Journal of Applied Psychology
2012, Vol. 97, No. 6, 1148 –1170
© 2012 American Psychological Association
0021-9010/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0029452
Employees’ Behavioral Reactions to Supervisor Aggression:
An Examination of Individual and Situational Factors
Marie S. Mitchell
Maureen L. Ambrose
University of Georgia
University of Central Florida
This research examines employees’ behavioral reactions to perceived supervisor aggression. The goal is
to understand what makes employees react constructively or destructively to aggression. Three types of
behavioral reactions are investigated: retaliation, coworker displaced aggression, and problem solving.
We suggest employee reactions are influenced by individual and situational characteristics. We test these
ideas by examining the moderating effects of 1 individual factor (locus of control) and 2 situational
factors (fear of retaliation and behavioral modeling) on the relationships between perceived supervisor
aggression and employee behaviors. The results of an experiment and 2 field studies provide support for
the predictions and some unexpected findings. Implications for understanding reactions to perceived
supervisor aggression are presented.
Keywords: abusive supervision, aggression, retaliation, displaced aggression, problem solving
Today’s workplace is often portrayed as arduous and harsh, with
organizational authorities exploiting and abusing employees and
employees engaging in deceitful and insidious work behavior (e.g.,
Fisher, 2005; Gurchiek, 2005; Pachter, 2003; Thelen, 2009). Recent reports from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (1998, 2005)
support these contentions and have shown that incidents of interpersonal aggression (behavior that is carried out with the intent of
injuring or aggravating another person; Eron, 1987) are on the rise.
This is of particular concern, given the negative impact workplace
aggression has on organizations and employees. For example,
research shows that workplace aggression impairs employee morale, psychological health, and productive behaviors (e.g., Cortina,
Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Glomb & Liao, 2003;
Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Neuman & Baron, 1998; Tepper,
2000). Further, such acts diminish organizational capital and production and increase insurance premiums and injury compensation
(Detert, Treviño, Burris, & Andiappan, 2007; Dunlop & Lee,
2004). Given the prevalence and destructive nature of workplace
aggression, research in this area has grown in an effort to understand its antecedents and consequences.
One area of inquiry has emphasized consequences of supervisors who are aggressive with employees (see Tepper, 2007). Supervisor aggression is defined as employees’ perceptions of the
supervisor’s intentionally harmful behavior against them (Schat,
Desmarais, & Kelloway, 2005).1 Understanding the impact of
supervisor aggression is important because supervisors are considered a primary source of aggression at work (e.g., Cortina et al.,
2001; Neuman & Keashly, 2003). It also represents a particularly
stressful, challenging, and threatening situation for employees
because supervisors maintain control over things that are of value
to employees’ work lives (e.g., resources, feedback; Tepper,
2007). Supervisors who are aggressive undermine subordinates’
ability to function effectively at work (Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007; Tepper, 2000) and threaten subordinates’ sense of
self (Thau & Mitchell, 2010) and home life (Carlson, Ferguson,
Perrewé, & Whitten, 2011; Hoobler & Brass, 2006). Indeed, research has shown that supervisor aggression generally provokes
quite destructive reactions from employees (e.g., Inness, Barling,
& Turner, 2005; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008), with only a handful of studies
showing employees’ constructive reactions (e.g., Keashly, Trott, &
MacLean, 1994; Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001; Tepper, Moss,
Lockhart, & Carr, 2007).
Yet, what makes employees react destructively versus constructively is not entirely clear. That is, research shows that of victims
of supervisor aggression, not all act destructively and not all act
constructively (Bies & Tripp, 1996, 1998). Given that workplace
aggression is escalating (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998, 2005)
and employees identify supervisors as a dominant source of aggression (Cortina et al., 2001; Neuman & Keashly, 2003), examination of which factors enhance or mitigate different reactions to
supervisor aggression is needed. The impact of supervisor aggression is significant; it is estimated to cost U.S. corporations billions
This article was published Online First July 30, 2012.
Marie S. Mitchell, Department of Management, University of Georgia;
Maureen L. Ambrose, Department of Management, University of Central
Florida.
We thank Thomas Tripp and Marshall Schminke for their help on
previous versions of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marie S.
Mitchell, Department of Management, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, 425 Brooks Hall, Athens, GA 30621. E-mail: msmitche@
uga.edu
1
Supervisor aggression can be considered akin to abusive supervision
(see Hershcovis et al., 2007; Tepper, 2007). Both constructs involve the
supervisor being perceived by subordinates as engaging in hostilities
toward them. However, abusive supervision, as defined by Tepper (2000),
includes sustained hostile behavior by the supervisor. Definitions of supervisor aggression do not emphasize this ongoing hostility. This distinction is important for our operationalization in Study 1.
1148
REACTIONS TO SUPERVISOR AGGRESSION
of dollars annually (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006).
Additionally, understanding how organizations can minimize destructive and enhance constructive behavior is of practical value
for decision makers. Doing so may reduce costs of destructive
work behavior and potentially foster an effective and productive
work environment for employees.
Our purpose in this article is to develop and test a model of
employees’ behavioral reactions to perceived supervisor aggression. We investigate three types of reactions: retaliation (aggressive reactions against the supervisor), displaced aggression (aggressive reactions against coworkers), and problem solving
(constructive efforts made to address the supervisor aggression).
Research and theory suggest each of these types of reactions occur,
but little research attention has been given to understanding when
victims are likely to respond to supervisor aggression destructively
versus constructively. Thus, identifying moderators is an essential
next step (Tepper, 2007). To this end, our research identifies and
tests one individual factor (locus of control [LOC]) and two
situational factors (fear of retaliation and behavioral modeling)
that theory (e.g., social learning theory, Bandura, 1973;
frustration–aggression theory, Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, &
Sears, 1939) suggests influence reactions to perceived threats, in
particular, aggression from individuals in authority.
Our research provides an extension to the literature and is
also practically significant. First, our work meets the call to
examine various boundary effects of employees’ reactions to
supervisor aggression (Tepper, 2007). Because research has
shown not all victims of supervisor aggression react in the same
way (Bies & Tripp, 1996, 1998), understanding what motivates
destructive and constructive reactions is needed. Our work
extends previous research by considering factors that heighten
employees’ sense of control (i.e., LOC, fear of retaliation),
which allows for more constructive ways of responding to an
aggressive supervisor. Additionally, we theorize that there are
work factors that increase employees’ salience about the types
of behaviors that are accepted in the work environment and
invoke behavioral learning (i.e., behavioral modeling, fear of
retaliation) that influences employees’ reactions. Second, by
considering constructive reactions (i.e., problem solving), our
research extends current workplace aggression models, which
have traditionally focused on the negative consequences of
aggression to organizations and its members (e.g., Baron, 2004;
Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Hershcovis et al., 2007; Neuman
& Baron, 1998). Third, previous research has primarily examined reactions to supervisor aggression via survey methodology. Our research uses both experimental and survey approaches. The enhanced internal validity of the experimental
design complements the dominant survey method. Finally, the
results of our study may assist organizations in lessening destructive work behavior. Supervisor aggression is a growing
problem for organizations and employees (cf. Tepper et al.,
2006). By identifying factors that influence employees’ reactions to supervisor aggression, organizations gain an understanding of how to foster more constructive behaviors and
lessen destructive behaviors of their employees. Below, we
review likely responses to supervisor aggression and provide
the theoretical foundation for our predictions.
1149
Theoretical Overview
Behavioral Reactions to Perceived Supervisor
Aggression
Retaliation.
Theory and research suggest retaliation is a
primary response to aggression. A basic tenet of the frustration–
aggression theory (Dollard et al., 1939) is that aggression provokes
retaliation. This proposition is supported by social psychology
research (see Anderson & Bushman, 2002, for a review). In the
organizational literature, theorists have argued that retaliation allows victims to get back at the transgressor (e.g., Mitchell &
Ambrose, 2007; Skarlicki & Folger, 2004). Negative reciprocity
principles of social exchange theory (Gouldner, 1960) provide the
basis of this claim. Reciprocity acts as a behavioral norm, guiding
patterns of interactions. Negative reciprocity patterns suggest victims of mistreatment will return mistreatment to the harmdoer.
Research supports these arguments and has shown that employees
retaliate against supervisors for perceived abuse (e.g., Dupré, Inness, Connelly, Barling, & Hoption, 2006; Inness et al., 2005;
Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper et al., 2008, 2009; Thau,
Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2009).
Displaced aggression. Even though retaliation is a common
response to aggression, some situations do not allow for it. In these
instances, the frustration–aggression theory (Dollard et al., 1939)
suggests, individuals displace their frustration on other targets.
Displaced aggression is explained as a cathartic act— one that
allows individuals to vent frustration when aggressing against the
transgressor is not a viable option. Marcus-Newhall, Pedersen,
Carlson, and Miller’s (2000) meta-analysis of psychology experiments found displaced aggression is a strong reaction. Further,
organizational research has shown that employees displace aggression on targets other than the supervisor when victimized by
supervisor aggression (Hoobler & Brass, 2006; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Our research examines displaced aggression targeted
toward victims’ peers and coworkers.
Problem solving. Both retaliation and displaced aggression
are destructive responses to supervisor aggression. Yet, theory and
research suggest not all employees react destructively (Bies &
Tripp, 1996, 1998). For instance, reactance theory (Wortman &
Brehm, 1975) posits that both destructive and constructive reactions may occur because people strive to maintain a sense of
personal control. Constructive responses, such as problem solving,
allow victims to regain control by trying to resolve the situation
(Weisz, McCabe, & Denning, 1994). Lazarus and colleagues’
(Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) research on stress
coping strategies also suggests that threatening events (i.e., supervisor aggression) stimulate evaluations on how to best cope with
the harm and make problem solving possible. Indeed, research has
shown that some victims of supervisor aggression react with
problem solving (e.g., reconciliation, Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001,
2006; constructive resistance strategies, Tepper et al., 2001, 2007).
In sum, employees may respond to supervisor aggression with
retaliation, displaced aggression, and/or problem solving. But what
determines the behavior in which an individual engages? Social
cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) suggests reactions to perceived
aggression are dependent on individual and situational factors (cf.,
Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Bandura, 1991; Baron, 2004). We
review theory and research that suggest locus of control (LOC; an
1150
MITCHELL AND AMBROSE
individual factor) and the situational factors fear of retaliation and
behavioral modeling should affect employees’ reactions to supervisor aggression. We expect these factors will moderate the relationship between supervisor aggression and employee destructive
and constructive reactions.
LOC as a Moderator of the Supervisor
Aggression–Employee Behavior Relationship
Our first moderating factor is LOC—a trait that involves the
extent to which individuals believe that events are contingent on
their own behavioral control or are determined by others, fate, or
chance (Rotter, 1966). LOC has a strong influence over individuals’ behavioral choices because it impacts the degree to which
individuals believe they have the ability to control events affecting
them. Individuals with a high LOC, called internals, are particularly self-determined and motivated to control their social environment in ways that minimize threats to and maximize benefits
for themselves (Deci & Ryan, 1980). Individuals with a low LOC,
called externals, believe other sources affect what happens to
them; consequently, they do not believe they have the ability to
exact change that will effectively alter their environment (Deci &
Ryan, 1980; Ryan & Deci, 2006).
Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) suggests personality
traits that involve individuals’ sense of personal control influence
their reactions to perceived aggression. Similarly, models of organizational behavior that theorize about individuals reactions to
perceived work threats highlight the importance of considering
LOC (e.g., Bennett, 1998; Martinko & Gardner, 1982; Martinko,
Gundlach, & Douglas, 2002).
Additionally, existing theory and research on personal control
suggest internals are better able to create and shape more favorable
work experiences (Phares, 1976) and handle challenging and
threatening situations (Gatchel, 1980; Wanberg, 1997). Fiske and
Taylor (1984) argued this is because internals see themselves as
“causal agents” with the ability to change situations directly. Thus,
when faced with threatening situations, internals attempt to reduce
perceived threats by engaging in behavior to change the environment (see Ng, Sorensen, & Eby, 2006 and Perrewé & Spector,
2002, for reviews). In contrast, externals, guided by futility beliefs,
are less able to see opportunities to control threatening situations
and, consequently, tend to act ineffectively and even destructively
in the face of a threat. Their external orientation combined with the
threat from the environment (i.e., supervisor aggression) creates a
sense of helplessness, which promotes deviant behavior (Martinko
& Gardner, 1982). Theorists contend that externals’ destructive
behavior reduces the strain associated with their perceived inability to change their current situation (Bennett, 1998; Greenberger &
Strasser, 1991).
Given the motivational force of LOC in guiding individuals’
behaviors in threatening situations, we believe LOC is an important trait to consider with regard to reactions to supervisor aggression. Supervisors who aggress against their employees pose a
significant threat to employees’ work lives (Tepper, 2007). These
are individuals who yell, scream, undermine, intimidate, and verbally abuse their subordinates (Keashly, 1998; Keashly et al.,
1994). Given the threat that supervisor aggression poses to subordinates and the motivational effects of LOC, we predict LOC will
impact employees’ reactions to supervisor aggression.
Research suggests that LOC influences individuals’ reactions to
supervisor aggression. For example, studies have shown that internals are more likely than externals to engage in problem solving
behavior (Spector, 1982). Research has shown that internals, when
challenged, exert more effort and persist longer in situations that
present barriers to achieving goals than do externals (Phares,
1976). Further, internals are more likely than externals to engage
in more problem-focused activities (Hahn, 2000). Research has
also shown that internals are more likely than externals to engage
in problem solving behavior when they experience a high degree
of stress (Arslan, Dilmac, & Hamarta, 2009; Parkes, 1984). Last,
meta-analytic evidence (Ng et al., 2006) has shown that internals
are better equipped to deal with negative tasks and negative social
interactions and are more likely than externals to engage in problem solving.
