心理学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (12): 1376-1392.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01376
收稿日期:
2020-06-08
发布日期:
2021-10-26
出版日期:
2021-12-25
通讯作者:
王永丽
E-mail:wangyli@mail.sysu.edu.cn
基金资助:
LU Hailing1, YANG Yang2, WANG Yongli2(), ZHANG Xin3, TAN Ling4
Received:
2020-06-08
Online:
2021-10-26
Published:
2021-12-25
Contact:
WANG Yongli
E-mail:wangyli@mail.sysu.edu.cn
摘要:
感知能力不被领导信任是信任研究的重要内容。已有研究普遍认为感知不被领导信任会对员工的自我产生不利影响。相反, 传统领导方式“激将法”则认为领导的不信任可以刺激员工展现更好的自我。为了解释上述矛盾, 本研究基于自我评价理论和心理逆反理论, 采用实验研究和多源多时间点问卷调查研究方法, 探讨了感知能力不被领导信任对员工自我的“双刃剑”效应及边界条件。研究结果表明, 当员工感知领导能力较强时, 感知能力不被领导信任会通过降低员工的工作效能感削弱员工的工作努力和绩效表现; 当员工感知领导能力较弱时, 感知能力不被领导信任会通过增强员工证明自我能力动机提升员工的工作努力和绩效表现。
中图分类号:
卢海陵, 杨洋, 王永丽, 张昕, 谭玲. (2021). “激将法”会激发还是打击员工?感知能力不被领导信任的“双刃剑”效应. 心理学报, 53(12), 1376-1392.
LU Hailing, YANG Yang, WANG Yongli, ZHANG Xin, TAN Ling. (2021). Does distrust motivate or discourage employees? The double-edged sword of feeling ability-distrusted by supervisors. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(12), 1376-1392.
变量 | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1感知能力不被领导信任操纵 | 0.50 | 0.50 | ||||
2感知领导能力操纵 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0 | |||
3工作自我效能感 | 3.76 | 0.71 | -0.20** | -0.13 | ||
4证明自我能力动机 | 4.02 | 0.84 | 0.21** | 0.26** | 0.15 |
表1 研究1中变量的均值、标准差和相关系数
变量 | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1感知能力不被领导信任操纵 | 0.50 | 0.50 | ||||
2感知领导能力操纵 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0 | |||
3工作自我效能感 | 3.76 | 0.71 | -0.20** | -0.13 | ||
4证明自我能力动机 | 4.02 | 0.84 | 0.21** | 0.26** | 0.15 |
变量 | 工作自我效能感 | 证明自我能力动机 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | 模型2 | 模型3 | 模型4 | |
常量 | 3.76***(0.05) | 3.87***(0.08) | 4.02***(0.06) | 4.14***(0.09) |
感知能力不被领导信任操纵 | -0.29**(0.11) | -0.07(0.15) | 0.34**(0.12) | 0.59**(0.17) |
感知领导能力操纵 | -0.18(0.11) | -0.04(0.15) | 0.43**(0.12) | 0.68***(0.17) |
感知能力不被领导信任操纵×感知领导能力操纵 | -0.44*(0.22) | -0.50*(0.25) | ||
R2 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.13 |
ΔR2 | 0.02* | 0.02* | ||
F | 4.81** | 4.66** | 9.72*** | 7.99*** |
表2 研究1一般线性回归分析结果
变量 | 工作自我效能感 | 证明自我能力动机 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | 模型2 | 模型3 | 模型4 | |
常量 | 3.76***(0.05) | 3.87***(0.08) | 4.02***(0.06) | 4.14***(0.09) |
感知能力不被领导信任操纵 | -0.29**(0.11) | -0.07(0.15) | 0.34**(0.12) | 0.59**(0.17) |
感知领导能力操纵 | -0.18(0.11) | -0.04(0.15) | 0.43**(0.12) | 0.68***(0.17) |
感知能力不被领导信任操纵×感知领导能力操纵 | -0.44*(0.22) | -0.50*(0.25) | ||
R2 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.13 |
ΔR2 | 0.02* | 0.02* | ||
F | 4.81** | 4.66** | 9.72*** | 7.99*** |
变量 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1性别 | 0.08 | -0.05 | 0.04 | 0.06 | -0.05 | 0.10 | -0.04 | -0.04 | -0.12* | |
2年龄 | -0.01 | -0.26*** | 0.29*** | 0.04 | -0.07 | 0.24*** | 0.06 | -0.03 | 0.004 | |
3教育水平 | -0.03 | -0.29*** | -0.09 | -0.01 | -0.03 | -0.08 | -0.10 | -0.01 | -0.01 | |
4与领导共事时长 | 0.09 | 0.45** | -0.15* | -0.03 | -0.01 | 0.17** | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.18** | |
5感知能力不被领导信任 | 0.09 | 0.18* | -0.16* | 0.25*** | -0.45*** | -0.25*** | -0.09 | -0.12 | -0.19** | |
