Cheryl Ng Shi Hui - Australian National University... · Cheryl Ng Shi Hui Research School of Management College of Business and Economics Australian National University Canberra,

Running head: INTIMATE PARTNER AGGRESSION, DISTRESS, AND PSS

Distressed and drained: The moderating role of perceived supervisor support in

the relationship between intimate partner aggression and work outcomes

Cheryl Ng Shi Hui

Research School of Management

College of Business and Economics

Australian National University

Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia

E-mail: [email protected]

Author’s Notes: The Declaration of Originality and Acknowledgements are attached as

Appendix A.

INTIMATE PARTNER AGGRESSION, DISTRESS, AND PSS 2

Abstract

Despite its global prevalence and the detrimental effects for organisations, intimate

partner aggression (IPA) remains a serious problem that transcends the home to affect the

workplace. Grounded in conservation of resources (COR) theory, the present study

examines the relationship between IPA and work outcomes, specifically task performance

and organisational citizenship behaviour, through the mediating role of psychological

distress. Additionally, the current research investigates perceived supervisor support (PSS)

as an organisational buffer against the stress of abuse. The moderated-mediation model

was tested using two independent samples from Singapore and the Philippines in the pilot

study and the main study, providing evidence of constructive replication. Pilot study data

using a sample of employed women (n = 36) supported the positive relationship between

IPA and psychological distress. Using a temporal research design (i.e. four-week interval

between two measurement periods), the main study tested the hypothesised relationships

with a sample of 228 employee-supervisor dyads. Results showed that the conditional

indirect effects of IPA in predicting work outcomes via psychological distress were

stronger at low as opposed to high levels of PSS. Theoretical and practical implications

of the findings are discussed.

Practitioner Points

IPA decreases job performance due to experienced psychological distress.

Supervisors can help alleviate the negative impacts of IPA by offering

instrumental and emotional support.

Organisations can engage employee assistance programs to provide training for

supervisors and to help develop workplace policies addressing IPA.


Introduction

Intimate partner aggression is one of the most common forms of non-fatal

violence faced by women (Watts & Zimmerman, 2002). In a recent report, the World

Health Organisation (WHO) revealed that almost one-third (30%) of women globally

have experienced abuse by an intimate partner (WHO, 2013). The lifetime prevalence

estimates ranged from partnered women as young as 15 to 19 years old (29.4%) to older

women between 65 and 69 years old (22.2%), indicating that women may be exposed to

intimate partner aggression from very early on in their relationships and the abuse can

last for long periods in their lives (WHO, 2013). Aside from high prevalence rates,

governments and international organisations, such as the United Nations (UN), have

also recognised the urgent need to intensify efforts to raise awareness and eliminate all

forms of violence against women (UN General Assembly, 1993; 2006). Despite this

global recognition, current prevalence rates are comparable to findings in studies from

more than a decade ago (e.g. Heise et al., 1999). These concerning statistics suggest that

women globally remain greatly at risk, and that intimate partner aggression is still a

highly-relevant societal problem.

Research has consistently demonstrated that experiencing intimate partner

aggression has detrimental impacts on victim’s physical and mental health. These

studies found that women who are abused by their male partners reported suffering from

headaches, chronic fatigue and chronic pain, gastrological and gynaecological problems,

anxiety disorders, depression, suicidal ideations, and post-traumatic stress disorders

(Campbell, 2002; Coker, Smith, Bethea, King, & McKeown, 2000; Golding, 1999).

Intimate partner aggression victimisation is associated with dysfunctional behaviours,


such as alcohol abuse and drug use (Devries et al., 2014; Testa, Livingston, & Leonard,

2003). Unsurprisingly, the quality of life of abused women is significantly impaired

compared with non-abused women (Leung, Leung, Ng, & Ho, 2005). Given the wide

array of negative outcomes, progress has been made to identify the antecedents and risk

factors for perpetration and victimisation of intimate partner aggression (Flynn &

Graham, 2010; Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004). Similarly, there is a growing

interest to better understand the protective factors for intimate partner aggression that

may reduce the negative impacts on women. To a limited extent, the protective factors

that have been examined are personal variables, such as resilience and health (Carlson,

McNutt, Choi, & Rose, 2002; Davis, 2002), the disclosure of abuse in non-work

contexts (Ansara & Hindin, 2010; Sylaska & Edwards, 2014), and informal social

support (most commonly, emotional support) provided by family and friends (Beeble,

Bybee, Sullivan, & Adams, 2009; Bosch & Bergen, 2006; Trotter & Allen, 2009).

However, relatively little is known about the buffers for intimate partner aggression that

are found within the work domain.

In recent times, the focus in the literature has shifted to understanding the work-

related consequences of intimate partner aggression for employed women. Most of the

existing research has generally addressed the types of job interference tactic used by

perpetrators to disrupt the victim’s work (O’Leary-Kelly, Lean, Reeves, & Randel,

2008), and the impact of intimate partner aggression on the on-going ability of

employed women to function at work (LeBlanc, Barling, & Turner, 2014; O’Leary-

Kelly et al., 2008). Women who are employed and experienced intimate partner

aggression failed to maintain long-term employment; are more likely to display lower


job productivity; have higher absenteeism rates and more frequent tardiness, and report

higher rates of job turnover (LeBlanc et al., 2014; Shaw, Duffy, Johnson, & Lockhart,

2005; Swanberg, Logan, & Macke, 2005). For example, a national study conducted by

the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that intimate partner

aggression victimisation resulted in 13.6 million days of lost productivity from paid

work among working women (CDC, 2003a). For organisations, incidences of intimate

partner aggression in the workplace can also be costly. Non-fatal intimate partner

aggression incidents (e.g. injuries, absenteeism, and turnover) cost employers

approximately $900 million annually in the United States alone (CDC, 2003b).

Occurrences of intimate partner aggression at work further pose a threat to the safety of

other employees and can create a tense and unpleasant work environment, which may

result in less apparent costs to organisation. For example, co-workers of the victim may

experience lowered motivation, poor health outcomes due to the stress of witnessing the

abuse, and frustrations over repeated investment of time and effort to recruit and train

new employees (Riger, Raja and Camacho, 2002; Swanberg et al., 2005). Importantly,

these indirect costs of intimate partner aggression have a longer-lasting impact on

organisational effectiveness. When the negative work outcomes for employees and the

substantial organisational costs are considered, intimate partner aggression clearly

becomes an important issue to address in the work context.

In the present study, intimate partner aggression is defined as the physical and

psychological abuse perpetrated by a former or current male intimate partner towards a

woman. This definition does not differentiate between physical and psychological

aggression as both dimensions of abuse are highly and significantly correlated


(O’Leary, 1999). Furthermore, the separation of psychological aggression from physical

abuse is difficult because of their frequent co-occurrence (Follingstad, Rutledge, Berg,

Hause, & Polek, 1990; Follingstad, 2007). The scope of the present study is limited to

male-perpetrated abuse towards their female partners as intimate partner aggression was

found to be a higher baseline phenomenon for women (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).

Women who cohabitate with a male intimate partner experienced significantly higher

rates of partner violence, were more likely report incidences of partner aggression, and

experienced more intense and longer-lasting victimisation than men (Dobash, Dobash,

Cavanagh, & Lewis, 1998; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).

Despite some advances in our understanding of the work-related effects of

intimate partner aggression, there remain several gaps that need to be addressed. First,

when studying this phenomenon, most studies to date have only examined direct

relationships between intimate partner aggression and work outcomes. For example, it

has been found that intimate partner aggression is negatively related to job satisfaction

(Swanberg & Macke, 2006). While these associations are important, the limitation of

only studying direct relationships is that the underlying mechanism involved in the

relationship between intimate partner aggression and negative work outcomes remains

unclear. Keeping in mind the significant tangible and intangible costs involved, it is

imperative that researchers seek to unpack these associations and explain the process

that links intimate partner aggression to the workplace. A deeper understanding of why

this domestic issue affects employed women at work is potentially helpful in guiding

organisations to develop more effective policies and interventions for employees who

experience intimate partner aggression. In doing so, organisations may increase the


chances of alleviating the negative outcomes and reduce the associated costs of intimate

partner aggression. To this end, it is worth highlighting the importance of answering the

question ‘why’ as a way of making “the most fruitful” (Whetten, 1989, p. 493) kind of

theoretical contribution. In fact, it is a “particularly critical” (Whetten, 1989, p. 493),

but generally overlooked, aspect of theoretical development. Thus, an appropriate

theory elucidating why experiencing intimate partner aggression would result in

negative work outcomes is necessary to further our understanding of this relationship.

Second, there is a paucity of research on the buffers against the stress of intimate

partner aggression. It is necessary that this gap in the literature be filled as these

potential buffers could mitigate the negative effects of intimate partner aggression for

employed women. For example, Kaslow et al. (1998) tested three potential protective

factors against partner abuse (i.e. coping skills, family strengths, and social support) in

their hospital sample of African-American women, and they found that social support

was a significant moderator in the relationship between partner abuse and suicidal

behaviour. However, the provision of instrumental support, such as access to resources

and information, is also crucial in helping women cope with the abuse (Beecham, 2014;

Rothman, Hathaway, Stidsen, & de Vries, 2007; Swanberg, Macke, & Logan, 2007).

Indeed, the availability of workplace supports offered by supervisors was positively

associated with employment stability (Staggs, Long, Mason, Krishnan, & Riger, 2007).

Taken together, these findings suggest that it is insufficient to only investigate informal

social support as a buffer, because informal support networks may not have access to

the resources that represent instrumental support to women. Therefore, identifying and


understanding plausible organisational buffers constitutes an important research task to

further our understanding of how employed women cope with abuse.

Third, researchers have largely considered performance as a single construct in

those studies that examined the workplace consequences of intimate partner aggression

(e.g. LeBlanc et al., 2014; Lloyd & Taluc, 1999; Swanberg et al., 2007). However, job

performance is a multi-dimensional construct and the dimensions of performance are

clearly distinguishable from one another (Morrison, 1994; Welbourne, Johnson, & Erez,

1998). Employees who demonstrate high levels of job performance engage in various

skill sets, such as people and communication skills and technical abilities. Specifically,

employees’ in-role behaviour measures how well the task aspect of the job is fulfilled,

while pro-social organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) reflects more on

interpersonal aspect of the job (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Thus, it is reasonable to

posit that the experience of intimate partner aggression does not affect these aspects of

performance to the same extent, making it is essential to consider how different aspects

of job performance are individually impacted. This study proposes a moderated-

mediation model grounded in Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resources (COR) theory

(see Figure 1), which accounts for women’s emotions (psychological distress) and the

organisational context (perceived supervisor support; PSS), in the relationships between

intimate partner aggression, task performance, and OCB.

** Insert Figure 1 here **

The present study aims to address the gaps identified in the literature. First,

drawing from COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), the present study proposes a theoretical


framework that may be used to better understand the how intimate partner aggression

spills-over to the workplace. Specifically, this study implicates psychological distress as

a mediator by conceptualising intimate partner aggression as an event that triggers

resource loss and strain. For employed women, incidences of intimate partner

aggression are upsetting episodes that result in the loss of resources, which manifests in

the form of psychological distress. Indeed, the relationship between stress and strain

outcomes have long been acknowledged in stress theories (e.g. Lazarus & Folkman,

1984) and evidenced in empirical studies (e.g. Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Monnier,

Cameron, Hobfoll, & Gribble, 2002). Prolonged experiences of psychological distress

further drains existing resources, and hinders the ability to recover valued resources. As

their resource are continuously being depleted, these women face an increased

vulnerability when subsequent incidences of abuse and loss occur (Wells, Hobfoll, &

Lavin, 1999). Eventually, insufficient resources affect their ability to work, resulting in

poor job performance. Thus, by framing intimate partner aggression from a COR

perspective, this study offers an explanation of how intimate partner aggression

transcends the home to affect the workplace, leading to negative work-related outcomes.

Second, this study explores organisational factors that may exacerbate or

mitigate the effects of intimate partner aggression on negative work outcomes. Research

on work and family life has found that resources (e.g. social support) are crucial to

employed women’s stress resiliency and have a positive effect on their psychological

well-being (Greenglass, 1993; Swanberg et al., 2007). Rothman and colleagues (2007)

also explained how having employment is important for victims of intimate partner

aggression. Taking into consideration the sensitive nature of the issue and the proximal


nature of supervisors to employed women, the present study examines the buffering role

of PSS against the negative impact of resource loss. That is, perceptions of supervisory

support represent a gain in resources that would moderate the partner aggression-

distress-work outcomes relationship (Hobfoll, 1991; Wells et al., 1999). Indeed, there is

a positive relationship between helpful supervisor support (e.g. flexible work schedule

or a listening ear) and employee outcomes, including job satisfaction (Saltzstein, Ting,

& Saltzstein, 2001). Victims of intimate partner aggression also reported that work

supports provided after disclosure to supervisors helped them to remain focused and

maintain employment in the short-term (Swanberg & Logan, 2005). Thus, the present

study investigates PSS as an organisational buffer that would potentially help

employees cope with the abuse and maintain steady employment in the longer term.

The final objective of this study is to delineate the construct of job performance

into the outcome variables of task performance (in-role behaviour) and OCB (extra-role

behaviour). Existing research does not clearly explain how each aspect of job

performance is affected by the experience of intimate partner aggression and

psychological distress. It is important to do so as both types of job performance have

important consequences for organisations, and they have separate effects on overall job

performance (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Specifically, task performance led to

higher productivity; whereas OCB created social capital, and led to improved

communication among workers and increased levels of customer satisfaction

(Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Thus, the present study argues that

differentiating between the two aspects of job performance can add theoretical nuance

to the current understanding of the link between intimate partner aggression and work


outcomes. In addressing the above gaps, this study makes three important contributions

to the intimate partner aggression literature.

