10 1 1 921 229

573997
research-article2015
JOMXXX10.1177/0149206315573997Journal of ManagementMackey et al. / Abusive Supervision Meta-Analysis
Journal of Management
Vol. XX No. X, Month XXXX 1–26
DOI: 10.1177/0149206315573997
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Abusive Supervision: A Meta-Analysis and

Empirical Review
Jeremy D. Mackey
Auburn University
Rachel E. Frieder
Old Dominion University
Jeremy R. Brees
University of Scranton
Mark J. Martinko
Florida A&M University
We conducted a meta-analysis and empirical review of abusive supervision research in order to

derive meta-analytic population estimates for the relationships between perceptions of abusive
supervision and numerous demographic, justice, individual difference, leadership, and outcome
variables. The use of psychometric correction enabled us to provide weighted mean correlations
and population correlation estimates that accounted for attenuation due to measurement error
and sampling error variance. Also, we conducted sensitivity analyses that removed the effects
of large samples from analyses. Then, we conducted subgroup analyses using samples drawn
from the United States to provide population correlation estimates that corrected for attenuation
due to measurement error, sampling error variance, and indirect range restriction. Finally, we
examined measurement artifacts resulting from various adaptations of Tepper’s abusive supervi-
sion measure. The results reveal that although the associations between perceptions of abusive
supervision and outcome variables appear to be universally negative, the magnitude of the
relationships between perceptions of abusive supervision and antecedent and outcome variables
varies according to the design features of studies. Contributions to theory and practice,
strengths and limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Paul Harvey and T. Russell Crook for conducting peer reviews
of an earlier version of this paper.
Supplemental material for this article is available at http://jom.sagepub.com/supplemental
Corresponding author: Jeremy D. Mackey, Raymond J. Harbert College of Business, Department of Management,
Auburn University, Lowder Business Bldg., 405 W. Magnolia Ave., Auburn, AL, 36849, USA.
E-mail: jdmackey88@gmail.com
1
Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016
2 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
Keywords: abusive supervision; justice; meta-analysis
Tepper defined abusive supervision as “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which

supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors,
excluding physical contact” (2000: 178). Since Tepper’s seminal article, a multitude of stud-
ies have examined the deleterious effects of perceptions of abusive supervision on a host of
employee and organizational outcomes (for reviews, see Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey,
2013; Tepper, 2007).
This body of research has demonstrated that subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervi-
sion are associated with increased strain (e.g., emotional exhaustion; Wheeler, Halbesleben,
& Whitman, 2013), reductions in affective well-being (e.g., job satisfaction; Kernan, Watson,
Chen, & Kim, 2011), and low-quality interpersonal exchanges (i.e., leader-member exchange,
LMX; Lian, Ferris, & Brown, 2012b). Perceptions of abusive supervision have also been
positively associated with subordinates’ proclivities to engage in dysfunctional behaviors at
work (e.g., workplace deviance; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007) and at home (e.g., work-
to-family conflict; Carlson, Ferguson, Perrewé, & Whitten, 2011). Additionally, subordinates
who perceive supervisory abuse demonstrate lower levels of task performance (e.g., Xu,
Huang, Lam, & Miao, 2012), are rated more poorly on formal performance appraisals (e.g.,
Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007), and report engaging in fewer organizational citizenship
behaviors (OCBs; e.g., Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002) than their counterparts who do not
perceive as much supervisory abuse. Clearly, perceptions of abusive supervision are associ-
ated with a wide variety of negative organizational outcomes.
Although much is known about the deleterious outcomes associated with abusive supervi-
sion perceptions, there are still theoretical and methodological issues that need to be addressed
before the role of perceptions of abusive supervision can be fully explained and understood.
For example, which individual and organizational variables are associated with subordinates’
perceptions of abusive supervision, and what are the magnitudes of these associations? How
have perceptions of abusive supervision been measured? How do the designs of studies affect
the relationships between perceptions of abuse and outcome measures? What outcome vari-
ables are most highly associated with perceptions of abuse? To begin answering these ques-
tions, we utilize meta-analytic procedures (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004) to conduct a
meta-analysis and empirical review of abusive supervision research. Although there is con-
sistent evidence demonstrating that perceptions of abusive supervision are related to negative
individual and organizational outcomes, there is still uncertainty regarding the magnitudes of
these associations. Furthermore, although Tepper (2007) and Martinko et al. (2013) provided
qualitative reviews of the literature, no empirical summation specific to abusive supervision
has been conducted. Thus, a meta-analysis can make a significant contribution to our under-
standing of the abusive supervision process, the magnitude of the associations with outcome
variables, the empirical impact of design and sample choices, and can help identify areas
where more research is needed to increase our understanding of this phenomenon.
Although recent meta-analyses have examined various forms of interpersonal mistreat-
ment, none have focused on employees’ perceptions of abusive supervision. For example,
recent meta-analyses have examined aggression (Hershcovis et al., 2007), destructive

Mackey et al. / Abusive Supervision Meta-Analysis 3
leadership (Schyns & Schilling, 2013), deviance (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007), nonsexual
harassment (Lapierre, Spector, & Leck, 2005), workplace bullying (Nielsen, Matthiesen, &
Einarsen, 2010), and workplace harassment (Bowling & Beehr, 2006). Although each of these
interpersonal mistreatment constructs share some domain space with abusive supervision,
they are each distinct and have meaningful theoretical differences (Tepper & Henle, 2011).
The most closely related meta-analysis to ours is that of Schyns and Schilling. Their meta-
analysis of destructive leadership was leader focused and assessed multiple forms of destruc-
tive leadership (e.g., abusive supervision, negative leadership, toxic leadership), whereas our
meta-analysis of abusive supervision is subordinate focused and focuses explicitly on abusive
supervision (k = 140 abusive supervision studies vs. k = 46 abusive supervision studies).
The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive empirical assessment of abusive
supervision research. We identify the variables that have been associated with abusive super-
vision in at least five studies per variable and use psychometric correction to provide meta-
analytically derived population estimates for these relationships. Also, we examine the
numerous ways Tepper’s (2000) abusive supervision measure has been adapted (e.g., number
of items, scale points) and evaluate the measurement artifacts that result from these adapta-
tions. Knowledge of these measurement artifacts will be helpful to researchers when design-
ing studies, reviewers when evaluating abusive supervision research, and practitioners when
evaluating how related findings from abusive supervision research may affect their organiza-
tions and their members. Overall, our contribution primarily lies in the psychometric correc-
tion of the associations between perceptions of abusive supervision and antecedent and
outcome variables, which provides useful information for researchers who want to construc-
tively replicate and extend prior research as well as practitioners who want to understand the
findings of this body of research.
Our paper is organized as follows. First, we begin by describing justice theory and its
application to abusive supervision research. Next, we conduct a meta-analysis of abusive
supervision research. Then, we assess measurement artifacts in abusive supervision research
related to the differences in how Tepper’s (2000) measure of abusive supervision has been
adapted across studies and cultural differences between samples. We conclude with a discus-
sion of the implications of our findings. In doing so, we hope to inform theory building, guide
future research, and inform practice by examining this important phenomenon.
Theoretical Foundations
Although great strides have been made to define, delineate, and decipher the abusive
supervision construct, abusive supervision research lacks a unifying theoretical framework
(Tepper, 2007). This limitation has resulted in the use of numerous theories to explain asso-
ciations between perceptions of abusive supervision and subordinates’ attitudes and behav-
iors. Despite the multitude of theories that have been used to explain the effects of perceptions
of abusive supervision, both the origins of the abusive supervision construct (i.e., Tepper,
2000) and recent conceptual work in the area (e.g., Chan & McAllister, 2014; Klaussner,
2014) suggest that perceptions of abusive supervision originate as perceptions of supervisory
injustice that evolve to incorporate the social exchange processes shared by subordinates and
supervisors over time (Chan & McAllister; Klaussner). Thus, we focus on justice theory as
our primary explanatory framework.

Justice in the Workplace

Perceptions of organizational justice reflect the extent to which employees feel valued by
their organization. These perceptions have wide-reaching implications for employees’ atti-
tudes and behaviors (Rupp, 2011). Although there are a multitude of justice theories (Shapiro,
2001), organizational justice is rooted in fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001) and
shares relational value with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell,
2005). Fairness theory suggests subordinates make cognitive comparisons that often result in
an aroused sense of injustice. These comparisons are subjective (van den Bos, 2003) and are
often triggered by supervisory behavior (Klaussner, 2014).
The first published study of abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000) established perceptions of
abusive supervision as a source of supervisory justice violation. As suggested above, the
emergence of subordinates’ perceptions of supervisory abuse likely stems from initial per-
ceptions of supervisory injustice (Klaussner, 2014). After the initial assessment of supervi-
sory injustice, negative subordinate-supervisor exchanges (Markovsky, 1985) may become
reinforced over time to contribute to sustained perceptions of abusive supervision, especially
if they accumulate over recurring trigger events that are not resolved (Klaussner). Over time,
subordinates who perceive supervisory abuse may become focused on threat-related infor-
mation whereby they engage in hypervigilance and rumination about their supervisors’
behaviors, which ultimately skews their social information processing toward threat detec-
tion (i.e., abusive supervisory behaviors; Chan & McAllister, 2014) and increases the likeli-
hood of sustained perceptions of supervisory abuse. Furthermore, contextual features of
subordinates and their work environments (e.g., cross-cultural differences) can influence the
subordinate-supervisor relationship, as well as the formation of justice perceptions and
development of perceptions of abusive supervision.
Cross-Cultural Findings
Although abusive supervision research originated in the United States (i.e., Tepper,
2000), it now includes findings from many international samples (Martinko et al., 2013).
Although the generalizability of findings within abusive supervision research has increased,
so too has the heterogeneity of study findings in terms of degrees of association between
perceptions of abusive supervision and subordinate characteristics and behaviors, supervi-
sor characteristics and behaviors, and features of the work context. Although cultural differ-
ences (e.g., achievement values, benevolence values, collectivism, individualism,
masculinity, power distance, traditionality values, uncertainty avoidance) may influence
subordinate response patterns and overall study findings, little research has incorporated
cultural differences into the forefront of study designs. This is unfortunate because cultural
values can affect how employees make sense of and respond to their world, as well as the
magnitude of the effects of justice on employees’ attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (R.
Shao, Rupp, Skarlicki, & Jones, 2013).
Cultural differences are especially important to consider in the context of perceptions of
abusive supervision because of the supervisory injustice component of abusive supervision,
which can have varying effects on employees’ attitudes and behaviors across cultures (R.
Shao et al., 2013). R. Shao et al. found that individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoid-
ance, and power distance each individually moderated the relationships between justice