6感知领导能力 | -0.10 | -0.19** | 0.19** | -0.16* | -0.54*** | 0.25*** | 0.18** | 0.26*** | 0.27*** | |
7工作自我效能感 | 0.01 | -0.14* | 0.18* | 0.06 | -0.23** | 0.40*** | 0.30*** | 0.51*** | 0.26*** | |
8证明自我能力动机 | -0.12 | -0.08 | 0.09 | 0.00 | -0.07 | 0.31*** | 0.22** | 0.44*** | 0.14* | |
9工作努力 | -0.08 | -0.14 | 0.17* | -0.04 | -0.33*** | 0.43*** | 0.30*** | 0.58*** | 0.20** | |
10工作绩效 | 0.02 | -0.06 | 0.17* | -0.07 | -0.17* | 0.17* | 0.10 | 0.17* | 0.22** | |
M2 | 0.17 | 35.50 | 2.07 | 4.38 | 2.41 | 4.22 | 3.89 | 3.66 | 3.93 | 4.26 |
SD2 | 0.38 | 6.63 | 0.76 | 3.45 | 1.15 | 0.77 | 0.67 | 0.82 | 0.70 | 0.64 |
M3 | 0.64 | 32.77 | 2.21 | 4.04 | 1.89 | 4.42 | 4.29 | 3.63 | 4.17 | 4.28 |
SD3 | 0.48 | 7.56 | 0.89 | 3.71 | 0.87 | 0.69 | 0.62 | 0.87 | 0.77 | 0.62 |
表3 研究2和3中变量的均值、标准差和相关系数
变量 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1性别 | 0.08 | -0.05 | 0.04 | 0.06 | -0.05 | 0.10 | -0.04 | -0.04 | -0.12* | |
2年龄 | -0.01 | -0.26*** | 0.29*** | 0.04 | -0.07 | 0.24*** | 0.06 | -0.03 | 0.004 | |
3教育水平 | -0.03 | -0.29*** | -0.09 | -0.01 | -0.03 | -0.08 | -0.10 | -0.01 | -0.01 | |
4与领导共事时长 | 0.09 | 0.45** | -0.15* | -0.03 | -0.01 | 0.17** | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.18** | |
5感知能力不被领导信任 | 0.09 | 0.18* | -0.16* | 0.25*** | -0.45*** | -0.25*** | -0.09 | -0.12 | -0.19** | |
6感知领导能力 | -0.10 | -0.19** | 0.19** | -0.16* | -0.54*** | 0.25*** | 0.18** | 0.26*** | 0.27*** | |
7工作自我效能感 | 0.01 | -0.14* | 0.18* | 0.06 | -0.23** | 0.40*** | 0.30*** | 0.51*** | 0.26*** | |
8证明自我能力动机 | -0.12 | -0.08 | 0.09 | 0.00 | -0.07 | 0.31*** | 0.22** | 0.44*** | 0.14* | |
9工作努力 | -0.08 | -0.14 | 0.17* | -0.04 | -0.33*** | 0.43*** | 0.30*** | 0.58*** | 0.20** | |
10工作绩效 | 0.02 | -0.06 | 0.17* | -0.07 | -0.17* | 0.17* | 0.10 | 0.17* | 0.22** | |
M2 | 0.17 | 35.50 | 2.07 | 4.38 | 2.41 | 4.22 | 3.89 | 3.66 | 3.93 | 4.26 |
SD2 | 0.38 | 6.63 | 0.76 | 3.45 | 1.15 | 0.77 | 0.67 | 0.82 | 0.70 | 0.64 |
M3 | 0.64 | 32.77 | 2.21 | 4.04 | 1.89 | 4.42 | 4.29 | 3.63 | 4.17 | 4.28 |
SD3 | 0.48 | 7.56 | 0.89 | 3.71 | 0.87 | 0.69 | 0.62 | 0.87 | 0.77 | 0.62 |
模型 | χ2 | df | Δχ2(Δdf) | SRMR | RMSEA | CFI | TLI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
研究2 | |||||||
假设的六因子模型 | 520.45 | 237 | — | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.92 | 0.91 |
五因子模型(合并工作自我效能感和工作努力) | 709.56 | 242 | 189.11(5) | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.87 | 0.85 |
五因子模型(合并工作自我效能感和工作绩效) | 786.25 | 242 | 265.79(5) | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.85 | 0.83 |
五因子模型(合并工作自我效能感和证明自我动机) | 736.21 | 242 | 215.76(5) | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.86 | 0.84 |
五因子模型(合并证明自我动机和工作努力) | 713.97 | 242 | 193.52(5) | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.87 | 0.85 |
五因子模型(合并感知能力不被信任和感知领导能力) | 1045.20 | 242 | 524.75(5) | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.77 | 0.74 |
研究3 | |||||||
假设的六因子模型 | 526.66 | 260 | — | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.96 | 0.95 |
五因子模型(合并工作自我效能感和工作努力) | 911.76 | 265 | 385.10(5) | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.90 | 0.88 |