Theory and Hypotheses

Intimate Partner Aggression as a Stressor

Two basic tenets of COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) central to the arguments in this

study are that (a) individuals strive to build, protect, and conserve valuable resources;

and (b) stress occurs when individuals are threatened by potential resource loss,

experienced depletion of actual resources, or failed to gain adequate resources following

the investment of resources. Resources are defined as the objects, personal

characteristics, conditions, or energies valued by individuals, or those that serve to help

individuals attain the objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies which

they value (Diener & Fujita, 1995; Hobfoll, 1989). Examples of resources include

having a job (object), optimism (personal characteristic), married status (condition), and

time (energies). As resources inherently have instrumental and/or symbolic value to

individuals (Hobfoll, 1989), the loss of valued resources results in stress.

From a COR perspective, intimate partner aggression is conceptualised as a

major stressor that significantly depletes employed women’s personal resources. When

women experience partner aggression, they suffer from proximal losses in the form of

physical injuries and psychological trauma (Campbell, 2002; Golding, 1999). Women

may also experience losses as a result of the controlling behaviour of their male

perpetrators (Levendosky et al., 2004; Logan, Shannon, Cole, & Swanberg, 2007). For

example, having restricted financial access and being prevented from contacting family


and friends. Over time, the constraints of material and psychosocial resources (e.g. loss

of self-esteem, loss of time with loved ones, and loss of money and possessions); and

the prolonged feelings of betrayal, confusion and dissatisfaction in their intimate

relationship have direct implications on their mental health, resulting in psychological

distress (e.g. Beeble, Bybee, & Sullivan, 2010; Smith & Freedy, 2000; Thompson et al.,

2000).

Furthermore, not only does the occurrence of intimate partner aggression

threaten women’s ability to gain and maintain valued resources; it also impacts on other

integral parts of her life. As Riger et al. (2002) found, intimate partner aggression has

direct first- and second-order effects for women (e.g. poor health, inability to work, and

impaired relationships with others); and indirect third-order effects on the people in her

life (e.g. threats to family, friends, and co-workers). Thus, intimate partner aggression is

considered a highly stressful experience, which results in resource depletion; and in

turn, psychological distress (e.g. feelings of powerlessness, guilt, and anger). Indeed, a

cross-sectional study of 444 women who attended family practices revealed that male

partner-perpetrated aggression was a strong predictor of psychological distress after

controlling for other depression risk factors (i.e. unemployment and being divorced) and

socio-demographic characteristics (Romito, Turan, & De Marchi, 2005). Compared to

non-abused women, women who reported past and current intimate partner aggression

were also 5.95 times more likely to report psychological distress (Romito et al., 2005).

Based on these findings, the present study proposes that:

Hypothesis 1: Intimate partner aggression is positively associated with psychological

distress.


Relationships among Partner Aggression, Distress, and Work Outcomes

The sustained experience of psychological distress can impact on other areas of

women’s lives. Notably, the workplace is one of the key life areas of women who are

employed that is affected (Reeves, 2004; Riger et al., 2002). Individuals attempt to

minimise loss by mobilising their remaining resources to cope with the ongoing

stressors (Hobfoll, 1989). However, as the threat or actual loss of resources results in

stress, individuals who are stressed become increasingly vulnerable to further resource

depletion. This process whereby an initial loss in personal resources induces further loss

is termed as loss spirals (Hobfoll, 1991). Additionally, the more intense the stressor is,

the quicker the velocity of the loss spirals. In a state of prolonged distress, women lose

valued personal and psychosocial resources, such as self-esteem, emotional and

financial security, and marital status. Accordingly, these women have insufficient

resources to concurrently cope with work demands, which greatly reduces their ability

to perform at work. Indeed, empirical studies showed that the psychological strain

caused by experiences of intimate partner aggression have detrimental effects on

women’s ability to work (Pico-Alfonso et al., 2006). For instance, 71% of 518 recently-

employed women reported poor concentration at work due to past-year partner

victimisation (Swanberg et al., 2007). A conceptual model presented by Bhagat (1983)

also suggested that stressful life events would lead to a deterioration of in job

performance. Consequently, they are more vulnerable to losing their jobs due to poor

performance appraisals at work (Swanberg et al., 2007).

Consistent with the logic of loss spirals, women who experienced psychological

distress tend to have lower levels of task performance (i.e. in-role performance). Task


performance is defined as “the officially required outcomes and behaviours that directly

serve organisational objectives” (Bakker & Heuven, 2006). Examples of in-role

behaviours include compliance with rules and regulations, and completion of assigned

duties on time. Indeed, Butler and Skattebo (2004) found that family-to-work conflict

(e.g. absence from work due to family-related issues) was associated with poorer

supervisor ratings of performance. Important to note is that the study measured

performance using the dimension of planning, which is a commonly assessed dimension

of work performance (Thornton & Byham, 1982) and relates to in-role behaviours. In

addition, a review of several studies provided support that stressful events create

conditions for cognitive fatigue (i.e. resource losses), which reduces the energy

available for effective task performance (Cohen, 1980). Thus, it is reasonable to suggest

that resource loss due to psychological distress would diminish the ability of women to

fulfil their job requirements, leading to low levels of task performance.

Similarly, women who experienced psychological distress tend to perform fewer

OCBs (i.e. prosocial extra-role behaviours) compared to non-abused women. Organ

defined OCB as “individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly

recognised by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the

effective functioning of the organisation” (1988, p.4). Examples of OCBs are attending

meetings that are not mandatory, but are considered important; attending functions that

are not required, but will help the organisation’s image; keeping up with changes in the

organisation; and reading to stay current with organisational announcements and

memos. Consistent with COR theory, as the combined stressors of intimate partner

aggression and psychological distress drain the resource reserves of employed women,


their ability to cope with stress demands from the work domain is reduced. Accordingly,

these women are unlikely to go the extra mile for their organisation because of

constrained resources (e.g. energy and time). Past studies have shown that affective

variables, such as mood and stress, have important causal effects on OCB (Motowidlo,

Packard, & Manning, 1986). In particular, feelings of stress (measured as the intensity

and frequency of stressful events) led to depression (i.e. resource loss), which resulted

in fewer OCBs (Motowidlo et al., 1986). As such, women are deterred from performing

OCB in an effort to conserve remaining resources in the face of multiple resource

losses.

In sum, women who experienced intimate partner aggression suffer proximal

resource losses, resulting in psychological distress. In turn, the experience of

psychological distress triggers a loss spiral as women have fewer and fewer resources to

simultaneously cope with the abuse and work demands. Continued efforts to meet

demands at work would eventually result in poor job performance in the forms of lower

task performance and fewer OCBs.

Perceived Supervisor Support as a Second-stage Moderator

A notable principle that emerged from COR theory is that resources are dynamic

(i.e. individuals will experience changes in their resource reserve via resource gains and

losses). As loss can be damaging to well-being, individuals are motivated to act in ways

that would help them gain resources and protect against losses (Halbesleben, Neveu,

Paustian-Underdahl, & Westman, 2014; Hobfoll, 1989). Additionally, by actively

seeking out other resources during periods of high stress, individuals may attempt to

recover their lost resources and conserve remaining reserves (Westman, Hobfoll, Chen,


Davidson, & Laski, 2004). Similarly, employed women who experience intimate

partner abuse commonly try and seek social support and protection at work. However,

due to the personal nature of the issue, disclosing intimate partner aggression at work to

seek organisational support may be a potential barrier (Swanberg & Macke, 2006).

Further, the measure of organisational support includes broader organisational features,

such as organisational rewards and job conditions (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002),

which are less relevant to supporting employees who experience intimate partner

aggression. Therefore, supervisor support is a more suitable measure of work-related

formal support for two reasons. First, supervisors are more tangible than the

organisation to employees. Research found that employees commonly view their

supervisors as agents of the organisation as supervisors are directly responsible for

managing them, appraising their performance, and communicating with senior

management (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Levinson, 1965). As

a result, the chances of women disclosing the abuse to their supervisors and receiving

the necessary support from work are potentially higher due to the more proximal nature

of the supervisor-employee relationship. Second, the perception of supervisor support is

related to that of organisational support, because employees usually view supervisors as

being the “face” of the organisations. Indeed, research has showed that PSS leads to

perception of organisational support (POS); to the extent that employees identified their

supervisors with the organisation, their perception of supportive supervision would

contribute to their POS and job retention (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe,

Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Furthermore, supervisor’s


orientation towards employees is indicative of the organisation’s support (Eisenberger

et al., 1986; Eisenberger et al., 2002).

It is argued that PSS can be conceptualised as a type of formal support, because

certain supports that supervisors are able to provide stem from their formal position and

authority within the organisation. In addition to providing the intangible support (e.g.

social companionship or emotional comfort) that informal support networks offer,

supervisors are able to offer support in more tangible ways, such as giving referrals to

employee assistance programs, permitting flexible workloads during the difficult period,

and relocating their place of work. Indeed, employees’ motivations to disclose their

abuse and the outcomes of disclosure were found to be “qualitatively and quantitatively

distinct” (Sylaska & Edwards, 2014, p.4) between formal members (e.g. supervisors and

lawyers) and informal members (e.g. family members).

Finally, the present study highlights that it is the employee’s perception of

supervisor support that is of concern. For supervisor support to be perceived as effective

and represent a resource gain, there must be a match between the type of support

provided and the support desired by the employed women. Specifically, supervisor

support must be congruent with the coping needs and situation of women (Perrin,

Yragui, Hanson, & Glass, 2011; Yragui, Mankowski, Perrin, & Glass, 2012). Research

found that a mismatch between the support provided and the support desired was

perceived negatively by recipients, and associated with worse health, well-being, and

employment outcomes (Mankowski & Wyer Jr., 1997; Reynolds & Perrin, 2004).

Recipients may view the support provided negatively as it may have unintentionally

dismissed their feelings as being insignificant, causing them to feel isolated and unable


to discuss their feelings (Wortman & Lehman, 1985). Further, a mismatch signals a

possible lack of communication between themselves and the provider (Reynolds &

Perrin, 2004). Thus, only perceptions that supervisor’s actions are supportive would

represent a gain in resources, which would aid in stress resistance against the partner

abuse and mitigate the negative work outcomes. Based on this line of theorising, the

present study offers the following predictions:

Hypothesis 2a: The conditional indirect effect of intimate partner aggression on task

performance via psychological distress would be stronger for women with low as

opposed to high levels of PSS.

Hypothesis 2b: The conditional indirect effect of intimate partner aggression on OCB

via psychological distress would be stronger for women with low as opposed to high

levels of PSS.

Pilot Study

Method

Participants and Procedure. Participants in the pilot study were female

employees working in two multinational companies in the securities technology

industry in Singapore. Each employee received a survey kit containing an information

sheet (stating the study’s aim, assuring confidentiality and voluntariness of

participation), an envelope, and a questionnaire which contained demographic questions

and self-report ratings of intimate partner aggression and psychological distress (See

Appendix B). The questionnaire was prepared in English, because it is widely-used and

regarded as the official and working language of Singapore (Leimgruber, 2013).


Employees were required to be either currently or previously (not more than 12 months)

in a relationship with a male partner and cohabitate with him. Employees were

instructed to seal their completed questionnaire in the envelope before returning it to the

researcher. Out of the 50 questionnaires that were distributed, 37 questionnaires were

completed and returned yielding a response rate of 74.0%. Out of the 37 questionnaires,

1 was discarded because the employee is a single parent. The final sample included 36

participants.

Employees reported an average age of 36.78 years (SD = 9.51) and an average

organisational tenure of 6.44 years (SD = 7.24). Majority of the employees (86.1%) had

permanent employee status in the organisation, and 22.2% reported earning more than

S$80,000 per annum in salary. They represent diverse occupational backgrounds,

including accounting and finance (22.2%), marketing and sales (16.7%), general

management and human resources (13.9%), information technology (8.3%), public

relations (8.3%), customer service (5.6%), manufacturing and production (2.8%), and

others (22.2%). More than half of the sample (55.6%) reported a university or post-

graduate degree as their highest educational attainment. On average, the employees

have been in a relationship in which they cohabitate with their male partner for 10.75

years (SD = 8.17), and 63.9% of the employee sample reported having children, with

the average number of children being 1.16 (SD = 1.05). The average age of male

partners of the employee sample was 39.64 years (SD = 10.45). Majority of their male

partners (63.9%) achieved a university or post-graduate degree as their highest

educational attainment, and 88.9% of the male partners are working full-time.


Measures. Established multi-item scales were used to assess the study variables.

Unless otherwise specified, participants responded to all questions, excluding

demographic questions, using a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Items are coded such that a higher score indicated a

greater amount of the focal construct, with the exception of reverse-coded items.

Intimate partner aggression. Intimate partner aggression was measured using

three subscales of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-

McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). The CTS-2 is a well-validated instrument for assessing

psychological and physical aggression in relationship conflict. The present study

measured the frequency of physical assault (12 items), injury (5 items), and

psychological aggression (8 items). Ratings are made in terms of frequency (e.g. 0 =

never happened; 3 = 3 to 5 times in past year; 7 = not in the past year, but happened

before). Straus et al. (1996) established internal consistency reliability ranging from .79

to .95 among a college student sample. There is also evidence for convergent validity

between the CTS-2 measures of psychological aggression and physical assault, as

empirical studies found a strong association between psychological (verbal) aggression

and the risk of physical assault (Murphy & O’Leary, 1989; Straus, 1974). The high

correlations between both subscales (r = .71 for men, r = .67 for women, p < .01)

demonstrate construct validity of the scale. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .80.

Employee’s psychological distress. Employee’s psychological distress was

measured with a 4-item version of Derogatis’ (1993) Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI).

