viewing the interpersonal mistreatment literature through a … et al. (2016). mistreatment a… ·...

Article

Viewing the interpersonalmistreatment literaturethrough a temporal lens

Michael S. ColeTexas Christian University, USA

Abbie J. ShippTexas Christian University, USA

Shannon G. TaylorUniversity of Central Florida, USA

AbstractGiven increasing awareness of time’s critical role, we assess the current position of time in theworkplace mistreatment literature. Focusing on four mistreatment constructs (viz., abusivesupervision, workplace bullying, workplace incivility, and social undermining) found in the orga-nizational psychology literature, our search revealed 266 studies that have empirically examinedthe consequences of these forms of interpersonal mistreatment. We examine and critique thesestudies, finding that with a few exceptions, most have failed to design and test theoretical rela-tionships in a manner consistent with construct definitions. As interpersonal mistreatmentresearch has neglected the role of time, we conclude that the substantial number of existing studiesoffer limited insight into the true nature of mistreatment’s consequences over time. We go on toelaborate on the types of theoretical insights that might emerge when a temporal lens (objectivetime and/or subjective time) is adopted by mistreatment researchers.

KeywordsAbusive supervision, bullying, incivility, interpersonal mistreatment, longitudinal, objective time,subjective time, temporal lens, time, undermining

Paper received 5 January 2015; revised version accepted 19 August 2015.

Corresponding author:

Michael S. Cole, Department of Management, Entrepreneurship, and Leadership, Neeley School of Business, Texas

Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Organizational Psychology Review2016, Vol. 6(3) 273–302

ª The Author(s) 2015Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/2041386615607095

opr.sagepub.com

OrganizationalPsychologyReview

at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://opr.sagepub.com

http://opr.sagepub.com/

Over the past two decades, research on the

topic of interpersonal mistreatment at work has

increased exponentially. In doing so, researchers

interested in studying workplace mistreatment

have proposed several concepts designed to tap

different aspects of this harmful work behavior,

including abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000),

bullying (Einarsen, 1999), incivility (Anders-

son & Pearson, 1999), and social undermining

(Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002). Abusive

supervision, for example, refers to hostile

verbal and nonverbal supervisory behaviors

(Tepper, 2000) and is estimated to cost U.S.

businesses (in terms of absenteeism, health

care costs, and lost productivity) more than

$20 billion annually (Tepper, 2007). Tracking

the adverse consequences of abusive super-

vision, workplace incivility focuses on a per-

petrator’s behavior with an ambiguous intent

to harm another (Andersson & Pearson, 1999)

and is believed to touch 98% of U.S. employees,

with an associated annual cost in the millions

(Porath & Pearson, 2013). To be sure, the

frequency with which individuals are being

mistreated at work, whether by supervisors or

their coworkers, suggests it is a serious social

problem warranting continued scholarly atten-

tion (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Tepper,

2007).

Given the importance of this research, we

sought to appraise the current state of affairs

by determining the extent to which the inter-

personal mistreatment literature has generated

theoretically substantive findings. Toward

this end, we consider that, despite meaningful

conceptual differences among the mistreat-

ment constructs (Tepper & Henle, 2011), they

all share a key feature—namely, the mistreat-

ment constructs are inherently dynamic and

thus change over time. As such, an empirical

study on abusive supervision or coworker

bullying that treats its focal construct as a

static input would not be testing theoretical

relationships in a manner prescribed by the

construct’s definition. This is potentially pro-

blematic because when a study sidesteps issues

of temporality (e.g., treating a dynamic phe-

nomenon as static), the most likely conse-

quences are weak hypotheses and ambiguous—if

not erroneous—results (Ployhart & Vandenberg,

2010). Clearly, questionable inferences have the

potential to denigrate the accumulated knowledge

in this important area of research. By the same

token, the explicit consideration of time-related

issues will result in better theory building and a

richer understanding of the phenomena of

interest (Mitchell & James, 2001). According

to George and Jones (2000), this is because

constructs ‘‘exist in and through time; time is

intimately bound up with the content of human

experience [and thus] . . . cannot be separated

from it’’ (p. 666).

With hundreds of published articles on

interpersonal mistreatment at work, our main

purpose is to take stock of this literature’s

knowledge base by evaluating existing research

studies through a temporal lens (Ancona,

Goodman, Lawrence, & Tushman, 2001). We

therefore provide a temporal review of the

mistreatment literature. We begin with a brief

review of the conceptual definitions and

empirical findings associated with the four

exemplar mistreatment constructs (viz., abu-

sive supervision, bullying, incivility, and social

undermining).1 Next, we offer a short primer

on time to delineate the important aspects of

a temporal lens that shape our review and

critique of the mistreatment literature. Here,

we address the question of ‘‘what is time,’’

observing that time can be viewed in terms of

objective (clock) time or subjective (psy-

chological) time. As we detail later in our

review, this particular issue has salient impli-

cations for how mistreatment researchers con-

ceive, design, and conduct their studies. We

then summarize empirical studies that focus

on interpersonal mistreatment’s downstream

consequences, with special consideration toward

the temporal issues raised in this review. As

a result of our findings, we articulate how

the addition of objective and subjective time

can change the way mistreatment is studied,

274 Organizational Psychology Review 6(3)



offering interesting new research questions.

Finally, we discuss how incorporating time

into one’s study requires careful attention

to research design, and in doing so, allows

for tests of new and interesting research

questions.

Overview of interpersonalmistreatment constructs

Abusive supervision

Tepper (2000) first introduced the concept

of abusive supervision, which he defined as

‘‘subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to

which supervisors engage in the sustained

display [emphasis added] of hostile verbal

and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical

contact’’ (p. 178). According to Tepper’s con-

ceptualization, then, a supervisor’s abusive acts

must be recurrently experienced by subordinates.

This particular aspect of abusive supervision is

noteworthy because it implies that supervisory

mistreatment must occur over time. Reviews of

the literature have found that abusive supervision

has been consistently linked to undesirable levels

of subordinate job satisfaction, commitment,

and psychological distress (Martinko, Harvey,

Brees, & Mackey, 2013; Tepper, 2007). They

also find that subordinates of abusive super-

visors are more likely to respond with deviant

retaliatory acts, fewer citizenship behaviors,

and less effort directed at job tasks (Martinko

et al., 2013; Tepper, 2007).

Workplace bullying

It proved difficult to determine who first

introduced the concept of bullying to the

organizational psychology literature, although

some of the earliest research began appearing

in the early 1990s (e.g., Einarsen, Raknes, &

Matthiesen, 1994). When placed in the work

context, bullying is defined as ‘‘instances where

an employee is repeatedly and over a period of

time [emphasis added] exposed to negative

acts’’ (Hershcovis, 2011, p. 501). The sys-

tematic and gradually evolving nature of bul-

lying is a notable hallmark of this mistreatment

phenomenon. For example, according to Einar-

sen (1999), one or two negative experiences

cannot be construed as bullying but, rather,

repeated exposure on a weekly basis (for several

months) is indicative of experienced bullying

(p. 16). A recent meta-analysis by Nielsen and

Einarsen (2012) provides supportive evidence

for the detrimental effects of workplace bullying.

It found that employees exposed to bullying are

more likely to experience adverse psychological

and job-related consequences, including mental

and physical health problems, increased inten-

tions to quit, reduced job satisfaction and com-

mitment, and more frequent absenteeism.

Workplace incivility

Concerns about civility can be traced as far

back as the founding of the United States of

America (Washington, 1888/1971). Despite its

extensive history in social norms, the notion

of incivility at work was first introduced by

Andersson and Pearson (1999). They char-

acterized workplace incivility as ‘‘low-intensity

deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm

the target, in violation of workplace norms for

mutual respect’’ (p. 457). In contrast to the

other mistreatment constructs which explicitly

incorporate time into their definitions, work-

place incivility’s definition does not account for

its temporal nature. And yet workplace incivi-

lity does indeed consider the role of time and its

implications. This stems in large part from

Andersson and Pearson’s theorizing, in which

they describe uncivil behavior as unfolding in a

series of ‘‘tit-for-tat’’ exchanges that ‘‘spiral’’

or escalate over time. Andersson and Pearson

go on to explicitly assert that workplace inci-

vility has the potential to substantively impact

targets’ attitudes towards work because the

effects associated with incivility’s low-intensity

behaviors are likely to accumulate over time. In

such a scenario, initial instances of incivility

Cole et al. 275



have little to no discernable effect on a target,

but eventually a subsequent incivility episode

could create significant harm by constituting

the proverbial straw that ‘‘breaks the camel’s

back’’ (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 462). A

number of studies have demonstrated that the

experience of incivility is associated with

diminished levels of job satisfaction and com-

mitment (e.g., Cortina, Magley, Williams, &

Langhout, 2001; Taylor, Bedeian, & Kluemper,

2012), increased physiological and psycholo-

gical forms of stress and withdrawal (e.g., Bunk

& Magley, 2013; Salomon & Jagusztyn, 2008),

and more frequent retaliatory acts (e.g., Penney

& Spector, 2005; Taylor & Kluemper, 2012). A

few studies have examined performance-related

outcomes, with incivility experiences correlat-

ing with fewer acts of citizenship (e.g., Taylor

et al., 2012), decreased task performance

(Porath & Erez, 2007), and increased absen-

teeism (Sliter, Sliter, & Jex, 2011).

Social undermining

The social undermining construct was brought

into the work domain by Duffy et al. (2002),

though they acknowledge that the term ‘‘social

undermining’’ was first introduced by Vinokur

and van Ryn (1993). According to Duffy et al.

(2002), social undermining is best characterized

as ‘‘behavior intended to hinder, over time,

[emphasis added] the ability to establish and

maintain positive interpersonal relationships,

work-related success, and favorable reputa-

tion’’ (p. 332). Once again, the passage of time

plays a pivotal role in delineating this phe-

nomenon’s episodic qualities. For example,

undermining behaviors are assumed to ‘‘weaken

its target gradually or by degrees’’ (Duffy,

Scott, Shaw, Tepper, & Aquino, 2012, p. 643)

but only to the extent one’s efforts are under-

mined on a recurring basis (Duffy et al., 2002).

Moreover, the consequences associated with

successive undermining episodes are believed

to be subtle but insidious because their effects

on targets can add up over time. In this

connection, Duffy and her colleagues (2002;

Duffy, Ganster, Shaw, Johnson, & Pagon,

2006) have found that social undermining is

associated with lower levels of job satisfaction

and commitment, and greater intentions to quit.

Studies have also found that targets of social

undermining experience increased levels of psy-

chological distress (e.g., Nahum-Shani, Hen-

derson, Lim, & Vinokur, 2014), and are likely to

engage in retaliation (e.g., Duffy et al., 2002) as

well as poor job performance (e.g., Ng & Feld-

man, 2012).

Issues related to time and useof a temporal lens inmistreatment research

Illustrated by the brief previous overview, it is

quite clear (to us) that temporal issues are an

integral aspect of all four mistreatment con-

cepts. Such an observation mirrors the organi-

zational psychology literature as a whole. It is

widely acknowledged, for example, that time is

a critical component of most any topic dis-

cussed in organizational psychology and related

management disciplines (e.g., Ancona et al.,

2001; Bluedorn, 2002; George & Jones, 2000;

McGrath & Kelly, 1986; Shipp & Fried, 2014;

Sonnentag, 2012). This is because we—as

organizational scientists—cannot fully under-

stand why individuals behave as they do with-

out considering the temporal context in which

they are embedded (Lewin, 1943; Murray,

1938). Seeing value in the adoption of this

perspective, Ancona et al. (2001) were among

the first to call for the use of a ‘‘temporal lens’’

when studying human behavior in the work

domain. According to these scholars, time ‘‘has

always been at the foundation of organization

theory’’ but it has only recently moved ‘‘from the

background to the foreground’’ (p. 512).

