Understanding the linkage between abusive supervision and counterproductive work behavior: the role played by resilience and psychological contract breach

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research framework.

Table 1. Demographics of participants.

	Frequency	Percent
Gender
Male	163	52.2
Female	149	47.8
Total	312	100
Age
21–30	75	24
31–40	91	29.2
41–50	97	31.1
More than 50Y	49	15.7
Experience
Less than 2 Years	37	11.9
2 to 5 years	136	43.6
5 to 8 years	104	33.3
More Than 8 years	35	11.2
Total	312	100

Table 2. Descriptive summary.

	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation	Skewness		Kurtosis
AB	1.00	5.00	3.5216	1.06884	−.700	.138	−.526	.275
RES	1.00	5.00	3.4994	1.09439	−.684	.138	−.584	.275
TP	1.20	5.00	3.4974	.93781	−.485	.138	−.792	.275
RP	1.17	5.17	3.4108	.93308	−.310	.138	−.717	.275
CPB	1.00	5.00	3.2821	1.12519	−.274	.138	−.786	.275

Table 3. KMO & Bartlett’s test.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy		.923
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	5626.265
	df	300
	Sig.	.000

Table 4. Rotated component matrix.

		Component
		1	2	3	4	5
	AB1	.715
	AB2	.737
	AB3	.790
	AB4	.746
	RES1				.627
	RES2				.649
Factors	RES3				.646
	RES4				.706
	RES5				.702
	TP1					.805
	TP2					.852
	TP3					.835
	TP4					.755
	TP5					.815
	RP1			.809
	RP2			.782
	RP3			.747
	RP4			.778
	RP5			.821
	RP6			.781
	CB1		.658
	CB2		.711
	CB3		.783
	CB4		.697
	CB5		.624

Table 5. Discriminant and convergent validity.

	CR	AVE	MSV	MaxR(H)	ABS	CPB	RPSY	RSC	TPSY
ABS	0.903	0.699	0.656	0.906	0.836
CPB	0.891	0.621	0.629	0.893	0.722***	0.788
RPSY	0.852	0.514	0.500	0.907	0.626***	0.707***	0.717
RSC	0.897	0.635	0.656	0.899	0.810***	0.793***	0.648***	0.797
TPSY	0.782	0.446	0.263	0.860	0.509***	0.472***	0.459***	0.513***	0.668

p < 0.05, indicating statistical significance.

*p < 0.01, signifying high statistical significance.

**p < 0.001, representing very high statistical significance.

Figure 2. Model fitness through confirmatory factor analysis.

Table 6. Model fitness.

Indices	Threshold	Observed
CMIN/df	Less than 5	2.968
GFI	More than 0.8
IFI	Greater or equal to 0.9	.867
CFI	Greater or equal to 0.9	.908
RMSEA	Less than or equal to 0.08	.907

Table 7. SEM results.

Parameter			Estimate	Lower	Upper	P
CPB	←	AB	.388	.299	.505	.005
ZCPB	←	ZABXRES	−.306	−.719	.159	.314
ZTP	←	ZABXRES	.254	−.264	.766	.384
ZRP	←	ZABXRES	−.031	−.514	.391	.896

Table 8. SEM results (Indirect effects).

Indirect path	Standardized estimate	Lower	Upper	P-Value
AB → RP → CPB	0.216***	0.172	0.287	0.001
AB → TP → CPB	0.049†	0.005	0.100	0.062

Table 8 shows that RP is a significant mediator between AB and CPB, whereas TP is an insignificant mediator as its p-value is 0.06. Therefore, the mediation of TP has been rejected, whereas the mediation of RP has been accepted, having a p-value of less than 0.05, i.e. 0.001.

Figure 3. Path Analysis in Structural Equation Model (SEM).