a central factor. It is this very idea that has led researchers to label the abuse process as a trickle-down model of organizational justice. Trickle-Down Models of Organizational Justice Researchers in various areas of organizational behavior have hypothesized what are known as trickle-down effects. Trickle-down models demonstrate the indirect effects of higher- level organizational interactions on lower level organizational outcomes (Aryee et al., 2007). Simply put, dealings in the uppermost levels of an organization can influence what happens in the middle, and occurrences in the middle can influence what transpires among those at the lowest levels of the organization. Said another way, what trickle-down models purport is that organizational players’ interactions with one individual/group at one point in time are not independent of their previous interactions with different individual/group at an earlier point in time, however unrelated they may appear on the surface. Theoretical Explanations for Trickle-Down Models Many researchers have used trickle-down models to explain human behavioral interactions in the workplace. However, studies do not rely on a single unifying theory to explain the occurrence of the effects. Two examples help to illustrate this point. In her work on customer service perceptions, Masterson (2001) studied the effects of organizational justice on subsequent employee service behaviors. Findings indicated that employees’ perceptions of justice influenced their behaviors toward customers, which in turn affected the customers’ reactions to the organization. Masterson suggested that these trickle- down effects could be explained through attitudes. Specifically, she believed organizational justice violations fostered increasingly negative employee attitudes, these negative attitudes influenced how employees chose to treat their customers, and the employees’ behaviors negatively affected customers’ attitudes toward the organization. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1975) was offered as another explanation for trickle- down effects in a recent study of ethical leadership. Findings indicated that top management ethical leadership behaviors positively influenced supervisory ethical leadership which subsequently decreased group-level deviant behaviors and increased group-level OCBs (Mayer et al., 2009). Thus, top management ethical behaviors had an influence on lower-level employee behaviors indirectly through supervisory ethical leadership behaviors. These authors suggested

that the observed increase in ethical and helping behaviors and the decrease in deviance resulted from subordinates emulating or modeling their supervisors’ behaviors at work. Thus, supervisory employees learned appropriate behaviors from executives, and subordinate groups learned the behaviors from their supervisors. Related to the present research, three studies have conceptualized abusive supervision as a trickle-down model of organizational justice. Tepper and colleagues (2006) suggested that their finding that abuse resulted from procedural justice violations, combined with previous studies identifying abused subordinates as victims of justice violations, supported the notion of abuse as a trickle-down model of organizational justice. Simply put, supervisors’ procedural justice violations increased abusive behaviors which subordinates deemed as additional justice violations. In a more direct test of trickle-down effects, Aryee and colleagues (2007) found that when supervisors’ experienced interactional justice violations they became increasingly abusive, and the relationship between abuse and negative subordinate outcomes was fully mediated by subordinates’ experiences of interactional justice violations. Finally, Hoobler and Brass (2006) found that supervisors’ experiences of psychological contract breach from their organizations resulted in increased abusive supervisory behaviors. When supervisors did not receive the outcomes to which they felt entitled, they acted in ways that violated their own subordinates’ expectations for proper treatment and respect. In terms of organizational justice, supervisors’ distributive justice was linked to subordinates’ interactional justice. Problems with Current Theoretical Explanations for Trickle-Down Models As previously stated, Masterson (2001) and Mayer et al. (2009) relied on attitudes and modeling, respectively, as theoretical frameworks for trickle-down effects in work organizations. These studies have had substantial impact on our knowledge of organizational behaviors, but their application to the current research may be limited. For example, explaining abusive supervision as a trickle-down model of organizational justice using attitude theories would suggest that the reason supervisors are abusive once they experience justice violations is because they have poorer attitudes. Specifically, supervisors treated unfairly by their organizations have poorer attitudes, and poorer attitudes lead the supervisors to care a great deal less about treating their own subordinates fairly. Explaining abusive supervision as a trickle-down model of organizational justice using a modeling explanation would purport that supervisors who experience justice violations are more likely to be abusive because they will model their organizations’ unfair behaviors when interacting with their own subordinates. Both explanations are plausible. However, their application to the current research would overlook a key part of the equation required for a more complete understanding of abuse as a trickle-down model of organizational justice. What remain to be thoroughly investigated are the conditions under which trickle-down models of organizational justice are most likely to occur. Specifically, how and when do supervisors’ experiences of justice violations lead to abusive supervision? The current research seeks to develop a more fine-grained understanding of this phenomenon. Previous studies have suggested the occurrence of trickle-down effects on a broad scope. Specifically, poor attitudes at one level may lead to poor attitudes at a lower level, and bad behaviors at one level may be modeled by individuals at a lower level. In order to further our understanding of these effects, however, research must dig deeper. Current trickle-down models

and their explanations overlook an essential truth underlying the basic nature of any interaction; an interaction requires two entities. Following this logic, we must account for the behaviors of both parties involved in the transaction. An explanation of the cause of abusive supervision following a justice violation would be incomplete if it failed to account for the actions of the other party to the abuse; the subordinate. This research seeks to answer the following question: how and when do the trickle- down effects of organizational justice occur in the case of abusive supervision? I believe a more complete answer lies in an investigation of the second party to the interaction. Specifically, how do subordinates’ behaviors affect the likelihood that they will experience abuse when their supervisors have experienced justice violations? In addition, although previous studies provide some insight into the why of trickle-down models (i.e., attitudes and modeling), this research proposes an alternative explanation. Namely, I believe emotions play in a central role abusive supervision as a trickle-down model of organizational justice. An Alternative Theoretical Explanation Theory in the areas of displaced aggression and the human affective experience help to re-conceptualize abusive supervision and its trickle-down organizational justice effects. In this section, I will review research on displaced aggression, paying particular attention to its application to the abusive supervision literature and recent updates to the theory. Next, I will discuss an untested theory of organizational justice as it relates to emotions, aggression displacement, and the present research. Displaced Aggression In one of the seminal works on displaced aggression, Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, and Sears (1939) suggested that blocked goals led to frustration that must be released as aggression in order to achieve a state of catharsis. However, direct retaliation against the source of frustration may, at times, be impossible or unacceptable. At these times, aggression was suggested to be displaced upon a more convenient or innocent target. A recent meta-analysis suggested that although research on displaced aggression seemed to disappear over the past 20 years, the idea is in fact “alive and well” and worthy of substantial scholarly investigation (Marcus-Newhall, Pederson, Carlson, & Miller, 2000). Miller, Pederson, Earleywine, and Pollock (2003) critically examined over sixty years of research on displaced aggression to develop a new theoretical model of triggered displaced aggression (TDA). The model suggests that an initial provocation at time 1 (T1) leads to cognitive rumination which leads, in turn, to aggression displacement. More specifically, a T1 provocation that is left unsettled should lead to increased rumination, or thought, about the event; this rumination is believed to activate paths in the brain associated with the particular experience. Aggression displacement is said to occur when a second, minor triggering provocation from an unrelated source at time 2 (T2) presents itself during this state of cognitive activation. This updated theory is important for the current study for at least two reasons. First, previous research on abusive supervision has relied, albeit loosely, on displaced aggression as a theoretical explanation for the effects of organizational justice violations on abusive behaviors (Tepper et al., 2006). Second, the addition of the T2 triggering provocation to displaced aggression theory highlights the importance of both parties to the interaction—the person who is initially provoked and the person who is the recipient of the subsequent aggression. Specifically, recent advances in displaced aggression theory suggest that the aggression will not be displaced on a completely innocent, uninvolved target; rather, the target must elicit some type of triggering behavior that encourages the aggression displacement.

As previously stated, Tepper and colleagues (2006) found that supervisors who experienced justice violations from their organizations were more likely to abuse their subordinates, thereby perpetuating the cycle, or trickle-down effects, of organizational justice violations. Furthermore, findings indicated that this relationship was only significant when subordinates were high in negative affectivity (NA). The authors suggested that supervisors were more likely to displace their aggression on certain targets, an idea known as victim precipitation. Although not explicitly stated, their study lends support to the TDA model. To explain, individuals high in NA tend to feel more negative emotions and have more negative thoughts than individuals with lower levels of NA. It may be possible that high NA subordinates were more likely to present triggering provocations (e.g., in the form of negative comments or behaviors) after their supervisors experienced justice violations. An additional, and crucial, piece of Tepper and colleagues’ (2006) study involved their investigation of depression as a mediating factor between justice violations and abuse. Citing the National Institute of Mental Health (2000), depression was defined not only as a set of intense and persistent symptoms representative of major depressive disorder, but also as a group of milder feelings such as sadness, apathy, and worthlessness. Therefore, organizational justice violations were found to induce certain feeling states which were then followed by abusive supervision. Although not a direct goal of their study, the inclusion of depression as a set of mild, negative feelings introduced the concept of affect into antecedent research on abusive supervision. Specifically, justice violations were found to foster negative affective experiences in supervisory employees. Furthermore, because the results found only partial mediation, Tepper et al. (2006) suggested that future researchers investigate additional influences that may mediate the organizational justice—abusive supervision relationship. Unfortunately, Miller and colleagues’ (2003) TDA model does not explicitly include affect, necessitating examination of a related, but more appropriate, theoretical model which includes the role of affect in explaining trickle-down models of organizational justice. Emotions and Organizational Justice Affect is generally defined as feelings, with emotions and moods representing two different expressions of affect. For example, one individual may experience certain discrete positive (e.g., happiness, joy) or negative (e.g., anger, sadness) emotions, while another individual experiences simply a general negative or positive mood state. Both of these individuals are said to be expressing affect, although the two experiences differ markedly in their structure. The distinction between emotions and moods was outlined by Cropanzano, Weiss, Hale, and Reb (2003) and includes several key ideas. First, emotions represent intense, short lived surges of affect, while moods are far less intense and tend to linger for longer periods of time. Second, emotions are always associated with something, whereas moods may have no such object of association. Third, emotions consist of characteristic cognitions as well as affect, but moods are composed mostly of pure affect. These distinctions make clear the importance of studying emotions in the prediction of behavior, and Brief and Weiss (2002) have argued for the study of discrete emotions, as opposed to moods, in the workplace. Although emotions contain an affective and a cognitive component, they still are considered a type of affective experience. Therefore, because this study will investigate one specific emotional state, the remainder of this research will use the word emotions.

Previous studies have suggested an important role for emotions in reactions to organizational justice. Tepper and colleagues (2006) highlighted studies that support the idea that procedural justice violations produce negative emotional states that may be misdirected against innocent and/or more convenient targets (Cropanzano & Prehar, 2001; Fitness, 2000; Glomb, 2002; Weiss, Suckow, & Cropanzano, 1999). Thus, a justice—emotions—abuse link not only is plausible, but has been suggested, either directly or indirectly, by many in the past. A recent theory may help to explain this link more fully. The Affective Model of Justice Reasoning Elizabeth Mullen (2007) proposed the Affective Model of Justice Reasoning (AMJR) to explain the cognitive mechanisms behind justice judgments. Her theory mirrors the age-old debate of Zajonc (1984) and Lazarus (1984) concerning the primacy of affect versus cognition. Lazarus suggested that cognitive appraisal was a necessary precondition for an emotional experience, as we must select, encode, and interpret stimuli before we are able to determine our emotional responses. Zajonc acknowledged the tendency for emotions and cognitions to work together, but suggested that cognition was not always necessary for an emotional experience. He believed many emotional phenomena already had been explained in the absence of cognitive processes. In this debate, Mullen sides with Zajonc, suggesting that we do not need to make a justice judgment (i.e., determine whether we have been treated fairly) before we can feel the associated emotion. Rather, the AMJR proposes that an emotional reaction may not only precede the justice judgment, but may actually determine the type of judgment one makes. According to the AMJR, interpersonal treatment triggers an appraisal of an event as positive or negative. Events appraised as negative lead to negative emotions such as anger, and events appraised as positive lead to positive emotions such as happiness. These emotions then promote different types of information processing that are subsequently followed by justice judgments. As an example, the AMJR predicts that negative interpersonal treatment is likely to lead to anger, and this anger should lead to the conclusion that a justice violation has been experienced. Said another way, anger biases information processing such that an angry individuals should pay more attention to environmental evidence that is associated with anger (e.g., justice violations). Positive emotions operate in a similar fashion, such that happy individuals should pay more attention to environmental evidence associated with happiness. This is the central tenet of the AMJR - emotions bias the way we interpret justice information. An important piece of the AMJR that should be noted is that certain types of justice information are not likely to be misinterpreted. Some events are objectively fair and are expected to be interpreted as such, regardless of emotion. Thus, an angry and a non-angry person should both interpret objective justice information in a similar fashion, each viewing it as fair. A major argument of the AMJR is that emotions are likely to affect judgments based on two additional types of justice information: ambiguous justice information and objective injustice information. Ambiguous justice information is that which is neither decidedly fair nor decidedly unfair. Certain individuals may view ambiguous justice information as entirely fair, whereas others may interpret it as entirely unfair; but on average, its categorization rests somewhere in the middle. Objective injustice information, on the other hand, is generally interpreted as unfair, regardless of emotion. However, angry individuals should interpret objective injustice information as far more unfair than non-angry individuals. If we view situations involving justice information as consisting of a set of justice components, we can see that ambiguous situations have a number of components that are unjust

and also a number of components that are just. We also can see that objective injustice situations are weighted far more heavily with components that are unjust. Mullen’s theory suggests that an angry individual’s eyes will be drawn to the unjust components like a magnet in either situation, overreacting to them, and failing to see any components of the situation that may indicate the existence of fairness. Applied to the current research, the AMJR would suggest that supervisors who experience organizational justice violations have made their justice judgments based on the emotions they are experiencing due to the negative interactions. However, current modes of data collection prevent us from explicitly testing the primacy of the supervisors’ emotions versus their cognitions when bound by a single interpersonal transaction. What we can say is that in a single isolated incident, negative interpersonal treatment, anger, and justice judgments all are temporally bound, even if we cannot physically enter an individual’s cognitive processes to assess the order in which each of these bits of information is processed. However, by extending our investigation to include a second, temporally proximal interpersonal transaction, testing Mullen’s suggestion that affect precedes justice judgments becomes quite possible. Furthermore, we now are able to combine the AMJR with the TDA model to gain a more informed understanding of the how and when of abusive supervision as a trickle-down model of organizational justice. Hypotheses This section will introduce a set of original research hypotheses. These hypotheses make up the experimental model seen in Figure 2.1 below. The following paragraphs provide an explanation of each link in the model along with associated hypotheses. A summary of the study hypotheses can be found in Appendix 1.

Time 2 Trigger

Objective Justice Info (H2)

Ambiguous Justice Info (H3) Hostile Attribution Bias

Objective Injustice Info (H4)

H2 H6

Time 1 H1 H3 H5 H4 Abusive Interpersonal Emotions Interpersonal Supervision Justice from Org Justice from Subordinate (High IJ/LowIJ) (No Anger/Anger)

FIGURE 2.1 – EXPERIMENTAL MODEL

Interpersonal Justice from the Organization and Anger The model begins with an interaction between two actors. In the case of abusive supervision research, the actors include the organization (or one of its representatives) and the supervisor. As previous research has suggested (e.g., Mayer et al., 2009; Tepper et al., 2006; Masterson, 2001), the behaviors of the organization can negatively impact supervisors’ feelings and attitudes. These organizational behaviors can include psychological contract breaches, justice violations, and unethical behaviors, to name a few. The abusive supervision literature has focused on behaviors that are deemed unfair or unjust. The model begins with interpersonal justice from the organization. Although actual cognitive justice judgments may be formed by the supervisors later in the process, this research utilizes an experimental interaction that violates the objective requirements for interpersonal justice, thus we deem the initial situation one with either high or low levels of interpersonal justice from the organization. The AMJR suggests that this interaction, depending on its form, will be followed by a positive or negative cognitive appraisal. Events appraised as negative should be followed by negative emotions, and negative emotions should bias subsequent processing of justice information to inform the eventual justice judgment. Because a plethora of previous studies have demonstrated a link between negative interpersonal treatment and anger (e.g., Cropanzano & Folger, 1989; Folger, 1987; Folger, 1993; Grandey, 2009; Krehbiel & Cropanzano, 2000; Sheppard, Lewicki, & Minton, 1992; Weiss et al., 1999; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), I offer the first hypothesis: H1: Supervisors who experience low levels of interpersonal justice from their superiors will experience more state anger than supervisors who experience high levels of interpersonal justice from their superiors. Emotions, Justice Information, and Justice Perceptions Mullen’s AMJR suggests that emotions bias subsequent justice judgments. However, in the case of one isolated event, it would be impossible to determine whether the emotion or the justice judgment came first within an individual’s psyche. In order to test Mullen’s affect— cognition proposition, I extend the analysis to a second, temporally proximal interaction. Recall that abusive supervision has been conceptualized both as a case of displaced aggression and a trickle-down model of organizational justice. According to the TDA model, an unresolved negative interaction often results in later displacement of the aggression arising from the T1 event, but only if another individual elicits a triggering provocation at T2. It is through the T2 interaction that this study is able to test Mullen’s proposition that emotions bias subsequent justice judgments. Specifically, supervisors who experience negative interactions with their organizations should feel increased anger, but because the supervisors may fear direct retaliation against the source of their negative emotions, they are likely to refrain from resolving the issue directly with the organization. The anger, however, should remain cognitively and affectively activated for some period of time. Because supervisors can be expected to interact with their subordinates on a regular basis, it is logical to assume that they may be required to transact with subordinates while still angry from an initial provocation. If subordinates exhibit some type of triggering behavior (T2), angry supervisors may process the information from the interaction with a more negative slant. However, recall that Mullen suggests that certain types of justice information should not be misinterpreted. Specifically, some situations are objectively fair and should be judged as fair

regardless of prior emotion. Therefore, subordinates’ objectively fair actions toward angry supervisors should still lead to perceptions of justice. Two types of justice information are believed subject to misinterpretation based on emotions. Specifically, information that is ambiguous and information that is objectively unfair should be judged more harshly by individuals experiencing anger. Therefore, angry supervisors who encounter ambiguous subordinate triggers and objectively unfair subordinate triggers should make stronger judgments of injustice than non-angry supervisors. The preceding paragraphs lead to the following hypotheses: H2: Angry supervisors confronted with objective justice information from their subordinates will not perceive significantly lower levels of interpersonal justice from their subordinates than non-angry supervisors. H3: Angry supervisors confronted with ambiguous justice information from their subordinates will perceive significantly lower levels of interpersonal justice from their subordinates than non-angry supervisors. H4: Angry supervisors confronted with objective injustice information from their subordinates will perceive significantly lower levels of interpersonal justice from their subordinates than non-angry supervisors. Justice Perceptions, Abusive Supervision, and the Hostile Attribution Bias The next link in the model represents the relationship between justice judgments and abusive supervisory behaviors. Previous studies have demonstrated a link between justice violations and abusive supervision (Aryee et al., 2007; Hoobler & Brass, 2006; Tepper et al., 2006). However, these studies investigated only those interactions between supervisors and their own superiors, citing justice violations from the organization as direct causes for abuse. This study suggests that the injustice directly preceding abuse is not that inflicted by the organization, but rather, that perceived to be inflicted by the subordinate at T2. Therefore, I propose that angry supervisors who judge subordinate triggering provocations as unfair are apt to react with abusive behaviors. H5: Supervisors’ decreased perceptions of interpersonal justice from their subordinates will be positively related to abusive supervisory behaviors. Finally, previous research has demonstrated that not all supervisors who are treated negatively by their organizations will react with the same amounts of abuse. Hoobler & Brass (2006) found that the relationship between psychological contract breach and abusive supervision was stronger for those supervisors who possessed a hostile attribution bias. According to Campbell and colleagues (2000), those with a hostile attribution bias are more likely to displace their aggression by projecting blame for their own failures onto others. In addition, individuals with higher levels of general hostility are characterized as highly suspicious (Buss & Perry, 1992) and should be more sensitive to justice information in their environments. Thus, an individual who is particularly attentive to justice information and who possesses a tendency to blame others for failures should be more likely to engage in abusive supervisory behaviors following a perceived justice violation, as was found by Hoobler and Brass (2006). I therefore offer my final hypothesis: H6: The negative relationship between perceptions of interpersonal justice from the subordinate and abusive supervisory behaviors will be moderated by hostile attribution bias. Specifically: The relationship will be stronger for supervisors with a hostile attribution bias than for supervisors that do not possess a hostile attribution bias.

CHAPTER 3 METHOD

This chapter begins with an overview of the research study followed by a description of the study subjects. Next, the procedure and experimental manipulations are described in detail along with results from pilot testing used to develop the manipulations. The development of a coding scheme used to measure abusive supervisory behaviors is outlined next. Finally, details of the measures used in the study are presented. Overview of Study This study investigated the effects of interpersonal justice violations, anger, and subordinate triggering behaviors on abusive supervision. A between-groups 2 (no anger or anger) x 3 (objective justice information, ambiguous justice information, or objective injustice information) factorial design was used in the experiment. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the following six conditions; no anger with objective justice information; no anger with ambiguous justice information; no anger with objective injustice information; anger with objective justice information; anger with ambiguous justice information, and anger with objective injustice information. The three types of justice information represented subordinate triggering behaviors, and subjects’ behavioral reactions to the subordinate were captured on video camera. Subjects provided demographic information through an online survey prior to the study and completed self-report measures of several study variables immediately following participation. Pre and post study data were matched using a unique 4-digit identifier given to each subject. The following sections describe the experimental subjects, the procedure, the manipulations, and pilot work used to develop the experiment. The Measures section provides detail on the manipulated and measured variables. Subjects The study sample consisted of 127 students enrolled in four different management courses at a large Southeastern university during the Summer, 2009 semester. Students participated voluntarily and received extra course credit in exchange for their participation. Demographic data were collected on subjects’ gender, age, ethnicity, major, self-reported grade- point-average, and management experience and are summarized in Table 3.1. The sample was made up of 52% females and 48% males, and 93.7% of subjects fell within the 18-24 years of age category. The ethnic makeup of the sample was 73.2% White/Caucasian, 12.6% Hispanic, 6.3% Black/African American, 3.1% Asian/Pacific Islander 0.8% Native American/Alaskan, and 3.9% Other. Business majors made up 78.8% of the sample. Subjects reported an average GPA of 3.2 on a 4-point scale. Over half of the sample (53.5%) reported having no management experience, with 33.9% having less than 1 year, 11.0% having less than 5 years, and only 1.6% having more than 5 years of management experience.

TABLE 3.1 – DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FOR THE SAMPLE

Gender (% female) 52.0

Age (% of sample in range) 18-24 93.7 25-31 5.5 32-38 0.8

Ethnicity (%) White/Caucasian 73.2 Hispanic 12.6 African American 6.3 Asian/Pacific Islander 3.1 Native American/Alaskan 0.8 Other 3.9

Major (% business majors) 78.8

Grade Point Average (mean on 4-point scale) 3.2

Management Experience (% of sample in range) None 53.5 < 1 Year 33.9 < 5 Years 11.0 5 or more Years 1.6 N = 127

Procedure An overview of the procedure and an informed consent document were completed for and approved by the Human Subjects Committee (Appendix 2). The subjects’ course instructors administered instructions for study enrollment during the first day of classes in order to prevent any pre-study interaction between the study administrator (i.e., the researcher) and the subjects. The study was conducted within a controlled laboratory environment. The study proceeded according to the following steps. In step one, students enrolled in four different undergraduate management courses volunteered to participate in the experiment. One week before the study began, the students were informed of the extra credit opportunity by their instructors during the first day of class and through email (Appendix 3). The subjects were required to complete an online pre-study questionnaire through a popular online survey website (www.surveymonkey.com) in order to sign up for the study (Appendix 4) and were assigned a unique four-digit identifier that was used to match their data throughout the study. The instructors were able to match their students with the identifier for extra-credit purposes but the researcher did not have access to this information in the interest of anonymity. Upon completion of the online questionnaire, subjects were directed to an online sign-up sheet (www.slyreply.com) where they chose an individual time slot within the three week study

period; the sign-up process allowed subjects to randomly assign themselves to the study conditions. On the sign-up sheet, subjects were asked to provide their four-digit identifier, the name of the course for which they wanted to receive extra credit, and an email address that would be used to remind them of their selected time slot on the day before they were scheduled to participate. The researcher used an anonymous email account to send reminders to the subjects. The reminder emails included the scheduled time, the location to which the subjects were to report, and instructions for what they should do upon arrival (Appendix 5 ). In step two, the subjects reported to a designated waiting area outside of Room 1, were asked to read and sign an informed consent document (Appendix 6), and then waited to be called by the administrator. The researcher, who was not an instructor for any of the courses, served as the administrator for all subjects. Once inside Room 1 and seated at a desk across from the administrator, subjects were shown a legal-sized envelope labeled with a four-digit number and were asked to verify that this number was their own (these envelopes were carried by the subjects throughout the study, were used to identify subjects in the video recording, and contained the post-study questionnaire). Subjects were informed that they were participating in a study of management and organizations and that their role in the study was that of the manager/supervisor. They also were informed that they would be interacting with a second study participant from another college who had been assigned the role of subordinate (one actress served as the subordinate during the entire study). Subjects were told they would spend 5 minutes training their subordinate to execute a new skill and that the subordinate would then have 8 minutes to successfully complete a test of this new skill. Subjects were informed that their reward hinged on the subordinate’s successful completion of the skills test. The skill used in this study was a Sudoku puzzle. The administrator explained to the subjects that she next would train them properly in Sudoku before they were paired with their subordinate. The Sudoku instructions used were based upon those found at a website called Strictly Sudoku (www.strictlysudoku.com), and an example puzzle was used as an interactive training tool (Appendix 7). The first manipulation (no anger or anger) was administered at this time. Half of the subjects received normal instructions from the administrator (i.e., the administrator used a normal tone of voice and displayed little emotion)and the other half received the same instructions with additional, anger-provoking comments woven throughout. The comments were designed to violate the components of Interpersonal Justice (detailed in the Measures section). Subjects then were given two additional Sudoku puzzles and told that these would be used in the next part of the study (Appendix 7). Subjects were instructed that they may use any method they chose in order to teach their subordinate Sudoku during the five-minute training period, but that once the eight minute skills test began, they could no longer write on the puzzle or give the subordinate the answers. Rather, their role as a manager would be to teach the task well enough that they would feel confident enough to delegate it to the subordinate, as the ultimate responsibility for successful completion belonged to the manager. Subjects were reminded that in an actual organization, managers often must delegate work to subordinates for various reasons but are ultimately still held responsible for the tasks. Subjects were given a list of study rules before proceeding to step three (Appendix 8). In step three, subjects followed the study assistant to Room 2 (on a different floor) where they were seated at a desk with their subordinate (i.e., the confederate). The assistant asked both to hold their legal-sized folders up for the camera (the confederate was given the same type of folder labeled with her own unique identifier to use throughout the study to make it appear as

though she was also a subject). This folder was used to match subjects’ video data with their pre and post study questionnaire data. The assistant told the pair to begin and left the room and closed the door. The subjects spent the next five minutes training the subordinate as they wished using the designated practice puzzle. At the end of the five-minute period, the assistant knocked once on the outside of the door to indicate that the training period was over and that the eight- minute skills test should begin. Subjects then handed the subordinate the skills test puzzle with the understanding that they were allowed to provide guidance but could not complete the puzzle themselves. The second manipulation was administered at this point. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups: objective justice information, ambiguous justice information, or objective injustice information. The different types of justice information were represented by the confederate’s actions and served as triggering behaviors. In all three scenarios, the confederate completed the same portions of the puzzle in the same order and left the same section of the puzzle unfinished. A video camera captured the entire interaction and was used to record subjects’ behavioral reactions to the second manipulation. The camera was positioned so that both the subjects’ and the confederate’s faces could be seen. This helped to assess any possible variations from the script, differences in delivery, and/or other confederate actions that may have affected the outcome of the study. Two clocks also were positioned in Room 2 so that the subjects could monitor the remaining time. At the end of the eight-minute period, the assistant opened the door and said “time’s up, please put down your pencils and gather your belongings.” The assistant then asked the confederate to follow him and told the subject he would be back shortly. The assistant returned alone thirty seconds later and took the subjects back to the waiting area outside of Room 1. At this point, the assistant slid the completed skills test puzzle under the door of Room 1 for grading. This created the impression that the puzzle was in fact being evaluated to determine whether the subject would receive extra credit points. In step four, the assistant instructed the subjects to complete the survey (Appendix 9) inside of their labeled, legal-sized folder, return the survey to the folder and seal the opening, place the folder through a slot in a large sealed box located in the waiting area, and knock on the door of Room 1 when they were finished. This survey included manipulation checks as well as measures of the study variables. Subjects then were debriefed by the administrator before being dismissed from the experiment (Appendix 10). Manipulations Anger and justice information were the manipulated variables. Subjects were randomly assigned to groups for each manipulation. Manipulation 1 included anger or no anger groups. Manipulation 2 included objective justice information, ambiguous justice information, and objective injustice information groups. Manipulation 1 – Anger Half of the subjects were in the no anger group and half of the subjects were in the anger group. This manipulation was woven into the instructions given to the subjects in Room 1 at the beginning of the study. The administrator memorized a pre-written script to ensure that the wording was delivered consistently in both groups throughout the duration of the study (Appendix 11). The wording for the no anger group was meant to represent high levels of Interpersonal Justice, and the wording for the anger group was meant to represent low levels of Interpersonal Justice. Previous researchers have successfully used Interpersonal Justice to

manipulate anger. A similar example can be found in the work of Colquitt, Scott, Judge, and Shaw (2006), which was used to inform the design of the anger manipulation in this study. Manipulation 2 – Justice Information An ad was placed on a popular website (www.craigslist.com) in order to find an actress for the study. The researcher received thirty-one responses and auditioned the five actresses who fit the study criteria before deciding on the actress used in the study. Care was taken to choose an actress that had extensive acting experience, was not likely to personally know any of the study subjects, and could convincingly play the role of an undergraduate college student. The actress was a 23 year old, blond-haired, white female. She was paid $1,000 for her participation. The actress was given three different scripts to memorize which represented the three groups for the justice information manipulation. She was trained extensively using several mock run-throughs of the experiment prior to the actual study. She was instructed on the importance of following the script verbatim for each group, but also was given a pre-determined list of responses for questions that may arise from participants (Appendix 12). She wore very casual clothing and hairstyle throughout the study and was instructed to wear no makeup. Pilot work was used to design the three scenarios (detailed in the Pilot Study section). This particular manipulation was developed by the researcher and not based on prior work, as the theory used in this study is previously untested and therefore has no precedent. Pilot Study Manipulation 2 Pilot work was conducted in order to verify that the three scenarios in the second manipulation were in fact representative of the three types of justice information they were intended to represent. Two rounds of data collection were necessary to refine the wording of the scenarios and the measures used for the manipulation check. Data for the first round of pilot testing were collected from a senior-level undergraduate management class consisting of 100 students. Each student received a handout containing one of three scenarios intended to represent either objective justice information, ambiguous justice information, or objective injustice information (Appendix 13). Respondents’ open-ended comments at the end of the surveys indicated the need for rewording and the use of a different measure of justice. Therefore, these data were determined to be incomplete and were not analyzed. Data for the second round of pilot testing using the reworded scenarios and new measures were collected from a different senior-level undergraduate management class consisting of 71 students (there was no overlap between students in the classes). Each student received a handout containing one of three scenarios intended to represent either objective justice information, ambiguous information, or objective injustice information (Appendix 14). The scenarios were further subdivided such that the individual described in the scenario was either male or female. Therefore, students could receive one of six different handouts. Students were asked to read the scenario and then complete a measure of interpersonal justice. Details on the scale can be found in the Measures section. Scores were averaged to form one composite score of interpersonal justice for each respondent. Lower scores indicated stronger injustice information, and higher scores indicated stronger justice information. Scores in the middle indicated ambiguity. Initial analyses found no significant differences in scores when the individual described in the scenario was male or female. Therefore, the scores for each group, regardless of the gender of the individual described, were combined. Twenty-three students completed the objective justice information scenario questionnaire. The mean interpersonal justice score for the objective justice information was 4.12 with a standard deviation of 0.84. Twenty-five students completed

the ambiguous justice information scenario questionnaire. The mean interpersonal justice score for ambiguous justice information was 3.50 with a standard deviation of 1.05. Twenty-three students completed the objective injustice information scenario questionnaire. The mean interpersonal justice score for objective injustice information was 1.94 with a standard deviation of 0.90. Therefore, the scores followed the expected form, with the lowest scores found for the objective injustice scenario and the highest scores found for the objective justice scenario. In order to determine whether the mean differences for each group were significantly different from one another, a series of t-tests were conducted. The first t-test compared the means for the objective justice information group and the ambiguous justice information group. Results indicated that the difference between the means was statistically significant (t = 3.89; p < .001). The second t-test compared the means for the objective justice information condition and the objective injustice information condition. Results indicated that the difference between the means was statistically significant (t = 14.92; p < .0001). The final t-test compared the means for the ambiguous justice information condition and the objective injustice information condition. Results indicated that the difference between the means was statistically significant (t = 9.51; p < .0001). A summary of the pilot test results can be found in Table 3.2 below.

TABLE 3.2 – MANIPULATION CHECK FOR THE JUSTICE INFORMATION MANIPULATION: INDEPENDENT SAMPLES T-TEST

Treatment Groups

Objective Ambiguous Objective Justice Info Justice Info Injustice Info Perceptions of Interpersonal Justice from Subordinate a † Mean (Std. Dev.) b, c 4.12 (0.84) 3.50 (1.05) 1.94 (0.90) † Mean (Std. Dev.) d, e 4.48 (0.62) 4.12 (0.81) 3.12 (0.76)

a 1 to 5 Likert Type Scale: 1 = to a very small extent (less justice), 5 = to a very large extent (more justice) † mean differences between the 3 groups were all significant at the p < .001 level

b N = 71; c data obtained from pilot study d N = 127; e data obtained from current study

Development of the Abusive Supervision Coding Scheme Abusive supervision typically is measured using Tepper’s (2000) 15-item measure. In previous studies, abusive supervision has been measured as a subordinate perception of the extent to which the direct supervisor repeatedly engages in certain behaviors (e.g., “my supervisor expresses anger at me” and “my supervisor yells at me.” In the present study, certain items from Tepper’s scale were contextually relevant. However, items such as “my supervisor prevents me from interacting with my coworkers” and “my supervisor reminds me of my past mistakes and failures” were not contextually relevant. Further, because Tepper’s scale measures subordinates’ perceptions of behaviors, specific definitions of the behaviors have never been developed, making coding their objective occurrence difficult. For example, “my supervisor is rude to me” may mean different things to different individuals and therefore is not easily coded for objectively.