(i.e., organizational and supervisory justice) and outcome variables. Because perceptions of
abusive supervision appear to stem from perceptions of supervisory injustice, which are
affected by cultural differences, it follows that perceptions of abusive supervision are also
affected by culture.
Thus, there is a need to assess how perceptions of abusive supervision differ across cultures.
Despite the need for a thorough assessment, it is not yet possible because of the limited number
of studies published with respondents from different countries. Nonetheless, we begin the pro-
cess of examining cultural differences in the results of studies that are available.
Method
Literature Search
We used numerous approaches to gather data available as of March 2014. First, we
searched for studies that were included in the Tepper (2007) and Martinko et al. (2013)
reviews of abusive supervision research. Second, we searched scholarly databases (i.e.,
Business Source Complete, Google Scholar, ISI Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO, ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses) for journal articles and dissertations that included “abusive supervi-
sion” anywhere in the text. Then, we searched for studies that cited Tepper’s (2000) seminal
study. Next, we searched the reference lists of recently published abusive supervision studies
for references that included “abusive supervision” in the title. Finally, we searched online for
in press articles at journals that have published abusive supervision articles in the past (e.g.,
Journal of Management).
Inclusion Criteria
Our meta-analysis focused on empirical research that measured abusive supervision as a
focal construct. Studies were required to meet five criteria to be included. First, we included
only doctoral dissertations and journal articles that included “abusive supervision” in the text
(i.e., conference papers, book chapters, and working papers were excluded). We decided to
include only journal articles and doctoral dissertations because this ensured that data were
subjected to a rigorous peer review process. Meta-analytic procedures are sensitive to an
assumption of sample independence (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004), so we reviewed each set of
data for independence (Wood, 2008). Second, we required that studies were written in
English. Third, we included only empirical articles in which perceptions of abusive supervi-
sion were measured (i.e., conceptual articles were excluded). Fourth, we required that per-
ceptions of abusive supervision were reported in a correlation table that included zero-order
correlations for study variables. Finally, we required that correlations were reported at the
individual, rather than group, level. In total, 112 studies met the inclusion criteria and were
used in our analyses. These studies reported a total of 1,161 correlations from 140 indepen-
dent samples (k = 140, N = 38,527, M = 275.19, SD = 207.43).
Coding
Two authors independently coded data from each study that met the inclusion criteria. Prior
research highlights that judgment calls generally do not have large effects on substantive

conclusions (e.g., Aguinis, Dalton, Bosco, Pierce, & Dalton, 2011). Nevertheless, the authors
met to develop a coding protocol so that both coders were consistent in their judgments
(Geyskens, Krishnan, Steenkamp, & Cunha, 2009). The coders recorded the correlations
between perceptions of abusive supervision and other variables in the correlation tables of
each study, the sample size for each study, internal consistency estimates of study variables,
the mean and standard deviation for the measure of perceptions of abusive supervision, the
number of items in the abusive supervision measure, the high and low scale points used for the
measure of perceptions of abusive supervision, and the country from which the samples were
drawn. The first author checked for errors and discrepancies, compiled final coding results,
and calculated interrater reliability estimates.
There was high agreement between raters. Specifically, raters agreed on 94.9% of correla-
tions, 91.2% of sample sizes, 94.4% of internal consistency estimates for abusive supervi-
sion, 94.6% of internal consistency estimates for other constructs, 95.9% of means for the
abusive supervision measure, 95.9% of standard deviations for the abusive supervision mea-
sure, 95.8% of the number of items in the abusive supervision measure, 94.4% of the scale
points used for the abusive supervision measure, and 92.9% of the countries from which the
samples were drawn. The first author resolved discrepancies by independently coding all
data and consulting the original studies for which there were discrepancies between the first
two coders.
We used psychometric meta-analytic methods and procedures outlined by Hunter and
Schmidt (2004) to analyze the data and calculate results. The results were weighted by sam-
ple size using a random-effects model. Correlations were corrected for artifact distributions
of measurement unreliability for perceptions of abusive supervision and its correlates using
Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient of internal consistency. For nondemographic variables, we
used a mean internal consistency estimate from other studies included in the analysis when
Cronbach’s alpha was not reported for a variable in a particular study. We also used the mean
internal consistency estimate from other studies when two-item measures were reported
because the internal consistency estimates for two-item measures tend to be low, and over-
corrections for low internal consistency estimates could upwardly bias the correlation esti-
mates. For demographic variables (e.g., age), we assumed respondents reported information
with perfect reliability (i.e., α = 1.0). We ensured that no single sample was included twice
for a single correlation (Hunter & Schmidt; Wood, 2008). When multiple correlations from
the same sample were reported for the same effect, we used the average scores in our analy-
ses by estimating Mosier’s (1943) Equation 8 to calculate a composite variable and estimate
its reliability. Then, we used PASW/SPSS 18.0 to calculate the descriptive statistics used for
the assessment of measurement artifacts.
We corrected for range restriction when conducting the subgroup analyses of data with
samples drawn from the United States. For these analyses, results were first obtained without
correcting for range restriction so values could be compared with the results obtained from the
overall analyses. Then, the analyses were corrected for indirect, univariate range restriction
(Hunter, Schmidt, & Le, 2006) for the abusive supervision estimates. The overall sample was
treated as the unrestricted population, whereas the sample drawn from studies with subjects in
the United States was treated as the restricted population: uT = √[ux2 – (1 – rxxa)]/rxxa; uT =
range restriction on T; rxxa = reliability of X in the unrestricted population; ux = Sxi/Sxa (range
restriction in X); Sxi = standard deviation in restricted population; Sxa = standard deviation in

unrestricted population; uT = √[(.78/.82)2 – (1 – .92)]/.92; uT = .947. Overall, the correction for

range restriction tended to modestly increase the magnitude of the estimated correlations.
Results
Meta-Analytic Results
We used Schmidt and Le’s (2004) meta-analysis program to report the total number of
respondents (N), the number of studies included in the analysis (k), the weighted mean correla-
tion (r- ) of uncorrected correlations (ri) between variables, standard deviations for weighted
mean correlations (SD-r ), population estimates of correlations corrected for measurement unre-
liability and sampling error (ρ), standard deviations for population estimates corrected for mea-
surement unreliability and sampling error (SDρ), the 80% credibility interval for population
correlations, and the percentage of variance attributable to artifacts for population estimates for
variables that have been associated with perceptions of abusive supervision in at least five sepa-
rate samples. For the studies with samples drawn from the United States, we also report the
population estimates corrected for measurement unreliability, sampling error, and indirect
range restriction (ρXP), as well as standard deviations for population estimates corrected for
measurement unreliability, sampling error, and indirect range restriction (SDρXP).
We expected perceptions of abusive supervision to consistently be associated with various
variables from Tepper’s (2000) original article (i.e., perceived mobility, various forms of
organizational justice, job satisfaction, life satisfaction, various forms of commitment, work-
to-family conflict, family-to-work conflict, depression, anxiety, emotional exhaustion), as
well as various forms of demographic information, individual differences, leadership vari-
ables, and organizational and personal outcomes. A full list of definitions for variables asso-
ciated with perceptions of abusive supervision in at least five samples is available in the
online supplemental material.
Overall, results were consistent with expectations. A full list of meta-analytic estimates is
shown in Table 1, and a list of the studies from which correlations were drawn can be found
in the supplemental material available online. The supplemental material can serve as a guide
for individuals who wish to see how other researchers have conceptualized and operational-
ized variables in abusive supervision research. We briefly review the meta-analytic findings
of our overall analyses below.
Demographics. Demographic variables included age (ρ = −.03), age of supervisor (ρ =

−.06), education (ρ = −.02), gender (ρ = −.06; male = 0, female = 1), gender of supervisor
(ρ = −.13; male = 0, female = 1), organizational tenure (ρ = .02), position in the organization
(ρ = .05), and tenure with supervisor (ρ = .01). Altogether, our results suggested that percep-
tions of abusive supervision were weakly associated with demographic information.
Justice. Subordinates’ perceptions of distributive (ρ = −.25), interactional (ρ = −.55),

interpersonal (ρ = −.66), and procedural (ρ = −.36) justice, as well as supervisors’ perceptions
of interactional justice (ρ = −.39), were moderately to strongly associated with perceptions
of abusive supervision. When various forms of justice were originally coded as “injustice”
perceptions, we changed the direction of the relationship to reflect justice perceptions (e.g.,
interactional injustice became interactional justice).

