心理学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 54 ›› Issue (5): 529-548.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00529
汤一鹏1, 贾荣雯2, 龙立荣3, 任芷宇1, 蒲小萍4()
收稿日期:
2020-12-22
发布日期:
2022-05-07
出版日期:
2022-05-25
通讯作者:
蒲小萍
E-mail:pxppsy@whut.edu.cn
基金资助:
TANG Yipeng1, JIA Rongwen2, LONG Lirong3, REN Zhiyu1, PU Xiaoping4()
Received:
2020-12-22
Online:
2022-05-07
Published:
2022-05-25
Contact:
PU Xiaoping
E-mail:pxppsy@whut.edu.cn
摘要:
目前普遍认为员工在职场中的真诚有助于该员工与同事建立良好的关系。本研究提出员工真诚对同事关系的影响很可能积极和消极并存, 其作用效果取决于员工与同事之间的共事时间。基于社会渗透理论并整合归因的文献, 本研究认为同事怀疑和同事信任是员工真诚影响同事关系的关键中介机制。为检验本研究理论模型假设, 采用轮询问卷法(round-robin survey)和实验法分别开展两个独立调研。结果发现:在共事时间较短的情况下, 员工真诚会引发同事怀疑降低同事信任, 减少人际帮助并增加人际排斥。在共事时间较长的情况下, 员工真诚则有助于打消同事怀疑增加同事信任, 增多人际帮助并减少人际排斥。通过引入共事时间作为调节变量, 本研究发现员工真诚对同事关系的影响由消极转化为积极需要经过足够长时间的共事才能实现。
中图分类号:
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.
TANG Yipeng, JIA Rongwen, LONG Lirong, REN Zhiyu, PU Xiaoping. (2022). The double-edged sword of employee authenticity in coworker interactions: The moderating role of relationship duration. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(5), 529-548.
模型 | χ2(df) | Δχ2(Δdf) | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | SRMRbetween | SRMRwithin |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
五因子模型 | 491.4 (183) | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.02 | |
因子合并模型 | |||||||
合并同事怀疑与人际排斥 | 2125.6 (185) | 1634.1 (2)*** | 0.65 | 0.59 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.18 |
合并人际排斥与人际帮助 | 3445.4 (185) | 2954.0 (2)*** | 0.41 | 0.31 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.29 |
合并人际层次的变量 | 4312.5 (186) | 3821.1 (3)*** | 0.26 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.33 |
合并个体层次的变量 | 558.7 (184) | 67.3 (1)*** | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.02 |
个体和人际层次二因子模型 | 4344.5 (187) | 3853.1 (4)*** | 0.25 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.10 | 0.33 |
表1 多层次验证性因子分析(研究1)
模型 | χ2(df) | Δχ2(Δdf) | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | SRMRbetween | SRMRwithin |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
五因子模型 | 491.4 (183) | 0.94 | 0.93 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.02 | |
因子合并模型 | |||||||
合并同事怀疑与人际排斥 | 2125.6 (185) | 1634.1 (2)*** | 0.65 | 0.59 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.18 |
合并人际排斥与人际帮助 | 3445.4 (185) | 2954.0 (2)*** | 0.41 | 0.31 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.29 |
合并人际层次的变量 | 4312.5 (186) | 3821.1 (3)*** | 0.26 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.33 |
合并个体层次的变量 | 558.7 (184) | 67.3 (1)*** | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.02 |
个体和人际层次二因子模型 | 4344.5 (187) | 3853.1 (4)*** | 0.25 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.10 | 0.33 |
变异来源 | B对A的怀疑 | B对A的人际帮助 | B对A的人际排斥 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
估值 | 百分比 | SE | 估值 | 百分比 | SE | 估值 | 百分比 | SE | |
团队 | 0.03 | 3.3% | 0.05 | 0.23 | 9.3% | 0.12 | 0.04 | 4.9% | 0.04 |
A的影响 | 0.05 | 4.4% | 0.01 | 1.39 | 56.1% | 0.16 | 0.02 | 2.0% | 0.01 |
B的影响 | 0.66 | 64.5% | 0.08 | 0.08 | 3.2% | 0.03 | 0.55 | 69.3% | 0.06 |
A与B的关系 | 0.29 | 28.0% | 0.02 | 0.77 | 31.4% | 0.05 | 0.19 | 24.1% | 0.01 |
差异量 | 2, 306.20 | 3, 254.19 | 1, 887.65 |
表3 变异分解结果(研究1)
变异来源 | B对A的怀疑 | B对A的人际帮助 | B对A的人际排斥 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
估值 | 百分比 | SE | 估值 | 百分比 | SE | 估值 | 百分比 | SE | |
团队 | 0.03 | 3.3% | 0.05 | 0.23 | 9.3% | 0.12 | 0.04 | 4.9% | 0.04 |
A的影响 | 0.05 | 4.4% | 0.01 | 1.39 | 56.1% | 0.16 | 0.02 | 2.0% | 0.01 |
B的影响 | 0.66 | 64.5% | 0.08 | 0.08 | 3.2% | 0.03 | 0.55 | 69.3% | 0.06 |