Research has shown that externals are less likely than internals
to engage in behavior that attempts to effectively resolve threatening situations and, instead, are more likely to behave destructively (Fox & Spector, 1999; Marcus & Schuler, 2004; Österman
et al., 1999; Romi & Itskowitz, 1990; Storms & Spector, 1987;
Zainuddin & Taluja, 1990). For example, Fox and Spector (1999)
found externals are more likely than internals to engage in behavior that is counterproductive. Further, Wei and Si (2011) found that
externals were more likely to respond to abusive supervision (a
form of supervisor aggression) with destructive work behavior
(i.e., sabotage, production deviance, theft).
Overall, this review suggests LOC will influence both constructive and destructive reactions to supervisor aggression. Because
internals believe they can exact change in their environment,
particularly when dealing with stressful and threatening situations,
we contend they are more likely to engage in problem solving
behavior when they encounter an aggressive supervisor. Conversely, because externals are more likely to react destructively to
stressful and threatening events, we predict they will be more
likely to engage in retaliation and coworker displaced aggression
when dealing with an aggressive supervisor. In sum, a higher LOC
will influence problem solving reactions and a lower LOC will
influence destructive reactions to supervisor aggression.
Hypothesis 1: The positive relationship between supervisor
aggression and (a) problem solving will be stronger when
locus of control is higher than lower, and the positive relationships between supervisor aggression and (b) retaliation
and (c) coworker displaced aggression will be stronger when
locus of control is lower than higher.
Situational Moderators of the Supervisor
Aggression–Employee Behavior Relationship
We draw from social psychology theory and research to identify
situational factors that moderate the effects of perceived supervisor
aggression on employee behavioral reactions. In particular, we
consider two factors that research and theory suggest influence
reactions to aggression: fear of retaliation and behavioral modeling.
Fear of retaliation. Aggression theories suggest fear of retaliation from a harmdoer influences victims’ responses (e.g.,
frustration–aggression theory, Dollard et al., 1939; social learning
theory, Bandura, 1973). Fear of retaliation influences reactions to
REACTIONS TO SUPERVISOR AGGRESSION
1151
perceived aggression because of victims’ learned inhibitions (Bandura, 1973; Berkowitz, 1983; Sears, 1948). People understand the
consequences of their behavior based on past experiences or by
watching what happens to others. Victims who fear retaliation
from a harmdoer believe aggressive responses will likely provoke
further acts of aggression against them, particularly when the
harmdoer has greater power (e.g., a supervisor of a subordinate;
Bandura, 1973; Baron, 1971; Berkowitz, 1983; Sears, 1948). In
contrast, problem solving will likely deter further harm against
victims or potentially resolve the situation altogether. Consequently, victims tend to refrain from aggressing against harmdoers
when they fear retaliation and, instead, tend to problem solve to try
to resolve the issue.
Few studies in the organizational sciences have specifically
examined fear of retaliation, but existing studies provide evidence
consistent with our predictions. For example, Fox and Spector
(1999) found when employees believed their organization caused
them harm and they could engage in deviant behavior without
penalty (i.e., no fear of retaliation), they engaged in more deviant
work behavior. Similarly, Tripp and Bies’s (1997) qualitative
study suggests one of the most consistent deterring factors of
retaliatory behaviors among would-be avengers was fear of retaliation from the harmdoer. Research has also shown that some
individuals who fear a person in authority engage in problem
solving. Some victims try to talk to the offender to resolve the
issue (Bies & Tripp, 1996, 1998). Others try to reconcile with the
offender (Aquino et al., 2001, 2006), and others simply report
the offender to authorities (Bies & Tripp, 1996).
This review suggests fear of retaliation will moderate the effects
of supervisor aggression on retaliation (i.e., supervisor-directed
aggression) and problem solving such that higher fear of retaliation
will strengthen the effects on problem solving, but it will weaken
the effects on retaliation.
been consistently supported. The frustration–aggression prediction
about displaced aggression is based on the notion of catharsis
(individuals releasing negative and aggressive energy without fear
of future recourse). However, both Miller (1941) and Sears (1941)
contended that individuals may choose not to displace aggression
if learned inhibitions suggest it would be inappropriate. Similarly,
Tedeschi and Felson (1994) argued that displaced aggression does
not always occur because past experiences may allow individuals
to discriminate when to and when not to displace aggression.
These arguments are consistent with Bandura’s (1973) view that
individuals refrain from destructive reactions when learned inhibitions suggest they are not appropriate. Thus, according to this
perspective, the target of the displaced aggression is important. It
is, then, possible for victims of supervisor aggression to not
displace aggression on their peers because they understand that
doing so may tarnish the relationships these victims hold with their
colleagues. Additionally, employees who act aggressively toward
peers (even if their acts are displaced) may be viewed by supervisors as dysfunctional work unit members, which potentially
provokes the supervisor to be even more hostile with that employee. In short, the learned inhibitions view suggests that engaging in displaced aggressive behaviors would not prove wise for
someone who is the target of supervisor aggression (Tedeschi &
Felson, 1994).
The frustration–aggression and learned inhibitions views both
provide plausible explanations for how fear of retaliation impacts
the relationship between supervisor aggression and coworker displaced aggression. Consequently, we pose competing hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between supervisor
aggression and (a) problem solving will be stronger when fear
of retaliation is higher than lower, and the positive relationship between supervisor aggression and (b) retaliation will be
stronger when fear of retaliation is lower than higher.
Hypothesis 3(b): According to the learned inhibitions view,
the positive relationship between supervisor aggression and
coworker displaced aggression will be weaker when fear of
retaliation is higher than lower.
Although research shows a fairly clear influence of fear of
retaliation on behavior directed at the aggressor, two primary, yet
opposing, views have been proposed for its moderating effects on
displaced aggression reactions to aggression: the frustration–
aggression view (Dollard et al., 1939) and the learned inhibition
view (Bandura, 1973; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). The frustration–
aggression view (Dollard et al., 1939) suggests when victims fear
retaliation from an aggressor, displaced aggression is likely because it allows victims to vent hostilities without fear of recourse
from the harmdoer (Dollard et al., 1939). Dollard et al. (1939)
explained that displaced aggression acts as a form of catharsis,
allowing victims to express their frustration behaviorally. Because
fear of retaliation inhibits retaliatory reactions, victims feel the
need to express their frustration by displacing aggression on other,
more available targets. As previously noted, social psychology
research provides evidence of these effects (see Berkowitz, 1989;
Marcus-Newhall et al., 2000).
Yet, social psychologists (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994) have noted
the frustration–aggression view of displaced aggression has not
Hypothesis 3(a): According to the frustration–aggression
view, the positive relationship between supervisor aggression
and coworker displaced aggression will be stronger when fear
of retaliation is higher than lower.
Behavioral modeling. Our final hypotheses examine behavioral modeling. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1973; Mischel,
1973) and social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) suggest individuals understand what is acceptable behavior through vicarious learning and, in particular, by observing
relevant social models (e.g., coworkers, peers). Watching others
engage in certain behaviors conveys that the observed behavior is
acceptable and supported in the social environment, and, hence,
makes individuals more inclined to engage in similar behaviors.
Bandura (1973, 1986) argued that when individuals perceive relevant social models engaging in certain behavior (whether it is
constructive or destructive), they view that behavior as socially
appropriate. Indeed, research suggests employees learn about expected work behavior more by watching what coworkers do than
by following formal rules and procedures (Salancik & Pfeffer,
1978).
This line of reasoning suggests individuals imitate their peers’
behaviors, in a “monkey-see, monkey-do” pattern (cf. Robinson &
O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). That is, employees who perceive that coworkers display aggressive behaviors will be more likely to engage
1152
MITCHELL AND AMBROSE
in aggressive behavior (i.e., retaliation, displaced aggression), and
employees who perceive that coworkers display problem solving
behaviors will be more likely to engage in problem solving.
Research supports these ideas. For example, employees are more
likely to react to aversive work conditions with absenteeism if
behavioral norms among peers suggest absenteeism is permissive
(Biron & Bamberger, 2012). Research also shows that employees’
observations of coworkers exhibiting antisocial behavior influence
the employees’ own antisocial behavior (Aquino & Douglas, 2003;
Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). Likewise, employees who are
a target of aggression, who also observe aggression by coworkers,
are more likely to act aggressively (Glomb & Liao, 2003).
Similar influence is found for constructive behavior. Research
has shown that employees who perceive group norms embrace
cooperative and helping behavior are more likely to engage in
similar behaviors (De Cremer, van Dijke, & Mayer, 2010; Ehrhart
& Naumann, 2004) and that perceptions of group norms that
embrace open discussion about conflict influence individuals to
engage in more open discussion (Jehn, 1995). Research has also
demonstrated that observations of peers’ innovative and creative
behavior positively influence observers’ innovative and creative
behavior (Adarves-Yorno, Postmes, & Haslam, 2007). Finally,
research has also shown that problem solving behavioral modeling
(perceptions of others engaging in problem solving or of behavioral norms associated with problem solving) influences the perceiver’s problem solving behavior (Levine, Higgins, & Choi,
2000; Taggar & Ellis, 2007).
We suggest coworkers provide a strong basis for behavioral
norms, and the type of behaviors coworkers exert at work will
influence victims’ reactions to supervisor aggression. Individuals
who perceive their coworkers engaging in aggressive or problem
solving behavior will find each type of behavior to be acceptable
and supported. Consequently, when confronted with supervisor
aggression, employees who perceive coworkers modeling aggressive behavior will be more inclined to engage in similar behavior
(i.e., retaliation, displaced aggression) and employees who perceive coworkers modeling problem solving behavior will be more
inclined to engage in problem solving. We predict
Hypothesis 4: The positive relationships between supervisor
aggression and (a) retaliation and (b) coworker displaced
aggression will be stronger when aggressive modeling is
higher than lower, and the positive relationship between supervisor aggression and (c) problem solving will be stronger
when problem solving modeling is higher than lower.
We tested the predictions in three studies. Study 1 is an experimental design. The experiment examined LOC and fear of retaliation as moderators on the effects of perceived aggression from an
instructor (the in-class equivalent to workplace supervisor aggression) on two behavioral reactions: retaliation and displaced aggression. Study 2 is a cross-sectional field survey design that examines
the moderating effects of LOC, fear of retaliation, and aggressive
modeling on retaliation, coworker displaced aggression, and general problem solving reactions to supervisor aggression. Study 3 is
a time-separated field survey study that provides a test of all of our
predictions and investigates the effects of supervisor aggression
not only on retaliation and coworker displaced aggression reactions but also on specific forms of problem solving (i.e., seeking
social support from coworkers, reconciling with the supervisor,
and reporting the supervisor to authorities).
Study 1 Method
Participants and Study Design
Participants were undergraduate students from a large southeastern university. The experiment was masked within the course
curriculum of eight business classes, and the experimental experience was used as a learning exercise in class. At the beginning of
the semester, students were given an informed consent and a
personality survey. The researcher explained that the personality
survey and other class activities would be used for research, with
the student’s consent. Of the 273 students who initially consented,
242 participated in the study; 31 students were either absent or late
to class the day of the experiment. To maintain the integrity of the
experiment, late students could not enter the classroom until the
debriefing. Participants were on average 23.3 years old (SD ⫽
5.52); 43.2% were female and 61.2% were White (10.6% were
Black; 13.9% were Hispanic). A 2 ⫻ 2 (aggression high/low; fear
of retaliation high/low) design was used. Participants were randomly assigned to each condition. Approximately an equal number
of participants were in each condition.
Procedure
The experiment took place the week the course’s first graded
assignment was to be distributed to students. The day of the
experiment, after students were seated for class, a confederate
entered the classroom. The confederate explained that the instructor could not make it to class that day. However, the instructor
asked the confederate to come to the class to pass out the students’
graded assignments and ask them to complete a team evaluation
form. In addition, the confederate explained that she or he was also
there on behalf of the management department, which was conducting a midyear check on the department’s services and instructors. The confederate read and distributed a letter by the management department chair, asking the students to help by completing
an instructor evaluation and a short management department services survey.2
The confederate first distributed the graded assignments. Aggression was manipulated with instructor comments written on the
graded assignments. Pretesting provided a pool of eight high2
The graded assignment that was distributed to students by the confederate was an independent student assignment that was required for the
course. Students expected to receive their graded assignments that particular day in class. The course also required students to work in a team
throughout the semester, and, consequently, the instructor had teams routinely complete team evaluations. We used the same team evaluation form
in the experiment. Therefore, receiving the feedback on the graded assignment and having students complete a team evaluation was not unusual for
the students. Additionally, the letter by the chair of the management
department (explaining the midsemester instructor and departmental evaluation) was signed by the actual chair of the management department of
this university. These situational aspects enhanced experimental realism for
the students.
REACTIONS TO SUPERVISOR AGGRESSION
aggression comments and eight low-aggression comments.3 Four
high-aggression comments (e.g., “I’m not impressed–maybe it’s
your lack of talent”) or four low-aggression comments (e.g., “Average”) were written throughout the assignment, depending on the
students’ condition (high/low). The four comments were randomly
selected from the set of eight to ensure not every graded assignment had the exact same comments, thereby enhancing the manipulation’s realism.
Ten minutes after the assignments were distributed, the confederate collected them and passed out the instructor evaluation (i.e.,
retaliation assessment) and team peer evaluation forms (i.e., displaced aggression assessment). The fear of retaliation manipulation was set up at this time.4 Students in the high fear of retaliation
condition were instructed to write their name on the instructor
evaluation form. Further, students were given a letter from the
department chair; the confederate told them, “This letter is from
the department chair, explaining that your instructor will receive a
copy of your evaluation within the next day or so.” Students in the
low fear of retaliation condition did not write their name on the
form and were given a different letter from the department chair.
