J Bus Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2292-7
Does it take two to Tangle? Subordinates’ Perceptions
of and Reactions to Abusive Supervision
Gang Wang • Peter D. Harms • Jeremy D. Mackey
Received: 20 August 2013 / Accepted: 11 July 2014
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract Research on abusive supervision is imbalanced
in two ways. First, with most research attention focused on
the destructive consequences of abusive supervision, there
has been relatively little work on subordinate-related pre-
dictors of perceptions of abusive supervision. Second, with
most research on abusive supervision centered on its main
effects and the moderating effects of supervisor-related
factors, there is little understanding of how subordinate
factors can moderate the main effects of perceptions of
abusive supervision on workplace outcomes. The current
study aims to advance knowledge of the roles of subordi-
nates in the formation of and reactions to perceptions of
abusive supervision. Specifically, based on victim precip-
itation theory, the authors examined subordinates’ per-
sonality traits and self-reports of task performance as
antecedents of perceptions of abusive supervision. The
results show that subordinates high in neuroticism or low in
conscientiousness had high levels of perceived abusive
supervision partially through their self-reported deleterious
G. Wang (&)
Department of Management, College of Business, Florida State
University, 821 Academic Way, P.O. Box 3061110, Tallahassee,
FL 32306-1110, USA
e-mail: gwang5@business.fsu.edu
P. D. Harms
College of Business Administration, University of Nebraska-
Lincoln, CBA 265, P.O. Box 880491, Lincoln, NE 68588-0491,
USA
e-mail: pharms2@unl.edu
J. D. Mackey
Department of Management, College of Business, Florida State
University, 821 Academic Way, P.O. Box 3061110, Tallahassee,
FL 32306-1110, USA
e-mail: jdm10e@my.fsu.edu
job performance. In addition, the authors investigated the
moderating effect of subordinates’ personality on the
relationship between perceptions of abusive supervision
and subordinates’ interpersonal deviance. Consistent with
trait activation theory, subordinates low in both agree-
ableness and extraversion were more likely to engage in
deviant behaviors in response to perceptions of abusive
supervision than subordinates high in either or both
agreeableness and extraversion.
Keywords Abusive supervision
Personality

Interpersonal deviance
Task performance
Abusive supervision is defined as ‘‘subordinates’ percep-
tions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the
sustained display of hostile verbal and non-verbal behav-
iors, excluding physical contact’’ (Tepper 2000, p. 178).
Research suggests that abusive supervision can have severe
consequences on subordinates’ well-being (e.g., Duffy
et al. 2002; Hoobler and Brass 2006), attitudes (e.g., Tep-
per et al. 2004), and deviant behavior (e.g., Burton and
Hoobler 2011; Lian et al. 2012; Liu et al. 2010; Tepper
et al. 2009; Thau et al. 2009).
Despite the growing body of research on abusive
supervision in the past decade (Martinko et al. 2013), rel-
atively little research attention has been paid to predictors
of abusive supervision, especially predictors related to
subordinates (e.g., Henle and Gross 2014; Kiazad et al.
2010; Kiewitz et al. 2012; Mawritz et al. 2012; Restubog
et al. 2011; Shoss et al. 2013). This is surprising given that
victim precipitation theory (e.g., Aquino 2000; Aquino and
Lamertz 2004; Curtis 1974; Elias 1986) suggests that some
subordinates are likely to play a role in the abusive
supervision process. Moreover, with most research on
123

abusive supervision centered on its main effects and the
moderating effects of supervisor-level factors (e.g., supervisor
hostile attribution bias, Hoobler and Brass 2006; supervisor
management style, Thau et al. 2009), there has been relatively
little work on the moderating effects of subordinate-level
factors on the relationships between perceptions of abusive
supervision and workplace outcomes (Burton and Hoobler
2011; Nandkeolyar et al. 2014; Tepper 2007).
Thus, the purpose of this study is two-fold: to advance our
understanding of factors that may influence subordinates’
perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision. First,
based on victim precipitation theory (e.g., Aquino 2000;
Aquino and Lamertz 2004; Curtis 1974; Elias 1986), we focus
on subordinates’ personality traits (i.e., neuroticism and con-
scientiousness) and task performance to examine the extent to
which these factors may give rise to perceptions of abusive
supervision. Recently, based on a sample of mostly part-time
working undergraduates, Henle and Gross (2014) hypothe-
sized and found that emotional stability (i.e., reverse-scored
neuroticism) and conscientiousness were both antecedents
negatively associated with perceptions of abusive supervision,
and that negative emotions mediated the negative relation-
ships of these antecedents with perceptions of abusive
supervision. Henle and Gross contributed to our initial
understanding of the roles of subordinates’ personality in the
formation of perceptions of abusive supervision. To extend
Henle and Gross’ findings, we use a sample of full-time
employees to examine neuroticism and conscientiousness as
antecedents of perceptions of abusive supervision, as well as
the mediating role of task performance in this relationship.
Moreover, to complement Henle and Gross, we also study the
consequences of abusive supervision (i.e., interpersonal
deviance) and the boundary conditions of the consequences
(i.e., agreeableness and extraversion).
Also, we extend Tepper et al.’s (2011) study, which
examined supervisors’ perceived deep-level dissimilarity
with subordinates, supervisors’ perceived relationship
conflict with subordinates, and supervisors’ ratings of
subordinates’ task performance as predictors of perceptions
of abusive supervision. Tepper et al. found that supervi-
sors’ perceptions of relationship conflict and subordinates’
performance both mediated the relationship between
supervisors’ perceived deep-level dissimilarity and subor-
dinates’ reports of abusive supervision, and that deep-level
dissimilarity had an indirect effect on perceptions of abu-
sive supervision through relationship conflict for low-per-
forming subordinates. Unlike Tepper et al., we focus on the
roles of subordinates’ personality and self-reported task
performance in the formation of perceptions of abusive
supervision. We believe that it is important to advance
knowledge of whether and how subordinates high (or low)
in some personality traits are more (or less) likely to per-
ceive abusive supervision than others.
123
G. Wang et al.
Second, we examine interpersonal deviance (behaviors
that violate organizational norms and harm other employ-
ees, such as making fun of others and saying harmful things
to others; Robinson and Bennett 1995) as a potential con-
sequence of perceptions of abusive supervision. Past
research suggests that employees tend to engage in nega-
tive social behaviors (e.g., interpersonal deviance) fol-
lowing their supervisors’ ‘‘role modeling’’ (Bandura 1973;
Berkowitz 1993; O’Leary-Kelly et al. 1996). In addition,
there is evidence that employees direct their dysfunctional
responses to perceived abusive supervision toward their
supervisors and coworkers (e.g., Liu et al. 2010; Mitchell
and Ambrose 2007). More importantly, because one pur-
pose of the current research is to study the roles of
employees’ interpersonal traits in their potential reactions
to perceptions of abusive supervision, interpersonal devi-
ance is deemed to be a relevant behavioral outcome of
interest.
Although prior research (e.g., Inness et al. 2005;
Mitchell and Ambrose 2007) reported a positive relation-
ship between perceptions of abusive supervision and sub-
ordinates’ interpersonal deviance, the boundary conditions
of this relationship remain less clear. As an exception, Lian
et al. (2012) found a significant moderating effect of sub-
ordinates’ power distance orientation on the relationship
between abusive supervision and subordinates’ interper-
sonal deviance, such that the relationship was stronger for
subordinates with high-power distance orientation than
subordinates with low-power distance orientation. To fur-
ther advance knowledge on the deleterious effects of abu-
sive supervision and inform practice, we argue that it is
important to examine whether and how subordinates’ Five-
Factor Model (FFM) personality traits may moderate the
relationship between abusive supervision and interpersonal
deviance. Drawing from trait activation theory (Tett and
Guterman 2000), we expect that subordinates low in
agreeableness and extraversion are more likely to recipro-
cate perceptions of abusive supervision with interpersonal
deviance than subordinates high in agreeableness and/or
extraversion. Figure 1 depicts the theoretical model tested
in this study.
This study makes several contributions to the abusive
supervision literature. First, this study theoretically identi-
fies and empirically examines two subordinate-level factors
that may predict perceptions of supervisory abuse. The
limited extant research on antecedents of perceived abusive
supervision has largely kept supervisors in the center of the
stage, but this leader-focused approach is one-sided and
problematic because some followers may contribute to
abusive supervision (Aquino and Bradfield 2000; Henle
and Gross 2014; Matthiesen and Einarsen 2001; Tepper
2007). Thus, it is important to examine subordinates’ roles
in driving perceptions of abusive supervision.
Subordinates and Abusive Supervision
Subordinates’
Neuroticism
Subordinates’
Task Performance
Subordinates’
Conscientiousness
Fig. 1 Theoretical model tested in this study
Second, this study contributes to the abusive supervision
literature by examining subordinates’ personality traits as
boundary conditions of the relationship between percep-
tions of abusive supervision and interpersonal deviance.
Finally, this study contributes to trait activation theory
(Tett and Guterman 2000) by applying this theory to the
abusive supervision literature and empirically examining
its external validity in a field setting. This study represents
one of the first attempts to use trait activation theory to
investigate subordinates’ reactions to perceived abusive
supervision with respect to interpersonal deviance.
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Subordinates’ Personality, Performance, and Abusive
Supervision
What role do subordinates play in the formation of abusive
supervision? As the old saying goes, it takes two to tangle.
Although abusive supervision has often been hypothesized
as a form of supervisors’ retaliation against injustice they
experience from their superiors or the organization (e.g.,
Aryee et al. 2007; Hoobler and Brass 2006; Tepper et al.
2006), and the popular press often portrays subordinates as
victims of abusive supervision (Jantz and McMurray
2009), theoretical and empirical research suggests that
subordinates’ personality and in-role behavior may predict
perceptions of abusive supervision (Henle and Gross 2014;
Tepper et al. 2011). Research on harm-doing in various life
domains provides evidence that some victims of abusive
relationships play a role in abusive actions (e.g., Aquino
2000; Aquino and Bradfield 2000; Elias 1986; Murphy and
O’Leary 1989).
Specifically, victim precipitation theory posits that some
individual characteristics and behaviors are likely to result
Subordinates’
Agreeableness
Subordinates’
Extraversion
Perceptions of Interpersonal
Abusive Supervision Deviance
in hostile and aggressive responses from potential perpe-
trators (e.g., Aquino 2000; Aquino and Lamertz 2004;
Curtis 1974; Elias 1986). With respect to individual char-
acteristics, victim precipitation researchers (e.g., Aquino
and Lamertz 2004; Olweus 1978) argue that victims who
appear to be submissive and vulnerable and victims who
appear provocative because of their ‘‘personality driven
attitudes, emotions, or behaviors that induce tension and
conflict’’ (Henle and Gross 2014, p. 463) can become tar-
gets of abuse. With respect to behaviors, research on victim
precipitation suggests that behaviors that are disliked,
frustrating, and aggravating tend to give rise to abuse
(Olweus 1978; Tepper et al. 2011). Based on victim pre-
cipitation theory (e.g., Aquino 2000; Aquino and Lamertz
2004; Curtis 1974; Elias 1986), we argue that subordinates’
personality traits and task performance may play important
roles in the formation of abusive supervision.
Main Effects of Subordinates’ Neuroticism and
Conscientiousness on Abusive Supervision
Personality traits represent individuals’ propensities to
behave in identifiable ways; these traits are intraindividu-
ally stable and interindividually distinct (Digman 1990).
Although researchers have used different structures to
capture people’s personality, the FFM has emerged as the
most widely accepted and studied personality framework
(e.g., Barrick and Mount 1991; Oh et al. 2011). The FFM
includes the traits of neuroticism, conscientiousness,
extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience
(Costa and McCrae 1992). As explained in detail in the
following section, victim precipitation theory (e.g., Aquino
2000; Aquino and Lamertz 2004; Curtis 1974; Elias 1986)
suggests that subordinates high in neuroticism and/or low
in conscientiousness are more likely to play a role in
123

