删除或更新信息,请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

组织行为学中的时间相关研究与未来方向

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01

董小炜1, 秦昕1(), 陈晨1, 黄鸣鹏2, 邓惠如1, 周汉森1, 宋博迪1
1中山大学管理学院, 广州 510275
2对外经济贸易大学国际商学院, 北京 100029
收稿日期:2020-05-08出版日期:2021-04-15发布日期:2021-02-22


基金资助:国家自然科学基金项目(71872190);国家自然科学基金项目(71502179);国家自然科学基金项目(71702202);国家自然科学基金项目(72072032);国家自然科学基金项目(71602032);中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金(19wkpy17)

Time related research and future direction in organizational behavior field

DONG Xiaowei1, QIN Xin1(), CHEN Chen1, HUANG Mingpeng2, DENG Huiru1, ZHOU Hansen1, SONG Bodi1
1School of Business, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
2Business School, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing 100029, China
Received:2020-05-08Online:2021-04-15Published:2021-02-22







摘要/Abstract


摘要: 绝大部分组织行为学研究都是从静态视角聚焦变量在一段时间内的整体平均水平, 而忽视了时间的角色, 如变量在一段时间内的动态变化特征。通过引入时间的角色, 从动态视角关注变量的动态变化特征并探讨其影响因素和结果, 可能为现有研究提供新的、突破性视角, 进而帮助拓展传统管理理论。鉴于其对理论发展的重要性, 近年来, 部分新近研究开始逐步关注时间的角色, 从动态视角探索变量的动态变化特征。然而, 整体来看, 这类研究仍相对较少, 且分散在不同的研究领域, 还未能形成结构化体系。基于此, 在将相关研究按照两个维度——变量的动态变化特征的类别(趋势 vs. 波动)与变量的动态变化特征的角色(自变量 vs. 因变量)分为四大类别后, 系统地回顾和梳理相关研究, 并厘清研究背后的理论机制。最后, 基于以上梳理分析, 未来研究可从关注变量的波动; 考察趋势、波动和整体平均水平等的交互作用等角度出发, 更加全面、系统地扩展组织行为学理论。



图1研究分类框架图
图1研究分类框架图


表1研究分类总结
类别 文献
数量
话题 自变量 因变量 文献
趋势是自变量 16 公平 公平感趋势 工作满意度、组织承诺、离职意向 Hausknecht et al. 2011
工作满意度、情感性组织承诺 Kim et al. 2015
职场帮助行为 Rubenstein et al. 2019
领导力 苛责管理行为趋势 工作绩效、组织公民行为、越轨行为 Yu, 2017
共享领导趋势 团队绩效趋势 Drescher et al. 2014
领导-成员交换趋势 建言行为 Ng et al. 2014
员工态度与知觉 工作满意度趋势 离职行为、离职意愿趋势 Chen et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2012
情感承诺趋势、规范承诺趋势和持续承诺趋势 离职意愿趋势 Bentein et al. 2005
心理资本趋势 领导评价绩效趋势、客观绩效趋势 Peterson et al. 2011
团队关系冲突趋势 团队认同 Johnson & Avolio, 2019
感知的领导组织嵌入感趋势 员工自身组织嵌入感趋势 Ng & Feldman, 2013
主管支持感趋势 员工组织社会化 Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009
感知的组织威望趋势 组织认同感趋势 Zhu et al. 2017
组织情境 工作复杂性趋势 员工压力趋势 Li et al. 2017
工作场所不文明行为趋势 职业倦怠、离职意愿 Taylor et al. 2017
趋势是因变量 11 公平 人格特质 公平感趋势 Konradt et al. 2016
领导力 绩效 领导-成员交换水平趋势 Nahrgang et al. 2009
自我感知的领导能力 领导身份认同趋势 Miscenko et al. 2017
员工态度与知觉 与工作变动有关的因素、新来者的经验 工作满意度趋势 Boswell et al. 2009
工作满意度水平 工作满意度趋势 Ritter et al. 2016
人岗匹配度 工作满意度趋势、情感性组织承诺趋势 Kim et al. 2020
职业转换类型 职业倦怠趋势 Dunford et al. 2012
正念 工作恢复趋势 Hülshegeret al. 2014
组织信任趋势、尊重感知趋势 自我效能感趋势 Ng & Lucianetti., 2016
自我效能感趋势 想法的产生、传播和实施趋势
工作适应初始水平、文化经验、自我评估 工作适应程度趋势 Zhu et al. 2016
组织情境 领导类型 公平感趋势、角色外行为趋势 Tremblay et al. 2018
波动是自变量 5 公平 公平波动 工作满意度、情绪耗竭 Matta et al. 2017
人际公平波动 群体自豪感 Matta et al. 2020
领导公平行为一致性 员工公平感 Qin, Ren, et al. 2018
情绪劳动 表层动作波动 工作满意度、工作退缩 Scott et al. 2012
领导力 苛责管理波动 工作绩效、组织公民行为、越轨行为 Yu, 2017
波动是因变量 4 公平 自我控制水平 公平波动 Matta et al. 2017
对公平的态度 公平行为一致性 Qin, Ren, et al. 2018
公平感 心率变异性 Herr et al. 2015
情绪劳动 自我监控 表层动作波动 Scott et al. 2012

