Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2020, Vol. 52 Issue (3) : 329-344     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00329
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Trust is valued in proportion to its rarity? Investigating how and when feeling trusted leads to counterproductive work behavior
CHEN Chen1,ZHANG Xin2,SUN Liping3,QIN Xin1(),DENG Huiru1
1 Sun Yat-sen Business School, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
2 Department of Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China
3 Department of Human Resource Management, Guangdong University of Finance, Guangzhou 510521, China
Download: PDF(634 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

Trust is a crucial part of interpersonal relationships within work environments. Previous research has revealed that feeling trusted, or “the perception that another party is willing to accept vulnerability to one’s actions,” by one’s supervisor benefits both subordinates and organizations in various ways such as enhancing organization-based self-esteem and improving individual and organizational performance. While extant research has provided insightful knowledge to help us understand the beneficial effects of feeling trusted, we know little about its potential drawbacks. We suggest that scholars may have overstated the benefits of feeling trusted and overlooked its potential costs. Thus, several important questions are arisen: When dose feeling trusted induce employees subsequent counterproductive work behavior (CWB), and Why? Drawing upon self-evaluation theory and trust literature, we propose that feeling trusted by their supervisors may promote employees’ psychological entitlement, which leads to subsequent CWB. Furthermore, we consider the perceived rarity of trust as a boundary condition and suggest that when employees perceive the rarity of trust is high, feeling trusted is more likely to make them feel psychologically entitled, thus leading to CWB.
To test our theoretical model, we conducted three studies, including two experiments (i.e., Study 1 and 2) and one multi-wave, multi-source field study (i.e., Study 3) among diverse samples. In Study 1, we invited 115 full-time employees through the alumni networks of several large universities in China to participate our experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: the feeling trusted condition (n = 58) versus the control condition (n = 57). Feeling trusted was manipulated by the critical incident technique. Each participant was required to recall and describe a recent interaction with their supervisor. Next, participants completed an ostensibly unrelated task (filler task) and reported psychological entitlement, manipulation check, and demographics. In Study 2, we recruited 145 full-time working adults as participants from the United States using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Participants first reported the perceived rarity of trust in their organizations. Then, they were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions (the feeling trusted condition [n = 73] versus the control condition [n = 72]) and were subjected to the same manipulation and questionnaire as those defined in Study 1. In Study 3, we employed a multi-wave, multi-source design to test our full model in a field setting using a Chinese employee sample. At Time 1, the employees reported feeling trusted, perceived rarity of trust, psychological entitlement, and demographics. Approximately one week later (Time 2), their supervisors were invited to rate subordinates’ CWB. The final sample included 187 employees from 60 workgroups.
The results of the studies revealed that feeling trusted positively influenced subordinates’ psychological entitlement, which in turn enhanced their subsequent CWB. Subordinates perceived rarity of trust moderated the effect of feeling trusted on psychological entitlement. Furthermore, subordinates perceived rarity of trust moderated the indirect effect of feeling trusted on CWB. That is, the positive indirect effect of feeling trusted on CWB via subordinates’ psychological entitlement was significant and positive when perceived rarity of trust was high and did not exist when perceived rarity of trust was low.
This research makes several important contributions. First, we challenge the consensus regarding the universally positive effects of trust by suggesting that feeling trusted may have the potential to induce subordinates CWB. In doing so, this research provides a more dialectical perspective in understanding the effects of feeling trusted. Second, not only do we examine the potentially negative effects of feeling trusted, but we also examine when and why this effect unfolds. By exploring the dynamics of feeling trusted, we answer Bare et al.’s call for more research on feeling trusted. Finally, this research contributes to CWB literature by identifying an important but neglected antecedent of CWB in the workplace. We suggested that beyond leaders’ negative behaviors (e.g., abuse and injustice), their positive behaviors (i.e., expressed trust) may lead to subordinates’ CWB.

