About to Burst: How State Self-Regulation Affects the Enactment of Bullying Behaviors
- 296 Downloads
Past research has demonstrated that employees’ perceptions of abusive supervision are positively associated with the enactment of bullying behaviors. However, an investigation of the factors influencing employees’ decision to bully others at work has yet to be completed. In this study, we propose that the relationship between perceptions of abusive supervision and the enactment of bullying behaviors is mediated by state self-regulation, and that active coping moderates the relationship between state self-regulation and bullying. Further, we analyze how the situational context (e.g., positive or negative) affects employees’ levels of self-regulatory resource depletion and ultimately, the extent to which they engage in bullying behaviors. A moderated mediation analysis using time-separated data (N = 136) provided support for our hypotheses, suggesting that employees’ state self-regulation helps explain why abusive supervision is associated with bullying and that active coping helps to reduce bullying behaviors. Further, the results suggest that negative environments are associated with more bullying. Contributions, practical implications, and future research directions are discussed.
KeywordsBullying Abusive supervision Self-regulation Coping
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Allen, V. L., & Greenberger, D. B. (1980). Destruction and perceived control. In A. Baum & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Applications of personal control (pp. 85–109). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.Google Scholar
- Baumeister, R. F., & Tierney, J. (2011). Willpower: Rediscovering the greatest human strength. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
- Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: “Getting even” and the need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 246–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Brodsky, C. M. (1976). The harassed worker. Oxford: DC Heath and Co.Google Scholar
- Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 309–336). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (2003). The concept of bullying at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 3–30). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
- Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). A popcorn metaphor for employee aggression. In R. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 43–81). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. (1999). Workplace bullying. In C. Cooper & L. Robinson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 195–229). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Lee, R. T., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2006). When prey turns predatory: Workplace bullying as a predictor of counteraggression/bullying, coping, and well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165–184.Google Scholar
- Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (in press). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206315573997.
- Montgomery, D., Peck, E., & Vining, G. (2001). Introduction to linear regression analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658–672.Google Scholar
- Stone-Romero, E. F., & Liakhovitski, D. (2002). Strategies for detecting moderator variables: A review of conceptual and empirical issues. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 21, 333–372.Google Scholar
- Subramanian, S. M., & Kumar, V. (2012). Burnout and coping strategies among nurses treating HIV/AIDS, cancer and general patients. Journal of Organization and Human Behavior, 1, 54–61.Google Scholar
- Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.Google Scholar
- Twenge, J. M., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (2004). Measuring state self-control: Reliability, validity, and correlations with physical and psychological stress. Unpublished manuscript, San Diego State University.Google Scholar
- Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Twenge, J. M., Nelson, N. M., & Tice, D. M. (2008). Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 883–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar