AIMSS Abusive Supervision Scale

Abstract

The AIMSS Abusive Supervision (AS) Scale (Sümer et al., 2024) is a psychometrically validated self-report instrument developed to operationalize and evaluate subordinates’ subjective perceptions of sustained hostile verbal and non-verbal supervisory behaviors, excluding physical aggression. Arising from the broader Abuse, Incivility, and Mobbing Surveillance System (AIMSS) initiative, the instrument was conceived to address both universal and culturally contextual manifestations of destructive workplace leadership. The measurement tool was generated through a multi-stage empirical methodology comprising qualitative focus groups, rigorous thematic analysis, expert panels, and exploratory and confirmatory pilot administrations with Turkish working adults. The AIMSS Abusive Supervision Scale is available in two distinct formats: a comprehensive 26-item full-length inventory and an efficient 14-item short-form inventory designed for applied survey research and organizational diagnostics. Both versions employ a 5-point frequency-based Likert response format ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Almost always), preceded by the standardized prompt stem, "My immediate supervisor…". Psychometric testing across diverse professional sectors demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha reaching .97 for the full scale and .95 for the brief form. Structural analyses, including exploratory principal component analysis and robust confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), confirmed an essentially unidimensional latent architecture, with the single general factor accounting for 61.9% of the total variance in exploratory analyses and exhibiting acceptable-to-good fit indices under Satorra-Bentler robust estimation in confirmatory evaluations (SB χ²(299) = 869.118, p < .001; χ²/df = 2.91; CFI = .892; TLI = .882; RMSEA = .060 [90% CI: .056, .065]; SRMR = .045). Convergent validity was established via strong positive associations with widely recognized legacy measures of abusive supervision, while discriminant validity was substantiated through empirical divergence from peer incivility and institutionalized mobbing constructs. Criterion-related validity was corroborated through structural modeling showing robust predictive effects on job burnout (exhaustion, cynicism) and significant negative associations with organizational commitment. The scale offers organizational researchers and occupational health psychologists an advanced, culturally sensitive, and psychometrically sound diagnostic instrument.

Keywords

Abusive Supervision, Workplace Mistreatment, Destructive Leadership, Counterproductive Work Behavior, AIMSS AS Scale, Organizational Commitment, Job Burnout, Psychometrics, Scale Validation, Turkish Working Adults, Supervisor-Subordinate Dynamics, Occupational Health Psychology

Authors

The AIMSS Abusive Supervision Scale was developed and validated by a collaborative consortium of distinguished scholars in industrial and organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and psychometrics based across leading academic institutions in Turkey:

• H. Canan Sümer, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Özye&尾in University, Istanbul, Turkey. Primary Investigator. (Email: [email protected]). Specialization: Personnel selection, work-family conflict, occupational health, and mistreatment at work.
• Asl谋 Göncü-Köse, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Çankaya University, Ankara, Turkey. Specialization: Leadership dynamics, destructive managerial styles, and employee wellbeing.
• Yonca Toker-Gülta艧, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey. ORCID: 0000-0002-0177-0301. Specialization: Psychometric modeling, quantitative research methodology, cognitive abilities, and job performance.
• F. P谋nar Acar, Ph.D. — Department of Management, Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Turkey. Specialization: Organizational behavior, strategic human resource management, and workplace interpersonal relations.
• Derya Karanfil, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, İzmir Bak谋rçay University, Izmir, Turkey. Specialization: Interpersonal conflict, organizational socialization, and dark personality traits in workplace settings.
• A. Ba艧ak Ok, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey. Specialization: Cross-cultural organizational psychology, counterproductive work behaviors, and organizational justice.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the AIMSS Abusive Supervision (AS) Scale is to provide an empirically grounded, culturally nuanced, and psychometrically robust measurement instrument that captures the extent to which immediate supervisors engage in non-physical hostile actions toward their direct subordinates. Within industrial, organizational, and occupational health psychology, supervisory hostility represents one of the most insidious vectors of employee distress, psychological withdrawal, operational inefficiency, and legal liability. While pioneer instruments—most notably the seminal abusive supervision scale formulated by Bennett J. Tepper in 2000—have shaped decades of empirical scholarship, international organizational researchers have noted persistent cross-cultural limitations when applying Western-centric instruments directly to emergent, collectivistic, or high power-distance organizational climates without systematic adaptation.

Western conceptualizations of abusive supervision frequently emphasize overt, individualistic confrontations, such as explosive verbal outbursts, public humiliation, or explicit derogation. In contrast, organizational contexts characterized by paternalistic management, steep hierarchical structures, and pronounced power distance often harbor distinctive, subtle forms of mistreatment. These include coercive micro-management, systematic withholding of developmental opportunities, indirect personal undermining, gaslighting regarding task assignments, and deliberate social ostracism or passive-aggressive silent treatment. The AIMSS Abusive Supervision Scale was purpose-built to bridge this conceptual divide. By integrating qualitative data elicited from Turkish employees across diverse blue-collar, white-collar, public, and private sector enterprises, the scale operationalizes behaviors that employees experience as genuinely sustained, hostile, and disempowering, while avoiding the ethnocentric blind spots of earlier tools.

Beyond theoretical refinement, the AIMSS AS Scale serves concrete clinical, organizational, and research objectives:

• Diagnostic Surveillance: It enables human resource professionals, organizational psychologists, and leadership development consultants to monitor destructive leadership patterns across business units, providing an objective benchmark for identifying toxic management clusters before severe attrition or psychological disability manifests.
• Intervention Evaluation: The availability of both a 26-item comprehensive version and a 14-item short-form inventory allows organizations to deploy the instrument in longitudinal tracking studies, pulse surveys, and pre-/post-intervention assessments of executive coaching or leadership reform initiatives.
• Etiological Modeling in Research: The scale enables researchers to dissect the complex mechanisms connecting destructive managerial behavior with downstream adverse outcomes, such as occupational burnout, sleep impairment, psychosomatic complaints, counterproductive work behaviors directed toward the organization (CWB-O) or coworkers (CWB-I), and turnover intentions.
• Tripartite Mistreatment Mapping: As an integral component of the AIMSS suite, the scale was intentionally calibrated to discriminate supervisory abuse from peer incivility and generalized workplace mobbing, thereby solving a pervasive confounding problem in organizational research where distinct forms of workplace hostility are frequently blurred.

Psychological Construct

The AIMSS Abusive Supervision Scale operationalizes the psychological construct of abusive supervision, originally defined in organizational science as "subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact" (Tepper, 2000). To understand how this construct functions within the AIMSS framework, several core attributes must be delineated in detail:

1. Subjective Perceptual Grounding

Abusive supervision is not conceptualized as an objective tally of supervisor actions audited by an external observer; rather, it is anchored entirely in the subjective appraisal of the subordinate. Because individual thresholds for perceived disrespect, boundary violation, and psychological safety vary according to personality, cultural expectations, and past occupational experiences, the construct captures the reality of the employee experiencing the hostility. What one employee interprets as rigorous feedback may be perceived by another as deliberate derogation. The AIMSS AS Scale measures this subjective reality, which has been shown across organizational psychology literature to be the primary cognitive driver of psychological strain and performance decrement.

2. The Sustained Nature of Hostility

A solitary occurrence of managerial impatience, an isolated harsh critique during a high-stakes crisis, or a momentary lapse in administrative tact does not constitute abusive supervision. The core construct requires persistence and chronicity. The AIMSS AS Scale operationalizes behaviors that manifest over prolonged durations, cultivating a pervasive climate of threat, unpredictability, and psychological intimidation. By rating behaviors on a five-point continuum ranging from "Never" to "Almost always," the instrument quantifies the chronic frequency that separates systematic managerial hostility from incidental, episodic workplace friction.