The confederate explained, “This letter is from the department
chair, assuring you that your instructor will never see your completed evaluations— only administration will see your responses.”
Instructor and peer evaluation forms were coded to match participants’ responses.
Following the instructor and team evaluations, participants
received the department evaluation (i.e., manipulation checks
assessment). Once completed, the confederate thanked them for
their time, asked them to wait one minute more, and left the
room. The confederate reentered the room with the instructor
and began the debriefing. The confederate followed standard
protocol and convention for debriefing participants in experiments using deception: Participants were informed about the
true nature of the experiment and informed about the use of
deception and why deception was needed. Continued discussion
was provided to minimize negative feelings and emphasize the
applicability of the activity to a work situation (Greenberg &
Folger, 1988).5 In particular, the confederate gently approached
the topic by thanking the students for completing the evaluations and surveys and asked them if they had any concerns
regarding the activities for the day or any disbelief about the
activities or the procedures. None of the students indicated
suspicion.6 The confederate then explained the true nature of
the experiment and explained that none of the comments written
on the assignments reflected the instructor’s thoughts or feelings. The confederate informed the students that they had
experienced an active learning exercise about workplace aggression and apologized for using deception, explaining that
doing so was important to invoke true reactions associated with
the phenomenon. As the debriefing continued, the confederate
and instructor used the activity to highlight the applicability of
the course material on workplace aggression. Students engaged
in lively discussions and talked about incidents of aggression
that they had either experienced or witnessed from an authority
figure. The confederate and instructor facilitated discussions on
how students should deal with these situations effectively and
constructively.
3
1153
Consistent with the literature (e.g., Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; D.
Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, & Schwarz, 1996; Porath & Erez, 2007; Sinaceur,
Van Kleef, Neale, Adam, & Haag, 2011), aggression was manipulated by
providing participants negative and insulting feedback. A pilot study was
conducted to identify high and low aggressive instructor comments for the
aggression manipulation. Participants were drawn from the same population as
in the main study. Students were asked to imagine they had received the listed
comments from an instructor on a graded assignment. They were asked to rate
the comments on a 7-point scale in terms of their constructiveness (defined as
statements that are helpful, considerate, supportive, and provide useful feedback on your work) or destructiveness (defined as statements that are discouraging, threatening, pessimistic, and might be viewed as a personal attack; 1 ⫽
very constructive, 4 ⫽ neutral [neither constructive nor destructive], 7 ⫽
destructive). Eight high aggression comments (“This answer is a joke,” “My
3-year-old niece could have written a better answer,” “Could you have written
about any more nonsense,” “I can’t believe you think this is college level
work,” “This is simply moronic,” “Is this your answer?!” “I don’t see a career
in management,” “I’m not impressed—maybe it’s your lack of talent”) and
eight low aggression comments (“Ok,” “Suitable,” “Adequate,” “Alright,”
“Fine,” “Average,” “Sufficient,” and a check mark [√]) were produced.
4
A second pilot test was conducted to test the perceived aggression and fear
of retaliation manipulations. Participants were drawn from the same population
as in the main study. First, to assess the perceived aggressiveness of the
comments, we asked participants to imagine they had received a graded
assignment from an instructor; looking through it, they noticed a variety of
instructor comments. Four randomly selected comments for each condition
(high and low aggression) were listed, and participants were asked to reflect on
the comments and respond to questions that served as a manipulation check for
the aggressiveness of the comments. Second, as a test of the fear of retaliation
manipulation, participants were asked to imagine that after receiving the
assignment, they were asked to evaluate the instructor’s performance. The high
fear of retaliation condition instructions indicated students were required to
write their name and the instructor’s name on their evaluation form. The low
fear of retaliation condition instructions indicated the evaluation would be for
administrative purposes only and the instructor would never see the student’s
responses. Participants then responded to questions that serve as a manipulation check for fear of retaliation. The results indicated participants rated the
comments as less aggressive in the low aggression condition than the high aggression condition (M ⫽ 3.43 vs. 5.81; F ⫽ 84.09, p ⬍ .001), and perceptions of fear
of retaliation were lower in the low fear of retaliation condition than the high fear
of retaliation condition (M ⫽ 2.08 vs. 4.55; F ⫽ 69.57, p ⬍ .001).
5
Beyond the careful debriefing protocol, we took care to design the experiment to deal with the use of deception. For example, the researchers maintained contact with the course instructors to ensure that the students and the
instructor/student relationships were continuing normally. Additionally, no
students reported discomfort or anything associated with the experimental
activity to the university’s institutional review board, administration, the instructor, or the researchers. Last, as a safeguard for the instructors, the researchers placed a letter in each instructor’s personnel file, indicating that an
experimental activity on workplace aggression occurred in the class for academic and learning purposes and that if an instructor had received uncharacteristically low evaluation scores, it might be the consequence of the activity. None
of the participating instructors received poor end-of-the-year evaluation scores.
6
To further assess whether students were suspicious about the experiment,
we evaluated answers in an open-ended question, embedded in the postexperimental questionnaire (i.e., the departmental services survey). In particular, students were asked to indicate whether they had discussed the questionnaires they completed that day with anyone prior to entering the classroom or
whether they had any concerns regarding doing so. None of the students
indicated that they had heard about the exercise or found the procedures or
evaluations to be suspect. Additionally, neither during the experimental activity nor during our debriefing discussions did students indicate suspicion.
MITCHELL AND AMBROSE
1154
Measures
Reactions to perceived aggression. Consistent with the literature (e.g., DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, & Gailliot, 2007;
DeWall, Twenge, Gitter, & Baumeister, 2009; Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001), retaliation and displaced aggression
were assessed by asking participants to evaluate the performance
of the focal target (i.e., the instructor’s performance for retaliation,
team’s performance for displaced aggression), with poor evaluation scores reflecting an aggressive reaction. Retaliation was assessed with a 20-item instructor evaluation that was used to assess
instructor class performance at this university (e.g., “The instructor’s use of class time,” “The instructor’s organization for the
course”). Students rated the instructor on a 5-point scale (1 ⫽
excellent, 5 ⫽ poor). Displaced aggression was assessed with a
10-item team evaluation form that was used in the course throughout the semester (e.g., “The team’s work is of high quality,”
“Members contribute equally to team assignments”). Students
rated their team on a 5-point scale (1 ⫽ all the time, 5 ⫽ never).
LOC. LOC was assessed with the 10-item Interpersonal LOC
subscale of the Spheres of Control measure (Paulhus, 1983).
Participants rated their expectations of outcomes in interpersonal
situations (e.g., “I can usually achieve what I want if I work hard
for it,” “I can learn almost anything if I set my mind to it”) on a
7-point Likert scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 7 ⫽ strongly agree).
High scores indicate an internal LOC.
Controls. Research suggests outcomes influence reactions to
mistreatment (Greenberg, 1993). Thus, grades were not manipulated; grades written on the assignment were the grades students
received. Further, grades were controlled for in the analysis using
a 100-point scale. Because different instructors’ classes were used,
instructors were coded and controlled for in the analysis.
Manipulation checks. The manipulation checks were embedded in the management department services questionnaire. A
five-item perceived aggression manipulation check asked students
to evaluate their last graded assignment (“I felt that the comments
written by the instructor were highly insensitive”; ␣ ⫽ .91). A
four-item fear of retaliation manipulation check asked respondents
to rate the procedure for the instructor evaluation (“I was fearful
that my instructor would get back at me in some way in the
remainder of the course”; ␣ ⫽ .89). Participants rated responses on
a 5-point Likert-like scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 5 ⫽ strongly
agree).
Study 1 Results
Manipulation Checks
The manipulation checks showed the experimental conditions
had the intended effects. Perceptions of aggression were lower in
the low aggression condition than the high aggression condition
(M ⫽ 2.25 vs. 3.96; F ⫽ 227.69, p ⬍ .001); perceptions of fear of
retaliation were lower in the low fear of retaliation condition than
the high fear of retaliation condition (M ⫽ 1.44 vs. 3.08; F ⫽
247.36, p ⬍ .001).
Hypotheses Testing
Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics, correlations, and
reliability coefficients for the study’s variables. Table 2 displays
the moderated multiple regression results. Study 1’s design allowed for only a test of predictions for the moderating effects of
LOC and fear of retaliation on retaliation and displaced aggression; effects for behavioral modeling and those on problem solving
behavior were not tested. The measured variable, LOC, was mean
centered to assist in the interpretation of the interactions, and
significant interactions were plotted and tested at one standard
deviation above and below the mean (J. Cohen, Cohen, West, &
Aiken 2003).
Hypothesis 1 predicts lower LOC will strengthen the effects of
perceived aggression on (H1b) retaliation and (H1c) displaced
aggression. The interaction was significant on retaliation but not
on displaced aggression. Consistent with expectations, the plot in
Figure 1 shows the effects on retaliation were stronger when LOC
was lower (b ⫽ .87, p ⬍ .001) than higher (b ⫽ .45, p ⬍ .01). The
results support the prediction for retaliation (H1b) but not for
displaced aggression (H1c).
Hypothesis 2 predicts lower fear of retaliation will strengthen
the relationship between aggression and retaliation (H2b). Table 2
shows the interaction was significant. Table 3 reports the means
and standard deviations for the aggression and fear of retaliation
manipulations. Figure 2 depicts the effects and shows the mean of
Table 1
Study 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Aggression (0 ⫽ low)
Fear of retaliation (0 ⫽ low)
Locus of control
Retaliatory aggression
Displaced aggression
Exam grade
Instructor 1
Instructor 2
Instructor 3
Instructor 4
Instructor 5
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.52
0.47
5.71
2.63
1.27
85.15
0.22
0.11
0.35
0.13
0.13
0.50
0.50
0.69
1.22
0.37
13.83
0.42
0.31
0.48
0.33
0.34
—
⫺.02
⫺.08
.16
.02
⫺.13
.04
⫺.02
.01
⫺.04
⫺.03
—
.06
⫺.19
⫺.05
⫺.19
.06
.37
⫺.21
⫺.36
.41
(.79)
.01
.05
.00
.08
.04
⫺.02
⫺.03
.00
(.97)
⫺.27
⫺.10
.65
⫺.39
⫺.18
.01
⫺.24
(.83)
.05
⫺.39
.03
⫺.01
.11
.19
—
⫺.14
.11
.08
.24
⫺.29
—
⫺.19
⫺.40
⫺.20
⫺.21
—
⫺.26
⫺.13
⫺.14
—
⫺.28
⫺.28
—
⫺.15
Note. The phi coefficient is reported for aggression and fear of retaliation. Point-biserial correlations are reported for all dichotomous variables, and
zero-order correlations are shown for all continuous variables. Correlations greater than |.18| are significant at p ⬍ .01 and those greater than |.13| are
significant at p ⬍ .05, two-tailed. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are reported on the diagonal for measured variables.
REACTIONS TO SUPERVISOR AGGRESSION
Table 3
Study 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Aggression as a
Function of Fear of Retaliation
Table 2
Study 1 Moderated Multiple Regressions of
Hypothesized Relationships
Variable
Controls
Assignment grade
Instructor 1
Instructor 2
Instructor 3
Instructor 4
Instructor 5
Predictors
Aggression
Fear of retaliation
Locus of control
Moderators
Aggression ⫻ Fear of Retaliation
Aggression ⫻ Locus of Control
R2
Adjusted R2
F
Retaliation
Displaced aggression
⫺.03
.55ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.30ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.05
.05
⫺.16ⴱ
⫺.01
⫺.78ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.34ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.53ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.28ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.17
.24ⴱⴱⴱ
.06
.07
ⴱⴱ
⫺.20
⫺.15ⴱ
.57
.55
27.33ⴱⴱⴱ
.03
.00
.19ⴱ
⫺.01
⫺.14
.26
.22
5.87ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. Standardized beta coefficients are reported.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05, two-tailed. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01, two-tailed. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001, two-tailed.
the high aggression/low fear of retaliation condition was significantly different from all other categories (p ⬍ .001) and that none
of the other conditions were significantly different from one another, supporting Hypothesis 2b.
Hypothesis 3a and 3b reflect competing predictions for the
effects of fear of retaliation on the positive relationship between
aggression and displaced aggression. The frustration–aggression
view (H3a) suggests fear of retaliation will strengthen the effects,
and the learned inhibitions view (H3b) suggests fear of retaliation
will weaken the effects. The interaction was not significant on
displaced aggression, and, thus, neither view was supported in
Study 1.
Study 1 Discussion
Our purpose in Study 1 was to examine, within an experimental
setting, the moderating effects of LOC and fear of retaliation on
retaliatory and displaced aggression reactions to perceived aggres-
Low fear of retaliation
M
SD
n
M
SD
n
Low aggression
High aggression
2.52a
3.19b
1.22
0.74
64
64
2.32a
2.45a
1.45
1.26
53
61
Note. Within each row and column, means sharing a subscript do not
differ from one another; those with different subscripts are different from
one another.
sion. The results support our predictions for retaliation but not for
displaced aggression. For retaliation, the effects of perceived aggression (i.e., aggressive instructor comments) were stronger when
LOC was lower than higher and when fear of retaliation was lower
than higher. The findings support the notion that externals (low
LOC individuals), guided by futility beliefs, see less opportunity to
control the threat (i.e., instructor), which prompts destructive reactions (i.e., retaliation). Also consistent with our theorizing, the
effects of perceived aggression were stronger when fear of retaliation was lower than higher; participants retaliated more when
they did not believe their instructor would know what they wrote
in their evaluations. This suggests learned inhibitions affected
participants’ reactions (Bandura, 1973); individuals consider the
consequences of reacting aggressively against an aggressive authority figure when they fear retaliation from that person.