表1研究分类总结
类别 文献
数量
话题 自变量 因变量 文献
趋势是自变量 16 公平 公平感趋势 工作满意度、组织承诺、离职意向 Hausknecht et al. 2011
工作满意度、情感性组织承诺 Kim et al. 2015
职场帮助行为 Rubenstein et al. 2019
领导力 苛责管理行为趋势 工作绩效、组织公民行为、越轨行为 Yu, 2017
共享领导趋势 团队绩效趋势 Drescher et al. 2014
领导-成员交换趋势 建言行为 Ng et al. 2014
员工态度与知觉 工作满意度趋势 离职行为、离职意愿趋势 Chen et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2012
情感承诺趋势、规范承诺趋势和持续承诺趋势 离职意愿趋势 Bentein et al. 2005
心理资本趋势 领导评价绩效趋势、客观绩效趋势 Peterson et al. 2011
团队关系冲突趋势 团队认同 Johnson & Avolio, 2019
感知的领导组织嵌入感趋势 员工自身组织嵌入感趋势 Ng & Feldman, 2013
主管支持感趋势 员工组织社会化 Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009
感知的组织威望趋势 组织认同感趋势 Zhu et al. 2017
组织情境 工作复杂性趋势 员工压力趋势 Li et al. 2017
工作场所不文明行为趋势 职业倦怠、离职意愿 Taylor et al. 2017
趋势是因变量 11 公平 人格特质 公平感趋势 Konradt et al. 2016
领导力 绩效 领导-成员交换水平趋势 Nahrgang et al. 2009
自我感知的领导能力 领导身份认同趋势 Miscenko et al. 2017
员工态度与知觉 与工作变动有关的因素、新来者的经验 工作满意度趋势 Boswell et al. 2009
工作满意度水平 工作满意度趋势 Ritter et al. 2016
人岗匹配度 工作满意度趋势、情感性组织承诺趋势 Kim et al. 2020
职业转换类型 职业倦怠趋势 Dunford et al. 2012
正念 工作恢复趋势 Hülshegeret al. 2014
组织信任趋势、尊重感知趋势 自我效能感趋势 Ng & Lucianetti., 2016
自我效能感趋势 想法的产生、传播和实施趋势
工作适应初始水平、文化经验、自我评估 工作适应程度趋势 Zhu et al. 2016
组织情境 领导类型 公平感趋势、角色外行为趋势 Tremblay et al. 2018
波动是自变量 5 公平 公平波动 工作满意度、情绪耗竭 Matta et al. 2017
人际公平波动 群体自豪感 Matta et al. 2020
领导公平行为一致性 员工公平感 Qin, Ren, et al. 2018
情绪劳动 表层动作波动 工作满意度、工作退缩 Scott et al. 2012
领导力 苛责管理波动 工作绩效、组织公民行为、越轨行为 Yu, 2017
波动是因变量 4 公平 自我控制水平 公平波动 Matta et al. 2017
对公平的态度 公平行为一致性 Qin, Ren, et al. 2018
公平感 心率变异性 Herr et al. 2015
情绪劳动 自我监控 表层动作波动 Scott et al. 2012