The researcher decided that attempting to train coders to “force” behaviors into Tepper’s scale categories, one which was not intended for objective coding, would be an unreliable method of measuring the behaviors. Instead, an emergent coding scheme was developed according to the following steps. In step one, three graduate students were chosen as naïve (i.e., to the abusive supervision literature) coders. In step two, the coders each were given a set of 20 videos to watch (a subset of the entire sample) and told to flag each occurrence of “hostile” behavior, both verbal and nonverbal, on the part of the study subject in the video, make a note of the behavior, and assign the behavior a label. The coders watched the videos separately to prevent influencing one another in the process. The word “hostile” was used as an instruction because Tepper defines abusive supervision as a hostile verbal or nonverbal behavior on the part of the supervisor. Each video was watched by a pair of the coders (one of the coders watched all the videos used to develop the scheme, and the remaining two coders each watched half). The coders’ ratings on the first subset of videos were assessed together, and only those behaviors identified as hostile by both coders in the pair were retained as part of the scheme. The coders took part in two additional rounds of coding using 20 videos per round in order to ensure that all possible categories of behaviors were identified. A total of 60 of the 127 subjects’ videos were used to develop the scheme (47%). In step three, the behaviors flagged as hostile by the coders were examined together and placed into categories. The labels assigned to the behaviors by the coders were used to develop the category names. The final coding scheme included the following six categories of hostile behaviors (example items): Physical Frustration (e.g., fidgeting, rhythmically tapping fingers on table), Verbal Frustration (e.g., aggressive time reminders), Physical Anger (e.g., clenching fists), Verbal Anger (e.g., raising voice), Rudeness (e.g., smirking, mumbling), and Lack of Sympathy (e.g., downplaying the seriousness of the subordinates’ situation). The full coding key can be found in Appendix 15. Measures The following sections describe the measures used for the manipulated and measured variables. A summary of the variables is provided at the end of this section in Table 3.4. Manipulated Variables Anger. Anger was manipulated by the administrator as described previously. Subjects were randomly assigned to either the no anger group (coded 1) or the anger group (coded 2). Justice Information. Justice information was manipulated by the actress as described previously. Subjects were randomly assigned to the objective justice information group (coded 1), the ambiguous justice information group (coded 2), or the objective injustice information group (coded 3). Measured Variables Interpersonal Justice from the Supervisor. Interpersonal justice from the supervisor was measured immediately following the experiment using four items from Colquitt’s (2001) measure of organizational justice perceptions. Subjects were asked to indicate the extent to which the study administrator acted according to each of four statements using a 1 (to a very small extent) to 5 (to a very large extent) scale. Example items include “to what extent did the administrator treat you in a polite manner” and “to what extent did the administrator treat you with respect.” (α = .94) Interpersonal Justice from the Subordinate. Interpersonal justice from the subordinate was measured immediately following the experiment using the same items described above.

Subjects were asked to indicate the extent to which their subordinate acted according to each of four statements using a 1 (to a very small extent) to 5 (to a very large extent) scale. Example items include “to what extent did the subordinate treat you in a polite manner” and “to what extent did the subordinate treat you with respect.” (α = .87). State Anger. Rupp and Spencer’s (2006) 9-item measure was used to assess subjects’ state anger immediately following the experiment. Subjects were asked to recall their interaction with the study administrator and then indicate how much they experienced each of the feelings described after the interaction on a 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much) scale. Example items include “I felt bitter” and “I felt resentful.” (α = .87). Abusive Supervision. The emergent coding scheme described previously was used to measure abusive supervisory behaviors. Two trained coders watched the entire sample of videos separately and were asked to flag each occurrence of the behaviors identified in the coding scheme under the appropriate category. The coders’ ratings were entered into a database by category so that reliability estimates could be calculated for each of the categories separately. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients provided evidence that each category was reliably coded. Therefore, the two coders’ ratings were averaged into one set of ratings. (α = .71). An exploratory factor analysis was performed to determine whether the abusive supervision data should be divided into sub-scales or combined into a single scale. Results of the factor analysis indicated the possibility of two factors. However, mixed loadings and lack of clear theoretical rationale for subdividing the scale into the two factors suggested by the analysis indicated that the data be analyzed as one factor. Furthermore, abusive supervision typically is viewed as a single-factor construct. Therefore, the pair of categorical ratings for each subject was averaged to form a single score. The final score was standardized for use in hypothesis testing. Reliability statistics can be found in Table 3.3.

TABLE 3.3 – RELIABILITY STATISTICS FOR ABUSIVE SUPERVISION CODING

ICCa Coding Categories

1. Physical Frustration .822 2. Verbal Frustration .744 3. Physical Anger .944 4. Verbal Anger .968 5. Rudeness .803 6. Lack of Sympathy .840

Composite Scale Scores .865

N = 127

The same 2 coders were used for each category aICC value for average measures

Hostile Attribution Bias. Adams and John’s (1997) 6-item scale was used to measure subjects’ hostile attribution biases prior to the experiment. The scale is a subset of the California

Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1957, 1987) and measures the extent to which an individual perceives other’s behaviors toward them as having hostile intent. Subjects were asked to indicate their agreement with each of the items using a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale. Example items include “I think most people would lie to get ahead” and “I have often found people jealous of my good ideas just because they had not found them first.” (α = .77).

TABLE 3.4 – DESCRIPTION OF STUDY VARIABLES

VARIABLE MEASUREMENT Manipulated Variables

1. Emotion 1 = no anger, 2 = anger 2. Justice Information 1 = objective justice info, 2 = ambiguous justice info, 3 = objective injustice info

Model Variables

1. Interpersonal Justice from Supervisor 1 to 5 Likert Type Scale 1 = to a very small extent, 5 = to a very large extent 2. Interpersonal Justice from Subordinate 1 to 5 Likert Type Scale 1 = to a very small extent, 5 = to a very large extent 3. State Anger 1 to 4 Likert Type Scale 1 = not at all, 4 = very much so 4. Abusive Supervision Total # of Behaviors Observed

5. Hostile Attribution Bias 1 to 5 Likert Type Scale 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS

This chapter proceeds according to the following steps. First, descriptive statistics, variable intercorrelations, and scale reliabilities are presented for the data. Results for the manipulation checks are discussed next. Finally, results for analyses of the study hypotheses are presented. A summary of hypothesis test results can be found in Appendix 16. Overview of the Data Descriptive statistics for the measured variables including means, standard deviations, and scale reliabilities are provided in Table 4.1. Construct reliability estimates were used to assess the internal consistency of the measures. All construct reliabilities were acceptable at levels above 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978).

TABLE 4.1 – DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR STUDY VARIABLES

Chronbach's Mean s.d. Min. Max. α Model Variables

1. Interpersonal Justice from Supervisor 4.03 1.10 1.25 5.00 0.94 (1 = less justice, 5 = more justice)

2. Interpersonal Justice from Subordinate 3.90 0.93 1.25 5.00 0.87 (1 = less justice, 5 = more justice)

3. State Anger 1.21 0.43 1.00 4.00 0.87 (1 = less anger, 4 = more anger)

4. Abusive Supervision 1.52 1.30 0.00 8.08 0.71 (0 = no abusive behaviors observed increasing #'s = increasing # of behaviors)

5. Hostile Attribution Bias 2.99 0.74 1.50 5.00 0.77 (1 = less bias, 5 = more bias)

N = 127 Reliability (α) for Abusive Supervision Scale using standardized items.

Variable intercorrelations are presented in Table 4.2. As expected, interpersonal justice from the supervisor was significantly negatively correlated with state anger (r = -.618; p < .001). Also as expected, interpersonal justice from the subordinate was significantly negatively correlated with abusive supervision (r = -.521; p < .001). Finally, interpersonal justice from the supervisor was significantly positively correlated with interpersonal justice from the subordinate (r = .391; p < .001). Although not directly hypothesized, this relationship makes sense conceptually. Decreases in interpersonal justice from the supervisor were used to manipulate subjects’ anger, and this anger led subjects to perceive decreased interpersonal justice from the subordinate. Finally, hostile attribution bias did not correlate significantly with any of the study

variables, but this does not rule out the possibility that it serves in its hypothesized moderating role.

TABLE 4.2 – THE PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION MATRIX

1 2 3 4 5 1 Interpersonal Justice from Supervisor 1.000 2 Interpersonal Justice from Subordinate .391* 1.000 3 State Anger -.618* -.129 1.000 4 Abusive Supervision -.118 -.521* -.036 1.000 5 Hostile Attribution Bias -.023 .123 .086 -.169 1.000 N = 127 * p < .001

Manipulation Checks Two variables were manipulated in this study: anger and justice information. For the anger manipulation to be effective, subjects exposed to interpersonal injustice from the administrator at the beginning of the study should be significantly angrier than subjects exposed to interpersonal justice from the administrator at the beginning of the study. In order to check the anger manipulation, an independent samples t-test was conducted comparing the mean state anger scores of subjects in the no anger group (M = 1.02; SD = .07) with the mean state anger scores of subjects in the anger group (M = 1.40; SD = .54). Results of the independent samples t- test presented in Table 4.3 indicate that the difference in means was statistically significant, with subjects in the anger group reporting significantly more anger than subjects in the no anger group( t(65) = 5.45; p < .001).

TABLE 4.3 – MANIPULATION CHECK FOR THE EMOTION MANIPULATION: INDEPENDENT SAMPLES T-TEST

Treatment Groups

No Anger Anger

Variable M SD M SD t(65)

State Anger a, b 1.02 .07 1.40 .54 5.45*

a 1 to 4 Likert Type Scale: 1 = not at all (less anger), 4 = very much so (more anger) b N = 127; † * p < .001 (two-tailed)

For the justice information manipulation to be effective, subjects should rate the objective justice information scenario as significantly fairer than the ambiguous justice information

scenario, and should rate the ambiguous justice information scenario as significantly fairer than the objective injustice information scenario. As described previously, the justice information manipulation was developed and checked with a pilot study. Results of the independent samples t-test conducted on the pilot data, as well as an additional test conducted on the study data, were presented along with a discussion of the pilot study in Chapter 3, Table 3.2. This manipulation also was found to be successful. Additional manipulation checks were performed to ensure that both the anger and justice information manipulations were equally successful for (1) subjects who participated at the beginning of the study time frame vs. subjects who participated at the end of the study time frame, and (2) subjects who were able to guess one or more of the study variables after the study vs. subjects who were not able to guess one or more of the study variables after the study. Results of these manipulation checks demonstrated that both manipulations were equally successful regardless of time frame or guessing. These results can be found in Appendix 17. Analysis of Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1 stated that negative interpersonal treatment should lead to anger. Simple linear regression was used to test this hypothesis. As evidence in Table 4.4, interpersonal justice from the supervisor (β= .618; p<.001; Adj R2 = .378) significantly predicted the dependent variable, explaining 37.8% of the variance in state anger.

TABLE 4.4 - RESULTS OF LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR HYPOTHESIS 1 PREDICTING STATE ANGER

Independent Variable β t p

Interpersonal Justice from Supervisor .618 8.799 < .001

2 Adj R = .378 < .001 N = 127

Analysis of Hypotheses 2 – 4 Hypothesis 2 stated that objective justice information should lead to perceptions of justice regardless of anger levels. Hypothesis 3 stated that ambiguous justice information should interact with emotion to affect justice perceptions such subjects those who are not angry should perceive more justice than subjects who are angry. Hypothesis 4 stated that objective injustice information should interact with emotion to affect justice perceptions such that subjects who are not angry should perceive more justice than subjects who are angry. A two-way, between-subjects ANOVA was conducted to examine the effect of anger levels and justice information on perceptions of interpersonal justice from the subordinate. The between-subjects factors were emotion, with two levels (anger and no anger), and scenario, with three levels (objective justice information, ambiguous justice information, and objective injustice information). As evidenced by the results presented in Table 4.5 below, the main effects for

emotion (F (1, 121) = 20.820; p < .001) and scenario (F (2, 121) = 48.053; p < .001 ) were both significant. The interaction between the two factors also was significant (F (2, 121) = 3.539; p < .05).

TABLE 4.5 - RESULTS OF TWO-WAY ANOVA FOR HYPOTHESES 2 – 4

Partial Source of Type II Sum Eta Variable Variation of Squares df MS F-value p Squared

IJ from Subordinate a Corrected Model 54.961b 5 10.992 24.424 < .001 .502 Intercept 1929.331 1 1929.331 4286.782 < .001 .973 Emotion 9.371 1 9.371 20.820 < .001 .147 Scenario 43.254 2 21.627 48.053 < .001 .443 Emotion*Scenario 3.186 2 1.593 3.539 < .05 .055 Error 54.458 121 .450 Total 2038.750 127 Corrected Total 109.419 126 a 1 to 5 Likert Type Scale: 1 = to a very small extent (less justice) 5 = to a very large extent (more justice) N = 127 b R2 = .502; Adjusted R2 = .482 Emotion: (1) No Anger, (2) Anger Scenario: (1) Objective Justice Info, (2) Ambiguous Justice Info, (3) Objective Injustice Info

Post-hoc tests were conducted to assess pair-wise mean differences using a Dunnett’s T3 test. Results are presented in Table 4.6 below. In support of Hypothesis 2, there was not a significant difference between the mean scores for interpersonal justice from the subordinate for subjects exposed to scenario 1 (i.e., objective justice information), regardless of anger levels. In this case, emotion and scenario did not interact. In support of Hypothesis 3, there was a significant difference between the mean scores for interpersonal justice from the subordinate for subjects exposed to scenario 2 (i.e., ambiguous justice information). As expected, subjects in the no anger group reported significantly more interpersonal justice from the subordinate than subjects in the anger group. Thus, emotion and scenario did interact in this case. In support of Hypothesis 4, there was a significant difference between the mean scores for interpersonal justice from the subordinate for subjects exposed to scenario 3 (i.e., objective injustice information). Subjects in the no anger group reported significantly more interpersonal justice from the subordinate than subjects in the anger group.

TABLE 4.6 – MULTIPLE COMPARISON RESULTS OF POST-HOC TESTS OF HYPOTHESES 2-4

Scenario/Variable Group n M SD SE p

Scenario 1 – Objective Justice Info No Anger 20 4.53 0.62 0.14 1.000 (Interpersonal Justice from Sub)a Anger 21 4.44 0.63 0.14

Scenario 2 – Ambiguous Justice Info No Anger 21 4.51 0.65 0.14 0.017 (Interpersonal Justice from Sub)a Anger 22 3.75 0.77 0.16

Scenario 3 – Objective Injustice Info No Anger 22 3.49 0.58 0.14 0.009 (Interpersonal Justice from Sub)a Anger 21 2.73 0.93 0.08 a 1 to 5 Likert Type Scale: 1 = to a very small extent (less justice), 5 = to a very large extent (more justice)

Figure 4.1 depicts the interaction graphically. The figure shows that the mean scores for interpersonal justice from the subordinate were not significantly different for subjects in the no anger and anger groups when subjects were exposed to objective justice information. The interaction between emotion and scenario becomes evident for subjects exposed to ambiguous and objective injustice information.

FIGURE 4.1 – GRAPH DEPICTING THE INTERACTION BETWEEN EMOTION AND SCENARIO

Analysis of Hypotheses 5 – 6 Hypothesis 5 states that decreases in justice perceptions from the subordinate should lead to increases in abusive supervision. Hypothesis 6 states that the relationship between justice perceptions and abusive supervision should be stronger for subjects with a hostile attribution bias. Hierarchical moderated regression was used to test these hypotheses, and results are presented in Table 4.7 below. All variables were standardized for use in the regression analysis. As evidenced by the correlation matrix presented previously in Table 4.2, two of the independent variables (i.e., interpersonal justice from supervisor and interpersonal justice from subordinate) were moderately correlated (r = .391; p < .001). This relationship was expected, and further analysis of multicollinearity diagnostics found no VIF values above 5 and no Tolerance values below .10. Therefore, multicollinearity was not expected to be a problem in the models. In order to account for temporally precedent experiences of interpersonal justice, and to rule out alternative explanations for the findings, interpersonal justice from the supervisor was entered into the first step of the analysis. Interpersonal justice from the supervisor was a significant predictor of abusive supervisory behaviors (β = -.194, p < .05; ΔR2 = .037, p < .05) and therefore was retained in the model. In the second step, interpersonal justice from the subordinate was entered into the model and was found to be a significant predictor of abusive supervisory behaviors (β = -.552, p < .001; ΔR2 = .259, p < .01). This supports the prediction of hypothesis 5. Also, in the second step, interpersonal justice from the supervisor became insignificant as a predictor of abusive supervisory behaviors (β = .023, p = .784). Hypothesis 6 was not found to be supported. Both the direct effect of hostile attribution bias (β = -.061; ΔR2 = .004, p = .431) and the interaction term (β = -.037; ΔR2 = .001, p = .638) did not add significantly to the predictive power of the model.