abusive supervision than subordinates low in neuroticism
and/or high in conscientiousness.
Individuals high in neuroticism tend to behave with
anxiety, impulsiveness, anger, and irritability (Costa and
McCrae 1992). They also likely experience depression and
stress, ruminate about negative events, and express nega-
tive emotions and attitudes (e.g., Colbert et al. 2012; Die-
fendorff and Richard 2003; Henle and Gross 2014; Roelofs
et al. 2008; Trierweiler et al. 2002). Because highly neu-
rotic employees consistently show anger, anxiety, and
irritability, supervisors will experience difficulty working
with these employees and perceive these employees as
disturbing and annoying (Watson and Clark 1984). In
addition, neurotic employees’ frequent expressions of
anger and irritability break social norms, which can be
detrimental to team cohesion and team organizational cit-
izenship behavior (Chen et al. 2005). As such, supervisors
are likely to perceive neurotic subordinates as demanding,
threatening, and ‘‘bad apples’’ or ‘‘downers’’ who drag
down positive group processes (Bradley 2008).
Victim precipitation theory suggests that neurotic
employees will appear to be provocative to supervisors
because they induce tension and conflict at work (e.g.,
Aquino 2000; Aquino and Lamertz 2004; Curtis 1974;
Elias 1986). In addition to supervisors’ potentially
increasing negative actions toward neurotic subordinates,
highly neurotic subordinates may be more likely than less
neurotic subordinates to perceive supervisory behavior as
abusive (Henle and Gross 2014). As previously noted,
Henle and Gross (2014) used a victim precipitation
framework and a sample of mostly part-time working
undergraduates to hypothesize and find a positive rela-
tionship between subordinates’ neuroticism and percep-
tions of abusive supervision. However, this study will
conduct a much needed replication and extension of Henle
and Gross’ findings by utilizing full-time working adults,
who represent a different population than part-time work-
ing undergraduates (Roth et al. 2011). We propose the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 Subordinates’ neuroticism will be posi-
tively related to their perceptions of abusive supervision.
whereas neuroticism describes levels of emotional sta-
bility, conscientiousness describes individuals’ work
motivation, organization and planning, and self-control
(Costa and McCrae 1992). Highly conscientious individu-
als are dutiful, organized, competent, and goal-oriented. In
contrast, individuals who score low on conscientiousness
tend to be less organized, more laid back, less driven by
success, and less dependable than highly conscientious
individuals (Chernyshenko et al. 2011). In the workplace,
subordinates low in conscientiousness frequently need
additional supervision because they tend to impede the
123
G. Wang et al.
accomplishment of unit goals (Bass 1990; LePine et al.
1997; Tepper et al. 2011). According to victim precipita-
tion theory, supervisors are likely to be frustrated and
annoyed by subordinates low in conscientiousness, which
may make them easy targets of negative supervisory
behaviors (e.g., Aquino 2000; Aquino and Bradfield 2000;
Aquino and Lamertz 2004; Curtis 1974; Elias 1986). Henle
and Gross (2014) reported a negative relationship between
subordinates’ conscientiousness and perceptions of abusive
supervision. To replicate Henle and Gross’ findings with a
full-time adult working sample, we propose the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2 Subordinates’ conscientiousness will be
negatively related to their perceptions of abusive
supervision.
Mediating Roles of Subordinates’ Task Performance
The victim precipitation literature suggests that one
mechanism through which subordinates’ neuroticism and
conscientiousness may give rise to abusive supervision is
their task performance (Olweus 1978; Tepper et al. 2011).
Task performance refers to work behaviors that are stipu-
lated by a formal job description (Borman and Motowidlo
1993; Harrison et al. 2006). As Aquino et al. (1999) noted,
individuals high in neuroticism tend to have performance
problems because they are more prone to engage in dys-
functional anxiety-driven thought processes and spend
more time ruminating about negative events than subordi-
nates low in neuroticism. Consequently, highly neurotic
employees usually have less energy and attention to focus
on their task activities (Colbert et al. 2004) than less neu-
rotic employees. Several meta-analyses have demonstrated
a significant negative relationship between neuroticism and
task performance (e.g., Hurtz and Donovan 2000; Judge
et al. 2013; Mount et al. 1998; Shaffer and Postlethwaite
2012). Therefore, we expect that neuroticism will be neg-
atively related to task performance.
In addition, individuals low in conscientiousness are not
likely to set clear goals or to persistently exert effort to
achieve goals (Mount and Barrick 1995). Conscientious-
ness was repeatedly reported to be a significant predictor of
employee job performance across a number of relevant
meta-analyses (e.g., Barrick and Mount 1991; Barrick et al.
2001; Oh et al. 2011; Shaffer and Postlethwaite 2012).
Further, Judge et al.’s (2013) meta-analytic test of the
effects of conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism,
openness to experience, and extraversion on performance
found that conscientiousness and neuroticism were strong
predictors of task performance, even when controlling for
the effects of the other personality traits. In sum, the
aforementioned research suggests that conscientiousness
Subordinates and Abusive Supervision
will be positively related to task performance, and that
neuroticism will be negatively related to task performance.
Previous research has mainly treated subordinates’ task
performance as an outcome of perceptions of abusive
supervision (e.g., Harris et al. 2007). This is understandable
given that job performance is usually regarded as an
important end-state outcome variable in organizational
research (Organ and Paine 1999). However, victim pre-
cipitation theory suggests that followers’ low-task perfor-
mance may be positively associated with abusive
supervision because poor subordinate performance may
threaten the accomplishment of group goals. This tends to
influence supervisors’ performance appraisals, pay raises,
and/or promotions because supervisors are usually made
accountable for their unit performance indicators and their
followers’ job performance (Tepper et al. 2011). Thus,
supervisors are likely to perceive that low-performing
subordinates break psychological contracts (Rousseau
1995), are annoying, and are threatening.
According to victim precipitation theory, these subor-
dinates demonstrate profiles of provocative victims and
may elicit supervisory behaviors associated with percep-
tions of abusive supervision. Alternatively, supervisors’
actions following poor performance may be intended to
motivate and enhance performance, but may be construed
as abusive (Liu et al. 2010). Consistent with victim pre-
cipitation theory, Tepper et al. (2011) argued and demon-
strated that supervisor-rated task performance negatively
predicted perceptions of abusive supervision when these
constructs were measured at the same point in time.
Therefore, subordinates’ task performance is likely to be
negatively related to abusive supervision.
Taken together, the foregoing suggests that subordinates
high in neuroticism and/or low in conscientiousness are
likely to demonstrate low levels of task performance, and
by doing so prompt negative supervisory reactions that
result in subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervision.
Thus, we predict that the relationships between subordi-
nates’ neuroticism and conscientiousness and perceptions
of abusive supervision will be mediated by subordinates’
task performance.
Hypothesis 3 Subordinates’ task performance will
mediate the relationship between their neuroticism and
perceptions of abusive supervision.
Hypothesis 4 Subordinates’ task performance will
mediate the relationship between their conscientiousness
and perceptions of abusive supervision.
Abusive Supervision and Interpersonal Deviance
Workplace deviance refers to ‘‘voluntary behavior that
violates significant organizational norms and in so doing
threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or
both’’ (Robinson and Bennett 1995, p. 556). In terms of its
intended target, workplace deviance is further theoretically
categorized into interpersonal and organizational deviance
(Robinson and Bennett 1995, 1997). Interpersonal deviance
refers to deviant behaviors directed at individuals (e.g.,
supervisors and coworkers), whereas organizational devi-
ance includes deviant behaviors targeted toward the orga-
nization (e.g., purposefully working slow, destroying
company property, or stealing from the company).
In this study, we focused on interpersonal deviance as an
outcome of perceptions of abusive supervision for the
following reasons. First, prior research suggests that
interpersonal deviance represents a negative social behav-
ior that subordinates tend to exhibit when perceiving mis-
treatment (Bandura 1973; Berkowitz 1993; O’Leary-Kelly
et al. 1996). Second, theoretical and empirical research
suggests that when experiencing abusive supervision,
employees are likely to retaliate against both the harm-doer
(i.e., supervisor; Mitchell and Ambrose 2007) and other
scapegoats (e.g., coworkers; Liu et al. 2010; Restubog et al.
2011; Tepper et al. 2009; Thau and Mitchell 2010; Wang
et al. 2012). Third, as we will explain in detail in the next
section, given that we examine how subordinates’ person-
ality traits (i.e., agreeableness and extraversion) that
clearly distinguish how their behavioral tendencies in
social interactions may influence their responses to per-
ceptions of abusive supervision (Tett and Guterman 2000),
it stands to reason that interpersonal deviance is a relevant
behavioral outcome in such negative social interactions.
Thus, we believe that a general measure of interpersonal
deviance serves as a comprehensive and distal consequence
of perceptions of abusive supervision in the current study.
Given that organizational deviance is not interpersonal, we
argue that it is unlikely to be an immediate behavioral
reaction to subordinates’ perceptions of abusive
supervision.
Previous research has found a positive association
between perceptions of abusive supervision and subordi-
nates’ interpersonal deviance (e.g., Lian et al. 2012;
Mitchell and Ambrose 2007; Thau et al. 2009). However,
little is known about boundary conditions of this relation-
ship with respect to subordinate-level factors (Tepper
2007). As previously mentioned, Lian et al. (2012) reported
that subordinates’ power distance orientation served as a
boundary condition in the relationship between perceptions
of abusive supervision and interpersonal deviance. In
addition, Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) found a moderating
effect of subordinates’ negative reciprocity beliefs (indi-
viduals’ advisability of retribution for unfavorable treat-
ment; Eisenberger et al. 2004) on the relationship between
perceptions of active-aggressive abusive supervision (e.g.,
ridiculing someone; Tepper 2000) and supervisor-directed
123