表2与时间相关的理论总结
理论 研究使用数量
趋势是自变量 趋势是因变量 波动是自变量 波动是因变量
格式塔特征理论 5
资源保存理论 3 2
前景理论 3 1
意义建构理论 3
个人螺旋理论 2
记忆重建理论 1
适应理论 1
不确定性管理理论 3
道德自我调节理论 1
情绪波动理论 1

表2与时间相关的理论总结
理论 研究使用数量
趋势是自变量 趋势是因变量 波动是自变量 波动是因变量
格式塔特征理论 5
资源保存理论 3 2
前景理论 3 1
意义建构理论 3
个人螺旋理论 2
记忆重建理论 1
适应理论 1
不确定性管理理论 3
道德自我调节理论 1
情绪波动理论 1







[1] 杜旌. (2013). 本土文化情境下领导行为对员工变革反应的影响:基于图式理论的动态研究. 心理科学进展, 21,1531-1541.
[2] 韩翼, 廖建桥. (2005). 企业雇员组织承诺周期模型研究. 南开管理评论, 5,41-49.
[3] 康勇军, 彭坚. (2019). 累并快乐着:服务型领导的收益与代价——基于工作-家庭资源模型视角. 心理学报, 51,227-237.
[4] 李爱梅, 华涛, 高文. (2013). 辱虐管理研究的“特征-过程-结果”理论框架. 心理科学进展, 21,1901-1912.
[5] 李超平, 时勘. (2003). 分配公平与程序公平对工作倦怠的影响. 心理学报, 35,677-684.
[6] 李锐, 凌文辁, 柳士顺. (2012). 传统价值观, 上下属关系与员工沉默行为——一项本土文化情境下的实证探索. 管理世界, 3,127-140.
[7] 秦昕, 薛伟, 陈晨, 刘四维, 邓惠如. (2019). 为什么领导做出公平行为:综述与未来研究方向. 管理学季刊, 4,39-62.
[8] 王辉, 张翠莲. (2012). 中国企业环境下领导行为的研究述评:高管领导行为, 领导授权赋能及领导-部属交换. 心理科学进展, 20,1519-1530.
[9] 杨帅, 黄希庭, 王晓刚, 尹天子. (2012). 文化影响自我解释的神经机制. 心理科学进展, 20,149-157.
[10] Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L. A. (2001). Time-out: Taking time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Review, 26,512-529.
[11] Ariely, D., & Carmon, Z. (2000). Gestalt characteristics of experiences: The defining features of summarized events. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13,191-201.
[12] Au, E., Qin, X., & Zhang, Z.-X. (2017). Beyond personal control: When and how executives' beliefs in negotiable fate foster entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 143,69-84.
[13] Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50248-287.
[14] Barnes, C. M., Lucianetti, L., Bhave, D. P., & Christian, M. S. (2015). “You wouldn't like me when I'm sleepy”: Leaders' sleep, daily abusive supervision, and work unit engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 58,1419-1437.
[15] Bentein, K., Vandenberghe, C., Vandenberg, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2005). The role of change in the relationship between commitment and turnover: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,468-482.
[16] Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The human organization of time: Temporal realities and experience. Stanford University Press,
[17] Boswell, W. R., Shipp, A. J., Payne, S. C., & Culbertson, S. S. (2009). Changes in newcomer job satisfaction over time: Examining the pattern of honeymoons and hangovers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,844-858.
[18] Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y.-R. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114,133-151.
[19] Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Appley (Ed.). Adaptation level theory: A symposium (pp.287-302). New York, NY: Academic Press.
[20] Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Thomas, H. C., Anderson, N., & Bliese, P. D. (2011). The power of momentum: A new model of dynamic relationships between job satisfaction change and turnover intentions. Academy of Management Journal, 54,159-181.
[21] Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86,278-321.
[22] Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C.O. L. H., & Ng, K. G. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,425-445.
[23] Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98,199-236.
[24] Connection, C. C. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 18,143-164.
[25] Courtright, S. H., Gardner, R. G., Smith, T. A., Mccormick, B. W., & Colbert, A. E. (2016). My family made me do it: A cross-domain, self-regulatory perspective on antecedents to abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 59,1630-1652.
[26] Drescher, M. A., Korsgaard, M. A., Welpe, I. M., Picot, A., & Wigand, R. T. (2014). The dynamics of shared leadership: Building trust and enhancing performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,99771-783.
[27] Dunford, B. B., Shipp, A. J., Boss, R. W., Angermeier, I., & Boss, A. D. (2012). Is burnout static or dynamic? A career transition perspective of employee burnout trajectories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,637-650.
[28] Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36,319-348.
[29] Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 9,343-363.
[30] Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,1011-1027.
URLpmid: 11414368
[31] Fortin, M. (2008). Perspectives on organizational justice: Concept clarification, social context integration, time and links with morality. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10,92-126.
[32] Fortin, M., Cojuharenco, I., Patient, D., & German, H. (2016). It is time for justice: How time changes what we know about justice judgments and justice effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37,S30-S56.
[33] George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26,657-684.
[34] Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resourcesin conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40,1334-1364.
[35] Hausknecht, J. P., Sturman, M. C., & Roberson, Q. M. (2011). Justice as a dynamic construct: Effects of individual trajectories on distal work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96,872-880.