We therefore draw from the work of Ancona

et al. (2001), among others (e.g., Fried &

Slowik, 2004; Roe, 2008; Shipp & Fried, 2014),

to frame our discussion of time-relevant issues




as they pertain to mistreatment research. In

doing so, we begin by introducing the two

predominant conceptualizations of time. The

first refers to objective time, most commonly

represented by the passage of ‘‘clock time.’’

Triggered from the physical universe (e.g., the

daily rising and setting of the sun), objective

time implies that workplace events flow in an

irreversible sequence from past to present to

future. Objective time is measured as linear,

quantifiable units (e.g., each passing minute is

the same as any other minute in time), which

leads to the passage of time as an absolute

across all individuals and situations (Ancona

et al., 2001; Shipp & Fried, 2014). When

incorporated into a study on interpersonal mis-

treatment, the ‘‘passage of time’’ is typically not

the study’s primary focus but rather provides the

context needed to capture the inherent dyna-

mism in a mistreatment construct or its effects.

The second conceptualization refers to time

as a subjective experience based on psy-

chological and sociological constructions (e.g.,

Rousseau & Fried, 2001; Shipp & Jansen, 2011).

That is, individuals are assumed to interpret

workplace events based on normative experi-

ence (Fried & Slowik, 2004). Individuals’ ret-

rospections and anticipations provide a context

for their current experience, meaning that sub-

jective time is not necessarily linear or quanti-

fiable, but instead interpretive and malleable

(Shipp & Fried, 2014). When placed into the

context of the mistreatment literature, a sub-

jective view of time assumes that a target of

mistreatment will mentally ‘‘time travel’’ to

recall his or her past experiences when making

sense of the present situation. Perhaps more

interestingly, the target’s present-day response

is shaped not only by remembered past experi-

ences (as contrasted to current levels), but also

by his or her anticipated interactions with the

alleged perpetrator.

Current state of the existing literature

Using these temporal conceptualizations as a

backdrop, we examined existing studies and

determined the extent to which prior research

on abusive supervision, bullying, incivility, and

undermining has accounted for time when

testing theoretical predictions.2 For instance, a

study exploring the relationship between abusive

supervision and subordinate job performance

might use an experience sampling method to

repeatedly assess both variables for an extended

period of time (e.g., over a period of days or

weeks). Such a study would be considered as

having adopted a temporal lens because it uses

the objective passage of clock time as the

medium through which dynamic relationships

are explored. In a similar vein, a study also

could be classified as temporal to the extent that

it considers a target’s current mistreatment

perceptions as well as recollected past mis-

treatment experiences or anticipations regard-

ing future incidents (i.e., a subjective time lens).

Our search of the four mistreatment constructs

yielded 545 samples (heretofore referred to as

‘‘studies’’) from 465 articles. Of these, 266

studies met our inclusion criteria.3 Table 1

summarizes our classification results.

Table 1. Temporal review of interpersonal mistreatment research.

k A-temporal Objective time Subjective time

Abusive supervision 124 120 (97%) 3 (2%) 1 (1%)Bullying 79 78 (99%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%)Incivility 50 42 (84%) 5 (10%) 3 (6%)Undermining 13 13 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)Total 266 253 (95%) 9 (3%) 4 (2%)

Note. k ¼ number of studies.

Cole et al. 277



Our review indicates that the mistreatment

literature has yet to adopt a temporal lens, with

253 of the 266 studies (95%) neglecting both

objective and subjective elements of time. We

also noted that 190 of the 253 studies tested

their hypotheses using a cross-sectional research

design whereas 63 studies employed a time-lagged

research design, in which the mistreatment

construct and outcome variable(s) were assessed

at different times. Although a time-lagged design

may help to alleviate common-method variance

concerns, it is only capable of capturing between-

unit differences (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010).

In other words, a time-lagged design is similar to a

cross-sectional design in that both place the mis-

treatment variables and their outcomes in static

form (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010; Ployhart &

Ward, 2011).

Another interesting finding was that in over

half (54%) of these studies (136 out of 253), the

authors were seemingly aware of the limitations

associated with their static research design

given the repeated calls for future research to use

a truly longitudinal design. By ‘‘truly long-

itudinal,’’ we mean that the focal mistreatment

construct and study outcomes are both measured

repeatedly for three or more time periods (Chan,

1998; Ployhart & Ward, 2011). Further, 22% of

the time-lagged studies (14 out of 63) incorrectly

stated that they had used a ‘‘longitudinal’’

design. With very few exceptions, then, when

researchers have examined the consequences of

interpersonal mistreatment at work, they primarily

have done so in a manner that can be classified as

a-temporal.

Of the remaining 13 studies that did account

for temporal factors, nine studies (3% of 266)

examined dynamic longitudinal relationships

(Beattie & Griffin, 2014a, 2014b; Meier &

Spector, 2013; Taylor, Bedeian, Cole, & Zhang,

2014; Thau & Mitchell, 2010, Study 3; Tuckey

& Neall, 2014; A. R. Wheeler, Halbesleben, &

Whitman, 2013; Whitman, Halbesleben, &

Holmes, 2014; Zhou, Yan, Che, & Meier, 2014)

through an objective time lens. We also iden-

tified four studies (2% of 266) that we felt

somewhat addressed subjective time. In three of

these studies (i.e., Cortina & Magley, 2009,

Studies 1, 2, and 3), the employee participants

were asked to recall a particular mistreatment

incident (i.e., retrospective mistreatment) to

assist them in narrowing in on past reactions to

a specific situation. Only Greenbaum, Hill,

Mawritz, and Quade (2014, Study 3) examined

how the recollection of past mistreatment

influenced current reactions. Finally, we

observed that these four studies focused only

on retrospected mistreatment and neglected the

potential impact of anticipatory mistreatment

when asking employee participants to make

sense of their current situation.

In summary, a majority of the identified

studies on abusive supervision, bullying, work-

place incivility, and social undermining employed

a static research design. Consequently, it appears

that these streams of research have largely

failed to design and test conceptual schemes

in a manner consistent with the mistreatment

constructs’ core definitions and assumptions.

This finding was somewhat surprising to us

given that these well-known and widely used

mistreatment constructs are innately relational

and dynamic (e.g., Hershcovis & Reich, 2013).

The lack of empirical evidence for the dynamics

of mistreatment over time is not just surpris-

ing, it also carries with it severe implications.

Within the broader organizational psychology

literature, scholars have strongly criticized

static research because most (if not all) orga-

nizational theories and the constructs used to

test them are fundamentally dynamic (e.g.,

Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010). Consequences

associated with putting dynamic phenomena

and their associations in static form include

ambiguous tests of theory, biased parameter

estimates, and quite possibly erroneous infer-

ences made by the researchers (George &

Jones, 2000; Maxwell & Cole, 2007; Pitariu

& Ployhart, 2010). For example, it has been

shown that findings from a static study can

reverse in sign or disappear altogether when

tested in a dynamic manner that is consistent with




underlying theory (see, e.g., Vancouver, Tama-

nini, & Yoder, 2010; Vancouver, Thompson, &

Williams, 2001). Given the real possibility of

inaccurate conclusions when mistreatment

variables and their outcomes are relegated to a

static form, the all-too-common practice of

recommending a longitudinal research design

as ‘‘the next researcher’s responsibility’’ should

come to an end. Mistreatment scholars must

begin to account for the role of time (e.g.,

George & Jones, 2000; Mitchell & James,

2001) and incorporate longitudinal research

designs (e.g., Chan, 2014; McArdle, 2009)

into their work. The need for longitudinal

mistreatment research has been consistently

acknowledged (e.g., Hershcovis, 2011; Mar-

tinko et al., 2013; Tepper, 2007), but it appears

that very few scholars have heeded these calls.

This observation begs the question of why

more mistreatment researchers have not wel-

comed a temporal lens with open arms.

Methodological challengesand misunderstandings

We attribute the current state of affairs (at least

partly) to methodological challenges and the

fact that the term ‘‘longitudinal’’ is frequently

misunderstood. According to Ployhart and

Ward (2011), for example, the term long-

itudinal ‘‘gets tossed about so much that it is

confusing to know what is a longitudinal study’’

(p. 14). Following Chan (1998) and Ployhart

and his colleagues (Ployhart & Vandenberg,

2010; Ployhart & Ward, 2011), we submit that a

study is considered longitudinal when it (a)

emphasizes construct change and (b) contains a

minimum of three repeated observations. This

means that a study measuring the mistreatment

variable at Time 1 and the criterion variable at

Time 2 does not constitute a longitudinal study.

We identified a number of time-lagged studies

that separated the timing of such measurements.

Although the use of time lags is better than a

cross-sectional design (i.e., it helps deal with

common method concerns), our analysis found

that nearly one quarter of these time-lagged

studies wrongly stated that they had used a

longitudinal design. The top half of Table 2

shows a few descriptive statistics for the vari-

ous time lags used by mistreatment researchers.

An inspection of this information suggests

considerable differences within and across the

mistreatment constructs (e.g., time lags ranged

from 10 days to 14 months), and we noted that

the identified studies rarely justified their time

lag choices. As will be discussed in a later

section, different time lags can yield sub-

stantively different effect sizes even when the

same mistreatment–outcome relationships are

under study.

We also observed that a-temporal studies, as

part of their research design, oftentimes asked

individual respondents to summarize their

exposure to the negative acts over some specific

period of time (e.g., ‘‘think back over the past

year, how often have you experienced . . . ’’)

and correlate these summary judgments with

focal outcome variables. As shown in the bot-

tom half of Table 2, there is considerable var-

iation in the use of recall instructions within and

across the mistreatment constructs. For exam-

ple, researchers interested in studying incivility

typically (79% of the studies) asked participants

to report on experienced incivility over a spe-

cific period of time; the most frequently used

recall timeframe was 1 year, although six

studies requested participants to summarize

their incivility experiences over a period of

5 years (M ¼ 540 days; SD ¼ 613 days). About

one quarter of bullying and social undermining

studies explicitly reported use of a temporal

scale (i.e., timeframe under consideration), with

bullying scholars occasionally asking partici-

pants to think back as far as 5 years into the past

and social undermining scholars using recall

instructions ranging from 1 week to 1 month. In

contrast, there was simply not enough infor-

mation reported in most of the abusive super-

vision studies (97%) to determine if recall

instructions were used and what the temporal

scale for asking about past experiences might

Cole et al. 279



Tab

le2.

Res

earc

hdes

ign

issu

esofa-

tem

pora

lst

udie

sby

inte

rper

sonal

mis

trea

tmen

tco

nst

ruct

.

Study

char

acte

rist

icA

busi

vesu

per

visi

on

Bully

ing

Inci

vilit

ySo

cial

under

min

ing

Tim

ela

g:N

ola

guse

d68%

(81

of120

studie

s)90%

(70

of78

studie

s)76%

(32

of42

studie

s)54%

(7of13

studie

s)Y

es,la

guse

d32%

(39

of120

studie

s)10%

(8of78

studie

s)24%

(10

of42

studie

s)46%

(6of13

studie

s)M

3m

onth

s342

day

s88

day

s246

day

sSD

3m

onth

s158

day

s67

day

s165

day

sM

in10

day

s6

month

s14

day

s1

month

Max

1ye

ar2

year

s6

month

s14

month

s

Tem

pora

lsc

ale

ofre

call

inst

ruct

ions:

Not

report

ed97%

(17

of20

studie

s)77%

(60

of78

studie

s)21%

(9of42

studie

s)77%

(10

of13

studie

s)Y

es,re

call

inst

ruct

ions

wer

ere

port

ed3%

(3of120

studie

s)23%

(18

of78

studie

s)79%

(33

of42

studie

s)23%

(3of13

studie

s)M

250

day

s244

day

s540

day

s22

day

sSD

191

day

s218

day

s613

day

s13

day

sM

in1

month

1m

onth

14

day

s7

day

sM

ax1

year

5ye

ars

5ye

ars

1m

onth

280 at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from


have been. We also observed (though not pre-

sented in our tables) considerable variation in

the design choices (e.g., temporal scale, overall

study span) made by mistreatment researchers

when developing longitudinal studies (details

available from the authors). To illustrate, con-

sider two recent objective time studies on

workplace incivility (i.e., Meier & Spector,

2013; Zhou et al., 2014). We find it interesting

that both of these repeated-measures studies

focused on the consequences associated with

incivility change and even used the same inci-

vility instrument, and yet they differ in the slice

of time under consideration: a day versus a

month. Such differences are important because,

although the two research teams were interested

in understanding the same phenomenon, the

experience of (and responses to) such behavior

will certainly have a different meaning when

considered daily for 10 days versus monthly for

5 months (interested readers should consult

Zaheer, Albert, & Zaheer, 1999, for a detailed

discussion on time scales).