A与B的关系 | 0.29 | 28.0% | 0.02 | 0.77 | 31.4% | 0.05 | 0.19 | 24.1% | 0.01 |
差异量 | 2, 306.20 | 3, 254.19 | 1, 887.65 |
步骤与变量 | B对A的怀疑 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | 模型2 | 模型3 | |||||
b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | ||
控制变量 | |||||||
A的年龄(个体层次) | 0.10* | 0.04 | 0.10** | 0.04 | 0.09* | 0.04 | |
A的性别(个体层次) | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | |
A的学历(个体层次) | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.03 | |
A的工作年限(个体层次) | -0.03 | 0.04 | -0.03 | 0.04 | -0.02 | 0.04 | |
B的年龄(个体层次) | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.08 | |
B的性别(个体层次) | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.06 | |
B的学历(个体层次) | -0.03 | 0.06 | -0.03 | 0.06 | -0.03 | 0.06 | |
B的工作年限(个体层次) | -0.05 | 0.08 | -0.04 | 0.08 | -0.04 | 0.08 | |
团队规模(团队层次) | -0.02 | 0.06 | -0.02 | 0.06 | -0.02 | 0.06 | |
B的独立意愿(个体层次) | -0.16** | 0.06 | -0.16** | 0.06 | -0.16** | 0.06 | |
∆χ2(10) | 22.96* | ||||||
自变量 | |||||||
A的真诚(个体层次) | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | |||
A与B的共事时间(人际层次) | -0.03 | 0.03 | -0.04 | 0.03 | |||
∆χ2(2) | 1.03 | ||||||
交互项 | |||||||
员工真诚×共事时间(跨层交互) | -0.08*** | 0.02 | |||||
∆χ2(1) | 11.75** |
表4 社会关系模型预测B对A的怀疑果(研究1)
步骤与变量 | B对A的怀疑 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | 模型2 | 模型3 | |||||
b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | ||
控制变量 | |||||||
A的年龄(个体层次) | 0.10* | 0.04 | 0.10** | 0.04 | 0.09* | 0.04 | |
A的性别(个体层次) | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | |
A的学历(个体层次) | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.03 | |
A的工作年限(个体层次) | -0.03 | 0.04 | -0.03 | 0.04 | -0.02 | 0.04 | |
B的年龄(个体层次) | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.08 | |
B的性别(个体层次) | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.06 | |
B的学历(个体层次) | -0.03 | 0.06 | -0.03 | 0.06 | -0.03 | 0.06 | |
B的工作年限(个体层次) | -0.05 | 0.08 | -0.04 | 0.08 | -0.04 | 0.08 | |
团队规模(团队层次) | -0.02 | 0.06 | -0.02 | 0.06 | -0.02 | 0.06 | |
B的独立意愿(个体层次) | -0.16** | 0.06 | -0.16** | 0.06 | -0.16** | 0.06 | |
∆χ2(10) | 22.96* | ||||||
自变量 | |||||||
A的真诚(个体层次) | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | |||
A与B的共事时间(人际层次) | -0.03 | 0.03 | -0.04 | 0.03 | |||
∆χ2(2) | 1.03 | ||||||
交互项 | |||||||
员工真诚×共事时间(跨层交互) | -0.08*** | 0.02 | |||||
∆χ2(1) | 11.75** |
步骤与变量 | B对A的人际帮助 | B对A的人际排斥 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | 模型2 | 模型3 | 模型4 | ||||||
b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | ||
控制变量 | |||||||||
A的年龄(个体层次) | -0.01 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.03 | -0.02 | 0.03 | |
A的性别(个体层次) | -0.29*** | 0.08 | -0.28*** | 0.08 | -0.03 | 0.02 | -0.04 | 0.02 | |
A的学历(个体层次) | 0.12 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | |
A的工作年限(个体层次) | -0.05 | 0.12 | -0.06 | 0.12 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.03 | |
B的年龄(个体层次) | -0.06 | 0.07 | -0.05 | 0.07 | 0.28*** | 0.07 | 0.24*** | 0.07 | |
B的性别(个体层次) | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.05 | -0.07 | 0.05 | -0.07 | 0.05 | |
B的学历(个体层次) | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.05 | -0.10* | 0.05 | -0.10* | 0.05 | |
B的工作年限(个体层次) | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.06 | -0.14 | 0.07 | -0.14* | 0.07 | |
团队规模(团队层次) | -0.03 | 0.09 | -0.03 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.05 | |
B的独立意愿(个体层次) | -0.01 | 0.04 | -0.03 | 0.04 | -0.07 | 0.05 | -0.03 | 0.05 | |
自变量 | |||||||||
A的真诚(个体层次) | 0.27*** | 0.08 | 0.27*** | 0.08 | -0.00 | 0.02 | -0.00 | 0.02 | |
A与B的共事时间(人际层次) | 0.00 | 0.05 | -0.00 | 0.05 | -0.09*** | 0.02 | -0.08*** | 0.02 | |