[36] Herr, R. M., Bosch, J. A., van Vianen, A. E., Jarczok, M. N., Thayer, J. F., Li, J., … Li, A. (2015). Organizational justice is related to heart rate variability in white-collar workers, but not in blue-collar workers—findings from a cross-sectional study. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 49,434-448.
URLpmid: 25472852
[37] Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44,513-524.
[38] Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 84,632-643.
URLpmid: 12635922
[39] Hülsheger, U. R., Lang, J.W. B., Depenbrock, F., Fehrmann, C., Zijlstra, F.R. H., & Alberts, H.J. E.M. (2014). The power of presence: The role of mindfulness at work for daily levels and change trajectories of psychological detachment and sleep quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99,1113-1128.
[40] Hsee, C. K., & Abelson, R. P. (1991). Velocity relation: Satisfaction as a function of the first derivative of outcome over time. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 60,341-347.
[41] Johnson, H. H., & Avolio, B. J. (2019). Team psychological safety and conflict trajectories' effect on individual's team identification and satisfaction. Group & Organization Management, 44,843-873.
[42] Johnson, R. E., Lanaj, K., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). The good and bad of being fair: Effects of procedural and interpersonal justice behaviors on regulatory resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99,635-650.
[43] Johnson, R. E., Muraven, M., Donaldson, T., & Lin, S.-H. (2014). Self-control in work organizations. In D. L.Ferris, R. E. Johnson & C. Sedikides (Eds.). The self at work: Fundamental theory and research(pp.119-144). New York, NY: Routledge.
[44] Jokisaari, M., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2009). Change in newcomers' supervisor support and socialization outcomes after organizational entry. Academy of Management Journal, 52,527-544.
[45] Jones, D. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). How perceptions of fairness can change: A dynamic model of organizational justice. Organizational Psychology Review, 3,138-160.
[46] Ju, D., Huang, M. P., Liu, D., Qin, X., Hu, Q. J., & Chen, C. (2019). Supervisory consequences of abusive supervision: An investigation of sense of power, managerial self-efficacy, and task-oriented leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 154,80-95.
[47] Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwartz (Eds.). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp.3-25). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
[48] Kahneman, D., Fredrickson, B. L., Schreiber, C. A., & Redelmeier, D. A. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science, 4,401-405.
[49] Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47,263-291.
[50] Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39,341-350.
[51] Kim, T. -Y., Lin, X., W., & Leung, K. (2015). A dynamic approach to fairness: Effects of temporal changes of fairness perceptions on job attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30,163-175.
[52] Kim, T.-Y., Schuh, S. C., & Cai, Y. H. (2020). Person or Job? Change in person-job fit and its impact on employee work attitudes over time. Journal of Management Studies, 57,287-313.
[53] Konradt, U., Garbers, Y., Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. (2016). Patterns of change in fairness perceptions during the hiring process. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 24,246-259.
[54] Larsen, R. J. (1987). The stability of mood variability: A spectral analytic approach to daily mood assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,1195-1204.
[55] Li, J., Burch, T. C., & Lee, T. W. (2017). Intra-individual variability in job complexity over time: Examining the effect of job complexity trajectory on employee job strain. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38,671-691.
[56] Lilly, J. D., Virick, M., & Hadani, M. (2010). The dynamic nature of justice: Influential effects of time and work outcomes on long-term perceptions. Social Justice Research. 23,37-59.
[57] Lind, E. A., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (2001). Primacy effects in justice judgments: Testing predications from fairness heuristic theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85,189-210.
URLpmid: 11461198
[58] Lind, E. A., & van den Bos, K., (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24,181-223.
[59] Lin, S. -H., Ma, J., J., & Johnson, R. E. (2016). When ethical leader behavior breaks bad: How ethical leader behavior can turn abusive via ego depletion and moral licensing. Journal of Applied Psychology,101815-830.
[60] Liu, D., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., Holtom, B. C., & Hinkin, T. R. (2012). When employees are out of step with coworkers: How job satisfaction trajectory and dispersion influence individual- and unit-level voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 55,1360-1380.
[61] 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, 60,743-770.
[62] Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Guo, Z. A., & Matusik, J. G. (2020). Exchanging one uncertainty for another: Justice variability negates the benefits of justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105,97-110.