We maintain that these relatively subtle design

differences can have important theoretical and

practical implications, including confused read-

ers and the potential for different conclusions

based on study results. When deciding what

temporal scale is most appropriate, we encourage

researchers to do their homework. One’s theore-

tical justification for a specific temporal scale

could, for example, be supplemented with

empirical evidence from prior longitudinal stud-

ies that employed the same mistreatment mea-

sure. Moreover, when discussing how a study’s

results connect with the existing literature,

researchers may wish to incorporate a discussion

on how their design decisions could have

impacted the generalizability of findings. For

example, Taylor et al. (2014) clarified how their

dynamic mediation model—although receiving

empirical support when based on repeated mea-

sures data assessed weekly—may not be con-

ceptually fitting for a study focusing on how

targets react to incivility incidents as they happen

moment by moment.

Finally, we identified very few studies that

attempted to understand the mistreatment phe-

nomena through a subjective account of time.

Although this finding is consistent with Shipp

and Cole’s (2015) review of the micro literature

as a whole, we took note of a few important

issues that pertain to the mistreatment literature

specifically. For instance, while coding the

mistreatment studies, we noticed that a study’s

instructions quite often requested participants

to ‘‘think back’’ or recollect past instances of

mistreatment. Yet, these studies were not

focusing on retrospected mistreatment as a the-

oretically meaningful construct. Instead, when

researchers asked participants to recollect past

mistreatment experiences for a specific period of

time, they did so as a means to capture sufficient

instances of transient mistreatment (i.e., a form

of summary evaluation). It seems that the use of

this type of retrospective recall blurs the lines

between current and retrospected mistreatment.

For this reason, we did not code these studies as

adopting a subjective lens.

Accounting for time whenexploring interpersonalworkplace mistreatment

From our review of the literature, it is safe to

say that a vast majority of theory testing in the

mistreatment literature (i.e., abusive super-

vision, bullying, incivility, and social under-

mining) still uses a cross-sectional design,

wherein a researcher’s inferences are based on

associations between two or more static vari-

ables. In this section, we discuss how incor-

porating one or more temporal lenses promises

to open new doors for empirical research on

workplace mistreatment. We begin by elabor-

ating on the types of theoretical insights that

might emerge when an objective temporal lens

is adopted. We then explore areas in which a

subjective temporal lens is likely to have the

largest impact on mistreatment research. In

doing so, we integrate several perspectives on

Cole et al. 281



Tab

le3.

How

toap

ply

ate

mpora

lle

ns

tom

istr

eatm

ent

rese

arch

.

Chec

klis

titem

Rea

sons

for

import

ance

Key

consi

der

atio

ns

for

imple

men

tation

Ref

eren

ces

1.S

o,I

am

inte

rest

ed

inco

nd

ucti

ng

alo

ngit

ud

inalfi

eld

stu

dy

on

on

eo

fth

em

istr

eatm

en

tco

nst

ructs

co

vere

din

this

revie

wan

dI

pla

nto

ad

op

tan

ob

jecti

ve

tem

po

ral

len

s.N

ow

wh

at?

Iden

tify

the

study’

sco

repurp

ose

�A

longi

tudin

alre

sear

chdes

ign

does

not,

by

def

ault,m

ake

for

anove

lth

eore

tica

lco

ntr

ibution.W

hat

isit

that

you

wan

tto

acco

mplis

h?

�H

ow

will

your

study

on

mis

trea

tmen

tco

ntr

ibute

toth

elit

erat

ure

and/o

rch

ange

the

conve

rsat

ion?

�Val

uead

ded:

Are

you

most

inte

rest

edin

des

crip

tive

longi

tudin

alre

sear

ch(i.e

.,fu

ndam

enta

ldyn

amic

softh

em

istr

eatm

ent

const

ruct

)or

expla

nat

ory

longi

tudin

alre

sear

ch(i.e

.,in

vest

igat

ing

dyn

amic

rela

tionsh

ips

bet

wee

na

mis

trea

tmen

tco

nst

ruct

and

outc

om

es)?

Chan

(1998);

Plo

yhar

t&

Van

den

ber

g(2

010)

2a.I

wan

tto

co

nd

uct

ad

esc

rip

tive

lon

git

ud

inalst

ud

yto

exp

lore

wh

en

an

dh

ow

the

mis

treatm

en

tco

nst

ruct

ch

an

ges

over

ob

jecti

ve

tim

e.

Wh

at’

sn

ext?

Conce

ptu

aliz

e(a

nd

grap

h)

the

pre

dic

ted

form

ofch

ange

�H

ypoth

esiz

ing

the

form

ofch

ange

(e.g

.,lin

ear

vs.nonlin

ear)

ises

sential

for

mak

ing

pre

dic

tions

that

are

fals

ifiab

le.

�Pro

vidin

ga

figure

toill

ust

rate

the

hyp

oth

esiz

edfo

rmofch

ange

will

hel

pby

grap

hic

ally

dep

icting

the

pre

dic

ted

chan

getr

end.

�D

evel

opin

ga

theo

ryfo

rm

istr

eatm

ent

chan

gew

illal

soin

form

rese

arch

des

ign

issu

es;fo

rex

ample

,ifin

tere

stis

inth

egr

ow

thofab

usi

vesu

per

visi

on

per

ceptions,

are

sear

cher

may

wis

hto

sam

ple

only

rece

ntly

hir

edem

plo

yees

asoppose

dto

emplo

yees

with

vary

ing

leve

lsofte

nure

with

asu

per

viso

r.

�O

nset

,du

ratio

n,of

fset

:W

hen

does

mis

trea

tmen

tbeg

in,h

ow

long

does

itla

st,a

nd

when

does

iten

d?

�Tra

ject

ory:

What

isth

esh

ape

and

tren

dof

mis

trea

tmen

tove

rtim

e?W

illth

ere

be

no

chan

ge,or

will

the

chan

gein

crea

se(u

pw

ardly

posi

tive

)or

dec

reas

e(d

ow

nw

ardly

neg

ativ

e)?

Could

mis

trea

tmen

tch

ange

exponen

tial

ly?

Should

itpla

teau

with

tim

e,or

exhib

itm

ultip

leuptu

rns

or

dow

ntu

rns

ove

rtim

e?�

Cyc

les

and

rhyt

hms:

Could

mis

trea

tmen

tre

occ

ur

ove

rtim

ein

apre

dic

table

way

?Is

ther

ea

reas

on

toex

pec

tm

istr

eatm

ent

tosp

iral

inan

incr

easi

ng

or

dec

reas

ing

man

ner

ove

rtim

e?

Monge

(1990);

Pitar

iu&

Plo

yhar

t(2

010);

Plo

yhar

t&

Van

den

ber

g(2

010);

Roe

(2008)

Dec

ide

on

adat

aco

llect

ion

sched

ule

�T

he

num

ber

ofre

pea

ted

mea

sure

men

tsan

dth

esp

acin

gbet

wee

nm

easu

rem

ents

(i.e

.,tim

ein

terv

al)

will

impac

tth

est

udy’

sab

ility

todet

ect

and

model

mea

nin

gfulf

orm

sofch

ange

.

�In

cide

ntre

port

ing:

Isth

eex

posu

reto

mis

trea

tmen

ttr

igge

red

by

asp

ecifi

cev

ent

or

does

itro

utinel

yre

occ

ur?

�H

owof

ten

and

for

how

long

:Incl

ude

asu

ffic

ient

num

ber

ofm

easu

rem

ents

toap

pro

pri

atel

y

Fish

er&

To

(201

2);P

loyh

art

&V

ande

nber

g(2

010)

;Z

ahee

ret

al.(

1999

)

(con

tinue

d)



Tab

le3.

(continued

)

Chec

klis

titem

Rea

sons

for

import

ance

Key

consi

der

atio

ns

for

imple

men

tation

Ref

eren

ces

model

the

hyp

oth

esiz

edfo

rmofch

ange

(e.g

.,nonlin

ear

chan

gere

quir

esm

ore

mea

sure

men

ts).

�Pr

actic

ality

:Giv

enpro

san

dco

ns

ofth

eva

rious

sam

plin

gap

pro

aches

,w

hic

hal

tern

ativ

eis

most

likel

yto

pro

duce

valid

infe

rence

sw

ithout

ove

rburd

enin

gpar

tici

pan

ts?

2b

.A

lth

ou

gh

the

desc

rip

tive

ap

pro

ach

sou

nd

sin

tere

stin

g,

I’m

mo

rein

tere

sted

ind

evelo

pin

gan

exp

lan

ato

rylo

ngit

ud

inal

stu

dy

toexp

lore

dyn

am

icre

lati

on

ship

sb

etw

een

mis

treatm

en

texp

eri

en

ces

an

dta

rgets

’re

spo

nse

so

ver

ob

jecti

ve

tim

e.

Wh

at’

sn

ext?

Exam

ine

the

funct

ional

form

ofea

chdyn

amic

const

ruct

�Pre

dic

tw

het

her

ther

esh

ould

be

chan

geove

rtim

ein

each

foca

lva

riab

le.

�D

iscl

aim

er:Ju

stbec

ause

dat

aar

eco

llect

edre

pea

tedly

ove

rtim

edoes

not

guar

ante

eth

atva

riab

les

will

exhib

itva

riab

ility

ove

rtim

e.�

Typ

esof

chan

ge:C

han

gein

each

vari

able

can

be

const

ant

or

pro

port

ional

(i.e

.,re

lative

toits

pre

vious

leve

l).

Gri

mm

etal

.(2

012)

Conce

ptu

aliz

eth

edyn

amic

rela

tionsh

ip(s

)

�Fo

cus

on

theo

rizi

ng

why

ach

ange

inm

istr

eatm

ent

will

lead

toa

chan

gein

anoth

ersu

bst

antive

vari

able

.

�Tim

e:W

hen

will

the

rela

tionsh

ipex

ist

(e.g

.,w

ithin

aday

,fro

mye

ster

day

toto

day

,wee

kto

wee

k,an

dso

on)?

�D

urat

ion:

How

long

should

the

dyn

amic

rela

tionsh

ipex

ist?

�Sh

ape:

Will

the

dyn

amic

rela

tionsh

ipst

eadily

incr

ease

(or

dec

reas

e)ove

rtim

e?O

rper

hap

sit

will

acce

lera

te,dec

eler

ate,

or

even

pla

teau

?�

Hyp

othe

ses:

Do

the

form

alhyp

oth

eses

pre

cise

lydes

crib

eth

edyn

amic

rela

tionsh

ip?

Gri

mm

etal

.(2

012);

Monge

(1990);

Pitar

iu&

Plo

yhar

t(2

010)

Leve

lofan

alys

is�

Longi

tudin

aldat

aar

ehie

rarc

hic

al,w

ith

repea

ted

mea

sure

snes

ted

within

par

tici

pan

ts.

Ther

efore

,th

ele

velofch

ange

ofin

tere

stnee

ds

tobe

clea

rly

spec

ified

.

�Si

ngle

-leve

lmod

el:A

within

-per

son

appro

ach

ackn

ow

ledge

sth

atin

div

idual

sm

ayper

ceiv

eth

eyar

em

istr

eate

dm

ore

on

som

eocc

asio

ns

and

less

on

oth

ers,

and

that

thei

rat

titu

des

and

beh

avio

rsm

aych

ange

acco

rdin

gly.

Singe

r&

Will

ett

(2003)

(con

tinue

d)



Tab

le3.

(continued

)

Chec

klis

titem

Rea

sons

for

import

ance

Key

consi

der

atio

ns

for

imple

men

tation

Ref

eren

ces

�M

ultil

evel

mod

el:A

multile

velap

pro

ach

exam

ines

the

exte

nt

tow

hic

hbet

wee

n-

per

son

diff

eren

ces

(e.g

.,in

per

sonal

ity

or

oth

erch

arac

teri

stic

s)af

fect

within

-per

son

chan

ges

inm

istr

eatm

ent

and/o

rits

dyn

amic

effe

cts.

Dec

ide

on

adat

aco

llect

ion

sched

ule

�N

um

ber

and

spac

ing

ofre

pea

ted

mea

sure

sm

ust

be

give

nca

refu

lco

nsi

der

atio

n.

�T

he

num

ber

ofre

pea

ted

mea

sure

men

tsan

dth

esp

acin

gbet

wee

nm

easu

rem

ents

(i.e

.,tim

ein

terv

al)

has

implic

atio

ns

for

det

ecting

within

-co

nst

ruct

chan

ge,an

dth

esp

acin

gbet

wee

nm

easu

rem

ents

ofth

ediff

eren

tva

riab

les

(i.e

.,tim

ela

g)has

implic

atio

ns

for

the

dyn

amic

rela

tionsh

ips

bet

wee

nth

em

istr

eatm

ent

const

ruct

and

dyn

amic

outc

om

es.

�H

owof

ten

and

for

how

long

:The

mea

sure

men

tocc

asio

ns

should

occ

ur

with

enough

freq

uen

cyto

be

capab

leofdet

ecting

the

form

ofc

han

geex

pec

ted,a

nd

the

ove

rall

study

span

nee

ds

toco

ver

are

asonab

ledura

tion

oftim

e.T

hes

edec

isio

ns

should

be

info

rmed

by

theo

retica

lan

dpra

ctic

alco

nsi

der

atio

ns.

�Ju

stify

deci

sion

s:D

escr

ibe

why

you

mea

sure

dth

eva

riab

les

atth

ese

lect

edin

terv

als,

and

how

this

dec

isio

npro

vides

ago

od

test

ofth

eth

eory

and

hyp

oth

eses

.�

Stat

istic

alpo

wer

:C

onsi

der

pow

erat

all

rele

vant

leve

ls.Par

tici

pan

tsnee

dto

report

asu

ffic

ient

num

ber

ofre

pea

ted

mis

trea

tmen

tin

ciden

tsto

pro

vide

the

pow

erto

test

hyp

oth

eses

atth

ean

alys

isle

velo

finte

rest

.For

am

ultile

velm

odel

,als

opla

nfo

rth

enum

ber

of

par

tici

pan

tsnee

ded

.�

Prac

tical

ity:G

iven

pro

san

dco

ns

ofth

eva

rious

sam

plin

gap

pro

aches

,w

hic

hal

tern

ativ

eis

the

most

likel

yto

pro

duce

valid

infe

rence

sw

ithout

ove

rburd

enin

gpar

tici

pan

ts(e

.g.,

attr

itio

nnot

atra

ndom

)?

Bolg

er,St

adle

r,&

Laure

nce

au(2

012);

Monge

(1990);

Plo

yhar

t&

War

d(2

011);

Roe

(2008);

Zah

eer

etal

.(1

999)

(con

tinue

d)



Tab

le3.

(continued

)

Chec

klis

titem

Rea

sons

for

import

ance

Key

consi

der

atio

ns

for

imple

men

tation

Ref

eren

ces

Intr

oduce

tim

ela

gs�

The

repea

ted

mea

sure

men

tofm

ultip

leco

nst

ruct

sove

rtim

em

aypro

duce

com

mon

sourc

ebia

sw

ithin

am

easu

rem

ent

occ

asio

n.

�In

corp

ora

ting

anap

pro

pri

ate

tim

ela

gad

dre

sses

man

yis

sues

rega

rdin

gca

usa

lity.

�Cau

sean

def

fect

:T

he

tim

ela

gnee

ds

tofit

the

theo

rybel

ieve

dto

under

lieth

edyn

amic

rela

tionsh

ip.A

fter

mis

trea

tmen

tocc

urs

,how

long

untilt

he

targ

etis

most

likel

yto

resp

ond?

Chan

(2014);

Mitch

ell&

Jam

es(2

001);

Zah

eer

etal

.(1

999)

2c.A

ctu

ally,th

en

oti

on

ofsu

bje

cti

ve

tim

est

rikes

me

as

very

inte

rest

ing.H

ow

sho

uld

Igo

ab

ou

td

esi

gn

ing

ast

ud

yo

fo

ne

of

the

mis

treatm

en

tco

nst

ructs

co

vere

din

this

revie

ww

ith

asu

bje

cti

ve

tem

po

ral

len

s?W

here

do

Ist

art

?W

hat

are

the

key

issu

es

In

eed

toco

nsi

der?

Consi

der

retr

osp

ecte

dan

d/o

ran

tici

pat

edm

istr

eatm

ent

�Su

bje

ctiv

etim

eis

cycl

ical

and

inte

rpre

tive

.�

Peo

ple

men

tally

‘‘tim

etr

avel

’’am

ong

the

pas

t,pre

sent,

and

futu

re,so

consi

der

ing

mis

trea

tmen

tin

the

curr

ent

mom

ent

isn’t

enough

tounder

stan

dcu

rren

tre

actions.

�Tem

pora

linf

luen

ce:R

etro

spec

ted

mis

trea

tmen

tan

d/o

ran

tici

pat

edm

istr

eatm

ent

could

dir

ectly

impac

tin

div

idual

s’re

sponse

sto

mis

trea

tmen

t(a

bove

and

bey

ond

curr

ent

inci

den

ts)

or

alte

rth

ere

lationsh

ips

bet

wee

ncu

rren

tm

istr

eatm

ent

and

curr

ent

outc

om

es.

�Tem

pora

lcom

pariso

n:T

he

eval

uat

ion

of

curr

ent

mis

trea

tmen

tin

the

conte

xt

of

retr

osp

ecte

dor

antici

pat

edm

istr

eatm

ent

could

influ

ence

anin

div

idual

’scu

rren

tre

actions.

Alb

ert

(1977);

Mar

kman

&M

cMulle

n(2

003);

Ship

p&

Janse

n(2

011)

Det

erm

ine

iftim

eper

ception

isre

leva

nt

�Su

bje

ctiv

etim

eis

het

eroge

neo

us

soin

div

idual

sin

terp

ret

and

psy

cholo

gica

llyex

per

ience

itin

diff

eren

tw

ays.

�Per

ception

oftim

edura

tion

vari

esdep

endin

gupon

what

ishap

pen

ing

(e.g

.,1

day

of

mis

trea

tmen

tm

ay‘‘f

eel’’

longe

rth

an1

day

of

bei

ng

trea

ted

wel

l,an

dpeo

ple

may

act

acco

rdin

gly)

.

�Tem

pora

lper

cept

ion:

The

inte

rpre

tation

ofth

eper

ceiv

edpas

sage

oftim

eduri

ng

mis

trea

tmen

t(e

.g.,

quic

kly,

slow

ly)

could

affe

ctw

hat

indiv

idual

sdo

asa

resu

lt.

McG

rath

&R

otc

hfo

rd(1

983)

Inco

rpora

tete

mpora

lin

div

idual

diff

eren

ces

�In

div

idual

shav

ediff

eren

tw

ays

ofth

inki

ng

about

tim

e.�

Tem

pora

lfoc

us:T

he

deg

ree

tow

hic

ha

per

son

thin

ksab

out

or

focu

ses

on

the

pas

t,pre

sent,

Blu

edorn

(2002);

Ship

p&

Cole

(2015);

Ship

pet

al.

(2009)

(con

tinue

d)



Tab

le3.

(continued

)

Chec

klis

titem

Rea

sons

for

import

ance

Key

consi

der

atio

ns

for

imple

men

tation

Ref

eren

ces

�T

he

sam

ecu

rren

tsi

tuat

ion

may

be

inte

rpre

ted

diff

eren

tly

by

diff

eren

tpeo

ple

,su

gges

ting

that

how

one

char

acte

rist

ical

lyth

inks

about

tim

em

ayaf

fect

thei

rre

actions

tom

istr

eatm

ent.

or

futu

relik

ely

impac

tsre

actions

tocu

rren

tm

istr

eatm

ent.

�Tem

pora

ldep

th:H

ow

far

into

the

pas

tor

futu

rea

per

son

typic

ally

thin

ks,an

dhow

long

they

hold

onto

pas

tor

futu

rem

istr

eatm

ent

per

ceptions,

likel

yin

fluen

ceth

eir

reac

tions

tore

trosp

ecte

d,cu

rren

t,an

dan

tici

pat

edm

istr

eatm

ent.

3.W

hat

ifI

wan

tto

do

itall

an

dta

ke

aco

mp

lete

lyte

mp

ora

lvie

w?

Beyo

nd

the

issu

es

no

ted

befo

re,w

hat

els

ew

illI

need

toco

nsi

der?

Gra

spth

eco

mple

xity

ofad

opting

two

tem

pora

lle

nse

s

�N

eith

erobje

ctiv

enor

subje

ctiv

etim

eex

ists

ina

vacu

um

;both

oper

ate

concu

rren

tly.

�A

com

ple

tely

tem

pora

lvi

ewis

the

most

rich

and

real

istic.

�Rel

ative

impo

rtan

ce:O

bje

ctiv

etim

ean

dsu

bje

ctiv

etim

em

ayex

ert

diff

eren

tin

fluen

ces

on

the

way

curr

ent

mis

trea

tmen

tis

per

ceiv

edan

dim

pac

tsoutc

om

es.Fo

rin

stan

ce,so

me

pas

tin

ciden

tsm

aylin

ger

inan

indiv

idual

’sm

ind

and

continue

toin

fluen

ceth

ew

ayhe

or

she

reac

tsto

pre

sent

mis

trea

tmen

t.�

Nes

ted

lens

es:M

istr

eatm

ent

exper

ience

dove

robje

ctiv

etim

em

aysh

ape

anin

div

idual

’sco

nce

ptions

ofs

ubje

ctiv

etim

e.Fo

rex

ample

,alo

nge

rdura

tion

or

more

freq

uen

tcy

cle

of

mis

trea

tmen

tco

uld

trig

ger

anin

div

idual

tore

flect

on

pas

tm

istr

eatm

ent

or

tofo

reca

stab

out

the

pote

ntial

for

futu

rem

istr

eatm

ent.

�D

evel

opex

pert

ise:

Conce

ivin

g,des

ignin

g,an

dsu

cces

sfully

publis

hin

ga

com

ple

tely

tem

pora

lm

istr

eatm

ent

study

will

invo

lve

anar

ray

of

theo

retica

lan

dm

ethodolo

gica

lch

alle

nge

s,in

cludin

gth

eta

skofin

tegr

atin

gtw

oal

read

yco

mple

xfr

amew

ork

s.

Ship

p&

Cole

(2015)

(con

tinue

d)



Tab

le3.

(continued

)

Chec

klis

titem

Rea

sons

for

import

ance

Key

consi

der

atio

ns

for

imple

men

tation

Ref

eren

ces

4.

Are

there

ad

dit

ion

al

issu

es

that

In

eed

tob

eaw

are

of?