五因子模型(合并工作自我效能感和工作绩效) | 1323.84 | 265 | 797.18(5) | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.83 | 0.81 |
五因子模型(合并工作自我效能感和证明自我动机) | 1041.52 | 265 | 514.86(5) | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.88 | 0.86 |
五因子模型(合并证明自我动机和工作努力) | 1106.14 | 265 | 579.48(5) | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.87 | 0.85 |
五因子模型(合并感知能力不被信任和感知领导能力) | 1946.16 | 265 | 1419.50(5) | 0.12 | 0.15 | 0.73 | 0.70 |
表4 研究2和3验证性因素分析结果
模型 | χ2 | df | Δχ2(Δdf) | SRMR | RMSEA | CFI | TLI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
研究2 | |||||||
假设的六因子模型 | 520.45 | 237 | — | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.92 | 0.91 |
五因子模型(合并工作自我效能感和工作努力) | 709.56 | 242 | 189.11(5) | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.87 | 0.85 |
五因子模型(合并工作自我效能感和工作绩效) | 786.25 | 242 | 265.79(5) | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.85 | 0.83 |
五因子模型(合并工作自我效能感和证明自我动机) | 736.21 | 242 | 215.76(5) | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.86 | 0.84 |
五因子模型(合并证明自我动机和工作努力) | 713.97 | 242 | 193.52(5) | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.87 | 0.85 |
五因子模型(合并感知能力不被信任和感知领导能力) | 1045.20 | 242 | 524.75(5) | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.77 | 0.74 |
研究3 | |||||||
假设的六因子模型 | 526.66 | 260 | — | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.96 | 0.95 |
五因子模型(合并工作自我效能感和工作努力) | 911.76 | 265 | 385.10(5) | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.90 | 0.88 |
五因子模型(合并工作自我效能感和工作绩效) | 1323.84 | 265 | 797.18(5) | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.83 | 0.81 |
五因子模型(合并工作自我效能感和证明自我动机) | 1041.52 | 265 | 514.86(5) | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.88 | 0.86 |
五因子模型(合并证明自我动机和工作努力) | 1106.14 | 265 | 579.48(5) | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.87 | 0.85 |
五因子模型(合并感知能力不被信任和感知领导能力) | 1946.16 | 265 | 1419.50(5) | 0.12 | 0.15 | 0.73 | 0.70 |
[1] |
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.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0246 URL |
[2] | Bandura A.(1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. |
[3] | Bandura A., & Walters R. H.(1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. |
[4] |
Bernerth J. B., & Aguinis H.(2016). A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 229-283.
doi: 10.1111/peps.12103 URL |
[5] | Brehm J. W.(1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press. |
[6] | Brislin R. W.(1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp.389-444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. |
[7] | Brockner J., Grover S., Reed T. F., & Dewitt R. L.(1992). Layoffs, job insecurity, and survivors' work effort: Evidence of an inverted-U relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 413-425. |
[8] |
Butler J. K., & Cantrell R. S.(1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55(1), 19-28.
doi: 10.2466/pr0.1984.55.1.19 URL |
[9] |
Byrne Z. S., Stoner J., Thompson K. R., & Hochwarter W.(2005). The interactive effects of conscientiousness, work effort, and psychological climate on job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 326-338.
doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.005 URL |
[10] | Campbell J. P.(1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press. |
[11] |
Carter M. Z., & Mossholder K. W.(2015). Are we on the same page? The performance effects of congruence between supervisor and group trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1349-1363.
doi: 10.1037/a0038798 pmid: 25688640 |
[12] |
Chen C., Zhang X., Sun L. P., Qin X., & Deng H. R.(2020). Trust is valued in proportion to its rarity? Investigating how and when feeling trusted leads to counterproductive work behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(3), 329-344.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00329 URL |
[ 陈晨, 张昕, 孙利平, 秦昕, 邓惠如.(2020). 信任以稀为贵? 下属感知被信任如何以及何时导致反生产行为. 心理学报, 52(3), 329-344. ] | |
[13] |
Connelly B. L., Crook T. R., Combs J. G., Ketchen Jr D. J., & Aguinis H.(2018). Competence-and integrity-based trust in interorganizational relationships: Which matters more? Journal of Management, 44(3), 919-945.
doi: 10.1177/0149206315596813 URL |
[14] |
Demerouti E., Bakker A. B., Nachreiner F., & Schaufeli W. B.(2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512.
pmid: 11419809 |
[15] |
Dietz B., van Knippenberg D., Hirst G., & Restubog S. L. D.(2015). Outperforming whom? A multilevel study of performance-prove goal orientation, performance, and the moderating role of shared team identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1811-1824.
doi: 10.1037/a0038888 pmid: 26011723 |
[16] |
Doney P. M., Cannon J. P., & Mullen M. R.(1998). Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 601-620.
doi: 10.5465/amr.1998.926629 URL |
[17] |
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.
doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1 URL |
[18] | Elliot A. J., & Harackiewicz J. M.(1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 70(3), 461-475. |
[19] |
Ferrin D. L., Kim P. H., Cooper C. D., & Dirks K. T.(2007). Silence speaks volumes: The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity-and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 893-908.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.893 URL |
[20] | Fiske S. T., Cuddy A. J. C., Glick P., & Xu J.(2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 82(6), 878- 902. |
[21] |
Gecas V.(1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8(1), 1-33.
doi: 10.1146/soc.1982.8.issue-1 URL |
[22] | Gómez C., & Rosen B.(2001). The leader-member exchange as a link between managerial trust and employee empowerment. Group & Organization Management, 26(1), 53-69. |
[23] |
Gupta V. K., & Turban D. M.(2008). The effect of gender stereotype activation on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1053-1061.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1053 URL |
[24] |
Hepper E. G., Gramzow R. H., & Sedikides C.(2010). Individual differences in self-enhancement and self-protection strategies: An integrative analysis. Journal of Personality, 78(2), 781- 814.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00633.x pmid: 20433637 |
[25] | Jin S. H.(2010). Social psychology (2nd Edition). Beijing: Higher Education Press. |
[ 金盛华.(2010). 社会心理学(第2版). 北京: 高等教育出版社. ] | |
[26] |
Kim P. H., Dirks K. T., Cooper C. D., & Ferrin D. L.(2006). When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence-vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 49-65.
doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.07.002 URL |
[27] |
Kim P. H., Ferrin D. L., Cooper C. D., & Dirks K. T.(2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence-versus integrity- based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 104-118.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.104 URL |
[28] | Kline R. B.(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). NY: Guilford. |
[29] |
Kray L. J., Thompson L., & Galinsky A.(2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 942-958.
pmid: 11414376 |
[30] |
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.
doi: 10.1002/job.1861 URL |
[31] |
Leary M. R.(2007). Motivational and emotional aspects of the self. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 317-344.
doi: 10.1146/psych.2007.58.issue-1 URL |
[32] | 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. |
[33] |
Lu X., Sun J.-M., Byrne Z., & Byrne Z.(2017). Multiple pathways linking leader-member exchange to work effort. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(4), 270-283.
doi: 10.1108/JMP-01-2016-0011 URL |
[34] |
Malhotra D., & Lumineau F.(2011). Trust and collaboration in the aftermath of conflict: The effects of contract structure. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 981-998.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.0683 URL |
[35] |
Markus H., & Wurf E.(1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38(1), 299-337.