[63] McClean, S., Barnes, C. M., Courtright, S. H., & Johnson, R. E. (2019). Resetting the clock on dynamic leader behaviors: A conceptual integration and agenda for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 13,479-508.
[64] Miscenko, D., Guenter, H., & Day, D. V. (2017). Am I a leader? Examining leader identity development over time. The Leadership Quarterly, 28,605-620.
[65] Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader-member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,108256-266.
[66] Ng, T.W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). Changes in perceived supervisor embeddedness: Effects on employees' embeddedness, organizational trust, and voice behavior. Personnel Psychology, 66,645-685.
[67] Ng, T.W. H., Feldman, D. C., & Butts, M. M. (2014). Psychological contract breaches and employee voice behaviour: The moderating effects of changes in social relationships. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23,537-553.
[68] Ng, T.W. H., & Lucianetti, L. (2016). Within-individual increases in innovative, behavior and creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social cognitive theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101,14-34.
[69] Patient, D. L. (2011). Pitfalls of administering justice in an inconsistent world: Some reflections on the consistency rule. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32,1008-1012.
[70] Penner, L. A., Shiffman, S., Paty, J. A., & Fritzsche, B. A. (1994). Individual differences in intraperson variability in mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,712-721.
doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.66.4.712URLpmid: 8189348
[71] Peterson, S. J., Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Zhang, Z. (2011). Psychological capital and employee performance: A latent growth modeling approach. Personnel Psychology, 64,427-450.
[72] Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91,115-121.
[73] Qin, X., Direnzo, M. S., Xu, M., & Duan, Y. L. (2014). When do emotionally exhausted employees speak up? Exploring the potential curvilinear relationship between emotional exhaustion and voice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35,1018-1041.
[74] Qin, X., Huang, M. P., Johnson, R. E., Hu, Q. J., & Ju, D. (2018). The short-lived benefits of abusive supervisory behavior for actors: An investigation of recovery and engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 61,1951-1975.
[75] Qin, X., Ren, R., Zhang, Z. X., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Considering self-interests and symbolism together: How instrumental and value-expressive motives interact to influence supervisors' justice behavior. Personnel Psychology, 71,225-253.
[76] Reb, J., & Cropanzano, R. (2007). Evaluating dynamic performance: The influence of salient Gestalt characteristics on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,92490-499.
[77] Ritter, K.-J., Matthews, R. A., Ford, M. T., & Henderson, A. A. (2016). Understanding role stressors and job satisfaction over time using adaptation theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101,1655-1669.
[78] Rubenstein, A. L., Allen, D. G., & Bosco, F. A. (2019). What's past (and present) is prologue: Interactions between justice levels and trajectories predicting behavioral reciprocity. Journal of Management, 45,1569-1594.
[79] Scott, B. A., Barnes, C. M., & Wagner, D. T. (2012). Chameleonic or consistent: A multilevel investigation of emotional labor variability. Academy of Management Journal, 55,905-926.
[80] Shipp, A. J., & Cole, M. S. (2015). Time in individual-level organizational studies: What is it, how is it used, and why isn't it exploited more often? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2,237-260.
[81] Sitton, S. C., & Griffin, S. (1980). The sleeper effect of reconstructive memory. Journal of General Psychology, 103,21-25.
[82] Taylor, S. G., Bedeian, A. G., Cole, M. S., & Zhang, Z. (2017). Developing and testing a dynamic model of workplace incivility change. Journal of Management, 43645-670.
[83] Tremblay, M., Gaudet, M. -C., & Parent-Rocheleau, X. (2018). Good things are not eternal: How consideration leadership and initiating structure influence the dynamic nature of organizational justice and extra-role behaviors at the collective level. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25,211-232.
[84] van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp.1-60). San Diego, CA: Academic.
[85] Varey, C., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Experiences extended across time: Evaluation of moments and episodes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5,169-185.
[86] Yu, L. T. (2017). Some things, if not all things, are about change: A time-based theory of abusive supervision. Retrieved October 17, 2020, from, https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/206390.
[87] Zhu, J., Tatachari, S., & Chattopadhyay, P. (2017). Newcomer identification: Trends, antecedents, moderators, and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 60,855-879.
[88] Zhu, J., Wanberg, C. R., Harrison, D. A., & Diehn, E. W. (2016). Ups and downs of the expatriate experience? Understanding work adjustment trajectories and career outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101,549-568.