3. Non-Physical Demarcation

Following foundational tenets in counterproductive work behavior research, the construct strictly excludes physical violence, battery, or immediate threats of bodily harm. While physical assault falls under the legal and criminological domains of workplace violence, abusive supervision operates through verbal hostility (e.g., screaming, belittling, public ridicule, aggressive sarcasm, condescending remarks) and non-verbal hostility (e.g., menacing stares, dismissive gestures, eye-rolling, intentional exclusion from critical correspondence, deliberate social isolation, invasion of personal space). These behaviors erode the subordinate’s sense of self-efficacy, autonomy, and professional standing without ever crossing into physical criminality.

4. Power Asymmetry and Involuntary Entrapment

A vital facet distinguishing abusive supervision from peer-level incivility or lateral bullying is the formal power differential intrinsic to the supervisory relationship. The supervisor possesses formal institutional authority regarding performance appraisals, salary increments, task assignments, promotion opportunities, and disciplinary procedures. Consequently, the target of abusive supervision experiences a profound asymmetry in communicative reciprocity; direct retaliation or boundary assertion carries the severe risk of termination or professional marginalization. The AIMSS construct encapsulates this psychological entrapment, reflecting behaviors where the manager exploits formal authority to demean, over-scrutinize, or blame subordinates unfairly.

5. Tripartite Conceptual Contrast

Within the broader AIMSS taxonomic model developed by Sümer and colleagues (2024), abusive supervision is clearly demarcated from two related forms of interpersonal maltreatment:

• Workplace Incivility: Characterized by low-intensity, ambiguous intent to harm, often involving everyday breaches of politeness (e.g., not saying "thank you," checking mobile phones during presentations). In contrast, abusive supervision carries explicit, high-intensity hostility where the supervisor’s intent to demean or dominate is evident to the subordinate.
• Mobbing / Workplace Bullying: Typically involves systematic, multi-source campaigns to socially isolate or expel an individual from the workgroup, often orchestrated horizontally (by peers) or collectively. Abusive supervision, conversely, is inherently vertical and hierarchical, driven by the individual manager’s behavioral style rather than a coordinated group conspiracy.

Theoretical Framework

The development, validation, and behavioral dynamics of the AIMSS Abusive Supervision Scale are supported by three foundational paradigms in organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and stress research:

1. Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory

Stevan E. Hobfoll’s Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory provides the primary overarching theoretical framework for explaining the damaging consequences of abusive supervision. COR theory posits that individuals strive to acquire, retain, foster, and protect basic resources, categorized as objects, conditions, personal characteristics, and energies (e.g., self-esteem, psychological wellbeing, job security, autonomy, time). Psychological stress emerges when individuals experience:

1. The threat of resource loss;
2. Actual net loss of resources; or
3. A failure to gain anticipated resources after substantial personal energy expenditure.

When an immediate supervisor exhibits persistent verbal hostility, unfair scrutiny, or relational rejection, subordinates suffer profound resource depletion. The subordinate must continually allocate scarce cognitive and emotional regulatory resources toward managing hypervigilance, anticipating unpredictable supervisory anger, and suppressing emotional distress. Because the supervisor also controls access to structural resources (promotions, information, developmental tasks), abusive supervision threatens the employee’s fundamental economic and professional survival. Under COR theory’s "loss spirals," prolonged resource depletion without adequate replenishment leads inexorably to the severe occupational strain patterns documented in the AIMSS validation: emotional exhaustion, cognitive depersonalization, reduced professional efficacy, and ultimate withdrawal.

2. Social Exchange Theory and Psychological Contract Breach

The construct of abusive supervision is heavily rooted in Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964). Workplace relationships function on reciprocal exchange norms: employees invest intellectual effort, loyalty, and compliance, anticipating fair treatment, psychological respect, constructive feedback, and social safety from organizational agents. The immediate supervisor acts as the primary embodiment of the organization itself—an agentic representative of the firm’s cultural values.

When a supervisor acts abusively, the implicit psychological contract is shattered. The norm of reciprocity is violated, leading to cognitive dissonance and moral outrage. In response, subordinates restore psychological equity through compensatory behavior. Because direct retaliation against a powerful manager is dangerous, subordinates frequently withhold discretionary effort, manifest decreased affective organizational commitment, engage in voluntary turnover, or engage in passive forms of counterproductive work behaviors, such as deliberate slowdowns or covert withdrawal.

3. Affective Events Theory (AET)

Formulated by Howard M. Weiss and Russell Cropanzano (1996), Affective Events Theory maintains that workplace characteristics influence the occurrence of discrete proximal work events, which trigger immediate internal affective reactions (emotions and moods). These cumulative affective episodes subsequently dictate work attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, affective commitment) and behavior (e.g., performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, quitting).

Within this framework, each interaction assessed by the AIMSS AS Scale represents an adverse affective event. Incidents such as being publicly reprimanded, being ignored when asking for work direction, or having one’s ideas ridiculed generate acute negative affective states: humiliation, anxiety, resentment, and dejection. Over time, these episodic emotional shocks crystallize into enduring negative attitudes toward the supervisor and the broader employing organization, eroding occupational functioning.

Validity

The psychometric evaluation of the AIMSS Abusive Supervision Scale was executed using rigorous, multi-method validation procedures across large cohorts of working adults, substantiating strong construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

1. Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was established through sequential exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic modeling. A comprehensive pool of initial items, developed through qualitative focus groups with industry professionals, was examined to eliminate ambiguous, redundant, or culturally anomalous statements. Across independent samples, the resulting 26-item full version and 14-item short-form demonstrated robust structural integrity. The items clustered cleanly into an overarching latent construct reflecting supervisory hostility. Factor loadings across both exploratory principal component analysis and confirmatory models were consistently high, demonstrating that the empirical items accurately represent the theoretical domain of supervisory mistreatment.

2. Convergent Validity

Convergent validity evaluates whether a novel psychometric instrument correlates strongly with established instruments designed to assess identical or theoretically adjacent constructs. The AIMSS AS Scale was administered concurrently with benchmark measures of destructive leadership, most notably the widely adopted Tepper (2000) Abusive Supervision Scale. As predicted, the AIMSS full scale and brief form exhibited strong, statistically significant positive correlations with the Tepper scale (coefficients exceeding .75, p < .001). This convergence confirmed that the newly developed scale successfully captures the fundamental core of supervisory abuse while offering enhanced contextual validity for contemporary workplaces.

3. Discriminant Validity

To confirm that the AIMSS AS Scale does not simply replicate broader, unspecific interpersonal distress at work, Sümer and colleagues (2024) tested the scale against related instruments within their tripartite framework: coworker incivility scales and institutional mobbing scales. While moderate positive intercorrelations were observed—as expected, given that hostile organizational climates frequently breed multiple forms of mistreatment—latent variable modeling confirmed that a three-factor model separating abusive supervision, workplace incivility, and mobbing fit the empirical data substantially better than a single-factor, common-method model or two-factor collapsed models. The average variance extracted (AVE) for the abusive supervision construct comfortably exceeded its shared variance (squared correlations) with incivility and mobbing, satisfying rigorous Fornell-Larcker criteria for discriminant distinctiveness.

4. Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The predictive utility of the AIMSS Abusive Supervision Scale was corroborated through hierarchical regression and structural equation models evaluating established downstream organizational outcomes:

• Job Burnout: Consistent with Conservation of Resources Theory, high scores on the AIMSS AS Scale strongly predicted elevated levels of employee burnout, showing particularly potent relationships with the emotional exhaustion and cynicism / depersonalization dimensions of the Maslach Burnout Inventory.
• Organizational Commitment: The scale demonstrated significant, robust negative associations with affective organizational commitment. Employees who reported frequent supervisory abuse expressed significantly lower loyalty, decreased pride in organizational affiliation, and diminished willingness to exert extra-role effort.
• Turnover Intentions: Elevated scores on both the 26-item and 14-item versions accounted for significant unique variance in employees’ intentions to quit their organizations, over and above demographic covariates and general job characteristics.

Reliability

The reliability of the AIMSS Abusive Supervision Scale was evaluated through extensive internal consistency and item-level psychometric diagnostics across development and validation samples of Turkish working professionals.

1. Internal Consistency Coefficients

Internal consistency reflects the degree to which all items comprising a scale measure the same underlying construct with minimal measurement error. The AIMSS AS Scale exhibits exceptional internal consistency across both its structural variants:

• Full Scale (26 items): Demonstrates a Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient of .97, indicating world-class measurement precision and minimal random error variance. In psychometric research, alpha coefficients above .90 are considered suitable not only for group-level empirical studies but also for high-stakes individual diagnostics.
• Short Form (14 items): Yields a Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient of .95. Despite eliminating nearly half of the original item pool to streamline administrative burden, the short form retains remarkable internal consistency, surpassing conventional benchmarks (α ≥ .70 or .80) for research and applied assessments.

2. Item-Total Correlations and Homogeneity

Corrected item-total correlations across the entire 26-item inventory consistently exceeded recommended psychometric thresholds (all values substantially higher than .50, with most items falling between .65 and .84). These values confirm that every single item possesses strong discriminating power, cleanly differentiating between employees experiencing pervasive supervisory hostility and those operating in supportive managerial climates. Deletion of any individual item did not result in an increase in the composite Cronbach’s alpha, demonstrating high internal homogeneity.

3. Standard Error of Measurement

Due to the exceptionally high internal consistency coefficients (.95 to .97), the Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) associated with the AIMSS AS Scale is notably low. A low SEM ensures that individual observed scores closely reflect the true score of the respondent, providing human resource practitioners and organizational researchers with narrow, highly reliable confidence intervals when interpreting supervisory abuse scores in organizational audits.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the AIMSS Abusive Supervision Scale was rigorously investigated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (Principal Component Analysis; PCA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to verify construct architecture and item-loadings stability.

1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA / PCA)

Initial structural evaluation via Principal Component Analysis conducted on the item pool demonstrated clear evidence of unidimensionality. In accordance with Kaiser’s criterion (eigenvalues greater than 1.0) and visual inspection of Cattell’s scree plot, a dominant first factor emerged cleanly before a precipitous drop to secondary factors. The single general factor accounted for 61.9% of the total variance, meeting the empirical threshold for essential unidimensionality in psychometrics (which typically requires the primary factor to explain >40% to 50% of the total variance). Exploratory factor loadings for the 26 retained items were uniformly robust, ranging from .65 to .86. No problematic secondary cross-loadings or divergent patterns were identified, affirming that the diverse manifestations of supervisory hostility (verbal derogation, passive undermining, coercive micromanagement) co-occur systematically as reflections of a singular destructive leadership style.

2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To corroborate the unidimensional model established during exploratory development, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis was estimated on an independent cross-validation sample of working adults using Satorra-Bentler (SB) robust maximum likelihood estimation to accommodate the natural positive skewness characteristic of workplace mistreatment data (where severe mistreatment is reported at lower frequencies across general populations). The statistical parameters and goodness-of-fit indices demonstrated acceptable-to-good fit for the single-factor specification:

• Satorra-Bentler Chi-Square (χ²): SB χ²(299) = 869.118, p < .001
• Normed Chi-Square Ratio (χ²/df): 869.118 / 299 = 2.91 (well below the widely accepted threshold of 3.0 to 5.0 for large sample structural models)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .892 (approximating the conventional .90 threshold for complex behavioral measures)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .882
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .060, with a 90% Confidence Interval of [.056, .065], p < .001 (reflecting good model parsimony and acceptable population approximation, falling safely below the .08 ceiling)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .045 (comfortably below the conservative .05 benchmark for exceptional absolute fit)

3. Confirmatory Factor Loadings

Under the confirmatory model, standardized factor loadings for the items ranged from .47 to .89, with the vast majority loading above .70. All factor loadings were statistically significant at p < .001, providing conclusive empirical evidence that the individual items are robust, statistically reliable indicators of the general abusive supervision latent construct.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The AIMSS Abusive Supervision Scale is structured as an objective, standardized, paper-and-pencil or digital self-report questionnaire designed for administrative ease and interpretive clarity.

• Test Type: Original psychometric rating scale; self-report inventory.
• Target Population: Working adults aged 18 years and older across all industrial sectors, professional disciplines, and organizational tiers who report to an immediate supervisor or line manager.
• Versions Available:
  • Full-Length Scale: 26 items (comprehensive diagnostic evaluation, ideal for specialized research on destructive leadership and leadership development audits).
  • Short-Form Scale: 14 items (abbreviated version optimized for multi-wave longitudinal surveys, broad workplace climate assessments, and organizational pulse monitoring where respondent fatigue must be minimized).
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 7 minutes for the 26-item full version; 2 to 3 minutes for the 14-item brief version.
• Standardized Prompt Stem: All items are preceded by the behavioral contextual anchor: "My immediate supervisor…"
• Response Format: A 5-point frequency Likert scale scored as follows:
  • 1 = Never (Hiçbir zaman)
  • 2 = Rarely (Nadiren)
  • 3 = Sometimes (Bazen)
  • 4 = Often (S谋kl谋kla)
  • 5 = Almost always (Hemen her zaman)
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Mean Scoring (Recommended): Calculate the arithmetic mean across all completed items (sum of item responses divided by the total number of items: 26 or 14). This preserves the intuitive 1.00 to 5.00 metric, where higher composite scores indicate higher perceived frequency of abusive supervision.
  • Sum Scoring: Alternatively, compute the aggregate sum of raw scores. For the 26-item version, possible scores range from 26 to 130; for the 14-item version, possible scores range from 14 to 70.
  • Reverse-Scored Items: None. All items are positively keyed toward hostile supervisory behaviors; higher numerical endorsements indicate more severe mistreatment.
• Clinical & Applied Cut-Off Guidelines: In line with prevailing psychometric practices in counterproductive work behavior research, abusive supervision data typically exhibit low base-rate characteristics in healthy organizations. Scores between 1.00 and 1.50 reflect normal, low-conflict managerial environments; scores between 1.51 and 2.50 indicate moderate or sporadic supervisory friction warranting managerial monitoring; scores exceeding 2.50 signify severe, pervasive supervisory hostility associated with high burnout, severe resource depletion, and acute turnover risk.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The AIMSS Abusive Supervision Scale was formally published in 2024 following extensive empirical testing supported by academic research grants. The instrument is protected under international intellectual property and copyright laws governing scholarly psychological measurement tools.

• Test Year: 2024
• Academic Research Use: The scale is available for non-commercial, academic, educational, and scientific research purposes. Graduate students, university faculty, and independent scholars conducting non-funded or purely academic research may utilize the scale without paying licensing fees, provided that appropriate formal scholarly citation is attributed to the original scale development publication (Sümer et al., 2024).
• Commercial, Organizational, and Consulting Applications: Commercial enterprises, management consulting firms, corporate assessment platforms, and executive coaching practitioners seeking to incorporate the AIMSS Abusive Supervision Scale into paid workplace audits, internal climate assessments, or leadership performance appraisal software must secure explicit written authorization from the primary authors and rights holders.
• Primary Author & Correspondence Contact:
  
  Prof. Dr. H. Canan Sümer
  
  Department of Psychology, Özye&尾in University
  
  Ni艧antepe Mah. Orman Sk. No: 34-36, Çekmeköy, 34794 Istanbul, Turkey
  
  Email: [email protected]

References

• Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202131
• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2011). Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/EBK1439804896
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
• Sümer, H. C., Göncü-Köse, A., Toker-Gülta艧, Y., Acar, F. P., Karanfil, D., & Ok, A. B. (2024). Incivility, mobbing, and abusive supervision: A tripartite scale development study. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 158(6), 428–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2024.2321881
• Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375
• Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300812
• Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). JAI Press.

Items of the Scale