员工真诚×共事时间(跨层交互) | -0.01 | 0.04 | -0.03 | 0.04 | -0.04* | 0.02 | -0.03 | 0.02 | |
∆χ2(13) | 31.81** | 57.25*** | |||||||
中介变量 | |||||||||
B对A的怀疑(人际层次) | -0.14*** | 0.04 | 0.23*** | 0.02 | |||||
∆χ2(1) | 14.16*** | 97.05*** |
表5 社会关系模型预测B对A的人际帮助和人际排斥果(研究1)
步骤与变量 | B对A的人际帮助 | B对A的人际排斥 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | 模型2 | 模型3 | 模型4 | ||||||
b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | ||
控制变量 | |||||||||
A的年龄(个体层次) | -0.01 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.03 | -0.02 | 0.03 | |
A的性别(个体层次) | -0.29*** | 0.08 | -0.28*** | 0.08 | -0.03 | 0.02 | -0.04 | 0.02 | |
A的学历(个体层次) | 0.12 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | |
A的工作年限(个体层次) | -0.05 | 0.12 | -0.06 | 0.12 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.03 | |
B的年龄(个体层次) | -0.06 | 0.07 | -0.05 | 0.07 | 0.28*** | 0.07 | 0.24*** | 0.07 | |
B的性别(个体层次) | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.05 | -0.07 | 0.05 | -0.07 | 0.05 | |
B的学历(个体层次) | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.05 | -0.10* | 0.05 | -0.10* | 0.05 | |
B的工作年限(个体层次) | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.06 | -0.14 | 0.07 | -0.14* | 0.07 | |
团队规模(团队层次) | -0.03 | 0.09 | -0.03 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.05 | |
B的独立意愿(个体层次) | -0.01 | 0.04 | -0.03 | 0.04 | -0.07 | 0.05 | -0.03 | 0.05 | |
自变量 | |||||||||
A的真诚(个体层次) | 0.27*** | 0.08 | 0.27*** | 0.08 | -0.00 | 0.02 | -0.00 | 0.02 | |
A与B的共事时间(人际层次) | 0.00 | 0.05 | -0.00 | 0.05 | -0.09*** | 0.02 | -0.08*** | 0.02 | |
员工真诚×共事时间(跨层交互) | -0.01 | 0.04 | -0.03 | 0.04 | -0.04* | 0.02 | -0.03 | 0.02 | |
∆χ2(13) | 31.81** | 57.25*** | |||||||
中介变量 | |||||||||
B对A的怀疑(人际层次) | -0.14*** | 0.04 | 0.23*** | 0.02 | |||||
∆χ2(1) | 14.16*** | 97.05*** |
有条件的间接效应 | A的真诚 → B对A的怀疑 → B对A的人际帮助 | A的真诚 → B对A的怀疑 → B对A的人际排斥 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
效应量 | CI (95%) | 效应量 | CI (95%) | |||
下限 | 上限 | 下限 | 上限 | |||
共事时间较长(+1 SD) | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.03 | -0.02 | -0.04 | -0.00 |
共事时间较短(-1 SD) | -0.01 | -0.02 | -0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.04 |
间接效应的组间差异 | -0.02 | -0.04 | -0.01 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.06 |
表6 间接效应检验结果果(研究1)
有条件的间接效应 | A的真诚 → B对A的怀疑 → B对A的人际帮助 | A的真诚 → B对A的怀疑 → B对A的人际排斥 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
效应量 | CI (95%) | 效应量 | CI (95%) | |||
下限 | 上限 | 下限 | 上限 | |||
共事时间较长(+1 SD) | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.03 | -0.02 | -0.04 | -0.00 |
共事时间较短(-1 SD) | -0.01 | -0.02 | -0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.04 |
间接效应的组间差异 | -0.02 | -0.04 | -0.01 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.06 |
模型 | χ2(df) | Δχ2(Δdf) | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | SRMR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
六因子模型 | 493.0 (194) | 0.93 | 0.91 | 0.07 | 0.08 | |
因子合并模型 | ||||||
合并独立意愿与员工真诚 | 802.3 (199) | 309.4 (5)*** | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.10 | 0.12 |
合并同事怀疑与同事信任 | 1206.8 (199) | 713.9 (5)*** | 0.75 | 0.71 | 0.14 | 0.12 |
合并人际排斥与人际帮助 | 1155.9 (199) | 662.9 (5)*** | 0.76 | 0.73 | 0.13 | 0.14 |
合并同事怀疑与人际排斥 | 782.4 (199) | 289.4 (5)*** | 0.86 | 0.83 | 0.10 | 0.09 |
合并同事信任与人际帮助 | 951.6 (199) | 458.6 (5)*** | 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.12 | 0.09 |
表7 验证性因子分析(研究2)
模型 | χ2(df) | Δχ2(Δdf) | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | SRMR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
六因子模型 | 493.0 (194) | 0.93 | 0.91 | 0.07 | 0.08 | |
因子合并模型 | ||||||
合并独立意愿与员工真诚 | 802.3 (199) | 309.4 (5)*** | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.10 | 0.12 |
合并同事怀疑与同事信任 | 1206.8 (199) | 713.9 (5)*** | 0.75 | 0.71 | 0.14 | 0.12 |
合并人际排斥与人际帮助 | 1155.9 (199) | 662.9 (5)*** | 0.76 | 0.73 | 0.13 | 0.14 |
合并同事怀疑与人际排斥 | 782.4 (199) | 289.4 (5)*** | 0.86 | 0.83 | 0.10 | 0.09 |
合并同事信任与人际帮助 | 951.6 (199) | 458.6 (5)*** | 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.12 | 0.09 |
变量 | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 年龄 | 33.86 | 4.54 | |||||||||||
2 | 性别 | 42.0% | 0.49 | -0.01 | ||||||||||
3 | 学历 | 40.6% | 0.49 | -0.00 | -0.04 | |||||||||
4 | 工作年限 | 6.01 | 4.21 | 0.56*** | 0.06 | -0.04 | ||||||||
5 | 独立意愿 | 5.94 | 1.07 | 0.07 | -0.05 | -0.14* | 0.05 | |||||||
6 | 员工真诚 | 48.0% | 0.50 | -0.02 | -0.02 | -0.03 | 0.01 | 0.16** | ||||||
7 | 共事时间 | 49.5% | 0.50 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.14* | 0.08 | -0.03 | |||||
8 | 同事怀疑 | 3.39 | 1.64 | 0.04 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.11 | -0.06 | -0.01 | -0.10 | (0.93) | |||
9 | 同事信任 | 5.13 | 1.15 | -0.09 | 0.12 | -0.11 | -0.08 | 0.08 | -0.01 | 0.02 | -0.29*** | (0.86) | ||
10 | 人际排斥 | 2.81 | 1.55 | 0.06 | 0.15* | 0.03 | 0.10 | -0.02 | 0.04 | -0.14* | 0.59*** | -0.22*** | (0.88) | |
11 | 人际帮助 | 4.70 | 1.35 | -0.05 | 0.06 | -0.04 | 0.02 | 0.11 | -0.04 | -0.02 | -0.20*** | 0.59*** | -0.01 | (0.89) |
表8 描述性统计分析(研究2)
变量 | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 年龄 | 33.86 | 4.54 | |||||||||||
2 | 性别 | 42.0% | 0.49 | -0.01 | ||||||||||
3 | 学历 | 40.6% | 0.49 | -0.00 | -0.04 | |||||||||
4 | 工作年限 | 6.01 | 4.21 | 0.56*** | 0.06 | -0.04 | ||||||||
5 | 独立意愿 | 5.94 | 1.07 | 0.07 | -0.05 | -0.14* | 0.05 | |||||||
6 | 员工真诚 | 48.0% | 0.50 | -0.02 | -0.02 | -0.03 | 0.01 | 0.16** | ||||||
7 | 共事时间 | 49.5% | 0.50 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.14* | 0.08 | -0.03 | |||||
8 | 同事怀疑 | 3.39 | 1.64 | 0.04 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.11 | -0.06 | -0.01 | -0.10 | (0.93) | |||
9 | 同事信任 | 5.13 | 1.15 | -0.09 | 0.12 | -0.11 | -0.08 | 0.08 | -0.01 | 0.02 | -0.29*** | (0.86) | ||
10 | 人际排斥 | 2.81 | 1.55 | 0.06 | 0.15* | 0.03 | 0.10 | -0.02 | 0.04 | -0.14* | 0.59*** | -0.22*** | (0.88) | |
11 | 人际帮助 | 4.70 | 1.35 | -0.05 | 0.06 | -0.04 | 0.02 | 0.11 | -0.04 | -0.02 | -0.20*** | 0.59*** | -0.01 | (0.89) |
步骤与变量 | 同事怀疑 | 同事信任 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | 模型2 | 模型3 | 模型4 | |||||
b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | |
控制变量 | ||||||||
年龄 | -0.01 | 0.03 | -0.01 | 0.03 | -0.01 | 0.02 | -0.01 | 0.02 |
性别 | 0.37 | 0.20 | 0.41* | 0.19 | 0.25 | 0.14 | 0.23 | 0.14 |
学历 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.26 | 0.19 | -0.23 | 0.14 | -0.25 | 0.14 |
工作年限 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.06* | 0.03 | -0.02 | 0.02 | -0.02 | 0.02 |
独立意愿 | -0.07 | 0.09 | -0.06 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.07 |
自变量 | ||||||||
员工真诚 | -0.01 | 0.10 | -0.01 | 0.09 | -0.03 | 0.07 | -0.03 | 0.07 |
共事时间 | -0.19 | 0.10 | -0.21* | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.07 |
交互项 | ||||||||
员工真诚×共事时间 | -0.47*** | 0.09 | 0.24*** | 0.07 | ||||
R2 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.08 | ||||
∆R2 | 0.08*** | 0.04*** |
表9 回归模型预测同事怀疑和同事信任(研究2)
步骤与变量 | 同事怀疑 | 同事信任 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | 模型2 | 模型3 | 模型4 | |||||
b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | |
控制变量 | ||||||||
年龄 | -0.01 | 0.03 | -0.01 | 0.03 | -0.01 | 0.02 | -0.01 | 0.02 |
性别 | 0.37 | 0.20 | 0.41* | 0.19 | 0.25 | 0.14 | 0.23 | 0.14 |
学历 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.26 | 0.19 | -0.23 | 0.14 | -0.25 | 0.14 |