[1]冯廷勇, 王雪珂, 苏缇. 拖延行为的发展认知机制及神经基础[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(4): 586-596.
[2]张亚坤, 陈宁, 陈龙安, 施建农. 让智慧插上创造的翅膀:创造动力系统的激活及其条件[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(4): 707-722.
[3]刘宇, 胡传鹏, 樊富珉, 孙沛, 徐杰, 蔡玉清, 刘雪莉. 基于网络理论的物质成瘾新视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(2): 296-310.
[4]翁纯纯, 王宁. 时距知觉的动物研究范式及相关神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(9): 1478-1492.
[5]张晶晶, 梁啸岳, 陈伊笛, 陈庆荣. 音乐句法加工的认知机制与音乐结构的影响模式[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(6): 883-892.
[6]王志成, 赵曙明, 杨杰. 多层次知识隐藏行为的形成与后果:基于地位竞争的视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(6): 893-903.
[7]王碧英, 高日光, 舒夏俊. 职场地位:多面性及其动态影响机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(6): 904-923.
[8]何听雨, 丁一, 李昊堃, 程晓荣, 范炤, 定险峰. 时间的多维度空间表征:分离的起源与激活机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(6): 935-944.
[9]杨权, 尹述飞, 胡兴. 跨期选择中的年龄差异及其机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(6): 987-993.
[10]何清华, 李丹丹. 中国儿童青少年跨期决策的发展与脑发育机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(3): 381-389.
[11]李精精, 张剑, 田慧荣, Jeffrey B.Vancouver. 动态计算模型在组织行为学研究中的应用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(2): 368-380.
[12]冉光明, 李睿, 张琪. 高社交焦虑者识别动态情绪面孔的神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(12): 1979-1988.
[13]尹华站, 崔晓冰, 白幼玲, 曹格格, 邓靖歆, 李丹. 时间信息加工与信息加工时间特性双视角下的重要时间参数及其证据[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(11): 1853-1864.
[14]吴小菊, 陈俊芳, 符佳慧, 李纾, 梁竹苑. 健康领域的跨期决策与健康行为[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(11): 1926-1938.
[15]李才文, 臧奋英, 禤宇明, 傅小兰. 对威胁刺激的碰撞时间估计[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(10): 1650-1661.