In contrast to the results for retaliation, no significant effects
were found for displaced aggression. We argued low LOC would
strengthen aggressive reactions to perceived aggression (Deci &
Ryan, 1980), and we presented opposing predictions for the effects
of fear of retaliation. Based on the frustration–aggression view
(Dollard et al., 1939), fear of retaliation would strengthen displaced aggression reactions to perceived aggression, and based on
the learned inhibitions view (Bandura, 1973; Tedeschi & Felson,
1994), fear of retaliation would weaken those reactions. However,
neither the LOC nor the fear of retaliation interaction was significant. The lack of results may be a consequence of the target of
Retaliation
3.2
3
High Locus of
Control
2.6
Low Locus of
Control
2.4
2.2
Retaliation
3.4
3.4
3.2
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Low
2
Low
High
Aggression
Figure 1. Study 1 Aggression ⫻ Locus of Control interaction on retaliation.
High fear of retaliation
Variable
3.6
2.8
1155
High
Aggression
High Fear of Retaliation
Low Fear of Retaliation
Figure 2. Study 1 Aggression ⫻ Fear of Retaliation interaction on
retaliation.
MITCHELL AND AMBROSE
1156
displaced aggression (team members). Team members are individuals with whom students had ongoing and interdependent relations
and on whom they had to rely on for future class activities. Indeed,
the learned inhibitions view would suggest students should discern
to whom and when to displace aggression (Bandura, 1973; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). Thus, it is possible students understood that
displacing aggression against their peers might tarnish the relationships they held with their team members. Students may also
have believed their displaced aggression might further provoke the
aggressor (i.e., the instructor). Alternatively, the lack of results
may be a consequence of our displaced aggression measure, as we
used a team evaluation and did not ask about aggression directed
against specific targets.
Study 1’s experimental design offers a number of strengths,
such as the allowance of greater control, enhanced internal validity, and the ability to draw causal conclusions. The design also
provides behavioral, rather than self-report, indicators of retaliation and displaced aggression. Still, this approach has limitations.
First, not all predictions could be tested. Second, although we tried
to maximize the realism of the experiment, the examination of the
hypothesized relationships in an experimental setting with students
raises concerns about the generalizability of the results. There are
differences in the nature of the relationship between an instructor
and student, compared to a supervisor and subordinate. For instance, students are typically in a relationship with their instructor
for only one class and one semester. In contrast, subordinates have
ongoing relationships with their supervisors and typically have
only one supervisor. Further, the extent to which an instructor can
exert power over a student may be different than the extent to
which a supervisor can exert power over a subordinate. Thus, two
complementary field studies were designed to examine our predictions and test the generalizability of Study 1’s findings.
Study 2 Method
Sample and Procedure
Surveys were distributed to individuals randomly selected and
called to jury duty by a southeastern U.S. county circuit court.
Jurors were addressed before they were called to serve. The
researchers explained the purpose of the study and emphasized that
the survey had nothing to do with jury duty or the court system.
Interested participants picked up surveys from and returned surveys to the researcher. Over four weeks, 321 individuals participated in the study (29% response rate). The final sample of 278
observations included participants who worked with coworkers
and who had complete data for our study’s variables. On average,
participants were 42.8 years old (SD ⫽ 12.2) and their company
tenure was 8.4 years (SD ⫽ 7.9); 49.4% were managers, 47.2%
were female, and 70.6% were White (13.2% were Hispanic, 8.6%
were Black).
Measures
Supervisor aggression. Supervisor aggression was assessed
with Mitchell and Ambrose’s (2007) five-item version of Tepper’s
(2000) measure, which assesses active (versus passive) supervisor
aggression (e.g., “My boss ridiculed me,” “My boss put me down
in front of others”). Participants rated the frequency they experienced the behavior on a 7-point scale (1 ⫽ never, 7 ⫽ daily).
Moderator variables. The measure for LOC described in
Study 1 was also used in Study 2. Fear of retaliation was assessed
with Fox and Spector’s (1999) three-item fear of future punishments measure. Instructions were adapted to asked participants to
rate perceptions about their immediate supervisor (vs. their organization) on a 7-point Likert-like scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 7 ⫽
strongly agree; “I am afraid of reacting against my supervisor for
fear of future punishments,” “I would not act out against my
supervisor because s/he would retaliate against me,” and “I would
not do something against my supervisor because s/he would get
back at me in some way”). Consistent with the literature (e.g.,
Aquino & Douglas, 2003), coworker aggressive modeling was
assessed with Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly’s (1998) nine-item
antisocial behavior scale. Respondents rated the frequency of
observed coworkers being aggressive on a 5-point scale (1 ⫽
never, 5 ⫽ 10 or more times; e.g., “Damage property belonging to
the organization,” “Started an argument with someone at work”).
Dependent variables. Retaliation was assessed with Mitchell
and Ambrose’s (2007) 10-item supervisor-directed deviance measure (e.g., “Swore at my supervisor,” “Refused to talk to my
supervisor”). Coworker displaced aggression was assessed by
adapting Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) seven-item interpersonal
deviance measure to focus on behaviors intentionally aimed at
coworkers (e.g., “Made an obscene comment or gesture toward a
coworker,” “Publicly embarrassed a coworker”). Problem solving
was assessed with eight items adapted from Rusbult, Farrell,
Rogers, and Mainous’ (1988) Voice and Tepper et al.’s (2001)
Constructive Resistance measures (“Asked coworkers for advice
about what to do,” “Tried to reconcile with the person I was having
trouble with,” “Discussed the problem with your immediate supervisor,” “Tried to change the situation to benefit all parties
involved,” “Asked the person to clarify the problem,” “Discussed
with the office manager the situation,” Asked the person for more
explanation about the problem,” and “Tried to convince the person
to reassess the problem”).7 For all dependent variables, respondents rated the behaviors on a 7-point scale (1 ⫽ never, 7 ⫽ daily).
Controls. Research shows aggression promotes aggression
(see Anderson & Bushman, 2002, for a review); because we
examine coworker displaced aggression, we controlled for perceived coworker aggression in the analysis, with adapted items
from Mitchell and Ambrose’s (2007) five-item abusive supervision measure and three items from the Workplace Aggression
Questionnaire (WAQ; Schat et al., 2005).8 Further, consistent with
aggression research (e.g., Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007), we controlled for trait anger (with Buss & Perry’s 1992 seven-item anger
7
The adapted problem solving measure was pretested on a separate
sample of participants from the same population as in Study 2 (N ⫽ 62).
Exploratory factor analysis, using principal-axis factoring, shows the items
loaded on one factor (eigenvalue ⫽ 6.03). The measure demonstrated
acceptable psychometric standards (␣ ⫽ .95; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
8
Measures of coworker aggression were pretested on a separate sample
from the same population as in Study 2 (N ⫽ 85). Exploratory factor
analysis, using principal-axis factoring, shows the items loaded on one
factor (eigenvalue ⫽ 5.60) and the measure demonstrated acceptable
psychometric standards (coworker aggression ␣ ⫽ .94; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
REACTIONS TO SUPERVISOR AGGRESSION
1157
Hypothesis 3 presents competing predictions about how fear of
retaliation will impact coworker displaced aggression reactions to
supervisor aggression. The frustration–aggression view (H3a) predicts higher fear of retaliation will strengthen the positive relationship; the learned inhibitions view (H3b) predicts higher fear of
retaliation will weaken the positive relationship. The interaction
was significant, and the plot (see Figure 6) supports the learned
inhibitions view (H3b). The positive relationship between supervisor aggression and displaced aggression was weaker when fear
of retaliation was higher (b ⫽ ⫺.13, p ⬍ .05) than lower (b ⫽ .13,
p ⬍ .05). In fact, the relationship was negative when fear of
retaliation was higher than lower.
Hypothesis 4 predicts behavioral modeling will impact the effects of supervisor aggression on our dependent variables. Study 2
tests only the aggressive modeling predictions, which suggest
aggressive modeling will strengthen the positive effects of supervisor aggression on (H4a) retaliation and (H4b) coworker displaced aggression. The interaction was significant on both dependent variables, and the plots support our predictions. Both
retaliation (see Figure 7) and coworker displaced aggression (see
Figure 8) were stronger when aggressive modeling was higher
(b ⫽ .32, p ⬍ .001 for retaliation; b ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .05 for coworker
displaced aggression) than lower (b ⫽ .12, p ⬍ .01 for retaliation;
b ⫽ ⫺.13, p ⬍ .05 for coworker displaced aggression).
subscale of the Aggression Questionnaire), social desirability (with
Paulhus’ 1991 18-item measure), and participants’ tenure with
their supervisor (in years). Last, Aquino and colleagues’ (e.g.,
Aquino & Douglas, 2003; Aquino, Galperin, & Bennett, 2004)
demonstrated that social status variables (e.g., gender, race, position in the company) influence aggressive behavior, and so we
controlled for respondents’ gender (0 ⫽ female, 1 ⫽ male), race
(0 ⫽ White, 1 ⫽ non-White), and position (0 ⫽ non-management,
1 ⫽ management).
Study 2 Results
Table 4 provides the descriptive statistics, correlations, and
reliability coefficients for Study 2’s variables. The measures displayed acceptable reliabilities. Table 5 displays the moderated
multiple regression results. As with Study 1, predictor variables
were mean centered and significant interactions were plotted and
tested at one standard deviation above and below the mean (J.
Cohen et al., 2003).
Hypothesis 1 predicts higher LOC will strengthen the positive
effects of supervisor aggression on (H1a) problem solving, and
lower LOC will strengthen the effects of supervisor aggression on
(H1b) retaliation and (H1c) displaced aggression. The interaction
was significant on retaliation but not on problem solving or coworker displaced aggression. The plot shows the effects on retaliation (see Figure 3) were stronger when LOC was lower (b ⫽ .30,
p ⬍ .001) than higher (b ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .01). The results support H1b
but not H1a or H1c.
Hypothesis 2 predicts higher fear of retaliation will strengthen
the positive effects of supervisor aggression on (H2a) problem
solving and lower fear of retaliation will strengthen the positive
effects of supervisor aggression on (H2b) retaliation. The interaction was significant on problem solving and retaliation. Supporting
H2a and H2b, the effects were stronger on problem solving (see
Figure 4) when fear of retaliation was higher (b ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .05)
than lower (b ⫽ ⫺.03, ns) and on retaliation (see Figure 5) when
fear of retaliation was lower (b ⫽ .33, p ⬍ .001) than higher (b ⫽
.11, p ⬍ .01).
Study 2 Discussion
Study 2 complements Study 1 by investigating the predictions
with working adults. We tested the moderating effects of LOC,
fear of retaliation, and aggressive modeling on the relationships
among supervisor aggression and retaliation, coworker displaced
aggression, and problem solving. Study 2’s findings are consistent
with Study 1 with regard to the effects on retaliation. That is, LOC
and fear of retaliation moderated the effects, such that lower LOC
and lower fear of retaliation strengthened retaliatory reactions to
supervisor aggression.
The other findings from Study 2 were also revealing. For example, although LOC significantly moderated the effects of super-
Table 4
Study 2 Summary of Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Supervisor aggression
Locus of control
Fear of retaliation
Coworker aggressive modeling
Retaliation
Coworker displaced aggression
Problem solving
Gender (0 ⫽ female)
Race (0 ⫽ White)
Position (0 ⫽ non-management)
Tenure with the supervisor
Social desirability
Trait anger
Coworker aggression
M
1.47
5.62
2.95
2.33
1.43
1.79
2.87
0.53
0.71
0.50
3.63
2.63
1.99
1.74
SD
1
0.91 (.90)
0.76 ⫺.06
1.99
.17
1.03
.40
0.66
.61
0.81
.40
1.33
.24
0.50
.11
0.46
.00
0.50 ⫺.01
4.44 ⫺.06
0.57
.15
0.70
.14
0.90
.59
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
(.73)
⫺.22 (.90)
⫺.05 .18
(.92)
⫺.10 .45
.10
(.84)
⫺.06 .44
.08
.73
(.85)
.06 .27
.07
.16
.08
(.93)
.02 .03 ⫺.13
.14
.21 ⫺.00
—
.03 .11 ⫺.05
.00
.08 ⫺.05
.07 —
.18 .05 ⫺.11 ⫺.06 ⫺.05
.20
.17
.15 —
.05 .01 ⫺.02 ⫺.07 ⫺.12
.03 ⫺.07
.13
.19 —
⫺.07 .25
.05
.45
.51
.06
.19 ⫺.07 ⫺.10 ⫺.16 (.73)
⫺.05 .22
.17
.31
.28
.05
.08
.00
.01 ⫺.04 .30 (.79)
⫺.07 .50
.18
.56
.51
.27
.03
.02 ⫺.00 ⫺.07 .22 .30 (.88)
Note. Correlations greater than |.14| are significant at p ⬍ .01 and those greater than |.11| are significant at p ⬍ .05, two-tailed. Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients are reported on the diagonal for measured variables.