工作年限 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.06* | 0.03 | -0.02 | 0.02 | -0.02 | 0.02 |
独立意愿 | -0.07 | 0.09 | -0.06 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.07 |
自变量 | ||||||||
员工真诚 | -0.01 | 0.10 | -0.01 | 0.09 | -0.03 | 0.07 | -0.03 | 0.07 |
共事时间 | -0.19 | 0.10 | -0.21* | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.07 |
交互项 | ||||||||
员工真诚×共事时间 | -0.47*** | 0.09 | 0.24*** | 0.07 | ||||
R2 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.08 | ||||
∆R2 | 0.08*** | 0.04*** |
步骤与变量 | 人际帮助 | 人际排斥 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | 模型2 | 模型3 | 模型4 | |||||
b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | |
控制变量 | ||||||||
年龄 | -0.03 | 0.02 | -0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
性别 | 0.14 | 0.16 | -0.00 | 0.14 | 0.51** | 0.18 | 0.32* | 0.16 |
学历 | -0.08 | 0.17 | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.18 | -0.01 | 0.16 |
工作年限 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
独立意愿 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.06 | -0.02 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.07 |
自变量 | ||||||||
员工真诚 | -0.08 | 0.08 | -0.06 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.091 | 0.07 | 0.08 |
共事时间 | -0.04 | 0.08 | -0.07 | 0.07 | -0.26** | 0.09 | -0.16* | 0.08 |
员工真诚×共事时间 | 0.22* | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.07 | -0.31*** | 0.09 | -0.05 | 0.08 |
中介变量 | ||||||||
同事怀疑 | -0.03 | 0.05 | 0.51*** | 0.05 | ||||
同事信任 | 0.67*** | 0.06 | -0.08 | 0.07 | ||||
R2 | 0.05 | 0.36 | 0.10 | 0.37 | ||||
∆R2 | 0.31*** | 0.27*** |
表10 回归模型预测人际帮助和人际排斥(研究2)
步骤与变量 | 人际帮助 | 人际排斥 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | 模型2 | 模型3 | 模型4 | |||||
b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | b | SE | |
控制变量 | ||||||||
年龄 | -0.03 | 0.02 | -0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
性别 | 0.14 | 0.16 | -0.00 | 0.14 | 0.51** | 0.18 | 0.32* | 0.16 |
学历 | -0.08 | 0.17 | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.18 | -0.01 | 0.16 |
工作年限 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
独立意愿 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.06 | -0.02 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.07 |
自变量 | ||||||||
员工真诚 | -0.08 | 0.08 | -0.06 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.091 | 0.07 | 0.08 |
共事时间 | -0.04 | 0.08 | -0.07 | 0.07 | -0.26** | 0.09 | -0.16* | 0.08 |
员工真诚×共事时间 | 0.22* | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.07 | -0.31*** | 0.09 | -0.05 | 0.08 |
中介变量 | ||||||||
同事怀疑 | -0.03 | 0.05 | 0.51*** | 0.05 | ||||
同事信任 | 0.67*** | 0.06 | -0.08 | 0.07 | ||||
R2 | 0.05 | 0.36 | 0.10 | 0.37 | ||||
∆R2 | 0.31*** | 0.27*** |
有条件的间接效应 | 员工真诚 → 同事信任 → 人际帮助 | 员工真诚 → 同事怀疑 → 人际排斥 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
效应量 | CI (95%) | 效应量 | CI (95%) | |||
下限 | 上限 | 下限 | 上限 | |||
共事时间较长 | 0.15 | 0.02 | 0.283 | -0.26 | -0.40 | -0.13 |
共事时间较短 | -0.18 | -0.32 | -0.05 | 0.24 | 0.09 | 0.39 |
间接效应的组间差异 | 0.33 | 0.20 | 0.48 | -0.49 | -0.67 | -0.33 |
表11 间接效应检验结果(研究2)
有条件的间接效应 | 员工真诚 → 同事信任 → 人际帮助 | 员工真诚 → 同事怀疑 → 人际排斥 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
效应量 | CI (95%) | 效应量 | CI (95%) | |||
下限 | 上限 | 下限 | 上限 | |||
共事时间较长 | 0.15 | 0.02 | 0.283 | -0.26 | -0.40 | -0.13 |
共事时间较短 | -0.18 | -0.32 | -0.05 | 0.24 | 0.09 | 0.39 |
间接效应的组间差异 | 0.33 | 0.20 | 0.48 | -0.49 | -0.67 | -0.33 |
[1] | Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. |
[2] | Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt. |
