ABSTRACT

Using two diverse cross-sectional samples (n = 361, 579), the authors investigated measurement impediments in current behavioural methods of operationalising workplace mistreatment by examining perceived intensity and intention attributions. Results indicated that bullying and incivility, assessed using common measures and analytical techniques, have moderate negative effects on employees that are not significantly different in effect size from one another, which is consistent with prior research. Using a separate measure of workplace aggression, participants were categorised using latent class clustering into groups reporting: 1. no mistreatment over the prior month (representing no mistreatment), 2. low intensity and low intentional mistreatment (representing incivility), and 3. high intensity and high intentional mistreatment (representing bullying). One-way ANOVAs with Tukey post-hoc tests indicated that those who experience bullying consistently reported more strain than the other two groups across both samples. Those reporting incivility reported significantly different turnover intentions from the other groups, but did not differ with regard to affective commitment and psychological strain. These results highlight the need for more attention to be paid to construct validity and advanced analytic techniques in mistreatment research, particularly with regard to incivility. Implications for the measurement of mistreatment constructs are discussed.

摘要

使用两个不同的横截面样本 ( n = 361, 579)，作者通过检查感知强度和意图归因，调查了当前将工作场所虐待操作化的行为方法中的测量障碍。结果表明，使用常用措施和分析技术评估的欺凌和不文明行为对员工的负面影响中等，其影响大小彼此之间没有显着差异，这与先前的研究一致。使用单独的工作场所攻击措施，参与者使用潜在类别聚类被分类为报告的组：1. 前一个月没有虐待（代表没有虐待），2. 低强度和低故意虐待（代表无礼），以及 3. 高强度和高度的故意虐待（代表欺凌）。Tukey 事后检验的单向方差分析表明，在两个样本中，遭受欺凌的人始终比其他两组报告的压力更大。报告无礼者报告的离职意向与其他组有显着差异，但在情感承诺和心理压力方面没有差异。这些结果强调需要更多地关注虐待研究中的构建有效性和先进的分析技术，特别是在不文明行为方面。讨论了对虐待结构测量的影响。但在情感承诺和心理压力方面没有区别。这些结果强调需要更多地关注虐待研究中的构建有效性和先进的分析技术，特别是在不文明行为方面。讨论了对虐待结构测量的影响。但在情感承诺和心理压力方面没有区别。这些结果强调需要更多地关注虐待研究中的构建有效性和先进的分析技术，特别是在不文明行为方面。讨论了对虐待结构测量的影响。