辱虐管理变化的动态前因：一个潜变化分数模型

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0479

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在辱虐管理前因研究中, 以往研究主要关注辱虐管理持续高水平的前因, 然而文献对于辱虐管理变化(增加或减少)的前因却知之甚少。基于社会互动理论和趋近−回避框架, 本研究探讨了领导辱虐管理变化通过下属趋近−回避行为变化的中介作用对领导后续辱虐管理变化的差异化效应。通过对配对的263位领导和263位下属进行四阶段的追踪研究, 潜变化分数模型结果表明：(1)领导辱虐管理变化通过下属建设性趋近行为(如建设性抵抗)变化、破坏性趋近行为(如功能失调抵抗)变化和回避行为(如防御性沉默)变化的平行中介作用差异化影响领导后续辱虐管理变化。(2)领导自恋调节下属建设性抵抗变化和防御性沉默变化的平行中介路径。本文的研究发现不仅为辱虐管理变化的动态前因研究提供了更加全面和辩证的视角, 而且从领导−下属双向视角为辱虐管理的化解之道提供了实践启示。

关键词: 辱虐管理, 社会互动理论, 趋近?回避框架, 自恋, 潜变化分数模型

Abstract:

The antecedents of abusive supervision have received heightened attention from researchers and practitioners in recent years. However, there are two unresolved issues related to current research on the antecedents of abusive supervision. First, traditional research considers abusive supervision to be a static leadership behavior, ignoring the dynamic nature of abusive supervision. Although recent studies have embraced a dynamic perspective to focus on the changes in abusive supervision at different time points during the interaction between leaders and subordinates, these studies are still exploring the antecedents of high levels of abusive supervision at specific points in time. Existing theories and findings on abusive supervision (variable level → abusive supervision level) cannot explain the dynamic antecedents of changes in abusive supervision in dynamic leader−follower interactions (variable change → abusive supervision change). Second, the existing literature lacks a framework to integrate the different effects of leader−follower interactions on abusive supervision. To overcome the previously discussed issues, based on social interaction theory and the approach−avoidance framework, we propose that changes in subordinates’ approach−avoidance behaviors mediate the effects of changes in former abusive supervision on changes in subsequent abusive supervision, and leader narcissism moderates the proposed indirect pathways.

This study conducted a four-wave longitudinal study on 263 leaders and 263 subordinates. In the first-wave survey, leaders reported abusive supervision during the previous two weeks, as well as narcissism, agreeableness, and demographic variables; meanwhile, subordinates reported demographic variables. In the second-wave survey, leaders reported abusive supervision during the previous two weeks, and subordinates reported constructive resistance, dysfunctional resistance, and defensive silence during the previous two weeks. In the third-wave survey, leaders reported abusive supervision during the previous two weeks, and subordinates reported constructive resistance, dysfunctional resistance, and defensive silence during the previous two weeks. Finally, in the fourth-wave survey, leaders reported abusive supervision during the previous two weeks. Using Mplus 8.3 and R 4.2.1, we constructed a latent change score model and conducted Monte Carlo simulations to examine the theoretical model.

Empirical results supported our theoretical model and indicated the following: (1) Changes in former abusive supervision had different indirect effects on changes in subsequent abusive supervision through parallel mediators of changes in subordinate’s constructive approach-oriented behavior (i.e., constructive resistance), changes in destructive approach-oriented behavior (i.e., dysfunctional resistance), and changes in avoidance-oriented behavior (i.e., defensive silence). Specifically, changes in former abusive supervision had a negative indirect effect on changes in subsequent abusive supervision through changes in constructive resistance. Changes in former abusive supervision had a positive indirect effect on changes in subsequent abusive supervision through changes in dysfunctional resistance and changes in defensive silence. (2) Leader narcissism moderated the two proposed indirect pathways. Specifically, the negative indirect effect of former abusive supervision on changes in subsequent abusive supervision through changes in constructive resistance is stronger when leader narcissism is high; the positive indirect effect of former abusive supervision on changes in subsequent abusive supervision through changes in defensive silence is stronger when leader narcissism is high.