[3] | Altman, I., Vinsel, A., & Brown, B. B. (1981). Dialectic conceptions in social psychology: An application to social penetration and privacy regulation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 107-160. |
[4] |
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001 URL |
[5] |
Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Pillai, R. (2011). Romancing leadership: Past, present, and future. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1058-1077.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.003 URL |
[6] |
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Expanding the role of the interpreter to include multiple facets of intercultural communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 4, 137-148.
doi: 10.1016/0147-1767(80)90025-5 URL |
[7] |
Casciaro, T., Gino, F., & Kouchaki, M. (2014). The contaminating effects of building instrumental ties: How networking can make us feel dirty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 705-735.
doi: 10.1177/0001839214554990 URL |
[8] |
Caza, B. B., Moss, S., & Vough, H. (2017). From synchronizing to harmonizing: The process of authenticating multiple work identities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63, 703-745.
doi: 10.1177/0001839217733972 URL |
[9] |
Cha, S. E., Hewlin, P. F., Roberts, L. M., Buckman, B. R., Leroy, H., Steckler, E., ... Cooper, D. (2019). Being your true self at work: Integrating the fragmented research on authenticity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 13, 633-671.
doi: 10.5465/annals.2016.0108 URL |
[10] |
Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 481-494.
pmid: 9294898 |
[11] |
Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457-475.
pmid: 7809308 |
[12] |
DeCarlo, T. E. (2005). The effects of sales message and suspicion of ulterior motives on salesperson evaluation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 238-249.
doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1503_9 URL |
[13] |
de Jong, S. B., van der Vegt, G. S., & Molleman, E. (2007). The relationships among asymmetry in task dependence, perceived helping behavior, and trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1625-1637.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1625 URL |
[14] |
Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1164-1184.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1164 URL |
[15] |
Fein, S., Hilton, J. L., & Miller, D. T. (1990). Suspicion of ulterior motivation and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 753-764.
pmid: 2348368 |
[16] | Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. (2008). The development and validation of the workplace ostracism scale. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 93, 1348-1366. |
[17] | Ferris, G., & Hochwarter, W. (2011). Organizational politics. In S. Zedeck, H. Aguinis, W. Cascio, M. Gelfand, K. Leong, & S. Parker et al. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 435-459). Washington, DC: APA. |
[18] |
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358.
doi: 10.1037/h0061470 URL |
[19] | Flynn, F. (2003). How much should I help and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 539-553. |
[20] |
Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The dark triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 199-216.
doi: 10.1111/spc3.12018 URL |
[21] |
Gardner, R. G., Harris, T. B., Li, N., Kirkman, B. L., Mathieu, J. E. (2017). Understanding “it depends” in organizational research: A theory-based taxonomy, review, and future research agenda concerning interactive and quadratic relationships. Organizational Research Methods, 20, 610-638.