Keywords trust      feeling trusted      psychological entitlement      counterproductive work behavior      perceived rarity of trust     
ZTFLH:  B849:C93  
Corresponding Authors: Xin QIN     E-mail: qinxin@sysu.edu.cn
Issue Date: 18 January 2020
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Chen CHEN
Xin ZHANG
Liping SUN
Xin QIN
Huiru DENG
Cite this article:   
Chen CHEN,Xin ZHANG,Liping SUN, et al. Trust is valued in proportion to its rarity? Investigating how and when feeling trusted leads to counterproductive work behavior[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(3): 329-344.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00329     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2020/V52/I3/329
  
变量 心理权利感
模型 1 模型 2
b SE β b SE β
感知被信任操纵 0.28 0.13 0.17* 0.28 0.12 0.16*
感知到信任的稀缺性 0.30 0.06 0.40*** 0.15 0.08 0.20
感知被信任操纵 × 感知到信任的稀缺性 0.29 0.11 0.28*
常数项 1.96 0.17 2.34 0.22
R2 0.18 0.22
ΔR2 0.04*
F 15.60*** 12.98***
  
  
变量 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. 性别(T1) 0.66 0.48
2. 年龄(T1) 27.79 6.85 0.03
3. 教育水平(T1) 15.00 1.89 -0.04 -0.37**
4. 与直接上司的共事时间(T1) 2.34 2.70 0.07 0.61** -0.37**
5. 感知被信任(T1) 3.28 0.60 0.03 0.12 -0.17* 0.10
6. 感知到信任的稀缺性(T1) 2.27 0.74 -0.17* -0.09 0.12 -0.05 -0.08
7. 心理权利感(T1) 2.79 0.61 -0.02 0.004 0.01 0.02 0.16* 0.20**
8. 反生产行为(T2) 1.30 0.47 0.14 -0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.09
  
变量 心理权利感(T1) 反生产行为(T2)
模型1 模型2 模型3 模型4 模型5
b SE t b SE t b SE t b SE t b SE t
性别(T1) -0.03 0.10 -0.28 -0.03 0.10 -0.32 0.01 0.10 0.13 0.02 0.10 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.03
年龄(T1) -0.002 0.01 -0.30 -0.004 0.01 -0.50 -0.002 0.01 -0.28 -0.003 0.01 -0.37 0.004 0.01 0.70
教育水平(T1) 0.005 0.03 0.15 0.01 0.03 0.29 0.004 0.03 0.12 0.003 0.03 0.12 -0.02 0.01 -1.30
与上司共事时间(T1) 0.01 0.02 0.56 0.01 0.02 0.53 0.01 0.02 0.41 0.01 0.02 0.56 0.001 0.01 0.08
感知被信任(T1) 0.17 0.07 2.37* 0.18 0.06 2.79** 0.17 0.06 2.56* -0.02 0.04 -0.42
感知到信任的稀缺性(T1) 0.17 0.05 3.27** 0.15 0.05 2.86** 0.01 0.04 0.03
感知被信任(T1) × 感知到信任的稀缺性(T1) 0.18 0.07 2.72**
心理权利感(T1) 0.04 0.02 2.12*
常数项 2.79 0.60 4.68*** 2.77 0.58 4.75*** 2.78 0.56 4.99*** 2.79 0.53 5.25*** 1.47 0.24 6.22***
组间变异 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.17
组内变异 0.37 0.36 0.34 0.34 0.07
偏移项 345.86 340.91 332.69 328.18 492.58
  
  
[1] Aquino K., Tripp T. M., & Bies R. J . (2001). How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 52-59.
[2] Baer M. D., Dhensa-Kahlon R. K., Colquitt J. A., Rodell J. B., Outlaw R., & Long D. M . (2015). Uneasy lies the head that bears the trust: The effects of feeling trusted on emotional exhaustion. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1637-1657.
[3] Bauer D. J., Preacher K. J., & Gil K. M . (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11(2), 142-163.
[4] Bennett R. J., & Robinson S. L . (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360.
[5] Bennett R. J., & Robinson S. L . (2003). The past, present, and future of workplace deviance research. In Greenberg. J.(Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science
[6] Berger J., Meredith M., & Wheeler S. C . (2008). Contextual priming: Where people vote affects how they vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(26), 8846-8849.
[7] Bernerth J. B., & Aguinis H . (2016). A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 229-283.
[8] 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(2), 410-424.