TABLE 4.7 - RESULTS OF HIERARCHICAL MODERATED REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR HYPOTHESES 5 & 6 PREDICTING ABUSIVE SUPERVISORY BEHAVIORS

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Adj Independent Variables β β β β R2 R2 ΔR2

Interpersonal Justice from Supervisor -.194* .023 .017 .018 .037 .030 .037*

Interpersonal Justice from Subordinate (A) -.552** -.541** -.549** .296 .285 .259**

Hostile Attribution Bias (B) -.061 -.057 .300 .282 .004

A x B -.037 .301 .278 .001

Values are standardized regression coefficients N = 127; *p <.05 **p <.001

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION

This study investigated the antecedents to abusive supervision from a new theoretical perspective. In this section, I will first discuss the results of the hypothesis tests and consider reasons why one of the relationships was found insignificant. Next I will provide a discussion of study strengths and limitations along with future research directions. Finally, I will consider the implications of the findings for practice. Findings Concerning the Antecedents to Abusive Supervision Results of the hypothesis tests indicated that organizational justice violations were indeed an important antecedent to abusive supervision. These findings support the accepted thinking that organizational justice plays a critical role in the abuse process. As hypothesized, interpersonal justice violations from the organization were related to supervisors’ experiences of anger. It also was found that anger influenced the ways in which supervisors interpreted, and reacted to, three different subordinate triggering behaviors representing three categories of justice information. Specifically, in support of study predictions, angry supervisors interpreted ambiguous and objective injustice information as significantly more unfair than non-angry supervisors. No difference was found for angry and non-angry supervisors’ interpretations of objective justice information, as was hypothesized. Interpretations of subordinates’ behaviors (justice judgments) were highly related to the occurrence of abusive supervisory behaviors. Thus, organizational justice from the subordinate demonstrated strong predictive power for abusive supervision. These findings indicate that our previous understanding of the antecedents to abuse was well-informed, as organizational justice does seem to play a critical role. However, what the present study also demonstrates is that key variables were missing from our models. Perhaps the reliance, to this point, on correlational studies precluded a complete perspective on why and how organizational justice violations lead to abuse. This lack of clarity prevented a full understanding of the underlying mechanisms affecting the likelihood of abuse. By employing an experimental design, this research was able to specifically examine the emotional and cognitive processes that seem to explain, at least partially, both why abuse results from justice violations (i.e., through emotions), and how abuse results from justice violations (i.e., through altered information processing). The final hypothesis was not supported. Hostile attribution bias was not found to moderate the relationship between organizational justice from the subordinate and abusive supervisory behaviors. This variable was found to moderate the organizational justice – abuse relationship in the work of previous authors and was therefore included in the present study. However, at least two reasons for insignificant findings are relevant. First, previous work tested the direct relationship between organizational justice from the organization and abusive supervision, while the current study investigated organizational justice from the subordinate as the most direct antecedent of abuse. It is logical to assume that the hostile attribution bias may not play the same role as the relationships of interest were different. Another reason for the insignificant findings may relate to the nature of data collection. The current study used a controlled, laboratory experiment, while the previous authors used a correlational survey study. Controlled experiments that use random assignment of subjects to levels of the independent variables, such as the present study, are designed to equate

experimental groups and evenly distribute the effects of outside influences on the relationships of interest. Perhaps this is the reason we did not see an influence of hostile attribution bias on the organizational justice – abuse relationship, as participants were randomly assigned to experience one of three levels of organizational justice that led directly to abusive behaviors. Additionally, the lack of moderation may indicate that situational variables have stronger influences on abuse than do dispositional factors. Other Interesting Findings Findings demonstrated that organizational justice from the subordinate was by far the most important predictor of abusive supervision in this study. The reason this finding is particularly interesting is that previous studies of the antecedents to abuse suggest that abusive supervisory behaviors occur as a result of organizational justice from the organization. The addition of a second interaction, one that occurs between the supervisor and the subordinate soon after the justice violation from the organization, may indicate that our previous models were mis- specified. The percentage of variance in abusive behaviors explained by organizational justice was in line with that found in the three previous studies. However, these previous studies did not measure organizational justice from the subordinate, but rather, organizational justice from the organization. Once organizational justice from the subordinate was included in the model, justice violations from the organization became far less important. Another interesting finding was the difference in mean justice perception scores between the pilot study data and the current study data (See Table 3.2). Subjects participating in the pilot study read vignettes describing situations similar to those portrayed in the experiment and rated interpersonal justice from the subordinate on the same scale of interpersonal justice used in the current study. Interestingly, the mean justice perception scores obtained from the pilot data were markedly lower (with lower numbers indicating less justice) than those obtained from the current study data. Individuals who read about a situation made more severe justice judgments than individuals who took part in a highly similar situation. This raises interesting questions about results garnered using different methods of data collection and highlights the importance of multi-method studies to understand the true nature of the relationships we study in the organizational sciences. Strengths and Limitations A major strength of this research is that it represents, to the researcher’s knowledge, the first experimental investigation of abusive supervision. Up to this point, researchers have relied on correlational, survey-based studies to explore the antecedents and consequences of abuse. The addition of a controlled laboratory experiment is important to this research stream for several reasons. In a recent editorial in the Academy of Management Journal, Colquitt (2008) implored organizational scholars to conduct more laboratory studies and reminded us of the importance of these studies for advancing organizational knowledge and theory. Colquitt presented several key points. First, as scholars grounded in theory, one of our main objectives is to demonstrate causal relationships among phenomena. Interestingly, causal inference remains elusive in scientific investigation. Certain conditions of the experiment, such as random assignment and experimenter control of the independent variable, help us rule out the possibility of reverse causality. Thus, we can be confident that our independent variable was the cause of our dependent variable. Second, laboratory studies allow us to measure actual behaviors as opposed to perceptions, self, and other-reports of behavior. Finally, by viewing results from field and

laboratory studies holistically, researchers can gain confidence in the validity of findings in a particular research domain (Denzin, 1978). Another strength of this research is that it provided support for previous antecedent studies while simultaneously addressing their limitations. The importance of organizational justice in the abuse process was again underscored by the findings, but our understanding of the mechanisms through which justice violations operate was enhanced. Also, the findings provided support for Tepper and colleagues’ (2006) suggestion that the victim may play an important role in determining whether abuse does or does not occur. With these findings, future studies of antecedents have a more complete model from which to base their investigations. A third strength of this research is that it provided the first test of the Affective Model of Justice Reasoning (Mullen, 2007). This theory is unique in several ways. First, Mullen’s ideas offer an avenue for testing a debate that has spanned 25 years of organizational inquiry (i.e., the primacy of affect vs. cognition). Results supported her prediction that affect could precede cognition, as was demonstrated by the finding that emotions biased the way supervisors interpreted justice information. Also, although studies demonstrating strong relationships between emotions and behaviors are plentiful in the organizational sciences, the AMJR provides a deeper understanding of how emotions may impact not only behaviors, but also cognitions. Finally, this theory provides abusive supervision researchers, and researchers studying trickle-down effects in other areas, with a new mechanism through which to explain current models. Previous studies of trickle-down effects in organizations have relied on modeling and attitude-based explanations. These theories, of course, provide some explanatory power and should not be excluded from future analyses. Instead, this research shows that previous theories should be combined with affective explanations to present a more complete picture of the many ways trickle-down effects can occur. The current study is not without limitations. First, the sample was comprised solely of undergraduate college students with little-to-no management experience. Although affective mechanisms are not believed to operate differently for managers and non-managers, studies of supervision may be more generalizable when actual managers make up the sample. Limitations also exist with regard to the way abusive supervision was conceptualized and measured. By definition, abusive supervision represents subordinates’ perceptions of sustained hostile behaviors aimed at them by their direct supervisors. Although the experiment was designed to place subjects in the role of supervisors interacting with direct subordinates, the two remaining components of the definition were not fully represented. First, this study did not measure sustained behaviors over a period of time. Rather, I investigated one isolated interaction between supervisor and subordinate. Perhaps the reasons abusive behaviors occurred in reaction to a single unfair event may be different from the reasons abusive behaviors occur when studied over a period of months or years. Another component that was not represented was the perceptual nature of the definition. Previous studies have measured abusive supervision as a subordinate perception, asking workers to rate the extent to which their supervisors engage in the behaviors listed in the measure. In the current study, the subordinate was played by an actress in the interest of manipulating the study variables of interest. Abusive behaviors were assessed by videotaping the supervisor-subordinate interaction and using raters to code the occurrence of abuse with an emergent coding scheme. Thus, abuse did not represent the traditional subordinate perception. The coding scheme also presents a limitation. Although the abuse measure used in this study was validated at all stages of development, it still represents an entirely new method for measuring abuse. Perhaps a different

group of naïve coders would have developed a completely different coding scheme. And perhaps a different pair of raters would have seen different amounts of abuse. Study limitations may be addressed in several ways. These are outlined in the following section presenting possible avenues for future research. Directions for Future Research The current study is not the first to examine abusive supervision from an organizational justice perspective. In his seminal work, Tepper (2000) established abuse as a special case of injustice experienced by employees, and subsequent research found that abuse was the result of unfair treatment in the workplace (e.g., Aryee et al., 2007; Tepper et al., 2006). The current study has attempted to refine our knowledge of the mechanisms through which justice impacts abuse and the types of justice violations that are perceived by supervisors in certain contexts. This work has expanded on Tepper’s (2007) emergent model of abusive supervision by demonstrating the need to include supervisors’ emotions as well as subordinates’ behaviors in our research on antecedents to abuse. However, additional studies will be required to gain a more sophisticated understanding of the role these variables play. Aryee and colleagues (2007) identified interactional justice as a predictor of abusive supervision. Building on this work, the current study examined interpersonal justice (a sub- category of interactional justice) as a predictor of abuse and demonstrated the tendency for interpersonal justice violations from the organization to influence perceptions of interpersonal justice from subordinates who exhibited certain behaviors. Interpersonal justice was chosen for this study because subordinates have the capacity to violate supervisors’ interpersonal justice norms (e.g., respectful, dignified treatment). Distributive and procedural justice violations involve rewards and the procedures used to determine reward allocation. In a normal supervisor-subordinate hierarchy, subordinates likely will not hold direct power over supervisors’ rewards or the decisions used to allocate them. Therefore, we may not expect to see the same pattern of relationships between justice violations from the organization and those from subordinates when these different types of justice are included. Future studies should examine the effects of both distributive and procedural justice violations on supervisors’ interpretations of subordinates’ behaviors. For example, it would be interesting to understand how procedural justice violations from the organization impact supervisors’ perceptions of justice from subordinates when those subordinates have no involvement in the procedures used to determine supervisors’ rewards. Does one type of justice violation (e.g., procedural) from the organization increase the likelihood that supervisors will perceive a different type of justice violation (e.g., interpersonal) from subordinates? Furthermore, do all types of justice violations lead to abusive supervision, or are some more likely than others to trigger this behavior? Investigations of this nature also would help to refine the boundary conditions of the AMJR. Future studies also should examine a range of emotions to better understand additional types of affect that may engender abuse and how the process of abuse found in the current study may differ when other emotions are at play. Tepper and colleagues (2006) included depression as a mediating variable in the justice violation—abuse relationship and acknowledged that depression involves general negative feeling states such as sadness. It is logical to assume that supervisors’ experiences of different types of justice violations from their organizations may ignite varied emotions including sadness, fear, and/or embarrassment, and these emotions may affect the likelihood of abusive behaviors in various ways. For example, if supervisors experience embarrassment in front of their subordinates as a result of an organizational justice

violation, are they more likely to avoid contact with subordinates altogether rather than behave abusively toward them? The manipulation of different emotional states would lend significantly to our understanding of the affective mechanisms underlying the abuse process. Although Tepper and colleagues (2006) indirectly included subordinates’ behaviors as antecedents to abusive supervision, the current study is the first to specifically study the role that subordinates play in their own experiences of abuse. Therefore, much work is needed in order to understand the role that subordinates play in the abuse process. Future studies should investigate additional subordinate behaviors and characteristics that may provoke or hinder the likelihood of abuse. These studies may proceed in a multitude of directions. For example, do certain subordinate personality characteristics increase the likelihood that they will experience abuse from their supervisors, or, rather, is the match between supervisor and subordinate personalities more important? Also, do subordinates’ previously-established relationships with their supervisors affect the likelihood that supervisors will interpret their behaviors as, more or less, unfair than other subordinates who have different types of relationships with those same supervisors? These represent only a fraction of the avenues for future research on subordinates’ roles in the abuse process. Future studies should include individuals who are employed in a management capacity. Studies of supervision may be more widely accepted and generalizable when their subjects include supervisory workers. One possible method may be a qualitative study of the current variables viewed from inside an actual organization. Observational data may be combined with measures of subordinates’ perceptions of abuse and supervisors’ perceptions of organizational justice from both their organizations and their employees. This would allow for observation of behaviors as well as perceptual data which may address limitations regarding the measurement of abuse and the use of students in the current study. Finally, subsequent work should continue to refine and validate the coding scheme used to measure abusive supervisory behaviors in this study. This measure could be used to code abusive behaviors in varied settings using multiple raters in order to determine its usefulness in measuring abusive supervision. Implications for Practice The current findings have several implications for management practice. First, the importance of fairness cannot be overestimated at all hierarchical levels. This research has demonstrated empirically that justice violations trickle down from the top and continue to impact seemingly unrelated individuals at lower organizational levels. Organizations that focus their efforts on fair treatment for lower-level workers but continue to mistreat their supervisory employees will do little to solve the problem. Another implication for practicing managers is the importance of emotional awareness. Abusive supervision may arise, at least at times, when subordinates’ behaviors trigger hostile responses. An increased awareness of emotions, such as anger, and their effects on reactive behaviors, may help managers to gain better control over their actions when faced with justice violations from their organizations. Finally, the use of a student sample in the current study may be of use to organizations. Most of the subjects were business majors, and they were found prone to react to justice violations with hostility toward their subordinates. These undergraduate business students represent the next generation of working professionals. Therefore, their behaviors may be highly indicative of how they will behave when faced with similar situations in the working world. This upcoming generation demands fair treatment and seems to react to a lack of fairness in ways that have previously been shown to be highly damaging for work organizations. This study may

provide a glimpse into the future for organizations and allow them the chance to remedy fairness issues within their walls before it is too late. Conclusions This research provided a more thorough understanding of the antecedents to abusive supervision and the roles that organizational justice and emotions play in the process. These findings are useful to scholars and practitioners in numerous ways and address an issue facing many current day organizations. It is my hope that the results presented here will open the door to a plethora of studies that can improve and build on the way we conceptualize and remedy abuse as well as other forms of dysfunctional behavior in the workplace.

APPENDIX 1 SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES

H1: Supervisors who experience low levels of interpersonal justice from their superiors will experience more state anger than supervisors who experience high levels of interpersonal justice from their superiors.

H2: Angry supervisors confronted with objective justice information from their subordinates will not perceive significantly lower levels of interpersonal justice from their subordinates than non-angry supervisors.

H3: Angry supervisors confronted with ambiguous justice information from their subordinates will perceive significantly lower levels of interpersonal justice from their subordinates than non-angry supervisors.

H4: Angry supervisors confronted with objective injustice information from their subordinates will perceive significantly lower levels of interpersonal justice from their subordinates than non-angry supervisors.

H5: Decreases in supervisors’ perceptions of interpersonal justice from their subordinates will be lead to increases in abusive supervisory behaviors.

H6: The negative relationship between perceptions of interpersonal justice from the subordinate and abusive supervisory behaviors will be moderated by hostile attribution bias. Specifically: The relationship will be stronger for supervisors with a hostile attribution bias than for supervisors that do not possess a hostile attribution bias.

APPENDIX 2 APPLICATION TO AND APPROVAL FROM HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE

Application

Human Subjects Application For Full IRB and Expedited Exempt Review

1. Project Title and Identification 1.1 Project Title

An Experimental Investigation of Abusive Supervision as an Emotional Reaction to Injustice

Project is: Dissertation

1.2 Principal Investigator (PI) Name(Last name, First name MI): Highest Earned Degree: Breaux, Denise Marie Master's Degree Mailing Address: Phone Number: 350 RBB, College of Business (850) 644-5505 Fax:

University Department: Email: COLLEGE OF BUSINESS [email protected] The training and education completed in the protection of human subjects or human Occupational Position: subjects records: Student None

1.3 Co-Investigators/Research Staff

1.4 Faculty Advisor/Department Chair/Dean Information Name(Last name, First name MI): Highest Earned Degree: Perrewe, Pamela L; Advisor Mailing Address: Phone Number: 350 RBB College of Business (850) 644-7848 Fax:

University Department: Email: COLLEGE OF BUSINESS [email protected] The training and education completed in the protection of human subjects or human Occupational Position: subjects records:

2. Funding 2.1 Is this research funded by an internal (FSU) or external agency?

How costs of research will be covered? The researcher will apply for a dissertation grant in the amount of $500. The costs of the research will be paid for by this grant. If the grant is denied, the costs of the research will be paid for by the College of Business.

3. Institutional Oversight

3.1 Is this research proposal being reviewed by any other institution or peer review committee?

4. Conflict of Interest

Federal guidelines encourage Institutions to assure there are no conflicts of interest in research projects that could adversely affect the rights and welfare of human subjects. If this proposed research study involves a potential conflict of interest, additional information will need to be provided to the IRB. Examples of potential conflicts of interest may include: any sort of compensation, in cash or other form, for services to an individual and his or her immediate family, the value of which exceeds $10,000 in a one-year period or an equity interest which exceeds $10,000 or which exceeds a five percent ownership interest.

4.1 Do any of the Investigators or personnel listed on this research have a potential conflict of interest associated with this study?

5. Payment or Other Compensation for Research Subjects

5.1 Will you give subjects gifts, payments, compensation, reimbursement, services without charge or extra credit/class credit?

Yes

Explanation: Students who volunteer to participate in this research will be given the choice of extra class credit (3% added to final grade) or a monetary reward in the amount of $5.00. Students who do not wish to participate will be given an alternate opportunity to receive the extra class credit (3% added to final grade) or the monetary reward in the amount of $5.00. Students who choose the alternate opportunity will be able to read a published article related to the current study variables and to write a 1 page summary of the article.