Longi

tudin

alre

sear

chis

risk

yan

dta

kes

tim

e

�In

corp

ora

ting

ate

mpora

lle

ns

can

be

chal

lengi

ng;

doin

gso

will

requir

ea

rese

arch

erto

acco

unt

for

tem

pora

lfa

ctors

inth

eory

dev

elopm

ent,

rese

arch

des

ign,an

ddat

aan

alys

is.

�Res

ourc

eex

pend

iture

s:In

additio

nto

the

tim

ean

def

fort

requir

edto

conce

ive

and

des

ign

alo

ngi

tudin

alst

udy,

thes

est

udie

sca

nbe

cost

lyin

term

sofhum

anre

sourc

esex

pen

ded

toco

mple

tesu

rvey

sre

pea

tedly

or

the

cost

of

purc

has

ing

dat

afr

om

onlin

edat

apan

els

(e.g

.,m

Turk

,Q

ual

tric

s).

�Risk

tole

ranc

e:H

ave

are

alis

tic

under

stan

din

gof

the

chal

lenge

sas

soci

ated

with

longi

tudin

alfie

ldre

sear

ch.

�Be

patie

nt:D

on’t

rush

tem

pora

lst

udie

sof

mis

trea

tmen

tei

ther

inco

nce

ptu

aldev

elopm

ent

or

inst

udy

des

ign.

Bolg

eret

al.(2

003);

Ship

p&

Cole

(2015)

Dat

aan

alys

is�

Ther

ear

em

any

diff

eren

tw

ays

toan

alyz

elo

ngi

tudin

aldat

a.�

Dec

isio

ns

about

stat

istica

lap

pro

aches

should

occ

ur

BEFO

RE

dat

aco

llect

ion.‘‘A

nounce

of

pre

vention

isw

ort

ha

pound

ofcu

re.’’

�The

ory

drives

the

appr

oach

:M

ake

sure

you

under

stan

dw

hat

your

theo

retica

lre

sear

chques

tion

is,an

dhow

your

study

des

ign

and

dat

aan

alys

isw

illan

swer

this

ques

tion.

Agu

inis

&V

anden

ber

g(2

014);

Chan

(2014)

Rec

ruitm

ent

and

trai

nin

gof

par

tici

pan

ts

�It

can

be

diff

icult

tofin

dpar

tici

pan

tsw

illin

gto

com

ple

tesu

rvey

sm

ultip

letim

esper

day

(or

wee

k)an

dove

rex

tended

per

iods

oftim

e(m

onth

s,ye

ars)

.

�O

rien

tatio

n:W

hen

poss

ible

,hold

anin

itia

lori

enta

tion

mee

ting

toex

pla

inst

udy

pro

cedure

s,an

dan

swer

par

tici

pan

ts’

ques

tions.

�In

cent

ives

:C

onsi

der

offer

ing

monet

ary

ince

ntive

san

dlin

king

them

toea

chin

div

idual

’spar

tici

pat

ion

rate

.N

onfin

anci

alin

centive

slik

eper

sonal

ized

feed

bac

kre

port

sar

eal

sohel

pfu

l.�

Rem

inde

rs:R

emin

dpar

tici

pan

tsto

resp

ond

thro

ugh

out

the

study

per

iod.N

otific

atio

ns

(em

ails

,te

xt

mes

sage

s,et

c.)

and

feed

bac

kon

resp

onse

rate

sca

nboost

resp

ondin

g.

Bolg

eret

al.(

2003);

Fish

er&

To

(2012)

(con

tinue

d)



Tab

le3.

(continued

)

Chec

klis

titem

Rea

sons

for

import

ance

Key

consi

der

atio

ns

for

imple

men

tation

Ref

eren

ces

Par

tici

pan

tat

tritio

n�

Att

rition

will

hap

pen

;it

isnot

unco

mm

on

for

the

resp

onse

rate

todro

pby

50%

or

more

bet

wee

nth

efir

stan

dla

stm

easu

rem

ent

occ

urr

ence

.

�Sy

stem

atic

nonr

espo

nse:

Itis

import

ant

totr

yan

das

cert

ain

why

attr

itio

nis

occ

urr

ing,

asth

eex

iste

nce

ofs

yste

mic

mis

singn

ess

(i.e

.,m

issi

ng

notat

random

)m

ayin

dic

ate

bia

sin

the

resu

lts.

�Sa

mpl

esize

and

stat

istic

alpo

wer

:D

eter

min

eth

enec

essa

rysa

mple

size

atth

efin

alm

easu

rem

ent

poin

t,an

dth

enw

ork

bac

kwar

ds

todet

erm

ine

the

sam

ple

size

nee

ded

atth

efir

stm

easu

rem

ent

occ

asio

n.

�Pl

anfo

rm

issing

data

:Consi

der

usi

ng

asa

mplin

gdes

ign

that

inco

rpora

tes

pla

nned

mis

singn

ess

into

the

longi

tudin

aldes

ign.

Gra

ham

,H

ofe

r,&

Mac

Kin

non

(1996);

Goodm

an&

Blu

m(1

996);

Plo

yhar

t&

War

d(2

011)



time (e.g., Mitchell & James, 2001; Monge,

1990; Pitariu & Ployhart, 2010; Ployhart &

Vandenberg, 2010; Roe, 2008) and highlight

key issues that should assist mistreatment

researchers wishing to design a truly temporal

research study. Table 3 summarizes these issues.

New conceptual insightswith an objective time lens

When applying an objective time lens to a study

on workplace mistreatment, the notion of time

reflects a convenient and meaningful metric for

representing and investigating how a mistreat-

ment construct changes over time (e.g., Singer &

Willett, 2003). Put another way, the mistreatment

construct does not change, evolve, or develop

because of time but, rather, it does so over the

passage of clock-time (Chan, 2014; Ployhart &

Vandenberg, 2010). With this temporal perspec-

tive in mind, it follows that there are two long-

itudinal approaches available to researchers.

Descriptive longitudinal research. In descriptive

longitudinal research (Chan, 1998; Ployhart &

Vandenberg, 2010), the researcher is funda-

mentally interested in the basic dynamics of

the focal mistreatment construct; that is, the

form of within-construct change (e.g., linear

vs. nonlinear) over time. Thus, a descriptive

perspective shifts from viewing mistreatment

as static and fixed to a more dynamic view of

‘‘mistreating’’ that could start, stop, change in

magnitude, or repeatedly recur as an episodic

event (Chan, 1998; George & Jones, 2000;

Monge, 1990; Roe, 2008). When developing a

rationale to explain the change in mistreat-

ment, key considerations include the onset,

duration, and offset of the focal phenomenon,

the trajectory of mistreatment (i.e., shape,

trend, rate of change such as acceleration or

deceleration), and whether cycles or rhythms

might be expected over time. Indeed, we

acknowledge that conceptualizing the antici-

pated change trend can be difficult. But we also

note that the mistreatment literature has some

existing work from which researchers can draw

when describing why and under what circum-

stances their mistreatment construct is expected

to change (e.g., Andersson & Pearson, 1999;

Aquino & Lamertz, 2004; Chan & McAllister,

2014; Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2008; Pear-

son, Andersson, & Porath, 2000).

To illustrate the potential value in a

descriptive approach, we take a closer look at

Tepper’s (2000) abusive supervision construct.

Recall that abusive supervision refers to the

sustained display of hostile verbal and non-

verbal behaviors as perceived by subordinates.

One should thus expect that the experience of

supervisory abuse will continue for an extended

period without interruption (i.e., remain rela-

tively stable over time). Nevertheless, this

formative assumption is in reality an empiri-

cal question that has, to our knowledge, yet to

be evaluated or tested. Through a descriptive

longitudinal study, an abusive supervision

scholar could easily examine the underlying

pattern of abusive supervision to determine

when it starts and stops; whether it is stable

over time (i.e., a relatively flat horizontal line)

or exhibiting a trend that is either increasing

or decreasing (i.e., linear change); whether the

abuse is increasing or decreasing relative to a

prior level (i.e., nonlinear change); as well as

whether it is a cyclical pattern (e.g., in terms

of days, weeks, or months). For example,

Tepper, Duffy, Henle, and Lambert (2006)

suggest employees’ experience of abusive

supervision might be cyclical if their boss is

particularly abusive after receiving an unsa-

tisfying annual performance appraisal, a pro-

cess often perceived as unfair (Greenberg,

1986). Moreover, if the observed change is

nonlinear, it would be of theoretical interest to

know if there is a plateauing effect or a

breaking point at which the within-construct

change suddenly changes direction (cf. Lang

& Bliese, 2009; Ployhart & Vandenberg,

2010), such as when the abusive supervisor is

given coaching with the threat of losing his or

her job if behavioral changes are not made.

Cole et al. 289



As this discussion illustrates, understanding

the underlying pattern or form of mistreatment

change is critical because in longitudinal

research, within-construct change is the focal

variable of interest. Thus, we maintain that

mistreatment researchers need to understand

the typical pattern of mistreatment before

examining its dynamic relationships with other

substantive constructs.

Explanatory longitudinal research. Recall that our

review yielded nine mistreatment studies in

which all variables were measured repeatedly

(at a minimum, for three observations) over

time. This type of work is referred to as

‘‘explanatory’’ longitudinal research (Chan,

1998; Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010). Expla-

natory longitudinal research focuses on study-

ing ‘‘dynamic relationships’’ (Monge, 1990),

that is, the effect of a dynamic input on a

dynamic outcome. By collecting three or more

repeated measurements from the same indi-

viduals on all variables (e.g., predictor and

criterion), these studies were capable of inves-

tigating how a change in mistreatment predicts

other substantive variables (e.g., changes in job

attitudes or helping behavior). Moreover,

because these explanatory studies focused on

testing dynamic relationships as prescribed by

theory, they offer the mistreatment literature a

more rigorous and informative test of theory

(Mitchell & James, 2001).

According to temporal scholars, when

hypothesizing and testing dynamic relation-

ships, there are a number of issues to consider

including: time, duration, and shape (e.g.,

Chan, 1998; George & Jones, 2000; Monge,

1990; Pitariu & Ployhart, 2010). These tem-

poral characteristics need to be articulated

when hypothesizing the nature of a dynamic

relationship. This is because the more precise

the hypothesis, the more informative the sub-

sequent empirical test, thereby leading to a

more advanced refinement of theory (Pitariu &

Ployhart, 2010). Other important issues involve

the spacing of measurement between the

constructs. These time lags are important for

causality, but care must be taken to ensure that

the lags are neither too short nor too long

(Zaheer et al., 1999). For instance, sometimes a

target’s reaction to mistreatment may occur

almost instantaneously (e.g., when experien-

cing momentary feelings of anger), whereas

other responses may only occur after an

extended period of time has passed (e.g., which

might occur when minor experiences of inci-

vility accumulate and build up over time).

Hence, the effect size of a dynamic relationship

will vary as a function of the span of time that

passes between the dynamic predictor and

dynamic outcome (Gollob & Reichardt, 1987).

We take Taylor et al. (2014) as an example

that deals with these issues. In this article, the

authors were interested in testing a dynamic

model of incivility change, using six repeated

measurements for each construct in their med-

iation model. In doing so, they first needed to

develop a theoretical argument to explain why

and when incivility perceptions may change

over time. Then they theorized why changes in

incivility would be related to changes in burn-

out the following week and, in turn, why

changes in burnout would be related to subse-

quent turnover intention change the following

week. The authors then presented competing

arguments for the functional form of the

dynamic mediated relationships, thus addres-

sing the question of whether the effects should

exhibit a linear relationship over time or are

subject to change (i.e., nonlinear change) over

time. As recommended by Ployhart and Van-

denberg (2010), they explicitly addressed the

appropriate level of change. Finally, they studied

how a number of previously identified metho-

dological challenges unique to longitudinal

research may have impacted the ability to detect

and model within-person construct change over

time, attempting to either tackle these issues

when designing their longitudinal field study or

providing a logical justification for decisions

within the article. Overall, they found that,

beyond past and present levels of experienced




incivility, the direction and magnitude of inci-

vility change can generate substantive changes

in burnout and, in turn, quit intentions. This

result implies that even when an employee’s

current level of experienced incivility is rela-

tively low, he or she may still experience an

upward change in quit intentions (through an

upward change in burnout) if the current level of

mistreatment is judged to be more frequent than

that experienced in the time period just prior.