The study makes several theoretical contributions. First, we adopt a latent change score approach to determine the dynamic antecedents of change in abusive supervision, which shifts the direction of abusive supervision research from “level of abusive supervision” to “changes in abusive supervision, ” providing not only new perspectives but also more precise and rigorous causal analyses. Second, we integrate the differential mediating effects of changes in constructive resistance, changes in destructive resistance, and changes in defensive silence in the process of “changes in abusive supervision → changes in subordinates’ approach-avoidance behavior → changes in abusive supervision”, providing a more comprehensive and dialectical perspective for the study of the dynamic antecedents of changes in abusive supervision. Third, by exploring the combined positive and negative moderation effects of leader narcissism, we reinforce the boundary conditions of the dynamic antecedents of changes in abusive supervision from a more comprehensive and dialectical perspective.

Key words: abusive supervision, social interaction theory, approach?avoidance framework, narcissism, latent change score model

中图分类号:

B849: C93

王永跃, 王静, 刘军, 金杨华. (2025). 辱虐管理变化的动态前因：一个潜变化分数模型. 心理学报, 57(3), 479-494.

WANG Yongyue, WANG Jing, LIU Jun, JIN Yanghua. (2025). Dynamic antecedents of changes in abusive supervision: A latent change score model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(3), 479-494.