6. Protocol Description and Other Detail

6.1 Describe the objective(s) of the proposed research including purpose, research question, hypothesis, method, data analysis, research design and relevant background information etc. The purpose of the research is to learn more about the antecedents that contribute to managers' willingness and justification for treating subordinates differently, some more harshly than others. Organizational researchers have investigated these behaviors under the title "Abusive Supervision" for over 9 years, and researchers are becoming increasingly interested in the causes of these behaviors. Although referred to as "abusive," this term does not include any behaviors that are physically harmful or legally defensible (i.e., does not include physical violence or sexual harassment). Rather, Abusive Supervision refers to behaviors such as ignoring subordinates, taking credit for their successes, and blaming them for your own mistakes. The general research questions are: (1) Is Organizational Justice an antecedent to Abusive Supervision; (2) Do subordinate behaviors play a role in the Justice--Abusive Supervision relationship? The method of study will be a controlled laboratory experiment. The data will be analyzed using ANOVA, a common statistical technique for experimental data analysis. The design will consist of a 2x3 factorial design. The study will consist of 2 manipulations. These are discussed in 6.5 and are included as attachments.

6.2 Following categories will apply for the evaluation of the project:

- Filming, Video or Audio recording of Subjects - Questionnaires or Surveys to be administered - Subjects studied at FSU - Students as Subjects

6.3 Survey Techniques: the only involvement of human subjects will be in the following categories:

- Research involving survey or interview procedures

Research involving survey or interview procedures:

1. Responses will be recorded in such a manner that human subjects cannot be identified, by persons other than the researcher, either directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects. Yes

2. Would subjects' responses, if they became known outside the research, reasonable place the subject at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing or employability. No

3. The research deals with sensitive aspects of the subject's own behavior, such as illegal conduct, drug use, sexual behavior, or use of alcohol. No

6.4 This study will include following methods:

- Experimental/Control Design - Quantitative

6.5 Describe the tasks subjects will be asked to perform. Upload surveys, instruments, interview questions, focus group questions etc. Describe the frequency and duration of procedures, psychological tests, educational tests, and experiments; including screening, intervention, follow-up etc. (If you intend to pilot a process before recruiting for the main study please explain.)

One week before the experiment takes place, students who volunteer to participate as subjects will sign up for a time-slot during a 4-week period and will be asked to complete a short questionnaire consisting of variables such as age, gender, and ethnicity (attached). The students will each be given a random, 4-digit number and they will save this number as their identifier. They will record this number on the survey, and will be identified with this number during the experiment. This is how the data from the questionnaire and the data from the experiment will be linked. In order to receive extra credit/bonus, participants will place a "check" next to their name on a roster before they begin the experiment. The subjects will be asked to report to room 1 for the study at their selected time slot. The researcher of the study will serve as the administrator of the first manipulation during this time. Subjects will be randomly assigned to and will experience one of the following two conditions: anger or no anger. This manipulation will be woven throughout the instructions for the second part of the study which will be given orally during this time by the administrator (script for Manipulation 1 attached). Subjects will be informed that they are participating in a study of management and organizations and that their role in the study will be that of the supervisor. They also will be informed that they will be interacting with a second study participant (i.e., an actor) who will be in the role of the subordinate. During this interaction, the subjects will be required to teach their subordinate a skill and the subordinate will have to successfully complete a skill test. Subjects will be informed that their reward hinges on the subordinate’s successful completion of the task. (In reality, all subjects will receive the reward). The skill that the administrator will teach the subjects is how to complete a Sudoku puzzle. The administrator will use instructions based upon those found at a popular Sudoku website called Strictly Sudoku (www.strictlysudoku.com). The first manipulation is contained in the Sudoku instructions given orally by the administrator (Attached). This manipulation has been used successfully in previous published organizational research (e.g., Colquitt, Scott, Judge, & Shaw, 2006). In step 3, after receiving their instructions (i.e., the first manipulation), the subjects will report to a separate room for the second manipulation. The other participant (the actor) will be waiting for them. The pair will be instructed that they have 20 minutes to complete the training and skill test, and that both of their rewards depend on successful completion of the test (again, in reality, all subjects will receive the reward). At this point, the subjects will experience the second manipulation. Subjects will randomly experience one of three conditions: objective justice information, ambiguous justice information, or objective injustice information. The conditions will be represented by the actor’s words during a fake telephone conversation with a relative (attached). The purpose of the actor's telephone conversation is to prolong the completion of the task; in reality, the task is impossible to complete, so all participants will fail. The entire interaction will be videotaped because, as will be explained by the administrator, the results must be on video for proper analysis. In reality, the camera is intended to capture the subjects’ reactions to the second manipulation. These reactions will represent the dependent variable – abusive supervision. Typical reactions in this type of study include eye-rolling, spoken frustration, and name-calling. In step 4, the subjects will be asked to complete a short survey concerning the study (attached). This survey will include manipulation checks, as well as a measure of interpersonal justice and justifications for future supervisory behaviors. Following this step, subjects will return to Room 1 where they will be thoroughly debriefed by the experimenter (myself) and given their reward before being dismissed from the experiment. The researcher plans to pilot the entire study, upon IRB approval, before the actual experiment takes place.

6.6 How many months do you anticipate this research study will last from the time final approval is granted? 12

7. Participant (Subject) Population

7.1 Expected number of participants

Number of male: 100 Number of female: 100 Expected number of participants: 200

7.2 Expected Age Range - 18-65

7.3 Inclusion/Exclusion of Children in this Research Exclusion

If this study would exclude children, NIH guidelines advise that the exclusion be justified, so that potential for benefit is not unduly denied. Indicate whether there is potential for direct benefit to subjects in this study and if so, provide justification for excluding children. Note that

if inclusion of children is justified, but children are not seen in the PI's practice, the sponsor must address plans to include children in the future or at other institutions.

- No direct benefit established (exclusion of children permissible)

Provide justification for exclusion of children: The intent is to study behaviors of individuals in a managing occupation or situation in an organizational setting. Children, typically, do not work full time, and the employment that children choose, typically, is not part of their future career when in adulthood.

7.4 Other Protected Populations to be Included in this Research

7.5 Inclusion and Exclusion of Subjects in this Research Study

Describe criteria for inclusion and exclusion of subjects in this study

Inclusion Criteria: FSU students enrolled in two Summer, 2009 Organizational Behavior courses in the FSU College of Business.

Exclusion Criteria: Other FSU students or any other individuals.

7.6 Location of subjects during research activity or location of records to be accessed for research

- Florida State University

7.7 Describe the rationale for using each location checked above Upload copies of IRB approvals or letters of cooperation from other agencies or sites, if it has been granted or the application submitted if approval has not been granted.

Because students in the College of Business who are currently taking courses within the College of Business will be volunteers, the experiment will take place in the College of Business.

8. Recruitment of Participants (Subjects)

8.1 Describe the recruitment process to be used for each group of subjects Upload a copy of any and all recruitment materials to be used e.g. advertisements, bulletin board notices, e-mails, letters, phone scripts, or URLs.

Students enrolled in (2) sections of Organizational Behavior in the Summer, 2009 session will be given the opportunity to participate in the study. Students will be informed of this opportunity at the beginning of the semester by their instructors. The instructors will be given a printed announcement (attached) to distribute to their students. This announcement will inform the students of the opportunity to participate in the experiment as well as the alternate opportunity if they do not wish to participate.

8.2 Explain who will approach potential subjects to take part in the research study and what will be done to protect individuals' privacy if required in this process Students' professors will approach them as a group during their class period to inform them that they will have the opportunity to volunteer for the research study. Those who volunteer as subjects will never be identified by name, or any other identifier that may be easily accessed. Rather, students who elect to participate will be given a unique, random, 4-digit number and be asked to remember this number. They will write this number down on all study materials, but will never be asked to provide any other identifying information such as a name, social security number, etc. All study materials (i.e., surveys, videotapes) will be kept in a locked university office in a locked file cabinet and will be destroyed no later than January 1, 2010.

8.3 Are subjects chosen from records?

8.4 FSU policy prohibits researchers from accepting gifts for research activities. Is the study sponsor offering any incentive connected with subject enrollment or completion of the research study (i.e. finders fees, recruitment bonus, etc.) that would be paid directly to the research staff?

9. Risks and Benefits

9.1 The research may involve following possible risks or harms to subjects:

- Use of a deceptive technique. - Manipulation of psychological or social variables such as sensory deprivation, social isolation, psychological stresses

9.2 Does Research Involve Greater Than Minimal Risk to Human Subjects?

"Minimal Risk" means that the risks of harm anticipated in the proposed research are not greater, considering probability and magnitude, than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests.

9.3 Explain what steps will be taken to minimize risks or harms and to protect subjects' welfare. If the research will include protected populations (see question 7.4) please identify each group and answer this question for each group. The researcher has taken several steps to minimize risks or harms and to protect subjects' welfare. Subjects can terminate their participation in the study at any time without penalty, and will be made aware of this before they begin their participation in the study. Subjects who choose to terminate their participation will still receive their reward. Subjects will be thoroughly debriefed by the researcher immediately after they complete their part in the experiment. In addition, the researchers will use manipulations used and validated by previous published researchers in top Management journals.

9.4 Describe the anticipate benefits of this research for individual subjects in each subject group. If none, state "None". Individual subjects may contact me if they are interested in receiving a copy of the study results. Subjects also will obtain a better understanding of the research process by participating in the study. Managers can benefit from understanding why they may treat some subordinates differently than others and may use the results to improve their management skills.

9.5 Describe the anticipated benefits of this research for society, and explain how the benefits outweigh the risks. The results of this research will contribute to society by expanding our knowledge of what motivates managerial behaviors toward subordinates. Organizations will gain a better understanding of the factors that contribute to dysfunctional supervisory behaviors in their organizations and will learn that treating their supervisory employees fairly is an important first step in promoting fair supervisor- subordinate relationships.

10. Confidentiality of Data

10.1 Will you record any direct identifiers, names, social security numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, cookies etc.?

10.2 Will you retain a link between study code numbers and direct identifiers after the data collection is complete?

10.3 Will you provide the link or identifier to anyone outside the research team?

10.4 Where, how long, and in what format (such as paper, digital or electronic media, video, audio, or photographic) will data be kept? In addition, describe what security provisions will be taken to protect this data (password protection, encryption, etc.) The questionnaire portion of the data will be collected in paper form and stored in a locked, university office until it is entered into a database. Once entered into a database, the database will be stored on a password protected computer that is accessible only to myself, the primary researcher. After being entered into the database, the paper questionnaires will be destroyed. The paper questionnaires will be kept no later than January 1, 2010. The videotaped portion of the experiment will be stored in a locked university office until it is coded by the researcher and entered into a database. Once entered into a database, the videotapes will be erased no later than January 1, 2010.

10.5 Will you place a copy of the consent form or other research study information in the subjects' record such as medical, personal or educational record?

10.6 If the data collected contains information about illegal behavior, please refer to the NIH Certificates of Confidentiality Kiosk for information about obtaining a Federal Certificate of Confidentiality.

11. Use of Protected Health Information (PHI): HIPAA Requirements

In the course of conducting research, researchers may desire to obtain, create, use, and/or disclose individually identifiable health information. Under the HIPAA Privacy Rule, covered entities (healthcare providers, health plans, employer or healthcare clearinghouses) are permitted to use and disclose protected health information for research with individual authorization, or without individual authorization under limited circumstances set forth in the Privacy Rule.

11.1 As part of this study, will you be accessing PHI from a covered entity for research purposes?

12. Informed Consent Process

12.1 Recognizing that consent itself is a process of communication, please expand on your responses to questions 8.1 and 8.2 and describe what will be said to the subjects to introduce the research. Announcement: Students, today you will hear about an opportunity to participate in a research study in the College of Business. A research study of organizations and management will be taking place beginning one week from today and will last approximately 4 weeks. If you choose to participate in this study, you will be asked to sign up for a time slot using a random identification number. In exchange for your participation in the research study, you will have the opportunity to earn either (1) 3 percentage points added to your final course grade, or (2) a $5.00 monetary reward. If you would rather not participate in the research study, you will still have the opportunity to earn your choice of these two rewards by reading an academic journal article and writing a 1-page summary of the article.

12.2 In relation to the actual data gathering, when will consent be discussed and documentation obtained? (e.g., mailing out materials, delivery of consent form, meetings)

Subjects will be given a consent form (attached) before they begin the experiment. They will be asked to read over the consent for and sign it, and then will place it into a covered box. The administrator will be available to answer any questions or provide any clarification about the consent form.

12.3 Please name the specific individuals who will obtain informed consent and include their job title/credentials and a brief description of your plans to train these individuals to obtain informed consent and answer subject's questions: The primary researcher will obtain informed consent. No other individuals will be asked to obtain informed consent from the subjects.

12.4 What questions will you ask to assess the subjects' understanding of the risks and benefits of participation? To assess risks: What are your concerns, if any, about the purpose or confidentiality of this study.

To assess benefits: Why would you choose to participate in this study? What do you think you can learn from participation?

Appendix: Use of Deception

Subjects must be told the purpose of the study, the reason for the deception and given an opportunity to withdraw their data from the project. (For guidance, APA Ethical Standard 8.07)

1. Explain the scientific rationale for deceiving the study subjects. Which aspects of study procedures will be withheld from subjects? Why?

Subjects will be told that they will have an opportunity to "possibly" receive a reward (either 3% extra credit or $5.00) if they succeed in the experiment. In actuality, all study subjects will receive their choice of reward. We feel it necessary to deceive subjects regarding reward receipt because we are trying to test a realistic manager-subordinate situation in which the manager's bonus depends on the subordinate's success. It is critical to the experiment that the subjects don’t think they will definitely get their reward…this will motivate them to act as managers over their subordinates in order to get their subordinates to complete the task successfully.

2. Describe when the subjects will be told the true purpose of the study, the reason for the deception and explain how they will be informed and by whom. (Upload a copy of the material or script to be used) The subjects will be told the true purpose of the study (debriefed) after data collection is complete (4-week period). However, we DO plan to inform the subjects that they WILL in fact receive their reward immediately upon their completion of the experiment. At this point, we will explain to them that we cannot reveal the true purpose of the study until after all the data have been collected. After all data collected in 4 weeks, I, the primary researcher, will go to the classroom and tell all of the students about the study, including the purpose and any other information they would like to know. I also will send out an email for those students who weren’t in class on the day of debriefing. According to section 8.07 C of the APA Ethical Principles, it is acceptable to wait to debrief subjects until all data are collected if doing so earlier would jeopardize the conclusions of study. We do not anticipate any severe emotional distress resulting from the debriefing being put off until the end of data collection because all participants will know that they did in fact receive their choice of reward immediately upon their completion of the experiment.

3. Describe how and when subjects will be given an opportunity to withhold use of the data gathered under deceptive conditions. Students will never be identified by their names, but rather, by a random 4-digit number. During the debriefing, subjects will be informed that although the data are completely confidential, they may withdraw their data if they feel uncomfortable for any reason. The researcher will have a sealed box with a slot at the top that subjects can put a piece of paper into with their personal number if they want to withhold their data.

4. Upload the full debriefing "protocol" or explanation that will be provided to subjects.

Approval Letter

Office of the Vice President For Research Human Subjects Committee Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742 (850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392

APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date: 7/6/2009

To: Denise Breaux [[email protected]]

Address: 350 RBB, College of Business Dept.: COLLEGE OF BUSINESS

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research An Experimental Investigation of Abusive Supervision as an Emotional Reaction to Injustice

The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the research proposal referenced above has been reviewed by the Human Subjects Committee at its meeting on 05/13/2009. Your project was approved by the Committee.

The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be required.

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting research subjects.

If the project has not been completed by 5/12/2010 you must request a renewal of approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the Committee.

You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.

By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor is reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.

This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance Number is IRB00000446.

Cc: Pamela Perrewe, Advisor [[email protected]] HSC No. 2009.2418

APPENDIX 3 EXTRA CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT

WHAT: A study currently being conducted by FSU College of Business researchers

WHEN: The study will take place for approximately 3 weeks during this summer session

WHERE: INSIDE the College of Business!

WHAT’S IN IT FOR YOU ??? Up to 3% extra course credit (enough to change a letter grade)

REQUIREMENTS: A little bit of your time. That’s it! You will be asked to:

1. Complete a pre-study online survey – approx 30 minutes 2. Sign up online for a time-slot for the study – approx 2 minutes 3. Show up at your time slot to participate in the study – approx 45 minutes

THAT’S IT!!!!

For LESS THAN 1.5 HOURS of your time, you have the chance to get enough extra credit to boost your LETTER GRADE at the end of the term! If you are interested in participating, please FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS:

STUDY INSTRUCTIONS

1. Complete the pre-study, anonymous, online survey (A link to the survey can be found on your course Blackboard site) BEFORE TUESDAY, JULY 7TH

• At the end of the survey, you will be asked to provide 2 pieces of info:

i. The course for which you are receiving extra credit ii. The 4 digit identifier that will be assigned to you by your professor

• This info allows your identity to remain COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS while still allowing the researchers to let your instructor know that you have participated

2. Sign up online for a time slot to participate in the study (A link to the sign-up sheet can be found on your course Blackboard site) BEFORE TUESDAY, JULY 7TH

• First, select a time slot to participate. The study goes on for several weeks so you will be able to choose a time that works for you. • Next, you will be asked for some info. DO NOT provide your first or last name!!!! Your identity should be anonymous. Instead:

i. Please provide your 4-digit identifier ii. Please provide the name of the course for which you are receiving credit iii. In the EMAIL blank, please provide an email address that you check daily. This will allow us to REMIND you the day before your study time-slot.

• Again, this info allows your identity to remain COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS while allowing the researchers to let your instructor know you have participated

3. Show up ON TIME for the time slot you have chosen

This is the final stage in your study participation and will require about 45 minutes.

