The Reciprocity between Abusive Supervision and Social Aggression: A Cross-lagged Panel Model

The Reciprocity between Abusive Supervision and Social Aggression: A Cross-lagged Panel Model | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Reciprocity between Abusive Supervision and Social Aggression: A Cross-lagged Panel Model Pengjuan Zhao, Chuanji Wang, Hao Liu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6687946/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Workplace aggression, particularly in response to abusive supervision, has garnered significant attention in organizational behavior research due to its detrimental effects on employee well-being and organizational outcomes. While the relationship between abusive supervision and overt forms of aggression has been well-documented, less is known about the role of social aggression in this dynamic. This study investigates the reciprocal relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression over time, drawing on self-regulation theory and social exchange theory. Using a longitudinal design with data collected from 427 Chinese graduates across two waves, we examine how abusive supervision predicts social aggression and how social aggression, in turn, predicts further abusive supervision. Results from cross-lagged panel analyses reveal significant bidirectional relationships. These findings suggest a vicious cycle of negative interactions, where abusive supervision depletes subordinates' self-regulatory resources, leading to social aggression, which in turn provokes further abusive behaviors from supervisors. This study contributes to the literature by highlighting the reciprocal nature of abusive supervision and social aggression, emphasizing the importance of addressing both constructs to mitigate workplace aggression. Practical implications for organizations include the need for interventions aimed at reducing abusive supervision and fostering healthier supervisor-subordinate relationships to prevent the escalation of social aggression. abusive supervision social aggression self-regulation theory social exchange theory workplace aggression longitudinal study Figures Figure 1 Introduction Workplace aggression has long been a critical issue in organizational behavior research, with significant implications for employee well-being, job performance, and organizational outcomes [ 1 ]. Among the various antecedents of workplace aggression, abusive supervision has emerged as a particularly salient factor, given its pervasive and detrimental effects on employees [2]. Abusive supervision, defined as subordinates' perceptions of sustained hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors from their supervisors, has been linked to a range of negative outcomes, including decreased job satisfaction, increased emotional exhaustion, and heightened turnover intentions [3][ 4 ]. However, while the relationship between abusive supervision and overt forms of aggression has been extensively studied, less attention has been paid to the role of social aggression—a more covert and subtle form of retaliation—in this dynamic [ 5 ]. Social aggression, characterized by behaviors aimed at damaging another person's social relationships or status, such as spreading rumors, gossiping, or socially excluding someone, represents a unique form of workplace aggression that is often more difficult to detect and address [ 5 ]. Unlike overt aggression, which is direct and visible, social aggression operates through indirect means, making it a particularly insidious form of retaliation. Recent studies have begun to explore the link between abusive supervision and social aggression, suggesting that employees who experience abusive supervision may engage in social aggression as a coping mechanism or form of retaliation [6][ 7 ]. However, the longitudinal relationship between these constructs remains underexplored, particularly from the perspective of supervisor-subordinate interactions. This study aims to fill this gap by investigating the reciprocal relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression over time. Drawing on self-regulation theory and social exchange theory, we propose that abusive supervision depletes subordinates' self-regulatory resources, leading to an increase in social aggression as a form of retaliation [ 8 ][ 9 ]. Conversely, we argue that social aggression may provoke further abusive behaviors from supervisors, creating a vicious cycle of negative interactions. By examining these dynamics longitudinally, this study seeks to provide a more nuanced understanding of how abusive supervision and social aggression influence each other over time, and how these interactions contribute to the escalation of workplace aggression. Literature Review Abusive supervision is defined as subordinates' perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact, which is inherently subjective, as two subordinates may perceive the same supervisor's behavior differently based on their individual personality traits and cognitive appraisals [2]. Abusive supervision manifests in various forms, including public criticism, humiliation, rudeness, inconsiderate actions, and coercion [2]. It is important to note that abusive supervision is not a one-time event but rather a sustained pattern of hostile behavior that can have long-term effects on employees' psychological and behavioral responses. Abusive supervision has been linked to a wide range of negative outcomes for both employees and organizations. Research has consistently shown that abusive supervision leads to decreased job performance, job satisfaction, and mental health, while increasing job stress and emotional exhaustion [ 1 ][10][ 11 ]. Additionally, abusive supervision has been associated with increased turnover intentions, reduced organizational commitment, and lower levels of organizational citizenship behavior [2][3]. One of the most significant consequences of abusive supervision is its impact on employee aggression. Aggression in the workplace is defined as acts by employees intended to harm others with whom they work or the employing organization [12]. Aggressive behaviors can range from overt acts such as yelling or insulting to more covert actions like spreading rumors or sabotaging work [ 1 ]. Abusive supervision has been identified as a key antecedent of workplace aggression, as it creates a hostile work environment that can trigger retaliatory behaviors from employees [ 13 ]. The relationship between abusive supervision and aggression has been extensively studied in the organizational behavior literature. According to social exchange theory, interpersonal interactions are guided by norms of reciprocity, and individuals tend to reciprocate negative treatment with negative behaviors [ 9 ]. In the context of abusive supervision, employees who perceive unfair treatment from their supervisors may engage in retaliatory behaviors as a way to restore balance in the relationship [14]. This retaliation often takes the form of aggression directed at the supervisor, coworkers, or the organization itself [2][ 13 ]. Empirical studies have consistently supported the notion that abusive supervision leads to increased aggression. For example, Greenberg and Barling (1999) found that 76% of male employees admitted to engaging in at least one incident of aggression against their supervisor in response to abusive treatment [15]. Similarly, Hershcovis et al. (2007) conducted a meta-analysis and found that perceptions of unfair treatment from supervisors were among the strongest predictors of supervisor-directed negative behaviors [16]. These findings suggest that abusive supervision is a significant driver of workplace aggression, particularly when employees feel powerless to address the abuse directly [ 13 ]. Recent studies have further elaborated on this relationship. For instance, Mackey et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis and found that abusive supervision is strongly associated with both supervisor-directed and organization-directed aggression [ 4 ]. They also highlighted the role of individual differences, such as negative reciprocity beliefs, in moderating this relationship. Similarly, Lian et al. (2014) demonstrated that abusive supervision increases subordinates' hostility towards supervisors, which in turn leads to supervisor-directed aggression [17]. These findings underscore the importance of considering both situational and individual factors when examining the relationship between abusive supervision and aggression. While the relationship between abusive supervision and overt forms of aggression has been well-documented, less attention has been paid to the role of social aggression in this dynamic. Social aggression, a form of proactive aggression, involves behaviors aimed at damaging another person's social relationships or status, such as spreading rumors, gossiping, or socially excluding someone [ 5 ]. Unlike overt aggression, which is direct and visible, social aggression is often covert and subtle, making it more difficult to detect and address. The longitudinal relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression remains underexplored, particularly from the perspective of supervisor-subordinate interactions. While some studies have examined the immediate effects of abusive supervision on aggression, few have investigated how these behaviors evolve over time or how they are influenced by ongoing interactions between supervisors and subordinates. This gap in the literature is significant, as social aggression can have long-term consequences for workplace relationships and organizational climate. Recent research has begun to address this gap. For example, Qin et al. (2017) found that abusive supervision can lead to a cycle of retaliation, where employees engage in social aggression as a way to cope with ongoing abuse [6]. Similarly, Liao et al. (2018) proposed a reparative response model, suggesting that employees who experience abusive supervision may engage in social aggression as a way to restore their sense of control and self-esteem [ 7 ]. These studies highlight the need for further research on the long-term effects of abusive supervision on social aggression, particularly in the context of supervisor-subordinate interactions. Despite the extensive research on abusive supervision and its consequences, the longitudinal relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression has not been thoroughly explored. Specifically, there is a lack of research examining how social aggression develops over time in response to sustained abusive supervision, particularly from the perspective of supervisor-subordinate interactions. This study aims to fill this research gap by investigating the long-term effects of abusive supervision on social aggression, with a focus on the dynamic interplay between supervisors and subordinates. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses The relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression can be understood through the lens of self-regulation theory [ 8 ]. Self-regulation theory posits that individuals have limited cognitive and emotional resources to manage their behaviors, and when these resources are depleted, they are more likely to engage in impulsive or aggressive behaviors. In the context of abusive supervision, subordinates who experience sustained hostile behaviors from their supervisors may exhaust their self-regulatory resources, leading to a failure to control their impulses and an increase in aggressive behaviors, such as social aggression [17][18]. Social aggression, defined as behaviors aimed at damaging another person's social relationships or status (e.g., spreading rumors, gossiping, or socially excluding someone), can be seen as a form of retaliation or coping mechanism in response to abusive supervision [ 5 ]. Abusive supervision and social aggression are likely to be positively correlated due to the reciprocal nature of hostile interactions in the workplace. Abusive supervision, characterized by sustained hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors from supervisors, creates a toxic work environment that can trigger aggressive responses from subordinates [2]. According to social exchange theory, individuals tend to reciprocate negative treatment with negative behaviors [ 9 ]. When subordinates perceive abusive supervision, they may engage in social aggression as a way to restore balance in the relationship or to retaliate against the perceived injustice [ 13 ]. Empirical evidence supports this notion, as studies have shown that abusive supervision is positively associated with various forms of workplace aggression, including social aggression [ 4 ][16]. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 1 Abusive supervision and social aggression will be positively correlated with each other. Abusive supervision is likely to predict social aggression due to the psychological and emotional toll it takes on subordinates. According to self-regulation theory, abusive supervision depletes subordinates' self-regulatory resources, making it difficult for them to control their impulses and leading to aggressive behaviors [ 8 ]. When subordinates experience abusive supervision, they may feel a sense of injustice, frustration, and emotional exhaustion, which can trigger social aggression as a way to cope with or retaliate against the abusive treatment [17][18]. Additionally, abusive supervision can create a hostile work environment that fosters negative emotions and reduces subordinates' ability to regulate their behaviors, further increasing the likelihood of social aggression [2][19]. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 2 Abusive supervision will positively predict social aggression. The relationship between social aggression and abusive supervision is likely to be reciprocal. Subordinates who engage in social aggression may provoke further abusive behaviors from their supervisors. According to social exchange theory, supervisors may perceive social aggression as a threat to their authority or as a form of insubordination, leading them to respond with increased abusive supervision [ 9 ][ 20 ]. Additionally, supervisors who experience social aggression from their subordinates may feel a loss of control or respect, which can trigger abusive behaviors as a way to reassert their authority [21]. This creates a vicious cycle where social aggression leads to increased abusive supervision, which in turn may further escalate social aggression. Empirical studies have shown that subordinates' deviant behaviors, including social aggression, can lead to increased abusive supervision [19][21]. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 3 Social aggression will positively predict abusive supervision. Methods Participants The study recruited a total of 427 Chinese graduates aged between 22 and 25 years ( M _age = 23.53, SD _age = 1.13) from a prestigious university in China through WJX Platform (wjx.com). Participants received a nominal compensation of approximately US $ 1 for completing an online survey. Following the implementation of attention check items, 368 valid responses were retained for Wave 1 data analysis, comprising 190 females, 177 males, and 1 participant who preferred not to disclose gender information. A longitudinal design was employed, with Wave 2 data collection occurring four months after the initial survey administration. The same cohort was invited to participate, and consistent data quality control procedures were implemented, including the use of attention check items. This resulted in a final sample of 235 participants (119 females and 116 males; M _age = 23.52, SD _age = 1.15) for Wave 2 analysis. The retention rate between waves was 63.86%, which is considered acceptable for longitudinal research designs. Measures Employees' perceptions of abusive supervision were assessed using the 15-item scale developed by Tepper (2000) [2]. An example item from the scale is: "My supervisor ridicules me." Participants were asked to report the frequency with which their supervisor engaged in each of the 15 behaviors, using a 5-point Likert scale. Response options ranged from 1 ("I cannot remember him/her ever using this behavior with me") to 5 ("He/she uses this behavior very often with me"). Social aggression was measured using the Social Aggression subscale from the Subtypes of Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire (STAB) developed by Burt and Donnellan (2009) [22]. This subscale comprises 11 items that capture behaviors indicative of social aggression, such as "Gave someone the silent treatment when angry with them," "Made fun of someone behind their back," and "Revealed someone’s secrets when angry with them." Participants rated the frequency with which they engaged in these behaviors over the past six months using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always), with higher scores indicating higher levels of social aggression. The Social Aggression subscale has shown strong validity and reliability within Chinese samples, supporting its cross-cultural relevance (Li & Xia, 2020) [23]. We examined the empirical relationships between several control variables (e.g., gender, age) and the dependent variables in this study [24]. As shown in Table 1 , gender was not found to be significantly correlated with all the dependent variables. Data Analysis Descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients for all variables, and measurement invariance were assessed using R 4.4.2. The scales used in the model demonstrated strong internal consistency and a unidimensional structure. To assess the factorial validity of the scales at both time points, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The results indicated that a one-factor model, encompassing all items, exhibited a good fit for each scale. For the purpose of subsequent analyses, the items within each scale were averaged to create a mean index. The cross-lagged panel model was evaluated with the R Lavaan package to examine cross-lagged effects [25]. To address missing data, the full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation method was used [26], and MLR was applied to handle non-normal data [27]. Following the recommendations of Hair et al. (2006), model fit was evaluated using the following indices: Comparative Fit Index (CFI; > 0.90), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI; > 0.90), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; < 0.08), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR; < 0.08) [28]. Standardized coefficients for all variables were reported, with statistical significance set at p < .05. Results Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Descriptive statistics and correlation analyses were performed to examine the relationships among the constructs, as detailed in Table 1 . Age exhibited weak associations with the variables, showing only a weak but significant negative correlation with abusive supervision at Wave 1 ( r = − .13, p < .05). No other significant relationships were observed between age and gender, abusive supervision, or social aggression at either wave. Similarly, gender was not significantly correlated with any of the other variables in the study. Abusive supervision demonstrated high test-retest reliability, as evidenced by the high correlation between abusive supervision at Wave 1 and abusive supervision at Wave 2 ( r = .88, p < .01). Additionally, abusive supervision at Wave 1 was significantly positively correlated with social aggression at Wave 1 ( r = .74, p < .01) and social aggression at Wave 2 ( r = .71, p < .01). Similarly, abusive supervision at Wave 2 showed strong positive correlations with social aggression at Wave 1 ( r = .71, p < .01) and social aggression at Wave 2 ( r = .75, p < .01). Social aggression also exhibited high test-retest reliability, with a strong correlation between social aggression at Wave 1 and social aggression at Wave 2 ( r = .88, p < .01). Furthermore, social aggression at Wave 1 was significantly positively correlated with abusive supervision at Wave 1 ( r = .74, p < .01) and abusive supervision at Wave 2 ( r = .71, p < .01). Similarly, social aggression at Wave 2 showed strong positive correlations with abusive supervision at Wave 1 ( r = .71, p < .01) and abusive supervision at Wave 2 ( r = .75, p < .01). Therefore, hypothesis 1 was confirmed. Table 1 Descriptive Analysis and Correlations Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 1.Age - 2.Gender .04 - 3.Abusive Supervision (W1) − .13 * − .01 (.84) 4.Abusive Supervision (W2) − .06 − .01 .88 ** (.83) 5.Social Aggression (W1) − .10 − .02 .74 ** .71 ** (.88) 6.Social Aggression (W2) − .12 − .06 .71 ** .75 ** .88 ** (.88) Mean 23.52 0.49 2.75 2.92 1.77 1.78 SD 1.15 0.50 1.59 1.56 0.8 0.78 N = 235. Reliability alpha values are on the diagonal. Gender was coded 0 for female and 1 for male. * p < .05; ** p < .01 Validity To assess the discriminant validity of abusive supervision and organizational dehumanization at each time point, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using R version 4.4.2. Given the substantial number of items relative to the sample size, which resulted in a high number of parameters to be estimated, the initial model failed to converge [29]. To address this issue, the item-to-construct balance technique was employed, reducing the number of indicators per latent factor to four by creating item parcels [29]. This approach ensured that the parcels for abusive supervision and organizational dehumanization at Time 2 mirrored those constructed at Time 1. Furthermore, this parceling strategy was selected to maximize the retention of common construct variance while minimizing the influence of unrelated specific variance [30]. The two-factor model demonstrated excellent fit to the data at both Wave 1 (χ²(19) = 50.49, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .04, CFI = .98, TLI = .97) and Wave 2 (χ²(19) = 34.88, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .03, CFI = .99, TLI = .99). Importantly, the two-factor model exhibited significantly superior fit compared to a one-factor model, as evidenced by the chi-square difference tests (Δχ²(1) = 243.12, p < .001 for Wave 1; Δχ²(1) = 85.84, p < .001 for Wave 2). These results provide evidence that abusive supervision and social aggression represent distinct constructs. Longitudinal Measurement Invariance The results indicate that both abusive supervision and social aggression demonstrate strict longitudinal measurement invariance, confirming that the factor structure remained consistent across multiple time points. As presented in Table 2 , configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance were established for both constructs. The invariance tests revealed that changes in model fit indices, including the Comparative Fit Index (ΔCFI) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (ΔRMSEA), consistently fell below the recommended thresholds [31][32]. Specifically, ΔCFI values were below 0.010, and ΔRMSEA values were under 0.015 at each stage of invariance testing, further supporting the stability of the measurement models over time. These findings provide robust evidence for the temporal consistency of the constructs' factor structures. Table 2 Model Fit Indices for Analysis of Longitudinal Measure Invariance Invariance tests χ 2 df CFI △CFI TLI △TLI RMSEA SRMR Abusive Supervision Configural invariance 28.794 15 0.994 0.989 0.063 0.013 Metric invariance 29.108 19 0.996 0.002 0.994 0.005 0.048 0.015 Scalar invariance 42.065 23 0.992 -0.004 0.990 -0.004 0.059 0.027 Strict Invariance 49.725 27 0.991 -0.001 0.990 0 0.06 0.029 Social Aggression Configural invariance 32.87 15 0.993 0.987 0.071 0.027 Metric invariance 39.201 19 0.992 -0.001 0.988 0.001 0.067 0.038 Scalar invariance 41.119 23 0.993 0.001 0.991 0.003 0.058 0.038 Strict Invariance 49.782 27 0.991 -0.002 0.991 0 0.06 0.041 Note : df = degree of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; and SRMR = standardized root mean squared residual. The cross-lagged panel model of abusive supervision and social aggression The cross-lagged panel model was employed to examine the reciprocal relationships between abusive supervision and social aggression across two waves (as shown in Figure 1). The results of revealed significant bidirectional relationships between abusive supervision and social aggression. Specifically, the model showed that abusive supervision at Wave 1 positively predicted social aggression at Wave 2 ( β = 0.251, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 2. This finding aligns with self-regulation theory, which posits that abusive supervision depletes subordinates' self-regulatory resources, leading to an increase in aggressive behaviors such as social aggression [8]. The psychological and emotional toll of abusive supervision likely triggers social aggression as a coping mechanism or form of retaliation against the perceived injustice [17][18]. Additionally, social aggression at Wave 1 also positively predicted abusive supervision at Wave 2 ( β = 0.065, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis 3. This finding is consistent with social exchange theory, which suggests that supervisors may perceive social aggression as a threat to their authority or as a form of insubordination, leading them to respond with increased abusive supervision [9]. The reciprocal nature of this relationship indicates a vicious cycle where social aggression provokes further abusive behaviors from supervisors, which in turn may escalate social aggression [19][21]. These results suggest significant, bidirectional relationships between abusive supervision and social aggression. Discussion The findings of this study provide strong evidence for the reciprocal relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression, aligning with the theoretical frameworks of self-regulation theory and social exchange theory. The results indicate that abusive supervision not only predicts social aggression but also that social aggression, in turn, predicts further abusive supervision, creating a vicious cycle of negative interactions between supervisors and subordinates. This bidirectional relationship underscores the dynamic and escalating nature of workplace aggression, particularly in the context of sustained abusive supervision. This study may contribute to the growing body of literature on abusive supervision and its consequences by highlighting the role of social aggression as a retaliatory mechanism. Consistent with self-regulation theory, abusive supervision depletes subordinates' cognitive and emotional resources, leading to a failure in self-control and an increase in aggressive behaviors [8][18]. This depletion of resources may explain why subordinates who experience abusive supervision are more likely to engage in social aggression as a coping mechanism or form of retaliation [17]. The findings also align with social exchange theory, which posits that individuals tend to reciprocate negative treatment with negative behaviors [9]. In this context, subordinates who perceive abusive supervision as a form of injustice may engage in social aggression to restore balance in the relationship [14]. Moreover, the study extends previous research by demonstrating that social aggression can provoke further abusive supervision, suggesting that the relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression is not unidirectional but rather reciprocal. This finding is consistent with the notion that supervisors may perceive social aggression as a threat to their authority, leading them to respond with increased abusive behaviors [21]. This reciprocal relationship highlights the importance of considering both supervisor and subordinate behaviors when examining the dynamics of workplace aggression. Limitations and Future Research While this study provides valuable insights into the reciprocal relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression, it is not without limitations. First, the study relied on self-reported data, which may be subject to common method bias. Although we used a longitudinal design to mitigate this issue, future research could benefit from collecting data from multiple sources, such as supervisors and peers, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics between abusive supervision and social aggression. Second, the study focused on social aggression as a form of retaliation, but future research could explore other forms of retaliation, such as organizational deviance or withdrawal behaviors. Additionally, future studies could examine the role of individual differences, such as personality traits or coping styles, in moderating the relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression. Finally, the study was conducted in a specific Chinese cultural context, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Future research should replicate the study in different cultural settings to examine whether the reciprocal relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression holds across different cultural norms and values. Implications The present study offers several important theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the cyclical nature of workplace aggression by demonstrating the reciprocal relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression. By integrating self-regulation theory and social exchange theory, this research advances the conceptualization of aggression in organizational contexts, highlighting how employees and supervisors may become mutually entangled in escalating negative interactions. This reciprocal framework challenges the traditional unidirectional view that positions subordinates solely as passive recipients of supervisory abuse, instead portraying them as active agents who may respond to abusive supervision through socially aggressive behaviors that, in turn, elicit further supervisory abuse. From a practical perspective, the findings underscore the urgent need for organizations to implement comprehensive strategies to break the vicious cycle of aggression. Human resource professionals and organizational leaders should prioritize the early identification and mitigation of abusive supervision through leadership training, coaching, and accountability mechanisms. Equally important is the cultivation of a psychologically safe work environment that discourages covert retaliatory behaviors such as gossip, exclusion, and rumor-spreading. Interventions aimed at enhancing employees’ self-regulatory capacities—such as mindfulness training, stress reduction programs, and social-emotional learning—may help reduce the likelihood of retaliatory social aggression. Moreover, organizations should consider implementing feedback systems that facilitate open communication between supervisors and subordinates, potentially defusing tensions before they evolve into patterns of mutual hostility. Ultimately, addressing both supervisory and subordinate behaviors in tandem is essential for promoting healthier and more productive workplace relationships. Conclusion This study illuminates the bidirectional relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression within the workplace. The findings reveal that not only does abusive supervision predict social aggression, but that social aggression also predicts further abusive behaviors from supervisors, creating a cyclical pattern of negative interactions. This reciprocal relationship underscores the pernicious effects of abusive supervision and highlights the critical need for interventions aimed at reducing supervisory abuse to prevent escalating cycles of aggression. Future research should continue to explore these dynamics, potentially incorporating multi-source data and examining the influence of cultural factors on these processes. Such efforts can enhance our understanding of how abusive supervision and social aggression can be effectively addressed to foster healthier, more productive workplace environments. In doing so, organizations can better support their employees' well-being and prevent the long-term consequences of these destructive behaviors. Declarations Acknowledgements We would like to grateful all participants who agreed to participate in this study. Authors’ contributions Z.P.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Curation, Formal Analysis. W.C.: Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft. L.H.: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding Not applicable. Data availability The data that support the study may be available upon request with permission from the researchers who collected the data. Ethics approval and consent to participate The study adhered to the guidelines set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki, was approved by the ethical committee at Dalian University of Technology (DUTSH240409-02). Informed written consent was obtained from all participants. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. References Barling, J., Dupré, K. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting workplace aggression and violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 60 , 671–692. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163629 Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375 Wu, T., & Hu, C. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion: Dispositional antecedents and boundaries. Group & Organization Management, 34 (2), 143–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108331217 Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43 (6), 1940–1965. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315573997 Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9 (3), 212–230. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_2 Qin, X., Huang, M., Johnson, R. E., Hu, Q., & Ju, D. (2017). The short-lived benefits of abusive supervisory behavior for actors: An investigation of recovery and work engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 60 (6), 1951–1975. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1325 Liao, Z., Yam, K. C., Johnson, R. E., Liu, W., & Song, Z. (2018). Cleansing my abuse: A reparative response model of perpetrating abusive supervisor behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103 (10), 1039–1056. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000319 Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (5), 1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252 Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25 (2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623 Budd, J. W., Arvey, R. D., & Lawless, P. (1996). Correlates and consequences of workplace violence. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1 (3), 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.1.3.197 Goldberg, L., & Grandey, A. (2007). Display rules versus display autonomy: Emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and task performance in a call center simulation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12 (3), 301-318. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.301 Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (4), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.547 Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (4), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159 Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31 (6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 Psychology, 86 (4), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.547 Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against coworkers, subordinates and supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 (6), 897–913. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199911)20:63.0.CO;2-Z Hershcovis, M. S., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (1), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228 Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Liang, L. H., Keeping, L. M., & Morrison, R. (2014). Abusive supervision and retaliation: A self-control framework. Academy of Management Journal, 57 (1), 116–139. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0977 Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (6), 1009–1031. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020540 Mackey, J. D., McAllister, C. P., Brees, J. R., Huang, L., & Carson, J. E. (2020). You abuse and I criticize: An ego depletion and leader-member exchange examination of abusive supervision and destructive voice. Journal of Business Ethics, 164 (4), 579–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4024-x Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108 (1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.06.003 Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., Morrison, R., & Brown, D. J. (2014). Blame it on the supervisor or the subordinate? Reciprocal relations between abusive supervision and organizational deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99 (4), 651–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035498 Burt, S. A., & Donnellan, M. B. (2009). Development and validation of the Subtypes of Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 35 (5), 376–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20314 Li, R., & Xia, L. X. (2020). The mediating mechanisms underlying the longitudinal effect of trait anger on social aggression: Testing a temporal path model. Journal of Research in Personality, 88 , 104018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.104018 Becker, T. E., et al. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37 (2), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2053 Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48 (2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02 Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8 (3), 430–457. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5 Lai, K. (2019). More robust standard error and confidence interval for SEM parameters given incorrect model and nonnormal data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26 (2), 260–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1505522 Hair, J. F., et al. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9 (2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1 Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18 (3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266 Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25 (1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500101 Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (3), 568–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6687946","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":464829900,"identity":"66b3f6b8-2ff3-41bf-988c-c0556db802cf","order_by":0,"name":"Pengjuan Zhao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Guizhou Normal University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pengjuan","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhao","suffix":""},{"id":464829902,"identity":"4fddb8b5-5fe4-4595-bd49-d910b84b713b","order_by":1,"name":"Chuanji Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Guizhou Vocational College of Economics and Trade","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chuanji","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""},{"id":464829903,"identity":"31469e66-7716-4ddc-b526-b9fa373be8fa","order_by":2,"name":"Hao Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Guizhou University of Finance and Economics","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hao","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-17 15:38:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6687946/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6687946/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":83761474,"identity":"f046d72d-7d9d-431f-8453-9df2e656f369","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-02 09:42:07","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":155691,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe Cross-lagged Panel Model of Abusive Supervision and Social Aggression\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6687946/v1/eb0cea262f4a598a74fedd79.png"},{"id":85652671,"identity":"703442bf-83de-490f-af2f-864d111df094","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-30 09:39:15","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":814637,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6687946/v1/03a6a219-1a2f-4558-92b5-5e10150807f0.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Reciprocity between Abusive Supervision and Social Aggression: A Cross-lagged Panel Model","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eWorkplace aggression has long been a critical issue in organizational behavior research, with significant implications for employee well-being, job performance, and organizational outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Among the various antecedents of workplace aggression, abusive supervision has emerged as a particularly salient factor, given its pervasive and detrimental effects on employees [2]. Abusive supervision, defined as subordinates' perceptions of sustained hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors from their supervisors, has been linked to a range of negative outcomes, including decreased job satisfaction, increased emotional exhaustion, and heightened turnover intentions [3][\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. However, while the relationship between abusive supervision and overt forms of aggression has been extensively studied, less attention has been paid to the role of social aggression\u0026mdash;a more covert and subtle form of retaliation\u0026mdash;in this dynamic [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Social aggression, characterized by behaviors aimed at damaging another person's social relationships or status, such as spreading rumors, gossiping, or socially excluding someone, represents a unique form of workplace aggression that is often more difficult to detect and address [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Unlike overt aggression, which is direct and visible, social aggression operates through indirect means, making it a particularly insidious form of retaliation. Recent studies have begun to explore the link between abusive supervision and social aggression, suggesting that employees who experience abusive supervision may engage in social aggression as a coping mechanism or form of retaliation [6][\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. However, the longitudinal relationship between these constructs remains underexplored, particularly from the perspective of supervisor-subordinate interactions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aims to fill this gap by investigating the reciprocal relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression over time. Drawing on self-regulation theory and social exchange theory, we propose that abusive supervision depletes subordinates' self-regulatory resources, leading to an increase in social aggression as a form of retaliation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e][\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Conversely, we argue that social aggression may provoke further abusive behaviors from supervisors, creating a vicious cycle of negative interactions. By examining these dynamics longitudinally, this study seeks to provide a more nuanced understanding of how abusive supervision and social aggression influence each other over time, and how these interactions contribute to the escalation of workplace aggression.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eAbusive supervision is defined as subordinates' perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact, which is inherently subjective, as two subordinates may perceive the same supervisor's behavior differently based on their individual personality traits and cognitive appraisals [2]. Abusive supervision manifests in various forms, including public criticism, humiliation, rudeness, inconsiderate actions, and coercion [2]. It is important to note that abusive supervision is not a one-time event but rather a sustained pattern of hostile behavior that can have long-term effects on employees' psychological and behavioral responses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbusive supervision has been linked to a wide range of negative outcomes for both employees and organizations. Research has consistently shown that abusive supervision leads to decreased job performance, job satisfaction, and mental health, while increasing job stress and emotional exhaustion [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e][10][\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, abusive supervision has been associated with increased turnover intentions, reduced organizational commitment, and lower levels of organizational citizenship behavior [2][3].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the most significant consequences of abusive supervision is its impact on employee aggression. Aggression in the workplace is defined as acts by employees intended to harm others with whom they work or the employing organization [12]. Aggressive behaviors can range from overt acts such as yelling or insulting to more covert actions like spreading rumors or sabotaging work [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Abusive supervision has been identified as a key antecedent of workplace aggression, as it creates a hostile work environment that can trigger retaliatory behaviors from employees [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relationship between abusive supervision and aggression has been extensively studied in the organizational behavior literature. According to social exchange theory, interpersonal interactions are guided by norms of reciprocity, and individuals tend to reciprocate negative treatment with negative behaviors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. In the context of abusive supervision, employees who perceive unfair treatment from their supervisors may engage in retaliatory behaviors as a way to restore balance in the relationship [14]. This retaliation often takes the form of aggression directed at the supervisor, coworkers, or the organization itself [2][\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical studies have consistently supported the notion that abusive supervision leads to increased aggression. For example, Greenberg and Barling (1999) found that 76% of male employees admitted to engaging in at least one incident of aggression against their supervisor in response to abusive treatment [15]. Similarly, Hershcovis et al. (2007) conducted a meta-analysis and found that perceptions of unfair treatment from supervisors were among the strongest predictors of supervisor-directed negative behaviors [16]. These findings suggest that abusive supervision is a significant driver of workplace aggression, particularly when employees feel powerless to address the abuse directly [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent studies have further elaborated on this relationship. For instance, Mackey et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis and found that abusive supervision is strongly associated with both supervisor-directed and organization-directed aggression [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. They also highlighted the role of individual differences, such as negative reciprocity beliefs, in moderating this relationship. Similarly, Lian et al. (2014) demonstrated that abusive supervision increases subordinates' hostility towards supervisors, which in turn leads to supervisor-directed aggression [17]. These findings underscore the importance of considering both situational and individual factors when examining the relationship between abusive supervision and aggression.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the relationship between abusive supervision and overt forms of aggression has been well-documented, less attention has been paid to the role of social aggression in this dynamic. Social aggression, a form of proactive aggression, involves behaviors aimed at damaging another person's social relationships or status, such as spreading rumors, gossiping, or socially excluding someone [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Unlike overt aggression, which is direct and visible, social aggression is often covert and subtle, making it more difficult to detect and address.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe longitudinal relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression remains underexplored, particularly from the perspective of supervisor-subordinate interactions. While some studies have examined the immediate effects of abusive supervision on aggression, few have investigated how these behaviors evolve over time or how they are influenced by ongoing interactions between supervisors and subordinates. This gap in the literature is significant, as social aggression can have long-term consequences for workplace relationships and organizational climate. Recent research has begun to address this gap. For example, Qin et al. (2017) found that abusive supervision can lead to a cycle of retaliation, where employees engage in social aggression as a way to cope with ongoing abuse [6]. Similarly, Liao et al. (2018) proposed a reparative response model, suggesting that employees who experience abusive supervision may engage in social aggression as a way to restore their sense of control and self-esteem [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. These studies highlight the need for further research on the long-term effects of abusive supervision on social aggression, particularly in the context of supervisor-subordinate interactions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the extensive research on abusive supervision and its consequences, the longitudinal relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression has not been thoroughly explored. Specifically, there is a lack of research examining how social aggression develops over time in response to sustained abusive supervision, particularly from the perspective of supervisor-subordinate interactions. This study aims to fill this research gap by investigating the long-term effects of abusive supervision on social aggression, with a focus on the dynamic interplay between supervisors and subordinates.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheoretical Framework and Hypotheses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression can be understood through the lens of self-regulation theory [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Self-regulation theory posits that individuals have limited cognitive and emotional resources to manage their behaviors, and when these resources are depleted, they are more likely to engage in impulsive or aggressive behaviors. In the context of abusive supervision, subordinates who experience sustained hostile behaviors from their supervisors may exhaust their self-regulatory resources, leading to a failure to control their impulses and an increase in aggressive behaviors, such as social aggression [17][18]. Social aggression, defined as behaviors aimed at damaging another person's social relationships or status (e.g., spreading rumors, gossiping, or socially excluding someone), can be seen as a form of retaliation or coping mechanism in response to abusive supervision [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbusive supervision and social aggression are likely to be positively correlated due to the reciprocal nature of hostile interactions in the workplace. Abusive supervision, characterized by sustained hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors from supervisors, creates a toxic work environment that can trigger aggressive responses from subordinates [2]. According to social exchange theory, individuals tend to reciprocate negative treatment with negative behaviors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. When subordinates perceive abusive supervision, they may engage in social aggression as a way to restore balance in the relationship or to retaliate against the perceived injustice [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Empirical evidence supports this notion, as studies have shown that abusive supervision is positively associated with various forms of workplace aggression, including social aggression [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e][16]. Therefore, we hypothesize:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 1\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbusive supervision and social aggression will be positively correlated with each other.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbusive supervision is likely to predict social aggression due to the psychological and emotional toll it takes on subordinates. According to self-regulation theory, abusive supervision depletes subordinates' self-regulatory resources, making it difficult for them to control their impulses and leading to aggressive behaviors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. When subordinates experience abusive supervision, they may feel a sense of injustice, frustration, and emotional exhaustion, which can trigger social aggression as a way to cope with or retaliate against the abusive treatment [17][18]. Additionally, abusive supervision can create a hostile work environment that fosters negative emotions and reduces subordinates' ability to regulate their behaviors, further increasing the likelihood of social aggression [2][19]. Therefore, we hypothesize:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 2\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbusive supervision will positively predict social aggression.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relationship between social aggression and abusive supervision is likely to be reciprocal. Subordinates who engage in social aggression may provoke further abusive behaviors from their supervisors. According to social exchange theory, supervisors may perceive social aggression as a threat to their authority or as a form of insubordination, leading them to respond with increased abusive supervision [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e][\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Additionally, supervisors who experience social aggression from their subordinates may feel a loss of control or respect, which can trigger abusive behaviors as a way to reassert their authority [21]. This creates a vicious cycle where social aggression leads to increased abusive supervision, which in turn may further escalate social aggression. Empirical studies have shown that subordinates' deviant behaviors, including social aggression, can lead to increased abusive supervision [19][21]. Therefore, we hypothesize:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 3\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial aggression will positively predict abusive supervision.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e The study recruited a total of 427 Chinese graduates aged between 22 and 25 years (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e_age\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23.53, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e_age\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.13) from a prestigious university in China through WJX Platform (wjx.com). Participants received a nominal compensation of approximately US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e1 for completing an online survey. Following the implementation of attention check items, 368 valid responses were retained for Wave 1 data analysis, comprising 190 females, 177 males, and 1 participant who preferred not to disclose gender information. A longitudinal design was employed, with Wave 2 data collection occurring four months after the initial survey administration. The same cohort was invited to participate, and consistent data quality control procedures were implemented, including the use of attention check items. This resulted in a final sample of 235 participants (119 females and 116 males; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e_age\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23.52, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e_age\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.15) for Wave 2 analysis. The retention rate between waves was 63.86%, which is considered acceptable for longitudinal research designs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmployees' perceptions of abusive supervision were assessed using the 15-item scale developed by Tepper (2000) [2]. An example item from the scale is: \"My supervisor ridicules me.\" Participants were asked to report the frequency with which their supervisor engaged in each of the 15 behaviors, using a 5-point Likert scale. Response options ranged from 1 (\"I cannot remember him/her ever using this behavior with me\") to 5 (\"He/she uses this behavior very often with me\"). Social aggression was measured using the Social Aggression subscale from the Subtypes of Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire (STAB) developed by Burt and Donnellan (2009) [22]. This subscale comprises 11 items that capture behaviors indicative of social aggression, such as \"Gave someone the silent treatment when angry with them,\" \"Made fun of someone behind their back,\" and \"Revealed someone\u0026rsquo;s secrets when angry with them.\" Participants rated the frequency with which they engaged in these behaviors over the past six months using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always), with higher scores indicating higher levels of social aggression. The Social Aggression subscale has shown strong validity and reliability within Chinese samples, supporting its cross-cultural relevance (Li \u0026amp; Xia, 2020) [23]. We examined the empirical relationships between several control variables (e.g., gender, age) and the dependent variables in this study [24]. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, gender was not found to be significantly correlated with all the dependent variables.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics, correlation coefficients for all variables, and measurement invariance were assessed using R 4.4.2. The scales used in the model demonstrated strong internal consistency and a unidimensional structure. To assess the factorial validity of the scales at both time points, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The results indicated that a one-factor model, encompassing all items, exhibited a good fit for each scale. For the purpose of subsequent analyses, the items within each scale were averaged to create a mean index. The cross-lagged panel model was evaluated with the R Lavaan package to examine cross-lagged effects [25]. To address missing data, the full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation method was used [26], and MLR was applied to handle non-normal data [27]. Following the recommendations of Hair et al. (2006), model fit was evaluated using the following indices: Comparative Fit Index (CFI; \u0026gt; 0.90), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI; \u0026gt; 0.90), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; \u0026lt; 0.08), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR; \u0026lt; 0.08) [28]. Standardized coefficients for all variables were reported, with statistical significance set at \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Correlations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and correlation analyses were performed to examine the relationships among the constructs, as detailed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Age exhibited weak associations with the variables, showing only a weak but significant negative correlation with abusive supervision at Wave 1 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.13, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05). No other significant relationships were observed between age and gender, abusive supervision, or social aggression at either wave. Similarly, gender was not significantly correlated with any of the other variables in the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbusive supervision demonstrated high test-retest reliability, as evidenced by the high correlation between abusive supervision at Wave 1 and abusive supervision at Wave 2 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.88, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01). Additionally, abusive supervision at Wave 1 was significantly positively correlated with social aggression at Wave 1 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.74, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01) and social aggression at Wave 2 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.71, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01). Similarly, abusive supervision at Wave 2 showed strong positive correlations with social aggression at Wave 1 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.71, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01) and social aggression at Wave 2 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.75, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01). Social aggression also exhibited high test-retest reliability, with a strong correlation between social aggression at Wave 1 and social aggression at Wave 2 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.88, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01). Furthermore, social aggression at Wave 1 was significantly positively correlated with abusive supervision at Wave 1 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.74, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01) and abusive supervision at Wave 2 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.71, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01). Similarly, social aggression at Wave 2 showed strong positive correlations with abusive supervision at Wave 1 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.71, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01) and abusive supervision at Wave 2 (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.75, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01). Therefore, hypothesis \u003cspan refid=\"FPar1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e was confirmed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive Analysis and Correlations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Age\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.Gender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.Abusive Supervision (W1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.13\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(.84)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.Abusive Supervision (W2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.88\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(.83)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.Social Aggression (W1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.74\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.71\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(.88)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.Social Aggression (W2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.71\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.75\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.88\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(.88)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"7\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;235. Reliability alpha values are on the diagonal. Gender was coded 0 for female and 1 for male. \u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05; \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eValidity\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo assess the discriminant validity of abusive supervision and organizational dehumanization at each time point, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using R version 4.4.2. Given the substantial number of items relative to the sample size, which resulted in a high number of parameters to be estimated, the initial model failed to converge [29]. To address this issue, the item-to-construct balance technique was employed, reducing the number of indicators per latent factor to four by creating item parcels [29]. This approach ensured that the parcels for abusive supervision and organizational dehumanization at Time 2 mirrored those constructed at Time 1. Furthermore, this parceling strategy was selected to maximize the retention of common construct variance while minimizing the influence of unrelated specific variance [30]. The two-factor model demonstrated excellent fit to the data at both Wave 1 (χ\u0026sup2;(19)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;50.49, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.08, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.98, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.97) and Wave 2 (χ\u0026sup2;(19)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;34.88, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.06, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.99, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.99). Importantly, the two-factor model exhibited significantly superior fit compared to a one-factor model, as evidenced by the chi-square difference tests (Δχ\u0026sup2;(1)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;243.12, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001 for Wave 1; Δχ\u0026sup2;(1)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;85.84, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001 for Wave 2). These results provide evidence that abusive supervision and social aggression represent distinct constructs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLongitudinal Measurement Invariance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results indicate that both abusive supervision and social aggression demonstrate strict longitudinal measurement invariance, confirming that the factor structure remained consistent across multiple time points. As presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance were established for both constructs. The invariance tests revealed that changes in model fit indices, including the Comparative Fit Index (ΔCFI) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (ΔRMSEA), consistently fell below the recommended thresholds [31][32]. Specifically, ΔCFI values were below 0.010, and ΔRMSEA values were under 0.015 at each stage of invariance testing, further supporting the stability of the measurement models over time. These findings provide robust evidence for the temporal consistency of the constructs' factor structures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel Fit Indices for Analysis of Longitudinal Measure Invariance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInvariance tests\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eχ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCFI\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e△CFI\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTLI\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e△TLI\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRMSEA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSRMR\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAbusive Supervision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConfigural invariance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.794\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.994\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.989\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.063\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMetric invariance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29.108\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.996\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.994\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.048\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.015\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScalar invariance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42.065\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.992\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.990\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.059\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.027\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrict Invariance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49.725\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.991\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.990\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.029\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Aggression\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConfigural invariance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32.87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.993\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.987\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.071\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.027\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMetric invariance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39.201\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.992\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.988\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.067\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScalar invariance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e41.119\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.993\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.991\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.058\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrict Invariance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49.782\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.991\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.002\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.991\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.041\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"9\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;degree of freedom; CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;comparative fit index; TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;root mean square error of approximation; and SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;standardized root mean squared residual.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe cross-lagged panel model of abusive supervision and social aggression\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe cross-lagged panel model was employed to examine the reciprocal relationships between abusive supervision and social aggression across two waves (as shown in Figure 1). The results of \u0026nbsp;revealed significant bidirectional relationships between abusive supervision and social aggression. Specifically, the model showed that abusive supervision at Wave 1 positively predicted social aggression at Wave 2 (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.251,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01), supporting Hypothesis 2. This finding aligns with self-regulation theory, which posits that abusive supervision depletes subordinates\u0026apos; self-regulatory resources, leading to an increase in aggressive behaviors such as social aggression [8]. The psychological and emotional toll of abusive supervision likely triggers social aggression as a coping mechanism or form of retaliation against the perceived injustice [17][18]. Additionally, social aggression at Wave 1 also positively predicted abusive supervision at Wave 2 (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.065,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05), supporting Hypothesis 3. This finding is consistent with social exchange theory, which suggests that supervisors may perceive social aggression as a threat to their authority or as a form of insubordination, leading them to respond with increased abusive supervision [9]. The reciprocal nature of this relationship indicates a vicious cycle where social aggression provokes further abusive behaviors from supervisors, which in turn may escalate social aggression [19][21]. These results suggest significant, bidirectional relationships between abusive supervision and social aggression.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study provide strong evidence for the reciprocal relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression, aligning with the theoretical frameworks of self-regulation theory and social exchange theory. The results indicate that abusive supervision not only predicts social aggression but also that social aggression, in turn, predicts further abusive supervision, creating a vicious cycle of negative interactions between supervisors and subordinates. This bidirectional relationship underscores the dynamic and escalating nature of workplace aggression, particularly in the context of sustained abusive supervision.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study may contribute to the growing body of literature on abusive supervision and its consequences by highlighting the role of social aggression as a retaliatory mechanism. Consistent with self-regulation theory, abusive supervision depletes subordinates\u0026apos; cognitive and emotional resources, leading to a failure in self-control and an increase in aggressive behaviors [8][18]. This depletion of resources may explain why subordinates who experience abusive supervision are more likely to engage in social aggression as a coping mechanism or form of retaliation [17]. The findings also align with social exchange theory, which posits that individuals tend to reciprocate negative treatment with negative behaviors [9]. In this context, subordinates who perceive abusive supervision as a form of injustice may engage in social aggression to restore balance in the relationship [14]. Moreover, the study extends previous research by demonstrating that social aggression can provoke further abusive supervision, suggesting that the relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression is not unidirectional but rather reciprocal. This finding is consistent with the notion that supervisors may perceive social aggression as a threat to their authority, leading them to respond with increased abusive behaviors [21]. This reciprocal relationship highlights the importance of considering both supervisor and subordinate behaviors when examining the dynamics of workplace aggression.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations and Future Research\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile this study provides valuable insights into the reciprocal relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression, it is not without limitations. First, the study relied on self-reported data, which may be subject to common method bias. Although we used a longitudinal design to mitigate this issue, future research could benefit from collecting data from multiple sources, such as supervisors and peers, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics between abusive supervision and social aggression. Second, the study focused on social aggression as a form of retaliation, but future research could explore other forms of retaliation, such as organizational deviance or withdrawal behaviors. Additionally, future studies could examine the role of individual differences, such as personality traits or coping styles, in moderating the relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression. Finally, the study was conducted in a specific Chinese cultural context, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Future research should replicate the study in different cultural settings to examine whether the reciprocal relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression holds across different cultural norms and values.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImplications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present study offers several important theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the cyclical nature of workplace aggression by demonstrating the reciprocal relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression. By integrating self-regulation theory and social exchange theory, this research advances the conceptualization of aggression in organizational contexts, highlighting how employees and supervisors may become mutually entangled in escalating negative interactions. This reciprocal framework challenges the traditional unidirectional view that positions subordinates solely as passive recipients of supervisory abuse, instead portraying them as active agents who may respond to abusive supervision through socially aggressive behaviors that, in turn, elicit further supervisory abuse.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a practical perspective, the findings underscore the urgent need for organizations to implement comprehensive strategies to break the vicious cycle of aggression. Human resource professionals and organizational leaders should prioritize the early identification and mitigation of abusive supervision through leadership training, coaching, and accountability mechanisms. Equally important is the cultivation of a psychologically safe work environment that discourages covert retaliatory behaviors such as gossip, exclusion, and rumor-spreading. Interventions aimed at enhancing employees\u0026rsquo; self-regulatory capacities\u0026mdash;such as mindfulness training, stress reduction programs, and social-emotional learning\u0026mdash;may help reduce the likelihood of retaliatory social aggression. Moreover, organizations should consider implementing feedback systems that facilitate open communication between supervisors and subordinates, potentially defusing tensions before they evolve into patterns of mutual hostility. Ultimately, addressing both supervisory and subordinate behaviors in tandem is essential for promoting healthier and more productive workplace relationships.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study illuminates the bidirectional relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression within the workplace. The findings reveal that not only does abusive supervision predict social aggression, but that social aggression also predicts further abusive behaviors from supervisors, creating a cyclical pattern of negative interactions. This reciprocal relationship underscores the pernicious effects of abusive supervision and highlights the critical need for interventions aimed at reducing supervisory abuse to prevent escalating cycles of aggression. Future research should continue to explore these dynamics, potentially incorporating multi-source data and examining the influence of cultural factors on these processes. Such efforts can enhance our understanding of how abusive supervision and social aggression can be effectively addressed to foster healthier, more productive workplace environments. In doing so, organizations can better support their employees' well-being and prevent the long-term consequences of these destructive behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe would like to grateful all participants who agreed to participate in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; contributions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZ.P.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Curation, Formal Analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eW.C.: Formal Analysis, Writing \u0026ndash; Original Draft.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eL.H.: Methodology, Writing \u0026ndash; Review \u0026amp; Editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the study may be available upon request with permission from the researchers who collected the data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study adhered to the guidelines set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki, was approved by the ethical committee at Dalian University of Technology (DUTSH240409-02). Informed written consent was obtained from all participants.