图/表 9

参考文献 50

[1]	Ahmad, M. G., Klotz, A. C., & Bolino, M. C. (2021). Can good followers create unethical leaders? How follower citizenship leads to leader moral licensing and unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(9), 1374-1390.
[2]	Ben-Sira, Z. (1976). The function of the professional’s affective behavior in client satisfaction: A revised approach to social interaction theory. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 17(1), 3-11. pmid: 1270783
[3]	Campbell, W. K., Bush, C. P., Brunell, A. B., & Shelton, J. (2005). Understanding the social costs of narcissism: The case of the tragedy of the commons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1358-1368. pmid: 16143668
[4]	Camps, J., Stouten, J., Euwema, M., & de Cremer, D. (2020). Abusive supervision as a response to follower hostility: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(3), 495-514.
[5]	Elliot, A. J. (2008). Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation. New York: Psychology Press.
[6]	Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 11-17. pmid: 3820065
[7]	Ferris, D. L., Yan, M., Lim, V. K. G., Chen, Y., & Fatimah, S. (2016). An approach-avoidance framework of workplace aggression. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1777-1800.
[8]	Fischer, T., Tian, A. W., Lee, A., & Hughes, D. J. (2021). Abusive supervision: A systematic review and fundamental rethink. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(6), Article 101540.
[9]	Gauglitz, I. K., Schyns, B., Fehn, T., & Schütz, A. (2023). The dark side of leader narcissism: The relationship between leaders’ narcissistic rivalry and abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 185(1), 169-184.
[10]	Goswami, A., Nair, P. K., & Grossenbacher, M. A. (2015). Impact of aggressive humor on dysfunctional resistance. Personality and Individual Differences, 74(2), 265-269.
[11]	Güntner, A. V., Klasmeier, K. N., Klonek, F. E., & Kauffeld, S. (2021). The power of followers that do not follow: Investigating the effects of follower resistance, leader implicit followership theories and leader negative affect on the emergence of destructive leader behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 28(3), 349-365.
[12]	Haggard, D. L., & Park, H. M. (2018). Perceived supervisor remorse, abusive supervision, and LMX. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(10), 1252-1267.
[13]	Hao, L. L., Zhu, H., He, Y. Q., Duan, J. Y., Zhao, T., & Meng, H. (2022). When is silence golden? A meta-analysis on antecedents and outcomes of employee silence. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(5), 1039-1063.
[14]	Hemshorn de Sanchez, C. S., Gerpott, F. H., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2022). A review and future agenda for behavioral research on leader-follower interactions at different temporal scopes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(2), 342-368.
[15]	Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28-41. doi: 10.1177/1073191113514105 pmid: 24322012
[16]	Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Shoss, M. K., Garcia, P. R. J. M., & Tang, R. L. (2016). Suffering in silence: Investigating the role of fear in the relationship between abusive supervision and defensive silence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(5), 731-742. doi: 10.1037/apl0000074 pmid: 26727209
[17]	Li, W.-D., Li, S., Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2019). Reciprocal relationships between dispositional optimism and work experiences: A five-wave longitudinal investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(12), 1471-1486.
[18]	Li, W.-D., Wang, J., Allen, T., Zhang, X., Yu, K., Zhang, H., Huang, J. L., Liu, M., & Li, A. (2024). Getting under the skin? Influences of work-family experiences on personality trait adaptation and reciprocal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126(4), 694-718.
[19]	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(4), 651-664. doi: 10.1037/a0035498 pmid: 24377392
[20]	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.
[21]	Liu, C., Liu, J., Zhu, L., & Wu, S. (2017). The causes of abusive supervision from the perspective of rule- adaptation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(7), 966-979.
	[刘超, 刘军, 朱丽, 武守强. (2017). 规则适应视角下辱虐管理的成因机制. 心理学报, 49(7), 966-979.]
[22]	Liu, W., Zhu, Y., Bai, Y., Wang, H., & Han, Y. (2022). Indulge in self-admiration or offer help to others? The influence of employee narcissism on prosocial behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(3), 300-312. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00300
	[刘文兴, 祝养浩, 柏阳, 王海江, 韩翼. (2022). 孤芳自赏还是乐于助人?员工自恋对亲社会行为的影响. 心理学报, 54(3), 300-312.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00300
[23]	Ma, J., & Zhang, R. (2022). Mindfulness and trust: How to prevent the compensatory abusive behaviors of the low- status supervisors?. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(5), 566-581.
	[马君, 张锐. (2022). 权重望寡: 如何化解低地位领导的补偿性辱虐管理行为?. 心理学报, 54(5), 566-581.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00566
[24]	Ma, J., & Zhu, M. (2023). A cross-lagged study on spiral of abusive supervision in workplace. Journal of Systems & Management, 32(4), 812-824.
	[马君, 朱梦霆. (2023). 职场辱虐螺旋效应的交叉滞后研究. 系统管理学报, 32(4), 812-824.]
[25]	Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1940-1965.
[26]	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(4), 1159-1168. pmid: 17638473
[27]	Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2012). Employees’ behavioral reactions to supervisor aggression: An examination of individual and situational factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1148-1170. doi: 10.1037/a0029452 pmid: 22845682
[28]	Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177-196.
[29]	Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., Palmer, J. C., Halliday, C. S., & Blass, F. R. (2022). The role of stress mindsets and coping in improving the personal growth, engagement, and health of small business owners. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(8), 1310-1329.
[30]	Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36(1), 94-120.
[31]	Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 pmid: 14516251
[32]	Priesemuth, M., & Bigelow, B. (2020). It hurts me too! (or not?): Exploring the negative implications for abusive bosses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(4), 410-421. doi: 10.1037/apl0000447 pmid: 31448931
[33]	Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Mediation models for longitudinal data in developmental research. Research in Human Development, 6(2-3), 144-164.
[34]	Simon, L. S., Hurst, C., Kelley, K., & Judge, T. A. (2015). Understanding cycles of abuse: A multimotive approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1798-1810. doi: 10.1037/apl0000031 pmid: 26011719
[35]	Stouten, J., Tripp, T. M., Bies, R. J., & Cremer, D. D. (2019). When something is not right: The value of silence. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(3), 323-333. doi: 10.5465/amp.2017.0003
[36]	Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. Washington: American Psychological Association.
[37]	Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190.
[38]	Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261-289.
[39]	Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 974-983. pmid: 11596813
[40]	Tepper, B. J., Simon, L., & Park, H. M. (2017). Abusive supervision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 123-152.
[41]	Turner, J. H. (1988). A theory of social interaction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[42]	Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359-1392.
[43]	Wang, H. Z., Geng, Z. Z., Ding, L., & Shan, C. X. (2022). Antecedents of abusive supervision. Advances in Psychological Science, 30(4), 906-921. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00906
	[王海珍, 耿紫珍, 丁琳, 单春霞. (2022). 辱虐管理的成因. 心理科学进展, 30(4), 906-921.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00906
[44]	Wang, Y. W., Fu, C., Ren, X. F., Lin, Y. Z., Guo, F. B., Zhang, Z., ... Zheng, Y. W. (2017). Narcissistic personality modulates outcome evaluation in the trust game. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(8), 1080-1088.
	[王益文, 付超, 任相峰, 林羽中, 郭丰波, 张振, ... 郑玉玮. (2017). 自恋人格调节信任博弈的结果评价. 心理学报, 49(8), 1080-1088.]
[45]	Wee, E. X., Liao, H., Liu, D., & Liu, J. (2017). Moving from abuse to reconciliation: A power-dependence perspective on when and how a follower can break the spiral of abuse. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2352-2380.
[46]	Wong, C. S., Peng, K. Z., Shi, J. Q., & Mao, Y. N. (2011). Differences between odd number and even number response formats: Evidence from mainland Chinese respondents. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(2), 379-399.
[47]	Zacher, H., Schmitt, A., Jimmieson, N. L., & Rudolph, C. W. (2019). Dynamic effects of personal initiative on engagement and exhaustion: The role of mood, autonomy, and support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(1), 38-58.
[48]	Zhang, X., Yu, K., Li, W.-D., & Zacher, H. (2023). Sustainability of passion for work? Change-related reciprocal relationships between passion and job crafting. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231207343
[49]	Zhang, Y., & Chen, W. (2012). The exploration of the self-reports on workplace deviant behavior. Science Research Management, 33(11), 76-83.
	[张燕, 陈维政. (2012). 工作场所偏离行为研究中自我报告法应用探讨. 科研管理, 33(11), 76-83.]
[50]	Zhang, Y., Liu, X., & Chen, W. (2020). Fight and flight: A contingency model of third parties’ approach-avoidance reactions to peer abusive supervision. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(6), 767-782.