doi: 10.1177/1094428117708856 URL |
[22] |
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C. ... Yamaguchi, S. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332, 1100-1104.
doi: 10.1126/science.1197754 URL |
[23] |
Gill, C., & Caza, A. (2018). An investigation of authentic leadership’s individual and group influences on follower responses. Journal of Management, 44, 530-554.
doi: 10.1177/0149206314566461 URL |
[24] |
Grandey, A. A., & Gabriel, A. S. (2015). Emotional labor at a crossroads: Where do we go from here? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 323-349.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111400 URL |
[25] |
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 900-912.
doi: 10.1037/a0013770 pmid: 19594233 |
[26] | Greene, K., Derlega, V. J., & Mathews, A. (2006). Self-disclosure in personal relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp.409-427). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. |
[27] |
Grodal, S., Nelson, A. J., & Siino, R. M. (2015). Help-seeking and help-giving as an organizational routine: Continual engagement in innovative work. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 136-168.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0552 URL |
[28] |
Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2015). To invest or not? The role of coworker support and trust in daily reciprocal gain spirals of helping behavior. Journal of Management, 41, 1628-1650.
doi: 10.1177/0149206312455246 URL |
[29] |
Ham, J., & Vonk, R. (2011). Impressions of impression management: Evidence of spontaneous suspicion of ulterior motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 466-471.
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.008 URL |
[30] | Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96-107. |
[31] |
Hilton, J. L., Fein, S., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Suspicion and dispositional inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 501-512.
doi: 10.1177/0146167293195003 URL |
[32] |
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373-394.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.002 URL |
[33] | Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior(pp.93-108). New York: Guilford Press. |
[34] |
Kay, S., Mulcahy, R., & Parkinson, J. (2020). When less is more: The impact of macro and micro social media influencers’ disclosure. Journal of Marketing Management, 36, 248-278.
doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2020.1718740 URL |
[35] | Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford Press. |
[36] | Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data-analysis. New York: Guilford Press. |
[37] | 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/. |
[38] |
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1-26.
doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1401_01 URL |
[39] | Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283-357. |
[40] |
Koopman, J., Lanaj, K., & Scott, B. A. (2016). Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 414-435.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0262 URL |
[41] |
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, 588-601.
doi: 10.1037/a0021882 URL |
[42] |
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.2502 URL |
[43] |
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, 1085-1110.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.1202 URL |
[44] |
Lenton, A. P., Bruder, M., Slabu, L., & Sedikides, C. (2013). How does “being real” feel? The experience of state authenticity. Journal of Personality, 81, 276-289.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00805.x URL |
[45] |
Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., & Sels, L. (2015). Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. Journal of Management, 41, 1677-1697.
doi: 10.1177/0149206312457822 URL |
[46] |
Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of Management, 32, 991-1022.
doi: 10.1177/0149206306294405 URL |
[47] |
Lindholm, C. (2009). Review: How we became authentic. Ethos, 37, 148-153.
doi: 10.1111/j.1548-1352.2009.01034_1.x URL |
[48] | Maheshwari, S., & Mukherjee, T. (2020). How strong are our weak ties? Examining the usefulness of Facebook friendship in youths' life from the social penetration theory. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 9, 29-46. |
[49] |
Marchand, M. A. G., & Vonk, R. (2005). The process of becoming suspicious of ulterior motives. Social Cognition, 23, 242-256.
doi: 10.1521/soco.2005.23.3.242 URL |
[50] | McAllister, D. J., Lewicki, R. J., & Chaturvedi, S. (2006). Trust in developing relationships: From theory to measurement. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia. |
[51] |
Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 121-146.
doi: 10.2307/2667127 URL |
[52] |
Ménard, J., & Brunet, L. (2011). Authenticity and well-being in the workplace: A mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26, 331-346.
doi: 10.1108/02683941111124854 URL |
[53] |
Metin, U. B., Taris, T. W., Peeters, M. C., van Beek, I., & van den Bosch, R. (2016). Authenticity at work: A job-demands resources perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31, 483-499.
doi: 10.1108/JMP-03-2014-0087 URL |
[54] |
Miller, J. W., Stromeyer, W. R., & Schwieterman, M. A. (2013). Extensions of the Johnson-Neyman technique to linear models with curvilinear effects: Derivations and analytical tools. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48, 267-300.
doi: 10.1080/00273171.2013.763567 pmid: 26741727 |
[55] |
Nagumey, A. J., Reich, J. W., & Newsom, J. (2004). Gender moderates the effects of independence and dependence desires during the social support process. Psychology and Aging, 19, 215-218.
doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.19.1.215 URL |
[56] |
Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011). The authentic leadership inventory: Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1146-1164.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.008 URL |
[57] |
Oh, H., & Kilduff, M. (2008). The ripple effect of personality on social structure: Self-monitoring origins of network brokerage. Journal of Applied psychology, 93, 1155-1164.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1155 URL |
[58] |
Ouyang, K., Xu, E., Huang, X., Liu, W., & Tang, Y. (2018). Reaching the limits of reciprocity in favor exchange: The effects of generous, stingy, and matched favor giving on social status. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 614-630.
doi: 10.1037/apl0000288 pmid: 29517253 |
[59] |
Peets, K., & Hodges, E. V. (2018). Authenticity in friendships and well-being in adolescence. Social Development, 27, 140-153.
doi: 10.1111/sode.12254 URL |
[60] |
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437-448.
doi: 10.3102/10769986031004437 URL |
[61] |
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227.
doi: 10.1080/00273170701341316 URL |
[62] |
Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 77-98.
doi: 10.1080/19312458.2012.679848 URL |
[63] |
Pugh, S. D., Groth, M., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2011). Willing and able to fake emotions: A closer examination of the link between emotional dissonance and employee well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 377-390.
doi: 10.1037/a0021395 URL |
[64] |
Reeder, G. D., Vonk, R., Ronk, M. J., Ham, J., & Lawrence, M. (2004). Dispositional attribution: Multiple inferences about motive-related traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 530-544.
pmid: 15053704 |
[65] | Richter, A. W., West, M. A., van Dick, R., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). Boundary spanners’ identification, intergroup contact, and effective intergroup relations. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1252-1269. |
[66] |
Robinson, S. L., O’Reilly, J., & Wang, W. (2013). Invisible at work: An integrated model of workplace ostracism. Journal of Management, 39, 203-231.
doi: 10.1177/0149206312466141 URL |
[67] | Robinson, S. L., & Schabram, K. (2019). Workplace ostracism: What’s it good for? In S. Rudert, R. Greifeneder, & K. Williams (Eds.), Current directions in ostracism, social exclusion and rejection research (pp.155-170). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. |
[68] |
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, 393-404.
doi: 10.5465/amr.1998.926617 URL |
[69] |
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the big-five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380-1393.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1380 URL |
[70] |
Swann, W. B., Jr., de la Ronde, C. & Hixon, J. G. (1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 857-869.
pmid: 8014831 |
[71] | Tang, Y., Lam, C. K., Ouyang, K., Huang, X., & Tse, H. H. M. (2021). Comparisons draw us close: The influence of leader-member exchange dyadic comparison on coworker exchange. Personnel Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12465 |
[72] | Tang, Y., Xu, E., Huang, X., & Pu, X. (2021). When can display of authenticity at work facilitate coworker interactions? The moderating effect of perception of organizational politics. Human Relations. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211031834 |
[73] | Taylor, D., & Altman, I. (1987). Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp.257-277). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. |
[74] | Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp.71-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. |
[75] |
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579.
doi: 10.2307/2393472 URL |
[76] |
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36, 1117-1142.
doi: 10.1177/0149206309352246 URL |
[77] | van Dyne, L., Gummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp.215-285). Greenwich, GT: JAI Press. |
[78] |
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89-126.
doi: 10.1177/0149206307308913 URL |
[79] |
Warner, R. M., Kenny, D. A., & Stoto, M. (1979). A new round robin analysis of variance for social interaction data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1742-1757.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1742 URL |
[80] |
Wickham, R. E. (2013). Perceived authenticity in romantic partners. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 878-887.
doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.001 URL |
[81] |
Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the authenticity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 385-399.
doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385 URL |
[82] |
Wooten, D. B. (2009). Say the right thing: Apologies, reputability, and punishment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 225-235.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.02.017 URL |
[83] |
Wright, T. A., & Sweeney, D. A. (2016). The call for an increased role of replication, extension, and mixed-methods study designs in organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 480-486.
doi: 10.1002/job.2059 URL |
[84] |
Xu, E., Huang, X., Jia, R., Xu, J., Liu, W., Graham, L., & Snape, E. (2020). The “evil pleasure”: Abusive supervision and third-party observers’ malicious reactions toward victims. Organization Science, 31, 1115-1137.
doi: 10.1287/orsc.2019.1349 URL |
[85] |
Yagil, D., & Medler-Liraz, H. (2013). Moments of truth: Examining transient authenticity and identity in service encounters. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 473-497.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0252 URL |
[86] |
Zhang, X., & Zhou, J. (2014). Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and employee creativity: Interaction effects and a mediating mechanism. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124, 150-164.
doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.02.002 URL |
[1] | 李宁,严进,金鸣轩. 组织内信任对任务绩效的影响效应[J]. 心理学报, 2006, 38(05): 770-777. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||