MITCHELL AND AMBROSE
1158
Table 5
Study 2 Multiple Regressions for Hypothesized Relationships
Variable
Controls
Gender (0 ⫽ female)
Race (0 ⫽ White)
Position (0 ⫽ non-management)
Tenure with the supervisor
Social desirability
Trait anger
Coworker aggression
Predictors
Supervisor aggression
Locus of control
Fear of retaliation
Coworker aggressive modeling
Moderators
Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Locus of Control
Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Fear of Retaliation
Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Coworker Aggressive Modeling
R2
Adjusted R2
F
Retaliation
Coworker displaced aggression
Problem solving
.01
.01
⫺.04
.02
.27ⴱⴱⴱ
.10ⴱⴱⴱ
.13ⴱⴱ
.12ⴱⴱⴱ
.05
⫺.06
⫺.02
.33ⴱⴱⴱ
.05
.27ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.02
⫺.10
.21ⴱⴱⴱ
.03
.01
⫺.05
.15ⴱⴱ
.31ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.01
⫺.03
.15ⴱⴱⴱ
.00
.01
.00
.17ⴱⴱⴱ
.07
.02
.02
.18ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.11ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.18ⴱⴱⴱ
.21ⴱⴱⴱ
.63
.61
31.48ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.07
⫺.17ⴱⴱⴱ
.21ⴱⴱⴱ
.54
.51
21.88ⴱⴱⴱ
.05
.11ⴱ
.63
.61
31.48ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. For all dependent variables, N ⫽ 278. Standardized beta coefficients are reported.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05, one-tailed. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01, one-tailed. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001, one-tailed.
visor aggression on retaliation, it did not influence the relationship
between supervisor aggression and problem solving or coworker
displaced aggression. Theory about LOC suggests externals do not
believe they can exact change when they face threats (i.e., supervisor aggression), which motivates them to react destructively.
Yet, the results of Study 2 (and Study 1) for LOC suggest individuals may gauge the usefulness of engaging in problem solving
and certain destructive reactions. It is possible that internals may
not engage in problem solving if they do not believe the behaviors
are possible or available to them within their work setting. Further,
victims may also believe displacing aggression might ruin relationships with peers, making the situation even more taxing. This
line of reasoning suggests victims’ behavioral tendencies with
regard to LOC may be more nuanced than previous research
suggests.
2.2
The results for the moderating effects of fear of retaliation
supported the learned inhibitions view (Bandura, 1973; Tedeschi
& Felson, 1994). A higher fear of retaliation inhibited destructive
reactions and enhanced constructive reactions to supervisor aggression. The relationships between supervisor aggression and
both forms of aggressive reactions (retaliation and coworker displaced aggression) were stronger when fear of retaliation was
lower than higher, and the relationship between supervisor aggression and problem solving was stronger when fear of retaliation was
higher than lower. The results suggest fearing retaliation from an
aggressive supervisor creates a situation that motivates individuals
to not aggress outwardly at work and, instead, to try to find a
resolution to the problem. Notably, the results did not support the
frustration–aggression view of displaced aggression; the high fear
of retaliation slope was significant and negative, meaning victims
were less likely to vent their hostilities on coworkers and were not
overcome by catharsis.
3.4
2
1.6
High Locus of
Control
1.4
Low Locus of
Control
1.2
Problem Solving
Retaliation
3.2
1.8
3
2.8
High Fear of
Retaliation
2.6
2.4
Low Fear of
Retaliation
2.2
1
2
Low
High
Supervisor Aggression
Figure 3. Study 2 Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Locus of Control interaction
on retaliation.
Low
High
Supervisor Aggression
Figure 4. Study 2 Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Fear of Retaliation interaction on problem solving.
2.2
2.2
2
2
1.8
1.8
1.6
High Fear of
Retaliation
1.4
Retaliation
Retaliation
REACTIONS TO SUPERVISOR AGGRESSION
Low Fear of
Retaliation
High Coworker
Aggressive
Modeling
1.6
1.4
Low Coworker
Aggressive
Modeling
1.2
1.2
1
1
Low
Low
High
High
Supervisor Aggression
Supervisor Aggression
Figure 5. Study 2 Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Fear of Retaliation interaction on retaliation.
Last, Study 2 provides a test of the aggressive modeling predictions and shows that when victims perceived more (rather than
less) aggressive modeling from coworkers, they were more inclined to respond to supervisor aggression with aggression. The
positive relationship between supervisor aggression and both retaliation and coworker displaced aggression was stronger when
coworker aggressive modeling was higher than lower. When provoked by an aggressive supervisor, victims imitate the behaviors of
their coworkers; they believe such aggressive behaviors are acceptable within the work environment.
Study 2 has notable strengthens. It examines the hypotheses in
a diverse, randomly selected sample. Additionally, it replicates the
moderating effects of LOC and fear of retaliation on the relationship between supervisor aggression and retaliation, which were
found in the experiment, addressing issues of generalizability.
However, it too has limitations. First, Study 2’s data were collected
from a single source at a single point in time, increasing the
potential for common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003). Second, Study 2 did not allow for a test of all of
our predictions; the effects of problem solving modeling on problem solving reactions to supervisor aggression were not tested.
Last, it is possible that not all of our respondents were able to
Figure 7. Study 2 Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Coworker Aggressive Modeling interaction on retaliation.
engage in the problem solving behaviors assessed (e.g., report the
supervisor to a higher authority), as we did not ask participants if
these paths of recourse were available to them. Study 3 was
designed to address these issues. We used a time-separated data
collection design for Study 3, where the predictor and moderator
variables were collected at Time 1 and dependent variables were
collected at Time 2. Second, we assessed problem solving modeling, allowing for an examination of all of our hypotheses. Finally, in Study 3, we examined a range of problem solving behaviors (seeking social support from coworkers, trying to reconcile
with the supervisor, and reporting the aggressive supervisor to
authorities), and we asked respondents to indicate whether they
had the opportunity to engage in the listed problem solving behaviors.
Study 3 Method
Sample and Procedure
Data were collected from individuals working in full-time positions from various organizations located in the southeastern U.S.
in industries including finance, insurance, education, health care,
information technology, and retail. Surveys were administered via
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
High Fear of
Retaliation
1.4
Low Fear of
Retaliation
1.2
1
Low
High
Supervisor Aggression
Figure 6. Study 2 Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Fear of Retaliation interaction on coworker displaced aggression.
Coworker Displaced Aggression
Coworker Displaced Aggression
1159
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
High Coworker
Aggressive Modeling
1.4
Low Coworker
Aggressive Modeling
1.2
1
Low
High
Supervisor Aggression
Figure 8. Study 2 Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Coworker Aggressive Modeling interaction on coworker displaced aggression.
1160
MITCHELL AND AMBROSE
the Internet. Business administration students were asked to serve
as organizational contacts for course credit. The researchers asked
students to recruit up to two full-time working adults who worked
with coworkers to complete two surveys, which would be separated by approximately three weeks. This data collection technique
has been used successfully by a variety of researchers (e.g., De
Cremer et al., 2010; Grant & Mayer, 2009; Greenbaum, Mawritz,
& Eissa, 2012).
We received contact information for 674 potential study participants. From these, 371 individuals participated in the Time 1
survey (55% response rate). At Time 1, participants were asked
about supervisor aggression, locus of control, fear of retaliation,
aggressive modeling, problem solving modeling, and demographics. At Time 2, participants were asked about their behaviors
(retaliation, coworker displaced aggression, seeking social support,
and reconciling with and reporting the supervisor). Of the 298
individuals who participated in the Time 2 survey, the final sample
was limited to 243 individuals, who had complete data for our
study’s variables and were verified to work with coworkers. On
average, participants were 41.1 years old (SD ⫽ 13.7) and their
company tenure was 8.7 years (SD ⫽ 8.9); 43.1% were managers,
57.8% were female, and 86% were White (7.1% were Hispanic,
1.6% were Black).
Measures
Supervisor aggression. The measure described in Study 2
was also used in Study 3.
Moderator variables. The measures of LOC, fear of retaliation, and coworker aggressive modeling described in Study 2
were used in Study 3. For problem solving modeling, we adapted
the problem solving behavior measure from Study 2 and asked
respondents to rate how often they observed coworkers engaging
in the listed behaviors on a 7-point scale (1 ⫽ never, 7 ⫽ always;
e.g., “Ask for advice about the problem,” “Tried to change the
situation to benefit all parties involved”).
Dependent variables. The measures of retaliation and coworker displaced aggression described in Study 2 were also used
in Study 3. We assessed three forms of problem solving: seeking
coworker social support, reconciling with the supervisor, and
reporting the supervisor to authorities. Seeking coworker social
support was measured with three items from Westring and Ryan’s
(2010) measure (“Asked for emotional support,” “Sought help on
how to handle the conflict and problem,” and “Got advice on how
to sort out the issue”). Reconciling with the supervisor was measured with two items from Wade’s (1989) reconciliation subscale
(“I made an effort to be more concerned” and “I tried to reconcile
the situation with the supervisor”). Reporting the supervisor to
authorities was measured with five items (“Reported the issue to
the office manager or Human Resource representative,” “Discussed the situation with someone in a managerial position,”
“Reported the issue to someone in authority to resolve the issue,”
“Discussed with the office manager how you felt about the situation,” and “Asked someone in authority to directly help you
resolve the situation”).9 For all problem solving measures, participants were asked whether the problem solving behaviors were
available to them in their work environment; the analyses included
data only for those who indicated the problem solving behavior
was available. Respondents rated the frequency they engaged in
the stated behaviors on a 7-point scale (1 ⫽ never, 7 ⫽ always) for
all dependent variables.
Controls. The control variables used in Study 2 were included in our Study 3 analyses. We also controlled for the trait
emotional stability, using Saucier’s (1997) 10-item measure, as
this is a trait that impacts both constructive and destructive behavior (see Perrewé & Spector, 2002).
Study 3 Results
Table 6 provides the descriptive statistics, correlations, and
reliability coefficients for the Study 3 variables. The measures
displayed acceptable reliabilities. We followed the analytic procedures described in Study 2. Table 7 displays the multiple moderated regression results.
Hypothesis 1 predicts higher LOC will strengthen the positive
effects of supervisor aggression on (H1a) problem solving and
lower LOC will strengthen the positive effects of supervisor aggression on (H1b) retaliation and (H1c) displaced aggression. The
interaction was significant on two problem solving behaviors
(reconciling and reporting to authorities), retaliation, and coworker
displaced aggression but not on seeking coworker social support.
Thus, H1a was primarily supported. The plots support H1a for
reconciling (see Figure 9) and reporting to authorities (see Figure
10), H1b for retaliation (see Figure 11), and H1c for coworker
displaced aggression (see Figure 12). The effects of supervisor
aggression were stronger on both reconciling and reporting to
authorities when LOC was higher (b ⫽ .22, p ⬍ .05 for reconciling; b ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .05 for reporting to authorities) than lower (b ⫽
⫺.16, ns for reconciling; b ⫽ ⫺.05, ns for reporting to authorities).
Further, the effects of supervisor aggression were stronger on both
retaliation and coworker displaced aggression when LOC was
lower (b ⫽ .23, p ⬍ .001 for retaliation; b ⫽ .20, p ⬍ .01 for
coworker displaced aggression) than higher (b ⫽ .03, ns for
retaliation; b ⫽ .01, ns for coworker displaced aggression).
Hypothesis 2 predicts higher fear of retaliation will strengthen
the positive effects of supervisor aggression on (H2a) problem
solving and lower fear of retaliation will strengthen the positive
effects of supervisor aggression on (H2b) retaliation. The interaction was significant on retaliation but not on the forms of problem
solving. The plot for retaliation (see Figure 13) shows the relationship between supervisor aggression and retaliation was stronger when fear of retaliation was lower (b ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .05) than
higher (b ⫽ .05, ns). The results support H2b but not H2a.
Hypothesis 3 presents competing predictions about how fear of
retaliation will impact coworker displaced aggression reactions to
supervisor aggression. The frustration–aggression view (H3a) predicts higher fear of retaliation will strengthen the positive effects;
the learned inhibitions view (H3b) predicts higher fear of retaliation will weaken the effects. The interaction was significant, and
the plot (see Figure 14) supports the learned inhibitions view
(H3b); the effects were weaker when fear of retaliation was higher
(b ⫽ ⫺.02, ns) than lower (b ⫽ .24, p ⬍ .001).
Hypothesis 4 predicts aggressive modeling will strengthen the
positive effects of supervisor aggression on (H4a) retaliation and
9
Items were constructed based on qualitative evidence presented in prior
research (cf. Bies & Tripp, 1996).
Note. Correlations greater than |.14| are significant at p ⬍ .01 and those greater than |.12| are significant at p ⬍ .05, two-tailed. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are reported on the diagonal for measured
variables.
