Using two criteria, specificity and intensity, to classify seven different constructs is complicated, but it yields interpretable results. Figure 2 displays the Pearson et al. model. The constructs and definitions are paraphrased from their Figure 8.2 (p. 191). Notice that CWB is presented as a broad family of negative work behaviors, which are termed "deviant" when a norm is transgressed. In this model there are three types of deviance-violence, aggression, and incivility. These range from high-intensity (violence) to low-intensity (incivility), with aggression lying in between. Finally, there are two types of chronic aggression, mobbing (highto moderate-intensity) and bullying (moderate-to low-intensity). Aggression. While Pearson et al. (2005) view aggression as narrower than CWB, other researchers treat aggressive behaviors more expansively. Some researchers have considered workplace aggression as a broad concept that subsumes potentially hurtful and harmful constructs (Aquino & Thau, 2009). Particularly, it is inclusive of a range of behaviors that seeks to harm someone physically or psychologically. Perhaps the broadest approach is taken by Hershcovis (2011) and Hershcovis and Barling (2007). They define workplace aggression as "any negative act, which may be committed towards an individual within the workplace, or the workplace itself, in ways that the target is motivated to avoid" (Hershcovis & Barling, 2007, p. 271). Their approach diverges from others as it does not consider intention to harm as part of the definition (Shewach & Sackett, 2016). Taking a similar view, Neuman and Baron (2005) classify the various types of aggressive behaviors along three dimensions: (a) physical or verbal, (b) active or passive, and (c) direct or indirect. For example, a type of aggression that is physical, active, and direct might be homicide, while one that is verbal, passive, and indirect might involve a failure to provide needed feedback. Neuman and Baron's three-dimensional taxonomy could account for many of the different Page 9 of 107 Academy of Management Annals SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY 10 constructs that have been mentioned so far. Incivility could be viewed as active and direct. Theft or sabotage, which are types of productive deviance, are classified as physical, active, and indirect. Although there are distinct differences regarding these behaviors, there are some similarities as well. Overlaps may be attributed to varying research goals as scholars seek to untangle the negative actions and interactions within organizations. First, some researchers tend to conceptualize aggressive behaviors as retaliatory, while others view them as voluntarily deviant. Speaking very loosely, retaliatory behaviors are provoked by the wrongdoing of others, whereas voluntary behaviors are chosen by the actor without provocation. As an example of the former, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) conceptualize workplace aggression as organizational retaliatory behavior (ORB). These behaviors are employed to punish the organization and its membe...

No abstract

In late 2014, a series of highly publicized police killings of unarmed Black male civilians in the United States prompted large-scale social turmoil. In the current review, we dissect the psychological antecedents of these killings and explain how the nature of police work may attract officers with distinct characteristics that may make them especially well-primed for negative interactions with Black male civilians. We use media reports to contextualize the precipitating events of the social unrest as we ground our explanations in theory and empirical research from social psychology and industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology. To isolate some of the key mechanisms at play, we disentangle racial bias (e.g., stereotyping processes) from common characteristics of law enforcement agents (e.g., social dominance orientation), while also addressing the interaction between racial bias and policing. By separating the moving parts of the phenomenon, we provide a more fine-grained analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the killings. In doing so, we endeavor to more effectively identify and develop solutions to eradicate excessive use of force during interactions between "Black" (unarmed Black male civilians) and "Blue" (law enforcement).

A current debate in semantics and pragmatics is whether all contextual effects on truth-conditional content can be traced to logical form, or ' unarticulated constituents ' can be supplied by the pragmatic process of free enrichment. In this paper, I defend the latter position. The main objection to this view is that free enrichment appears to overgenerate, not predicting where context cannot affect truth conditions, so that a systematic account is unlikely ( Stanley, 2002a ). I fi rst examine the semantic alternative proposed by Stanley and others, which assumes extensive hidden structure acting as a linguistic trigger for pragmatic processes, so that all truth-conditional effects of context turn out to be instances of saturation. I show that there are cases of optional pragmatic contributions to the proposition expressed that cannot plausibly be accounted for in this way, and that advocates of this approach will therefore also have to appeal to free enrichment. The fi nal section starts to address the question of how free enrichment is constrained: I argue that it involves only local development or adjustment of parts of logical form, any global developments being excluded by the requirement for the proposition expressed to provide an inferential warrant for the intended implications of the utterance.

No abstract