Table 1
Meta-Analytic Results for Relationships Among Perceptions of Abusive Supervision
and Its Correlates
% Variance
80% Credibility Attributable
-
Variable N k r SD-r ρ SDρ Interval (ρ) to Artifacts ρXP SDρXP
Demographics
Age 23,079 77 −.03 .10 −.03 .10 (−.16, .09) 26
Overall Sensitivity 17,093 71 −.02 .11 −.02 .11 (−.17, .12) 26
Analysis
United States 14,115 38 −.03 .06 −.04 .06 (−.11, .04) 43 −.04 .07
U.S. Sensitivity Analysis 8,891 33 −.01 .06 −.01 .06 (−.09, .07) 50 −.01 .07
Age of Supervisor 1,265 7 −.06 .15 −.06 .02 (−.26, .13) 20
United States 822 5 −.12 .13 −.12 .13 (−.29, .05) 26 −.13 .14
Education 8,136 23 −.02 .08 −.02 .08 (−.13, .08) 32
Analysis
United States 3,274 6 −.03 .08 −.03 .08 (−.13, .07) 24 −.03 .08
Gender 24,563 83 −.05 .10 −.06 .10 (−.19, .08) 25
Analysis
United States 14,089 40 −.06 .08 −.06 .08 (−.17, .05) 30 −.06 .09
Gender of Supervisor 2,624 14 −.13 .12 −.13 .12 (−.29, .02) 27
United States 1,032 6 −.06 .15 −.06 .16 (−.26, .14) 20 −.06 .16
Organizational Tenure 15,067 54 .02 .06 .02 .06 (−.06, .10) 50
Overall Sensitivity 12,113 51 .02 .06 .02 .06 (−.06, .10) 54
Analysis
United States 7,383 22 .01 .04 .01 .05 (−.05, .07) 62 .01 .05
U.S. Sensitivity Analysis 5,191 20 .03 .03 .04 .03 (−.01, .08) 80 .04 .03
Position in Organization 2,056 6 .05 .05 .05 .06 (−.02, .12) 50
Analysis
United States 521 2 −.03 .00 −.03 .00 (−.03, −.03) — −.03 .00
U.S. Sensitivity Analysis 521 2 −.03 .00 −.03 .00 (−.03, −.03) — −.03 .00
Tenure With Supervisor 8,669 31 .01 .09 .01 .09 (−.10, .12) 33
Analysis
United States 6,559 20 .01 .06 .01 .06 (−.07, .09) 46 .01 .07
Justice
Distributive Justice 1,492 5 −.23 .12 −.25 .13 (−.41, −.08) 18
United States 1,492 5 −.23 .12 −.25 .13 (−.41, −.08) 18 −.26 .13
Interactional Justice 1,419 7 −.51 .06 −.55 .06 (−.63, −.47) 45
United States 624 2 −.54 .00 −.59 .00 (−.59, −.59) — −.61 .00
Interpersonal Justice 1,111 5 −.61 .00 −.66 .00 (−.66, −.66) —
United States — 0 — — — — — — — —
Procedural Justice 1,859 7 −.33 .08 −.36 .08 (−.47, −.25) 33
United States 1,421 5 −.36 .07 −.39 .07 (−.48, −.30) 39 −.41 .07
Supervisor Interactional 829 5 −.36 .18 −.39 .19 (−.64, –.15) 13
Justice
United States 200 1 −.13 — −.15 — — — −.16 —
(continued)

Table 1 (continued)
% Variance
Variable N k r- SD-r ρ SDρ Interval (ρ) to Artifacts ρXP SDρXP
Individual Differences
Agreeableness 3,679 9 −.11 .06 −.14 .07 (−.23, −.04) 39
Overall Sensitivity 2,206 8 −.16 .03 −.20 .04 (−.24, −.15) 79
Analysis
United States 3,679 9 −.11 .06 −.14 .07 (−.23, −.04) 39 −.15 .08
U.S. Sensitivity Analysis 2,206 8 −.16 .03 −.20 .04 (−.24, −.15) 79 −.21 .04
Conscientiousness 4,368 12 −.12 .09 −.14 .11 (−.28, −.01) 25
Analysis
United States 3,900 10 −.11 .10 −.13 .11 (−.28, .01) 21 −.14 .12
U.S. Sensitivity Analysis 2,427 9 −.16 .10 −.19 .12 (−.33, −.04) 26 −.20 12.00
Extraversion 2,879 6 −.02 .04 −.03 .05 (−.09, .03) 55
Analysis
United States 2,879 6 −.02 .04 −.03 .05 (−.09, .03) 55 −.03 .05
Neuroticism 4,198 12 .10 .16 .12 .19 (−.12, .36) 10
Analysis
United States 3,922 10 .08 .14 .09 .16 (−.11, .29) 12 .09 .17
Openness to Experience 2,571 5 −.04 .10 −.05 .13 (−.21, .12) 17
Analysis
United States 2,361 4 −.04 .10 −.06 .13 (−.23, .11) 14 −.06 .14
U.S. Sensitivity Analysis 888 3 −.14 .12 −.16 .15 (−.35, .02) 19 −.17 .15
Negative Affectivity 8,526 27 .33 .13 .37 .14 (.19, .56) 14
Overall Sensitivity 6,252 25 .30 .13 .34 .15 (.15, .53) 17
Analysis
United States 5,617 15 .34 .12 .39 .13 (.22, .56) 14 .41 .14
U.S. Sensitivity Analysis 3,343 13 .29 .12 .33 .13 (16, .50) 21 .35 .14
Positive Affectivity 2,503 8 −.16 .08 −.18 .09 (−.29, −.07) 35
Analysis
United States 1,183 3 −.12 .00 −.14 .00 (−.14, −.14) — −.15 .00
U.S. Sensitivity Analysis 468 2 −.12 .00 −.14 .00 (−.14, −.14) — −.15 .00
Leadership
Authoritarian Leadership 1,139 6 .37 .05 .41 .05 (.35, .48) 67
United States 669 3 .33 .00 .38 .00 (.38, .38) — .40 .00
Ethical Leadership 2,309 6 −.46 .24 −.50 .25 (−.82, −.17) 3
Analysis
United States 1,557 4 −.59 .02 −.65 .02 (−.68, −.63) 78 −.67 .02
U.S. Sensitivity Analysis 618 3 −.57 .03 −.63 .02 (−.67, −.60) 82 −.66 .02
Leader-Member Exchange 2,786 11 −.48 .11 −.54 .12 (−.70, −.39) 18
United States 1,453 5 −.56 .00 −.61 .00 (−.61, −.61) — −.64 .00
Organizational and Personal
Outcomes
Affective Organizational 2,758 9 −.23 .04 −.26 .04 (−.31, −.21) 70
Commitment
Analysis
(continued)

Table 1 (continued)
% Variance
-
Variable N k r SD-r ρ SDρ Interval (ρ) to Artifacts ρXP SDρXP
United States 2,283 7 −.23 .04 −.26 .05 (−.32, −.19) 60 −.27 .05
Counterproductive Work 1,715 7 .37 .21 .41 .24 (.11, .72) 7
Behavior
United States 617 2 .61 .12 .65 .12 (.50, .81) 11 .67 .12
Depression 1,283 6 .21 .12 .24 .14 (.06, .41) 23
United States 1,113 5 .24 .09 .28 .10 (.15, .41) 34 .30 .10
Emotional Exhaustion 4,343 15 .32 .11 .36 .12 (.21, .51) 20
Analysis
United States 2,872 9 .32 .10 .36 .11 (.22, .49) 22 .38 .11
U.S. Sensitivity Analysis 2,157 8 .36 .09 .39 .10 (.26, .52) 27 .41 .10
Job Satisfaction 6,560 17 −.31 .08 −.34 .09 (−.45, −.23) 26
Overall Sensitivity 4,062 14 −.29 .10 −.32 .11 (−.46, –.19) 23
Analysis
United States 4,994 13 −.31 .07 −.34 .07 (−.43, −.25) 34 −.36 .07
Job Tension 1,777 5 .21 .08 .24 .09 (.13, .35) 32
Analysis
United States 1,777 5 .21 .08 .24 .09 (.13, .35) 32 .25 .09
Organizational Citizenship 2,842 13 −.21 .05 −.24 .05 (−.31, −.17) 65
Behavior
United States 739 4 −.21 .03 −.23 .04 (−.27, −.18) 83 −.24 .04
Perceived Organizational 1,603 7 −.34 .10 −.40 .12 (−.55, −.25) 27
Support
United States 452 2 −.50 .05 −.57 .05 (−.63, −.51) 66 −.60 .04
Performance 4,012 16 −.17 .10 −.19 .11 (−.33, −.05) 28
Analysis
United States 1,907 7 −.19 .14 −.21 .15 (−.41, –.01) 15 −.22 .16
U.S. Sensitivity Analysis 1,145 6 −.27 .14 −.30 .15 (−.49, –.11) 20 −.31 .15
Work-to-Family Conflict 1,527 6 .32 .12 .35 .13 (.18, .51) 19
United States 1,318 5 .30 .12 .33 .13 (.16, .49) 18 .34 .14
Workplace Deviance
Interpersonal Deviance 3,726 13 .31 .09 .35 .09 (.23, .47) 30
United States 2,810 9 .28 .04 .32 .04 (.27, .38) 66 .34 .04
Supervisor Deviance 5,223 14 .48 .12 .53 .12 (.37, .69) 13
Analysis
United States 4,063 9 .52 .07 .57 .08 (.48, .67) 24 .60 .08
Organizational Deviance 7,761 22 .36 .12 .41 .13 (.24, .57) 16
Analysis
United States 6,469 16 .36 .10 .40 .11 (.26, .55) 17 .43 .12
Note: N = total number of respondents; k = number of independent samples included; - r = weighted mean correlation; SD-r = standard
deviation for weighted mean correlation; ρ = correlation for population estimate corrected for attenuation due to measurement error
and sampling error variance; SDρ = standard deviation for population estimate; ρXP = correlation for population estimate corrected
for indirect range restriction and attenuation due to measurement error and sampling error variance; SDρXP = standard deviation for
population estimate corrected for indirect range restriction and attenuation due to measurement error and sample error variance.
Gender: male = 0, female = 1.