(.93)
(.83)
⫺.28
(.80)
⫺.37
.29
(.80)
.21
⫺.29
.27
—
⫺.17
⫺.02
⫺.03
⫺.08
—
.22
⫺.17
⫺.13
.15
⫺.07
—
⫺.12
⫺.07
⫺.06
.06
⫺.00
⫺.03
—
.08
⫺.23
.08
⫺.07
.06
⫺.09
⫺.01
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Supervisor aggression
Locus of control
Fear of retaliation
Coworker aggressive modeling
Problem solving modeling
Retaliation
Coworker displaced aggression
Seeking social support
Reconciling
Reporting to an authority
Gender (0 ⫽ female)
Race (0 ⫽ White)
Position (0 ⫽ non-management)
Tenure with the supervisor
Social desirability
Trait anger
Emotional stability
Coworker aggression
1.65
4.00
2.33
2.68
4.44
1.46
1.77
3.64
4.42
3.01
1.58
1.40
1.43
3.69
2.67
2.04
3.79
1.77
0.89
0.40
1.06
1.06
0.99
0.58
0.67
1.11
1.44
0.95
0.50
0.49
0.50
4.38
0.55
0.71
0.56
0.90
(.89)
⫺.15
.39
.34
⫺.13
.32
.24
.03
⫺.05
⫺.04
.01
⫺.08
⫺.05
⫺.08
.11
.16
⫺.22
.56
(.70)
⫺.21
⫺.08
.11
⫺.14
⫺.15
⫺.16
.22
.20
⫺.10
.02
.09
.00
⫺.19
⫺.14
.44
⫺.15
(.93)
.23
⫺.13
.22
.10
.01
⫺.14
⫺.17
.06
.05
⫺.18
⫺.04
.14
.14
⫺.22
.32
(.91)
⫺.20
.46
.48
.06
⫺.04
⫺.06
⫺.05
⫺.06
⫺.10
⫺.07
.35
.13
⫺.23
.61
(.89)
⫺.05
⫺.04
.28
.31
.30
.08
⫺.03
.12
.05
.00
⫺.07
.02
⫺.20
(.86)
.61
.17
⫺.03
⫺.05
⫺.10
⫺.02
⫺.11
⫺.03
.42
.22
⫺.22
.40
(.81)
.18
⫺.03
⫺.07
⫺.12
⫺.06
⫺.07
⫺.09
.52
.21
⫺.17
.44
(.80)
.33
.34
.30
.03
⫺.03
.01
.10
.10
⫺.26
.06
(.82)
.46
.12
⫺.02
.15
.10
⫺.05
.00
.04
⫺.03
(.74)
.19
.07
.08
.15
⫺.07
.10
.05
⫺.07
13
12
2
1
SD
M
Variable
Table 6
Study 3 Summary of Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
REACTIONS TO SUPERVISOR AGGRESSION
1161
(H4b) coworker displaced aggression and problem solving modeling will strengthen the effects of supervisor aggression on (H4c)
problem solving. The interactions were significant for retaliation,
coworker displaced aggression, and seeking coworker social support but not for reconciling or reporting to authorities. As predicted, the plots show the effects for retaliation (see Figure 15) and
coworker displaced aggression (see Figure 16) were stronger when
aggressive modeling was higher (b ⫽ .22, p ⬍ .001 for retaliation;
b ⫽ .17, p ⬍ .01 for coworker displaced aggression) than lower
(b ⫽ .04, ns for retaliation; b ⫽ .04, ns for coworker displaced
aggression), and the effects on seeking social support (see Figure
17) were stronger when problem solving modeling was higher
(b ⫽ .22, p ⬍ .05) than lower (b ⫽ ⫺.05, ns). The results support
H4a and H4b and provide partial support for H4c.
Study 3 Discussion
Our purpose in Study 3 was to provide a test of all predictions,
examine the generalizability of Study 1, and complement Study 2’s
design. All of the predicted effects for retaliation and coworker
displaced aggression were supported in Study 3, but only some of
the predictions for problem solving were supported. The differential effects for our moderators on problem solving may be a factor
of the distinct forms of problem solving we assessed. We expand
on these ideas below and discuss each of our predictions in turn.
The results support our LOC predictions for destructive reactions and for two forms of problem solving behavior. A lower LOC
strengthened the positive effects of supervisor aggression on retaliation and displaced aggression, and a higher LOC strengthened
the effects on reconciling with and reporting the supervisor to
authorities. Interestingly, LOC did not moderate the effects on
seeking social support problem solving. This result may indicate
internals are more discriminating in how they problem solve. Both
reconciling with and reporting the supervisor allow internals to try
to directly resolve the problem. In contrast, seeking coworkers’
social support involves victims leaning on others for consolation.
This behavior is a less direct approach to addressing the problem,
relies on others rather than oneself, and may not result in action
directed at the problem. The correlations between LOC and the
problem solving behaviors support these arguments. LOC was
positively related to reconciling with and reporting the supervisor,
but it was negatively correlated with seeking coworker social
support. These correlations suggest internals are more likely to
engage in more proactive, independent problem solving behaviors
(i.e., reconciling, reporting the supervisor) and less likely to engage in dependent problem solving behavior (i.e., seeking coworker social support).
The results also support the learned inhibition view of fear of
retaliation (Bandura, 1973; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). For the
destructive reactions, higher fear of retaliation weakened the relationship between supervisor aggression and both retaliation and
coworker displaced aggression. Hence, victims’ learned inhibitions allowed them to understand that acting aggressively—
whether against the supervisor or coworkers—would likely make
their situation worse.
Last, the results for the behavioral modeling predictions are
supported for aggressive modeling but are only partially supported
for problem solving modeling. The effects of supervisor aggression on retaliation and coworker displaced aggression were stron-
MITCHELL AND AMBROSE
1162
Table 7
Study 3 Multiple Regressions for Hypothesized Relationships
Variable
Controls
Gender (0 ⫽ female)
Race (0 ⫽ White)
Position (0 ⫽ non-management)
Tenure with the supervisor
Social desirability
Trait anger
Emotional stability
Coworker aggression
Predictors
Supervisor aggression
Locus of control
Fear of retaliation
Coworker aggressive modeling
Problem solving modeling
Moderators
Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Locus of Control
Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Fear of Retaliation
Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Coworker Aggressive Modeling
Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Problem Solving Modeling
R2
Adjusted R2
F
Retaliation
Coworker displaced
aggression
Seeking coworker
social support
Reconciling
Reporting to an
authority
⫺.06
.05
⫺.02
⫺.00
.27ⴱⴱⴱ
.14ⴱⴱ
.04
.02
⫺.10ⴱⴱ
.02
.02
⫺.03
.39ⴱⴱⴱ
.10ⴱ
.08
.17ⴱ
.28ⴱⴱⴱ
.04
.06
⫺.07
.01
⫺.03
⫺.22ⴱⴱⴱ
.00
.18ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.04
.11
.03
⫺.06
⫺.04
⫺.11
.05
.14ⴱⴱ
.09
.02
.18ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.02
.14ⴱⴱ
.05
⫺.05
.20ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.07
.05
.26ⴱⴱⴱ
.08
.14ⴱⴱ
⫺.11ⴱⴱ
⫺.03
.20ⴱⴱⴱ
.08
.07
⫺.03
.00
.07
.30ⴱⴱⴱ
.02
.25ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.07
⫺.04
.22ⴱⴱⴱ
.08
.21ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.09
.07
.27ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.14ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.15ⴱⴱⴱ
.16ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.11ⴱⴱ
⫺.22ⴱⴱⴱ
.10ⴱ
.04
⫺.11
.11ⴱ
⫺.04
.41
.37
9.74ⴱⴱⴱ
.47
.44
12.63ⴱⴱⴱ
.13ⴱⴱ
.26
.21
5.00ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.07
.19
.13
3.31ⴱⴱⴱ
.12ⴱ
.01
⫺.04
.22
.16
3.57ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. For retaliation, N ⫽ 238; for coworker displaced aggression, N ⫽ 240; for support seeking, N ⫽ 243; for reconciling, N ⫽ 239; for reporting to
an authority, N ⫽ 219. Standardized beta coefficients are reported.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05, one-tailed. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01, one-tailed. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001, one-tailed.
ger when coworker aggressive modeling was higher than lower,
and the effects of supervisor aggression on seeking coworker
social support were stronger when problem solving modeling was
higher than lower. The pattern of these interactions shows coworker modeling impacts employees’ reactions to supervisor aggression in a “monkey-see, monkey-do” pattern (cf. Robinson &
O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). Yet, the influence of coworker modeling is
not found for reconciling with and reporting the supervisor problem solving. Thus, it appears aggressive modeling led to more
generalized behavior (aggression targeted at supervisors and aggression targeted at coworkers) than did problem solving. For
problem solving modeling, victims target problem solving reactions toward the source of the behavioral modeling (i.e., coworkers). It appears employees engage in problem solving (i.e. support
seeking) that is likely to be favorably received by the model.
General Discussion
Together, the results of our three studies provide useful insights
about employees’ reactions to supervisor aggression (see the Appendix for a summary of the findings across the three studies).
Consistent patterns emerged for the moderating effects of LOC,
fear of retaliation, and aggressive modeling on retaliatory reactions
5.2
3.6
Reconcile
4.8
4.6
4.4
High Locus of
Control
4.2
Low Locus of
Control
4
3.8
Reporting to Authorities
5
3.4
3.2
3
High Locus of
Control
2.8
Low Locus of
Control
2.6
2.4
Low
High
Supervisor Aggression
Figure 9. Study 3 Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Locus of Control interaction
on reconciling.
Low
High
Supervisor Aggression
Figure 10. Study 3 Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Locus of Control interaction on reporting to authorities.
2.2
2.2
2
2
1.8
1.8
1.6
High Locus of
Control
1.4
Low Locus of
Control
Retaliation
Retaliation
REACTIONS TO SUPERVISOR AGGRESSION
1163
1.6
High Fear of
Retaliation
1.4
Low Fear of
Retaliation
1.2
1.2
1
Low
1
High
Low
Supervisor Aggression
High
Supervisor Aggression
Figure 11. Study 3 Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Locus of Control interaction on retaliation.
to supervisor aggression; there were also consistent moderating
effects for fear of retaliation and aggressive modeling on coworker
displaced aggression reactions. Inconsistencies occurred for the
effects of the moderators on problem solving reactions to supervisor aggression. We believe these inconsistencies can be explained by considering the type of problem solving. Below, we
provide a more detailed discussion. For each prediction, we discuss the similarities and differences across the studies.
Hypothesis 1 predicted LOC would moderate the effects of
supervisor aggression on victims’ reactions such that lower LOC
(external orientation) would influence retaliation and displaced
aggression and higher LOC (internal orientation) would influence
problem solving. We were able to test this prediction in all three
studies for retaliation and displaced aggression but only in Studies
2 and 3 for problem solving. The findings were robust for the
effects on the destructive reactions. All three studies show low
LOC strengthened the relationship between supervisor aggression
and retaliation, and the same effect was shown for coworker
displaced aggression in Study 3. Consistent with our theorizing,
this general pattern suggests externals respond to aggression destructively, whereas internals were more self-controlled.
The results also suggest internals were more likely to take action
that could change the situation. In Study 3, we limited our analyses
Coworker Displaced
Aggression
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
High Locus of
Control
1.4
Low Locus of
Control
1.2
1
Low
High
Supervisor Aggression
Figure 12. Study 3 Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Locus of Control interaction on coworker displaced aggression.
Figure 13. Study 3 Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Fear of Retaliation interaction on retaliation.
to victims who felt they had the opportunity to engage in problem
solving behaviors. Study 3’s results show internals were more
likely to engage in problem solving behavior but only when the
behavior reflected a high level of independence and control (i.e.,
reconciling with and reporting the supervisor). LOC did not influence individuals to seek coworker social support—a behavior that
involves seeking help and consolation from peers but does not
focus on directly changing the situation or resolving the problem.
The results from Study 1 are consistent with these findings, even
though we did not assess problem solving explicitly. The cover
story given to students was that the chair of the department would
be using the instructor evaluations as a basis of assessing the
department and the instructors’ effectiveness. Implied is that the
evaluations would be used as a basis for change. Consistent with
the stronger effects of supervisor aggression on problem solving
reporting behavior found in Study 3, in Study 1 there was a
positive relationship between instructor aggression and negative
instructor evaluation. It appears students viewed the instructor
evaluation as a mechanism for enacting change.10
In contrast to Study 1 and Study 3, there was not a significant
interaction for supervisor aggression and LOC for problem solving
in Study 2. For Study 2, we relied on a general measure of problem
solving, which assessed the three types of problem solving behavior captured in Study 3 in an overall measure. The results of Study
3 show LOC differentially impacted the problem solving behaviors
and only for behaviors that emphasized internals’ control. Thus, it
is possible that the lack of results for LOC in Study 2 highlights the
need for LOC researchers to consider the type of behavior that
allows victims to directly change the situation. Alternatively, the
lack of effects of LOC on problem solving in Study 2 might stem
from whether victims felt they were able to engage in the problem
solving activities in their workplace. Nevertheless, the results
suggest, overall, that internals are more likely to engage in behavior they believe can resolve threats they face.
Hypotheses 2 and 3 predicted fear of retaliation would moderate
the relationships between supervisor aggression and victims’ reactions. We were able to test the predictions in Study 1 for
10
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this idea.
Coworker Displaced Aggression
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
High Fear of
Retaliation
1.4
Low Fear of
Retaliation
1.2
1
Low
High
Coworker Displaced Aggression
MITCHELL AND AMBROSE
1164
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
High Coworker
Aggressive Modeling
1.4
Low Coworker
Aggressive Modeling
1.2
1
Low
High
Supervisor Aggression
Supervisor Aggression
Figure 14. Study 3 Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Fear of Retaliation interaction on coworker displaced aggression.
retaliation and coworker displaced aggression and in Studies 2 and
3 on all of the victims’ reactions. Altogether, the pattern of the
results support the learned inhibitions view (Bandura, 1973; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994), which suggests higher fear of retaliation
strengthens the effects of supervisor aggression on problem solving and lower fear of retaliation strengthens the effects on retaliation and displaced aggression. We found consistent effects for
fear of retaliation on the destructive reactions and some inconsistencies with problem solving. Fear of retaliation weakened the
positive effects of supervisor aggression on retaliation in all three
studies and on coworker displaced aggression in Studies 2 and 3.
Overall, this suggests employees consider their destructive behavior in context and discern when to (and not to) react destructively.
In a situation where employees are fearful of retaliatory acts by an
aggressive supervisor, they refrain from acting out aggressively.
Though the effects for problem solving could only be tested in
Studies 2 and 3, only in Study 2 (where problem solving was
measured as an overall construct) did significant results emerge.
Consistent with our theorizing, fear of retaliation heightened
awareness about the threatening situation, making victims more
likely to problem solve. As a whole, the results across the three
studies suggest individuals consider the situational context and
react according to their learned inhibitions.
Figure 16. Study 3 Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Coworker Aggressive Modeling interaction on coworker displaced aggression.
Last, Hypothesis 4 predicted behavioral modeling would moderate the effects of supervisor aggression on victims’ reactions;
coworker aggressive modeling was predicted to strengthen retaliation and displaced aggression reactions, and problem solving
modeling was predicted to strengthen problem solving reactions.
