A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations
A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/job.688
复制
发表时间：
2011-04
影响因子：
6.8
通讯作者：
B. Tepper;Christine A. Henle
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Tepper;Christine A. Henle
主要的组织行为学学者认为，构念扩散威胁到人际虐待研究的可解释性，并认为研究人员应该使用相同的术语来指代在不同标签下研究的构念（例如，欺凌、越轨、报复、虐待、破坏）。我们认为，研究人员经常使用的大多数构式标签捕捉到有意义的理论差异，尽管相应的措施往往无法捕捉到虐待构式的独特特征。我们进一步认为，对该领域研究的可解释性的一个更直接的威胁是，学者们忽视了构成现有操作定义的各种虐待形式之间的区别。我们提供建议，以解决我们认为是目前人际虐待研究的主要局限性。版权所有©2010 John Wiley & Sons， Ltd
Leading organizational behavior scholars have argued that construct proliferation threatens the interpretability of interpersonal mistreatment research and have argued that researchers should employ the same terminology to refer to constructs that have been studied under distinct labels (e.g., bullying, deviance, retaliation, abuse, undermining). We argue that most of the construct labels researchers regularly employ capture meaningful theoretical differences, although the corresponding measures often fail to capture the distinctive features of mistreatment constructs. We further argue that a more immediate threat to the interpretability of research in this area is that scholars have overlooked the distinctions among the individual forms of mistreatment that comprise extant operational definitions. We offer recommendations for addressing what we perceive to be the major limitations of current interpersonal mistreatment research. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.