deviance. To build on these previous findings, we believe
that it is important to examine the moderating effects of
subordinate characteristics other than power distance ori-
entation and negative reciprocity beliefs.
Given the dominant role of FFM personality traits in
individual differences research (e.g., Barrick and Mount
1991), we find it surprising that the potential moderating
effects of subordinates’ FFM personality traits on the rela-
tionship between perceived abusive supervision and inter-
personal deviance have not been adequately examined. Thus,
one of the major contributions of this investigation is to
advance our understanding of the effects of FFM personality
traits on perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision.
Trait activation theory (Tett and Guterman 2000) sug-
gests that followers’ personality traits may affect their
responses to perceived abusive supervision. As we describe
below, we expect that followers who score low on both
agreeableness and extraversion will be more likely to
engage in interpersonal deviance associated with perceived
abusive supervision than followers who are high in one or
both of these traits.
Trait Activation Theory and the Activation of
Disagreeableness and Introversion
Integrating trait and situationist perspectives (Kenrick and
Funder 1988), Tett and Guterman (2000) proposed trait
activation theory, which posits that in order to activate
behavioral expression of a trait, situations need to provide
trait-relevant cues. Trait-relevant cues can come from three
sources or levels: task, social, and organizational (Tett and
Burnett 2003). For example, goal-focused leadership could
supply social cues that trigger highly conscientious sub-
ordinates to behave conscientiously (Colbert and Witt
2009). In the current study, given that leadership is a social
influence process (Yukl 2010), we focus on perceptions of
abusive supervision in employees’ work environment as
one social source of trait-relevant cues that may activate
the expression of their personality traits that distinctly
differentiate them in social (i.e., interpersonal) interactions:
disagreeableness and introversion.
Evidence that agreeableness and extraversion represent
interpersonal traits that clearly distinguish how individuals
behave in social interactions stem from two independent
lines of research (Koole et al. 2001; McCrae and Costa
1989). In social psychology, researchers specifically focus
on personality in social interaction. The dominant general
structure that organizes interpersonal traits in social psy-
chology is the interpersonal circumflex, which is defined by
dominance and nurturance (e.g., Freedman et al. 1951;
Wiggins 1979, 1980).
In contrast, researchers in personality psychology gen-
erally summarize personality traits across situations, not
123
G. Wang et al.
just social interactions. The dominant framework in per-
sonality psychology is the FFM (Costa and McCrae 1992;
Digman 1990). A general consensus among social and
personality psychologists is that dominance and nurturance
correspond to extraversion and agreeableness (e.g., Barry
and Friedman 1998; Caldwell and Burger 1997; McCrae
and Costa 1989). Ample evidence shows that agreeableness
and extraversion are particularly relevant to individuals’
social motives and behaviors (e.g., Carlo et al. 2005;
Graziano and Eisenberg 1997; Koole et al. 2001; Snyder
1983). McCrae and Costa (1989, p. 586) argued that
extraversion and agreeableness ‘‘determine directly the
amount of social stimulation preferred and the prevailing
quality of social interaction,’’ whereas neuroticism, open-
ness, and conscientiousness ‘‘are not intrinsically inter-
personal’’ in that ‘‘one can feel unhappy, respond to art, or
accomplish a task regardless of the presence or absence of
other people.’’ Therefore, given that trait activation theory
(Tett and Guterman 2000) suggests that subordinates who
differ in interpersonal traits may react differently to per-
ceived abusive supervision, we argue that agreeableness
and extraversion are the two FFM personality traits of
particular relevance to the understanding of negative social
interactions and their effects.
Supervisory behaviors such as yelling, screaming, and
publicly ridiculing subordinates likely break social interaction
norms in many different work environments, signify negative
interpersonal relationships, discourage cooperation, and fos-
ter an unfriendly and cold group climate (Mitchell and
Ambrose 2007). This negative environment is likely to acti-
vate the expression of disagreeableness and introversion.
Agreeableness reflects one’s interpersonal orientation. Dis-
agreeable people are characterized as antagonistic, vengeful,
hostile, self-centered, and ruthless (Costa and McCrae 1992).
Meta-analytic results have shown that among the FFM,
agreeableness has the strongest negative relationship with
workplace deviance (Berry et al. 2007).
Further, according to social learning theory (Bandura
1973), which posits that employees gain an understanding
of what constitutes acceptable behavior by observing oth-
ers in the workplace, supervisors who engage in negative
behaviors may serve as ‘‘role models’’ who signal that
positive social interactions are not valued and that hostility
and ruthlessness are part of normal work life. Numerous
studies examining abusive supervision have used social
learning theory to explain the process by which employees
learn how and when to engage in particular behaviors (e.g.,
Brown et al. 2005; Kiewitz et al. 2012; Mawritz et al. 2012;
Mitchell and Ambrose 2012). Accordingly, employees who
experience supervisory abuse perceive that their supervi-
sors engage in interpersonal mistreatment, and therefore
learn that interpersonal mistreatment is acceptable in the
workplace.
Subordinates and Abusive Supervision
In fact, research on workplace aggression has shown that
having abusive models helps relieve victims’ inhibitions to
act similarly (Berkowitz 1993; O’Leary-Kelly et al. 1996).
Thus, perceptions of abusive supervision may provide cues
that trigger disagreeableness. When perceiving supervisory
abuse, disagreeable subordinates are likely to be cued to
fully express their antagonism, vengefulness, and hostility
against the harm-doers or innocent scapegoats with fewer
concerns about further escalating the incivility spiral
(Anderson and Pearson 1999; Tepper et al. 2001). Thus, we
expect that perceptions of abusive supervision will have a
stronger relationship with interpersonal deviance for dis-
agreeable subordinates than with agreeable subordinates.
Extraversion reflects the extent to which people are
sociable, talkative, energetic, and active. Individuals who
are low in extraversion (i.e., introverts) prefer to be alone
and are characterized as reserved, quiet, and independent
(Costa and McCrae 1992). Perceptions of abusive super-
vision are likely to activate introversion because they
create situations in which victims are likely to be cued to
avoid aggressors. One way to do this is to try not to be
noticed by staying quiet and avoiding open communication
with others. When perceiving supervisory abuse, introverts
may have difficulty venting their anger and desire for
revenge because they do not want to share their feelings
(e.g., anger and resentment) with others. Thus, introverts
tend to experience negative emotions for an extended
period of time. In addition, introverts who perceive
supervisory abuse are likely to have a narrow thought-
action repertoire (Fredrickson 1998). Consequently, intro-
verts may ruminate over the harm they experience for an
extended period of time and develop a deep desire to get
even. This suggests that introverts may not immediately
react to perceptions of abusive supervision, but might react
to them if perceived supervisory abuse accumulates over
time or other personality traits are activated that interact
with introversion to prompt behavioral reactions. Thus,
introversion alone may not manifest in an expression of
interpersonal deviance, but its effects may interact with the
effects of disagreeableness to cue interpersonal deviance.
Taken together, the above arguments suggest that dis-
agreeableness and introversion may jointly moderate the
relationship between perceptions of abusive supervision
and subordinates’ interpersonal deviance. Specifically,
perceptions of supervisory abuse are likely to activate
disagreeable tendencies in subordinates. Because interper-
sonal workplace deviance can be thought of as a behavioral
manifestation of disagreeableness, we expect disagreeable
subordinates to engage in more interpersonal deviance than
their agreeable counterparts. If disagreeable subordinates
are also introverted, they may also be cued to express their
introversion and engage in interpersonal deviance to an
even greater extent than extraverts because they are more
likely to focus on attaining revenge for the mistreatment
they receive and to ruminate over the harm for a longer
time than their disagreeable but extraverted counterparts.
In contrast, disagreeable employees who are also extra-
verted may vent their anger by talking to others (e.g.,
coworkers, family members); consequently, they may
experience decreased stress levels and divert their attention
from the mistreatment they received (Bies and Tripp 1996).
Thus, we expect that disagreeable extraverts will be less
motivated to engage in retaliating behaviors than dis-
agreeable introverts.
In sum, the forgoing suggests a three-way interaction
between perceptions of abusive supervision, disagreeable-
ness, and introversion. Specifically, we predict that intro-
version will strengthen the moderating effect of
disagreeableness on the relationship between perceptions
of abusive supervision and interpersonal deviance, such
that when subordinates high in disagreeableness and
introversion are harmed, they are most likely to retaliate
with antagonism and hostility. Formally, we advance the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5 Subordinates’ agreeableness and extraver-
sion will jointly moderate the relationship between per-
ceptions of abusive supervision and subordinates’
interpersonal deviance, such that when subordinates are
low in both agreeableness and extraversion, perceptions of
abusive supervision and subordinates’ interpersonal devi-
ance will have the strongest relationship.
Method
Sample and Procedure
Data for this study were collected in two waves approxi-
mately 3 weeks apart. At Time 1, seven hundred and nine
working adults were recruited as part of a class exercise to
teach students in an introductory management course how
research is conducted, analyzed, and reported. Students
received bonus points in their course for each person they
recruited, up to a maximum of 10. At Time 1, participants
were asked to complete measures of their FFM personality
traits and demographics. They also provided responses to
the least preferred coworker (LPC) scale, which was used
as a marker variable in the common method variance
(CMV) analysis. At Time 2, participants completed mea-
sures of perceptions of abusive supervision, task perfor-
mance, and interpersonal deviance. Three hundred and
seventy-six participants from various organizations (e.g.,
health care institutions, federal agencies, and law firms)
completed the online surveys in both waves, for a response
rate of 53 %.
123