Individual differences. Agreeableness (ρ = −.14), conscientiousness (ρ = −.14), extraver-

sion (ρ = −.03), neuroticism (ρ = .12; including reverse-scored emotional stability), openness
to experience (ρ = −.05), negative affectivity (ρ = .37), and positive affectivity (ρ = −.18)
were weakly to moderately associated with perceptions of abusive supervision.
Leadership. Authoritarian leadership (ρ = .41), ethical leadership (ρ = −.50), and LMX

(ρ = −.54) were strongly associated with subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervision.
Organizational and personal outcomes. Affective organizational commitment (ρ =

−.26), counterproductive work behavior (CWB; ρ = .41), depression (ρ = .24), emotional
exhaustion (ρ = .36), job satisfaction (ρ = −.34), job tension (ρ = .24), OCB (ρ = −.24),
perceived organizational support (ρ = −.40), performance (ρ = −.19), and work-to-family
conflict (ρ = .35) all demonstrated low-to-moderate associations with perceptions of abu-
sive supervision.
Deviance. Workplace deviance was measured in various ways, including interpersonal-

(ρ = .35), supervisor- (ρ = .53), and organization- (ρ = .41) directed deviance. Overall, vari-
ous forms of workplace deviance were moderately to strongly associated with perceptions of
abusive supervision.
Sensitivity Analyses and Comparison Between Overall and U.S. Analyses

As expected, the results (see Table 1) indicated that heterogeneity was present in the data.
Heterogeneity is thought to be present when 80% credibility intervals are fairly wide and/or
if less than 75% of the variance in a correlation is attributable to artifacts (Hunter & Schmidt,
2004; Kepes, McDaniel, Brannick, & Banks, 2013). Not surprisingly, many of the estimates
had wide 80% credibility intervals, and few estimates met the 75% threshold for variance
attributable to artifacts. We expected to find heterogeneity as a result of cultural differences
across studies included in the analyses, as well as measurement artifacts stemming from
adaptations of Tepper’s (2000) measure across studies. We explored the sources of heteroge-
neity by conducting sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses with samples drawn from the
United States.
We conducted specific-sample removed sensitivity analyses (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004;
Kepes et al., 2013) to assess the extent to which outliers (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Joo, 2013)
potentially influenced the meta-analytically derived estimates. Specifically, we excluded
studies with sample sizes that were in excess of 2 SD of the mean sample size across all stud-
ies (i.e., n ≥ 690; 275.19 + [2 × 207.43] = 690.05). The sensitivity analyses excluded seven
of the primary studies included in the overall analyses. Thus, we report estimates from a total
of four meta-analyses for each variable that was included in at least five studies (k ≥ 5),
reported at least one correlation from a sample drawn in the United States, and included a
correlation from a study with a sample size of at least 690. Sensitivity analyses are not
reported for the variables not affected by the removal of the seven primary studies with large
sample sizes (i.e., n > 690).
Overall, most of the population estimates for the sensitivity analyses were very similar to
the population estimates for the overall analyses (−.02 ≤ ρ ≤ .02). There were a few

exceptions, especially for analyses involving a relatively small number of samples (i.e., a
small k) and for analyses involving individual difference variables, likely because Bamberger
and Bacharach’s (2006; n = 1,473) sample was heavily weighted in the overall analyses for
many of the individual difference variables. For example, the population estimates for agree-
ableness (ρoverall = −.14, ρsensitivity analysis = −.20), conscientiousness (ρoverall = −.14, ρsensitivity analysis
= −.19), neuroticism (ρoverall = .12, ρsensitivity analysis = .20), and openness to experience (ρoverall =
−.05, ρsensitivity analysis = −.12) differed considerably between the overall analyses and the sen-
sitivity analyses. Also, the population estimate for ethical leadership differed considerably
when Palanski, Avey, and Jiraporn’s (2014; n = 939) correlation was removed from the analy-
sis (ρoverall = −.50, ρsensitivity analysis = −.38).
Next, we conducted subgroup analyses examining studies with samples drawn from the
United States. In most cases, the percentage of variance attributable to artifacts increased and
the 80% credibility intervals became narrower, indicating that there was less heterogeneity
among estimates from the U.S. data than in the overall set of data. Again, most of the popula-
tion estimates for sensitivity analyses were very similar to the population estimates for the
overall subgroup analyses (−.02 ≤ ρ ≤ .02), though a few estimates differed considerably
(e.g., ethical leadership; ρoverall = −.50, ρU.S. analysis = −.65). Differences must be interpreted
cautiously because of the reduced sample size (k) of the analyses for the samples drawn from
the United States.
Finally, sensitivity analyses were conducted for the U.S. subgroup analyses. The magni-
tude of the correlation estimates for many of the U.S. subgroup analyses differed from the
overall U.S. analysis, but the directions of the relationships and general conclusions about
relationship strength remained similar. Overall, the sensitivity analyses and U.S. subgroup
analyses demonstrated that the analyses excluding studies with large sample sizes and/or
studies drawn from outside the United States somewhat altered the magnitude of meta-ana-
lytic estimates but that subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervision were universally
associated with subordinates’ negative attitudes and behaviors.
The findings drawn from the sensitivity and subgroup analyses will be informative for
researchers who wish to compare the correlation estimates from their primary studies with
the extant findings in abusive supervision research and for reviewers who evaluate the cor-
relation estimates reported in primary studies. Furthermore, our subgroup analysis will help
researchers identify which variables have been tested in the United States and which vari-
ables have been tested abroad, which will help identify areas of theoretical relevance, practi-
cal implications, and opportunities for constructive replications.
Trends in the Data

As previously stated, an important contribution of our paper is to assess the numerous
ways Tepper’s (2000) measure of abusive supervision has been adapted in abusive supervi-
sion research, as well as to assess measurement artifacts so we can document methodologi-
cal issues that may affect study findings (Humphrey, 2011). Thus, we examined measurement
artifacts in studies that reported the mean, standard deviation, internal consistency (α), num-
ber of items used, anchor points of the abusive supervision measure, and the country from
which the sample was drawn. We contacted authors for information when some of this
information was unclear. Studies were excluded from our assessment of measurement arti-
facts if authors were not able to provide data. In all, a total of 130 samples (k = 130) were

Table 2
Measurement Artifacts for the Perceptions of Abusive Supervision Measure
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 M SD
1. Mean of Measure — 1.78 0.46

2. Standard Deviation of Measure .72 — 0.82 0.30
3. Number of Items in Measure −.03 −.07 — 11.83 4.37
4. Frequency or Agreement Scale .29 .28 −.45 — 0.35 0.48
5. Internal Consistency (α) of Measure .19 .40 .29 −.09 — 0.92 0.04
Note: k = 130. Scale measurement (frequency format = 0; agreement format = 1).
included in our assessment of measurement artifacts (see Table 2). Following Hunter and
Schmidt’s (2004) recommendation to avoid mixing null hypothesis testing and meta-analy-
sis, we report effect sizes (i.e., zero-order bivariate correlations) without statistical signifi-
cance tests.
Tepper’s (2000) abusive supervision measure was used in every study included in this
meta-analysis but was adapted in many cases. For example, researchers used anywhere from
3 (Detert, Treviño, Burris, & Andiappan, 2007) to 19 (Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs,
2009) items to measure perceptions of abusive supervision (μ = 11.83, σ = 4.37). Despite
some inconsistency in the number of items used, many studies (about 59%) used all 15 of
Tepper’s items. The results suggested that the number of items used to measure perceptions
of abusive supervision had little influence on the reported mean (r = −.03) of the measure.
Even less consistent than the number of items used across the various studies was the
anchor scale points used to measure perceptions of abusive supervision. Tepper (2000) used
1 (I cannot remember him/her ever using this behavior with me) and 5 (He/she uses this
behavior with me very often) as anchor scale points. Some studies used Tepper’s original
scale points, but other studies used agreement scales (e.g., strongly disagree to strongly
agree) with various combinations of scale points (i.e., 0–10; 1–5; 1–7) or different frequency
scale points, for example, 1 (never) to 5 (very often) and 1 (never) to 7 (frequently, if not
always). The majority of studies used frequency formats (k = 84) instead of agreement scales
(k = 46).
Interestingly, the data suggested that researchers using frequency formats were more
likely to use fewer items in their abusive supervision measures than those using agreement
formats (r = −.45). Spector, Bauer, and Fox (2010) found evidence of a measurement artifact
for agreement versus frequency scales when measuring CWBs and OCBs. Consistent with
findings by Spector et al., results showed that the scale format in this meta-analysis had mod-
erate effects on studies’ means for perceptions of abusive supervision (μ; frequency = 0,
agreement = 1; r = .29) and standard deviations (σ; r = .28).
Also, we expected perceptions of abusive supervision to exhibit low means across studies
because abusive supervision is a low base-rate phenomenon (Tepper, 2007). The lowest
mean across studies was 1.18 (Pyc, 2011), whereas the highest mean was 3.88 (Zhao, Peng,
Han, Sheard, & Hudson, 2013). As expected, we found a low average mean (μ = 1.78, σ =
0.46) across studies. The internal consistency (α) of Tepper’s (2000) abusive supervision
measure was high across studies, regardless of the number of items used or anchors for the
scale points (μα = 0.92, σ = 0.04).