Items were prefaced with the lead-in statement: “In the past six months, how often have

you been…” and end with the options: feeling fearful, feeling restless, feeling


worthless, and feeling in panic. Research has found good internal consistency for the

full BSI scale in clinical, community and forensic populations with reliability

coefficients between .63 and .78 (Kellett, Beail, Newman, & Frankish, 2003). This

shorter version has been verified to be highly correlated with (r = .92, p < .001) and

equivalent to the full version (Restubog, Scott, & Zagenczyk, 2011). Cronbach’s alpha

for this scale was .93.

Control variables. In line with prior work, employee’s age and education level,

as well as male partner’s education level and employment status were controlled for in

the pilot study. Research suggests that these variables affect the occurrence of intimate

partner aggression. Older women have lower risk of victimisation as they tend to have

developed better negotiation skills that help them to successfully avoiding potential

partner aggression (Romans, Forte, Cohen, Du Mont, & Hyman, 2007). Conversely, a

disparity in education attainment between the couple increases the likelihood of

victimisation (Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012). Being educated reduces

perpetration of partner aggression as it increase female empowerment through social

networks, self-confidence, and economic independence (Jewkes, 2002). Male partner’s

unemployment was significantly associated with increased career and life stress, which

increases male-perpetrated aggression (Stith et al., 2004). However, intimate partner

aggression is less common when men have paid work (Ansara & Hindin, 2009). Age

was measured in years (as of last birthday). Education level was measured by asking

employee to encircle one of the four options (i.e. primary school, secondary school,

junior college/polytechnic, and university/postgraduate). The present study assessed


male partner’s employment status by asking employee to encircle the appropriate option

(i.e. working full-time, working part-time, or not working).

Results and Discussion

Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and internal consistency reliabilities

for intimate partner aggression and psychological distress are presented in Table 1.

** Insert Table 1 here **

Prior to testing the relationship between intimate partner aggression and

psychological distress, inspection of the data revealed no violation of the assumptions in

hierarchical multiple regression. The error terms in the regression are independent, with

the Durbin-Watson statistic at 1.86 (Durbin & Watson, 1951). However, Kolmogorov-

Smirnov test of normality is highly significant, D(36) = .17, p < .01, indicating that the

distribution of the data is not normal and likely to be positively skewed. It is possible

that the severity of intimate partner aggression was under-reported in the pilot study, as

this is common in research of this nature (Gracia, 2004; Lloyd, 1997). An assessment of

the intercorrelations among the independent variables suggested that they were low to

moderate, and multicollinearity was not a threat (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Further

analyses revealed no evidence of multivariate outliers.

Hypothesis 1 stated that intimate partner aggression would be positively

associated with psychological distress, when controlling for the employee’s age,

employee’s education level, male partner’s education level, and male partner’s

employment status. Multiple regression analysis was used to test this hypothesis. The

results of the hierarchical regression analysis is summarised in Table 2.



The results indicated the model explained 30.6% of the variance R2 = .30, F (1,

30) = 8.64, p < .01. An examination of the standardised beta weights revealed that

intimate partner aggression was positively related to psychological distress (β = .51, p

< .01), over and above the effects of the demographic variables of the employee’s age (β

= .05, p = n.s.), employee’s education level (β = -.07, p = n.s.), the male partner’s

education level (β = .03, p = n.s.), and the male partner’s employment status (β = -.17, p

= n.s.). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. This finding is consistent with those of

previous studies that reported negative strain outcomes of intimate partner aggression

(e.g. Beeble et al., 2010; Jaquier & Sullivan, 2014; Thompson et al., 2000). However,

some features of the pilot study limit the inferences that can be drawn. First, the pilot

study tested only for the main effects of intimate partner aggression on psychological

distress, but it did not implicate psychological distress as an underlying mechanism that

links intimate partner aggression to work outcomes. Second, although the pilot study

demonstrated that intimate partner aggression is positively related to psychological

distress, it did not consider any work-related outcome variables. Third, the pilot study

used a cross-sectional research design, which makes proving a temporal relationship

between the explanatory variable (intimate partner aggression) and outcome variable

(psychological distress) difficult. Thus, the main study addresses these limitations by

extending the pilot study to include the outcome variables of task performance and

OCB, and testing the moderating role of PSS. Additionally, the main study included a

time lag of four weeks between two points of data collection, thereby strengthening the

methodological design.


Main Study

Method

Participants and Procedure. Data for the main study were collected from

participants, who are female employees in a local community organisation in Manila,

Philippines. As in the pilot study, employees were required to be either currently or

previously (not more than 12 months) in a relationship with a male partner and

cohabitate with him. In the main study, self-report and supervisor ratings of study

variables were collected. All employees created anonymous identity codes to allow their

ratings to be match with those of his/her corresponding supervisor. The questionnaire

was prepared in English, because it is the common language used in higher education in

the Philippines and the language of business spoken by most Filipinos (Bernardo,

2004).

The main study used a temporal research design with two waves of data

collection. At Time 1, employees received a survey kit similar to that in the pilot study

(See Appendix C). The survey contained demographic questions about the employee

and their male partner, and employee’s self-report ratings of intimate partner

aggression, psychological distress, emotional stability, and perceived supervisor

support. The survey was disseminated to 380 female employees. Employees were

instructed to seal their completed questionnaire in the pre-paid reply envelope before

returning it to the researcher. A total of 304 employee surveys were received, yielding a

response rate of 80%. Twenty-two employee surveys were removed because of a large

number of missing responses or missing identity codes. At Time 2, four weeks after the

initial survey, the researcher requested the employee to pass on the supervisor survey


for their immediate supervisor to complete (See Appendix D). For ethical reasons, the

researcher wanted to provide employees with the control over whether or not they wish

to continue participating by forwarding the survey to their supervisor. To maintain the

integrity of supervisor data, supervisors were instructed to sign across the flap of the

prepaid reply envelope after sealing it and to send the envelope directly to the

researcher. The supervisor survey contained questions about the supervisor’s

demographic (i.e. age, gender, and organisational tenure) and the supervisor’s rating of

the employee’s task performance and OCB. Of the 304 supervisor surveys distributed,

246 surveys were received. After deleting those supervisor surveys with missing

identity codes and those with a large number of missing responses (n = 18), the final

sample consisted of 228 matched employee-supervisor dyads.

The average age of the female employees was 36.76 years (SD = 7.12). Most

employees (69.5%) have organisational tenure of more than 5 years, and almost all

employees (91.7%) reported having permanent employment status in the organisation.

82.6% of employees completed university or post-graduate degree as their highest

educational attainment. They represent diverse occupational backgrounds, including

general management and human resources (23.1%), customer service (16.6%),

information technology (16.2%), marketing and sales (15.3%), accounting and finance

(14.4%), manufacturing and production (7.9%), public relations (5.2%), and others

(1.3%). On average, employees have been married to their male intimate partner for

9.38 years (SD = 6.51). All employees have children, with the average number of

children being 1.75 (SD = .65). The average age of the male partners was 39.32 years

(SD = 7.33). Majority of the male partners (91.2%) achieved a university or post-


graduate degree as their highest educational attainment, and 89.9% of the male partners

are working full-time. For the supervisor participants, average age was 45.41 years (SD

= 6.90). 49.3% were male supervisors. Most supervisors (72.1%) had organisational

tenure between 6 to 15 years.

Measures. Similar to the pilot study, established multi-item scales were used to

adequately measure each study variable. Employees rated their agreement with each

item using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly

agree), unless otherwise specified. Time limitations imposed by the participating

organisation forced the shortening of some scales.

Intimate partner aggression. Intimate partner aggression was assessed at Time

1. Similar to the pilot study, employees completed the physical assault (12 items), injury

(5 items), and psychological aggression (8 items) subscales of the CTS-2 (Straus et al.,

1996). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .95.

Employee’s psychological distress. Employee’s psychological distress was

measured at Time 1. Similar to the pilot study, the 4-item version of Derogatis’ (1993)

Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) was administered. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale

was .92.

Employee’s perception of supervisor support. PSS was assessed at Time 1

using a four-item scale developed by Rhoades, Eisenberger, and Armeli (2001).

Employees were asked to rate their perception of the level of supervisory support they

receive from their immediate supervisor. A sample item is: “Help is available from my

supervisor when I have a problem”. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .95.


Supervisor-rated task performance. At Time 2, employee’s task performance

(in-role behaviour) was measured. The four-item scale developed by Williams and

Anderson (1991) assess tasks that employees are expected to perform as a normal

function of their job. Previous research has found good internal consistency for this

scale between .79 and .92 (Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2006; Zagenczyk, Restubog,

Kiewitz, Kiazad, & Tang, 2011). A sample item is: “This employee fulfils

responsibilities specified in the job description”. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale

was .96.

Supervisor-rated OCB. At Time 2, the civic virtue subscale of OCB (Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990) was used to assess employee’s OCBs. The four-

item civic virtue subscale was chosen to represent the OCB construct as employee

behaviours in the civic subscale indicate that employees take an active interest in the life

of their organisation (Podsakoff et al., 2009). Earlier studies have shown that behaviours

in this dimension of OCB are directed towards the organisation and are most directly

benefit organisational effectiveness (Hoffman, Blair, Meriac, & Woehr, 2007; Organ,

1988). Past research has also found good internal consistency of Cronbach’s alpha

between .80 and .84 for this scale (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005;

Zagenczyk et al., 2011). Additionally, Shoss and colleagues (2013) found that the 4-

item civic virtue subscale was highly correlated with the 20-item OCB full scale (r

= .80, p < .01). A sample item is: “This employee keeps updated of changes in the

organisation”. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .92.

Control variables. The main study measured and controlled for additional

demographic variables of employees and their male partner, as compared to the pilot


study. Employee’s employment status was controlled for, because past studies found

that the likelihood of victimisation increases when women are financially dependent on

their male partner (Capaldi et al., 2012). Thus, having employment indicates that

women are generating income and have the potential to be economically independent.

The age of the male partner was controlled for because rates of intimate partner

aggression started to decline as the age of the couple increases (Straus, Gelles, &

Steinmetz, 1982). The number of children was controlled for, because male partners

perceived an increased stress in the family when children are present, thereby posing a

risk for victimisation (Barnett & Fagan, 1993; Stith et al., 2004). Further, the main study

controlled for employee’s personality trait of emotional stability using seven items from

Goldberg’s (1992) semantic differential scale. As emotional stability was significantly

related to psychological distress (r = .29, p < .01), PSS (r = .24, p < .01), task

performance (r = .19, p < .01), and OCB (r = .25, p < .01), it was controlled for the

analyses. Individuals with high levels of emotional stability tend to be calmer, more

imperturbable, and have fewer emotional reactions to stressful situations than those with

low levels of emotional stability (Hills & Argyle, 2001). Thus, employee’s trait of

emotional stability may act as a form of personal resource that would buffer against the

stress of intimate partner aggression. For the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for this

scale was .92.

Results

Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and scale reliabilities for all the

study variables are presented in Table 3. Correlations were in the predicted direction.

Intimate partner aggression was positively related to psychological distress (r = .18, p


< .01); and negatively related to supervisor-rated task performance (r = .36, p < .01)

and supervisor-rated OCBs (r = .23, p < .001).

** Insert Table 3 **

Hypothesis 1 predicted that intimate partner aggression would be positively

associated with psychological distress. Results indicated that the model predicting

Hypothesis 1 explained 3.1% of the variance, R2 = .03, F (1, 226) = 7.14, p < .01.

Intimate partner aggression was positively associated with psychological distress (β

= .22, p < .01), over and above the effects of the control variables. Hence, Hypothesis 1

was supported.

Hypothesis 2a proposed that the conditional indirect effect of intimate partner

aggression in predicting task performance via psychological distress would be stronger

for women with low as opposed to high levels of PSS. Similarly, Hypothesis 2b

proposed that the conditional indirect effect of intimate partner aggression in predicting

OCBs via psychological distress would be stronger for women with low as opposed to

high levels of PSS. To test these hypotheses, the PROCESS macro (Model 14)

developed by Hayes’ (2012) was used. In addition to estimating coefficients of a model

using OLS regression, PROCESS is able to generate conditional indirect effects for

moderated mediation models. Notably, PROCESS constructs bias-corrected bootstrap

confidence intervals for conditional indirect effects in mediation models as part of its

output, which allows the hypotheses to be tested even when the total and indirect effects

are not normally distributed (Hayes, 2012). The estimates and bias-corrected

bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals (using 5,000 bootstrap samples) for the proposed


conditional indirect effects are presented in Table 4. An examination of the conditional

indirect effects at specific values of PSS (i.e. ± 1 standard deviation around the mean)

revealed that the indirect effect of intimate partner aggression on task performance via

psychological distress was significant under low levels of PSS (indirect effect = -.05, SE

= .03, 95% CI: -.11 to -.01), but not under high levels of PSS (indirect effect = -.01, SE

= .02, 95% CI: -.05 to .02). Similarly, the indirect effect of intimate partner aggression

on OCB via psychological distress was significant only under low levels of PSS

(indirect effect = -.06, SE = .03, 95% CI: -.13 to -.02), but not under high levels of PSS

(indirect effect = .01, SE = .02, 95% CI: -.03 to .05). Given that the range is negative

and the upper bound does not include zero, Hypotheses 2a and 2b were supported.

** Insert Table 4 **

Hierarchical moderated regression analyses were performed to further assess the

interactive effects involving psychological distress and PSS are presented in Table 5.