[9] Bliese P. D., Maltarich M. A., & Hendricks J. L . (2018). Back to basics with mixed-effects models: Nine take-away points. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(1), 1-23.
[10] Bobocel D. R . (2013). Coping with unfair events constructively or destructively: The effects of overall justice and self-other orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 720-731.
[11] Brislin R. W . (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology(pp. 389-444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
[12] Brower H. H., Lester S. W., Korsgaard M. A., & Dineen B. R . (2009). A closer look at trust between managers and subordinates: Understanding the effects of both trusting and being trusted on subordinate outcomes. Journal of Management, 35(2), 327-347.
[13] Browning J., & Zabriskie N. B . (1983). How ethical are industrial buyers? Industrial Marketing Management, 12(4), 219-224.
[14] Bryk A. S., & Raudenbush S . (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA, US: Sage.
[15] Buhrmester M., Kwang T., & Gosling S. D . (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high- quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5.
[16] Campbell W. K., Bonacci A. M., Shelton J., Exline J. J., & Bushman B. J . (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(1), 29-45.
[17] Chatman J. A., & Flynn F. J . (2005). Full-cycle micro- organizational behavior research. Organization Science, 16(4), 434-447.
[18] Chen X. P., He W., & Weng L. C . (2018). What is wrong with treating followers differently? The basis of leader-member exchange differentiation matters. Journal of Management, 44(3), 946-971.
[19] Chen Y., Shi K., & Luo D.-X . (2010). Trust in organizations: Maintaining and repair. Advances in Psychological Science, 18(4), 664-370.
[19] [ 陈阅, 时勘, 罗东霞 . (2010). 组织内信任的维持与修复. 心理科学进展, 18(4), 664-670.]
[20] Cheung J. H., Burns D. K., Sinclair R. R., & Sliter M . (2017). Amazon Mechanical Turk in organizational psychology: An evaluation and practical recommendations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(4), 347-361.
[21] de Jong B. A., Dirks K. T., & Gillespie N . (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1134-1150.
[22] Dirks K. T., & Ferrin D. L . (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450-467.
[23] Ditto P. H., & Jemmott J. B . (1989). From rarity to evaluative extremity: Effects of prevalence information on evaluations of positive and negative characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(1), 16-26.
[24] Duan J. Y., & Tian X. M . (2011). The study of the impact of trust within organization on employee voice behavior. Journal of Psychologcial Science, 34(6), 1458-1462.
[24] [ 段锦云, 田晓明 . (2011). 组织内信任对员工建言行为的影响研究. 心理科学, 14(6), 1458-1462.]
[25] Dyer N. G., Hanges P. J., & Hall R. J . (2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 149-167.
[26] Edwards J. R., & Lambert L. S . (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1-22.
[27] Emmons R. A . (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 291-300.
[28] Ferris D. L., Spence J. R., Brown D. J., & Heller D . (2012). Interpersonal injustice and workplace deviance: The role of esteem threat. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1788-1811.
[29] Fulmer C. A., & Gelfand M. J . (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167-1230.
[30] Gecas V . (1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8(1), 1-33.
[31] Goethals G. R . (1986). Social comparison theory: Psychology from the lost and found. Personality Social Psychology Bulletin, 12(3), 261-278.
[32] Gong Y. P., Huang J.-C., & Farh J.-L . (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self- efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765-778.
[33] Gonzalez-Mulé E., DeGeest D. S., Kiersch C. E., & Mount M. K . (2013). Gender differences in personality predictors of counterproductive behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(4), 333-353.
[34] Graen G. B., & Uhl-Bien M . (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
[35] Harvey P., & Martinko M. J . (2009). An empirical examination of the role of attributions in psychological entitlement and its outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(4), 459-476.
[36] Hofmann D. A., & Gavin M. B . (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623-641.
[37] Hofmann D. A., Griffin M. A., & Gavin M. B . (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations ( pp. 467-511). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.
[38] Huseman R. C., Hatfield J. D., & Miles E. W . (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222-234.
[39] Jemmott J. B., Ditto P. H., & Croyle R. T . (1986). Judging health status: Effects of perceived prevalence and personal relevance. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 50(5), 899-905.