PDF全文下载地址:

http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=5416
相关话题/工作 组织 心理 科学 管理

  • 领限时大额优惠券,享本站正版考研考试资料!
    大额优惠券
    优惠券领取后72小时内有效,10万种最新考研考试考证类电子打印资料任你选。涵盖全国500余所院校考研专业课、200多种职业资格考试、1100多种经典教材,产品类型包含电子书、题库、全套资料以及视频,无论您是考研复习、考证刷题,还是考前冲刺等,不同类型的产品可满足您学习上的不同需求。 ...
    本站小编 Free壹佰分学习网 2022-09-19
  • 基于游戏的心理测评
    徐俊怡,李中权()南京大学社会学院心理学系,南京210023收稿日期:2020-05-24出版日期:2021-03-15发布日期:2021-01-26通讯作者:李中权E-mail:zqli@nju.edu.cn基金资助:教育部人文社科规划基金项目(20YJA190004);江苏省教育厅高校哲学社会科 ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 恐惧管理理论的争议及其对死亡心理研究的启示
    孟祥寒1,李强1,2(),周彦榜1,王进31南开大学社会心理学系,天津3003502南开大学滨海学院,天津3002703天津职业技术师范大学,天津300222收稿日期:2020-02-29出版日期:2021-03-15发布日期:2021-01-26通讯作者:李强E-mail:liqiangp@126 ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 敬畏的心理模型及其认知神经机制
    赵小红1,2,童薇3,陈桃林1,2(),吴冬梅4,张蕾1,2,陈正举1,方晓义3,龚启勇1,2,唐小蓉21四川大学华西医院放射科华西磁共振研究中心,成都6100412四川大学公共管理学院社会学与心理学系,成都6100653北京师范大学心理学部,北京1008754成都市第四人民医院,成都610036收 ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 工作场所不文明行为与职场排斥间的螺旋效应
    詹思群,严瑜()武汉大学哲学学院心理学系,武汉430072收稿日期:2020-07-03出版日期:2021-03-15发布日期:2021-01-26通讯作者:严瑜E-mail:yanyu@whu.edu.cn基金资助:国家社科基金项目“基于情绪角色模型的组织中不文明行为的螺旋效应研究”资助(18BG ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 老年人心理韧性与幸福感的关系:一项元分析
    叶静,张戌凡()南京师范大学金陵女子学院,南京210097收稿日期:2020-07-23出版日期:2021-02-15发布日期:2020-12-29通讯作者:张戌凡E-mail:xufanzhang@163.com基金资助:国家自然科学青年基金项目“工会实践对员工工作幸福感的影响:基于工具-情感的双 ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 抑郁症患者工作记忆内情绪刺激加工的特点及其机制
    黄挚靖,李旭()华中师范大学心理学院,武汉430079收稿日期:2020-01-13出版日期:2021-02-15发布日期:2020-12-29通讯作者:李旭E-mail:xuli@ccnu.edu.cn基金资助:国家自然科学基金青年基金(31700957);教育部人文社会科学研究青年项目(17YJ ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 催产素调控心理韧性:基于对海马的作用机制
    薛冰,王雪娇,马宁,高军()认知与人格教育部重点实验室,重庆400715收稿日期:2020-04-27出版日期:2021-02-15发布日期:2020-12-29通讯作者:高军E-mail:gaojunscience@126.com基金资助:国家自然科学基金(32071059);重庆市自然科学基金( ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 亲组织不道德行为的解释机制与理论模型
    严秋斯,隋杨(),郝雪晶北京科技大学经济管理学院,北京100083收稿日期:2020-02-05出版日期:2021-02-15发布日期:2020-12-29通讯作者:隋杨E-mail:suiy@ustb.edu.cn基金资助:国家自然科学基金项目(71972009)Explanatorymechan ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 计算模型视角下信任形成的心理和神经机制——基于信任博弈中投资者的角度
    高青林,周媛()中国科学院心理研究所行为科学重点实验室,北京100101中国科学院大学心理学系,北京100049收稿日期:2020-04-18出版日期:2021-01-15发布日期:2020-11-23通讯作者:周媛E-mail:zhouyuan@psych.ac.cn基金资助:*中国科学院心理研究 ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01
  • 《心理科学进展》2020年度审稿专家名录
    出版日期:2021-01-15发布日期:2021-01-08Online:2021-01-15Published:2021-01-08摘要/Abstract参考文献相关文章0Norelatedarticlesfound!PDF全文下载地址:http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlk ...
    本站小编 Free考研考试 2022-01-01