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarling, J., Dupr\u0026eacute;, K. E., \u0026amp; Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting workplace aggression and violence. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology, 60\u003c/em\u003e, 671\u0026ndash;692. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163629\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal, 43\u003c/em\u003e(2), 178\u0026ndash;190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWu, T., \u0026amp; Hu, C. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion: Dispositional antecedents and boundaries. \u003cem\u003eGroup \u0026amp; Organization Management, 34\u003c/em\u003e(2), 143\u0026ndash;169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108331217\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., \u0026amp; Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management, 43\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1940\u0026ndash;1965. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315573997\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArcher, J., \u0026amp; Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Review, 9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 212\u0026ndash;230. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQin, X., Huang, M., Johnson, R. E., Hu, Q., \u0026amp; Ju, D. (2017). The short-lived benefits of abusive supervisory behavior for actors: An investigation of recovery and work engagement. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal, 60\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1951\u0026ndash;1975. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1325\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiao, Z., Yam, K. C., Johnson, R. E., Liu, W., \u0026amp; Song, Z. (2018). Cleansing my abuse: A reparative response model of perpetrating abusive supervisor behavior. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 103\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1039\u0026ndash;1056. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000319\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., \u0026amp; Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1252\u0026ndash;1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Sociological Review, 25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 161\u0026ndash;178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBudd, J. W., Arvey, R. D., \u0026amp; Lawless, P. (1996). Correlates and consequences of workplace violence.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1\u003c/em\u003e(3), 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.1.3.197\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoldberg, L., \u0026amp; Grandey, A. (2007). Display rules versus display autonomy: Emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and task performance in a call center simulation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12\u003c/em\u003e(3), 301-318. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.301\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDouglas, S. C., \u0026amp; Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 86\u003c/em\u003e(4), 547\u0026ndash;559. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.547\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMitchell, M. S., \u0026amp; Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 92\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1159\u0026ndash;1168. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCropanzano, R., \u0026amp; Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management, 31\u003c/em\u003e(6), 874\u0026ndash;900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 \u003cem\u003ePsychology, 86\u003c/em\u003e(4), 547\u0026ndash;559. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.547\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenberg, L., \u0026amp; Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against coworkers, subordinates and supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace factors. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Behavior, 20\u003c/em\u003e(6), 897\u0026ndash;913. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199911)20:6\u0026lt;897::AID-JOB975\u0026gt;3.0.CO;2-Z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHershcovis, M. S., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 92\u003c/em\u003e(1), 228\u0026ndash;238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Liang, L. H., Keeping, L. M., \u0026amp; Morrison, R. (2014). Abusive supervision and retaliation: A self-control framework. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal, 57\u003c/em\u003e(1), 116\u0026ndash;139. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0977\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThau, S., \u0026amp; Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 95\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1009\u0026ndash;1031. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020540\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMackey, J. D., McAllister, C. P., Brees, J. R., Huang, L., \u0026amp; Carson, J. E. (2020). You abuse and I criticize: An ego depletion and leader-member exchange examination of abusive supervision and destructive voice. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics, 164\u003c/em\u003e(4), 579\u0026ndash;591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4024-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., \u0026amp; Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108\u003c/em\u003e(1), 79\u0026ndash;92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.06.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLian, H., Ferris, D. L., Morrison, R., \u0026amp; Brown, D. J. (2014). Blame it on the supervisor or the subordinate? Reciprocal relations between abusive supervision and organizational deviance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 99\u003c/em\u003e(4), 651\u0026ndash;664. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035498\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurt, S. A., \u0026amp; Donnellan, M. B. (2009). Development and validation of the Subtypes of Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire. \u003cem\u003eAggressive Behavior, 35\u003c/em\u003e(5), 376\u0026ndash;398. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20314\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, R., \u0026amp; Xia, L. X. (2020). The mediating mechanisms underlying the longitudinal effect of trait anger on social aggression: Testing a temporal path model. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research in Personality, 88\u003c/em\u003e, 104018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.104018\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBecker, T. E., et al. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Behavior, 37\u003c/em\u003e(2), 157\u0026ndash;167. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2053\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Statistical Software, 48\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1\u0026ndash;36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEnders, C. K., \u0026amp; Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. \u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling, 8\u003c/em\u003e(3), 430\u0026ndash;457. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLai, K. (2019). More robust standard error and confidence interval for SEM parameters given incorrect model and nonnormal data. \u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26\u003c/em\u003e(2), 260\u0026ndash;279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1505522\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair, J. F., et al. (2006). \u003cem\u003eMultivariate data analysis\u003c/em\u003e (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLittle, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., \u0026amp; Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. \u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling, 9\u003c/em\u003e(2), 151\u0026ndash;173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLittle, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., \u0026amp; Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn\u0026rsquo;t be one. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Methods, 18\u003c/em\u003e(3), 285\u0026ndash;300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheung, G. W., \u0026amp; Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management, 25\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;27. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500101\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., \u0026amp; Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 93\u003c/em\u003e(3), 568\u0026ndash;592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"abusive supervision, social aggression, self-regulation theory, social exchange theory, workplace aggression, longitudinal study","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6687946/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6687946/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eWorkplace aggression, particularly in response to abusive supervision, has garnered significant attention in organizational behavior research due to its detrimental effects on employee well-being and organizational outcomes. While the relationship between abusive supervision and overt forms of aggression has been well-documented, less is known about the role of social aggression in this dynamic. This study investigates the reciprocal relationship between abusive supervision and social aggression over time, drawing on self-regulation theory and social exchange theory. Using a longitudinal design with data collected from 427 Chinese graduates across two waves, we examine how abusive supervision predicts social aggression and how social aggression, in turn, predicts further abusive supervision. Results from cross-lagged panel analyses reveal significant bidirectional relationships. These findings suggest a vicious cycle of negative interactions, where abusive supervision depletes subordinates' self-regulatory resources, leading to social aggression, which in turn provokes further abusive behaviors from supervisors. This study contributes to the literature by highlighting the reciprocal nature of abusive supervision and social aggression, emphasizing the importance of addressing both constructs to mitigate workplace aggression. Practical implications for organizations include the need for interventions aimed at reducing abusive supervision and fostering healthier supervisor-subordinate relationships to prevent the escalation of social aggression.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Reciprocity between Abusive Supervision and Social Aggression: A Cross-lagged Panel Model","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-02 09:42:02","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6687946/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4b4d0538-3221-4330-84d4-4490d9b28226","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 2nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-06-30T09:38:35+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-02 09:42:02","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6687946","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6687946","identity":"rs-6687946","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}