In summary, pursuing both descriptive long-

itudinal research and explanatory longitudinal

research reflects what we believe to be an

important evolution for research on inter-

personal workplace mistreatment. As other

streams of organizational psychology are

more frequently pursuing both descriptive

and explanatory research (Beal, 2012), we

presume that the mistreatment literature would

do well by following suit. Nevertheless, though

both are important to consider, an objective

time lens is only one of the ways to extend

mistreatment scholarship.

New conceptual insights with a subjectivetime lens

Beyond new insights from considering mistreat-

ment in objective time, mistreatment researchers

can also use a subjective temporal lens. As

noted earlier, unlike objective time, which is

linear and quantifiable, subjective time is more

idiosyncratic. As such, subjective time can be

characterized as cyclical, heterogeneous, and

interpretive (Shipp & Fried, 2014). Subjective

time is cyclical because individuals can ‘‘time

travel’’ (M. A. Wheeler, Stuss, & Tulving,

1997) to relive a mistreatment incident from

the past or to ‘‘prelive’’ mistreatment that is

anticipated to occur in the future. It is het-

erogeneous in that an individual’s current

circumstances can cause time to be perceived

as passing by quickly or slowly, such as when

repeated exposure to a cantankerous coworker

seems to cause the workday to drag on and

on. Finally, subjective time is interpretive,

because two individuals can experience the

same levels of mistreatment over the passage

of objective time but construe them differently,

prompting unique recollections of ‘‘past’’

incidents as well as idiosyncratic forecasts

about the possibility of future mistreatment.

As we describe in more detail in what fol-

lows, these characteristics of subjective time

raise fundamental questions about how individ-

uals shape their views of mistreatment. The fact

that subjective time is interpretive is particularly

relevant because mistreatment is commonly

characterized not as objective acts performed by

a supervisor or a coworker, but as the victims’

perceptions of these behaviors (e.g., Martinko

et al., 2013; Pearson & Porath, 2005; Tepper,

2000). As such, we believe new theoretical

insights will be gained by using a subjective time

lens. The various research questions that could

be asked fall into three categories: temporal

influence and temporal comparison, time per-

ception, and temporal individual differences.

Temporal influence and temporal comparison.Temporal influence and temporal comparison

are mechanisms that describe the ways in which

retrospected and/or anticipated mistreatment

will influence a mistreatment study’s focal out-

comes. Temporal influence suggests that recol-

lected past mistreatment and anticipated future

mistreatment can both have a direct impact on

the current outcome (cf. Shipp & Jansen, 2011).

This could occur when a recollected mistreat-

ment experience (e.g., past bullying) continues

to negatively impact one’s current state of well-

being, even though the situation may have

changed for the better. As another example, if a

noted abusive supervisor is being moved into an

employee’s unit, the employee may foresee

mistreatment and contemplate quitting, or ask

for a transfer before the abusive supervisor even

arrives. As these examples demonstrate, given

that recollected and anticipatory mistreatment

are distinct from mistreatment experienced in the

present, all three mistreatment perceptions could

differentially impact a target’s job attitudes, quit

Cole et al. 291



intentions, and retaliation behaviors in the pres-

ent moment.

Whereas temporal influence suggests that

retrospected and anticipated mistreatment can

directly influence outcomes in the present (i.e.,

main effects), temporal comparison implies

moderating effects in which the relationship

between current perceived mistreatment and the

focal outcome are contingent on retrospected

or anticipated levels of mistreatment. That is,

when an individual engages in temporal com-

parison, he or she will compare current mis-

treatment perceptions to those in the past or

future. This means that the current level of

perceived mistreatment is only understood in

the context of past mistreatment and/or antici-

pated future mistreatment. Thus, a mistreatment

incident experienced in the present could be

interpreted quite differently depending upon what

mistreatment the individual has experienced in the

past or expects to experience in the future. For

example, an individual whose prior workplace

was characterized by high levels of incivility may

be more tolerant of low to moderate levels of

incivility in his current workplace, reacting less

strongly than others because the current situation

is not as bad by comparison.

Time perception. Because a subjective lens

assumes that the experience of clock time is

bound by an individual’s interpretation of it,

individuals may perceive that time is passing

slowly or quickly depending upon their current

experience. For example, when an individual

feels pain or lack of stimulation, time may seem

to drag on; yet the experience of pleasure, flow,

or lots of activity causes time to pass rather

quickly (e.g., Ariely, 1998; Conti, 2001; Csiks-

zentmihalyi, 1990; Janssen, Naka, & Friedman,

2013; McGrath & Rotchford, 1983). In terms of

mistreatment, this implies that the ‘‘pain’’ of

being mistreated may cause an individual’s

workday or work week to pass by more slowly,

perhaps increasing the individual’s desire to find

a job elsewhere.

Individual temporal differences. Although there

are a number of individual differences related to

time (see Shipp & Cole, 2015, for a review), we

believe two constructs specifically relate to

subjective time as discussed herein. Temporal

focus describes individuals’ characteristic ten-

dency to think about the past, present, and/or

future periods of their lives (Shipp, Edwards, &

Lambert, 2009). For example, individuals who

are past focused are more likely to relive

memories as compared to individuals low in

past focus, who may think little about previous

experiences. This implies that past or future

focused individuals may be presently impacted

to a greater extent by retrospected or antici-

pated mistreatment, with these additional time

periods impacting current outcomes (cf. Shipp

et al., 2009). The second individual difference

is temporal depth, defined as the typical dis-

tance to the past or future that an individual

considers relevant (Bluedorn, 2002). Given that

a greater temporal distance makes events more

abstract as opposed to concrete, individuals

tend to find more distant events less relevant for

the current moment (Trope & Liberman, 2003).

On the other hand, individuals with long tem-

poral depths may be more likely to consider

mistreatment incidents in the distant future and,

thus, make decisions in the present that indi-

viduals with shorter temporal depths have yet to

even consider.

To illustrate how temporal individual dif-

ferences could be incorporated into a mistreat-

ment study, we use an example from social

undermining (e.g., Duffy et al., 2002).

According to Duffy et al. (2002), undermining

behaviors occur in a recurrent fashion over

time. This means that the effect of undermining

behaviors will possibly accumulate (i.e., linger)

and remain relevant to an individual’s current

reactions. On this basis, it seems reasonable to

predict that individuals with a strong past

temporal focus will not only dwell on previous

incidents, but also become increasingly reactive

to each subsequent undermining episode. Alter-

natively, individuals with a strong future




temporal focus are prone to anticipating under-

mining experiences that have yet to occur and

this tendency may prompt them to be more

sensitive to such behaviors in the present.

Moreover, to the extent an individual is pre-

disposed to anticipating future undermining

occurrences (e.g., workplace paranoid cogni-

tions; Chan & McAllister, 2014), he or she

might actually behave in ways that incite

mistreatment in the present (i.e., a self-

fulfilling prophecy). Though each proposition

seems equally plausible, we are not aware of

any undermining research that has considered

the role of temporal individual differences (viz.,

temporal focus or temporal depth) when explor-

ing undermining effects.4

To conclude, we believe that a subjective

time lens offers the mistreatment literature an

untapped perspective from which to develop

new and unique research questions. In fact, we

contend that mistreatment perceptions assessed

in the present may not be fully understood

without accounting for the relative importance

of an individual’s retrospections and projec-

tions of future mistreatment. At present, the

absence of such temporal predictors suggests

the possibility that meaningful effects are unac-

counted unaccounted for. That is, at best, certain

effects are relegated to the error term when

predicting an individual’s current reactions to

mistreatment, but at worst, the assumed effect of

current undermining may actually be attributable

to one or more incidents occurring in other

periods of time. To paraphrase an anonymous

reviewer of this paper, it would seem that the

mistreatment literature has missed an opportu-

nity to explore how subjective conceptions of

time might influence the way individuals react to

mistreatment both psychologically and

behaviorally.

New conceptual insights with a completelytemporal perspective

Ultimately, it is our hope that interpersonal

mistreatment research will move beyond a

focus on just objective time or just subjective

time to enthusiastically take on the challenge of

a ‘‘completely temporal’’ perspective (Shipp &

Cole, 2015). A completely temporal study

would, for example, examine change in mis-

treatment over the course of both objective time

and subjective time—that is, change that is

happening in clock time and in the minds of

individuals. Doing so has a number of theore-

tical and methodological challenges (see, e.g.,

Shipp & Cole, 2015), including the task of

integrating two already complex frameworks.

Nonetheless, the adoption of a completely

temporal lens will unquestionably inform

understanding of how and why workplace mis-

treatment has such devastating consequences for

those experiencing it (as well as for their

employing organizations). To further emphasize

the complexity of adopting a completely tem-

poral approach, we present the following incivi-

lity example.

Consider two individuals who belong to the

same work group (see Figure 1). As depicted,

the sloping lines in Figure 1 represent contrasting

hypothetical patterns of real-time measurements

of experienced incivility over five time peri-

ods (i.e., T�2, T�1, T0, Tþ1, Tþ2 along the

horizontal axis) for Individual 1 (I1) and Indi-

vidual 2 (I2), respectively. The point at which the

two lines intersect represents experienced inci-

vility at the present moment in time (T0). In

addition, the shading around the two sloping lines

depicts retrospected and anticipated incivility as

presently perceived by these two individuals. The

shading further indicates that retrospections and

anticipations of incivility may be somewhat

imperfectly linked to the actual past or the (soon-

to-be) actual future and are likely to become

fuzzier as temporal distance increases (cf.

Shipp & Jansen, 2011). A key assumption of

the subjective approach towards time is that

some mistreatment incidents are going to be

more memorable than others and may even

be exaggerated in the memories of those

affected, thereby allowing for the possibility

of a single incident to have real implications

Cole et al. 293



that ripple into the future. Hence, a subjective

lens acknowledges that, irrespective of the

accuracy or validity of individuals’ perceptions

on which interpersonal mistreatment is based,

recollections of past mistreatment and expec-

tations regarding future mistreatment can both

be very real in their consequences.

At the present moment in time (T0), I1 and

I2 report identical levels of incivility (i.e., a

rating of 3 on a 5-point scale running along the

vertical axis). Note that a researcher focusing

only on the present (a static perspective) would

view these individuals’ experiences as equiv-

alent and may expect each individual to be

equally inclined to consider quitting. Yet

moving backwards in time from the present,

Figure 1 indicates that I1 and I2 reported

experiencing different levels of mistreatment

and thus are likely to recall substantively dif-

ferent experiences as well. At T�2, for

instance, I1 experienced fewer incidents of

incivility as compared to I2. Now taking the

passage of time into account (i.e., moving

from T�2 to T�1), Figure 1 suggests that I1 has

experienced an upward change in incivility;

that is, relative to incivility levels reported at

T�2, the frequency of incivility experienced at

T�1 has increased. In contrast, I2 has experi-

enced a downward change in incivility (i.e.,

moving from T�2 to T�1). By the third time

T0T−1 T+1 T+2T−2

I1 (High turnoverintentions)

I2 (Low turnoverintentions)

Wor

kpla

ce In

civi

lity

1

2

3

5

Upward incivility trajectory Downward incivility trajectory

Recollected past Anticipated future

4

Figure 1. Completely temporal incivility example for two hypothetical individuals.Note. Following Shipp and Jansen (2011), shading indicates that retrospections and anticipations of incivilitymay be somewhat imperfectly linked to the actual past or the (soon-to-be) actual future and are likely tobecome fuzzier as temporal distance increases.




period (i.e., T�2 to T0), I1’s experienced inci-

vility has increased from 1 to 3, whereas I2’s

level of experienced incivility has decreased

from 5 to 3.