Of the 376 participants, 40.4 % were female. Partici-
pants’ average age was 37.66 years (SD = 13.58), and the
average organizational tenure was 6.68 years (SD = 8.11).
At the time of the study, all participants were working as
non-supervisory front-line employees. In terms of ethnic-
ity, 85.3 % were Caucasian, 8 % Asian, 2.1 % African
American, 2.1 % Hispanic, and 2.4 % other. About half of
participants (48.8 %) had bachelors’ degrees or above,
42.1 % received associate’s degree or some college edu-
cation, and 9.1 % had completed secondary school.
Measures
Abusive Supervision
We used Tepper’s (2000) 15-item abusive supervision
scale. Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency
with which they perceived their immediate supervisor
exhibited abusive behaviors. Sample items are ‘‘expresses
anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason’’ and
‘‘lies to me.’’ We used a 5-point scale ranging from
1 = ‘‘never’’ to 5 = ‘‘very often.’’
Personality
Participants’ FFM personality traits were assessed with a
20-item short form of the International Personality Item
Pool (IPIP)—FFM measure (Goldberg 1999) that was
developed by Donnellan et al. (2006). Sample items are
‘‘get upset easily’’ (neuroticism), ‘‘sympathize with others’
feelings’’ (agreeableness), ‘‘talk to a lot of different people
at parties’’ (extraversion), and ‘‘like order’’ (conscien-
tiousness). A 5-point scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘strongly
disagree’’ to 5 = ‘‘strongly agree’’ was used.
Task Performance
Participants assessed their task performance using Wil-
liams and Anderson’s (1991) 7-item scale. Sample items
are ‘‘fulfill responsibilities in job description’’ and ‘‘ade-
quately complete assigned duties.’’ Respondents used a 5-
point scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to
5 = ‘‘strongly agree.’’
Interpersonal Deviance
Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) 7-item interpersonal devi-
ance scale was used. Sample items include ‘‘make fun of
someone at work’’ and ‘‘play a mean prank on someone at
work.’’ Respondents used a 5-point scale ranging from
1 = ‘‘never’’ to 5 = ‘‘very often.’’
123
G. Wang et al.
Marker Variable
The 18-item LPC measure (Fiedler 1967) was used as a
marker variable to test for the presence and biasing effect
of CMV. The participants were asked to think about one
coworker with whom they had the most difficulty getting a
job done and rate that person on an 8-point scale ranging
from 1 = ‘‘unpleasant’’ or ‘‘unfriendly’’ to 8 = ‘‘pleasant’’
or ‘‘friendly.’’
Control Variables1
When testing Hypotheses 1–4, we controlled for subordi-
nates’ agreeableness, extraversion, and openness given that
prior research has shown that they tend to be correlated
with the substantive variables, which may confound study
results (e.g., Berry et al. 2007; Henle and Gross 2014;
Mount et al. 2005; Oh et al. 2011; Tepper et al. 2001; Wu
and Hu 2013). Similarly, when testing Hypothesis 5, we
controlled for subordinates’ neuroticism, conscientious-
ness, and openness. The results with and without the con-
trols remained essentially unchanged.2 Following Becker’s
(2005) recommendations, we reported results without any
controls.
Results
Table 1 shows means, standard deviations, reliability esti-
mates, and correlations among study and marker variables.
Reliability estimates (i.e., a) fell within an acceptable range
for most study variables, but the estimates for conscien-
tiousness (a = .62), neuroticism (a = .69), and openness
to experience (a = .69) fell just below Nunnally’s (1978)
recommended standard for acceptable internal consistency
estimates of a C .70. The pattern of zero-order correlations
provided some preliminary support for the study hypothe-
ses: subordinates’ neuroticism was negatively related to
self-reported task performance and positively related to
perceptions of abusive supervision, and subordinates’
conscientiousness was positively related to self-reported
1
Thanks to an anonymous reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion, we
retested our hypotheses using age, gender, and organizational tenure
as demographic control variables. The inclusion of these additional
control variables did not substantively affect the results of hypothesis
testing, but significantly reduced the sample size, so they were
excluded from the final results.
2
It is noted that the slope difference test that compares the
relationship (i.e., simple slope) between perceived abusive supervi-
sion and interpersonal deviance among subordinates low in agree-
ableness and extraversion with the slope of subordinates high in both
traits was not significant (p \ .07, two-tailed test) when the control
variables were included, and was significant (p \ .05, two-tailed test)
when the control variables were not included.
Subordinates and Abusive Supervision

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and variable intercorrelations

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Conscientiousness 3.59 .68 (.62)

