Building on the emerging research on antecedents of abusive supervision, the current research offers an empirical investigation concerning how and when supervisor psychological entitlement instigates abusive supervision in the workplace. Specifically, drawing on social cognitive theory, we develop and test a moderated-mediation model delineating the process that prompts psychologically entitled supervisors to become abusive towards subordinates. We argue that supervisor psychological entitlement facilitates supervisor moral disengagement, which subsequently incites supervisory abusive behaviors. We also argue that supervisor moral identity (MI) and core self-evaluation (CSE) are likely to play an essential role in predicting the relationship between supervisor psychological entitlement and abusive supervision. We argue that supervisor psychological entitlement is more likely to instigate abusive supervision through moral disengagement when the magnitudes of supervisor MI and CSE are weaker. We test our theoretical model utilizing time-lagged, multisource (i.e., subordinate–supervisor dyads, N = 181) data from a variety of organizations in the United States. We find general support for our hypotheses. We discuss implications for theory and practice as well as future research avenues.

基于对滥用监督的前提的新兴研究，当前的研究提供了关于监督者心理权利如何以及何时促使工作场所中的滥用监督的实证研究。具体来说，我们利用社会认知理论，开发和测试了一个适度的中介模型，该模型描述了促使具有心理权利的主管对下属进行辱骂的过程。我们认为，主管的心理权利促进了主管道德上的脱离接触，继而引发了主管的辱骂行为。我们还认为，主管的道德认同（MI）和核心自我评估（CSE）可能在预测主管的心理权利与虐待性监管之间的关系中起着至关重要的作用。我们认为，当主管MI和CSE的强度较弱时，主管的心理权利更有可能通过道德脱离接触来激发虐待性监督。我们使用时滞，多源（即从属-主管二元组，N  = 181）来自美国各种组织的数据。我们为我们的假设找到了普遍的支持。我们讨论对理论和实践以及未来研究途径的启示。