Beyond the consideration of how these two

trajectories map onto objective time, a sub-

jective approach towards time suggests these

two individuals may also interpret their trajec-

tories differently, perhaps even recrafting their

memories. For example, I1 may look back at

past incidents she previously ignored (T�2) but

now understands that they were early signals of

an increasing level of incivility. As such, the

historically low levels of incivility may become

exaggerated in her mind as she presently makes

sense of the upward changes in incivility she is

experiencing. In fact, moving forward into the

future, I1 and I2 may likewise anticipate sub-

stantively different workplace experiences. As

I1 considers the anticipated future, she is likely

to forecast a progressively worsening situation,

with additional episodes of incivility looming

ahead. In contrast, I2’s downward incivility

trajectory signals that his anticipated future will

become increasingly better. Consequently, at

the present moment, I1 is not only more likely

than I2 to be experiencing psychological dis-

comfort, but also a greater desire to seek

alternative employment opportunities.

Though hypothetical, this final example

illustrates how two individuals’ turnover inten-

tions may vary even when their present levels of

reported mistreatment are identical. This can be

explained by the fact that individuals’ mis-

treatment experiences (a) will objectively vary

as they go about their daily lives at work but (b)

are also based on idiosyncratic experiences

such that two individuals could differ in their

perceptions of the same experienced mistreat-

ment. For this within-person variation to be

accurately captured, real-time measurements

collected repeatedly over (objective) time are

assumed necessary (e.g., Hershcovis & Reich,

2013). And yet, this illustration also demonstrates

how a subjective temporal lens is capable of

providing a complementary perspective from

which to examine interpersonal mistreatment. It

seems reasonable to assume that individuals’

reactions to present-day mistreatment are likely

to be informed by their past histories of mis-

treatment as well as their expectations regarding

the likelihood of being mistreated in the future.

To be sure, a completely temporal view best

represents the reality of individuals’ mistreat-

ment experiences as they unfold over time.

Additional relevant research issues

Whereas our purpose was to highlight various

types of temporal research questions that mis-

treatment scholars could ask, we suspect that

interested researchers will confront additional

issues when attempting to account for the role

of time in their work. We identify what we

believe are a few of the more salient issues or

challenges, though we acknowledge that we

have not exhausted the full range of possibilities.

Time lags. Echoing Mitchell and James (2001),

we believe that when designing a longitudinal

study, researchers will need to pay particular

attention to the question of ‘‘when things hap-

pen’’ (p. 530). In part, this is because a dynamic

construct may refer to qualitatively different

phenomena when using a ‘‘short’’ versus a

‘‘long’’ time lag between repeated measure-

ments (Zaheer et al., 1999). It follows that dif-

ferent time lags can yield substantively different

effect sizes even though the same dynamic

relationships are under study (Gollob & Reich-

ardt, 1987). Such issues pose real challenges not

only for the design of longitudinal research but

also for theory development. To the extent pos-

sible, the time lag needs to fit the theory believed

to underlie the focal phenomena. In this sense,

mistreatment scholars may want to collectively

identify some reasonable time lags so that they

can have confidence that different studies are

‘‘comparing apples to apples.’’ Readers inter-

ested to learn more about the implications of time

lags may wish to consult Ancona et al. (2001),

Cole et al. 295



Chan (2014), Mitchell and James (2001), Spector

and Meier (2014), and Zaheer et al. (1999).

Statistical approaches. Longitudinal (repeated

measures) data provide rich information for

exploring the effects of interpersonal workplace

mistreatment. Fortunately, researchers have a

number of statistical modeling approaches at

their disposal. These statistical tools are capable

of testing rather complex models involving

change within persons, including lagged effects

(e.g., last week’s abuse predicting this week’s

stress), spillover effects from one context to

another (e.g., undermining at work predicting

conflict at home), and accumulated effects

(exposure to recurring incivility events on job

burnout). These bivariate models can be easily

extended to multivariate longitudinal models

examining dynamic mediated (and frequently

multilevel) relationships over time (Pitariu &

Ployhart, 2010; Selig & Preacher, 2009).

Because the statistical approaches used to test

these sophisticated models have been exten-

sively reviewed elsewhere, we simply note that

some options are better suited for certain

research questions than others (see Ployhart &

Vandenberg, 2010, for a review). For a more

advanced discussion of longitudinal data anal-

ysis, including the logic and practice of mod-

eling within-construct variation and change, we

refer interested readers to Ferrer and McArdle

(2010); Grimm, An, McArdle, Zonderman, and

Resnick (2012); Little (2013); McArdle (2009);

and Singer and Willett (2003).

Interval-contingent versus event-contingent sampling.In coding studies for our review, we observed

that the nine longitudinal studies with an

objective approach to time all employed an

interval-contingent sampling approach. This

approach schedules the repeated measures by

the clock at fixed time intervals. Of these, five

were focused on the dynamic effects of incivi-

lity, three were focused on the dynamic effects

of abusive supervision, and one examined the

dynamic relationships between bullying and

well-being outcomes. Although a small per-

centage of the entire body of work, these publi-

cations are all very recent, with seven being

published within the last 4 years and two others

‘‘in press.’’ We view this as a positive step

toward more fully incorporating temporal factors

into mistreatment research.

Nevertheless, interval-contingent sampling

produces repeated measures composed of

mistreatment experiences aggregated over a

defined period of time (e.g., a day, week, or

month), yielding limited insight into how indi-

viduals react to an incident ‘‘in the moment.’’

As additional objective time studies emerge, we

believe an event-contingent approach (i.e.,

participants initiate a survey each time a mis-

treatment event occurs) may provide additional

insights into mistreatment phenomena insofar

as it can examine the consequences of specific

events as they naturally unfold over time (e.g.,

Hershcovis & Reich, 2013). For a detailed

discussion on data collection schedules, includ-

ing interval-contingent versus event-contingent

sampling, readers can consult Beal and Weiss

(2003); Bolger, Davis, and Rafaeli (2003); and

L. Wheeler and Reis (1991).

Conclusion

Prompted by the inherently dynamic nature of

interpersonal workplace mistreatment, we set

out to determine the extent to which existing

research on abusive supervision, bullying,

incivility, and social undermining has accoun-

ted for time. Taking each construct’s opera-

tional definition as our starting point, we

reviewed the body of empirical work associated

with each construct, examining whether the

relationships between these four types of mis-

treatment and their consequences have been

tested in ways that could shed light on the

temporal characteristics of mistreatment experi-

ences. We found that all four mistreatment

constructs (and their proposed consequences)

have largely been cast as between-person phe-

nomena (i.e., inherently stable) rather than the




more accurate portrayal as within-person phe-

nomena (i.e., inherently dynamic). Integrating

the mistreatment literature with prior work on

temporal dynamics (e.g., Mitchell & James,

2001; Shipp & Jansen, 2011), we conclude that

the adoption of a purely static or ‘‘snapshot’’

approach toward interpersonal mistreatment

masks considerable and meaningful fluctuations

in the experience of, responses to, and conse-

quences of such behavior. All in all, our analysis

intimates that contemporary mistreatment

research may be too simplistic and, thereby,

inadequate for understanding the dynamic

relationships between these negative acts and

important workplace outcomes. We hope our

work encourages future mistreatment research to

adopt a temporal lens and, thus, further advances

our understanding of these unique, dynamic, and

important workplace experiences.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of inter-

est with respect to the research, authorship, and/or

publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this

article.

Notes

1. Although these example constructs have received

a great deal of scholarly attention, we note that

there are other forms of mistreatment that fall

under the broad umbrella of interpersonal work-

place mistreatment, including workplace aggres-

sion and victimization (e.g., Aquino & Thau,

2009), workplace harassment (e.g., Bowling &

Beehr, 2006), interpersonal deviance (Berry,

Ones, & Sackett, 2007), and workplace ostracism

(Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008).

2. We used PsycInfo for our search. We also manually

reviewed abstracts of recent Academy of Manage-

ment and Society for Industrial and Organizational

Psychology conferences (2013–2014) and examined

the reference sections of existing meta-analyses and

narrative reviews on any of the four mistreatment

constructs. Following previous reviews and meta-

analyses (e.g., Hershcovis, 2011; Hershcovis & Bar-

ling, 2010), we used several variations of the follow-

ing keywords: abusive supervision, bullying,

incivility, mistreatment, and undermining.

3. Because we focused on the downstream conse-

quences of interpersonal mistreatment at work,

we excluded research in which the mistreatment

construct was positioned as the study’s dependent

variable. We also excluded studies that were not

work-related (e.g., school bullying) or were una-

vailable in English. Meta-analyses, experimental

designs, qualitative studies, and narrative reviews

were likewise excluded.

4. Although we selected undermining as our exam-

ple here given its explicit description of accumu-

lated and recurring behavior, we believe our logic

equally applies to the other forms of mistreatment

covered in this review.

References

*A full list of all papers included in our review, as

well as those which were ultimately excluded

from analysis, is available from the authors upon

request.

Aguinis, H., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2014). An ounce

of prevention is worth a pound of cure: Improving

research quality before data collection. Annual

Review of Organizational Psychology and Orga-

nizational Behavior, 1, 569–595.

Albert, S. (1977). Temporal comparison theory. Psy-

chological Review, 84, 485–503.

Ancona, D. G., Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., &

Tushman, M. L. (2001). Time: A new research lens.

Academy of Management Review, 26, 645–663.

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat?

The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace.


Aquino, K., & Lamertz, K. (2004). A relational model

of workplace victimization: Social roles and pat-

terns of victimization in dyadic relationships.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1023–1034.

Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimi-

zation: Aggression from the target’s perspective.

Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717–741.

Cole et al. 297



Ariely, D. (1998). Combining experiences over time:

The effects of duration, intensity changes and on-

line measurements on retrospective pain evalua-

tions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,

11, 19–45.

Beal, D. J. (2012). Industrial/organizational psychol-

ogy. In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Hand-

book of research methods for studying daily life

(pp. 601–619). New York, NY: Guilford.

Beal, D. J., & Weiss, H. M. (2003). Methods of eco-

logical momentary assessment in organizational

research. Organizational Research Methods, 6,

440–464.

Beattie, L., & Griffin, B. (2014a). Accounting

for within-person differences in how people

respond to daily incivility at work. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

87, 625–644.

Beattie, L., & Griffin, B. (2014b). Day-level fluctua-

tions in stress and engagement in response to

workplace incivility: A diary study. Work &

Stress, 28, 124–142.

Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007).

Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance,

and their common correlates: A review and

meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,

92, 410–424.

Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The human organization of

time: Temporal realities and experience. Stan-

ford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary

methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual

Review of Psychology, 54, 579–616.

Bolger, N., Stadler, G., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2012).

Power analysis for intensive longitudinal studies.

In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook

of research methods for studying daily life (pp.

285–301). New York, NY: Guilford.

Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace

harassment from the victim’s perspective: A the-

oretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 91, 998–1012.

Bunk, J. A., & Magley, V. J. (2013). The role of

appraisals and emotions in understanding experi-

ences of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupa-

tional Health Psychology, 18, 87–105.

Chan, D. (1998). The conceptualization and analysis

of change over time: An integrative approach

incorporating longitudinal means and covariance

structures analysis (LMACS) and multiple indi-

cator latent growth modeling (MLGM). Organi-

zational Research Methods, 1, 421–483.

Chan, D. (2014). Time and methodological choices.

In A. J. Shipp & Y. Fried (Eds.), Time and work:

How time impacts groups, organizations and

methodological choices (Vol. 2, pp. 146–176).