2 Neuroticism 2.71 .74 -.15** (.69)
3 Extraversion 3.23 .79 -.01 -.08 (.75)
4 Agreeableness 3.89 .62 .14** -.04 .27*** (.73)
5 Openness 3.51 .70 -.07 -.10* .19*** .02 (.69)
6 Task performance 4.15 .63 .27*** -.15** .05 .12* -.01 (.89)
7 Abusive supervision 1.39 .62 -.11* .14** .05 -.07 -.01 -.27*** (.95)
8 Interpersonal deviance 1.92 1.00 -.13* .03 .06 -.18*** .03 -.20*** .38*** (.84)
9 Least preferred 3.57 1.51 .07 -.03 .03 -.07 .03 -.05 .00 .07 (.96)
coworker
n = 376. The reliability (coefficient alpha) estimates are presented along the diagonal
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001. Statistical tests are based on two-tailed tests

task performance and negatively related to perceptions of
abusive supervision. Also, subordinates’ self-reports of
task performance were negatively related to perceptions of
abusive supervision, which were positively related to sub-
ordinates’ interpersonal deviance. Before testing the study
hypotheses, we assessed the potential impact of CMV on
study variables and relationships among them.
Assessing the Impact of CMV on Study Variables
Because all of the variables were collected from the same
source (albeit at two different points in time), we first
conducted a test for CMV using a marker variable tech-
nique (Williams et al. 2010) with LPC as a marker variable.
Given the focus and the scope of Fiedler’s (1967) contin-
gency model of leadership, which focused on the LPC,
none of the study variables used in the current study could
be considered central to Fiedler’s approach. Thus, based on
the previous theoretical and empirical work on Fiedler’s
LPC approach (e.g., Ayman et al. 1995; Fiedler 1972; Roch
et al. 2005), we had no reason to expect that LPC would
strongly relate to any of the variables used in the current
study, and therefore selected LPC as a marker variable. As
shown in Table 1, LPC displayed non-significant correla-
tions with the study variables.
The CMV analysis was conducted using LISREL ver-
sion 8.80 (Jöreskog and Sörbom 2006). The test for the
presence and influence of CMV was conducted in the three
phases described by Williams et al. (2010). At Phase 1,
multiple factor models were compared to each other with
the purpose of determining whether method effects were
present and equal across items measuring study variables.
The results of model comparison are presented in Table 2.
As seen in the table, the Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(CFA) model with all items loading on their corresponding
factors, including marker variable indicators loading on the
latent marker variable, demonstrated good fit, suggesting
that the expected factor structure captured the relationships
among observed variables fairly well. The Baseline model
with the marker variable being orthogonal to the substan-
tive study variables also demonstrated good fit, providing
evidence that the marker variable was not related to the
study variables, as expected. The v2 difference test further
indicated that constraining the correlations between the
marker variable and study variables to zero did not worsen
the model fit (CFA vs. Baseline: Dv2 = 7.61, df = 12,
p [ .10).
Next, the Method-C model with equal loadings of sub-
stantive variable indicators on the marker variable also
demonstrated good fit, suggesting the assumption that the
substantive indicators as a set were not significantly related
to the marker variable was supported. The Model-U, in
which the assumption of equality of substantive item
loadings on the marker variable was relaxed, did not
demonstrate a decrease in fit (Method-C vs. Method-U:
Dv2 = 63.89, df = 44, p [ .05), suggesting that the more
parsimonious Model-C could be retained for further ana-
lysis as the best model representing the effects of method
variance. The results of testing Method-C and Method-U
models showed that substantive items were not contami-
nated by CMV. In line with this conclusion, the Method-R
model with interfactor correlations fixed to be equal to the
corresponding correlations from the Baseline model dem-
onstrated that CMV had no meaningful biasing effect on
the relationships among the study variables (Method-C vs.
Method-R: Dv2 = 0.12, df = 21, p [ .10).
At Phase 2, we decomposed the observed reliabilities of
study variables into substantive and method components.
The method components comprised between 0.1 and 0.2 %
of the total variable reliabilities shown in Table 1. This
suggests that the influence of CMV on variable reliabilities
was negligible. Finally, at Phase 3, we conducted sensitivity

123
 G. Wang et al.

Table 2 Test for the common Model v2 df p value RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR
method variance: model
comparisons CFA 2,471.74 1,052 \.001 0.063 0.94 0.94 0.057
Baseline 2,479.35 1,064 \.001 0.063 0.94 0.94 0.057
Method-C 2,476.11 1,063 \.001 0.063 0.94 0.94 0.058
Method-U 2,412.22 1,019 \.001 0.063 0.94 0.93 0.054
Method-R 2,476.23 1,084 \.001 0.062 0.94 0.94 0.058
n = 376

analysis to determine whether the impact of CMV observed Table 3 Summary of regression results of testing Hypotheses 1–4
in the current analysis could be due to sampling error. To Variable Model 1: Model 2: Task Model 3:
conduct the analysis, we first fixed the loadings of the sub- Abusive performance Abusive
stantive indicators on the marker variable to be equal to the supervision supervision
value at the upper end of the 95 % confidence intervals b SE b SE b SE
(Model-S(.05)), then fixed those loadings to be equal to the
value at the upper end of their 99 % confidence intervals Conscientiousness -.09 .05 .26*** .05 -.02 .05
(Model-S(.01)). The correlations among the factors in both Neuroticism .13* .04 -.12* .04 .10* .04
Model-S(.05) and Model-S(.01) remained unchanged and Task performance -.25*** .05
were virtually identical (with the maximal difference of .01) R2 .03** .09*** .09***
to correlations obtained in the Baseline model and Method- n = 376
C model. This suggests that the obtained estimates of the * p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001. Statistical tests are based on
impact of method variance do not appear to be a function of two-tailed tests
sampling error. In sum, the test for method effects using the
marker variable approach indicated that study variable items abusive supervision was positive and significant, which
were neither contaminated by CMV, nor did it bias rela- supported Hypothesis 1. Further, the relationship between
tionships among study variables or affect reliability conscientiousness and abusive supervision was negative
estimates. but not significant, failing to support Hypothesis 2.
In Model 2 of the mediation analysis, we examined the
Tests of Study Hypotheses3 relationships between neuroticism and conscientiousness
(predictors) and self-reported task performance (mediator).
Table 3 presents the results of testing Hypotheses 1–4. We Both relationships were significant and in the predicted
followed the steps provided in the recent literature for direction. Specifically, neuroticism was negatively related
testing mediation (LeBreton et al. 2009), which pertained to self-reported task performance and conscientiousness
to the relationships among neuroticism, conscientiousness, was positively related to self-reported task performance
self-reported task performance, and perceptions of abusive (see Table 3, Model 2). In Model 3 of the mediation ana-
supervision. In Model 1 of the mediation analysis (Baron lysis, we tested the relationships between self-reported task
and Kenny 1986), we examined the effects of neuroticism performance (mediator) and perceptions of abusive super-
and conscientiousness (predictors) on perceptions of abu- vision (outcome) in the presence of neuroticism and con-
sive supervision (outcome). As seen in Table 3 (Model 1), scientiousness (predictors). As expected (see Table 3,
the relationship between neuroticism and perceptions of Model 3), the relationship between task performance and
3
Thanks to an anonymous reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion, we
retested our hypotheses using the 5-item short measure of abusive Footnote 3 continued
supervision, which was called active-aggressive abusive supervision high extraversion was not significant (Db4–1 = .05, p = .645, two-
(Mitchell and Ambrose 2007). The results showed that neuroticism tailed test). The change suggests that when perceiving active-
had a non-significant total effect (p = .23, two-tailed test) on aggressive abusive supervision, highly agreeable and extraverted
perceptions of active-aggressive abusive supervision, and conscien- employees tended to engage in more interpersonal deviant behaviors
tiousness had a non-significant total effect (p = .06, two-tailed test). than when perceiving a broad range of abusive supervisory behavior.
The indirect effects of neuroticism and conscientiousness through task This may be because perceptions of active-aggressive abusive
performance were both significant. Moreover, there was still a supervision forms a stronger situation than perceptions of a broad
significant three-way interaction (p = .038, two-tailed test) among range of abusive supervision, such that highly agreeable and extra-
extraversion, agreeableness, and perceptions of active-aggressive verted employees perform more interpersonal deviance under the
abusive supervision. When plotted, the three-way interaction showed stronger situation (Bowers 1973). In summary, our study shows that
a similar pattern of relationships among the simple slopes as shown in findings based on the 5-item measure of active-aggressive abusive
Fig. 2. The only change was that the simple slope difference between supervision are similar to, but slightly different from, those based on
low agreeableness and low extraversion and high agreeableness and the broad 15-item measure of abusive supervision.