[40] Jordan P. J., Ramsay S., & Westerlaken K. M . (2017). A review of entitlement: Implications for workplace research. Organizational Psychology Review, 7(2), 122-142.
[41] Ju D., Huang M. P., Liu D., Qin X., Hu Q. J., & Chen C . (2019). Supervisory consequences of abusive supervision: An investigation of sense of power, managerial self-efficacy, and task-oriented leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 154, 80-95.
[42] Ju D., Xu M., Qin X., & Spector P. E . (2019). A multilevel study of abusive supervision, norms, and personal control on counterproductive work behavior: A theory of planned behavior approach. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(2), 163-178.
url: https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818806289
[43] Keltner D., Gruenfeld D. H., & Anderson C . (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265-284.
[44] Korman A. K . (1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(1), 31-41.
[45] Lau D. C., Lam L. W., & Wen S. S . (2014). Examining the effects of feeling trusted by supervisors in the workplace: A self-evaluative perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1), 112-127.
[46] Lester S. W., & Brower H. H . (2003). In the eyes of the beholder: The relationship between subordinates’ felt trustworthiness and their work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(2), 17-33.
[47] Levine D. P . (2005). The corrupt organization. Human Relations, 58(6), 723-740.
[48] Lewicki R. J., McAllister D. J., & Bies R. J . (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438-458.
[49] Li X. C . (2002). Trust, loyalty and the predicament that clannishness is in. Management World,(6), 87-93, 133, 156.
[49] [ 李新春 . (2002). 信任、忠诚与家族主义困境. 管理世界,(6), 87-93, 133, 156.]
[50] Liang L. H., Lian H. W., Brown D. J., Ferris D. L., Hanig S., & Keeping L. M . (2016). Why are abusive supervisors abusive? A dual-system self-control model. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1385-1406.
[51] Little T. D., Cunningham W. A., Shahar G., & Widaman K. F . (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151-173.
[52] Markus H., & Wurf E . (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38(1), 299-337.
[53] Mayer R. C., Davis J. H., & Schoorman F. D . (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
[54] Mayer R. C., & Gavin M. B . (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 874-888.
[55] Mishra A. K., & Mishra K. E . (2012) Positive organizational scholarship and trust in leaders. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 449-461). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
[56] Naumann S. E., Minsky B. D., & Sturman M. C . (2002). The use of the concept “entitlement” in management literature: A historical review, synthesis, and discussion of compensation policy implications. Human Resource Management Review, 12(1), 145-166.
[57] Penney L. M., & Spector P. E . (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 777-796.
[58] Pettigrew T. F . (1967). Social evaluation theory: Convergences and applications. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, 241-311.
[59] Pfeffer J . (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
[60] Pfeffer J., & Salancik G. R . (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
[61] Pierce J. L., Gardner D. G., Cummings L. L., & Dunham R. B . (1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 622-648.
[62] Qin X., Chen C., Yam K. C., Huang M., & Ju D. (2019). The double-edged sword of leader humility: Investigating when and why leader humility promotes versus inhibits subordinate deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology. .
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000456
[63] Qin X., Huang M. P., Hu Q. J., Schminke M., & Ju D . (2018). Ethical leadership, but toward whom? How moral identity congruence shapes the ethical treatment of employees. Human Relations, 71(8), 1120-1149.
[64] Qin X., Huang M. P., Johnson R. E., Hu Q. J., & Ju D . (2018). The short-lived benefits of abusive supervisory behavior for actors: An investigation of recovery and work engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1951-1975.
[65] Qin X., & Ju D . (2011). Can a broken mirror be made whole again? The effects of promise-broken and promise-kept on psychological contract and trust in TMT. China Management Studies, 6(4), 1-25.
[65] [ 秦昕, 鞠冬 . (2011). 破镜能否重圆?承诺破坏和承诺恢复对心理契约及高管信任的影响. 中大管理研究, 6(4), 1-25.]
[66] Qin X., Ren R., Zhang Z. X., & Johnson R. E . (2015). Fairness heuristics and substitutability effects: Inferring the fairness of outcomes, procedures, and interpersonal treatment when employees lack clear information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 749-766.