模型	χ²	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
测量时间点：Time1
两因子模型(AST1; N)	7.41	8	1.00	1.00	0.00	0.02
单因子模型(AST1+N)	838.68	9	0.46	0.10	0.59	0.29
测量时间点：Time2
四因子模型(AST2; DRT2; CRT2; ST2)	51.60	48	1.00	1.00	0.02	0.03
三因子模型(AST2+DRT2; CRT2; ST2)	491.37	51	0.81	0.76	0.18	0.12
二因子模型(AST2+DRT2+CRT2; ST2)	831.04	53	0.67	0.59	0.24	0.17
单因子模型(AST2+DRT2+CRT2+ST2)	1234.52	54	0.50	0.39	0.29	0.20
测量时间点：Time3
四因子模型(CRT3; DRT3; ST3; AST3)	94.70	48	0.98	0.98	0.06	0.04
三因子模型(CRT3+DRT3; ST3; AST3)	933.57	51	0.67	0.58	0.26	0.22
二因子模型(CRT3+DRT3+ST3; AST3)	1580.64	53	0.44	0.30	0.33	0.28
单因子模型(CRT3+DRT3+ST3+AST3)	1899.73	54	0.32	0.17	0.36	0.23
测量时间点：Time4
单因子模型(AST4)	0.00	0	1.00	1.00	0.00	0.00