123
Subordinates and Abusive Supervision

perceptions of abusive supervision was negative and Table 4 Summary of regression results of testing Hypothesis 5
significant. Variable Interpersonal
The indirect effects of neuroticism and conscientious- deviance
ness on perceptions of abusive supervision via self-reported
b SE
task performance were tested for significance using two
methods—the asymmetric confidence limits approach Step 1 (main effects)
(MacKinnon et al. 2004, 2007) and the bootstrap method Extraversion .08 .05
(1,000 samples; Shrout and Bolger 2002)—designed to Agreeableness -.18*** .05
account for the non-normality of the distribution of the Abusive supervision .32*** .05
indirect effects. The indirect effect of neuroticism on per- DR2 .17***
ceptions of abusive supervision via self-reported task per- Step 2 (two-way interactions)
formance was positive and significant: .02, asymmetric Extraversion 9 abusive supervision -.09 .05
95 % CI: (.003; .049), bootstrap 95 % CI (.004; .040). The Agreeableness 9 abusive supervision -.03 .05
indirect effect of conscientiousness on perceptions of Extraversion 9 agreeableness .05 .04
abusive supervision via self-reported task performance was DR2 .02
negative and significant: -.06, asymmetric 95 % CI Step 3 (three-way interactions)
(-.094; -.029); bootstrap 95 % CI (-.071; -.018). Taken Extraversion 9 agreeableness 9 abusive .13* .05
together, the results of the mediation analysis show that supervision
self-reported task performance partially rather than fully DR2 .01*
mediated the effect of neuroticism on perceptions of abu- 2
R for the total equation .20***
sive supervision because the effect of neuroticism on per-
n = 376
ceptions of abusive supervision in the presence of self-
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001. Statistical tests are based on
reported task performance (see Table 3, Model 3) was two-tailed tests
smaller but still significant (Baron and Kenny 1986). Thus,
Hypothesis 3 was partially supported.
However, the results of the mediation analysis failed to difference test to examine differences between pairs of
support Hypothesis 4 because the total effect of conscien- slopes (Dawson and Richter 2006). This test revealed that
tiousness on perceptions of abusive supervision was not the relationship between perceived abusive supervision and
significant (see Table 3, Model 1). According to Mathieu interpersonal deviance was stronger when subordinates
and Taylor (2006), there should be a significant total effect were low in both traits than when subordinates were only
of an independent variable on a dependent variable for a low in one trait (Db4–2 = 0.29, p \ .05; Db4–3 = 0.42,
mediating effect to exist. When the total effect is not sig- p \ .01) or high in both traits (Db4–1 = 0.24, p \ .05).
nificant, the independent variable could have an indirect Slopes in the remaining pairs did not significantly differ
effect on the dependent variable through a third variable. from each other (Db1–2 = 0.11, p [ .10; Db1–3 = 0.34,
Following Mathieu and Taylor’s distinction between p [ .10; Db2–3 = 0.23, p [ .10).
mediation and indirect effect, we concluded that consci- Thus, Hypothesis 5 received support: perceived abusive
entiousness had a significant indirect effect on perceptions supervision interacted with extraversion and agreeableness
of abusive supervision through self-reported task to predict interpersonal deviance, such that when perceiv-
performance. ing supervisory abuse, subordinates low in both agree-
Table 4 summarizes the hierarchical regression results ableness and extraversion were more likely to engage in
we used to test Hypothesis 5. As predicted, the three-way interpersonal deviance than subordinates high in agree-
interaction among agreeableness, extraversion, and per- ableness and low in extraversion, low in agreeableness and
ceived abusive supervision in predicting interpersonal high in extraversion, or high in both traits.
deviance was significant (b = .13, p \ .05). To graphically
examine the three-way interaction, we constructed an
interaction plot (see Fig. 2) and conducted the simple Discussion
slopes test (Aiken and West 1991). After establishing that
three of the four simple slopes were significantly different Drawing upon extant theoretical and empirical research, we
from zero [b1(high agreeableness, high extraver- examined subordinates’ personality and self-reports of task
sion) = 0.32, p \ .01; b2 (high agreeableness, low extra- performance as antecedents of perceptions of abusive
version) = 0.27, p \ .01; b3(low agreeableness, high supervision, as well as the moderating effects of subordi-
extraversion) = 0.14, p [ .10; b4(low agreeableness, low nates’ personality traits in the relationship between subor-
extraversion) = 0.56, p \ .001], we conducted a slope dinates’ perceived abusive supervision and interpersonal

123

Fig. 2 Three-way interactive
effects among perceived
abusive supervision,
agreeableness, and extraversion
on subordinates’ interpersonal
deviance
deviance. We found that subordinates’ self-reports of task
performance partially mediated the relationship between
neuroticism and perceptions of abusive supervision, and
that conscientiousness had an indirect effect on perceptions
of abusive supervision through their self-reported task
performance. In addition, we found that subordinates’
extraversion and agreeableness jointly moderated the
effects of perceived abusive supervision on their interper-
sonal deviant behavior. Specifically, when perceiving
supervisory abuse, subordinates who scored low on both
agreeableness and extraversion were more likely to engage
in interpersonal deviance than other subordinates who
scored high on either or both of these two personality traits.
This study’s findings reveal subordinates’ roles in the
formation of and reactions to abusive supervision, and
contribute to the expanding literature on the dark side of
organizational behavior. First, previous studies on ante-
cedents of abusive supervision have mainly focused on
supervisor perceptions of injustice (e.g., Tepper et al. 2006)
and dissimilarity (Tepper et al. 2011). Our findings suggest
that alternative mechanisms through which perceptions of
abusive supervision are formed may exist. Because abusive
supervision represents a specific form of perceived inter-
personal mistreatment within supervisor–subordinate
interactions, and because research on workplace harass-
ment posits that victims’ personality and behavior may
contribute to aggression (Matthiesen and Einarsen 2001), it
is reasonable to expect that subordinates may also give rise
to negative supervisory actions through their negative
emotional expressions, attitudes, and less conscientious
behaviors (Henle and Gross 2014), as well as through
inadequate fulfillment of job responsibilities. In line with
this expectation, we found that neurotic and less consci-
entious subordinates are more likely to experience abusive
supervision partly due to their poor performance of job
duties.
123
G. Wang et al.
The robust relationship we found between neuroticism
and perceptions of abusive supervision corresponds to
findings in other research areas that victims with certain
personality traits are more likely to be abused or perceive
that they are abused than others (Elias 1986). Specifically,
we were able to replicate Henle and Gross’ (2014) finding
that emotional stability had a significant negative total
effect on perceptions of abusive supervision. Extending
Henle and Gross, our findings demonstrate that in addition
to negative emotions, self-reports of task performance
could also transmit the indirect effects of emotional sta-
bility and conscientiousness.
Although not hypothesized, subordinates’ agreeableness
in our study did not have a significant total or indirect
effect (via perceptions of task performance) on perceptions
of abusive supervision. This finding is consistent with
Henle and Gross’ (2014) findings. Unlike Henle and Gross,
we found a non-significant total effect of subordinates’
conscientiousness on perceptions of abusive supervision,
which may stem from the relatively low reliability estimate
of conscientiousness in the current study. A future meta-
analysis (Hunter and Schmidt 2004) likely will reveal a
population relationship between subordinates’ conscien-
tiousness and perceptions of abusive supervision.
Further, this study replicates Tepper et al.’s (2011)
finding that subordinates’ self-reports of task performance
can be an antecedent of perceptions of abusive supervision.
Adding to Tepper et al., this study shows that subordinates’
personality traits (i.e., neuroticism and conscientiousness)
could be viable antecedents of perceptions of abusive
supervision in addition to supervisors’ perceived dissimi-
larity and relationship conflict with subordinates. Overall,
these findings reveal the important role played by subor-
dinates in the formation of perceived abusive supervision.
Our findings suggest that acknowledging the role of fol-
lower characteristics when examining antecedents of
Subordinates and Abusive Supervision
abusive supervision may further our understanding of this
important phenomenon.
Second, complementing prior studies (e.g., Henle and
Gross 2014; Tepper et al. 2011), our findings show that
subordinates’ agreeableness and extraversion jointly mod-
erated the relationship between perceptions of abusive
supervision and interpersonal deviance. The significant
moderation effect provides a more fine-grained picture of
the negative consequences of perceived abusive supervi-
sion than previously available and contributes to the
growing literature on abusive supervision. Tepper (2007)
called for more research on the boundary conditions of the
effects of abusive supervision on workplace outcomes. To
our knowledge, this study represents the first attempt to
investigate the simultaneous effects of subordinates’
agreeableness and extraversion as boundary conditions of
the relationship between subordinates’ perceived abusive
supervision and interpersonal deviance.
Our study shows that subordinates can differ in their
reactions to perceived abusive supervision based on their
personality characteristics. For example, disagreeable and
introverted subordinates tend to react to perceived abusive
supervision with higher levels of interpersonal deviance
than agreeable and/or extroverted subordinates. Overall,
our study illustrates the significance of examining bound-
ary conditions of negative effects of abusive supervision.
Consistent with Tepper et al. (2001), our study shows that
subordinates’ personality traits could jointly moderate their
responses to perceived abusive supervision.
Adding to Burton and Hoobler (2011), Nandkeolyar
et al. (2014), Mitchell and Ambrose (2007), and Tepper
et al. (2001), our study theoretically contributes to the
abusive supervision literature by introducing trait activa-
tion theory as a means to identify agreeableness and
extraversion as two joint moderators of the relationship
between perceived abusive supervision and interpersonal
deviance. One theoretical implication offered by our study
and prior research is that different personality traits tend to
be involved in moderating different consequences of per-
ceived abusive supervision. Thus, future researchers are
prompted to theoretically derive boundary conditions of
different consequences of perceived abusive supervision.
Third, the significant interaction among subordinates’
agreeableness, extraversion, and perceived abusive super-
vision is in line with the predictions of trait activation
theory (Tett and Guterman 2000). Complementing prior
research suggesting that positive leadership (e.g., goal-
focused leadership; Colbert and Witt 2009) could be a
social cue that triggers employees to express their per-
sonality traits (e.g., conscientiousness), our study demon-
strates that perceived negative supervisory behaviors (e.g.,
perceptions of abusive supervision) could also serve as a
social cue that triggers the expression of employees’
personality related to social interactions (i.e., disagree-
ableness and introversion). Thus, our findings provide
initial support for the external validity of trait activation
theory in abusive supervision research.
Implications for Practice
The findings of this study suggest several important
implications for practice. First, given the negative conse-
quences of perceived abusive supervision on subordinates’
psychological well-being and the spillover effect on group
climate and cooperation (Mitchell and Ambrose 2007), we
believe that managing subordinates’ performance problems
in an abusive way should be avoided because it is a practice
that harms the organization and its members. We recom-
mend that organizations hire employees who possess the
necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform their
tasks, and that organizations provide coaching, training,
and feedback so that employees can continuously improve
their levels of performance.
Second, from an ethical perspective, we suggest that
organizations provide training or consultation for supervi-
sors regarding how to treat subordinates with particular
personality traits, especially those high in neuroticism or
low in conscientiousness. For example, organizations can
train supervisors to engage in constructive conflict man-
agement that addresses concerns and provides feedback in
a timely and appropriate manner that considers subordi-
nates’ personality traits (Sutton 2007). Further, organiza-
tions can adopt and promote strict policies against
interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace (Sutton 2007),
and establish HR hotlines, as well as other complaint
mechanisms (Krasikova et al. 2013) that enable employees
to report interpersonal mistreatment. Not only would these
policies make it clear to supervisors that they need to be
sensitive toward whether or not subordinates perceive
supervisory treatment, but they also would provide subor-
dinates with the opportunity to identify when they perceive
supervisory mistreatment.
Third, organizations can assess employees’ personality
so that they can identify which applicants are most likely to
perceive abusive supervision and subsequently take
appropriate measures to prevent perceptions of abusive
supervision if they decide to hire these applicants. For
example, employers could train employees in conflict
management and coping skills, which might help reduce
levels of perceived supervisory abuse, as well as the
prevalence of interpersonal deviance.
Limitations and Implications for Future Research
Admittedly, this study has several limitations. First, all of
the constructs were measured from the same source.
123