Results revealed that interaction between psychological distress and PSS was

statistically significant for both work outcomes of task performance (B = .08, SE = .04,

p < .05) and OCBs (B = .14, SE = .04, p < .01). Simple slopes were plotted to examine

the nature of the significant psychological distress-PSS interaction. There was a

significant negative relationship between psychological distress and supervisor-rated

task performance at low levels of PSS, t(217) = 2.76, p < .01, as well as at high levels

of PSS, t(217) = 2.90, p < .01 (see Figure 2). Similarly, there was a significant

negative relationship between psychological distress and supervisor-rated OCB at low


levels of PSS, t(217) = 3.61, p < .001, and at high levels of PSS, t(217) = 3.81, p

< .001 (see Figure 3).


** Insert Figures 2 and 3 here **

In order to rule out alternative explanations for the study’s findings, PSS was

also examined as a first-stage moderator of the intimate partner aggression-distress-

work outcomes relationship. Results suggested that the interaction between intimate

partner aggression and PSS was not significant for both supervisor-rated work outcomes

of task performance (B= .02, SE = .07, p = n.s.) and OCBs (B = .02, SE = .07, p =

n.s.). The indirect effects of intimate partner aggression on supervisor-rated task

performance via psychological distress were not significant under low levels of PSS

(indirect effect = .03, SE = .03, 95% CI: .11 to .01) and high levels of PSS (indirect

effect = .02, SE = .03, 95% CI: .09 to .03). Similarly, the indirect effects of intimate

partner aggression on supervisor-rated OCB via psychological distress were neither

significant under low levels of PSS (indirect effect = .03, SE = .03, 95% CI: .11

to .01), nor under high levels of PSS (indirect effect = .02, SE = .03, 95% CI: .09

to .03). These findings are not surprising. It is unlikely that supervisors can intervene to

provide support immediately after the abuse has occurred, because partner abuse occurs

most often in the home domain (Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989; Walker, 1984). Further,

supervisors may not have the chance to intervene, because employees who have

insufficient resources (due to resource depletion associated with the experience of abuse

and psychological distress) are absent from work (LeBlanc et al., 2014; Reeves &


O’Leary-Kelly, 2007; Swanberg & Logan, 2005). Overall, these results provide further

evidence for PSS as a second-stage moderator of the intimate partner aggression-

distress-work outcomes relationship.

General Discussion

Theoretical Implications

While research on intimate partner aggression has affirmed the negative

consequences for women both in the home and work domains, majority of these studies

focused on direct effect relationships (e.g. Reeves & O’Leary-Kelly, 2007; Rothman &

Corso, 2008; Swanberg et al., 2005). The present study had two important goals: (a) to

unravel the underlying mechanism that explains why intimate partner aggression would

lead to poor job performance, specifically, task performance and OCB; and (b) to

examine PSS as an organisational resource that would buffer against the detrimental

effects of abuse. Results found in the present study have addressed several gaps in the

literature. Firstly, empirical evidence presented in the pilot study and main study

suggested that intimate partner aggression is positively associated with psychological

distress. Consistent with COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), intimate partner aggression is

conceptualised as a form of resource loss that leads to stress and strain outcomes. When

employed women suffer from intimate partner aggression, these highly stressful

episodes cause the loss of valued personal resources (e.g. self-esteem, health, and

marriage status). The prolonged experience of abuse from male partners is damaging to

the physical and psychological health of women (Campbell, 2002; Golding, 1999), and

this would lead to feelings of distress. In turn, the sustained distress drains their

psychosocial resources and further depletes their available resource reserves to cope


with challenges in the workplace. As observed in the present study, employed women

who experienced intimate partner aggression reported higher levels of psychological

distress and they reflected poorer job performance, in the form of lower levels of task

performance and fewer OCBs as rated by their supervisors. Thus, the present study has

provided a theoretical framework based on COR to explain how experiences of partner

abuse would lead to negative work outcomes through psychological distress.

Additionally, the identification of psychological distress as an underlying process in

explaining why intimate partner aggression would transcend the home domain to

negatively affect work outcomes lends support to existing findings on the cross-domain

relationship between work and family conflict (Amstad, Meier, Fasel, Elfering, &

Semmer, 2011; Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007; Thomas & Ganster, 1995).

Second, the present study has drawn attention to a proximal and concrete form

of support found in the workplace – PSS. Support was found for Hypotheses 2a and 2b,

which predicted that the conditional indirect effects of intimate partner aggression in

predicting work outcomes (i.e. task performance and OCBs) via psychological distress

would be stronger for women with low as opposed to high levels of PSS. In particular,

the results revealed that the negative impacts of intimate partner aggression on work

outcomes at low levels of PSS are not only significant, but also stronger. This pattern of

results suggests that PSS is potentially a protective factor for intimate partner

aggression that can be found within the organisation. To this end, the present study

offers a possible reason why intimate partner aggression resulted in more severe work

outcomes for women who perceived little or no supervisory support. Recall that this

study previously argued that the cumulative stressful experiences of intimate partner


aggression and psychological distress would trigger a loss spiral, which manifests in the

form of poor job performance for women who are employed. However, through the

supervisor’s ability to offer practical support and emotional support, women could

regain the lost resources. Taken together, this suggests that employed women could

continue to be trapped in a cycle of loss until they have access to sufficient helpful

resources that would stop the momentum of the loss spiral from increasing. In other

words, low levels of PSS imply that women do not have access to additional resources

at work that they can use to buffer against the stress of abuse. Consequently, they

continue to remain in a loss spiral that constantly gains momentum; and this affects

their work through poorer task performance and fewer OCBs. Following this line of

reasoning, women with high levels of PSS have additional resources to manage on-

going stressors. Therefore, they are able to prevent the loss spiral from escalating,

resulting in relatively better work outcomes. Indeed, recent studies found that employed

women who were offered the options of schedule and workload flexibility from their

supervisors had greater chances of maintaining longer term employment as they were

able to better manage their time (Perrin et al., 2011; Swanberg et al., 2007).

With regards to the contributions of the present study, two issues are especially

significant. First, this study is able to provide a theoretical framework under COR

theory (Hobfoll, 1989) to explain why and how intimate partner aggression would result

in poorer task performance and fewer OCBs at work. Specifically, this study showed

that experiencing partner aggression was related to feelings of psychological distress,

which triggered a loss cycle leading to poorer job performance. In doing so, the present

study has drawn attention to one plausible way (i.e. psychological distress) of theorising


the link between intimate partner aggression and negative work outcomes. Additionally,

results from this study provided further empirical evidence for the concept of loss

spirals (Hobfoll, 1991), wherein an initial loss of resources due to intimate partner

aggression led to an in increased vulnerability to further resource loss (i.e.

psychological distress and work consequences). Secondly, the present study showed

that supervisors have an important responsibility to assume in reducing the

organisational costs of intimate partner aggression. That is, supervisors have the ability

to provide emotional and practical supports to employed women, in order to help them

regain resources and cope their work demands. By focusing on PSS as a more proximal

measure of organisational support, this study acknowledged the dynamic nature of

stress, whereby losses and gains in resources could alter the level of stress faced by

women who experience intimate partner aggression; and also advanced understanding

of the potential organisational buffers against intimate partner aggression.

Implications for Management

Knowing now that occurrences of intimate partner aggression drain resource

reserves and have a negative effect on employees’ job performance, organisations must

ensure that employees who experience intimate partner aggression are supported in a

way that would help them regain valued resources, in order to reduce the negative

effects in the workplace. The results of the present study offer several implications for

management practice. Specifically, organisations can provide appropriate and desired

support at two levels – the interpersonal level (via supervisors) and the community level

(Heijnders & Van Der Meij, 2006).


First, organisations should recognise that supervisors are tangible

representations of the organisation, and that employees interact with them to form

judgements about the organisation. That is, supervisors are like the “human face” of the

organisation. Indeed, research has found that employed women relied on their

immediate supervisors for the provision of desired workplace supports regardless of the

stages of change they experience in the abusive relationship (Perrin et al., 2011).

Importantly, PSS was found to be helpful in reducing the psychological distress

experienced by abused women. In an empirical study of 355 managers, supervisory

support for work-family balance was a significant moderator for the relationship

between work-family conflict and psychological strain (O'Driscoll et al., 2003). Taken

together, these findings suggest that organisations should encourage and increase

supervisors’ awareness for employee needs, in order to prevent the development of

work-family conflict-related strain and alleviate the negative work outcomes.

Organisations should also communicate to employees that their supervisors are the first

point of contact when they require direction, advice, and support relating to their work.

Second, as the stigma of partner abuse makes this issue a particularly difficult

topic to discuss in certain cultures and work environments (Menjívar & Salcido, 2002;

Nelson, 1996), supervisors should be encouraged to act in a manner that reduces the

stigma associated with being a victim of partner abuse in the workplace. For example,

supervisors could promote open discussions (e.g. via informal conversations or group

meetings) about the type of support employees would desire if they are experiencing

abuse from their intimate partner. These informal conversations allow supervisors to

gain a good understanding of the possible workplace supports that could be offered, and


have the added advantage of letting those employees who are victims to voice their

desired support without having to first disclose their situation. Concurrently,

organisations must raise awareness amongst their employees about the issue of intimate

partner aggression and the fact that this problem goes beyond the domestic domain. One

way of doing so is to engage external employee assistance programs (EAPs) to conduct

awareness-raising workshops to educate employees about intimate partner aggression

and how to recognise signs of abuse among employees (Lindquist et al., 2010).

Awareness can also be raised through communication materials circulated to

employees, such as monthly newsletters and putting up posters around the organisation.

Heijnders and Van Der Meij (2006) found that these intervention strategies are effective

in modifying the environment around the stigmatised individual and can be targeted at

the stigmatised individual, their work environment, and their support networks. Indeed,

it is insufficient for organisations to simply implement family-friendly policies and

provide benefits to employees. For these organisational benefits to be effective in

buffering stress, research has found that they must be accompanied by support from

supervisors (Kofodimos, 1995) and changes in organisational norms and values relating

to work and family interaction (Galinsky & Stein, 1990; Lobel & Kossek, 1996).

Lastly, organisations could develop workplace policies that address intimate

partner aggression and establish training programs to guide supervisors on how to

effectively support employees. Workplace policies, such as zero-tolerance and

mandatory reporting of intimate partner aggression, demonstrate to employees that the

organisation is supportive of victims of intimate partner aggression and willing to take

an active stance towards tackling this issue. However, researchers discovered that


organisations tend to avoid taking a proactive approach towards addressing this issue,

because they are uncertain about their role in what is traditionally regarded as a private

matter and want to avoid being caught in the middle for legal reasons (O’Leary-Kelly et

al., 2008). As such, seeking external consultation from reputable EAPs during the

development of appropriate organisational policies can be potentially useful (Lindquist

et al., 2010). Further, the establishment of a training program for supervisors can help in

three ways: (a) educate supervisors about what intimate partner aggression is, its

relation to and consequences at the work, and how to identify if their employees are

victims; (b) define and clarify the responsibilities that employers have towards

employees affected by intimate partner aggression; and (c) facilitate the creation of

organisational protocols that supervisors can use when dealing with employees who

disclose abuse to them. Organisations can communicate that these training programs for

supervisors are a way that the organisation acknowledges the challenging role as a

supervisor, and a way of showing their support of this role. Research found that

supervisors who feel supported by the organisation reciprocate with giving more

supportive treatment to their subordinates, which in turn is positively related to

subordinates’ POS, in-role performance, and extra-role performance (Shanock &

Eisenberger, 2006). This finding also lends support to the notion that supervisors act as

agents of the organisation. Organisations that are interested in setting up such a training

program can start by referring to the Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence

(CAEPV) website, which provides information on how organisations and business

leaders can work together to help eliminate partner aggression (CAEPV, 2014).


Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research Directions

This section highlights the strengths that enhanced the study’s contribution to

the literature, acknowledges the potential limitations of the study, and notes key areas

where additional research would be valuable. First, the sample of employees used in the

pilot and main studies presents a methodological strength, as the participants represent

the larger majority of women in the general population. Focal participants are educated

women, who are employed professionals across diverse occupations and live at home

with their partners. Most studies in this research area have used samples of women

living in shelters (e.g. Wingood, DiClemente, & Raj, 2000); college students (Straus,

2008); or women with low socio-economic status, such as those in a community

battered women’s programs (Mechanic, Weaver, & Resick, 2008) and support groups

(Shepard & Pence, 1988). It is plausible that educated and employed women have been

generally ignored in the literature due to the under-reporting of the abuse (Lloyd, 1997).

Another possible reason why this group of educated and employed women have been

overlooked is because their victimisation is much less severe and less obvious than

women from low socio-economic background (Swanberg et al., 2007). This omission is

crucial as intimate partner aggression affects employed women as much as

disadvantaged women from vulnerable population subgroups (Jones et al., 1999). In

addition to poor health, women who are employed suffer from relatively greater losses

because they also have negative outcomes at work (Swanberg et al., 2005). However,

employed women also face a different situation compared to women in disadvantage

sub-groups, because they may have access to organisational support and benefits, such

as medical allowance and work flexibility, that could help them cope with the abuse


(Kwesiga, Bell, Pattie, & Moe, 2007). Hence, this sample is a relevant and important

one to examine. Future research is strongly encouraged to conduct comparative studies

between women across all economic brackets and age groups (Kwesiga et al., 2007).

Not only would such research assist the development of targeted and more effective

interventions for the different groups of women, it would also potentially tease out the

subtleties between the experiences of different women to permit a richer and more in-

depth understanding of the impact of intimate partner aggression on employment.