模型	χ²	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
测量时间点：Time1
两因子模型(AST1; N)	7.41	8	1.00	1.00	0.00	0.02
单因子模型(AST1+N)	838.68	9	0.46	0.10	0.59	0.29
测量时间点：Time2
四因子模型(AST2; DRT2; CRT2; ST2)	51.60	48	1.00	1.00	0.02	0.03
三因子模型(AST2+DRT2; CRT2; ST2)	491.37	51	0.81	0.76	0.18	0.12
二因子模型(AST2+DRT2+CRT2; ST2)	831.04	53	0.67	0.59	0.24	0.17
单因子模型(AST2+DRT2+CRT2+ST2)	1234.52	54	0.50	0.39	0.29	0.20
测量时间点：Time3
四因子模型(CRT3; DRT3; ST3; AST3)	94.70	48	0.98	0.98	0.06	0.04
三因子模型(CRT3+DRT3; ST3; AST3)	933.57	51	0.67	0.58	0.26	0.22
二因子模型(CRT3+DRT3+ST3; AST3)	1580.64	53	0.44	0.30	0.33	0.28
单因子模型(CRT3+DRT3+ST3+AST3)	1899.73	54	0.32	0.17	0.36	0.23
测量时间点：Time4
单因子模型(AST4)	0.00	0	1.00	1.00	0.00	0.00

模型	χ²	df	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA	ΔSRMR
辱虐管理
形态等值	265.707	134	0.958	0.061	0.047	—	—	—
单位等值	279.633	146	0.958	0.059	0.055	0.000	−0.002	0.008
尺度等值	377.036	161	0.932	0.071	0.079	−0.026	0.012	0.024
建设性抵抗
形态等值	70.453	29	0.956	0.074	0.044	—	—	—
单位等值	75.592	33	0.955	0.070	0.047	−0.001	−0.004	0.003
尺度等值	83.922	38	0.952	0.068	0.051	−0.003	−0.002	0.004
功能失调抵抗
形态等值	295.458	125	0.941	0.072	0.043	—	—	—
单位等值	310.289	133	0.939	0.071	0.050	−0.002	−0.001	0.007
尺度等值	373.228	142	0.920	0.079	0.057	−0.019	0.008	0.007
防御性沉默
形态等值	92.262	29	0.953	0.091	0.056	—	—	—
单位等值	104.419	33	0.947	0.091	0.063	−0.006	0.000	0.007
尺度等值	118.532	38	0.940	0.090	0.067	−0.007	−0.001	0.004

模型	χ²	df	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA	ΔSRMR
辱虐管理
形态等值	265.707	134	0.958	0.061	0.047	—	—	—
单位等值	279.633	146	0.958	0.059	0.055	0.000	−0.002	0.008
尺度等值	377.036	161	0.932	0.071	0.079	−0.026	0.012	0.024
建设性抵抗
形态等值	70.453	29	0.956	0.074	0.044	—	—	—
单位等值	75.592	33	0.955	0.070	0.047	−0.001	−0.004	0.003
尺度等值	83.922	38	0.952	0.068	0.051	−0.003	−0.002	0.004
功能失调抵抗
形态等值	295.458	125	0.941	0.072	0.043	—	—	—
单位等值	310.289	133	0.939	0.071	0.050	−0.002	−0.001	0.007
尺度等值	373.228	142	0.920	0.079	0.057	−0.019	0.008	0.007
防御性沉默
形态等值	92.262	29	0.953	0.091	0.056	—	—	—
单位等值	104.419	33	0.947	0.091	0.063	−0.006	0.000	0.007
尺度等值	118.532	38	0.940	0.090	0.067	−0.007	−0.001	0.004