However, the CMV analysis results indicated that the
relationships among the variables likely were not attribut-
able to common source bias (Spector 1987). In addition,
our two-wave research design further helps mitigate
against the problem of common method bias (Podsakoff
et al. 2003). Nonetheless, we suggest future research uses
multi-source data collection designs to replicate our find-
ings. For example, task performance and/or interpersonal
deviance could be measured from supervisors’ perspec-
tives. Employees with certain combinations of personality
traits may be more likely to perceive abusive supervision
than others, regardless of actual levels of supervisory
abuse. Due to the self-report nature of the data examined in
this study, it is difficult to determine the extent to which
supervisors actually engaged in abusive actions. One major
advantage of a multi-source approach is that it would be
possible to determine the degree to which the reported
abusive supervision was a real consequence of neuroticism
and low conscientiousness or simply a perceptual bias.
Second, the reliability estimates (i.e., a) for conscien-
tiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience fell
below Nunnally’s (1978) recommended standard of .70.
This is not surprising, considering that each construct was
measured using 4 items validated in Donnellan et al.’s
(2006) mini-IPIP measure. Highly shortened measures of
personality suffer from a number of well-known problems,
including a lack of breadth in item content, which can
undermine reliability and reduce validity (see Credé et al.
2012). We recommend that studies that attempt to con-
structively replicate this study’s findings use more com-
prehensive measures of personality than those included in
the mini-IPIP.
Third, because data on perceptions of abusive supervi-
sion, task performance, and interpersonal deviance were
collected at the same point in time, the causal relationships
between these variables are tentative. Longitudinal or
experimental designs are needed to infer causality among
the study variables. For example, it is likely that subordi-
nates’ interpersonal deviance leads to supervisors’ attempts
to correct deviant employees’ misbehavior by engaging in
negative behaviors that could be construed as abusive.
However, considering the power and status asymmetry
between supervisors and subordinates (Tepper et al. 2008),
we suggest it is not likely that subordinates direct deviant
behaviors at supervisors in the first place.
Finally, we used Tepper’s (2000) widely used measure
of abusive supervision, which measures subordinates’
perceptions of supervisors’ abusive behavior, rather than
actual supervisory behavior. Thus, our findings reflect the
extent to which subordinates perceive they are abused by
their supervisors, as well as how they react to their per-
ceptions of supervisory abuse, as opposed to reactions to
actual supervisory abuse. Although our examination of
123
G. Wang et al.
abusive supervision is consistent with prior research, future
research could examine the extent to which perceptions of
abusive supervision are associated with actual abusive
supervisory behavior, as well as how results differ
depending on how abusive supervision is measured. Sim-
ilarly, our measure of performance reflected subordinates’
perceptions of their own performance. Future research
could explore whether or not subordinates’ and supervi-
sors’ ratings of performance are differentially associated
with perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision.
Conclusion
In summary, our results show that subordinates’ personal-
ity traits play an important role in perceptions of and
reactions to abusive supervision. Specifically, subordinates
high in neuroticism or low in conscientiousness are more
likely to experience perceptions of abusive supervision
through their deleterious job performance than subordi-
nates low in neuroticism or high in conscientiousness. In
addition, subordinates low in both agreeableness and
extraversion tend to respond to perceived supervisory
abuse with more interpersonal deviance than subordinates
who score high on either or both of the two personality
traits. We hope our study spurs additional research exam-
ining the role of employees’ personalities in the formations
of and reactions to abusive supervision.
Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Dina Krasikova and
Liam Patrick Maher for their help.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Anderson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling
effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management
Review, 24, 452–471.
Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual determinants of work-
place victimization: The effects of hierarchical status and
conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26, 171–
193.
Aquino, K., & Bradfield, M. (2000). Perceived victimization in the
workplace: The role of situational factors and victim character-
istics. Organization Science, 11, 525–537.
Aquino, K., Grover, S. L., Bradfield, M., & Allen, D. G. (1999). The
effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-
determination on workplace victimization. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 42, 260–272.
Aquino, K., & Lamertz, K. (2004). A relational model of workplace
victimization: Social roles and patterns of victimization in
dyadic relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1023–
1034.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents
and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191–201.
Subordinates and Abusive Supervision
Ayman, R., Chemers, M. M., & Fiedler, F. (1995). The contingency
model of leadership effectiveness: Its levels of analysis. The
Leadership Quarterly, 6, 147–167.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. New
York: Prentice Hall.
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.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality
dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). The FFM
personality dimensions and job performance: Meta-analysis of
meta-analyses. International Journal of Selection and Assess-
ment, 9, 9–30.
Barry, B., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in
distributive and integrative negotiation. Journal of Social and
Personality Psychology, 74, 345–359.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership (3rd
ed.). New York: Free Press.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of
variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with
recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274–
289.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure
of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3),
349–360.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and
control. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal
deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates:
A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
410–424.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Revenge in organizations: The
good, the bad, and the ugly. In R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly,
& J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations:
Violent and deviant behavior. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion
domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N.
Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in
organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a
critique. Psychological Review, 80, 307–336.
Bradley, B. H. (2008). The bad apple spoils the bunch: How a
disagreeable person damages team performance and what can
be done about it. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical
leadership: A social learning perspective for construct develop-
ment and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 97, 117–134.
Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2011). Aggressive reactions to
abusive supervision: The role of interactional justice and
narcissism. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 389–398.
Caldwell, D. F., & Burger, J. M. (1997). Personality and social
influence strategies in the workplace. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1003–1012.
Carlo, G., Okun, M. A., Knight, G. P., & de Guzman, M. R. T. (2005).
The interplay of traits and motives on volunteering: Agreeable-
ness, extraversion and prosocial value motivation. Personality
and Individual Differences, 38(6), 1293–1305.
Chen, X. P., Lam, S. S. K., Naumann, S. E., & Schaubroeck, J.
(2005). Group citizenship behavior: Conceptualization and
preliminary tests of its antecedents and consequences. Manage-
ment and Organization Review, 1, 273–300.
Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Drasgow, F. (2011). Individual
differences: Their measurement and validity. In S. Zedeck (Ed.),
APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol.
2, pp. 117–151). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Colbert, A. E., Judge, T. A., Choi, D., & Wang, G. (2012). Assessing
the trait theory of leadership using self and observer ratings of
personality: The mediating role of contributions to group
success. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 670–685.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M.
R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of
the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 599–609.
Colbert, A. E., & Witt, L. A. (2009). The role of goal-focused
leadership in enabling the expression of conscientiousness.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 790–796.
Costa, P. T., Jr, & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-
FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: PAR.
Credé, M., Harms, P. D., Nierhorster, S., & Gaye-Valentine, A.
(2012). An evaluation of the consequences of using short
measures of the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 102, 874–888.
Curtis, L. A. (1974). Victim precipitation and violent crime. Social
Problems, 21, 594–605.
Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way
interactions: The development and application of a slope
difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917–926.
Diefendorff, J. M., & Richard, E. M. (2003). Antecedents and
consequences of emotional display rule perceptions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 284–294.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-
factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006).
The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five
factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in
the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351.
Eisenberger, R., Lynch, P., & Aselage, J. (2004). Who takes the most
revenge? Individual differences in negative reciprocity norm
endorsement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30,
787–799.
Elias, R. (1986). The politics of victimization: Victims, victimology,
and human rights. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Fiedler, F. E. (1972). Personality, motivational systems, and behavior
of high and low LPC persons. Human Relations, 25(5), 391–412.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review
of General Psychology, 2, 300–319.
Freedman, M. B., Leary, T. F., Ossorio, A. G., & Coffrey, H. S.
(1951). The interpersonal dimension of personality. Journal of
Personality, 20, 143–161.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, person-
ality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several
Wave-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F.
Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp.
7–28). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. H. (1997). Agreeableness: A
dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs
(Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795–824).
London: Academic Press.
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. The
Leadership Quarterly, 18, 252–263.
123

Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How
important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of
integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy
of Management Journal, 49, 305–325.
Henle, C. A., & Gross, M. A. (2014). What have I done to deserve
this? Effects of employee personality and emotion on abusive
supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 461–474.
Hoobler, J., & Brass, D. (2006). Abusive supervision and family
undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 91, 1125–1133.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis:
Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job
performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(6), 869–871.
Inness, M., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2005). Understanding super-
visor-targeted aggression: A within-person, between-jobs design.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 731–739.
Jantz, G. L., & McMurray, A. (2009). Healing the scars of emotional
abuse. Grand Rapids, MI: Revell.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8 for Windows
[computer software]. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software Interna-
tional, Inc.
Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford,
E. R. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor
model of personality in predicting job performance: Integrating
three organizing framework with two theoretical perspectives.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 875–925.
Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy:
Lessons from the person–situation debate. American Psycholo-
gist, 43, 23–34.
Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagencyzk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., &
Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian
leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ Machiavel-
lianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory
behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 512–519.
Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Scott, K. L., Garcia,
P. R. J., & Tang, R. L. (2012). Sins of the parents: The role of
supervisors’ prior experience of family undermining in predict-
ing subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervision. The
Leadership Quarterly, 23, 869–882.
Koole, S. L., Jager, W., van den Berg, A. E., Vlek, C. A., & Hofstee,
W. K. (2001). On the social nature of personality: Effects of
extraversion, agreeableness, and feedback about collective
resource use on cooperation in a resource dilemma. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(3), 289–301.
Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive
leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research
agenda. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1308–1338.
LeBreton, J. M., Wu, J., & Bing, M. N. (2009). The truth(s) on testing for
mediation in the social and organizational sciences. In C. E. Lance
& R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths
and urban legends: Doctrine, verity, and fable in the organiza-
tional and social sciences (pp. 107–142). New York: Routledge.
LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J. (1997).
Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierar-
chical decision making teams: Much more than g. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82, 803–811.
Lian, H., Lance Ferris, D., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does power
distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervi-
sion? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology,
97, 107–123.
Liu, J., Kwong, K. H., Wu, L. Z., & Wu, W. (2010). Abusive
supervision and subordinate supervisor-directed deviance: The
moderating role of traditional values and the mediating role of
123
G. Wang et al.
revenge cognitions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 83, 835–856.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M.
(2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for the
indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Meth-
ods, 39(3), 384–389.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004).
Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the
product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 39(1), 99–128.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A
review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 34, S120–S137.
Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and
decision points for mediational type inferences in Organizational
Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1031–1056.
Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2001). MMPI-2 configurations after
persistent bullying at work. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 10, 467–484.
Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova,
S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision.
Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 325–357.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T, Jr. (1989). The structure of
interpersonal traits: Wiggins’s circumplex and the five-factor
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586–
595.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and
workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative
reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159–
1168.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2012). Employees’ behavioral
reactions to supervisor aggression: An examination of individual
and situational factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6),
1148–1170.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality
dimensions: Implications for theory and practice in human
resource management. Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management, 13, 153–200.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005).
Higher-order dimensions of the big five personality traits and the
big six vocational interest types. Personnel Psychology, 58(2),
447–478.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor
model of personality and performance in jobs involving inter-
personal interactions. Human Performance, 11, 145–165.
Murphy, C. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). Psychological aggression
predicts physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 579–582.
Nandkeolyar, A. K., Shaffer, J. A., Li, A., Ekkirala, S., & Bagger, J.
(2014). Surviving an abusive supervisor: The joint roles of
conscientiousness and coping strategies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 99(1), 138–150.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
O’Leary-Kelly, A., Griffin, R., & Glew, D. (1996). Organization-
motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of
Management Review, 21, 225–253.
Oh, I.-S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. (2011). Validity of observer
ratings of Five-Factor Model of personality traits: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 762–773.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in schools: Bullies and whipping boys.
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Organ, D. W., & Paine, J. B. (1999). A new kind of performance for
industrial and organizational psychology: Recent contributions
to the study of organizational citizenship behavior. In C. L.
Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of
Subordinates and Abusive Supervision
industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 337–368).
New York: Wiley.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2011). When
distress hits home: The effects of contextual factors and
psychological distress in predicting employee responses to
abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 713–
729.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant
workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its
definition, its manifestations, and its causes. Research on
Negotiations in Organizations, 6, 3–27.
Roch, S. G., Ayman, R., & Harris, M. (2005). Effect of identifiability,
rating audience, and conscientiousness on rating level. Interna-
tional Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 53–62.
Roelofs, J., Huibers, M., Peeters, F., Arntz, A., & van Os, J. (2008).
Rumination and worrying as possible mediators in the relation
between neuroticism and symptoms of depression and anxiety in
clinically depressed. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46,
1283–1289.
Roth, P. L., Switzer, F. S, III, Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Oh, I. S.
(2011). Toward better meta-analytic matrices: How input values
can affect research conclusions in human resource management
simulations. Personnel Psychology, 64(4), 899–935.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations:
Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shaffer, J., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2012). A matter of context: A
meta-analytic investigation of the relative validity of contextu-
alized and noncontextualized personality measures. Personnel
Psychology, 65, 445–494.
Shoss, M., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J.
(2013). Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: The roles
of perceived organizational support and supervisor organizational
embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 158–168.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and
nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.
Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445.
Snyder, M. (1983). The influence of individuals on situations:
Implications for understanding the links between personality and
social behavior. Journal of Personality, 51(3), 497–516.
Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported
affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 438–443.
Sutton, R. I. (2007). The no asshole rule: Building a civilized
workplace and surviving one that isn’t. New York: Warner
Business Books.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy
of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations:
Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Manage-
ment, 33, 261–289.
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. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 156–167.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006).
Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervi-
sion. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101–123.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J. M., & Ensley, M. D. (2004).
Moderators of the relationship between coworkers’ organiza-
tional citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455–465.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality
moderators of the relationships between abusive supervision and
subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
974–983.
Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., &
Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates’
organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 721–
732.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive
supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity,
relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 54, 279–294.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based
interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 500–517.
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait
expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle
of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397–
423.
Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How
management style moderates the relationship between abusive
supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty manage-
ment perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 108, 79–92.
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.
Trierweiler, L. I., Eid, M., & Lischetzke, T. (2002). The structure of
emotional expressivity: Each emotion counts. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 1023–1040.
Wang, W., Mao, J., Wu, W., & Liu, J. (2012). Abusive supervision
and workplace deviance: The mediating role of interactional
justice and the moderating role of power distance. Asia Pacific
Journal of Human Resources, 50, 43–60.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The
disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psycholog-
ical Bulletin, 96, 465–490.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait descriptive
terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 37, 395–412.
Wiggins, J. S. (1980). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior.
In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology
(Vol. 1, pp. 265–294). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and
organizational commitment as predictors of organizational
citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17,
601–617.
Williams, L. J., Hartman, N., & Cavazotte, F. (2010). Method
variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive
CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods, 13,
477–514.
Wu, T.-Y., & Hu, C. (2013). Abusive supervision and subordinate
emotional labor: The moderating role of openness personality.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 956–970.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
123