In Study 1, we were unable to test these predictions, and in Study
2, we tested only the effects of aggressive modeling. However, in
Study 3, we examined both forms of behavioral modeling on
victims’ reactions. The findings support the predictions for aggressive modeling. In both studies, aggressive modeling strengthened
the positive effects of supervisor aggression on the destructive
reactions— employees reacted to supervisor aggression more destructively (i.e., retaliating, displacing aggression) when coworkers modeled aggressive behavior. However, the effects of problem
solving modeling were more complex. Problem solving modeling
moderated and strengthened the effects of supervisor aggression
only on problem solving behavior that was targeted at the source
of modeling (i.e., coworkers). Problem solving modeling strengthened the relationship between supervisor aggression and seeking
coworker support. In short, coworker aggressive modeling affects
aggression targeted at both supervisors and coworkers, whereas
coworker problem solving modeling seems to affect only
coworker-targeted problem solving behaviors.
Retaliation
2
1.8
1.6
High Coworker
Aggressive Modeling
1.4
Low Coworker
Aggressive Modeling
1.2
1
Low
High
Supervisor Aggression
Figure 15. Study 3 Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Coworker Aggressive Modeling interaction on retaliation.
Seeking Coworker Social Support
2.2
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
High Problem Solving
Modeling
3.4
3.2
Low Problem Solving
Modeling
3.0
2.8
2.6
Low
High
Supervisor Aggression
Figure 17. Study 3 Supervisor Aggression ⫻ Problem Solving Modeling
interaction on seeking coworker social support.
REACTIONS TO SUPERVISOR AGGRESSION
Implications for Theory and Future Research
The results of our studies have implications for theory and future
research. First, a great deal of research has emerged to understand
destructive reactions to supervisor aggression (e.g., Lian, Ferris, &
Brown, 2012; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper et al., 2008; Thau
& Mitchell, 2010). Less empirical attention has been given to understanding constructive reactions (e.g., Tepper et al., 2001) and even
less to why victims might react one way versus another. Our study
addresses these issues. The findings across our three studies suggest
LOC, fear of retaliation from the aggressive supervisor, and behavioral modeling of coworkers impact the degree to which victims
engage in destructive or constructive reactions. Consequently, our
research provides new insight for the workplace aggression and abusive supervision literatures and for theorizing about employees’ sense
of control (i.e., LOC, fear of retaliation) and the impact of behavioral
learning (i.e., behavioral modeling, fear of retaliation). We elaborate
on these ideas below.
Our primary goal in this research was to understand the factors
that influence how employees respond to supervisor aggression.
The findings suggest LOC, fear of retaliation, and behavioral
modeling are influential. Notably, the findings show supervisor
aggression significantly and directly impacted retaliation, but only
in Study 2 did it significantly relate to displaced aggression, and
across all studies it did not significantly impact problem solving.
This pattern suggests retaliation may be a primary reaction to
supervisor aggression, and that, more or less, the other reactions
depend upon individual and situational factors. That is, whether
victims of supervisor aggression react destructively versus constructively depends on victims’ personality (e.g., LOC) and the
situational context under which such abuse occurs (e.g., fearing
retaliation from the aggressive supervisor, perceiving coworkers
behave aggressively, perceiving coworkers problem solving).
More research is needed to identify other factors that motivate
victims’ responses. Additionally, more research is needed to understand the process by which employees choose to react one way
versus the other. For example, it is entirely possible for employees
to react destructively if they attribute the supervisor’s behavior to
the supervisor, but victims might act constructively if they attribute
the supervisor’s behavior to something they did. Again, more
theorizing and research is needed to fully understand reactions to
supervisor aggression.
The findings also have implications for theory and research on
employees’ sense of control. LOC impacted destructive reactions
to supervisor aggression; an external orientation motivates victims
to react aggressively to supervisory threats. This finding is consistent with reactance theory (Wortman & Brehm, 1975), which
suggests that threatening situations invoke destructive behavior
and such behavior allows victims a way to express their hostilities
about their helpless state. The results across the three studies
suggest an external orientation heightens reactance for victims of
supervisor aggression. Consistent with expectations, in Studies 2
and 3, internals demonstrated greater control and refrained from
acting destructively. In Study 1 (the experiment), the relationship
between supervisor aggression and retaliation was positive for
internals. We argued this is because internals might have felt their
reaction (evaluating the instructor poorly) would exact change in
the aggressor’s behavior. Hence, an external orientation may enhance reactance behaviors that are destructive, but an internal
1165
orientation may also influence what is seemingly destructive behavior if victims believe doing so may reduce the aggression in the
future. Research is needed to test these ideas.
The results show important differential effects of LOC on constructive reactions to supervisor aggression as well. By and large,
prior research suggests LOC has an enduring and positive impact
on different forms of employees’ behaviors that reflect high LOC
individuals (internals) acting proactively (Ng et al., 2006, and
Spector, 1982, for reviews). Our studies, however, show that
internals are discerning in their behavioral choices, particularly in
their reactions to supervisor aggression. Their proclivity to act
constructively appears to be bounded. Internals seem to engage in
behaviors that allow them to exert control tendencies but only
when the behavior offers a direct way to resolve the problem
(reconciling with or reporting the supervisor), as opposed to acts
that may not allow for resolution (seeking coworker social support). Thus, some forms of problem solving more naturally appease control tendencies of internals. Future research might extend
these ideas and examine the effects of LOC on behaviors that can
more or less affect change.
Our findings also extend the aggression literature, specifically
with regard to fear of retaliation and displaced aggression. We
tested two theoretical views about the impact of fear of retaliation
on displaced aggression reactions to supervisor aggression. Consistent findings across our field studies showed fear of retaliation
weakened the positive effects of supervisor aggression on coworker displaced aggression. This pattern supports the learned
inhibition view (Bandura, 1973; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994) rather
than the frustration–aggression view (Dollard et al., 1939). Although the frustration–aggression view has received empirical
support within the social psychology literature (Marcus-Newhall et
al., 2000), the learned inhibitions view emerged because the cathartic effect of displaced aggression was not consistently found
(Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). When aggressive behavior (e.g.,
coworker-directed aggression) would likely prove disruptive, the
likelihood of catharsis decreases. Our results support this view; the
context influenced individuals’ reactions to aggression. Displacing
aggression on coworkers—individuals on whom victims have to
rely—would likely destroy relationships and may further provoke
the aggressive supervisor.
Additionally, our findings suggest fear of retaliation from a
harmdoer is a powerful deterrent to different forms of aggressive
reactions (i.e., retaliation, displaced aggression). Again, this contrasts with prior social psychology research on displaced aggression, which has shown aggression provokes displaced aggression
when individuals fear retaliation from the source of aggression
(Marcus-Newhall et al., 2000). Our work suggests researchers
should consider the social context of organizations and how this
context impacts behavior (Heath & Sitkin, 2001), specifically in
terms of the sources and targets of aggressive reactions. That is,
fear of retaliation may act to heighten one’s awareness of the social
context. Acting out against one’s peers is not wise because these
individuals may console the victim and/or may respond with
hostilities as a consequence of being the target of displaced aggression. The social context of our studies (individuals interdependent on others in school and at work) impacted the nature of the
aggression ⫻ fear of retaliation reaction, wherein fear of retaliation
acted as a form of behavioral control. Of course, we are not
proposing that supervisors and organizational decision makers go
1166
MITCHELL AND AMBROSE
out and spark fear in their employees. Indeed, research in the
behavioral ethics literature suggests these types of behavioral
control tactics, while inhibiting aggressive reactions, may promote
more clandestine deviant behaviors—acts conducted intentionally
and surreptitiously (Treviño, Weaver, Gibson, & Toffler, 1999;
Weaver, Treviño, & Cochran, 1999a, 1999b). Instead, we suggest
that our tests differ from experimental research in social psychology (where individuals displace aggression on strangers) and highlight the importance of considering the social context of aggression. More research is needed to investigate more effective
behavioral controls that deter supervisor aggression and victims’
destructive reactions and those that foster problem solving.
We expected that behavioral modeling would be one factor that
facilitated destructive and constructive reactions to supervisor aggression. We argued that employees learn what is socially acceptable by watching what their peers do and then engage in similar
behavior. Although the results support these arguments for aggressive reactions, the influence of problem solving modeling was
more limited. Problem solving modeling only influenced seeking
support from coworkers. It may be a consequence of measurement
(i.e., more items about seeking support), but it might also be
decision biases at play. Decision research has shown individuals
have a tendency to focus on negative rather than positive information (see Rozin & Royzman, 2001, for a review). Research on
leader behavior provides some suggestive evidence to support this
idea. For instance, Detert et al. (2007) found that aggressive leader
behavior (via perceptions of abusive supervision) provided more
of a managerial mode of influence on employees’ behavior than
did ethical leader behavior (via perceptions of ethical leadership).
Thus, it may be that aggressive modeling holds more influence to
affect behavioral learning than does problem solving modeling
because aggressive acts (being harmful and negative) are more
salient to employees. More research is needed to fully understand
the impact of modeling on constructive work behavior.
Implications for Practice
The findings suggest supervisor aggression influences both aggressive and constructive responses from employees. The costs of
supervisor aggression are considerable (Tepper et al., 2006). In
general, supervisor aggression research suggests organizational
decision makers should take notice and monitor and train supervisors’ effective interactions with their subordinates. Still, we
understand this may not fully address the issue. Employees decide
whether a supervisor is acting aggressively, regardless of whether
or not the supervisor is actually intending to harm the subordinate.
This reality suggests organizations must also focus on employees
and try to promote constructive rather than destructive behavior. A
first step in this direction is assuring that employees feel they have
the access to problem solving approaches.
Organizations should strive to inform employees about constructive problem solving behaviors and present avenues for assisting employees with interpersonal conflicts at work (e.g., open
door policies that may enhance reconciling behavior, safe reporting mechanisms). The results suggest a range of such options may
be most helpful. For example, internals like to take charge and
actively pursue change, particularly with regard to threats in the
work environment. The results show that internals were more
likely to engage in problem solving behaviors that allowed them to
try to resolve the problem directly when these options are available
to them.
Additionally, the results of our study suggest behavioral controls
may assist organizations in inhibiting destructive and enhancing
constructive reactions to supervisor aggression. For example,
higher fear of retaliation lessened victims’ destructive reactions.
We, again, do not suggest decision makers exact fear in this way.
Prior research demonstrates positive approaches for controlling
behavior are a more effective means of promoting constructive
behavior than fostering fear and punishing employees (Treviño et
al., 1999; Weaver et al., 1999a, 1999b). Organizations would
benefit from policies and programs that promote positive values
(e.g., ethics, problem solving) and make these values apparent to
employees (Treviño et al., 1999; Weaver et al., 1999a, 1999b).
Thus, creating organizational structures that protect employees
from aggressive behavior (i.e., punishments against those who
engage in workplace aggression, monitoring systems that ensure
individuals are treating each other respectfully) can safeguard
employees from supervisor aggression and may lessen the likelihood of employees engaging in destructive behavior themselves.
Establishing a work environment that emphasizes respectful behavior and protection of all employees can assist organizations in
harnessing constructive rather than destructive interpersonal behaviors.
Limitations
Like all studies, ours is not without limitations. One limitation is that our research did not examine all potential reactions
to perceived aggression. For example, other types of displaced
aggression could be investigated in the future (e.g., aggression
against strangers, friends, and/or family members). Indeed, it
would be interesting to explore whether different situational
and individual factors make non-work targets of displaced
aggression more likely. Additionally, our study examined three
moderator variables, and surely there are others that influence
employees’ responses. We hope future researchers explore
these ideas further.
Further, Study 2 and 3 used self-reported data, which may
influence method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We took several
steps to reduce such concerns. In Study 2, data were collected
anonymously from respondents to reduce inhibitions about responding to sensitive questions (e.g., supervisor aggression, aggressive modeling, retaliation, displaced aggression). In Study 3,
participants were recruited via students. Past research has shown
that individuals underreport norm-violating behaviors if data are
collected with the assistance of organizational decision makers—
neither design used this method. Research has shown that, with the
precautions we took, respondents are fairly candid in their responses (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Indeed, research has demonstrated self-report data are most appropriate when evaluating
victims’ perceptions of and reactions to aggression (Aquino &
Thau, 2009; Dalal, 2005; Tepper, 2007), and that such data are
more accurate than other-source reports (Dalal, 2005; Sackett,
Berry, Wiemann, & Laczo, 2006). These efforts, in conjunction
with the experimental design in Study 1, provide greater confidence in the results.
REACTIONS TO SUPERVISOR AGGRESSION
Conclusion
Workplace aggression researchers have spent considerable effort investigating the nature and costs of aggression (see Neuman
& Baron, 1998, for a review). An unfortunate reality for organizational decision makers is that supervisor aggression is on the
rise, and such acts are detrimental. Although research has shown
that some victims respond destructively to supervisor aggression,
research has also shown that some victims react constructively
(Bies & Tripp, 1996, 1998). Our research investigates the factors
that influence victims’ responses and demonstrates that both individual and situational factors influence employee responses to
supervisor aggression. The results of our studies suggest organizations can lessen destructive reactions and enhance constructive
reactions through the selection of their employees (having employees with a strong LOC) and by enhancing constructive ways for
employees to respond to supervisor aggression, integrating behavioral controls that hold employees accountable for and punish
destructive behavior, and fostering effective (rather than aggressive) behavior among organizational members.
References
Adarves-Yorno, I., Postmes, T., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). Creative innovation or crazy irrelevance? The contribution of group norms and social
identity to creative behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 410 – 416. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.013
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901
.135231
Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior
in organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 90, 195–208. doi:10.1016/S07495978(02)00517-4
Aquino, K., Galperin, B. L., & Bennett, R. J. (2004). Social status and
aggressiveness as moderators of the relationship between interactional
justice and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
34, 1001–1029. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02581.x
Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from
the target’s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717–741.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163703
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to
personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and
offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86, 52–59. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.52
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on?