A second strength in the methodology is reflected in the use of supervisor-

ratings to measure employee outcomes at work. In general, individuals tend to respond

in socially desirable ways. This means that it is common for participants to over-report

behaviours that are viewed as socially appropriate and under-report behaviours that are

deemed undesirable or inappropriate (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002). Depending

on what behaviour the items are measuring, participants’ responses could reflect an

upward or downward bias. In addition to social desirability, common method variance

(Campbell & Fiske, 1959) also poses a threat to the validity of the findings when only

self-report measures are used (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002). By examining

employee work behaviours of task performance and OCBs using data from a separate

data source (i.e. supervisors), the present study is able to reduce social desirability bias

(Arnold & Feldman, 1981). As recommended by Podsakoff and Organ (1986), future

research could consider using multiple data sources to measure conceptually crucial

variables, in order to minimise the susceptibility to social desirability and strengthen the

validity of the data. For instance, measures of employee’s work outcomes could be rated


by the employee, her supervisor, and her peers, and then averaged to give a general

measure of the variables.

Another strength of this study lies in the temporal research design employed.

Between the two points of data collection, there was a four-week interval – intimate

partner aggression and psychological distress were measured at Time 1, and

supervisor’s rating of employees’ work outcomes were measured at Time 2. Most of the

earlier studies examining work-related outcomes of intimate partner aggression have

generally measured all the key variables at one point in time (Brush, 2000; Lloyd &

Taluc, 1999; Riger et al., 2002; Swanberg, & Logan, 2005). As noted in Swanberg et al.

(2005), cross-sectional studies fail to highlight the complex nuances associated with

partner abuse and employment. Although having a time lag between measurements of

study variables (i.e. intimate partner aggression distress, and work outcomes) does not

ascertain the temporal ordering of the study variables; it is an effective strategy

employed to address the problem of common method variance as it minimises response

contamination. In other words, a temporal lag reduces the likelihood that respondents

will intentionally bias the response to remain cognitively consistent with their previous

answers (Doty & Glick, 1998; Podsakoff, & Organ, 1986).

While time lag design is an advantage over previous research that only used a

cross-sectional design, this research design could also be a potential limitation in that

the time lag is not a long enough period for the impact of intimate partner aggression on

women’s work outcome to be conclusive (especially for non-severe cases of abuse). The

four-week interval was chosen, because of time constraints of the Honours thesis. Thus,

it restricts the ability of this study to ascertain causality that intimate partner aggression


predates the negative work outcomes. As intimate partner aggression is usually long-

term and pervasive issue, cross-sectional studies, including temporal studies, fail to

adequately capture the extent to which barriers to work persist over time and the

potential impacts that these barriers have on longer-term employment (Danziger &

Seefeldt, 2002). Consequently, it is difficult to determine whether or not the negative

work outcomes displayed were due to the stress of intimate partner aggression or other

factors, such as preceding health status (Deyessa et al., 2009). It is recommended that

future research utilise a longitudinal design to investigate whether casual inferences

about the relationship between intimate partner aggression and work outcomes are

justified. Longitudinal studies would also allow researchers time to attain a more

complete and richer understanding of the long-term ramifications that intimate partner

aggression have on women’s employment. With regards to those women who maintain

employment despite experiencing intimate partner aggression, longitudinal research in

this area could also further our understanding of the personal and organisational factors

that help them cope with the abuse.

Another possible drawback of the present study is the use of a general measure

of PSS, instead of a measure of PSS that is specific to work-family conflict. The present

study used a four-item measure of PSS, which measured perceived supervisory support

for employee’s general work effectiveness or work role. However, prior research noted

that supervisor work-family support is related to supervisory helping behaviours and

attitudes that are specifically directed at facilitating the employee’s ability to manage

both work and family demands (Hammer, Kossek, Yragui, Bodner, & Hanson, 2009;

Thomas & Ganster, 1995). Examples of such support would be when supervisors


express care and empathy over employee’s work-family well-being; when supervisors

give employees more autonomy and flexibility to decide when and where to work from

so that they can manage their family and work demands; and when supervisors provide

more access to information on the organisation’s work-family policies. These specific

supervisor supports towards work-family demands are not present in the general

measure of PSS used in this study (Thomas & Ganster, 1995), which indicates that the

buffering effect of PSS may be potentially greater than what was found. Indeed, a

validation study found work-family-specific supervisor support to be significantly

related to lower work-family conflict compared to a general measure of supervisor

support (Hammer et al., 2009). Future research could use a more specific measure of

PSS, because it may provide more explanatory power for the buffering role of PSS

against the stress of intimate partner aggression. Indeed, supervisor support specifically

targeted at helping employees manage work and family demands provides employee

with more relevant tangible and psychological resources (Allen, 2001; Kossek, Pichler,

Bodner, & Hammer, 2011). Thus, it would not only buffer stress from work, but also

represent a resource gain that aid with resource conservation in both domains.

Finally, it is important to note that intimate partner aggression is a culturally

sensitive issue in the Southeast Asian countries (i.e. Singapore and the Philippines)

where the data were collected. Both countries have a collectivistic culture and such

cultures view the family unit as a social unit (Hofstede, 1998). Collectivist cultural

groups are largely concerned with preserving “face” of the family unit and keeping

personal information within the family, making it more unlikely for participants to

disclose the perceived shame of partner aggression to third parties, such as researchers


and organisations (Sanchez-Hucles & Dutton, 1999). As such, the sensitive nature of the

survey is likely to bias results in the direction of under-reporting. Unsurprisingly, the

rating of intimate partner aggression in this study strongly tended towards zero.

However, given that the observed pattern of results is similar to other non-Western

studies (e.g. Babu & Kar, 2009; Hassan et al., 2004), the low reported rates of intimate

partner aggression are congruent with previous research. Future research with

participants from non-Western collectivist cultures could include an initial rapport-

building session to discuss related issues in a non-threatening environment to facilitate

trust between the participants and researchers. As Yick and Berthold (2005) suggested,

fostering trust and credibility with participants is a strategy that could potentially

improve disclosure rates among participants.


References

Allen, T. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational

perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435. doi:

10.1006/jvbe.2000.1774

Amstad, F. T., Meier, L. L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2011). A meta-

analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis

on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 16, 151-169. doi: 10.1037/a0022170

Ansara, D. L., & Hindin, M. J. (2009). Perpetration of intimate partner aggression by

men and women in the Philippines: Prevalence and associated factors. Journal

of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1579-1590. doi: 10.1177/0886260508323660

Ansara, D. L., & Hindin, M. J. (2010). Formal and informal help-seeking associated

with women's and men's experiences of intimate partner violence in

Canada. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1011-1018. doi:

10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.12.009

Arnold, H. J., & Feldman, D. C. (1981). Social desirability response bias in self-report

choice situations. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 377-385. doi:

10.2307/255848

Babu, B. V., & Kar, S. K. (2009). Domestic violence against women in eastern India: A

population-based study on prevalence and related issues. BMC Public Health, 9,

129-144. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-129


Bakker, A. B., & Heuven, E. (2006). Emotional dissonance, burnout, and in-role

performance among nurses and police officers. International Journal of Stress

Management, 13, 423-440. doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.13.4.423

Barnett, O. W., & Fagan, R. W. (1993). Alcohol use in male spouse abusers and their

female partners. Journal of Family Violence, 8, 1-25. doi: 10.1007/BF00986990

Beeble, M. L., Bybee, D., & Sullivan, C. M. (2010). The impact of resource constraints

on the psychological well-being of survivors of intimate partner violence over

time. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 943-959. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20407

Beeble, M. L., Bybee, D., Sullivan, C. M., & Adams, A. E. (2009). Main, mediating,

and moderating effects of social support on the well-being of survivors of

intimate partner violence across 2 years. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 77, 718-729. doi: 10.1037/a0016140

Beecham, D. (2014). An exploration of the role of employment as a coping resource for

women experiencing intimate partner abuse. Violence and Victims, 29, 594-606.

doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00086

Bernardo, A. B. (2004). McKinley's questionable bequest: over 100 years of English in

Philippine education. World Englishes, 23, 17-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

971X.2004.00332.x

Bhagat, R. S. (1983). Effects of stressful life events on individual performance

effectiveness and work adjustment processes within organizational settings: A

research model. Academy of Management Review, 8, 660-671. doi:

10.5465/AMR.1983.4284672


Bosch, K., & Bergen, M. B. (2006). The influence of supportive and nonsupportive

persons in helping rural women in abusive partner relationships become free

from abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 311-320. doi: 10.1007/s10896-006-

9027-1

Brush, L. D. (2000). Battering, traumatic stress, and welfare-to-work transition.

Violence against Women, 6, 1039-1065. doi: 10.1177/10778010022183514

Butler, A. B., & Skattebo, A. (2004). What is acceptable for women may not be for

men: The effect of family conflicts with work on job‐performance ratings.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 553-564. doi:

10.1348/0963179042596478

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the

multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. doi:

10.1037/h0046016

Campbell, J. C. (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The

Lancet, 359, 1331-1336. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8

Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic review

of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3, 231-280. doi:

10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231

Carlson, B. E., McNutt, L. A., Choi, D. Y., & Rose, I. M. (2002). Intimate partner abuse

and mental health: The role of social support and other protective factors.

Violence against Women, 8, 720-745. doi: 10.1177/10778010222183251

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003a). Costs of intimate partner violence

against women in the United States. In Costs of Intimate Partner Violence


against Women in the United States. Atlanta, GA: Center for Disease Control

and Prevention.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003b). Costs of Intimate Partner Violence

in Women’s Employment: Implications for Workplace Action. Atlanta, GA:

Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Cohen, S. (1980). Aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behavior: A

review of research and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 82-108. doi:

10.1037/0033-2909.88.1.82

Coker, A. L., Smith, P. H., Bethea, L., King, M. R., & McKeown, R. E. (2000).

Physical health consequences of physical and psychological intimate partner

violence. Archives of Family Medicine, 9, 451-457. doi:

10.1001/archfami.9.5.451

Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence. (2014). Learn About Us. Retrieved from

http://www.caepv.org/about/

Danziger, S. K., & Seefeldt, K. S. (2003). Barriers to employment and the ‘hard to

serve’: Implications for services, sanctions, and time limits. Social Policy and

Society, 2, 151-160. doi: 10.1017/S1474746403001210

Davis, R. E. (2002). “The strongest women”: Exploration of the inner resources of

abused women. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 1248-1263. doi:

10.1177/1049732302238248

Derogatis, L. R. (1993). BSI Brief Symptom Inventory: Administration, scoring, and

procedures manual (4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.


Devries, K. M., Child, J. C., Bacchus, L. J., Mak, J., Falder, G., Graham, K., Watts, C.,

& Heise, L. (2014). Intimate partner violence victimization and alcohol

consumption in women: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Addiction, 109,

379-391. doi: 10.1111/add.12393

Deyessa, N., Berhane, Y., Alem, A., Ellsberg, M., Emmelin, M., Hogberg, U., &

Kullgren, G. (2009). Intimate partner violence and depression among women in

rural Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in

Mental Health, 5, 8. doi: 10.1186/1745-0179-5-8

Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1995). Resources, personal strivings, and subjective well-being:

A nomothetic and idiographic approach. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 68, 926-935. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.926

Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Cavanagh, K., & Lewis, R. (1998). Separate and

intersecting realities: A comparison of men’s and women’s accounts of violence

against women. Violence against Women, 4, 382-414. doi:

10.1177/1077801298004004002

Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in

organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 245-

260. doi: 10.1023/A:1019637632584

Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does common methods

variance really bias results?. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374-406. doi:

10.1177/109442819814002

Durbin, J., & Watson, G. S. (1951). Testing for serial correlation in least squares

regression. II. Biometrika, 159-177. doi: 10.2307/2332325


Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived

organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. doi:

10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L.

(2002). Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational

support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565-573.

doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565

Flynn, A., & Graham, K. (2010). “Why did it happen?” A review and conceptual

framework for research on perpetrators' and victims' explanations for intimate

partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 239-251. doi:

10.1016/j.avb.2010.01.002

Follingstad, D. R. (2007). Rethinking current approaches to psychological abuse:

Conceptual and methodological issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12,

439-458. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2006.07.004

Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L., Berg, B. J., Hause, E. S., & Polek, D. S. (1990). The

role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships. Journal of Family

Violence, 5, 107-120. doi: 10.1007/bf00978514

Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction

and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92, 57-80. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.57

Galinsky, E., & Stein, P. J. (1990). The impact of human resource policies on

employees. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 368–383. doi:

10.1177/019251390011004002


Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor

structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26

Golding, J. M. (1999). Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental disorders: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 99-132. doi:

10.1023/A:1022079418229

Gracia, E. (2004). Unreported cases of domestic violence against women: Towards an

epidemiology of social silence, tolerance, and inhibition. Journal of

Epidemiology and Community Health, 58, 536-537. doi:

10.1136/jech.2003.019604

Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied

to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350-

370. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1998.1666

Greenglass, E. R. (1993). The contribution of social support to coping

strategies. Applied Psychology, 42, 323-340. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-

0597.1993.tb00748.x

Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014).

Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in Conservation of

Resources theory. Journal of Management, 40, 1334-1364. doi:

10.1177/0149206314527130

Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Yragui, N. L., Bodner, T. E., & Hanson, G. C. (2009).

Development and validation of a multidimensional measure of family supportive

supervisor behaviors (FSSB). Journal of Management, 35, 837-856. doi:

10.1177/0149206308328510


Hassan, F., Sadowski, L. S., Bangdiwala, S. I., Vizcarra, B., Ramiro, L., De Paula, C.