[67] Qin X., Ren R., Zhang Z. X., & Johnson R. E . (2018). Considering self-interests and symbolism together: How instrumental and value-expressive motives interact to influence supervisors’ justice behavior. Personnel Psychology, 71(2), 225-253.
[68] Raskin R., & Terry H . (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890-902.
[69] Rosenthal S. A., & Pittinsky T. L . (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617-633.
[70] Salamon S. D., & Robinson S. L . (2008). Trust that binds: The impact of collective felt trust on organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 593-601.
[71] Salancik G. R., & Pfeffer J . (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-253.
[72] Schoorman F. D., Mayer R. C., & Davis J. H . (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 344-354.
[73] Sherman S. J., Presson C. C., & Chassin L . (1984). Mechanisms underlying the false consensus effect: The special role of threats to the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(1), 127-138.
[74] Spector P. E., Fox S., Penney L. M., Bruursema K., Goh A., & Kessler S . (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446-460.
[75] Sun L. P., Long L. R., & Li Z. Y . (2018). The effects and mechanisms of employees feeling trusted on performance review. Chinese Journal of Management, 15(1), 144-150.
[75] [ 孙利平, 龙立荣, 李梓一 . (2018). 被信任感对员工绩效的影响及其作用机制研究述评. 管理学报, 15(1), 144-150.]
[76] Tepper B. J . (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190.
[77] Tepper B. J . (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261-289.
[78] Theall K. P., Scribner R., Broyles S., Yu Q. Z., Chotalia J., Simonsen N., .. Carlin B. P . (2011). Impact of small group size on neighborhood influences in multilevel models. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 65(8), 688-695.
[79] Tofighi D., & MacKinnon D. P . (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 692-700.
[80] Treviño L. K., Weaver G. R., & Reynolds S. J . (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951-990.
[81] Turner R. H . (1978). The role and the person. American Journal of Sociology, 84(1), 1-23.
[82] Vincent L. C., & Kouchaki M . (2016). Creative, rare, entitled, and dishonest: How commonality of creativity in one’s group decreases an individual’s entitlement and dishonesty. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1451-1473.
[83] Wang H. L., & Zhang Q. J . (2016). The cost of feeling trusted: The study on the relationship among felt trust from supervisors, role overload, job stress and emotional exhaustion. Management World,(8), 110-125, 136, 187-188.
[83] [ 王红丽, 张筌钧 . (2016). 被信任的代价:员工感知上级信任、角色负荷、工作压力与情绪耗竭的影响关系研究. 管理世界, (8), 110-125, 136, 187-188.]
[84] Wei H.-M., & Long L.-R . (2009). Effects of cognition-and affect-base trust in supervisors on task performance and OCB. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41(1), 86-94.
[84] [ 韦慧民, 龙立荣 . (2009). 主管认知信任和情感信任对员工行为及绩效的影响. 心理学报, 41(1), 86-94.]
[85] Xu M. Y., Qin X., Dust S. B., & Direnzo M. S . (2019). Supervisor-subordinate proactive personality congruence and psychological safety: A signaling theory approach to employee voice behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(4), 440-453.
[86] Yam K. C., Klotz A. C., He W., & Reynolds S. J . (2017). From good soldiers to psychologically entitled: Examining when and why citizenship behavior leads to deviance. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), 373-396.
[87] Yao J. J., Zhang Z.-X., & Brett J. M . (2017). Understanding trust development in negotiations: An interdependent approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(5), 712-729.
[88] Yu H. B., Fang L. L., Ling W. Q., & Zheng X. M . (2007). Effects of organizational trust on individual attitudes, turnover intentions and organizational financial performance of Chinese companies. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(2), 311-320.
[89] [ 于海波, 方俐洛, 凌文辁, 郑晓明 . (2007). 组织信任对员工态度和离职意向、组织财务绩效的影响. 心理学报, 39(2), 311-320.]
[90] Zhang Y. J., Liao J. Q., & Zhao J . (2012). Counterproductive work behavior: An overseas literature review and prospect. Management Review, 24(7), 82-90.
[90] [ 张永军, 廖建桥, 赵君 . (2012). 国外反生产行为研究回顾与展望. 管理评论, 24(7), 84-92.]