Table 3
Differences in Measuring Perceptions of Abusive Supervision Across Countries
Items in AS Frequency/
Nationality N k μAS σAS Scale (n) Agreement AS Scale rxx
Australia 92 1 1.78 1.10 15.00 1.00 .96

Belgium 235 2 1.47 0.60 15.00 1.00 .95
Canada 1,132 4 1.53 0.69 12.50 0.25 .92
China 5,586 19 2.06 0.78 11.84 0.47 .92
India 640 3 1.67 0.82 11.67 0.67 .91
Israel 749 3 1.97 0.92 15.00 0.33 .90
Kazakhstan 357 1 1.38 0.27 15.00 0.00 .70
Philippines 1,916 11 2.17 1.16 12.91 0.55 .94
South Korea 203 1 1.89 0.94 15.00 1.00 .98
Taiwan 838 4 2.13 1.08 8.75 0.75 .94
United States 23,791 77 1.68 0.78 11.39 0.26 .92
United States and 633 3 1.66 0.81 15.00 0.00 .96
Canada
United States and 287 1 1.32 0.55 9.00 0.00 .92
South Korea
Note: N = total number of respondents across studies; k = number of samples; μAS = mean for the abusive supervision
measure across studies; σAS = mean standard deviation for the abusive supervision measure across studies; Frequency
scale = 0; Agreement scale = 1; rxx = mean reliability estimate (α) across studies; AS = abusive supervision.
Finally, we examined whether there were differences in measuring perceptions of abusive

supervision across countries. The results can be found in Table 3. Overall, the results demon-
strated that the mean for perceptions of abusive supervision was generally lower in the United
States (μ = 1.68) than in countries located in the eastern hemisphere of the world (e.g., China:
μ = 2.06; Philippines: μ = 2.17; Taiwan: μ = 2.13).
Discussion
Ultimately, this study contributes to abusive supervision research by using psychometric
correction to assess relationships between perceptions of abusive supervision and its ante-
cedents and outcomes, which empowers researchers who want to constructively replicate and
extend prior abusive supervision research and informs practitioners who can develop appli-
cations to reduce its negative effects. Specifically, this meta-analysis clarifies which corre-
lates of abusive supervision have been examined and the magnitude of the relationships
between perceptions of abusive supervision and its correlates (Humphrey, 2011) and indi-
cates that there is a strong potential for the presence of measurement artifacts within the vari-
ous adaptations of Tepper’s (2000) abusive supervision measure across studies and countries.
Although it is rare for an entire stream of literature to use a single measure of a focal con-
struct (i.e., Tepper’s abusive supervision measure), it is clear that adaptations of the way the
measure is used (e.g., number of items, anchor scale points) and respondents’ cultures
affected the results obtained. Therefore, researchers should carefully design their studies
with these potential measurement artifacts in mind. When possible, researchers should use

Tepper’s 15 items and scale points to measure perceptions of abusive supervision so the
results from various studies can be accurately compared.
Since Tepper’s (2000) article, abusive supervision research has burgeoned and is in
need of clarification of the role of justice perceptions in influencing employees’ attitudinal
and behavioral outcomes associated with perceptions of supervisory abuse. We used jus-
tice theory to explain the abusive supervision phenomenon in an effort to stay true to the
origins of abusive supervision research and measurement development (i.e., Tepper) and
because recent conceptual work (e.g., Chan & McAllister, 2014; Klaussner, 2014) suggests
that supervisory injustice perceptions and social exchange processes between subordinates
and supervisors are associated with the emergence, formation, and evolution of sustained
perceptions of abusive supervision over time. These lines of theorizing have important
implications for how justice and social exchange theories are conceptualized in future
research.
Theoretical Implications
A proliferation of research over the past decade suggests that abusive supervision is an
organizational phenomenon of both practical and scholarly importance (Martinko et al.,
2013; Tepper, 2000, 2007). Although numerous theoretical frameworks have been used in
abusive supervision research, there has been little direct theoretical guidance for this some-
times disjointed and empirically driven stream of research (Tepper, 2007). Our study attempts
to address this issue by building on Tepper’s (2000) study, which used justice theory to
explain the effects of subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervision on employee percep-
tions of, and behaviors within, the workplace. Consistent with recent conceptual work in the
abusive supervision literature (e.g., Chan & McAllister, 2014; Klaussner, 2014), perceptions
of supervisory injustice are conceptualized as antecedents to perceptions of abusive supervi-
sion, and perceptions of supervisory justice and abusive supervision evolve over time on the
basis of the social exchange relationship between subordinates and their supervisors.
Thus, moving forward, we recommend researchers testing justice theory in abusive super-
vision research recognize the central role that perceptions of injustice play in influencing
perceptions of abusive supervision. There has been a lot of research on abusive supervision
since Tepper’s (2000) seminal study, so it may be time for researchers to revisit the way the
relationship between perceptions of abusive supervision and justice perceptions is empiri-
cally tested. The list of studies from which correlations were drawn (see the online supple-
mental material) can help abusive supervision researchers examine how prior research has
conceptualized and operationalized variables in abusive supervision research in order to con-
structively replicate and extend prior work.
Practical Implications
Meta-analyses can help bridge the gap between organizational practices and academic
research (Le, Oh, Shaffer, & Schmidt, 2007). Our meta-analytic results suggest practitioners
should be concerned about employees’ perceptions of abusive supervision for numerous rea-
sons. First, the lack of strong population correlations between perceptions of abusive super-
vision and subordinates’ and supervisors’ demographics suggests that a wide range of
employees report perceptions of abusive supervision. Also, our results suggest that

perceptions of abusive supervision are strongly negatively associated with perceptions of

justice in the workplace. Thus, our results are consistent with recent meta-analyses that dem-
onstrate that organizational justice perceptions have important relationships with a host of
employees’ personal and work outcomes (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon,
Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Fassina, Jones, & Uggerslev, 2008; Organ & Ryan, 1995;
Viswesvaran & Ones, 2002). Finally, our results make it clear that perceptions of abusive
supervision are strongly associated with negative perceptions of leadership (e.g., ethical
leadership) and a wide variety of organizational and personal outcomes (e.g., OCB).
Subordinate and supervisory behavior is conditioned by the work environment in which
interactions take place, and the consequences of misunderstood and inappropriate responses
in cyclical interpersonal interactions can be seriously compounded over time (Chan &
McAllister, 2014). To help prevent such situations, organizations can encourage supervisors
to detect and correct misunderstandings with subordinates in early stages in order to address
the development of perceptions of mistreatment and/or supervisory abuse (Chan &
McAllister) before they become reinforced over time. Furthermore, organizations can enforce
strict policies that explicitly restrict mistreatment in the workplace and establish a human
resources hotline that can be used to anonymously report sources and instances of mistreat-
ment (Sutton, 2007). Also, human resource management practices (e.g., confidential coach-
ing, counseling, encouraging proactive and prohibitive voice behaviors, identifying
acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, mentoring services, training employees to engage in
constructive conflict) can help subordinates and supervisors improve their interactions.
Our results also serve to inform advocates of recently proposed legislation aimed at reduc-
ing the prevalence of abusive work behaviors. For example, the Healthy Workplace Bill pro-
poses legal standing for employees who perceive workplace abuse to seek resolution in civil
courts. As of June 2014, 26 states had introduced the Healthy Workplace Bill, and 17 states
had a total of 24 bills active (see healthyworkplacebill.org). Such legislation seeks to give
employees the ability to seek resolution of perceived supervisory mistreatment and abuse in
civil courts. Our results serve to inform evaluators of the Healthy Workplace Bill regarding the
extent to which perceptions of supervisory abuse are associated with subordinate and supervi-
sor characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors, as well as features of the work context.
Strengths and Limitations

Meta-analytic estimates help summarize cumulative knowledge (Hunter & Schmidt,
2004). The meta-analytic population estimates reported in this study accounted for sampling
error and measurement error, which were present in all primary studies because sample sizes
are never infinite and there are no perfectly reliable measures (Hunter & Schmidt). Thus, our
ability to apply psychometric correction when computing meta-analytic estimates that are of
practical and scientific interest is a major contribution of this paper.
The quality of the data included in the analyses is a major strength of this paper. As part
of the inclusion criteria, we required that studies were doctoral dissertations reviewed by
dissertation committees or articles published in peer-reviewed journals. We stipulated this
requirement as part of our inclusion criteria so that all data included in our analyses were
required to undergo a rigorous review process. Unfortunately, excluding nonpublished stud-
ies may leave our study susceptible to the file-drawer problem and/or publication bias (Kepes,
Banks, McDaniel, & Whetzel, 2012; Rothstein, Sutton, & Borenstein, 2005), but there is

evidence that the file-drawer problem may not result in inflation bias or pose a severe threat
to the validity of meta-analytic conclusions (e.g., Dalton, Aguinis, Dalton, Bosco, & Pierce,
2012). Furthermore, the studies identified in the supplemental material are widely available,
so this study’s findings can be readily replicated and extended in the future (Aytug, Rothstein,
Zhou, & Kern, 2012) by using different measures, sampling procedures, subject pools, and/
or rating sources (Hochwarter, Ferris, & Hanes, 2011). Finally, the relatively high degree of
standardization of the abusive supervision measure (i.e., consistent use of Tepper’s, 2000,
abusive supervision measure) in our study is a major strength because this is not always pos-
sible in other meta-analyses.
One limitation of this study is the number of correlations (i.e., k) that could be used for the
calculation of some of the population estimates. We expected to experience this issue because
there were only 15 years of dissertations, published articles, and in press articles available
from which to draw data. As the stream of abusive supervision research continues to grow
and develop, so will the number of studies available from which to draw data. One final
concern is in regard to the cross-sectional nature that is characteristic of the majority of the
data used in our analyses. The conclusions drawn from meta-analyses are limited by the data
included in the analyses (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004), so the predominantly cross-sectional
data preclude us from making causal claims.
Directions for Future Research