APPENDIX 4 PRE EXPERIMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Warm Greetings from the College of Business at FSU:

Please take the time to help us collect data for a very important scientific study on management in organizations. Please note:

The survey should take about 5-10 minutes to complete.

Information gathered during this study will be combined with the responses of others for research purposes only. Once the surveys are collected, they will be stored on a database for analysis. Once the analysis is complete, all data will be destroyed.

This survey is completely anonymous. Your privacy is ensured to the extent allowed by law. Your participation is voluntary. There will be no attempt to identify you. If you would like summary results of this research, please contact the researchers. If any part of the survey causes you discomfort, please do not complete it.

Oftentimes respondents feel that a survey may contain trick items or questions of questionable merit. I guarantee that this is not the case here. Please address each statement carefully, but do not spend considerable time on any particular question.

For this project to be successful, it is necessary for you to respond as honestly as possible, even if the information you provide is not favorable. Again, your identity is unknown to the researchers, and all of your responses are completely anonymous.

Once complete, please follow the instructions provided in order to sign up for a time-slot for the second part of the study.

Completion of this survey indicates your consent. If you are not over 18 years of age, please do not participate in this research.

Thank you very much for your participation in this research project and for your support of FSU academic research. If you have any questions concerning the research study, please feel free to contact the researchers at (850) 644-7848 ([email protected]). You may also contact Peggy Haire at the Human Subjects Committee at Florida State University if you have additional concerns at (850) 644-8673 ([email protected]).

Thank you for your participation.

______

1. What is your gender? ___1__ Male ___2__ Female

2. What is your age?

__1__ 18 – 24 __2__ 25 – 31 __3__ 32 – 38 __4__ 39 – 45 __5__ 46 – 52 __6__ 53 – 59 __7__ 60 +

3. What is your ethnicity?

__1__ White/Caucasian __2__ African-American __3__ Hispanic

__4__ Asian/Pacific Islander __5__ Native American/Alaskan __6__ Other

4. What is your college major? ______

5. What is your current Grade Point Average? ______

6. Think of all the jobs you have had in your lifetime. Please choose the response that best describes your lifetime management/supervisory employment experience (this includes any type of supervisory position where 1 or more employees were under your supervision and reported to you on a regular basis):

__1__ I do not have any management/supervisory experience __2__ I have minimal management/supervisory experience (< 1 year) __3__ I have some management/supervisory experience (< 5 years) __4__ I have a great deal of management/supervisory experience ( 5 or more years)

7. The following items describe ways people may feel. Please indicate how much you agree with each statement about yourself using the rating scale provided. Describe yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe yourself as honestly as possible: Adams, S. H., & John, O. P. (1997). A hostility scale for the California Psychological Inventory: MMPI, observer q-sort, and big five correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 408-424. Neither Agree nor Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Disagree

1 2 3 4 5

_____ I commonly wonder what hidden reason another person may have for doing something nice for me _____ Most people are honest chiefly through fear of being caught _____ I think most people would lie to get ahead _____ I have often found people jealous of my good ideas, just because they had not found them first _____ People pretend to care more about one another than they really do _____ A person is better off if he doesn’t trust anyone

APPENDIX 5 REMINDER EMAIL SENT TO PARTICIPANTS

Subject: REMINDER – STUDY DATE AND TIME – PLEASE READ

Study participant:

Your have signed up to participate in the research study on the following date / time:

Day, Month, Date @ Time am/pm

Report to room # XXX in the College of Business.

Please do not knock on the door --- please have a seat in the chair marked "PLEASE SIT IN THIS CHAIR ONLY IF YOU ARE WAITING FOR THE RESEARCH STUDY." One of the researchers will come out to get you when ready.

Late arrivals will NOT be able to participate in the study.

Please send an email to this address if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Research Team

APPENDIX 6 INFORMED CONSENT FORM

I freely and voluntarily and without any element of force or coercion, consent to be a participant in this project entitled “Management and Organizations: Delegating Tasks and Ensuring Successful Completion.”

Denise M. Breaux, who is a Ph.D. candidate at Florida State University, is conducting the research. I understand that I will be asked to learn to complete a Sudoku puzzle. This training will last approximately 5-10 minutes. I will then be asked to teach this new skill to a subordinate, also a participating student. Finally, I will be asked to administer a skill test to my subordinate to assess the effectiveness of my instructions. I understand that I will not be allowed to complete the skill test for the subordinate. Rather, I will take a supervisory role and will only be allowed to make suggestions to the subordinate during the skill test. I understand that if my subordinate successfully completes the skill test, I will receive my choice of 3 extra percentage points in my Organizational Behavior class, or a $5 monetary reward. At the end of the study, I understand that I will be asked to complete a short questionnaire. I understand that the entire study, from beginning to end, will take approximately 30 minutes of my time.

I understand that my participation is totally voluntary and I may stop participation at any time. All of my responses to the questionnaire as well as my experimental data will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law. I will be identified by an identification number only. My name will not appear on any of the results. No individual responses will be reported. Only group findings will be reported. Group results will be sent to me upon request.

I understand that this consent may be withdrawn at any time without prejudice or penalty. I understand that I may contact, now or in the future, Denise M. Breaux, Florida State University Department of Management, [email protected], for answers to questions about the project or my rights. If I have any questions or concerns and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher regarding questions about the project I am encouraged to contact the FSU IRB at (850) 644 8633 or by email at [email protected] I may also contact the researcher’s major professor, Dr. Pamela Perrewé, Florida State University, College of Business, 350 RBA, (850) 644-7848.

I have read and understand this consent form and give my consent to participate in this study.

______Subject

______Date

APPENDIX 7 SUDOKU PUZZLES

Training Puzzle

INSTRUCTIONS

The objective of the game is to fill all the blank squares with the correct numbers. There are three simple constraints to follow:

• Every row of 9 numbers must include all digits 1 through 9 in any order • Every column of 9 numbers must include all digits 1 through 9 in any order • Every 3 by 3 subsection of the 9 by 9 square must include all digits 1 through 9

Practice Puzzle

INSTRUCTIONS

The objective of the game is to fill all the blank squares with the correct numbers. There are three simple constraints to follow:

Skills Test

INSTRUCTIONS

The objective of the game is to fill all the blank squares with the correct numbers. There are three simple constraints to follow:

APPENDIX 8 INSTRUCTIONS HANDED TO STUDY PARTICIPANTS

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE MANAGER

1. Study begins when research assistant leaves the room

2. You have EXACTLY 5 MINUTES to train your subordinate to do Sudoku on the Practice Puzzle

• Teach him/her the rules of Sudoku • Demonstrate filling in puzzle • Try to work through the puzzle together • Teach him/her any tricks or hints that may help

3. A KNOCK AT THE DOOR means STOP TRAINING

4. Subordinate must use REMAINING 8 MINUTES to work the Skills Test Puzzle

• You may NOT write on the Skills Test Puzzle • You may NOT tell subordinate where to put the numbers • You ARE ALLOWED to remind him/her of:

o Rules of Sudoku o Tricks & Hints

5. Research assistant will return when time is up. At this time:

• Place BOTH puzzles back into your manila folder • Gather your belongings • Follow research assistant’s instructions

______

Subordinate MUST FINISH PUZZLE CORRECTLY for you to get your points

********

APPENDIX 9 POST EXPERIMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

The following items refer to your interaction with the administrator at the beginning of the study (the man/woman who initially trained you to do the puzzle). Please respond by filling in each blank using the scale below. Interpersonal Justice: Adapted from Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.

To a Very Small Extent To a Small Extent To a Moderate Extent To a Large Extent To a Very Large Extent

1 2 3 4 5 . To what extent:

1. Did the administrator treat you in a polite manner? _____

2. Did the administrator treat you with dignity? _____

3. Did the administrator treat you with respect? _____

4. Did the administrator refrain from improper remarks or comments? _____

______

The following items refer to your interaction with the administrator at the beginning of the study. (the man/woman who initially trained you to do the puzzle). Please respond by filling in each blank using the scale below. State Anger: Adapted from Rupp, D. E., & Spencer, S. (2006). When customers lash out: The effects of customer interactional injustice on emotional labor and the moderating role of discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 971-978.

Not at All Somewhat Moderately Very Much So

1 2 3 4

After interacting with the administrator at the beginning of the study:

_____ I felt angry _____ I felt pissed _____ I felt resentful

_____ I felt bitter _____ I felt furious _____ I felt annoyed

_____ I felt irritated _____ I felt mad _____ I felt displeased

______

The following items refer to your interaction with your subordinate during the task. Please respond by filling in each blank using the scale below. Interpersonal Justice: Adapted from Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.

To a Very Small Extent To a Small Extent To a Moderate Extent To a Large Extent To a Very Large Extent

1 2 3 4 5

To what extent:

1. Did your subordinate treat you in a polite manner? _____

2. Did your subordinate treat you with dignity? _____

3. Did your subordinate treat you with respect? _____

4. Did your subordinate refrain from improper remarks or comments? _____ MANIPULATION CHECKS

QUESTION: Can you guess what variables the study is trying to manipulate? Circle your answer

YES NO

If you answered YES above, please list them in the space provided:

______

QUESTION: Were you provided with any details of this study from other students who had previously participated prior to your participation in the study? Circle your answer

YES NO

If you answered YES above, please explain what you knew about the study in the space provided below:

______

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY. PLEASE PLACE THE SURVEY BACK INSIDE THE ENVELOPE AND SEAL THE ENVELOPE. PLEASE PLACE THE ENVELOPE INSIDE THE SEALED BOX.

APPENDIX 10 DEBRIEFING SCRIPT

Thank you for participating in this research study of organizations and management. Your participation is greatly appreciated and will contribute to an important line of organizational research. At this time I would like to tell you about the study and its purpose and also will take any questions you might have regarding the study.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between emotions, justice, and supervisory behaviors. I am interested in learning about how emotions (i.e., anger) affect the ways in which supervisors treat their subordinates, particularly when their subordinates do things that are inappropriate or annoying. You were given the task to train your subordinate to complete a Sudoku puzzle, and I gave you the instructions on how to complete the Sudoku puzzle prior to your interaction with your subordinate. What you did not know was that half of the subjects are given instructions in an unkind manner in order to make them feel angry. The other half of subjects are given normal instructions with no emotional manipulation. The way you were treated by me while receiving your instructions was entirely scripted, and does not reflect on you at all. The reason for the anger manipulation was so that the research could test whether individuals would react to subordinates’ behaviors differently when they were feeling the negative emotion of anger.

Once you learned how to complete the Sudoku puzzle, I sent you to a room to act as a supervisor to another subject, who would act as your subordinate. This other subject was actually an actor who was instructed to act as if they were receiving one of three different telephone calls during your task. The actor’s telephone conversations were meant to hold up the progress of the task, and thus, to prevent the two of you from successfully completing the Sudoku puzzle in time to receive your reward. As you are aware, your experiment was videotaped. These videos are meant to capture your reactions to your subordinate’s telephone behaviors.

When you began the study, you were told that in order to receive a reward, your subordinate would have to successfully complete the Sudoku puzzle given to the two of you within the 20 minute allotted time frame. The Sudoku puzzle that your subordinate was supposed to complete was actually impossible to complete successfully. None of the subjects will succeed at getting their subordinate to complete this puzzle. However, your initial agreement to participate in this study means that you will receive your choice of the full reward offered. You may choose to receive either 3% extra credit on your course grade, or a $5 check. If you are uncomfortable, for any reason, with the fact that you were deceived by this experiment, you are free to withdraw your data. You will still receive your full reward and will not be penalized in any way for withdrawing your data from the study.

It was necessary for the researcher to deceive you by (1) making half of the subjects angry, and (2) using an actress to pose as another student. This was necessary in order to properly test the idea that angry participants would react to very specific types of behaviors from subordinates differently than non-angry participants. We used an actress to elicit these behaviors, and we used an anger manipulation to induce anger. Deception was the only way to get at your true emotion and your true reactions to the subordinates’ behaviors. I apologize for deceiving you.

Due to the nature of the study it is very important that you do not talk to your friends about the true nature of the deception in the study. I would very much appreciate you not speaking at all about this study to any of the students in your class until the experiment has been completed.

I am happy to take any questions you might have regarding the experiment. Furthermore, I am happy to send you a copy of the study results once the data have been analyzed. Thank you again for taking the time to participate in this study.

Now that I have explained the manipulations, deception, and purpose of the study to you, would you like to have your data removed from the study? Again, there is no penalty for removing your data.

If you choose not to remove your data from the study at this time, but later decide that you would like to have your data removed, you may write the 4-digit identification number assigned to you on a sheet of paper, along with a note asking me to remove your data from the study, and drop it into the drop box that will remain outside of this office for the remainder of the semester.

APPENDIX 11 ADMINISTRATOR SCRIPTS –MANIPULATION 1

No Anger Group

I’m the study administrator. The actual study takes place in another room. My job is to give you the rules and get you ready before you move on to the study. When you’re done, someone will bring you back to me for debriefing and then you’re considered “finished” with the study.

The first thing I’m going to do today is teach you how to complete a Sudoku puzzle. It doesn’t matter if you know how to do Sudoku already or not– we’re still going go through the rules together.

After I teach you Sudoku, you will follow the RA to another room where you will be paired with another student who doesn’t know how to do Sudoku. You will have 5 minutes to teach them the rules of Sudoku, and then they will have 8 minutes to complete a puzzle on their own.

So the way the study works is, you are acting as a manager, and your job is to delegate this task to your subordinate and get them to complete it successfully. This is similar to a work situation where you typically have to delegate some of your work to subordinates, but you’re the one who’s ultimately responsible for making sure it’s done properly. So from now on I want you to put yourself in that role of a manager who is about to teach and then delegate one of your own tasks to one of your subordinates.

OK, let’s go through this puzzle and I’ll teach you the rules. Pay attention, because you’ll have to teach this to someone in just a few minutes. It should only take a couple of minutes for me to explain this to you, the rules are very simple and all the puzzles we’re using are simple, too.

Here’s an example Sudoku puzzle. To solve the puzzle, each square in this grid has to contain a number between one and nine, with the following conditions: (1) Each row must contain the numbers 1 to 9 once and only once; (2) Each column must contain the numbers 1 to 9 once and only once; (3) Each of the nine boxes must contain the numbers 1 to 9 once and only once.

I like to start by finding boxes that are almost full. Look at the box on the left column in the middle row. It only has two #’s missing. So let’s figure out which ones are missing. There’s no # 4. Can I put it here at the bottom? NO – there’s already a 4 in that row. So it must go at the top….right?. Ok, what’s left? A # 5. Good.

Ok, let’s find some rows that are almost filled in. The second row from the top is only missing one number. Ok, now look at the very middle row. Again, only one number missing……

Do you understand that?

All right, well the puzzle your subordinate will have to fill in is even easier than this one…so if you manage well and teach them the rules and give them all the hints about where to start looking at the beginning, then it really is pretty tough to mess it up.

But here are your rules, just in case you forget. (give them the handout). You are welcome to take these with you when you leave this room.

When the assistant leaves the room, you’ll have 5 minutes to train the other student to do Sudoku using the Practice Puzzle (show them the practice puzzle). Teach them the rules, demonstrate filling it in, maybe work through some of it together, and teach them about the little tricks to use. You can choose whatever method you want when you teach them. You may know some skills that I haven’t discussed, and it’s fine to use these, too.

When you hear a knock on the door, that means training is over. Hand them the Skills Test puzzle and tell them they get 8 more minutes to finish it. You can’t write on that puzzle, and you can’t tell them where to put numbers. You can’t do their work for them. All you can do for the last 8 minutes is remind them about the rules and remind them about the tricks – manage them through it.

The RA will come back & open the door when time’s up. At this point you need to pick up both of the puzzles and put them in your manila folder. Follow the RA back down here where you’ll sit right outside and fill out the paper in this envelope while you wait for me to look over the puzzle. Then I will come out and get you and we’ll finish up. You can’t leave until you come back in here at the end.

Don’t talk to the RA, just follow his instructions. You and your subordinate can exchange first names, but other than that you need to focus on the puzzles….because if they don’t finish it, you don’t get your extra credit.

You are going to be videotaped. We don’t know you, so when the RA turns the camera on, he’ll ask you to flash this folder with your ID # on it. Later on down the road, when someone watches these videos, they will use that # to match you with your survey information. Your identity remains protected.

Do you have any questions? Ok, then follow me and I’ll take you to the RA.

Anger Group (Underlined portions represent differences from no anger group)

I like to start by finding boxes that are almost full. I like to call these “idiot proof” boxes – unless you are a total idiot you should be able to get them right. Look at the box on the left column in the middle row. It only has two #’s missing. So let’s figure out which ones are missing. There’s no # 4. Can I put it here at the bottom? NO – there’s already a 4 in that row. So it must go at the top….right?. Ok, what’s left? A # 5. Good.

Ok, let’s find some rows that are almost filled in. The second row from the top is only missing one number. Ok, now look at the very middle row. Again, only one number missing……

Do you understand that?

Although with all the problems you guys had with a simple little sign-up process for this study, then you might need a whole class in how to follow instructions.

But here are your rules, just in case you forget. (give them the handout). And you can take them with you upstairs since apparently you will forget.

Do you have any questions? Ok, then follow me and I’ll take you to the RA.