[91] Zheng X. M., Qin X., Liu X., & Liao H . (2019). Will creative employees always make trouble? Investigating the roles of moral identity and moral disengagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(3), 653-672.
[92] Zhou R.-Y., Long L.-R., & He W . (2016). Self-sacrificial leadership and employees counterproductive behavior: The effect of leader identification and psychological entitlement. Forecasting, 35(3), 1-7.
[92] [ 周如意, 龙立荣, 贺伟 . (2016). 自我牺牲型领导与员工反生产行为:领导认同与心理权利的作用. 预测, 35(3), 1-7]
[93] Zhou R. Y., Long L. R., & Zhang J. W . (2018). Influence of self-sacrificial leadership on team performance: The roles of team cohesion, psychological capital, and psychological entitlement. Science of Science and Management of S. & T, 39(8), 145-160.
[93] [ 周如意, 龙立荣, 张军伟 . (2018). 自我牺牲型领导与团队绩效:凝聚力、心理资本及心理权利的作用. 科学学与科学技术管理, 39(8), 145-160.]
[94] Zitek E. M., Jordan A. H., Monin B., & Leach F. R . (2010). Victim entitlement to behave selfishly. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 98(2), 245-255.
[1] ZHANG Shuwei,SHEN Yiren,ZHOU Jie. Social license of public decision from the behavioral public administration perspective: Transparency effect and its moderation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(2): 240-256.
[2] LYU Xiaokang, FU Chunye, WANG Xinjian. Effect and underlying mechanism of refutation texts on the trust and moral judgment of patients[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(10): 1171-1186.
[3] TANG Weihai,ZHONG Rubo,XU Xiaoxu,LIU Xiping. Effects of facial attractiveness and information accuracy on preschoolers’ selective trust[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(1): 71-84.
[4] FU Chao, ZHANG Zhen, HE Jinzhou, HUANG Silin, QIU Jianyin, WANG Yiwen.  Brain dynamics of decision-making in the generalized trust game: Evidence from ERPs and EEG time-frequency analysis[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(3): 317-326.
[5] LI Tingyu, LIU Li, LI Yilin, ZHU Liqi. Preschoolers' selective trust and belief revision in conflicting situation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(12): 1390-1399.
[6] Xiujuan WANG,Na WANG,Shangfeng HAN,Shen LIU,Lin ZHANG. The influence of facial trustworthiness on helping behavior: The role of attachment type[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(11): 1292-1302.
[7] LIU Baogen, LI Feifei, LI Ruiqin, JIANG Hui .  Trust and subsequent use of oral and print information for 4~6 year-old children[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 1053-1062.
[8] WANG Yiwen, FU Chao, REN Xiangfeng, LIN Yuzhong, GUO Fengbo.  Narcissistic personality modulates outcome evaluation in the trust game[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 1080-1088.
[9] ZHANG Shuwei.  Social justice, institutional trust and public cooperation intention[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(6): 794-813.
[10] LIU Shixiong, BI Xiaopei, HE Kaibin.  The impact of internet language copy on consumers’ attention and perceptions of the advertisement[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(12): 1590-1603.
[11] LI Tingyu; LIU Li; ZHU Liqi. 4~6 year-old children’s trust in economic game and its influencing factors[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(1): 17-27.
[12] TU Xingyong; ZHANG Qi; WANG Zeyin; HE Xin. Trust climate, perceived insider status and employee’ in-role performance: A mediated moderator model[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(1): 83-93.
[13] ZHANG Lin; LIU Shen; XU Qiang; WU Xiaoyan; YANG Mengyuan. Long-term effect of violence exposure in real-life on aggressive behaviors: A moderated mediation model[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(1): 50-59.
[14] LI Caina; SUN Ying; TUO Rui; LIU Jia. The effects of attachment security on interpersonal trust: The moderating role of attachment anxiety[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(8): 989-1001.
[15] WANG Yiwen; ZHANG Zhen; YUAN Sheng; GUO Fengbo; HE Shaoying; JING Yiming. The Decision-making and Outcome Evaluation during a Repeated Trust Game[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(8): 1028-1038.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech