“行高人非”还是“见贤思齐”?职场上行比较对员工行为的双刃剑效应

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00658

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本研究基于压力认知评估理论, 从理性认知视角探讨了职场上行比较存在的提升自我和贬损他人效应, 以及驱动不同路径效应生效的边界条件和传导机制。本研究通过轮询设计, 在3个时间点收集了来自60个团队240位成员的720份人际配对样本, 并采用社会关系模型分析数据得出以下结论: 在低水平绩效证明目标导向情况下, 员工倾向于将上行比较对象评估为挑战, 进而激发员工向上行比较对象的学习行为; 相反, 在高水平绩效证明目标导向情况下, 员工倾向于将上行比较对象评估为威胁, 进而驱使员工采取针对上行比较对象的社会阻抑。

关键词: 职场上行比较, 压力认知评估理论, 绩效证明目标导向, 挑战性评估, 威胁性评估

Abstract:

Upward social comparison is common in workplaces, and many studies have identified its downsides, such as negative emotions and dysfunctional behaviors. However, a few studies have revealed positive effects, such as learning from comparison targets. These conflicting results suggest that the mechanism underlying the effect of upward social comparison in workplaces remains unclear. Furthermore, most research is based on social comparison theory, whereas few studies have explored upward social comparison through a cognitive lens. To fill these research gaps, we drew on the cognitive appraisal theory of stress to investigate upward social comparison in the workplace and determine how and when it yields (mal) adaptive behavioral outcomes.

We used a multi-wave, round-robin design to collect data. 270 employees from 65 teams agreed to participate. At Time 1, 270 employees were invited to assess their workplace upward social comparison, performance-prove goal orientation, social comparison orientation, learning goal orientation, and demographics. 251 employees provided valid responses (response rate=93%). Two weeks after Time 1, 251 employees were invited to evaluate their challenge and threat appraisals, and 240 employees provided valid responses (response rate=95.6%). Two weeks after Time 2, 240 employees were invited to report their learning behaviors towards their coworkers, and meanwhile, employees were invited their received social undermining from coworkers. 240 valid responses were received (response rate=100%). Finally, 720 dyads from 240 employees from 60 teams were used to test our proposed model.

Given that the dyads nested in employees and then employees nested within teams, we tested our hypothesis by multilevel social relations model. To test the conditional indirect effects, a Monte Carlo simulation with 20, 000 replications was used to generate the 95% Monte Carlo confidence intervals in R 3.5. The results showed that employees with low levels of performance-prove goal orientation tended to appraise upward social comparison as a challenge, which prompts learning from the comparison targets. However, employees with high levels of performance-prove goal orientation tended to appraise upward social comparison as a threat, motivating them to socially undermine the comparison targets.

Our study provides theoretical and practical implications. We reveal the double-edged effects of workplace upward social comparison on subsequent learning behaviors and social undermining through a cognitive rather than emotional lens. Our findings demonstrate how and why workplace upward social comparison drives employees to develop two distinct behavioral responses, from a novel theoretical perspective—the cognitive appraisal theory of stress. Finally, the performance-prove goal orientation determines the effects of workplace upward social comparison. Furthermore, our findings offer important practical implications to managers and policymakers.

Key words: workplace upward social comparison, the cognitive appraisal theory of stress, performance-prove goal orientation, challenge appraisals, threat appraisals

中图分类号:

B849: C93

宋琪, 张璐, 高莉芳, 程豹, 陈扬. (2023). “行高人非”还是“见贤思齐”?职场上行比较对员工行为的双刃剑效应. 心理学报, 55(4), 658-670.

SONG Qi, ZHANG Lu, GAO Lifang, CHENG Bao, CHEN Yang. (2023). Learn from others or put them down? The double-edged effect of upward social comparison in the workplace. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(4), 658-670.

图/表 7

参考文献 65

[1]	Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
[2]	Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452-471. doi: 10.2307/259136 URL
[3]	Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman and Company.
[4]	Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Ego depletion and self-control failure: An energy model of the self’s executive function. Self and Identity, 1(2), 129-136. doi: 10.1080/152988602317319302 URL
[5]	Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation and the executive function:The self as controlling agent. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins, S (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 516-539). New York: Guilford.
[6]	Bliese, P. D., Edwards, J. R., & Sonnentag, S. (2017). Stress and well-being at work: A century of empirical trends reflecting theoretical and societal influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 389-402. doi: 10.1037/apl0000109 pmid: 28125263
[7]	Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cross- cultural research and methodology series: Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). Sage Publications, Inc.
[8]	Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Heller, D., & Keeping, L. M. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of the frequency of upward and downward social comparisons at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 59-75. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.10.003 URL
[9]	Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 3-21. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.007 URL
[10]	Buunk, B. P., Zurriaga, R., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Subirats, M. (2003). Engaging in upward and downward comparisons as a determinant of relative deprivation at work: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(2), 370-388. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00015-5 URL
[11]	Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 201-212. doi: 10.1037/a0017868 pmid: 20085417
[12]	Campbell, E. M., Liao, H., Chuang, A., Zhou, J., & Dong, Y. (2017). Hot shots and cool reception? An expanded view of social consequences for high performers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(5), 845-866. doi: 10.1037/apl0000183 pmid: 28191991
[13]	Chun, J. S., Brockner, J., & de Cremer, D. (2018). How temporal and social comparisons in performance evaluation affect fairness perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 145, 1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.01.003 URL
[14]	D’Arcy,, J., Herath,, T., & Shoss,, M. K. (2014). Understanding employee responses to stressful information security requirements: A coping perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(2), 285-318. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222310210 URL
[15]	Darnon, C., Dompnier, B., Delmas, F., Pulfrey, C., & Butera, F. (2009). Achievement goal promotion at university: Social desirability and social utility of mastery and performance goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(1), 119-134. doi: 10.1037/a0012824 pmid: 19210069
[16]	Dierdorff, E. C., Surface, E. A., Harman, R. P., Kemp Ellington, J., & Watson, A. M. (2020). Ebb and flow of dispositional goal orientations: Exploring the consequences of within-person variability. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(2), 117-134. doi: 10.1007/s10869-018-9559-4
[17]	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
[18]	Downes, P. E., Crawford, E. R., Seibert, S. E., Stoverink, A. C., & Campbell, E. M. (2021). Referents or role models? The self-efficacy and job performance effects of perceiving higher performing peers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(3), 422-438. doi: 10.1037/apl0000519 URL
[19]	Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040 URL
[20]	Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256 URL
[21]	Eisenberger, R., & Aselage, J. (2009). Incremental effects of reward on experienced performance pressure: Positive outcomes for intrinsic interest and creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 95-117. doi: 10.1002/job.v30:1 URL
[22]	Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52-72). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
[23]	Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2×2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501-519. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501 pmid: 11300582
[24]	Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140. doi: 10.1177/001872675400700202 URL
[25]	Ganegoda, D. B., & Bordia, P. (2019). I can be happy for you, but not all the time: A contingency model of envy and positive empathy in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(6), 776-795. doi: 10.1037/apl0000377 pmid: 30556706
[26]	Ganster, D. C., & Rosen, C. C. (2013). Work stress and employee health: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1085-1122. doi: 10.1177/0149206313475815 URL
[27]	Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 129-142. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.76.1.129 pmid: 9972558
[28]	Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
[29]	Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
[30]	Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1984). The social relations model. In L. Berkowitz, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 141-182). Academic Press.
[31]	Kenny, D. A., & Wong, M. N. (2016). SRM_R: An interactive tool for estimating the Social Relations Model from directed dyadic data with round-robin-like designs[Computer software]. Available from https://davidakenny.shinyapps.io/SRM_R.
[32]	Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. (2014). Victimization of high performers: The roles of envy and work group identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 619-634. doi: 10.1037/a0035789 pmid: 24490964
[33]	Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta- analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 URL
[34]	Koopman, J., Lin, S. H., Lennard, A. C., Matta, F. K., & Johnson, R. E. (2020). My coworkers are treated more fairly than me! A self-regulatory perspective on justice social comparisons. Academy of Management Journal, 63(3), 857-880. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0586 URL
[35]	Lam, C. K., van der Vegt, G. S., Walter, F., & Huang, X. (2011). Harming high performers: A social comparison perspective on interpersonal harming in work teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 588-601. doi: 10.1037/a0021882 pmid: 21171734
[36]	Lam, C. K., Walter, F., & Lawrence, S. A. (2021). Emotion suppression and perceptions of interpersonal citizenship behavior: Faking in good faith or bad faith? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(3), 365-387. doi: 10.1002/job.v42.3 URL
[37]	Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
[38]	Lee, K., & Duffy, M. K. (2019). A functional model of workplace envy and job performance: When do employees capitalize on envy by learning from envied targets? Academy of Management Journal, 62(4), 1085-1110. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.1202 URL
[39]	LePine, M. A., Zhang, Y., Crawford, E. R., & Rich, B. L. (2016). Turning their pain to gain: Charismatic leader influence on follower stress appraisal and job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1036-1059. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0778 URL
[40]	Li, C. S., Liao, H., & Han, Y. (2022). I despise but also envy you: A dyadic investigation of perceived overqualification, perceived relative qualification, and knowledge hiding. Personnel Psychology, 75(3), 91-118. doi: 10.1111/peps.v75.1 URL
[41]	Liu, D. G., Zhu, W. C., Li, W. D., Zhu, T., & Liu, F. (2019). Perspectives, divergences, and future directions in organizational envy research. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(10), 1780-1792. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.01780 URL
	[刘得格, 朱伟春, 李文东, 朱婷, 刘芳. (2019). 组织行为学领域妒忌研究的不同视角、分歧和未来方向. 心理科学进展, 27(10), 1780-1792.]
[42]	Liu, D. P., & Gao, X. Y. (2021). The effect of organizational (in)justice on organizational retaliation behavior and the underlying mechanisms. Advances in Psychological Science, 29(12), 2260-2271. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.02260 URL
	[刘德鹏, 高翔宇. (2021). 组织(不)公正对组织报复行为的影响及其机制. 心理科学进展, 29(12), 2260-2271.]
[43]	Ma, J., Peng, Y., & Wu, B. (2021). Challenging or hindering? The roles of goal orientation and cognitive appraisal in stressor-performance relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(3), 388-406. doi: 10.1002/job.v42.3 URL
[44]	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
[45]	Pan, J., Zheng, X., Xu, H., Li, J., & Lam, C. K. (2021). What if my coworker builds a better LMX? The roles of envy and coworker pride for the relationships of LMX social comparison with learning and undermining. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(9), 1144-1167. doi: 10.1002/job.v42.9 URL
[46]	Pettit, N. C., Sivanathan, N., Gladstone, E., & Marr, J. C. (2013). Rising stars and sinking ships: Consequences of status momentum. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1579-1584. doi: 10.1177/0956797612473120 pmid: 23798464
[47]	Poortvliet, P. M., & Darnon, C. (2010). Toward a more social understanding of achievement goals: The interpersonal effects of mastery and performance goals. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 324-328. doi: 10.1177/0963721410383246 URL
[48]	Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209-233. doi: 10.1037/a0020141 pmid: 20822249
[49]	Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park: Sage.
[50]	Reh, S., Tröster, C., & van Quaquebeke, N. (2018). Keeping (future) rivals down: Temporal social comparison predicts coworker social undermining via future status threat and envy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(4), 399-415. doi: 10.1037/apl0000281 pmid: 29239645
[51]	Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 255-267. pmid: 12002954
[52]	Smith, R. H. (2000). Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward social comparisons. In: Suls, J., Wheeler, L. (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison (pp. 173-200). The Springer Series in Social Clinical Psychology. Springer, Boston, MA.
[53]	Sun, J., Li, W. D., Li, Y., Liden, R. C., Li, S., & Zhang, X. (2021). Unintended consequences of being proactive? Linking proactive personality to coworker envy, helping, and undermining, and the moderating role of prosocial motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(2), 250-267. doi: 10.1037/apl0000494 URL
[54]	Tai, K., Lin, K. J., Lam, C. K., & Liu, W. (2022). Biting the hand that feeds: A status-based model of when and why receiving help motivates social undermining. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advanced online publication. 10.1037/apl0000580.
[55]	Tang, Y. P., Jia, R. W., Long, L. R., Ren, Z. Y., & Pu, X. P. (2022). The double-edged sword of employee authenticity in coworker interactions: The moderating role of relationship duration. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(5), 529-548. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00529 URL
	[汤一鹏, 贾荣雯, 龙立荣, 任芷宇, 蒲小萍. (2022). 员工真诚对同事关系的双刃剑效应: 共事时间的调节作用. 心理学报, 54(5), 529-548.]
[56]	Tang, Y., Lam, C. K., Ouyang, K., Huang, X., & Tse, H. H. (2022). Comparisons draw us close: The influence of leader-member exchange dyadic comparison on coworker exchange. Personnel Psychology, 75(4), 215-240. doi: 10.1111/peps.v75.1 URL
[57]	To, C., Kilduff, G. J., & Rosikiewicz, B. L. (2020). When interpersonal competition helps and when it harms: An integration via challenge and threat. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 908-934. doi: 10.5465/annals.2016.0145 URL
[58]	To, M. L., Lam, C. K., Janssen, O., & Lin, X. S. (2021). Anger displays and integrative behavior among work dyads in teams: A regulatory fit approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(4), 464-482. doi: 10.1002/job.v42.4 URL
[59]	Tse, H. H., Lam, C. K., Gu, J., & Lin, X. S. (2018). Examining the interpersonal process and consequence of leader- member exchange comparison: The role of procedural justice climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(8), 922-940. doi: 10.1002/job.v39.8 URL
[60]	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
[61]	Watkins, T. (2021). Workplace interpersonal capitalization: Employee reactions to coworker positive event disclosures. Academy of Management Journal, 64(2), 537-561. doi: 10.5465/amj.2018.1339 URL
[62]	Watson, A. M., Foster Thompson, L., Rudolph, J. V., Whelan, T. J., Behrend, T. S., & Gissel, A. L. (2013). When big brother is watching: Goal orientation shapes reactions to electronic monitoring during online training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 642-657. doi: 10.1037/a0032002 pmid: 23438294
[63]	Xing, S. F., & Yu, G. L. (2006). Social comparison: Contrast effect or assimilation effect? Advances in Psychological Science, 14(6), 944-949.
	[邢淑芬, 俞国良. (2006). 社会比较:对化效应还是同化效应. 心理科学进展, 14(6), 944-949.]
[64]	Xu, T., Zhang, M. Q., Wang, X. T., Huang, Z. F., & Jiao, C. (2015). Application of social relation model in psychology. Advances in Psychological Science, 23(3), 520-528. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.00520 URL
	[徐桃, 张敏强, 王小婷, 黄兆锋, 焦璨. (2015). 社会关系模型在心理研究中的应用. 心理科学进展, 23(3), 520-528.]
[65]	Zhang, M. J., Law, K. S., & Wang, L. (2021). The risks and benefits of initiating change at work: Social consequences for proactive employees who take charge. Personnel Psychology, 74(4), 721-750. doi: 10.1111/peps.v74.4 URL

变异来源	A对B的挑战性评估			A对B的威胁性评估			A向B的学习行为			A对B的社会阻抑
变异来源	估值	%	SE	估值	%	SE	估值	%	SE	估值	%	SE
团队	0.18	20.4%	0.42	0.24	37.4%	0.49	0.10	33.0%	0.32	0.06	22.7%	0.24
A的影响	0.01	0.7%	0.08	0.21	33.4%	0.46	0.14	45.7%	0.38	0.11	41.6%	0.32
B的影响	0.51	58.6%	0.72	0.003	0.4%	0.05	0.00	0.0%	0.00	0.01	2.0%	0.07
A与B的关系	0.18	20.3%	0.42	0.18	28.7%	0.43	0.07	21.3%	0.26	0.09	33.8%	0.29

变异来源	A对B的挑战性评估			A对B的威胁性评估			A向B的学习行为			A对B的社会阻抑
变异来源	估值	%	SE	估值	%	SE	估值	%	SE	估值	%	SE
团队	0.18	20.4%	0.42	0.24	37.4%	0.49	0.10	33.0%	0.32	0.06	22.7%	0.24
A的影响	0.01	0.7%	0.08	0.21	33.4%	0.46	0.14	45.7%	0.38	0.11	41.6%	0.32
B的影响	0.51	58.6%	0.72	0.003	0.4%	0.05	0.00	0.0%	0.00	0.01	2.0%	0.07
A与B的关系	0.18	20.3%	0.42	0.18	28.7%	0.43	0.07	21.3%	0.26	0.09	33.8%	0.29

变量	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1. 团队规模(团队层次)	-
2. 团队年龄(团队层次)	0.19^**	-
3. B的年龄(个体层次)	-0.02	0.06	-
4. B的性别(个体层次)	0.15^**	0.00	0.12^**	-
5. B的学历(个体层次)	-0.01	0.05	-0.16^**	-0.04	-
6. B的工作年限(个体层次)	0.09^*	0.08^*	0.69^**	0.04	-0.16^**	-
7. A的年龄(个体层次)	-0.02	0.06	0.05	0.00	-0.02	0.07	-
8. A的性别(个体层次)	0.15^**	0.00	0.00	0.15^**	-0.01	0.02	0.12^**	-
9. A的学历(个体层次)	-0.01	0.05	-0.02	-0.01	0.23^**	-0.03	-0.16^**	-0.04	-
10. A的工作年限(个体层次)	0.09^*	0.08^*	0.07	0.02	-0.02	0.12^**	0.69^**	0.04	-0.16^**	-
11. A的社会比较倾向(个体层次)	0.14^**	-0.01	0.08^*	0.00	-0.13^**	0.04	0.03	0.03	-0.16^**	0.01	(0.90)
12. A的学习目标导向(个体层次)	0.04	0.01	0.04	-0.03	-0.16^**	0.05	0.17^**	0.05	-0.08^*	0.09^*	0.04	(0.88)
13. A与B的职场上行比较(人际层次)	-0.11^**	0.00	0.14^**	-0.07^*	0.00	0.19^**	-0.03	-0.02	-0.06	-0.03	0.16^**	-0.14^**	(0.90)
14. A的绩效证明目标导向(个体层次)	0.05	-0.11^**	-0.06	0.04	-0.10^**	-0.10^**	0.04	0.15^**	-0.10^**	-0.08^*	0.09^*	0.33^**	-0.18^**	(0.89)
15. A对B的挑战性评估(人际层次)	-0.04	-0.22^**	0.09^*	0.05	0.01	0.08^*	0.08^*	0.06	0.01	0.04	0.06	0.07	0.12^**	-0.02	(0.93)
16. A对B的威胁性评估(人际层次)	0.07	0.08^*	-0.12^**	0.02	0.03	-0.10^**	-0.13^**	-0.02	0.03	-0.08^*	0.26^**	-0.16^**	0.10^*	-0.03	-0.10^**	(094)
17. A向B的学习行为(人际层次)	0.20^**	-0.15^**	-0.02	0.17^**	-0.02	-0.03	-0.06	0.19^**	-0.05	-0.08^*	0.10^**	0.10^**	-0.03	0.12^**	0.25^**	-0.06	(0.81)
18. A对B的社会阻抑(人际层次)	0.03	0.03	-0.05	-0.08	-0.08^*	-0.07	0.00	-0.02	-0.10^*	0.00	0.14^**	-0.09^*	0.08^*	0.04	-0.14^**	0.30^**	-0.10^**	(0.74)
M	26.77	8.52	30.55	0.64	3.61	5.06	30.55	0.64	3.61	5.07	3.11	3.89	2.62	3.30	3.60	1.97	4.17	1.54
SD	19.36	4.97	6.41	0.48	0.57	4.83	6.41	0.48	0.57	4.83	0.66	0.61	0.65	0.76	0.93	0.80	0.56	0.50