APPENDIX 12 ACTRESS SCRIPTS – MANIPULATION 2

Manipulation 2 – Actress’ Scripts

With all subjects you will spend the first 5 minutes “learning” Sudoku. They will teach you the rules in their own way. Respond according to their directions. Some may ask if you have ever played Sudoku, to which you should reply “Is that the thing in the paper on Sunday? I’ve seen it but I’ve never done one.” Your role for this first 5 minutes is simply to learn the skill according to their instructions. Do not share any personal information or engage in any side conversations with the subjects during this time. The scripts below will be used once the 8-minute skills-test portion of the study begins. The subjects may ask you personal questions once you begin the scenarios below. If so, here are your pre-determined answers: (1) your name is Lynsi, (2) you are a psychology undergraduate student here at FSU, (3) your brother is younger than you are, (4) he lives in your hometown of Jacksonville with your mom, and (5) he’s had Chrohn’s since he was a child.

Objective Justice Information

______

Ambiguous Justice Information

Work the puzzle quietly on your own for the first 2 minutes of this 8-minute period. There are two clocks in the room and one is positioned so that you can keep track of time discreetly. After two minutes, look down in your lap and grab your cell phone as if you’ve just felt a text message arrive. Read the message, put your phone down, pick up the pencil and begin to work again as you say “I’m sorry, my brother has Chrohn’s disease and he’s having some tests done today. I’m waiting on my mom to let me know about the results.” At this point, continue to work on the puzzle without incident. One minute later, again look down, grab your phone, and read your text message quickly. Then say “I’m really sorry” as you immediately return to working the puzzle. One minute later, do the exact same thing and again say “I’m sorry” as you hurriedly return to working the puzzle.

______

Objective Injustice Information

Work the puzzle quietly on your own for the first 2 minutes of this 8-minute period. There are two clocks in the room and one is positioned so that you can keep track of time discreetly. After two minutes, look down in your lap and grab your cell phone as if you’ve just felt a text message arrive. Read the message, put your phone down, pick up the pencil and begin to work again as you say “I’m sorry, my brother has Chrohn’s disease and he’s having some tests done today. I’m waiting on my mom to let me know about the results.” At this point, continue to work on the puzzle without incident. One minute later, again look down, grab your phone, and read your text message. Now, respond to the text message by sending a text back to the person who sent it. Do not explain what you are doing and do not apologize. Rather, giggle a bit as you write your text. Now, put the phone down and continue to work the puzzle. One minute later, again grab your phone and read your text, this time giggle at the message you are reading. Now, respond to the text message. Do not apologize or explain your behavior. Return to the puzzle and continue working.

APPENDIX 13 PILOT STUDY 1 QUESTIONNAIRES

Scenario 1

PART ONE:

Instructions: Below are several words that describe different feelings and emotions. Please write the number that indicates the extent to which you have experienced these feelings over the past few months, using the scale below. PANAS: Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

1 2 3 4 5

____ Interested ____ Strong ____ Enthusiastic ____ Ashamed ____ Attentive ____ Distressed ____ Guilty ____ Proud ____ Inspired ____ Jittery ____ Excited ____ Scared ____ Irritable ____ Nervous ____ Active ____ Upset ____ Hostile ____ Alert ____ Determined ____ Afraid

PART TWO:

Now imagine that, upon entering the experimental room, the other participant (acting as your subordinate), explains that he must leave his cell phone on because his mother is having major surgery that day and he is waiting to hear that everything is ok. He adds that the likelihood of a call interrupting the timed task is minimal, and the cell phone is simply a precautionary measure.

Task failure was entirely Task failure was mostly It is unclear whether the task Task failure was Task failure was mostly NOT the subordinates’ NOT the subordinates’ failure was not/was the entirely the the subordinates’ fault fault fault subordinates’ fault subordinates’ fault 1 2 3 4 5

PART THREE:

Please explain your answer to the above question. In other words, why did you circle the number that you circled?: ______

______

PART FOUR: Please indicate your gender: ____ Male ____ Female

Scenario 2

PART ONE:

Not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

1 2 3 4 5

PART TWO:

Now imagine that, upon entering the experimental room, the other participant (acting as your subordinate), explains that she must leave her cell phone on because her mother is having major surgery that day and she is waiting to hear that everything is ok. She adds that the likelihood of a call interrupting the timed task is minimal, and the cell phone is simply a precautionary measure.

PART THREE:

Please explain your answer to the above question. In other words, why did you circle the number that you circled?: ______

______

PART FOUR: Please indicate your gender: ____ Male ____ Female

Scenario 3

PART ONE:

Not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

1 2 3 4 5

PART TWO:

You begin your 20 minute timed task, teaching your subordinate the new skill and then administering the skill test for the subordinate to complete. Remember that successful completion means a monetary reward for you, and failure to successfully complete the task means that you will receive nothing. Just as your subordinate begins to tackle the task, his cell phone rings, and he explains that he must answer the call in case it is the hospital calling. When he realizes it is a friend calling, he quickly tells the person on the other end of the phone that he cannot talk because he is participating in an experiment. He begins working on the task once again, apologizing about the time delay. A couple of minutes later, his phone rings again, and again he answers the phone in case of an emergency. However, once again the call is not important and he quickly explains to the caller that he cannot talk. He apologizes once more and begins working on the task. Several minutes later, his phone rings a third time, and again it turns out to be unimportant. The subordinate apologizes profusely about the interruptions, indicating sincerely that he would never have left the phone on if it weren’t for his mother’s surgery. In the end, you and your subordinate fail to complete the task successfully within the allotted time frame. Your team has not completed the task successfully. Therefore, you will not receive a monetary reward. Please read the following scale and circle to indicate to what degree you believe the task failure was your subordinates’ fault:

Task failure was entirely Task failure was mostly It is unclear whether the Task failure was Task failure was NOT the subordinates’ NOT the subordinates’ task failure was not/was the mostly the entirely the fault fault subordinates’ fault subordinates’ fault subordinates’ fault

1 2 3 4 5

PART THREE:

Please explain your answer to the above question. In other words, why did you circle the number that you circled?: ______

______

PART FOUR: Please indicate your gender: ____ Male ____ Female

Scenario 4

PART ONE:

Not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

1 2 3 4 5

PART TWO:

You begin your 20 minute timed task, teaching your subordinate the new skill and then administering the skill test for the subordinate to complete. Remember that successful completion means a monetary reward for you, and failure to successfully complete the task means that you will receive nothing. Just as your subordinate begins to tackle the task, her cell phone rings, and she explains that she must answer the call in case it is the hospital calling. When she realizes it is a friend calling, she quickly tells the person on the other end of the phone that she cannot talk because she is participating in an experiment. She begins working on the task once again, apologizing about the time delay. A couple of minutes later, her phone rings again, and again she answers the phone in case of an emergency. However, once again the call is not important and she quickly explains to the caller that she cannot talk. She apologizes once more and begins working on the task. Several minutes later, her phone rings a third time, and again it turns out to be unimportant. The subordinate apologizes profusely about the interruptions, indicating sincerely that she would never have left the phone on if it weren’t for her mother’s surgery. In the end, you and your subordinate fail to complete the task successfully within the allotted time frame. Your team has not completed the task successfully. Therefore, you will not receive a monetary reward. Please read the following scale and circle to indicate to what degree you believe the task failure was your subordinates’ fault:

1 2 3 4 5

PART THREE:

Please explain your answer to the above question. In other words, why did you circle the number that you circled?: ______

______

PART FOUR: Please indicate your gender: ____ Male ____ Female

Scenario 5

PART ONE:

Not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

1 2 3 4 5

PART TWO:

You begin your 20 minute timed task, teaching your subordinate the new skill and then administering the skill test for the subordinate to complete. Remember that successful completion means a monetary reward for you, and failure to successfully complete the task means that you will receive nothing. Just as your subordinate begins to tackle the task, his cell phone rings, and he explains that he must answer the call in case it is the hospital calling. When he realizes it is a friend calling, he tells the person on the other end of the phone that he cannot talk because he is participating in an experiment. However, he fails to hang up the phone and proceeds to have a telephone conversation about his plans for the weekend. After a minute or two, your subordinate hangs up his phone and begins working again. However, his cell phone rings again a few minutes later, and he must answer it in case of an emergency. Once again it is a friend calling and although he tells them he cannot talk, he stays on the phone chatting about weekend plans for several minutes. In the end, you and your subordinate do not complete the timed task successfully within the allotted time frame. Your team has not completed the task successfully. Therefore, you will not receive a monetary reward. Please read the following scale and circle to indicate to what degree you believe the task failure was your subordinates’ fault:

1 2 3 4 5

PART THREE:

Please explain your answer to the above question. In other words, why did you circle the number that you circled?: ______

______

PART FOUR: Please indicate your gender: ____ Male ____ Female

Scenario 6

PART ONE:

Not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

1 2 3 4 5

PART TWO:

You begin your 20 minute timed task, teaching your subordinate the new skill and then administering the skill test for the subordinate to complete. Remember that successful completion means a monetary reward for you, and failure to successfully complete the task means that you will receive nothing. Just as your subordinate begins to tackle the task, her cell phone rings, and she explains that she must answer the call in case it is the hospital calling. When she realizes it is a friend calling, she tells the person on the other end of the phone that she cannot talk because she is participating in an experiment. However, she fails to hang up the phone and proceeds to have a telephone conversation about her plans for the weekend. After a minute or two, your subordinate hangs up her phone and begins working again. However, her cell phone rings again a few minutes later, and she must answer it in case of an emergency. Once again it is a friend calling and although she tells them she cannot talk, she stays on the phone chatting about weekend plans for several minutes. In the end, you and your subordinate do not complete the timed task successfully within the allotted time frame. Your team has not completed the task successfully. Therefore, you will not receive a monetary reward. Please read the following scale and circle to indicate to what degree you believe the task failure was your subordinates’ fault:

1 2 3 4 5

PART THREE:

Please explain your answer to the above question. In other words, why did you circle the number that you circled?: ______

______

PART FOUR: Please indicate your gender: ____ Male ____ Female

APPENDIX 14 PILOT STUDY 2 QUESTIONNAIRES

Scenario 1

Not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

1 2 3 4 5

Neither Agree nor Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Disagree

1 2 3 4 5

The following items refer to your interaction with your subordinate during this task. Please respond by filling in each blank using the above scale. To what extent: Interpersonal Justice: Adapted from Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. 1. Has he treated you in a polite manner? _____ 2. Has he treated you with dignity? _____ 3. Has he treated you with respect? _____ 4. Has he refrained from improper remarks or comments? _____

The following items refer to your outcome following the task. Please respond in each blank using the above scale. To what extent: Distributive Justice: Adapted from Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. 1. Does your outcome reflect the effort you have put into your work? _____ 2. Is your outcome appropriate for the work you have completed? _____ 3. Does your outcome reflect what you have contributed to the experimental task? _____ 4. Is your outcome justified, given your performance? _____

1. What is your gender? _____Male _____Female 2. What is your age? _____ 18-23 _____ 24-29 _____30-35 _____over 35

Scenario 2

Not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

1 2 3 4 5

Neither Agree nor Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Disagree

1 2 3 4 5

The following items refer to your interaction with your subordinate during this task. Please respond by filling in each blank using the above scale. To what extent: Interpersonal Justice: Adapted from Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. 1. Has she treated you in a polite manner? _____ 2. Has she treated you with dignity? _____ 3. Has she treated you with respect? _____ 4. Has she refrained from improper remarks or comments? _____

1. What is your gender? _____Male _____Female 2. What is your age? _____ 18-23 _____ 24-29 _____30-35 _____over 35

Scenario 3

Not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

1 2 3 4 5

Instructions: Imagine that you are participating in a research experiment involving teamwork. Your job is to complete a timed task along with one other student. You have been assigned the role of supervisor on this task, with the other student acting as the subordinate. It has been determined by previous testing that 20 minutes is sufficient time for two people to complete this team task successfully. Therefore, you will have 20 minutes to try to work together to complete the assignment. If you and your subordinate complete the skill test successfully within the allotted time frame, you will receive a monetary reward based on the successful performance. However, if the two of you do not succeed in completing the skill test successfully within the allotted time frame, you will not receive any reward. Remember that in order to successfully complete this task, the two of you must work together. The task will be broken into several parts with each of you completing only certain portions; therefore, one person cannot successfully complete the task alone. You begin your 20 minute timed task. Remember that successful completion means a monetary reward for you, and failure to successfully complete the task means that you will receive nothing. Just as your subordinate begins to tackle one of his parts of the task, his cell phone rings. He looks nervous and explains to you that his mother is actually having surgery that day, and he thinks the call may be coming from a family member at the hospital. He also informs you that his family was not supposed to call him unless something was wrong. He answers the phone. “Is my mom ok?” he asks the person on the other end of the line. He continues his conversation, “Ok, I’m doing something at school right now, so don’t call me until you get some news of the surgery…” he says. He listens to the person on the other end of the phone for a while and begins giggling at the story he is hearing…”no way!” he says, adding “that is hilarious!!!” He remains on the phone, saying “yeah, I’ll be there this weekend…yeah, I’m excited too!...ok, talk to you later…call me if you get any news of my mom.” Your subordinate hangs up his phone and returns to your team task. He explains to you, as the two of you are working, that he would have opted out of participating in the experiment due to his mom’s surgery, but that his college requires that he participate in a certain number of research hours each semester, and this project is his last chance before the end of the term. A few minutes later, his phone rings again. He informs you that this is a family member calling so he must answer the call. “Any news?” he asks the person on the other end of the line. He continues his conversation, “I really can’t talk…I told you not to call me unless you got news of the surgery! I know, I know….yeah I’m gonna be there this weekend. Did you hear about Uncle Todd??? Yeah Aunt Mary just told me about it! I know I just can’t believe that!!!...... ok let me go I’m busy….I’ll talk to you later. Call me if you get any news.” By the end of the experiment, your subordinate’s phone conversations have wasted a significant amount of time. Ultimately, your team does not complete the task successfully within the time frame. Therefore, you will not receive a monetary reward. Please read the following questions and answer using the scales provided:

Neither Agree nor Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Disagree

1 2 3 4 5 The following items refer to your interaction with your subordinate during this task. Please respond by filling in each blank using the above scale. To what extent: Interpersonal Justice: Adapted from Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. 1. Has he treated you in a polite manner? _____ 2. Has he treated you with dignity? _____ 3. Has he treated you with respect? _____ 4. Has he refrained from improper remarks or comments? _____

1. What is your gender? _____Male _____Female 2. What is your age? _____ 18-23 _____ 24-29 _____30-35 _____over 35

Scenario 4

Not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

1 2 3 4 5

Instructions: Imagine that you are participating in a research experiment involving teamwork. Your job is to complete a timed task along with one other student. You have been assigned the role of supervisor on this task, with the other student acting as the subordinate. It has been determined by previous testing that 20 minutes is sufficient time for two people to complete this team task successfully. Therefore, you will have 20 minutes to try to work together to complete the assignment. If you and your subordinate complete the skill test successfully within the allotted time frame, you will receive a monetary reward based on the successful performance. However, if the two of you do not succeed in completing the skill test successfully within the allotted time frame, you will not receive any reward. Remember that in order to successfully complete this task, the two of you must work together. The task will be broken into several parts with each of you completing only certain portions; therefore, one person cannot successfully complete the task alone. You begin your 20 minute timed task. Remember that successful completion means a monetary reward for you, and failure to successfully complete the task means that you will receive nothing. Just as your subordinate begins to tackle one of her parts of the task, her cell phone rings. She looks nervous and explains to you that her mother is actually having surgery that day, and she thinks the call may be coming from a family member at the hospital. She also informs you that her family was not supposed to call her unless something was wrong. She answers the phone. “Is my mom ok?” she asks the person on the other end of the line. She continues her conversation, “Ok, I’m doing something at school right now, so don’t call me until you get some news of the surgery…” she says. She listens to the person on the other end of the phone for a while and begins giggling at the story she is hearing…”no way!” she says, adding “that is hilarious!!!” She remains on the phone, saying “yeah, I’ll be there this weekend…yeah, I’m excited too!...ok, talk to you later…call me if you get any news of my mom.” Your subordinate hangs up her phone and returns to your team task. She explains to you, as the two of you are working, that she would have opted out of participating in the experiment due to her mom’s surgery, but that her college requires that she participate in a certain number of research hours each semester, and this project is her last chance before the end of the term. A few minutes later, her phone rings again. She informs you that this is a family member calling so she must answer the call. “Any news?” she asks the person on the other end of the line. She continues her conversation, “I really can’t talk…I told you not to call me unless you got news of the surgery! I know, I know….yeah I’m gonna be there this weekend. Did you hear about Uncle Todd??? Yeah Aunt Mary just told me about it! I know I just can’t believe that!!!...... ok let me go I’m busy….I’ll talk to you later. Call me if you get any news.” By the end of the experiment, your subordinate’s phone conversations have wasted a significant amount of time. Ultimately, your team does not complete the task successfully within the allotted time frame. Therefore, you will not receive a monetary reward. Please read the following questions and answer using the scales provided:

Neither Agree nor Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Disagree

1 2 3 4 5

The following items refer to your interaction with your subordinate during this task. Please respond by filling in each blank using the above scale. To what extent: Interpersonal Justice: Adapted from Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. 1. Has she treated you in a polite manner? _____ 2. Has she treated you with dignity? _____ 3. Has she treated you with respect? _____ 4. Has she refrained from improper remarks or comments? _____

1. What is your gender? _____Male _____Female 2. What is your age? _____ 18-23 _____ 24-29 _____30-35 _____over 35

Scenario 5

Not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

1 2 3 4 5

Instructions: Imagine that you are participating in a research experiment involving teamwork. Your job is to complete a timed task along with one other student. You have been assigned the role of supervisor on this task, with the other student acting as the subordinate. It has been determined by previous testing that 20 minutes is sufficient time for two people to complete this team task successfully. Therefore, you will have 20 minutes to try to work together to complete the assignment. If you and your subordinate complete the skill test successfully within the allotted time frame, you will receive a monetary reward based on the successful performance. However, if the two of you do not succeed in completing the skill test successfully within the allotted time frame, you will not receive any reward. Remember that in order to successfully complete this task, the two of you must work together. The task will be broken into several parts with each of you completing only certain portions; therefore, one person cannot successfully complete the task alone. You begin your 20 minute timed task. Remember that successful completion means a monetary reward for you, and failure to successfully complete the task means that you will receive nothing. Just as your subordinate begins to tackle one of his parts of the task, his cell phone rings. He looks nervous and explains to you that his mother is actually having surgery that day, and he thinks the call may be coming from a family member at the hospital. He also informs you that his family was not supposed to call him unless something was wrong. He answers the phone. “Is my mom ok?” he asks the person on the other end of the line. He continues his conversation, “Ok, don’t call me until you get some news of the surgery…” he says, and hangs up the phone immediately. He apologizes to you for the interruption and quickly gets back to work on the task. He explains to you, as the two of you are working, that he would have opted out of participating in the experiment due to his mom’s surgery, but that his college requires that he participate in a certain number of research hours each semester, and this project is his last chance before the end of the term. A few minutes later, his phone rings again. He apologizes but informs you that this is a family member calling so he must answer the call. “Any news?” he asks the person on the other end of the line. He continues his conversation, “seriously…do not call me unless you get news of the surgery!” Again he hangs up quickly and apologizes to you profusely about the interruption. He returns to his work on the task. By the end of the experiment, your subordinate’s phone conversations, although brief, have wasted a several minutes of your time. Ultimately, your team does not complete the task successfully within the allotted time frame. Therefore, you will not receive a monetary reward. Please read the following questions and answer using the scales provided:

Neither Agree nor Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Disagree

1 2 3 4 5

1. What is your gender? _____Male _____Female 2. What is your age? _____ 18-23 _____ 24-29 _____30-35 _____over 35

Scenario 6

Not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely

1 2 3 4 5

Instructions: Imagine that you are participating in a research experiment involving teamwork. Your job is to complete a timed task along with one other student. You have been assigned the role of supervisor on this task, with the other student acting as the subordinate. It has been determined by previous testing that 20 minutes is sufficient time for two people to complete this team task successfully. Therefore, you will have 20 minutes to try to work together to complete the assignment. If you and your subordinate complete the skill test successfully within the allotted time frame, you will receive a monetary reward based on the successful performance. However, if the two of you do not succeed in completing the skill test successfully within the allotted time frame, you will not receive any reward. Remember that in order to successfully complete this task, the two of you must work together. The task will be broken into several parts with each of you completing only certain portions; therefore, one person cannot successfully complete the task alone. You begin your 20 minute timed task. Remember that successful completion means a monetary reward for you, and failure to successfully complete the task means that you will receive nothing. Just as your subordinate begins to tackle one of her parts of the task, her cell phone rings. She looks nervous and explains to you that her mother is actually having surgery that day, and she thinks the call may be coming from a family member at the hospital. She also informs you that her family was not supposed to call her unless something was wrong. She answers the phone. “Is my mom ok?” she asks the person on the other end of the line. She continues her conversation, “Ok, don’t call me until you get some news of the surgery…” she says, and hangs up the phone immediately. She apologizes to you for the interruption and quickly gets back to work on the task. She explains to you, as the two of you are working, that she would have opted out of participating in the experiment due to her mom’s surgery, but that her college requires that she participate in a certain number of research hours each semester, and this project is her last chance before the end of the term. A few minutes later, her phone rings again. She apologizes but informs you that this is a family member calling so she must answer the call. “Any news?” she asks the person on the other end of the line. She continues her conversation, “seriously…do not call me unless you have news of the surgery!” Again she hangs up quickly and apologizes to you profusely about the interruption. She returns to her work on the task. By the end of the experiment, your subordinate’s phone conversations, although brief, have wasted a several minutes of your time. Ultimately, your team does not complete the task successfully within the allotted time frame. Therefore, you will not receive a monetary reward. Please read the following questions and answer using the scales provided:

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

The following items refer to your interaction with your subordinate during this task. Please respond by filling in each blank using the above scale. To what extent: Interpersonal Justice: Adapted from Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. 1. Has she treated you in a polite manner? _____ 2. Has she treated you with dignity? _____ 3. Has she treated you with respect? _____ 4. Has she refrained from improper remarks or comments? _____

1. What is your gender? _____Male _____Female 2. What is your age? _____ 18-23 _____ 24-29 _____30-35 _____over 35

APPENDIX 15 ABUSIVE SUPERVISION CODING KEY

The following are categories of hostility. Under each category is a list of the behaviors/actions that go with this category. Each time you observe the subject engaging in one of these behaviors, make a “tick” mark (e.g., I or X) under that category. You will mark each time the behavior happens, so you may have several marks under one or more categories (for example, if the subject raises their voice on 3 separate occasions, you would have X X X under “anger (verbal).” Any notes or questions/comments can go at the bottom of the sheet. One sheet per subject.

REMEMBER: You are not necessarily trying to find as many behaviors as possible even if they aren’t really there – the goal is to be completely objective. Some subjects may display many of these behaviors, and some may display few or none. It’s supposed to be that way. Be as objective as you can.

1. FRUSTRATION (physical)

shuffling papers fidgeting swiveling in chair shifting body weight

rubbing face/neck checking clocks scratching kicking legs

tapping fingers on table biting lips/nails sniffling clearing throat

2. FRUSTRATION (verbal)

time reminders strategy reminders

3. ANGER (physical)

opening eyes widely aggressive posture hand pointing jaw drop

clenching jaw clenching fists wringing hands moving closer to Lynsi

stare-down head shaking physically touching Lynsi

4. ANGER (verbal)

raising voice stern warnings cursing

5. RUDENESS

accusing Lynsi of not working mumbling

doing other things (texting, working another puzzle) smirking

6. LACK OF SYMPATHY

downplaying seriousness of subordinate’s problem by redirecting attention toward puzzle

Laughing at subordinate Ignoring subordinate when she’s explaining her family crisis

OTHER NOTES:

APPENDIX 16 SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESIS TEST RESULTS

Hypotheses Findings

H1: Supervisors who experience low levels of interpersonal justice from their superiors will experience more state anger than supervisors who experience high Supported levels of interpersonal justice from their superiors.

H2: Angry supervisors confronted with objective justice information from their subordinates will not perceive significantly lower levels of interpersonal justice Supported from their subordinates than non-angry supervisors.

H3: Angry supervisors confronted with ambiguous justice information from their subordinates will perceive significantly lower levels of interpersonal justice from Supported their subordinates than non-angry supervisors.

H4: Angry supervisors confronted with objective injustice information from their subordinates will perceive significantly lower levels of interpersonal justice from Supported their subordinates than non-angry supervisors.

H5: Decreases in supervisors’ perceptions of interpersonal justice from their subordinates will be lead to increases in abusive supervisory behaviors. Supported

H6: The negative relationship between perceptions of interpersonal justice from the subordinate and abusive supervisory behaviors will be moderated by hostile Not Supported attribution bias. Specifically: The relationship will be stronger for supervisors with a hostile attribution bias than for supervisors that do not possess a hostile attribution bias.

APPENDIX 17 RESULTS OF ADDITIONAL MANIPULATION CHECKS

TABLE A.1 – EMOTION MANIPULATION CHECK FOR FIRST VS. SECOND HALF OF STUDY

Second First Half Half

Variable Group M SD n M SD n t p

State Anger a, b No Anger 1.02 0.07 32 1.02 0.06 31 0.165 0.708

State Anger a, c Anger 1.38 0.59 32 1.42 0.50 32 0.310 0.921

a 1 to 4 Likert Type Scale: 1 = not at all (less anger), 4 = very much so (more anger) b df = 61; c df = 62

TABLE A.2 – EMOTION MANIPULATION CHECK FOR GUESS VS. NO GUESS

Guess No Guess

Variable Group M SD n M SD n t p

State Anger a, b No Anger 1.03 0.08 25 1.02 0.06 38 0.359 0.721

State Anger a, c Anger 1.37 0.40 27 1.42 0.63 37 0.370 0.713 a 1 to 4 Likert Type Scale: 1 = not at all (less anger), 4 = very much so (more anger) b df = 61; c df = 62

TABLE A.3 – JUSTICE INFORMATION MANIPULATION CHECK FOR FIRST VS. SECOND HALF OF STUDY

Second First Half Half

Variable Group M SD n M SD n t p

Objective Perceptions of IJ from Sub a, b Justice Info 4.54 0.60 21 4.43 0.64 20 0.57 0.572

Ambiguous Perceptions of IJ from Sub a, c Justice Info 3.95 0.80 22 4.30 0.79 21 1.41 0.166

Objective Perceptions of IJ from Sub a, c Injustice Info 3.12 0.89 21 3.11 0.64 22 0.023 0.982 a 1 to 5 Likert Type Scale: 1 = to a very small extent (less justice) 5 = to a very large extent (more justice) b df = 39; c df = 41

TABLE A.4 – JUSTICE INFORMATION MANIPULATION CHECK FOR GUESS VS. NO GUESS

Guess No Guess

Variable Group M SD n M SD n t p

Objective Perceptions of IJ from Sub a, b Justice Info 4.51 0.58 18 4.46 0.65 23 0.293 0.771

Ambiguous Perceptions of IJ from Sub a, c Justice Info 3.93 0.84 17 4.25 0.77 26 1.297 0.202

Objective Perceptions of IJ from Sub a, c Injustice Info 3.04 1.00 17 3.16 0.57 26 0.496 0.623

a 1 to 5 Likert Type Scale: 1 = to a very small extent (less justice) 5 = to a very large extent (more justice) b df = 39; c df = 41

REFERENCES

Adams, A. (1992). Holding out against workplace harassment and bullying. Personnel Management, 24, 38–50.

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.

Adams, S. H., & John, O. P. (1997). A hostility scale for the California Psychological Inventory: MMPI, observer q-sort, and big five correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 408-424.

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lima, L., & Lentz, E. (2004). Mentoring benefits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 129-136.

Ambrose, M. L. (2002). Contemporary justice research: A new look at familiar questions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 803-812.

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452-471.

Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1073-1091.

Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191-201.

Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755–778.

Bamberger, P. A., & Bacharach, S. B. (2006). Abusive supervision and subordinate problem drinking: Taking resistance, stress, and subordinate personality into account. Human Relations, 59, 1-30.

Bandura, A. (1975). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2003). The past, present, and future of workplace deviance research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of science (2nd ed., pp. 247-281). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89-118). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

Bies, R. J. & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Breaux, D. M., Perrewé, P. L., Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2008). Time to try a little tenderness? The detrimental effects of accountability when coupled with abusive supervision. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15, 111-122.

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. In S. T. Fiske, D. L. Schacter, & C. Zahn-Waxler (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 53, pp. 279-307). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.

Brodsky, C. M. (1976). The harassed worker. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Lexington Books, DC Heath.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2006). Subordinate self-esteem and abusive supervision. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 340-355.

Buss, A. H. & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.

Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., Sedikides, C., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Narcissism and comparative self-enhancement strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 329- 347.

Carter, S. L. (1998). Civility: Manner, morals, and the etiquette of democracy. New York: Basic Books.

Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 89-117.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.

Colquitt, J. A. (2008). Publishing laboratory research in AMJ: A question of when, not if. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 616-620.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 110-127.

Cropanzano, R., & Folger, R. (1989). Referent cognitions and task decision autonomy: Beyond equity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 293–299.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.

Cropanzano, R., & Prehar, C. A. (2001). Emerging justice concerns in an era of changing psychological contracts. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 245-169). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164-209.

Cropanzano, R., Weiss, H. M., Hale, J. M. S., Reb, J. (2003). The structure of affect: Reconsidering the relationship between negative and positive affectivity. Journal of Management, 29, 831-857.

Denzin, N. K. (1998). The research act. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. P., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331-351.

Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., Connelly, C. E., Barling, J., & Hoption, C. (2006). Workplace aggression in teenage part time employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 987-997.

Eby, L. T., & Allen, T. D. (2002). Further investigation of protégé’s negative mentoring experiences: Patterns and outcomes. Group & Organization Management, 27, 456-479.

Eby, L., Butts, M., Lockwood, A., & Simon, S. A. (2004). Protégés’ negative mentoring experiences: Construct development and nomological validation. Personnel Psychology, 57, 411-447.

100

Eby, L. T., McManus, S. E., Simon, S. A., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). The protégés’ perspective regarding negative mentoring experiences: The development of a taxonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 1-21.

Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 4, 371-401.

Elias, R. (1986). The politics of victimization: Victims, victimology, and human rights. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Brouer, R. L., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. G. (2007). Strategic bullying as a supplementary, balanced perspective on destructive leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 195-206.

Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: An emotion script approach to anger episodes between workers and their superiors, co-workers and subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 147-162.

Folger, R. (1987). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model. In J. C. Masters & W. P. Smith (Eds.), Social comparison, justice, and relative deprivation: Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives (pp. 183–215). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Folger, R. (1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp. 161–183). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Morally managing people and processes (pp. 13-34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Glomb, T. (2002). Workplace anger and aggression: Informing conceptual models with data from specific encounters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 20-36.

Gough, H. G. (1957). Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Gough, H. G. (1987). The California Psychological Inventory administrator’s guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Grandey, A. A. (2009). Emotions at work: A review and research agenda. In J. Barling, C. Cooper, & S. Clegg (Eds.) The sage handbook of organizational behavior (Vol. 2). Sage Publications, Ltd.

Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 895-910.

101

Hochwarter, W., Ferris, G., Gavin, M., Perrewé, P., Hall, A., & Frink, D. (2007). Political skill as a neutralizer of felt accountability—job tension effects on job performance ratings. A longitudinal investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 226-239.

Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Origins of bullying: Theoretical frameworks for explaining workplace bullying. In N. Tehrani (Ed.), Building a culture of respect: Managing bullying at work (pp. 3-19). London: Taylor & Francis.

Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2001). The experience of bullying in Great Britain: The impact of organizational status. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 443–465.

Hoel, H., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying behaviours are not necessarily equally damaging. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 32, 367-387.

Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hoobler, J., & Brass, D. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1125-1133.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work. Boston: Scott, Foresman, and Company.

Krehbiel, P. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Procedural justice, outcome favorability, and emotion. Social Justice Research, 13, 339–360.

Lazarus, R. (1984). On the primacy of cognition. American Psychologist, 39, 124-129.

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum Press.

Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5, 119–126.

Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95-107.

Marcus-Newhall, A., Pederson, W. C., Carlson, M., & Miller, N. (2000). Displaced aggression is alive and well: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 670-689.

102

Masterson, S. S. (2001). A trickle-down model of organizational justice: Relating employees’ and customers’ perceptions of and reactions to fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 594-604.

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 1-13

Miller, N., Pederson, W. C., Earleywine, M., & Pollock, V. E. (2003). A theoretical model of triggered displaced aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 75-97.

Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159-1168.

Mullen, E. (2007). The reciprocal relationship between affect and perceptions of fairness. In K. Törnblom & R. Vermunt (Eds.), Distributive and procedural justice: Research and social applications (pp. 15-37). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

National Institute of Mental Health (2000). Depression (NIH Publication No. 00-3561). Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Health.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In K. Rubin & D. Pepler (Eds.), The development and treatment of children aggression (pp. 411–448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Organ. D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The "good-soldier" syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21, 225-253.

Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the nature, consequences, and remedies of workplace incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 7-18.

Pedersen, W. C., Gonzales, C., & Miller, N. (2000). The moderating effect of trivial triggering provocation on displaced aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 913-927.

Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1994). Gender differences in expected outcomes of mentoring relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 957-971.

Rayner, C., & Hoel, H. (1997). A summary review of literature relating to workplace bullying. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 7, 181-191.

103

Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating, and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56, 1213-1232.

Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentoring: The key to career success. Chicago, IL: American Women's Society of Certified Public Accountants.

Scandura, T. A. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24, 449-467.

Schat, A. C. H., Desmarais, S., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Exposure to workplace aggression from multiple sources: Validation of a measure and test of a model. Unpublished manuscript, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Shapiro, D. L., Duffy, M. K., Kim, T., Lean, E. R., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. (2008). “Rude,” “uncivil,” or “disrespectful” treatment in the workplace: What’s in a name? In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Justice, morality, and social responsibility (pp. 227-262).

Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1992). Organizational justice: The search for fairness in the workplace. New York: Lexington Books.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178-190.

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261-289.

Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu,, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 156-167.

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural justice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101-123.

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J. M., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the relationship between coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455-465.

104

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 974-983.

Tepper, B. J., Henle, C., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. J., & Duffy, M. K., (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 721-732.

Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2007). Abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication, and subordinates’ psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1169-1180.

Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 79-92.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 931-941.

Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying—Psychological work environment and organizational climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 203–214.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490.

Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). An affective events approach to job satisfaction. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1- 74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8, 786-794.

105

Wilson, C. B. (1991). U.S. businesses suffer from workplace trauma. Personnel Journal, July, 47–50.

Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 133-170). New York: Plenum Press.

Zajonc, E. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39, 117-123.

Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1068-1076.

106

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Denise M. Breaux has published in journals such as Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Journal of Management, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, and Organizational Dynamics. She has presented her work at several conferences, including the annual meetings of The Academy of Management, The Southern Management Association, and The Work, Stress, and Health Conference. Her research interests include abusive supervision, organizational justice, dysfunctional organizational behaviors, job stress, and politics.

107