Accessing Self-Control

Koi, Polaris

doi:10.1007/s10670-021-00500-y

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tepper and colleagues (2017) contend that abusive supervision is a more serious threat for those who are psychologically weaker and more vulnerable since they have more negative perceptions about their selfworth and performance. Looking through the lens of self-control, those who are higher in CSE are more faithful about their capabilities and self-control (Judge et al, 2003;Judge & Bono, 2001); therefore, selfblame, which is done due to lack of self-control (Gudjonsson, 1984;Koi, 2021), can be employed to compensate for loss. Hence, Hypothesis 3: CSE moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and self-blame in a way that those who have higher (lower) CSE blame themselves less (more).…”

Section: Abusive Supervision and Employees' Helping Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Does abusive supervision increase employees’ helping behavior? Exploring mediating and moderating mechanisms

Nasab,

biuki,

Sharifirad

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Typically, researchers believe that abusive supervision decreases employees' helping behavior. However, according to the emotional process theory of abusive supervision, subordinates show more helping behavior under certain conditions. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of abusive supervision on employees' helping behavior, with a focus on the mediating role of self-blame and guilt, as well as the moderating effects of core self-evaluation (CSE) and power distance. Methods: In this study, the PROCESS Macro model was used to investigate the proposed moderated mediation model completely. Confirmatory factor analysis was tested with AMOS. Employees of diverse private and state service-offering organizations in Yazd, Iran, were invited to participate in the study (n=381) using simple random sampling. To gather the data, the abusive supervision scale (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007), employees’ helping behavior was rated by the scale developed by Dalal and colleagues (2009), State Shame and Guilt Scale (SSGS), Self-blame questionnaire (Troester & Van Quaquebeke, 2021), Core Self-Evaluation Scale (Judge et al., 2003) and Power Distance scale from Dorfman and Howell (1988) were used. The hypothesized model was analyzed according to the procedure of the PROCESS Macro model. Results: The direct association between abusive supervision and employees’ helping behavior was significantly negative; however, the significant mediation by self-blame and guilt was negative. Moreover, more (less) core self-evaluation intensified (attenuated) the relationship between abusive supervision and self-blame. More (less) power distance decreased (increased) the association between self-blame and guilt. Conclusion: First, this study enriches the literature on abusive supervision and its aftermath by introducing self-blame and guilt as two mediators that can influence subordinates’ reactions to abusive supervision. Second, unprecedentedly, CSE was tested as a moderator between abusive supervision and self-blame. Third, in response to the previous call for research (Mackey et al., 2017; Tepper, 2007), the moderation of subordinates’ power distance orientation on the relationship between self-blame and guilt was investigated.

show abstract

Section: Abusive Supervision and Employees' Helping Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Does abusive supervision increase employees’ helping behavior? Exploring mediating and moderating mechanisms

Nasab,

biuki,

Sharifirad

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, asking for support from others (for example, by asking them to monitor one's commitment) also frequently enables goal realization by limiting one's options.Here, it is important to point out that access to self-control strategies is often unfairly distributed owing to barriers in the social environment that disadvantage certain groups of people (for example, people suffering from ADHD). As Koi[38] emphasizes, for an agent to have access to self-control strategies, it is necessary that they have the appropriate means to do so, are aware of these means and can exercise them without excessive effort. Koi's analysis points to the importance of removing social barriers to self-control.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Running away from the marshmallow: the relevance of behaviour settings for a situated science of self-control

Kalis,

Pascoe,

Segundo Ortin

2024

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The behaviour settings approach was introduced as a means to study the variability of human beings’ behaviour outside the lab. More recently, it has been argued that it also provides a fruitful avenue for developing situated accounts of cognition. This article will provide a proof of concept for the latter suggestion, focusing on the science of self-control. Self-control is the ability of individuals to pursue goals they value in the face of conflicting motivations. The hypothesis we bring forward is that this ability should be understood as a set of skills by which individuals modulate their relation to their environment, more specifically the behaviour settings they inhabit. With this conception of self-control in hand, we will take a critical look at well-known experiments involving delayed gratification tasks and propose concrete suggestions on how to improve them. This will bring us to the conclusion that the behaviour settings framework might have a valuable role to play in developing a situated science of self-control. This article is part of the theme issue ‘People, places, things and communities: expanding behaviour settings theory in the twenty-first century’.

show abstract

“…The action-modulating force of the environment is also highlighted by pluralists about self-control who argue that self-control can be accomplished by a variety of means, including both intrapsychic means (construal/framing, inhibitory control, self-distraction) and situation selection and situational modification (Duckworth, Gendler, & Gross, 2016; Koi, 2021a). Situational strategies, including situation selection and situation modification, can be used to decrease the salience of SS cues, and to add to the salience of cues promoting LL-conforming behaviors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%