An important direction for future research examining abusive supervision is to assess
issues of causality. For example, it is not at all clear whether abusive supervision causes poor
performance or (vice versa) poor performance causes abusive supervision. Although some of
the data included in this meta-analysis were collected over multiple time periods, truly lon-
gitudinal designs and/or experimental designs are needed to make strong claims of causality.
Temporally focused research designs could help empirically assess the antecedents of per-
ceptions of abusive supervision (Klaussner, 2014) and its development and evolution over
time.
Moreover, as the body of abusive supervision research continues to grow, advanced meta-
analytic procedures could help guide theory. Currently, the relatively small meta-analytic
sample sizes (k), heterogeneity of estimates, and scarcity of other meta-analyses with esti-
mates of the correlates reported in this meta-analysis limit the ability to employ meta-
analytic regression (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001) or path modeling (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995)
because of violations to assumptions required to meaningfully use these techniques.
Nonetheless, meta-analytic regression and path modeling could be instrumental in compar-
ing some of the competing theories regarding how perceptions of abusive supervision
develop and their associations with workplace attitudes and behaviors. Ultimately, compet-
ing theoretical specifications could advance our knowledge of the mechanisms through
which abusive supervision’s effects operate and determine which theory best explains the
antecedents and consequences of perceptions of abusive supervision. Therefore, as the body
of abusive supervision research grows, future research could use meta-analytic regression
and/or path modeling techniques to provide greater empirical and theoretical clarity.
Also, future meta-analytic examinations of abusive supervision research could examine
moderators of the associations between perceptions of abusive supervision and its antecedents
and consequences. Specifically, it would be informative to examine how subordinates’ tenure

with supervisors affects the relationships between perceptions of abusive supervision and its
antecedents and consequences. Does range restriction influence the aforementioned relation-
ships because subordinates who perceive supervisory abuse eventually quit their jobs, switch
supervisors, and/or leave their organizations? Furthermore, how do subordinates’ perceptions
of LMX affect the relationships between perceptions of abusive supervision and its anteced-
ents and outcomes? If perceptions of abusive supervision are confounded with and/or are a
subset of LMX, as indicated by Martinko, Harvey, Sikora, and Douglas (2011), then supervi-
sory/subordinate relations may be an important moderator to consider.
Another area for future research is to address the perceptual nature of data measuring
abusive supervision by validating the measure with direct observations or direct reports of
behavior (Martinko et al., 2013). For example, subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervi-
sion could be compared to grievances and/or complaints filed against supervisors and to
coworkers’ perceptions of abusive behavior perpetrated by the same supervisor or examined
using organizations’ surveillance cameras. This research could assess the extent to which
perceptions of abusive supervision are valid proxies for objectively abusive supervisory
behavior.
Next, it would be informative to examine the manner in which abusive supervision is
defined and measured. Specifically, the definition of abusive supervision suggests that it is a
sustained perception of supervisory mistreatment, but the scale points used to measure per-
ceptions of abusive supervision, that is, 1 (I cannot remember him/her ever using this behav-
ior with me) to 5 (He/she uses this behavior with me very often) may not fully capture the
extent to which these perceptions are sustained over time. Thus, we recommend that future
studies evaluate the extent to which sustained perceptions of abusive supervision are cap-
tured by Tepper’s (2000) measure.
Also, there has been a lack of validation of Tepper’s (2000) measure of abusive supervi-
sion across cultures (Martinko et al., 2013). Thus, an assessment of the cross-cultural stabil-
ity of the abusive supervision measure would benefit abusive supervision research. Although
Hu, Wu, and Wang’s (2011) study provided some evidence of the measurement equivalence/
invariance of Tepper’s measure across samples drawn from the United States and Taiwan,
much more work is needed in this area. This is especially true because abusive supervision
research has been conducted in at least 11 different countries and is likely to expand to other
countries because of its interest to organizational researchers and practitioners.
Next, researchers can explore the dimensionality of Tepper’s (2000) abusive supervision
measure. The Hu et al. (2011) study provided evidence that respondents from the United
States and Taiwan reported abusive supervision perceptions as a single-factor concept, but
Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) provided evidence of two factors in Tepper’s 15-item measure
(i.e., passive-aggressive abusive supervision and active-aggressive abusive supervision).
Also, cross-cultural assessment of the dimensionality of Tepper’s measure is warranted, as
are assessments of the dimensionality of the measure across occupations and industries,
especially because employees in some industries (e.g., health care, military) may be more
likely to experience and/or perceive supervisory abuse and general mistreatment than oth-
ers. Given the length of Tepper’s measure (i.e., 15 items), the conflicting evidence of its
dimensionality, and the numerous adaptations of the measure and its scale points, an exami-
nation of the dimensionality of the abusive supervision measure would be informative for
future research.

Additionally, our results may help inform future research by shedding light on the effects
of a number of potential control variables. Although researchers should carefully choose
control variables that are theoretically relevant to their conceptual and operational study
designs (Carlson & Wu, 2012) and describe why they include particular control variables
(Becker, 2005), the weighted mean correlations we report can inform researchers about the
expected magnitude of correlations between perceptions of abusive supervision and other
variables.
Finally, future research can explore the boundaries of justice theory in the context of
perceived supervisory abuse. For example, Ogunfowora (2013) used the theory of deontic
justice to suggest that individuals who are not directly affected by supervisory abuse may
still develop strong negative reactions toward the perpetrating supervisor. This line of rea-
soning may be especially useful when considering Harris, Harvey, Harris, and Cast’s
(2013) study that found that vicarious abusive supervision was associated with employees’
outcomes above and beyond the variance associated with perceptions of abusive supervi-
sion. Thus, pushing the boundaries of how theories of supervisory injustice and social
exchange explain the origins, development, and effects of perceptions of abusive supervi-
sion, especially in the context of the others’ experiences, provides a fruitful area for future
research.
Conclusion
Overall, we made two primary contributions to abusive supervision research. Specifically,
we used psychometric correction to provide meta-analytically derived population estimates
for variables commonly measured in abusive supervision research and examined measure-
ment artifacts stemming from various adaptations of Tepper’s (2000) measure. Our results
indicate that Tepper’s measure is widely used, but frequently adapted, and that there are a
number of variables that are meaningfully associated with subordinates’ perceptions of abu-
sive supervision. Also, we found that the magnitude of the associations vary widely depend-
ing on the variable examined and contextual features of the study. We are hopeful that our
study will provide guidance for future abusive supervision research and promote meaningful
examinations of this important organizational phenomenon.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
Aguinis, H., Dalton, D. R., Bosco, F. A., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, C. M. 2011. Meta-analytic choices and judgment
calls: Implications for theory building and testing, obtained effect sizes, and scholarly impact. Journal of
Management, 37: 5-38.
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. 2013. Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and
handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16: 270-301.
*Alexander, K. 2011. Abusive supervision as a predictor of deviance and health outcomes: The exacerbating role
of narcissism and social support. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University, Bowling
Green, OH.
*Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L.-Y., & Debrah, Y. A. 2007. Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test
of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 191-201.
*Aryee, S., Sun, L. Y., Chen, Z. X. G., & Debrah, Y. A. 2008. Abusive supervision and contextual performance:
The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit structure. Management and
Organization Review, 4: 393-411.