London, UK: Psychology Press.

Chan, M. E., & McAllister, D. J. (2014). Abusive super-

vision through the lens of employee state paranoia.


Conti, R. (2001). Time flies: Investigating the connec-

tion between intrinsic motivation and the experi-

ence of time. Journal of Personality, 69, 1–26.

Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2009). Patterns and

profiles of response to incivility in the workplace.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14,

272–288.

Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., &

Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the work-

place: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupa-

tional Health Psychology, 6, 64–80.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology

of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper &

Row.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002).

Social undermining in the workplace. Academy

of Management Journal, 45, 331–351.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J.

L., & Pagon, M. (2006). The social context of

undermining behavior at work. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101,

105–126.

Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shaw, J. D., Tepper, B. J.,

& Aquino, K. (2012). A social context model of

envy and social undermining. Academy of Man-

agement Journal, 55, 643–666.

Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bully-

ing at work. International Journal of Manpower,

20, 16–27.

Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., & Matthiesen, S. B.

(1994). Bullying and harassment at work and

their relationship to work environment quality:




An exploratory study. European Work and Orga-

nizational Psychologist, 4, 381–401.

Ferrer, E., & McArdle, J. J. (2010). Longitudinal mod-

eling of developmental changes in psychological

research. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-

ence, 19, 149–154.

Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H.

(2008). The development and validation of the

Workplace Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 93, 1348–1366.

Fisher, C. D., & To, M. L. (2012). Using experience

sampling methodology in organizational beha-

vior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33,

865–877.

Fried, Y., & Slowik, L. H. (2004). Enriching goal-

setting theory with time: An integrated approach.


George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of

time in theory and theory building. Journal of

Management, 26, 657–684.

Gollob, H. F., & Reichardt, C. S. (1987). Taking

account of time lags in causal models. Child

Development, 58, 80–92.

Goodman, J. S., & Blum, T. C. (1996). Assessing the

non-random sampling effects of subject attrition

in longitudinal research. Journal of Management,

22, 627–652.

Graham, J. W., Hofer, S. M., & MacKinnon, D. P.

(1996). Maximizing the usefulness of data

obtained with planned missing value patterns:

An application of maximum likelihood proce-

dures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31,

197–218.

Greenbaum, R. L., Hill, A., Mawritz, M. B., &

Quade, M. J. (2014). Employee Machiavellian-

ism to unethical behavior: The role of abusive

supervision as a trait activator. Journal of

Management. Advance online publication. doi:

10.1177/0149206314535434.

Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fair-

ness of performance evaluations. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 71, 340–342.

Grimm, K. J., An, Y., McArdle, J. J., Zonderman, A.

B., & Resnick, S. M. (2012). Recent changes

leading to subsequent changes: Extensions of

multivariate latent difference score models.

Structural Equation Modeling, 19, 268–292.

Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). ‘‘Incivility, social under-

mining, bullying . . . oh my!’’: A call to reconcile

constructs within workplace aggression research.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32,

499–519.

Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a

multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A

meta-analytic review of outcomes from different

perpetrators. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

31, 24–44.

Hershcovis, M. S., & Reich, T. A. (2013). Integrating

workplace aggression research: Relational, con-

textual, and method considerations. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 34, S26–S42.

Janssen, S. J., Naka, M., & Friedman, W. J. (2013).

Why does life appear to speed up as people get

older? Time & Society, 22, 274–290.

Lang, J. W., & Bliese, P. D. (2009). General mental

ability and two types of adaptation to unforeseen

change: Applying discontinuous growth models

to the task-change paradigm. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 94, 411–428.

Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the ‘‘field at a given

time.’’ Psychological Review, 50, 292–310.

Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation

modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Markman, K. D., & McMullen, M. N. (2003). A

reflection and evaluation model of comparative

thinking. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 7, 244–267.

Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey,

J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision

research. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

34, S120–S137.

Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-

sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psy-

chological Methods, 12, 23–44.

McArdle, J. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of

differences and changes with longitudinal data.

Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 577–605.

McGrath, J. E., & Kelly, J. R. (1986). Time and

human interaction: Toward a social psychology

of time. New York, NY: Guilford.

Cole et al. 299



McGrath, J. E., & Rotchford, N. L. (1983). Time and

behavior in organizations. Research in Organiza-

tional Behavior, 5, 57–101.

Meier, L. L., & Spector, P. E. (2013). Reciprocal

effects of work stressors and counterproduc-

tive work behavior: A five-wave longitudinal

study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98,

529–539.

Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building bet-

ter theory: Time and the specification of when

things happen. Academy of Management Review,

26, 530–547.

Monge, P. R. (1990). Theoretical and analytical issues

in studying organizational processes. Organization

Science, 1, 406–430.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A

clinical and experimental study of fifty men of

college age. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Nahum-Shani, I., Henderson, M. M., Lim, S., &

Vinokur, A. D. (2014). Supervisor support: Does

supervisor support buffer or exacerbate the

adverse effects of supervisor undermining? Jour-

nal of Applied Psychology, 99, 484–503.

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Age and

innovation-related behavior: The joint moderat-

ing effects of supervisor undermining and proac-

tive personality. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 34, 583–606.

Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of

exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic

review. Work & Stress, 26, 309–332.

Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. (2008). An

integrative model of experiencing and responding

to mistreatment at work. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 33, 76–96.

Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L.

(2000). Assessing and attacking workplace

incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29,

123–137.

Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the

nature, consequences and remedies of workplace

incivility: No time for ‘‘nice’’? Think again.

Academy of Management Executive, 19, 7–18.

Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, inci-

vility, and counterproductive work behavior

(CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777–796.

Pitariu, A. H., & Ployhart, R. E. (2010). Explaining

change: Theorizing and testing dynamic mediated

longitudinal relationships. Journal of Manage-

ment, 36, 405–429.

Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longi-

tudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis

of change. Journal of Management, 36, 94–120.

Ployhart, R. E., & Ward, A.-K. (2011). The ‘‘quick

start guide’’ for conducting and publishing long-

itudinal research. Journal of Business and Psy-

chology, 26, 413–422.

Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness

really matter? The effects of rudeness on task per-

formance and helpfulness. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 50, 1181–1197.

Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivi-

lity. Harvard Business Review, 91(1–2), 114–121.

Roe, R. A. (2008). Time in applied psychology:

Studying what happens rather than what is. Eur-

opean Psychologist, 13, 37–52.

Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location,

location: Contextualizing organizational research.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 1–13.

Salomon, K., & Jagusztyn, N. E. (2008). Resting car-

diovascular levels and reactivity to interpersonal

incivility among Black, Latina/o, and White indi-

viduals: The moderating role of ethnic discrimi-

nation. Health Psychology, 27, 473–481.

Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Mediation

models for longitudinal data in developmental

research. Research in Human Development, 6,

144–164.

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 Psychol-

ogy and Organizational Behavior, 2, 237–260.

Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2009).

Conceptualization and measurement of temporal

focus: The subjective experience of past, present,

and future. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 110, 1–22.

Shipp, A. J., & Fried, Y. (2014). Time research in

management: Using temporal ambassadors to




translate ideas into reality. In A. J. Shipp & Y.

Fried (Eds.), Time and work: How time impacts

individuals (Vol. 1 in the Current Issues in Work

and Organizational Psychology series). London,

UK: Psychology Press.

Shipp, A. J., & Jansen, K. J. (2011). Reinterpreting

time in fit theory: Crafting and recrafting narra-

tives of fit in medias res. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 36, 76–101.

Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longi-

tudinal data analysis. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Sliter, M., Sliter, K., & Jex, S. (2011). The employee

as a punching bag: The effect of multiple sources

of incivility on employee withdrawal behavior

and sales performance. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 33, 121–139.

Sonnentag, S. (2012). Time in organizational

research: Catching up on a long neglected topic

in order to improve theory. Organizational Psy-

chology Review, 2, 361–368.

Spector, P. E., & Meier, L. L. (2014). Methodologies

for the study of organizational behavior pro-

cesses: How to find your keys in the dark. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 35, 1109–1119.

Taylor, S. G., Bedeian, A. G., Cole, M. S., & Zhang,

Z. (2014). Developing and testing a dynamic

model of workplace incivility change. Journal

of Management. Advance online publication.

doi:10.1177/0149206314535432

Taylor, S. G., Bedeian, A. G., & Kluemper, D. H.

(2012). Linking workplace incivility to citizen-

ship performance: The combined effects of affec-

tive commitment and conscientiousness. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 33, 878–893.

Taylor, S. G., & Kluemper, D. H. (2012). Linking per-

ceptions of role stress and incivility to workplace

aggression: The moderating role of personality.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17,

316–329.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive super-

vision. Academy of Management Journal, 43,

178–190.

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work

organizations: Review, synthesis, and research

agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289.

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert,

L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipi-

tation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psy-

chology, 59, 101–123.

Tepper, B. J., & Henle, C. A. (2011). A case for

recognizing distinctions among constructs that

capture interpersonal mistreatment in work orga-

nizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

32, 487–498.

Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or

self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing

explanations of the supervisor abuse and

employee deviance relationship through percep-

tions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 95, 1009–1031.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal

construal. Psychological Review, 110,

403–421.

Tuckey, M. R., & Neall, A. M. (2014). Workplace

bullying erodes job and personal resources:

Between- and within-person perspectives. Jour-

nal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19,

413–424.

Vancouver, J. B., Tamanini, K. B., & Yoder, R. J.

(2010). Using dynamic computational models to

reconnect theory and research: Socialization by

the proactive newcomer as example. Journal of

Management, 36, 764–793.

Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., & Williams, A.

A. (2001). The changing signs in the relationships

among self-efficacy, personal goals, and perfor-

mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,

605–620.

Vinokur, A. D., & van Ryn, M. (1993). Social sup-

port and undermining in close relationships:

Their independent effect on mental health in

unemployed persons. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 65, 350–359.

Washington, G. (1971). Rules of civility & decent

behaviour in company and conversation: A book

of etiquette. Williamsburg, VA: Beaver Press.

(Original work published 1888)

Wheeler, A. R., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Whitman,

M. V. (2013). The interactive effects of abusive

supervision and entitlement on emotional

exhaustion and co-worker abuse. Journal of

Cole et al. 301



Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

86, 477–496.

Wheeler, L., & Reis, H. T. (1991). Self-recording of

everyday life events: Origins, types, and uses.

Journal of Personality, 59, 339–354.

Wheeler, M. A., Stuss, D. T., & Tulving, E. (1997).

Toward a theory of episodic memory: The frontal

lobes and autonoetic consciousness. Psychologi-

cal Bulletin, 121, 331–354.

Whitman, M. V., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Holmes,

O., IV. (2014). Abusive supervision and feedback

avoidance: The mediating role of emotional

exhaustion. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

35, 38–53.

Zaheer, S., Albert, S., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Time

scales and organizational theory. Academy of

Management Review, 24, 725–741.

Zhou, Z. E., Yan, Y., Che, X. X., & Meier, L. L.

(2014). Effect of workplace incivility on end-

of-work negative affect: Examining individual

and organizational moderators in a daily diary

study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-

ogy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/

a0038167

Author biographies

Michael S. Cole is an Associate Professor of

Management at Texas Christian University. His

research interests focus on multilevel theories,

research, and methodologies as they relate to

behavior in organizations.

Abbie J. Shipp is an Associate Professor of

Management at Texas Christian University. Her

research focuses on the psychological experi-

ence of time at work including: the trajectory

of work experiences over time, how individuals

react to change, how time is spent on work

tasks, and how individuals think about the

past/present/future.

Shannon G. Taylor is an Assistant Professor of

Management at University of Central Florida.

His research focuses on abusive, uncivil, and

unethical behavior in the workplace and changes

in work behavior over time.




viewing the interpersonal mistreatment literature through a … et al. (2016). mistreatment a… ·...

Documents