研究变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. 下属性别^a	—	—	—
2. 下属年龄^b	—	—	0.06	—
3. 下属学历^c	2.86	0.67	−0.10	−0.29^***	—
4. 下属本单位工龄^d	3.11	1.10	0.10	0.65^***	−0.21^**	—
5. 下属尽责性	5.40	0.82	0.15^*	0.08	0.02	0.08	—
6. 领导性别^e	—	—	0.18^**	−0.02	0.00	0.01	0.02	—
7. 领导年龄^f	—	—	0.04	0.42^***	−0.04	0.37^***	−0.02	−0.03	—
8. 领导学历^g	2.92	0.62	−0.01	−0.20^**	0.31^***	−0.27^***	0.09	0.13*	−0.32^***	—
9. 领导本单位工龄^h	2.40	1.08	0.04	0.39^***	−0.02	0.51^***	0.11	0.03	0.70^***	−0.39^***	—
10. 领导宜人性	5.17	1.10	0.07	−0.03	0.00	0.04	0.08	−0.07	0.03	−0.05	0.14^*
11. 领导自恋T1	4.29	1.25	0.11	−0.08	−0.02	−0.03	0.05	−0.09	−0.11	−0.02	−0.03
12. 辱虐管理T1	2.12	1.27	0.02	0.06	0.02	0.01	−0.17^**	0.15*	0.05	0.04	−0.03
13. 辱虐管理T2	2.54	1.03	0.03	0.05	0.05	0.06	−0.19^**	0.07	0.04	−0.06	−0.06
14. 辱虐管理T3	2.13	1.00	0.06	0.09	0.06	0.08	−0.22^***	0.11	0.18^**	−0.08	0.07
15. 辱虐管理T4	2.51	1.28	−0.06	0.10	0.02	0.09	−0.18^**	0.08	0.04	0.02	−0.03
16. 建设性抵抗T2	4.61	0.94	0.07	0.07	0.00	0.00	0.06	−0.06	0.05	0.02	−0.01
17. 建设性抵抗T3	4.71	1.08	0.10	−0.03	0.04	−0.08	0.09	−0.05	−0.08	0.07	−0.09
18. 功能失调抵抗T2	2.40	1.06	−0.03	−0.02	0.03	−0.03	−0.19^**	0.12	−0.03	0.11	−0.07
19. 功能失调抵抗T3	2.50	1.08	0.08	0.02	−0.08	0.06	−0.19^**	0.10	−0.01	−0.03	−0.05
20. 防御性沉默T2	3.50	1.29	0.04	−0.02	0.00	−0.05	−0.15^*	0.05	0.05	−0.02	−0.06
21. 防御性沉默T3	3.65	1.28	0.05	0.00	−0.03	0.04	−0.21^**	0.07	0.01	−0.14^*	−0.01
研究变量	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
11. 领导自恋T1	0.07	—
12. 辱虐管理T1	−0.16^**	−0.14^*	—
13. 辱虐管理T2	−0.20^**	0.02	0.54^***	—
14. 辱虐管理T3	−0.13^*	−0.08	0.48^***	0.56^***	—
15. 辱虐管理T4	−0.19^**	−0.07	0.60^***	0.64^***	0.51^***	—
16. 建设性抵抗T2	−0.02	0.03	0.16^**	0.10	−0.14^*	−0.07	—
17. 建设性抵抗T3	−0.04	0.20^**	0.03	0.14^*	−0.10	−0.14^*	0.59^***	—
18. 功能失调抵抗T2	−0.41^***	−0.05	0.42^***	0.43^***	0.35^***	0.44^***	−0.05	0.05	—
19. 功能失调抵抗T3	−0.26^***	0.01	0.43^***	0.42^***	0.36^***	0.44^***	0.03	0.11	0.53^***	—
20. 防御性沉默T2	−0.17^**	−0.05	0.39^***	0.27^***	0.40^***	0.26^***	−0.06	−0.06	0.32^***	0.34^***	—
21. 防御性沉默T3	−0.14^*	−0.11	0.44^***	0.42^***	0.37^***	0.44^***	−0.01	−0.05	0.29^***	0.37^***	0.65^***