Aytug, Z. G., Rothstein, H. R., Zhou, W., & Kern, M. C. 2012. Revealed or concealed? Transparency of procedures,
decisions, and judgment calls in meta-analyses. Organizational Research Methods, 15: 103-133.
*Bamberger, P. A., & Bacharach, S. B. 2006. Abusive supervision and subordinate problem drinking: Taking resis-
tance, stress, and subordinate personality into account. Human Relations, 59: 723-752.
*Bardes, M. 2009. Aspects of goals and rewards systems as antecedents of abusive supervision: The mediating
effect of hindrance stress. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando.
*Barling, J., Christie, A., & Turner, N. 2008. Pseudo-transformational leadership: Towards the development and test
of a model. Journal of Business Ethics, 81: 851-861.
Becker, T. E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative
analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8: 274-289.
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.
*Biron, M. 2010. Negative reciprocity and the association between perceived organizational ethical values and
organizational deviance. Human Relations, 63: 875-897.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. 2006. Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 998-1012.
*Bowling, N. A., & Michel, J. S. 2011. Why do you treat me badly? The role of attributions regarding the cause of
abuse in subordinates’ responses to abusive supervision. Work & Stress, 25: 309-320.
*Breaux, D. M., Perrewé, P. L., Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Hochwarter, W. A. 2008. Time to try a little tenderness?
The detrimental effects of accountability when coupled with abusive supervision. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 15: 111-122.
*Brees, J., Mackey, J., Martinko, M., & Harvey, P. 2014. The mediating role of perceptions of abusive supervision
in the relationship between personality and aggression. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21:
403-413.
*Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. 2005. Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for con-
struct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97: 117-134.
*Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. 2008. Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of psychological
attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 912-922.
*Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. 2011. Aggressive reactions to abusive supervision: The role of interactional justice
and narcissism. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 5: 389-398.
*Burton, J. P., Hoobler, J. M., & Kernan, M. C. 2011. When research setting is important: The influence of subordi-
nate self-esteem on reactions to abusive supervision. Organization Management Journal, 8: 139-150.
*Burton, J. P., Hoobler, J. M., & Scheuer, M. L. 2012. Supervisor workplace stress and abusive supervision: The
buffering effect of exercise. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27: 271-279.
*Byrne, A., Dionisi, A. M., Barling, J., Akers, A., Robertson, J., Lys, R., Wylie, J., & Dupré, K. 2014. The depleted
leader: The influence of leaders’ diminished psychological resources on leadership behaviors. The Leadership
Quarterly, 25: 344-357.
*Camps, J., Decoster, S., & Stouten, J. 2012. My share is fair, so I don’t care: The moderating role of distributive
justice in the perception of leaders’ self-serving behavior. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11: 49-59.
*Carlson, D., Ferguson, M., Hunter, E., & Whitten, D. 2012. Abusive supervision and work-family conflict: The
path through emotional labor and burnout. The Leadership Quarterly, 23: 849-859.
*Carlson, D. S., Ferguson, M., Perrewé, P. L., & Whitten, D. 2011. The fallout from abusive supervision: An exami-
nation of subordinates and their partners. Personnel Psychology, 64: 937-961.
Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J. 2012. The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research.
Organizational Research Methods, 15: 413-435.
Chan, M. L. E., & McAllister, D. J. 2014. Abusive supervision through the lens of employee state paranoia. Academy
of Management Review, 39: 44-66.
*Chen, H. 2011. Work ethic and workplace behavior: Essays on direct and moderated relationships across national
cultures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Dallas.
*Chi, S.-C. S., & Liang, S.-G. 2013. When do subordinates’ emotion-regulation strategies matter? Abusive super-
vision, subordinates’ emotional exhaustion, and work withdrawal. The Leadership Quarterly, 24: 125-137.
*Chu, L.-C. 2014. Mediating toxic emotions in the workplace: The impact of abusive supervision. Journal of
Nursing Management, 22: 953-963.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. 2001. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86: 278-321.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. 2001. Justice at the millennium:
A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86:
425-445.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management,
31: 874-900.
Dalton, D. R., Aguinis, H., Dalton, C. M., Bosco, F. A., & Pierce, C. A. 2012. Revisiting the file drawer problem
in meta-analysis: An assessment of published and nonpublished correlation matrices. Personnel Psychology,
65: 221-249.
*Decoster, S., Camps, J., & Stouten, J. 2014. The mediating role of LMX between abusive supervision and work
behaviors: A replication and extension. American Journal of Business, 29: 61-75.
*Decoster, S., Camps, J., Stouten, J., Vandevyvere, L., & Tripp, T. M. 2013. Standing by your organization: The
impact of organizational identification and abusive supervision on followers’ perceived cohesion and tendency
to gossip. Journal of Business Ethics, 118: 623-634.
*Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. 2007. Managerial modes of influence and counter-
productivity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92: 993-1005.
*Duffy, M. K., & Ferrier, W. J. 2003. Birds of a feather . . . ? How supervisor-subordinate dissimilarity moder-
ates the influence of supervisor behaviors on workplace attitudes. Group & Organization Management, 28:
217-248.
*Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., Connelly, C. E., Barling, J., & Hoption, C. 2006. Workplace aggression in teenage part-
time employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 987-997.
*Eesley, D. T., & Meglich, P. A. 2013. Empirical evidence of abusive supervision in entrepreneurial and small
firms. Journal of Ethics & Entrepreneurship, 3: 39-59.
Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. 2008. Meta-analytic tests of relationships between organizational
justice and citizenship behavior: Testing agent-system and shared-variance models. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 29: 805-828.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. 2001. Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Folger (Eds.),
Advances in organizational justice: 1-55. Lexington, MA: New Lexington.
Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J.-B. E.M., & Cunha, P. V. 2009. A review and evaluation of meta-analysis
practices in management research. Journal of Management, 35: 393-419.
*Gopalkrishnan, P. 2013. Abusive supervision and group-level perceptions: Looking at the social context of abuse
in the workplace. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.
*Gregory, B. T., Osmonbekov, T., Gregory, S. T., Albritton, M. D., & Carr, J. C. 2013. Abusive supervision and
citizenship behaviors: Exploring boundary conditions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28: 628-644.
*Haggard, D. L., Robert, C., & Rose, A. J. 2011. Co-rumination in the workplace: Adjustment trade-offs for men
and women who engage in excessive discussions of workplace problems. Journal of Business and Psychology,
26: 27-40.
*Hannah, S. T., Schaubroeck, J. M., Peng, A. C., Lord, R. G., Trevino, L. K., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Avolio, B. J.,
Dimotakis, N., & Doty, J. 2013. Joint influences of individual and work unit abusive supervision on ethical
intentions and behaviors: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 579-592.
*Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., Harris, R. B., & Cast, M. 2013. An investigation of abusive supervision, vicarious abusive
supervision, and their joint impacts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153: 38-50.
*Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., & Kacmar, K. M. 2011. Abusive supervisory reactions to coworker relationship conflict.
The Leadership Quarterly, 22: 1010-1023.
*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.
*Harris, K. J., Lambert, A., & Harris, R. B. 2013. HRM effectiveness as a moderator of the relationships between
abusive supervision and technology work overload and job outcomes for technology end users. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 43: 1686-1695.
*Harvey, P., Harris, K. J., Gillis, W. E., & Martinko, M. J. 2014. Abusive supervision and the entitled employee.
The Leadership Quarterly, 25: 204-217.

*Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. 2007. Coping with abusive supervision: The neutralizing
effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 18:
264-280.
*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.
Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., LeBlanc, M. M., & Sivanathan,
N. 2007. Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 228-238.
*Hobman, E. V., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. 2009. Abusive supervision in advising relationships:
Investigating the role of social support. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58: 233-256.
Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., & Hanes, T. J. 2011. Multi-study packages in organizational science research. In
D. Ketchen Jr. & D. Bergh (Eds.), Building methodological bridges: Research methodology in strategy and
management: 163-199. Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
*Hoobler, J., & Brass, D. 2006. Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91: 1125-1133.
*Hoobler, J. M., & Hu, J. 2013. A model of injustice, abusive supervision, and negative affect. The Leadership
Quarterly, 24: 256-269.
Hu, C., Wu, T.-Y., & Wang, Y.-H. 2011. Measurement equivalence/invariance of the abusive supervision measure
across workers from Taiwan and the United States. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied,
145: 111-131.
Humphrey, S. E. 2011. What does a great meta-analysis look like? Organizational Psychology Review, 1: 99-103.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. 2004. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. 2006. Implications of direct and indirect range restriction for meta-analysis
methods and findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 594-612.
*Inness, M., Barling, J., & Turner, N. 2005. Understanding supervisor-targeted aggression: A within-person
between-jobs design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 731-739.
*Jian, Z., Kwan, H. K., Qiu, Q., Liu, Z. Q., & Kim, F. H.-K. 2012. Abusive supervision and frontline employees’
service performance. The Service Industries Journal, 32: 683-698.
*Kacmar, K. M., Whitman, M. V., & Harris, K. J. 2013. The lingering impact of abusive supervision. Journal of
Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 18: 51-71.
Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M., & Whetzel, D. L. 2012. Publication bias in the organizational sciences.
Organizational Research Methods, 15: 624-662.
Kepes, S., McDaniel, M. A., Brannick, M. T., & Banks, G. C. 2013. Meta-analytic reviews in the organizational
sciences: Two meta-analytic schools on the way to MARS (the meta-analytic reporting standards). Journal of
Business and Psychology, 28: 123-143.
*Kernan, M. C., Watson, S., Chen, F. F., & Kim, T. G. 2011. How cultural values affect the impact of abusive
supervision on worker attitudes. Cross Cultural Management, 18: 464-484.
*Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., & Tang, R. L. 2010. In pursuit of power: The role of
authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ percep-
tions of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44: 512-519.
*Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Scott, K. D., Garcia, P. R. J. M., & Tang, R. L. 2012. Sins of the
parents: Self-control as a buffer between supervisors’ previous experience of family undermining and subordi-
nates’ perceptions of abusive supervision. The Leadership Quarterly, 23: 869-882.
Klaussner, S. 2014. Engulfed in the abyss: The emergence of abusive supervision as an escalating process of super-
visor-subordinate interaction. Human Relations, 67: 311-332.
Lapierre, L. M., Spector, P. E., & Leck, J. D. 2005. Sexual versus nonsexual workplace aggression and victims’
overall job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10: 155-169.
Le, H., Oh, I. S., Shaffer, J., & Schmidt, F. 2007. Implications of methodological advances for the practice of person-
nel selection: How practitioners benefit from meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21: 6-15.
*Lee, S., Yun, S., & Srivastava, A. 2013. Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between abusive supervision and
creativity in South Korea. The Leadership Quarterly, 24: 724-731.
*Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Liang, L. H., Keeping, L. M., & Morrison, R. 2014. Abusive supervision and
retaliation: A self-control framework. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 116-139.
*Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. 2012a. Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive
supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 107-123.

*Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. 2012b. Does taking the good with the bad make things worse? How abusive
supervision and leader-member exchange interact to impact need satisfaction and organizational deviance.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117: 41-52.
*Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., Morrison, R., & Brown, D. J. 2014. Blame it on the supervisor or the subordinate?
Reciprocal relations between abusive supervision and organizational deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
99: 651-664.
*Lin, W., Wang, L., & Chen, S. 2013. Abusive supervision and employee well-being: The moderating effect of
power distance orientation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62: 308-329.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. 2001. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. 2012. The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of
abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 1187-1212.
*Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Wu, L., & Wu, W. 2010. Abusive supervision and subordinate supervisor-directed deviance:
The moderating role of traditional values and the mediating role of revenge cognitions. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 83: 835-856.
*Liu, X.-Y., & Wang, J. 2013. Abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behaviour: Is supervisor-subordi-
nate guanxi a mediator? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24: 1471-1489.
*Mackey, J. D., Ellen, B. P., III, Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. 2013. Subordinate social adaptability and the
consequences of abusive supervision perceptions in two samples. The Leadership Quarterly, 24: 732-746.
*Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Perrewé, P. L., Gallagher, V. C., & Brymer, R. A. in press. Empowered employees
as social deviants: The role of abusive supervision. Journal of Business and Psychology. doi:10.1007/s10869-
014-9345-x
Markovsky, B. 1985. Toward a multilevel distributive justice theory. American Sociological Review, 50: 822-839.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. 2013. A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 34: S120-S137.
*Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Sikora, D., & Douglas, S. C. 2011. Perceptions of abusive supervision: The role of
subordinates’ attribution styles. The Leadership Quarterly, 22: 751-764.
*Mawritz, M. B., Dust, S. B., & Resick, C. J. 2014. Hostile climate, abusive supervision, and employee coping:
Does conscientiousness matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 737-747.
*Mawritz, M. B., Folger, R., & Latham, G. P. 2014. Supervisors’ exceedingly difficult goals and abusive supervi-
sion: The mediating effects of hindrance stress, anger, and anxiety. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35:
358-372.
*Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. 2012. A trickle-down model of
abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65: 325-357.
*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 examina-
tion of individual and situational factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 1148-1170.
Mosier, C. I. 1943. On the reliability of a weighted composite. Psychometrika, 8: 161-168.
*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: 138-150.
Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. 2010. The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence
rates of workplace bullying: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83:
955-979.
*Ogunfowora, B. 2013. When the abuse is unevenly distributed: The effects of abusive supervision variability on
work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34: 1105-1123.
*Onyishi, I. E. 2012. Abusive supervision and prosocial organizational behavior: A study of workers in the banking
industry in Nigeria. The African Symposium, 12: 96-103.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational
citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48: 775-802.
*Palanski, M., Avey, J. B., & Jiraporn, N. 2014. The effects of ethical leadership and abusive supervision on job
search behaviors in the turnover process. Journal of Business Ethics, 121: 135-146.
*Peng, A. C., Schaubroeck, J. M., & Li, Y. 2014. Social exchange implications of own and coworkers’ experiences
of supervisory abuse. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1385-1405.
*Pyc, L. S. 2011. The moderating effects of workplace ambiguity and perceived job control on the relations between
abusive supervision and employees’ behavioral, psychological, and physical strains. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY.

*Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, S. L. D. 2011. The influence of abusive supervisors on followers’ organizational
citizenship behaviours: The hidden costs of abusive supervision. British Journal of Management, 22: 270-285.
*Rafferty, A. E., Restubog, S. L. D., & Jimmieson, N. L. 2010. Losing sleep: Examining the cascading effects of
supervisors’ experience of injustice on subordinates’ psychological health. Work & Stress, 24: 36-55.
*Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. 2011. When distress hits home: The role of contextual fac-
tors and psychological distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96: 713-729.
Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. 2005. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment
and adjustments. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Rupp, D. E. 2011. An employee-centered model of organizational justice and social responsibility. Organizational
Psychology Review, 1: 72-94.
*Scheuer, M. L. 2013. Linking abusive supervision to engagement and burnout: An application of the differentiated
job demands-resource model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb.
Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. 2004. Software for the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis methods. Iowa City: University of
Iowa, Department of Management and Organizations.
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. 2013. How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership
and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24: 138-158.
*Shao, P., Resick, C. J., & Hargis, M. B. 2011. Helping and harming others in the workplace: The roles of personal
values and abusive supervision. Human Relations, 64: 1051-1078.
Shao, R., Rupp, D. E., Skarlicki, D. P., & Jones, K. S. 2013. Employee justice across cultures: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Management, 39: 263-301.
Shapiro, D. L. 2001. The death of justice theory is likely if theorists neglect the “wheels” already invented and the
voices of the injustice victims. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58: 235-242.
*Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. 2013. Blaming the organization for abu-
sive supervision: The roles of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 158-168.
*Siegel, J. L. 2011. A multi-level model examining the effects of unit-level culture on abusive supervision.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Spector, P. E., Bauer, J. A., & Fox, S. 2010. Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive work
behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think we know? Journal of Applied
*Sulea, C., Fine, S., Fischmann, G., Sava, F. A., & Dumitru, C. 2013. Abusive supervision and counterproductive
work behaviors: The moderating effects of personality. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12: 196-200.
Sutton, R. I. 2007. The no asshole rule: Building a civilized workplace and surviving one that isn’t. New York:
Warner Business Books.
*Taylor, A. M. 2012. Cultivating an engaged workforce: The roles of leader personality, motivation, and leadership
style. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa.
*Taylor, M. 2004. The relationships between workplace violence, deviant workplace behavior, ethical climate,
organizational justice, and abusive supervision. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Alliant International
University, Alhambra, CA.
*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
Management, 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. Organizational 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 supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59: 101-123.
*Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J. M., & Ensley, M. D. 2004. Moderators of the relationship between cowork-
ers’ organizational 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. 2011. A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs that capture interpersonal
mistreatment in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32: 487-498.

*Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. 2008. Abusive supervision and sub-
ordinates’ organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 721-732.
*Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & 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.
*Tepper, B. J., Moss, S., Lockhart, D., & Carr, J. 2007. Abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication,
and subordinates’ psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1169-1180.
*Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. 2009. How management style moderates the relation-
ship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory 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.
*Thoroughgood, C. N., Tate, B. W., Sawyer, K. B., & Jacobs, R. 2012. Bad to the bone: Empirically defining and
measuring destructive leader behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19: 230-255.
*Thun, N. B. 2009. Character strengths in leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Saint Mary’s University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
van den Bos, K. 2003. On the subjective quality of social justice: The role of affect as information in the psychology
of justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85: 482-498.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. 1995. Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equa-
tions modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48: 865-885.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. 2002. Examining the construct of organizational justice: A meta-analytic evaluation
of relations with work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 38: 193-203.
*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.
*Wei, F., & Si, S. 2013. Psychological contract breach, negative reciprocity, and abusive supervision: The mediated
effect of organizational identification. Management and Organization Review, 9: 541-561.
*Wei, F., & Si, S. 2013. Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating
effects of locus of control and perceived mobility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30: 281-296.
*Wheeler, A. R., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Whitman, M. V. 2013. The interactive effects of abusive supervision
and entitlement on emotional exhaustion and co-worker abuse. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
*Whitman, M. V., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Holmes IV, O. 2014. Abusive supervision and feedback avoidance: The
mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35: 38-53.
*Whitman, M. V., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Shanine, K. K. 2013. Psychological entitlement and abusive supervision:
Political skill as a self-regulatory mechanism. Health Care Management Review, 38: 248-257.
Wood, J. A. 2008. Methodology for dealing with duplicate study effects in a meta-analysis. Organizational Research
Methods, 11: 79-95.
*Wu, L.-Z., Kwan, H. K., Liu, J., & Resick, C. J. 2012. Work-to-family spillover effects of abusive supervision.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27: 714-731.
*Wu, T., & Hu, C. 2009. Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion: Dispositional antecedents and
boundaries. Group & Organization Management, 34: 143-169.
*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.
*Wu, T.-Y., Hu, C., & Yang, C.-C. 2013. Abusive supervision and workload demands from supervisors: Exploring
two types of supervisor-related stressors and their association with strain. Stress and Health, 29: 190-198.
*Xiaqi, D., Kun, T., Chongsen, Y., & Sufang, G. 2012. Abusive supervision and LMX: Leaders’ emotional intel-
ligence as antecedent variable and trust as consequence variable. Chinese Management Studies, 6: 257-270.
*Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. 2012. Abusive supervision and work behaviors: The mediating role of
LMX. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33: 531-543.
*Yagil, D. 2006. The relationship of abusive and supportive workplace supervision to employee burnout and upward
influence tactics. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 6: 49-65.
*Yagil, D., Ben-Zur, H., & Tamir, I. 2011. Do employees cope effectively with abusive supervision at work? An
exploratory study. International Journal of Stress Management, 18: 5-23.

*Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. 2002. Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizen-
ship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1068-1076.
*Zhang, H., Kwan, H. K., Zhang, X., & Wu, L.-Z. 2014. High core self-evaluators maintain creativity: A motiva-
tional model of abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 40: 1151-1174.
*Zhang, Y. 2013. Leaders’ daily work demands, recovery, and leadership behaviors. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Arizona State University, Phoenix.
*Zhao, H., Peng, Z., Han, Y., Sheard, G., & Hudson, A. 2013. Psychological mechanism linking abusive supervision
and compulsory citizenship behavior: A moderated mediation study. The Journal of Psychology, 147: 177-195.

10 1 1 921 229

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1 1 921 229

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

573997

Abusive Supervision: A Meta-Analysis and

We conducted a meta-analysis and empirical review of abusive supervision research in order to

Supplemental material for this article is available at http://jom.sagepub.com/supplemental

Keywords: abusive supervision; justice; meta-analysis

Tepper defined abusive supervision as “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Justice in the Workplace

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

unrestricted population; uT = √[(.78/.82)2 – (1 – .92)]/.92; uT = .947. Overall, the correction for

Demographics. Demographic variables included age (ρ = −.03), age of supervisor (ρ =

Justice. Subordinates’ perceptions of distributive (ρ = −.25), interactional (ρ = −.55),

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Individual differences. Agreeableness (ρ = −.14), conscientiousness (ρ = −.14), extraver-

Leadership. Authoritarian leadership (ρ = .41), ethical leadership (ρ = −.50), and LMX

Organizational and personal outcomes. Affective organizational commitment (ρ =

Deviance. Workplace deviance was measured in various ways, including interpersonal-

Sensitivity Analyses and Comparison Between Overall and U.S. Analyses

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Trends in the Data

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

1. Mean of Measure — 1.78 0.46

Note: k = 130. Scale measurement (frequency format = 0; agreement format = 1).

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Australia 92 1 1.78 1.10 15.00 1.00 .96

Finally, we examined whether there were differences in measuring perceptions of abusive

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

perceptions of abusive supervision are strongly negatively associated with perceptions of

Strengths and Limitations

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Directions for Future Research

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

You might also like