变量	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1. 团队规模(团队层次)	-
2. 团队年龄(团队层次)	0.19^**	-
3. B的年龄(个体层次)	-0.02	0.06	-
4. B的性别(个体层次)	0.15^**	0.00	0.12^**	-
5. B的学历(个体层次)	-0.01	0.05	-0.16^**	-0.04	-
6. B的工作年限(个体层次)	0.09^*	0.08^*	0.69^**	0.04	-0.16^**	-
7. A的年龄(个体层次)	-0.02	0.06	0.05	0.00	-0.02	0.07	-
8. A的性别(个体层次)	0.15^**	0.00	0.00	0.15^**	-0.01	0.02	0.12^**	-
9. A的学历(个体层次)	-0.01	0.05	-0.02	-0.01	0.23^**	-0.03	-0.16^**	-0.04	-
10. A的工作年限(个体层次)	0.09^*	0.08^*	0.07	0.02	-0.02	0.12^**	0.69^**	0.04	-0.16^**	-
11. A的社会比较倾向(个体层次)	0.14^**	-0.01	0.08^*	0.00	-0.13^**	0.04	0.03	0.03	-0.16^**	0.01	(0.90)
12. A的学习目标导向(个体层次)	0.04	0.01	0.04	-0.03	-0.16^**	0.05	0.17^**	0.05	-0.08^*	0.09^*	0.04	(0.88)
13. A与B的职场上行比较(人际层次)	-0.11^**	0.00	0.14^**	-0.07^*	0.00	0.19^**	-0.03	-0.02	-0.06	-0.03	0.16^**	-0.14^**	(0.90)
14. A的绩效证明目标导向(个体层次)	0.05	-0.11^**	-0.06	0.04	-0.10^**	-0.10^**	0.04	0.15^**	-0.10^**	-0.08^*	0.09^*	0.33^**	-0.18^**	(0.89)
15. A对B的挑战性评估(人际层次)	-0.04	-0.22^**	0.09^*	0.05	0.01	0.08^*	0.08^*	0.06	0.01	0.04	0.06	0.07	0.12^**	-0.02	(0.93)
16. A对B的威胁性评估(人际层次)	0.07	0.08^*	-0.12^**	0.02	0.03	-0.10^**	-0.13^**	-0.02	0.03	-0.08^*	0.26^**	-0.16^**	0.10^*	-0.03	-0.10^**	(094)
17. A向B的学习行为(人际层次)	0.20^**	-0.15^**	-0.02	0.17^**	-0.02	-0.03	-0.06	0.19^**	-0.05	-0.08^*	0.10^**	0.10^**	-0.03	0.12^**	0.25^**	-0.06	(0.81)
18. A对B的社会阻抑(人际层次)	0.03	0.03	-0.05	-0.08	-0.08^*	-0.07	0.00	-0.02	-0.10^*	0.00	0.14^**	-0.09^*	0.08^*	0.04	-0.14^**	0.30^**	-0.10^**	(0.74)
M	26.77	8.52	30.55	0.64	3.61	5.06	30.55	0.64	3.61	5.07	3.11	3.89	2.62	3.30	3.60	1.97	4.17	1.54
SD	19.36	4.97	6.41	0.48	0.57	4.83	6.41	0.48	0.57	4.83	0.66	0.61	0.65	0.76	0.93	0.80	0.56	0.50

步骤与变量	A对B的挑战性评估						A对B的威胁性评估
	模型1		模型2		模型3		模型4		模型5		模型6
	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
控制变量
团队规模(团队层次)	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
团队年龄(团队层次)	−0.04^*	0.02	−0.04^*	0.02	−0.04^*	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01
B的年龄(个体层次)	−0.01	0.00	−0.01	0.00	−0.01	0.00	−0.01	0.00	−0.01	0.00	−0.01	0.00
B的性别(个体层次)	0.03	0.05	0.04	0.05	0.04	0.05	0.10^*	0.04	0.10^*	0.04	0.10^*	0.04
B的学历(个体层次)	−0.00	0.04	−0.00	0.04	−0.00	0.04	0.03	0.04	0.02	0.04	0.02	0.04
B的工作年限(个体层次)	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	−0.00	0.01	−0.00	0.01	−0.00	0.01
A的年龄(个体层次)	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01	−0.01	0.01	−0.01	0.01	−0.01	0.01
A的性别(个体层次)	0.07	0.09	0.07	0.09	0.07	0.09	0.02	0.09	0.01	0.09	0.00	0.09
A的学历(个体层次)	0.00	0.07	0.00	0.07	0.01	0.07	0.06	0.07	0.07	0.07	0.06	0.07
A的工作年限(个体层次)	−0.01	0.01	−0.01	0.01	−0.01	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01
A的社会比较倾向(个体层次)	−0.05	0.08	−0.03	0.08	−0.01	0.08	0.26^***	0.07	0.25^***	0.07	0.22^**	0.07
A的学习目标导向(个体层次)	0.00	0.07	0.06	0.08	0.06	0.08	−0.12	0.07	−0.11	0.08	−0.11	0.07
Δχ²(12)	17.71						29.70^***
自变量
A与B的职场上行比较(人际层次)			0.09	0.05	0.09	0.05			0.09	0.05	0.09	0.05
A的绩效证明目标导向(个体层次)			−0.09	0.06	−0.06	0.06			0.03	0.06	−0.01	0.06
Δχ²(2)			10.34^**						0.27
交互项
A与B的职场上行比较×A的绩效证明目标导向(跨层交互)					−0.18^*	0.07					0.22^**	0.07
Δχ²(1)					5.40^*						6.84^**