Incivility, Mobbing, and Abusive Supervision: A Tripartite Scale Development Study

Sümer H. C., Göncü-Köse A., TOKER GÜLTAŞ Y., ACAR F. P., Karanfil D., OK A. B.

Journal of Psychology, 2024 (SSCI) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Publication Date: 2024
  • Doi Number: 10.1080/00223980.2024.2321881
  • Journal Name: Journal of Psychology
  • Journal Indexes: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, ASSIA, IBZ Online, International Bibliography of Social Sciences, Periodicals Index Online, ABI/INFORM, Art Source, ATLA Religion Database, Business Source Elite, Business Source Premier, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, Communication Abstracts, EBSCO Education Source, Educational research abstracts (ERA), Gender Studies Database, Linguistics & Language Behavior Abstracts, MLA - Modern Language Association Database, Political Science Complete, Psycinfo, Religion and Philosophy Collection, SportDiscus
  • Keywords: abusive supervision, measurement, mobbing, neo-traditional, personnel, Scale development, Turkey, well-being, workplace incivility
  • Middle East Technical University Affiliated: Yes


Using qualitative and quantitative methodologies, in three consecutive studies with employed samples, we developed measures of workplace incivility, mobbing, and abusive supervision sensitive to the nuances of a non-Western context (i.e., Türkiye). In Study 1, we first conducted 15 focus groups (N = 149), identified culture-specific and universal themes underlying the focal mistreatment types, and developed the initial scales. We then pilot-tested (N = 427) and refined the scales using exploratory factor analytic procedures. In Study 2, confirmatory factor analyses (N range = 456-524) and associations between the new scales and their widely used counterparts (N = 353) yielded evidence for the construct validity of the scales. Study 2 also involved the development of short forms of relatively long incivility and abusive supervision scales. In Study 3 (N = 482), we first examined the extent to which the three scales were operationally distinct. Second, we examined the scales’ ability to predict burnout and organizational commitment. Results supported operational distinctiveness as well as the criterion-related validity of the scales. A dominance analysis revealed that the three scales had equivalent contributions in explaining the two outcome variables, further justifying their distinctiveness. We argue that the use of present scales is not necessarily restricted to the Turkish context and may prove useful more broadly in other neo-traditional contexts.