S., Bordin, I. A. S., & Mitra, M. K. (2004). Physical intimate partner violence in

Chile, Egypt, India and the Philippines. Injury Control and Safety Promotion,

11, 111-116. doi: 10.1080/15660970412331292333

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable

mediation, moderation, and conditional process modelling (White

Paper). Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

Heijnders, M., & Van Der Meij, S. (2006). The fight against stigma: An overview of

stigma-reduction strategies and interventions. Psychology, Health &

Medicine, 11, 353-363. doi: 10.1080/13548500600595327

Heise, L., Ellsberg, M., Gottemoeller, M., Watts, C., Ndlovu, M., Maschke, K. J., &

Sealey, K. (1999). Ending violence against women. Population Reports. Series

L: Issues in World Health, 11. Retrieved from

https://www.k4health.org/sites/default/files/L%2011.pdf

Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2001). Emotional stability as a major dimension of

happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1357-1364. doi:

10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00229-4

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing

stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513-524. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

Hobfoll, S. E. (1991). Traumatic stress: A theory based on rapid loss of

resources. Anxiety Research, 4, 187-197. doi: 10.1080/08917779108248773


Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the

criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92, 555-566. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.555

Hofstede, G. H. (Ed.). (1998). Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of

national cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jaquier, V., & Sullivan, T. P. (2014). Fear of past abusive partner(s) impacts current

posttraumatic stress among women experiencing partner violence. Violence

against Women, 20, 208-227. doi: 10.1177/1077801214525802

Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. The Lancet, 359,

1423-1429. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08357-5

Jones, A. S., Gielen, A. C., Campbell, J. C., Schollenberger, J., Dienemann, J. A., Kub,

J., O’Campo, P. J., & Wynne, E. C. (1999). Annual and lifetime prevalence of

partner abuse in a sample of female HMO enrollees. Women’s Health Issues, 9,

295-305. doi: 10.1016/S1049-3867(99)00022-5

Kaslow, N. J., Thompson, M. P., Meadows, L. A., Jacobs, D., Chance, S., Gibb, B.,

Bornstein, H., Hollins, L., Rashid, A., & Phillips, K. (1998). Factors that

mediate and moderate the link between partner abuse and suicidal behavior in

African American women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66,

533-540. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.66.3.533

Kellett, S., Beail, N., Newman, D. W., & Frankish, P. (2003). Utility of the Brief

Symptom Inventory in the assessment of psychological distress. Journal of

Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 16, 127-134. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-

3148.2003.00152.x


Kofodimos, J. R. (1995). Beyond work–family programs: Confronting and resolving the

underlying causes of work–personal life conflict. Greensboro, NC: Center for

Creative Leadership.

Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social

support and work-family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of

general and work-family-specific supervisor and organizational support.

Personnel Psychology, 64, 289-313. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01211.x

Kwesiga, E., Bell, M. P., Pattie, M., & Moe, A. M. (2007). Exploring the literature on

relationships between gender roles, intimate partner violence, occupational

status, and organizational benefits. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 312-

326. doi: 10.1177/0886260506295381

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York:

Springer.

LeBlanc, M. M., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2014). Intimate partner aggression and

women’s work outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 399-

412. doi: 10.1037/a0037184

Leimgruber, J. R. E. (2013). The management of multilingualism in a city-state:

Language policy in Singapore. In P. Siemund, I. Gogolin, M. Schulz., & J.

Davydova (Eds.), Multilingualism and language contact in urban areas:

Acquisition, development, teaching, communication (pp.229-258). Amsterdam:

John Benjamins.


Leung, T. W., Leung, W. C., Ng, E. H. Y., & Ho, P. C. (2005). Quality of life of victims

of intimate partner violence. International Journal of Gynecology &

Obstetrics, 90, 258-262. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.05.010

Levendosky, A. A., Bogat, G. A., Theran, S. A., Trotter, J. S., Von Eye, A., & Davidson

II, W. S. (2004). The social networks of women experiencing domestic

violence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 95-109. doi:

10.1023/B:AJCP.0000040149.58847.10

Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and

organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370-390. doi:

10.2307/2391032

Lindquist, C. H., McKay, T., Clinton-Sherrod, A. M., Pollack, K. M., Lasater, B. M., &

Walters, J. L. H. (2010). The role of employee assistance programs in

workplace-based intimate partner violence intervention and prevention

activities. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 25, 46-64. doi:

10.1080/15555240903538980

Lloyd, S. (1997). The effects of domestic violence on women’s employment. Law &

Policy, 19, 139-167. doi: 10.1111/1467-9930.00025

Lloyd, S., & Taluc, N. (1999). The effects of male violence on female

employment. Violence against Women, 5, 370-392. doi:

10.1177/10778019922181275

Lobel, S. A., & Kossek, E. E. (1996). Human resource strategies to support diversity in

work and personal lifestyles: Beyond the “family friendly” organization. In E. E.


Kossek & S. A. Lobel (Eds.), Managing diversity: Human resource strategies

for transforming the workplace (pp. 221–243). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Logan, T. K., Shannon, L., Cole, J., & Swanberg, J. (2007). Partner stalking and

implications for women’s employment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22,

268-291. doi: 10.1177/0886260506295380

Mankowski, E. S., & Wyer Jr., R. S. (1997). Cognitive causes and consequences of

perceived social support. In G. R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I. G. Sarason, & B. R.

Sarason (Eds.), Sourcebook of Social Support and Personality (pp. 141-165).

New York: Plenum Press. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-1843-7_7

Mechanic, M. B., Weaver, T. L., & Resick, P. A. (2008). Mental health consequences of

intimate partner abuse: A multidimensional assessment of four different forms

of abuse. Violence against Women, 14, 634-654. doi:

10.1177/1077801208319283

Menjívar, C., & Salcido, O. (2002). Immigrant women and domestic violence common

experiences in different countries. Gender & Society, 16, 898-920. doi:

10.1177/089124302237894

Monnier, J., Cameron, R. P., Hobfoll, S. E., & Gribble, J. R. (2002). The impact of

resource loss and critical incidents on psychological functioning in fire-

emergency workers: A pilot study. International Journal of Stress Management,

9, 11-29. doi: 10.1023/A:1013062900308

Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The

importance of the employee's perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37,

1543-1567. doi: 10.2307/256798


Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be

distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,

475-480. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475

Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: Its

causes and consequences for job performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 71, 618-629. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.618

Murphy, C. M., & O'Leary, K. D. (1989). Psychological aggression predicts physical

aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 57, 579-582. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.57.5.579

Nelson, T. (1996, Jul). Violence against women. World Watch, 9. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/230006224?accountid=8330

O'Driscoll, M. P., Poelmans, S., Spector, P. E., Kalliath, T., Allen, T. D., Cooper, C. L.,

& Sanchez, J. I. (2003). Family-responsive interventions, perceived

organizational and supervisor support, work-family conflict, and psychological

strain. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 326-344. doi:

10.1037/1072-5245.10.4.326

O'Leary, K. D. (1999). Psychological abuse: A variable deserving critical attention in

domestic violence. Violence and Victims, 14(1), 3-23. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/208555852?accountid=8330

O'Leary-Kelly, A., Lean, E., Reeves, C., & Randel, J. (2008). Coming into the light:

Intimate partner violence and its effects at work. Academy of Management

Perspectives, 22, 57-72. doi: 10.5465/AMP.2008.32739759


Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Perrin, N. A., Yragui, N. L., Hanson, G. C., & Glass, N. (2011). Patterns of workplace

supervisor support desired by abused women. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 26, 2264-2284. doi: 10.1177/0886260510383025

Pico-Alfonso, M. A., Garcia-Linares, M. I., Celda-Navarro, N., Blasco-Ros, C.,

Echeburúa, E., & Martinez, M. (2006). The impact of physical, psychological,

and sexual intimate male partner violence on women's mental health: Depressive

symptoms, posttraumatic stress disorder, state anxiety, and suicide. Journal of

Women's Health, 15, 599-611. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2006.15.599

Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual-

and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors:

A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122-141. doi:

10.1037/a0013079

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research:

Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544. doi:

10.1177/014920638601200408

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990).

Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader,

satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly,

1, 107-142. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7


Reeves, C. (2004). When the dark side of families enters the workplace: The case of

intimate partner violence. In R. Griffin & A. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark

side of organizational behavior (pp. 103–127). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reeves, C., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2007). The effects and costs of intimate partner

violence for work organizations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 327-344.

doi: 10.1177/0886260506295382

Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2006). Effects of psychological contract

breach on performance of IT employees: The mediating role of affective

commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 299-

306. doi: 10.1348/096317905X53183

Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2011). When distress hits home:

The role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting

employees' responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96,

713-729. doi: 10.1037/a0021593

Reynolds, J. S., & Perrin, N. A. (2004). Mismatches in social support and psychosocial

adjustment to breast cancer. Health Psychology, 23, 425-430. doi:

10.1037/0278-6133.23.4.425

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of

the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714. doi: 10.1037/0021-

9010.87.4.698

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the

organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86, 825-836. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825


Riger, S., Raja, S., & Camacho, J. (2002). The radiating impact of intimate partner

violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 184-205. doi:

10.1177/0886260502017002005

Romans, S., Forte, T., Cohen, M. M., Du Mont, J., & Hyman, I. (2007). Who is most at

risk for intimate partner violence? A Canadian population-based study. Journal

of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1495-1514. doi: 10.1177/0886260507306566

Romito, P., Turan, J. M., & De Marchi, M. (2005). The impact of current and past

interpersonal violence on women's mental health. Social Science &

Medicine, 60, 1717-1727. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.026

Rothman, E. F., & Corso, P. S. (2008). Propensity for intimate partner abuse and

workplace productivity: Why employers should care. Violence against

Women, 14, 1054-1064. doi: 10.1177/1077801208321985

Rothman, E. F., Hathaway, J., Stidsen, A., & de Vries, H. F. (2007). How employment

helps female victims of intimate partner violence: A qualitative study. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 136-143. doi: 10.1037/1076-

8998.12.2.136

Saltzstein, A. L., Ting, Y., & Saltzstein, G. H. (2001). Work‐family balance and job

satisfaction: The impact of family‐friendly policies on attitudes of federal

government employees. Public Administration Review, 61, 452-467. doi:

10.1111/0033-3352.00049

Sanchez-Hucles, J., & Dutton, M. A. (1999). The interaction between societal violence

and domestic violence: Racial and cultural factors. In M. Harway & J. O’Neil


(Eds.), What Causes Men’s Violence against Women? (pp. 183-203). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781452231921.n11

Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported:

Relationships with subordinates' perceived supervisor support, perceived

organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,

689-695. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.689

Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., Johnson, J. L., & Lockhart, D. E. (2005). Turnover, social

capital losses, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 594-606.

doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2005.17843940

Shepard, M., & Pence, E. (1988). The effect of battering on the employment status of

women. Affilia, 3, 55-61. doi: 10.1177/088610998800300206

Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). Blaming

the organization for abusive supervision: The roles of perceived organizational

support and supervisor's organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 98, 158-168. doi: 10.1037/a0030687

Smith, B. W., & Freedy, J. R. (2000). Psychosocial resource loss as a mediator of the

effects of flood exposure on psychological distress and physical

symptoms. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 13, 349-357. doi:

10.1023/A:1007745920466

Staggs, S. L., Long, S. M., Mason, G. E., Krishnan, S., & Riger, S. (2007). Intimate

partner violence, social support, and employment in the post-welfare reform

era. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 345-367. doi:

10.1177/0886260506295388


Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner

physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic

review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 65-98. doi:

10.1016/j.avb.2003.09.001

Straus, M. A. (1974). Leveling, civility, and violence in the family. Journal of Marriage

and Family, 36, 13-29. doi: 10.2307/350990

Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female

university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252-

275. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.004

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised

conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric

data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. doi: 10.1177/019251396017003001

Straus, M. M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1982). Behind closed doors:

Violence in the American family. New York: Anchor Books.

Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Dating violence: Prevalence, context and

risk markers. In M. A. Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating

relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 3-32). New York: Praeger.

Swanberg, J. E., & Logan, T. K. (2005). Domestic violence and employment: A

qualitative study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 3-17. doi:

10.1037/1076-8998.10.1.3

Swanberg, J. E., & Macke, C. (2006). Intimate partner violence and the workplace

consequences and disclosure. Affilia, 21, 391-406. doi:

10.1177/0886109906292133


Swanberg, J. E., Logan, T. K., & Macke, C. (2005). Intimate partner violence,

employment, and the workplace: Consequences and future directions. Trauma,

Violence, & Abuse, 6, 286-312. doi: 10.1177/1524838005280506

Swanberg, J., Macke, C., & Logan, T. K. (2007). Working women making it work:

Intimate partner violence, employment, and workplace support. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 22, 292-311. doi: 10.1177/0886260506295387

Sylaska, K. M., & Edwards, K. M. (2014). Disclosure of intimate partner violence to

informal social support network members: A review of the literature. Trauma,

Violence, & Abuse, 15, 3-21. doi: 10.1177/1524838013496335

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.).

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Testa, M., Livingston, J. A., & Leonard, K. E. (2003). Women's substance use and

experiences of intimate partner violence: A longitudinal investigation among a

community sample. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 1649-1664. doi:

10.1016/j.addbeh.2003.08.040

Thomas, L. T., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on

work-family conflict and strain: a control perspective. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 80, 6-15. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.6

Thompson, M. P., Kaslow, N. J., Kingree, J. B., Rashid, A., Puett, R., Jacobs, D., &

Matthews, A. (2000). Partner violence, social support, and distress among inner-

city African American women. American Journal of Community Psychology,

28, 127-143. doi: 10.1023/A:1005198514704


Thornton, G. C., & Byham, W. C. (1982). Assessment centers and managerial

performance. San Diego: Academic Press.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and

female-to-male intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence

against Women Survey. Violence against Women, 6, 142-161. doi:

10.1177/10778010022181769

Trotter, J. L., & Allen, N. E. (2009). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Domestic

violence survivors’ experiences with their informal social networks. American

Journal of Community Psychology, 43, 221-231. doi: 10.1007/s10464-009-9232-

1

UN General Assembly. (1993). Declaration on the elimination of violence against

women (A/RES/48/104). Geneva: United Nations. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/48/a48r104.htm

UN General Assembly. (2006). Intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of

violence against women (A/RES/61/143). Geneva: United Nations. Retrieved

from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/vaw/A_RES_61_143.pdf

Walker, L. E. A. (1984). The battered woman syndrome. New York: Springer.

Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member

exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership

and followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of

Management Journal, 48, 420-432. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407908

Watts, C., & Zimmerman, C. (2002). Violence against Women: Global scope and

magnitude. The Lancet, 359, 1232-1237. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08221-1


Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance

scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management

Journal, 41, 540-555. doi: 10.2307/256941

Wells, J. D., Hobfoll, S. E., & Lavin, J. (1999). When it rains, it pours: The greater

impact of resource loss compared to gain on psychological distress. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1172-1182. doi:

10.1177/01461672992512010

Westman, M., Hobfoll, S. E., Chen, S., Davidson, O. B., & Laski, S. (2004).

Organizational stress through the lens of conservation of resources (COR)

theory. Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being, 4, 167-220. doi:

10.1016/S1479-3555(04)04005-3

Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution?. Academy of

Management Review, 14, 490-495. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1989.4308371

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational

commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors.

Journal of Management, 17, 601-617. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700305

Wingood, G. M., DiClemente, R. J., & Raj, A. (2000). Adverse consequences of

intimate partner abuse among women in non-urban domestic violence shelters.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19, 270-275. doi: 10.1016/S0749-

3797(00)00228-2

World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against

women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-

partner sexual violence. World Health Organization.


Wortman, C. B., & Lehman, D. R. (1985). Reactions to victims of life crises: Support

attempts that fail. In I. G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support:

Theory, research and applications (pp. 463-489). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:

Martinus Nijhoff. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-5115-0_24

Yick, A. G., & Berthold, S. M. (2005). Conducting research on violence in Asian

American communities: Methodological issues. Violence and Victims, 20, 661-

677. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.20.6.661

Yragui, N. L., Mankowski, E. S., Perrin, N. A., & Glass, N. E. (2012). Dimensions of

support among abused women in the workplace. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 49, 31-42. doi: 10.1007/s10464-011-9433-2

Zagenczyk, T. J., Restubog, S. L. D., Kiewitz, C., Kiazad, K., & Tang, R. L. (2011).

Psychological contracts as a mediator between Machiavellianism and employee

citizenship and deviant behaviors. Journal of Management, 40, 1098-1122. doi:

10.1177/0149206311415420


Table 1

Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among the pilot study variables (N = 36).

Note. The reliability coefficients appear in the parentheses along the main diagonal.

**p < .01, ***p < .001.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Employee’s age 36.78 9.51 -

2. Employee’s education 3.31 .86 -.11 -

3. Partner’s education 3.50 .74 .02 .57*** -

4. Partner’s employment 1.14 .42 -.06 .12 .05 -

5. Intimate partner aggression .70 .72 .07 -.15 -.44** .04 (.80)

6. Employee’s psychological distress 2.02 1.48 -.10 -.16 -.25 -.16 .51** (.93)


Table 2

Summary of hierarchical regression analyses for the pilot study variables (N = 36).

Note. B = unstandardized beta coefficients; SE = standard error.

**p < .01.

Model 1 Model 2

Variable B SE B SE

1. Employee’s age .02 .03 .01 .02

2. Employee’s education .02 .36 -.12 .33

3. Partner’s education -.49 .42 .06 .42

4. Partner’s employment -.52 .60 -.61 .54

5. Intimate partner aggression 1.05** .36

ΔR2 .09 .20**


Table 3

Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among the main study variables (N = 228).

Note. Reliability coefficients appear in parentheses in the main diagonal. IPA = intimate partner aggression; PSS = perceived supervisor support;

OCB = organisational citizenship behaviour.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Employee’s age 36.76 7.12 -

2. Employee’s employment 1.11 .42 .01 -

3. Employee’s education 1.86 .43 .19** -.18** -

4. Number of children 1.75 .65 -.02 .04 -.14* -

5. Partner’s age 39.32 7.33 .85** -.01 .26** -.06 -

6. Partner’s education 1.94 .33 .09 -.11 .28** -.03 .11 -

7. Partner’s employment 1.11 .32 .11 .11 -.08 .04 .13 -.02 -

8. Emotional stability 5.02 1.28 .08 -.01 .10 -.02 .05 .03 -.07 (.92)

9. IPA .76 .97 -.07 .01 -.14* -.09 -.03 -.07 -.05 -.23*** (.95)

10. Psychological distress 2.70 1.21 -.32** -.03 -.17* .09 -.28** -.11 -.13 -.29*** .18** (.92)

11. PSS 5.52 1.11 .19** -.02 .23** -.11 .16* .11 .09 .24** -.24*** -.40*** (.95)

12. Task performance 5.72 1.09 .19** -.12 .16* -.06 .12 .14* .02 .19** -.36** -.36*** .50*** (.96)

13. OCB 5.64 1.26 .08 -.05 .14* -.10 .08 .11 .06 .25*** -.23*** -.31*** .41*** .68*** (.92)


Table 4

Estimates and bias-corrected bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals at ± 1 standard deviation of PSS.

Supervisor-rated task performance Supervisor-rated OCB

Level of PSS IE (SE)a CI IE (SE)a CI

1 SD PSS -.05 (.03) -.11 to -.01 -.06 (.03) -.13 to -.02

+1 SD PSS -.01 (.02) -.05 to .02 .01 (.02) -.03 to .05

a Bootstrapped estimates and the standard errors of the conditional indirect effects are presented.

Note. IE = indirect effect; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; PSS = perceived supervisor support; OCB = organisational

citizenship behaviour.


Table 5

Summary of regression analyses of the interactive effects of psychological distress and PSS on work outcomes (N = 228).

Supervisor-rated task performance Supervisor-rated OCB

Variables and steps Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE

1. Employee’s age .05* .02 .03 .02 .03 .02 .01 .02 -.01 .02 -.01 .02

2. Employee’s employment -.26 .17 -.30 .15 -.32* .15 -.11 .20 -.13 .19 -.19 .18

3. Employee’s education .23 .18 .01 .16 -.03 .16 .23 .21 .03 .20 -.04 .20

4. Number of children -.06 .11 .01 .10 .00 .10 -.16 .13 -.09 .12 -.11 .12

5. Partner’s age -.03 .02 -.02 .01 -.02 .02 -.00 .02 .01 .02 .01 .02

6. Partner’s education .31 .22 .21 .19 .12 .20 .30 .26 .20 .24 .03 .24

7. Partner’s employment .15 .22 -.08 .20 -.06 .20 .34 .26 .12 .24 .15 .24

8. Emotional stability .13* .06 .02 .05 .04 .05 .24 .06 .13* .06 .17** .06

9. Psychological distress - - -.15 .06 -.55** .20 - - -.16* .07 -.88*** .24

10. PSS - - .40 .06 .13 .14 - - .36*** .08 -.12 .17

11. Psychological distress X PSS - - - - .08* .04 - - - - .14** .04

ΔR2 .11** .20*** .01* .10** .12*** .04**

Note. B = unstandardized beta coefficients. PSS = perceived supervisor support; OCB = organisational citizenship behaviour.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.


Figure 1. The proposed theoretical model.


Figure 2. Interactive relationship between psychological distress and PSS in predicting

supervisor-rated task performance.

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Low High

Su

pe

rvis

or-

rate

d ta

sk

pe

rfo

rma

nce

Psychological Distress

Low PSSHigh PSS


Figure 3. Interactive relationship between psychological distress and PSS in predicting

supervisor-rated OCB.

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Low High

Su

pe

rvis

or-

rate

d O

CB

Psychological Distress

Low PSSHigh PSS


Appendix A

Declaration of Originality

This thesis is submitted as a partial requirement for the degree of Bachelor of

International Business (Honours). I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, the work

presented is my original work, except as acknowledged in the text. The material has not

been submitted, either in whole or in part, for a degree at this or any other university. I

certify that this research was undertaken in accordance with the Australian National

University Research Ethics Committee Protocol Number 2010/545. The ethics approval

for the project involving human participants was given by the Chair of the Human

Research Ethics Committee on 15 September 2014.

___________________________________

Cheryl Ng Shi Hui

October 2014


Acknowledgements

Foremost, I would like to thank my Honours supervisors, Prof. Simon Lloyd D. Restubog

and Dr. Patrick Raymund J. M. Garcia, who have demonstrated incredible dedication and

patience in guiding me to be a better researcher and writer. Your tireless work ethic and

fiery passion for research is a source of inspiration that has kept me focused and motivated.

Thank you for opening my eyes to the world of academe, for believing in me, and most

importantly, for this invaluable opportunity to work alongside you. I could not have asked

for better mentors and role models.

To my Honours convenor, Dr. Sarbari Bordia, and my coursework lecturers at the

Research School of Management, thank you for your encouragement and your

constructive feedback on my learning. You have made this journey a more pleasant and

fulfilling one for having been a part of it. I am also appreciative of the financial assistance

I have received as a recipient of the ANU-Singapore Alumni Undergraduate Scholarship

and the College of Business and Economics Honours Scholarship.

Finally, I extend my deepest gratitude to my family and friends. To my parents, Lee Lian

and Daniel, thank you for your unconditional love and unwavering support over the years.

I am forever grateful for the sacrifices you have made to give me an excellent education

and more. My dearest sister, Valerie, thank you so much for being there for me – listening

to my rants and sharing a laugh (or two). This thesis would also not be possible without

the support of my amazing friends, who provided humour and hugs at all the right

moments. In particular, I want to thank my best friend and confidante, Josh, for his

continual love, encouragement and patience throughout this journey.


Appendix B

Employee Information Sheet and Questionnaire for the Pilot Study


Information Sheet for Participant

Dear Participant,

My name is Cheryl Ng. I am currently pursuing a Bachelor of International Business (Honours) at the Australian

National University. I am under the joint supervision of Professor Simon Lloyd D. Restubog (Principle Supervisor)

and Dr. Patrick Raymund James M. Garcia.

The purpose of this study is to examine employees’ family experiences and its relationship with their work

attitudes and behaviours. We would like to invite you to participate in this study.

The Survey asks questions about your family and home life, and your experiences at work.

It should take approximately 15-20 minutes to fill up the Survey. Please address each item carefully,

but do not spend considerable time on any particular question.

Please be assured that the questions in the Survey are not meant to trick you in any way. All the

questions are important items and have been part of previous researches. Please answer as honestly

as possible.

Confidentiality, Participant Rights, and General Instructions

Participation in the study is completely voluntary and strictly anonymous. Please do not write your

name on the Survey. Responses are strictly confidential and will only be seen by myself and my

supervisors. Your organisation will not be given any record of these information.

You have the right to, without any penalty, decline to take part or withdraw from the study at any point

in time. If you decide to withdraw your participation, all the information provided by you will be

destroyed securely.

You will receive a self-report survey, which you have to complete. For this study to be successful, it is

necessary for you to respond as honestly as possible, even if the information that you provide is not

favourable. We understand that it is not always possible to maintain a desired balance between family

and work, and often, the world of work is also not a pleasant place. Hence, some of the issues that we

seek to address here reflect both good and bad elements of your home and working life.

Collection of the Survey

Please place the completed survey in the enclosed envelope and seal the envelope prior to returning it.

I will be personally collecting this envelope back from you.

If you have any questions about this research, you can contact myself or my Principle Supervisor with the contact

details provided below. This research has been approved by the ANU Human Research Ethics Committee

(2010/545). If you have any concerns of an ethical nature, you may contact the ethics committee at the ANU at

[email protected] or +61 (2) 6125 3427.

Thank you once again for your time and participation.

Cheryl Ng Phone: +61 4 1264 7061 Email: [email protected]

Professor Simon Lloyd D. Restubog Phone: +61 2 6125 7319 Email: [email protected]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please sign below if you agree to participate in the study.

I, _______________________________________ (print name), agree to participate in this study. I have read the research

information sheet and understand my rights as a participant.

Signature: ____________________________________ Date: _______________________


PARTICIPANT CODE: ______________

SECTION A: BACKGROUND INFORMATION This section is needed to help analyze the data and draw more meaningful conclusions from the survey results. Your responses is completely confidential and no one at your current organization will have access to this information.

1. Gender (please encircle): 1 Male 2 Female

2. Age (as of last birthday): ____________

3. How long have you been working with your current organization (in years)? ____________

4. Please indicate your current employment status (please encircle):

1 permanent 2 probationary 3 contractual 4 casual

5. How long have you been in a relationship and live together with your partner? _______ year(s)

6. What is your highest educational attainment (please encircle)?

1 primary school

2 secondary

school 3 junior college 4 university/post-graduate

7. What type of job are you currently engaged in (please encircle)?

1 accounting and finance 2 customer service

3 marketing and sales 4 public relations

5 general management and HR 6 information technology

7 manufacturing and production 8 others: __________________

8. What is your gross salary per annum (figures in Singapore dollars, please encircle)?

1 less than 10,000 2 10,001 to 20,000 3 20,001 to 30,000 4 30,001 to 40,000

5 40,001 to 50,000 6 50,001 to 60,000 7 60,001 to 70,000 8 greater than 80,000

9. Do you have children? 1 Yes 2 No If yes, how many? ____________

10. Age of your partner (as of last birthday)? ____________

11. What is your partner’s highest educational attainment (please encircle)?

1 primary school 2 secondary school 3 junior college 4 university/post-graduate

12. Is your partner working… ?

1 full-time 2 part-time 3 not working

13. What is your partner’s gross salary per annum (figures in Singapore dollars, please encircle)?

1 less than 10,000 2 10,001 to 20,000 3 20,001 to 30,000 4 30,001 to 40,000

5 40,001 to 50,000 6 50,001 to 60,000 7 60,001 to 70,000 8 greater than 80,000

14. What type of job is your partner currently engaged in (please encircle)?

1 accounting and finance 2 customer service 3 marketing and sales 4 public relations 5 general management and HR 6 information technology 7 manufacturing and production 8 others: __________________


SECTION B: RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR PARTNER

Couples also have many different ways of trying to settle their differences. This is a list of things that might happen when you have differences. Please circle how many times your partner did each of these things towards you in the past year. If your partner did not do one of these things in the past year, but it happened before that, circle 7.

Once in the past year

Twice in the past

year

3-5 times in the past

year


year


year

More than 20 times in the

past year

Not in the past year,

but happened

before

This has never

happened

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

15. Insulted or swore at me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

16. Shouted or yelled at me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

17. Stomped out of the room or house during a disagreement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

18. Said something to spite me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

19. Called me fat or ugly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

20. Destroyed something belonging to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

21. Accused me of being a lousy lover 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

22. Threatened to hit or throw something at me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

23. Threw something at me that could hurt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

24. Twisted my arm or hair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

25. Pushed or shoved me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

26. Grabbed me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

27. Slapped me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

28. Used a knife or gun on me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

29. Punched or hit me with something that could hurt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

30. Chocked me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

31. Slammed me against a wall 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

32. Beat me up 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

33. Burned or scalded me on purpose 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

34. Kicked me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

35. I had a sprain, bruise, or small cut because of a fight with him 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

36. I felt physical pain the next day because of a fight with him 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

37. I passed out from being hit on the head by him in a fight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

38. I went to a doctor because of a fight with him 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

39. I needed to see a doctor due to a fight with him, but I didn’t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

40. I had a broken bone from a fight with him 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

Please indicate how often you have experienced the following feelings with respect to your partner.

In the past months, how often have you been… Never Very Often

41. Feeling fearful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

42. Feeling restless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

43. Feeling worthless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

44. Feeling in panic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


SECTION C: ABOUT YOUR WORK AND FAMILY

Unless specified, please use the following rating scale.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Slightly

Disagree

Neither Agree or Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree Strongly

Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

45. The demands of my family life interfere with work-related activities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

46. I have to put off doing things at work because of demands on my time at home

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

47. Things I want to do at work don't get done because of the demands of my family

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

48. My home life interferes with my responsibilities at work, such as getting to work on time, accomplishing daily tasks, and working overtime

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

49. Family-related problems/strains interfere with my ability to perform job-related duties

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

50. It is often difficult to tell where my family life ends and my work life begins

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

51. I tend to integrate my work and family duties when I work in my workplace

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

52. In my life, there is a clear boundary between my career and my role as a partner

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SECTION D: ASSESSMENT OF YOURSELF

Please encircle the number closest to the adjective descriptive of you.

Very Moderate Neither Moderate Very

Angry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Calm

Tense 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Relaxed

Nervous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 At ease

Envious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not envious

Unstable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Stable

Discontented 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Contented

Emotional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unemotional


Appendix C

Employee Information Sheet and Questionnaire for the Main Study


Information Sheet for Participant

Dear Participant,

My name is Cheryl Ng. I am currently pursuing a Bachelor of International Business (Honours) at the Australian

National University. I am under the joint supervision of Professor Simon Lloyd D. Restubog (Principle Supervisor)

and Dr. Patrick Raymund James M. Garcia.

The purpose of this study is to examine employees’ family experiences and its relationship with their work

attitudes and behaviours. We would like to invite you and your immediate supervisor to participate in this study.

There are two sets of questionnaires. The first is a self-report survey that asks questions about your family and

home life, and your experiences at work. It should take approximately 15-20 minutes to fill up the survey. Please

address each item carefully, but do not spend considerable time on any particular question. Please be assured

that the questions in the survey are not meant to trick you in any way. All the questions are important items and

have been part of previous researches. Please answer as honestly as possible. The second survey involves a

supervisor rating form. You will need to pass on this form to your immediate supervisor, and he/she will be

asked to state their view about your work attitudes and behaviour. It should take approximately 10-15 minutes

to fill up the rating form.

Confidentiality, Participant Rights, and General Instructions

Participation in the study is completely voluntary and strictly anonymous. Please do not write your

name on the Survey. Responses are strictly confidential and will only be seen by myself and my

supervisors. Your organisation will not be given any record of these information.

You have the right to decline to take part or withdraw from the study at any point in time. If you decide

to withdraw your participation, all the information provided by you will be destroyed securely.

You will receive a self-report survey, which you have to complete. For this study to be successful, it is

necessary for you to respond as honestly as possible, even if the information that you provide is not

favourable. We understand that it is not always possible to maintain a desired balance between family

and work, and often, the world of work is also not a pleasant place. Hence, some of the issues that we

seek to address here reflect both good and bad elements of your home and working life.

Collection of the Survey

Please place the completed survey in the enclosed envelope and seal the envelope prior to returning it.

I will be personally collecting this envelope back from you.

If you have any questions about this research, you can contact myself or my Principle Supervisor with the contact

details provided below. This research has been approved by the ANU Human Research Ethics Committee

(2010/545). If you have any concerns of an ethical nature, you may contact the ethics committee at the ANU at

[email protected] or +61 (2) 6125 3427.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please sign below if you agree to participate in the study.

I, _______________________________________ (print name), agree to participate in this study. I have read the research

information sheet and understand my rights as a participant.

Signature: ____________________________________ Date: _______________________



SECTION A: BACKGROUND INFORMATION This section is needed to help analyze the data and draw more meaningful conclusions from the survey results. Your responses is completely confidential and no one at your current organization will have access to this information.


2. Age (as of last birthday): ____________


4. Please indicate your current employment status (please encircle):

1 permanent 2 probationary 3 contractual 4 casual

5. How long have you been in a relationship and live together with your partner? _______ year(s)

6. What is your highest educational attainment (please encircle)?

1 primary school 2 college 3 university/post-graduate

7. What type of job are you currently engaged in (please encircle)?

1 accounting and finance 2 customer service

3 marketing and sales 4 public relations

5 general management and HR 6 information technology

7 manufacturing and production 8 others: __________________

8. How many children do you have? _________________

9. Age of your partner (as of last birthday)? _________________

10. What is your partner’s highest educational attainment (please encircle)?

1 primary school 2 college 3 university/post-graduate

11. Is your partner working… ?

1 full-time 2 part-time 3 not working

SECTION B: RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR PARTNER

Couples also have many different ways of trying to settle their differences. This is a list of things that might happen when you have differences. Please circle how many times your partner did each of these things towards you in the past year. If your partner did not do one of these things in the past year, but it happened before that, circle 7.

Once in the past year

Twice in the past

year


year


year


year

More than 20 times in the

past year

Not in the past year,

but happened

before

This has never

happened

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

12. Insulted or swore at me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

13. Shouted or yelled at me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

14. Stomped out of the room or house during a disagreement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

15. Said something to spite me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

16. Called me fat or ugly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

17. Destroyed something belonging to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

18. Accused me of being a lousy lover 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

19. Threatened to hit or throw something at me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0


20. Threw something at me that could hurt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

21. Twisted my arm or hair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

22. Pushed or shoved me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

23. Grabbed me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

24. Slapped me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

25. Used a knife or gun on me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

26. Punched or hit me with something that could hurt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

27. Chocked me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

28. Slammed me against a wall 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

29. Beat me up 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

30. Burned or scalded me on purpose 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

31. Kicked me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

32. I had a sprain, bruise, or small cut because of a fight with him 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

33. I felt physical pain the next day because of a fight with him 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

34. I passed out from being hit on the head by him in a fight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

35. I went to a doctor because of a fight with him 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

36. I needed to see a doctor because of a fight with him, but I didn’t

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

37. I had a broken bone from a fight with him 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

Please indicate how often you have experienced the following feelings with respect to your partner.

In the past months, how often have you been… Never Very Often

38. Feeling fearful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

39. Feeling restless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

40. Feeling worthless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

41. Feeling in panic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SECTION C: ABOUT YOUR WORK AND FAMILY

Unless specified, please use the following rating scale.

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Slightly

Disagree

Neither Agree or Disagree

Slightly Agree

Agree Strongly

Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

42. Demands of my family life interfere with work-related activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

43. I have to put off doing things at work because of demands on my time at home

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

44. Things I want to do at work don't get done because of the demands of my family

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

45. My home life interferes with work responsibilities, such as getting to work on time, accomplishing daily tasks, and working overtime

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

46. Family-related problems/strains interfere with my ability to perform job-related duties

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

47. It is often difficult to tell where my family life ends and my work life begins

1 2 3 4 5 6 7


48. I tend to integrate my work and family duties when I work in my workplace

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

49. In my life, there is a clear boundary between my career and my role as a partner

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SECTION D: ABOUT YOU IN GENERAL AND THE SUPPORT YOU GET

53. My organization strongly considers my goals and values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

54. My organization really cares about my well-being 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

55. My organization shows concern for me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

56. My organization would forgive an honest mistake on my part 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

57. My organization cares about my opinions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

58. If given the opportunity, my organization would not take advantage of me

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

59. Help is available from my organization when I have a problem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

60. My organization is willing to help me when I need a special favour 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

61. Help is available from my supervisor when I have a problem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

62. My supervisor really cares about my well-being 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

63. My supervisor shows a lot of concern for me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

64. My supervisor cares about my general satisfaction at work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SECTION E: ASSESSMENT OF YOURSELF

Please encircle the number closest to the adjective descriptive of you.

SECTION F: ANONYMOUS CODE

Please create an anonymous code using the following information. This code enables the researchers to match your responses to the self-report survey to the supervisor rating form.

EXAMPLE YOUR RESPONSE

The first two letters of your first name My first name is Maria [M]

[A] [ ] [ ]

The last two letters of your surname My surname name is Cruz [U]

[Z] [ ] [ ]

The date (in the month) of your

birthday

Born December 3, 1970 [0]

[3] [ ] [ ]

Very Moderate Neither Moderate Very

Angry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Calm

Tense 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Relaxed

Nervous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 At ease

Envious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not envious

Unstable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Stable

Discontented 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Contented

Emotional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unemotional


Appendix D

Supervisor Information Sheet and Questionnaire for the Main Study


Information Sheet for Supervisors

Dear Participant/Supervisors,

The purpose of this supervisor’s rating form is to examine another viewpoint of the participant’s

work attitudes and behaviours. The ratings in this form obtained are extremely useful in our study

on understanding relationships between employees and employers.

Please be assured that the ratings that are collected will only be used for research purposes and does

not represent a formal evaluation of the participant’s work in any way. Please note that only my

research supervisors and I will have access to the ratings in this form and that the confidentiality of

the participant and his/her supervisor are assured.

Instructions for the Participant:

Please write your anonymous identification code generated in Section F of the Survey below.

This code enables me to match your responses in the self-report survey to this supervisor

rating form.

Anonymous code: ___________________________

Please pass this form to your immediate supervisor. Your immediate supervisor is the

person to whom you report to for your work responsibilities.

Instructions for the Supervisor:

The above participant has consented for you to rate his/her attitudes and behaviours at

work. In order to ensure that this study remains confidential and anonymous, we ask that

you do not make a copy or keep a record of the ratings you make. It should take around 10

minutes to complete the questions.

Please place your completed ratings in the enclosed envelope. Seal the envelope and affix

your signature across the flap. The envelope is already pre-paid and has a printed label of

the return address of the researcher. Please send your completed response directly back to

the researcher.

If you have any questions about this research, you can contact myself or my Principle Supervisor with

the contact details provided below. This research has been approved by the ANU Human Research

Ethics Committee (2010/545).






SECTION A: SUPERVISOR’S BACKGROUND


2. Age (as of last birthday): ______________ years


4. How long have you been working with this employee? _____________ years __________ months

SECTION B: SUPERVISOR RATING OF WORK BEHAVIOUR

Please encircle your response based on how much you agree or disagree with the following statements that describe this employee’s behavior at work.

Strongly

Disagree Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Neither

Agree or

Disagree

Slightly

Agree Agree

Strongly

Agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Meets formal requirements of his/her job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Fulfils responsibilities specified in his/her job description 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Performs task that are expected of him or her 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Adequately completes assigned duties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Helps others who have heavy workloads 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. ............................................................................................................................. Helps others who have been absent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. ............................................................................................................................. Willingly gives time to help others who have work-related problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. ............................................................................................................................. Helps orient new people even though it is not required 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. ............................................................................................................................. Keeps updated of changes in the organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. ............................................................................................................................. Attends functions that are not required, but help the company image 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. ............................................................................................................................. Attends optional meetings that are considered important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. ............................................................................................................................. Keeps up to date with changes in the organization 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. ............................................................................................................................. Tends to consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. ............................................................................................................................. Tends to make problems bigger than they are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. ............................................................................................................................. Constantly talks about wanting to quit his/her job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20. ............................................................................................................................. Always focuses on what’s right with the situation, rather than the

negative side of it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21. ............................................................................................................................. Is always punctual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22. ............................................................................................................................. Never takes long lunches or breaks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23. ............................................................................................................................. Does not take extra breaks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24. ............................................................................................................................. Obeys company rules, regulations and procedures even when no one

is watching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25. ............................................................................................................................. Consults others who may be affected by their actions or decisions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26. ............................................................................................................................. Does not abuse the rights of others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27. ............................................................................................................................. Takes steps to prevent problems with other employees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28. ............................................................................................................................. Informs others before taking any important actions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Documents

Cheryl Ng Shi Hui - Australian National University... · Cheryl Ng Shi Hui Research School of Management College of Business and Economics Australian National University Canberra,