doi: 10.1146/psych.1987.38.issue-1 URL |
[36] |
Matta F. K., Scott B. A., Colquitt J. A., Koopman J., & Passantino L. G.(2017). Is consistently unfair better than sporadically fair? An investigation of justice variability and stress. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 743-770.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0455 URL |
[37] |
Mayer R. C., & Davis J. H.(1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123-136.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123 URL |
[38] |
Mayer R. C., Davis J. H., & Schoorman F. D.(1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
doi: 10.2307/258792 URL |
[39] |
Mitchell M. S., Greenbaum R. L., Vogel R. M., Mawritz M. B., & Keating D. J.(2019). Can you handle the pressure? The effect of performance pressure on stress appraisals, self-regulation, and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 531-552.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0646 |
[40] | Morrison E. W., & Phelps C. C.(1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403-419. |
[41] |
Nerstad C. G. L., Searle R., Cerne M., Dysvik A., Skerlavaj M., & Scherer R.(2018). Perceived mastery climate, felt trust, and knowledge sharing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(4), 429-447.
doi: 10.1002/job.v39.4 URL |
[42] |
Nurmohamed S.(2020). The underdog effect: When low expectations increase performance. Academy of Management Journal, 63(4), 1106-1133.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2017.0181 URL |
[43] |
Ou A. Y., Tsui A. S., Kinicki A. J., Waldman D. A., Xiao Z., & Song L. J.(2014). Humble chief executive officers’ connections to top management team integration and middle managers’ responses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(1), 34-72.
doi: 10.1177/0001839213520131 URL |
[44] | Park J. G., Kim J. S., Yoon S. W., & Joo B.(2017). The effects of empowering leadership on psychological well- being and job engagement. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(3), 350-367. |
[45] |
Patall E. A., Sylvester B. J., & Han C.-W.(2014). The role of competence in the effects of choice on motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 27-44.
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.09.002 URL |
[46] | 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. |
[47] |
Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., & Podsakoff N. P.(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 pmid: 21838546 |
[48] |
Porath C. L., & Bateman T. S.(2006). Self-Regulation: From goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 185-192.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.185 URL |
[49] |
Qin X., Huang M., Johnson R. E., Hu Q., & 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.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.1325 URL |
[50] |
Rosenberg M.(1973). Which significant others? American Behavioral Scientist, 16(6), 829-860.
doi: 10.1177/000276427301600603 URL |
[51] |
Rousseau D. M., Sitkin S. B., Burt R. S., & Camerer C.(1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
doi: 10.5465/amr.1998.926617 URL |
[52] |
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.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.593 URL |
[53] |
Scheuer M. L., Burton J. P., Barber L. K., Finkelstein L. M., & Parker C. P.(2016). Linking abusive supervision to employee engagement and exhaustion. Organization Management Journal, 13(3), 138-147.
doi: 10.1080/15416518.2016.1214063 URL |
[54] |
Sedikides C., & Gregg A. P.(2008). Self-enhancement: Food for thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 102-116.
doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00068.x URL |
[55] |
Sedikides C., & Skowronski J. J.(2009). Social cognition and self-cognition: Two sides of the same evolutionary coin? European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(7), 1245-1249.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.v39:7 URL |
[56] | Sedikides C., & Strube M. J.(1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29(8), 209-269. |
[57] | Selig J. P., & Preacher K. J.(2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. |
[58] |
Shrauger J. S., & Lund A. K.(1975). Self-evaluation and reactions to evaluations from others. Journal of Personality, 43(1), 94-108.
pmid: 1142062 |
[59] |
Skinner D., Dietz G., & Weibel A.(2014). The dark side of trust: When trust becomes a ‘poisoned chalice’. Organization, 21(2), 206-224.
doi: 10.1177/1350508412473866 URL |
[60] | Spreitzer G. M.(1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465. |
[61] | Strube M. J., & Roemmele L. A.(1985). Self-enhancement, self-assessment, and self-evaluative task choice. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 49(4), 981-993. |
[62] |
Sun S., Song Z., & Lim V. K. G.(2013). Dynamics of the job search process: Developing and testing a mediated moderation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 771-784.
doi: 10.1037/a0033606 URL |
[63] | Taylor S. E., Neter E., & Wayment H. A.(1995). Self- evaluation processes. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(12), 1278-1287. |
[64] | Trope Y.(1979). Uncertainty-reducing properties of achievement tasks. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 37(9), 1505-1518. |
[65] |
Trope Y.(1980). Self-assessment, self-enhancement, and task preference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 116-129.
doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(80)90003-7 URL |
[66] |
Vandewalle D.(1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 995-1015.
doi: 10.1177/0013164497057006009 URL |
[67] |
Wang H. L., & Huang Q. H.(2019). The dark side of feeling trusted for hospitality employees: An investigation in two service contexts. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76, 122-131.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.04.001 URL |
[68] | Wang H. L., & Zhang Q. J.(2016). The cost of feeling trusted: The study on the effects of feeling trusted from supervisor, role overload, job stress and emotional exhaustion. Management World, (8), 110-125, 136. |
[ 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.] | |
[69] | Webster M., & Sobieszek B.(1974). Sources of self-evaluation: A formal theory of significant others and social influence. New York: John Wiley & Sons. |
[70] | Wheeler A. R., Harris K. J., & Sablynski C. J.(2012). How do employees invest abundant resources? The mediating role of work effort in the job-embeddedness/job-performance relationship. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(S1), E244-E266. |
[71] |
Wu C.-H., Liu J., Kwan H. K., & Lee C.(2016). Why and when workplace ostracism inhibits organizational citizenship behaviors: An organizational identification perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 362-378.
doi: 10.1037/apl0000063 URL |
[72] |
Wu J. Y., & Kwok O.-M.(2012). Using SEM to analyze complex survey data: A comparison between design-based single-level and model-based multilevel approaches. Structural Equation Modeling, 19(1), 16-35.
doi: 10.1080/10705511.2012.634703 URL |
[73] |
Yam K. C., Christian M. S., Wei W., Liao Z. Y., & Nai J.(2018). The mixed blessing of leader sense of humor: Examining costs and benefits. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 348-369.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.1088 URL |
[74] |
Yeo G. B., & Neal A.(2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: Effects of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 231-247.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.231 URL |
[1] | 李路云, 贾良定, 张熠婕, 魏良玉. 身份尴尬与身份辩护:劳务派遣员工组织身份发展过程[J]. 心理学报, 2023, 55(12): 2035-2058. |
[2] | 姜平, 张丽华. 委屈可以求全吗?自我表现视角下职场排斥对个体绩效的影响机制[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(4): 400-412. |
[3] | 郭功星, 程豹. 顾客授权行为对员工职业成长的影响:自我决定理论视角[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(2): 215-228. |
[4] | 朱金强, 徐世勇, 周金毅, 张柏楠, 许昉昉, 宗博强. 跨界行为对创造力影响的跨层次双刃剑效应[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(11): 1340-1351. |
[5] | 彭坚, 尹奎, 侯楠, 邹艳春, 聂琦. 如何激发员工绿色行为?绿色变革型领导与绿色人力资源管理实践的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(9): 1105-1120. |
[6] | 李树文, 罗瑾琏. 领导-下属情绪评价能力一致与员工建言:内部人身份感知与性别相似性的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(9): 1121-1131. |
[7] | 胡巧婷, 王海江, 龙立荣. 新员工工作重塑会带来积极的结果吗?领导成员交换与个体传统性的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(5): 659-668. |
[8] | 魏薇, 房俨然, 李剑南, 施俊琦, 莫申江. 冲突对绩效的影响:个体、团队宜人性的调节作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(3): 345-356. |
[9] | 陈晨, 张昕, 孙利平, 秦昕, 邓惠如. 信任以稀为贵?下属感知被信任如何以及何时导致反生产行为[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(3): 329-344. |
[10] | 章凯, 时金京, 罗文豪. 建言采纳如何促进员工建言:基于目标自组织视角的整合机制[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(2): 229-239. |
[11] | 罗萍, 施俊琦, 朱燕妮, 房俨然. 个性化工作协议对员工主动性职业行为和创造力的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(1): 81-92. |
[12] | 朱玥, 谢江佩, 金杨华, 施俊琦. 团队权力分布差异对团队冲突的影响:程序公平和合法性的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(7): 829-840. |
[13] | 杨德锋, 江霞, 宋倩文. 消费者何时愿意选择与规避群体关联的品牌?[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(6): 699-713. |
[14] | 季浩, 谢小云, 肖永平, 甘小乐, 冯雯. 权力层级与团队绩效关系:权力与地位的一致与背离[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(3): 366-382. |
[15] | 房俨然, 魏薇, 罗萍, 刘晓东, 施俊琦, 战宇杰. 员工负性情绪对情绪劳动策略的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(3): 353-365. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||