Status variables and procedural justice as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, and reconciliation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 653– 668. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.653
Arslan, C., Dilmac, B., & Hamarta, E. (2009). Coping with stress and trait
anxiety in terms of locus of control: A study with Turkish university
students. Social Behavior and Personality, 37, 791– 800. doi:10.2224/
sbp.2009.37.6.791
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In
W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and
development: Theory, research and applications (pp. 45–103). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Baron, R. (1971). Exposure to an aggressive model and apparent proba-
1167
bility of retaliation from the victim as determinants of adult aggressive
behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 343–355. doi:
10.1016/0022-1031(71)90033-3
Baron, R. (2004). Workplace aggression and violence: Insights from basic
research. In R. Griffin & A. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of
organizational behavior (pp. 23– 61). New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
Bennett, R. J. (1998). Perceived powerlessness as a cause of deviance. In
R. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations (pp. 221–339). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). The development of a measure of
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349 –360. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349
Berkowitz, L. (1983). The experience of anger as a parallel process in the
display of impulsive, “angry” aggression. In R. G. Geen & E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews (Vol. 1,
pp. 103–134). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration–aggression hypothesis: Examination and
reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59 –73. doi:10.1037/00332909.106.1.59
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: “Getting even” and the
need for revenge. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations
(pp. 246 –260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998). Two faces of the powerless: Coping
with tyranny in organizations. In R. Kramer & M. Neal (Eds.), Power
and influence in organizations (pp. 203–220). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Biron, M., & Bamberger, P. (2012). Aversive workplace conditions and
absenteeism: Taking referent group norms and supervisor support into
account. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 901–912. doi:10.1037/
a0027437
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1998). About 2 million people attacked or
threatened in the workplace every year [Press release]. Washington, DC:
Author.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). Survey of workplace violence prevention [Press release]. Washington, DC: Author.
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or
self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219 –229. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.219
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452– 459. doi:10.1037/00223514.63.3.452
Carlson, D., Ferguson, M., Perrewé, P., & Whitten, D. (2011). The fallout
from abusive supervision: An examination of subordinates and their
partners. Personnel Psychology, 64, 937–961. doi:10.1111/j.17446570.2011.01232.x
Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult,
aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An “experimental ethnography.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 945–960.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.945
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001).
Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64 – 80. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255. doi:10.1037/00219010.90.6.1241
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic
motivation processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39 – 80). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
1168
MITCHELL AND AMBROSE
De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Mayer, D. M. (2010). Cooperating when
“you” and “I” are treated fairly: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1121–1133. doi:10.1037/
a0020419
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007).
Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 993–1005. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.993
DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., & Gailliot, M. T. (2007).
Violence restrained: Effects of self-regulation and its depletion on aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 62–76. doi:
10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.005
DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Gitter, S. A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009).
It’s the thought that counts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping
aggressive responses to social exclusion. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 96, 45–59. doi:10.1037/a0013196
Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R.
(1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Dunlop, P. D., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational
citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: The bad apples do
spoil the whole barrel. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 67– 80.
doi:10.1002/job.243
Dupré, 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. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.987
Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship
behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 960 –974. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.960
Eron, L. D. (1987). The development of aggressive behavior from the
perspective of a developing behaviorism. American Psychologist, 42,
435– 442. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.42.5.435
Fisher, A. (2005). How to prevent violence at work. Fortune, 151, 42.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. New York, NY:
Random House.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration–aggression.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915–931. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1099-1379(199911)20:6⬍915::AID-JOB918⬎3.0.CO;2-6
Gatchel, R. J. (1980). Perceived control: A review and evaluation of
therapeutic implications. In A. Baum & J. Singer (Eds.), Advances in
environmental psychology (pp. 1–22). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups:
Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 486 – 496. doi:10.2307/30040640
Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological
Review, 25, 161–178. doi:10.2307/2092623
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors:
Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors
of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
900 –912. doi:10.1037/a0013770
Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., & Eissa, G. (2012). Bottom-line
mentality as an antecedent of social undermining and the moderating
roles of core self-evaluations and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 343–359. doi:10.1037/a0025217
Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and
interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81–103.
doi:10.1006/obhd.1993.1004
Greenberg, J., & Folger, R. (1988).Controversial issues in social research
methods. New York, NY: Springer.
Greenberger, D., & Strasser, S. (1991). The role of situational and dispositional factors in the enhancement of personal control in organizations.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 111–145.
Gurchiek, K. (2005). Workplace violence on the upswing. HR Magazine,
50, 27–28.
Hahn, S. E. (2000). The effects of locus of control on daily exposure,
coping and reactivity to work interpersonal stressors: A diary study.
Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 729 –748. doi:10.1016/
S0191-8869(99)00228-7
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of
abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of
work as a moderator of the relationship. Leadership Quarterly, 18,
252–263. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.007
Heath, C., & Sitkin, S. B. (2001). Big-B versus Big-O: What is organizational about organizational behavior? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 43–58. doi:10.1002/job.77
Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Toward a multi-foci approach to
workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 24 – 44. doi:
10.1002/job.621
Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E.,
Innes, M., . . . Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228 –238. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228
Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family
undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 1125–1133. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1125
Inness, M., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2005). Understanding supervisortargeted aggression: A within-person between-jobs design. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 731–739. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.731
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and
detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40,
256 –282. doi:10.2307/2393638
Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and
empirical issues. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1, 85–117. doi:10.1300/
J135v01n01_05
Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L. M. (1994). Abusive behavior in the
workplace: A preliminary investigation. Violence and Victims, 9, 341–
357.
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Coping and adaptation. In W. D.
Gentry (Ed.), The handbook of behavioral medicine (pp. 282–325). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Levine, J. M., Higgins, E. T., & Choi, H.-S. (2000). Development of
strategic norms in groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 88 –101. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2889
Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the
outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 107–123. doi:10.1037/
a0024610
Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: A general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89, 647– 660. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.647
Marcus-Newhall, A., Pedersen, 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. doi:10.1037/00223514.78.4.670
Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1982). Learned helplessness: An
alternative explanation for performance deficits. Academy of Management Review, 7, 195–204.
Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an
integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A casual
reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 36 –50. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00192
Miller, N. (1941). The frustration–aggression hypothesis. Psychological
Review, 48, 337–342. doi:10.1037/h0055861
REACTIONS TO SUPERVISOR AGGRESSION
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252–283. doi:10.1037/
h0035002
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159 –1168. doi:10.1037/00219010.92.4.1159
Neuman, J., & Baron, R. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace
aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and
preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391– 419.
Neuman, J., & Keashly, L. (2003, April). Workplace bullying: Persistent
patterns of workplace aggression. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Eby, L. T. (2006). Locus of control at
work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1057–
1087. doi:10.1002/job.416
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., Charetier, S., Caprara,
G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1999). Locus of control and three types of
aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 61– 65. doi:10.1002/(SICI)10982337(1999)25:1⬍61::AID-AB6⬎3.0.CO;2-G
Pachter, B. (2003). Bosses behaving badly. Harvard Business Review, 81,
14 –15.
Parkes, K. R. (1984). Locus of control, cognitive appraisal, and coping in
stressful episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,
655– 668. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.655
Paulhus, D. (1983). Sphere-specific measures of perceived control. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1253–1265. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.44.6.1253
Paulhus, D. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P.
Robinson, P. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of psychology
and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Perrewé, P., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Personality research in the organizational sciences. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 21, 1– 63. doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(02)21001-4
Phares, E. J. (1976). Locus of control personality. Morristown, NJ: General
Learning Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 879 –903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness really matter? The effects
of rudeness on task performance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1181–1197. doi:10.2307/20159919
Robinson, S., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The
influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees.
Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658 – 672. doi:10.2307/256963
Romi, S., & Itskowitz, R. (1990). The relationship between locus of control
and type of aggression in middle-class and culturally deprived children.
Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 327–333. doi:10.1016/01918869(90)90214-C
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external
control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (Whole No.
609), 1–28.
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5,
296 –320. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2
Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G., III. (1988).
Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An
integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 31, 599 – 627. doi:10.2307/256461
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of
1169
human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and
will? Journal of Personality, 74, 1557–1586. doi:10.1111/j.14676494.2006.00420.x
Sackett, P. R., Berry, C. M., Wiemann, S. A., & Laczo, R. M. (2006).
Citizenship and counterproductive behavior: Clarifying relations between the two domains. Human Performance, 19, 441– 464. doi:
10.1207/s15327043hup1904_7
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing
approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224 –253. doi:10.2307/2392563
Saucier, G. (1997). Effects of variable selection on the factor structure of
person descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
1296 –1312. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1296
Schat, A. C. H., Desmarais, S., & Kelloway, E. K. (2005, August). The
Workplace Aggression Questionnaire (WAQ): Validation of a measure
of exposure to aggression at work. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Academy of Management, Honolulu, HI.
Sears, R. R. (1941). Non-aggressive reactions to frustration. Psychological
Review, 48, 343–346. doi:10.1037/h0059717
Sears, R. R. (1948). Non-aggressive reactions to frustration. Psychological
Review, 48, 337–342.
Sinaceur, M., Van Kleef, G., Neale, M., Adam, H., & Haag, C. (2011). Hot
or cold: Is communicating anger or threats more effective in negotiation?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1018 –1032. doi:10.1037/a0023896
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (2004). Broadening our understanding of
organizational retaliatory behavior. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’LearyKelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 373– 402).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employee’s locus of control. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 482– 497. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.91.3.482
Storms, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Relationships of organizational
frustration with reported behavioral reactions: The moderating effect of
locus of control. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 227–234.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1987.tb00255.x
Taggar, S., & Ellis, R. (2007). The role of leaders in shaping formal team
norms. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 105–120. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007
.01.002
Tedeschi, J., & Felson, R. (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. doi:10.2307/1556375
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review,
synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289.
doi:10.1177/0149206307300812
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. doi:10.1016/
j.obhdp.2009.03.004
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006).
Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101–123. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006
.00725.x
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. doi:10.1037/00219010.86.5.974
Tepper, B. J., Henle, C., Lambert, L., Giacalone, R., & Duffy, M. K.
(2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational deviance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 721–732. doi:10.1037/00219010.93.4.721
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2007). Abusive
supervision, upward maintenance communications, and subordinates’
MITCHELL AND AMBROSE
1170
psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1169 –
1180. doi:10.2307/20159918
Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. (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. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.06.003
Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing explanations of the supervisor abuse and
employee deviance relationship through perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1009 –1031. doi:10.1037/
a0020540
Thelen, J. B. (2009). Is that a threat? An employer’s response to threats by
employees can prevent workplace violence. HR Magazine, 54, 61– 63.
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., Gibson, D. G., & Toffler, B. L. (1999).
Managing ethics and legal compliance: What works and what hurts.
California Management Review, 41, 131–151.
Tripp, T., & Bies, R. (1997). What’s good about revenge. In R. Lewicki,
R. Bies, & B. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations
(Vol. 6, pp. 145–160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If
you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1058 –1069.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1058
Wade, S. H. (1989). The development of a scale to measure forgiveness
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA.
Wanberg, C. R. (1997). Antecedents and outcomes of coping behaviors
among unemployed and reemployed individuals. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 731–744. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.731
Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999a). Corporate ethics
practices in the mid-1990’s: An empirical study of the Fortune 1000.
Journal of Business Ethics, 18, 283–294. doi:10.1023/A:
1005726901050
Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999b). Corporate ethics
programs as control systems: Influences of executive commitment and
environmental factors. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 41–57.
doi:10.2307/256873
Wei, F., & Si, S. (2011). Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counterproductive behaviors: The moderating effects of locus of control and
perceived mobility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1007/s10490-011-9251-y
Weisz, J. R., McCabe, M. A., & Denning, M. D. (1994). Primary and
secondary control among children undergoing medical procedures: Adjustment as a function of coping style. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 62, 324 –332. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.62.2.324
Westring, A. F., & Ryan, A. M. (2010). Personality and inter-role conflict
and enrichment: Investigating the mediating role of support. Human
Relations, 63, 1815–1834. doi:10.1177/0018726710371236
Wortman, C. B., & Brehm, J. W. (1975). Responses to uncontrollable
outcomes: An integration of reactance theory and the learned helplessness model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 277–336). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Zainuddin, R., & Taluja, H. (1990). Aggression and locus of control among
undergraduate students. Journal of Personality and Clinical Studies, 6,
211–215.
Appendix
Summary of the Findings Across the Three Studies
Prediction
H1: Moderating effects of LOC
(a) on problem solving
(b) on retaliation
(c) on displaced aggression
H2: Moderating effects of fear of retaliation
(a) on problem solving
(b) on retaliation
H3: Moderating effects of fear of retaliation on displaced aggression
(a) Frustration–aggression view
(b) Learned inhibitions view
H4: Moderating effects of behavioral modeling
(a) Aggressive modeling on retaliation
(b) Aggressive modeling on displaced aggression
(c) Problem solving modeling on problem solving
Study 1
Study 2
Study 3
—
Supported
ns
ns
Supported
ns
Mixed support
Supported
Supported
—
Supported
Supported
Supported
ns
Supported
—
—
Supported
—
Supported
—
—
—
Supported
Supported
ns
Supported
Supported
Mixed support
ns
Note. H1 ⫽ Hypothesis 1; H2 ⫽ Hypothesis 2; H3 ⫽ Hypothesis 3; H4 ⫽ Hypothesis 4; LOC ⫽ locus of control; ns ⫽
not significant; a dash indicates that the prediction was not tested or, for H3 (opposing predictions about the moderating
effects of fear of retaliation on coworker displaced aggression reactions to supervisor aggression), that the opposing view
was not supported.
Received July 17, 2010
Revision received June 18, 2012
Accepted June 25, 2012 䡲