Their Pain, Our Pleasure: How and When Peer Abusive Supervision Leads to Third Parties’ Schadenfreude and Work Engagement

  • Yueqiao QiaoEmail author
  • Zhe Zhang
  • Ming Jia
Original Paper


Abusive supervision negatively affects its direct victims. However, recent studies have begun to explore how abusive supervision affects third parties (peer abusive supervision). We use the emotion-based process model of schadenfreude as a basis to suggest that third parties will experience schadenfreude and increase their work engagement as a response to peer abusive supervision (PAS). Furthermore, we suggest that the context of competitive goal interdependence facilitates the indirect relationship between PAS and third parties’ work engagement on schadenfreude. We use a mixed-method approach to test our hypotheses. Data from an experimental study conducted by facial expression analysis technology (Study 1, a 2 × 2 design, N = 104) and a multi‐wave field study (Study 2, N = 229) generally support our hypotheses. Overall, our study extends PAS literature and meaningfully informs practitioners who aim to promote ethical workplace environments.


Abusive supervision Peer abusive supervision Schadenfreude Goal interdependence Work engagement 



This study was funded by grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.71672139) and (Grant No.71932007), and was sponsored by Humanities and Social Science Talent Plan of Shaanxi University.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Afzalur Rahim, M., Magner, N. R., Antonioni, D., & Rahman, S. (2001). Do justice relationships with organization-directed reactions differ across US and Bangladesh employees? International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4), 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguinis, H., & Edwards, J. R. (2014). Methodological wishes for the next decade and how to make wishes come true. Journal of Management Studies, 51(1), 143–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L.-Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. Handbook of social cognition, 1, 1–40.Google Scholar
  7. Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 230–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bargh, J. A., & Ferguson, M. J. (2000). Beyond behaviorism: On the automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 925–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barnes, C. M., Lucianetti, L., Bhave, D. P., & Christian, M. S. (2015). “You wouldn’t like me when I’m sleepy”: Leaders’ sleep, daily abusive supervision, and work unit engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1419–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berndsen, M., & Feather, N. (2016). Reflecting on schadenfreude: Serious consequences of a misfortune for which one is not responsible diminish previously expressed schadenfreude; the role of immorality appraisals and moral emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 40(6), 895–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 613–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen, G., Tjosvold, D., & Liu, C. (2006). Cooperative goals, leader people and productivity values: Their contribution to top management teams in China. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 1177–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J. S. (2007). Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors related to envy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 666–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Combs, D. J., Powell, C. A., Schurtz, D. R., & Smith, R. H. (2009). Politics, schadenfreude, and ingroup identification: The sometimes happy thing about a poor economy and death. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 635–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Connelly, B. L., Tihanyi, L., Crook, T. R., & Gangloff, K. A. (2014). Tournament theory: Thirty years of contests and competitions. Journal of Management, 40(1), 16–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dasborough, M., & Harvey, P. (2017). Schadenfreude: The (not so) secret joy of another’s misfortune. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(4), 693–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Klerk, J. (2017). Nobody is as blind as those who cannot bear to see: Psychoanalytic perspectives on the management of emotions and moral blindness. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(4), 745–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dhanani, L. Y., & LaPalme, M. L. (2019). It’s not personal: A review and theoretical integration of research on vicarious workplace mistreatment. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2322–2351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Feather, N. T. (2006). Deservingness and emotions: Applying the structural model of deservingness to the analysis of affective reactions to outcomes. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 38–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Feather, N. T., & Sherman, R. (2002). Envy, resentment, schadenfreude, and sympathy: Reactions to deserved and undeserved achievement and subsequent failure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7), 953–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feather, N., Wenzel, M., & McKee, I. R. (2013). Integrating multiple perspectives on schadenfreude: The role of deservingness and emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 37(3), 574–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Buckley, M. R. (2012). Theory in the organizational sciences: How will we know it when we see it? Organizational Psychology Review, 2(1), 94–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43(5), 349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goldberg, J. H. (2014). Measuring software screen complexity: Relating eye tracking, emotional valence, and subjective ratings. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(7), 518–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grandey, A. A., Kern, J. H., & Frone, M. R. (2007). Verbal abuse from outsiders versus insiders: Comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellott, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Habetinova, L., & Noussair, C. (2015). Charitable Giving, Emotions, and the Default Effect. (CentER Discussion Paper; Vol. 2015–043). Tilburg: Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  34. Hareli, S., & Weiner, B. (2002). Dislike and envy as antecedents of pleasure at another’s misfortune. Motivation and Emotion, 26(4), 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harman, H. H. (1960). Modern factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., Harris, R. B., & Cast, M. (2013). An investigation of abusive supervision, vicarious abusive supervision, and their joint impacts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(1), 38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1125–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. James, S., Kavanagh, P. S., Jonason, P. K., Chonody, J. M., & Scrutton, H. E. (2014). The Dark Triad, schadenfreude, and sensational interests: Dark personalities, dark emotions, and dark behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 211–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jiang, W., Gu, Q., & Tang, T. L.-P. (2017). Do victims of supervisor bullying suffer from poor creativity? Social cognitive and social comparison perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 157, 884–885.Google Scholar
  41. Jiang, L., Yin, D., & Liu, D. (2019). Can joy buy you money? The impact of the strength, duration, and phases of an entrepreneur’s peak displayed joy on funding performance. Academy of Management Journal. Scholar
  42. John, W. S. (2004). Rammer jammer yellow hammer: A journey into the heart of fan mania. New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
  43. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  44. Kistruck, G. M., Lount, R. B., Jr., Smith, B. R., Bergman, B. J., Jr., & Moss, T. W. (2016). Cooperation vs competition: Alternative goal structures for motivating groups in a resource scarce environment. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1174–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kramer, T., Yucel-Aybat, O., & Lau-Gesk, L. (2011). The effect of schadenfreude on choice of conventional versus unconventional options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 140–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lai, X., Li, F., & Leung, K. (2013). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of common method variance on significance testing and parameter bias in hierarchical linear modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 243–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Leach, C. W., Spears, R., Branscombe, N. R., & Doosje, B. (2003). Malicious pleasure: Schadenfreude at the suffering of another group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 932–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lee, K., Kim, E., Bhave, D. P., & Duffy, M. K. (2016). Why victims of undermining at work become perpetrators of undermining: An integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(6), 915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee, S. Y., Pitesa, M., Thau, S., & Pillutla, M. M. (2015). Discrimination in selection decisions: Integrating stereotype fit and interdependence theories. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 789–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Leon, M. R., & Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2015). Coworker responses to observed mistreatment: Understanding schadenfreude in the response to supervisor abuse. Mistreatment in organizations (pp. 167–192). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Li, X., McAllister, D. J., Ilies, R., & Gloor, J. L. (2019). Schadenfreude: A counternormative observer response to workplace mistreatment. Academy of Management Review, 44(2), 360–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lin, C.-P. (2010). Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement based on attachment theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(4), 517–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lindebaum, D., Geddes, D., & Gabriel, Y. (2017). Moral emotions and ethics in organisations: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(4), 645–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1187–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lykken, D. T. (1968). Statistical significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Marticotte, F., & Arcand, M. (2017). Schadenfreude, attitude and the purchase intentions of a counterfeit luxury brand. Journal of Business Research, 77, 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Sikora, D., & Douglas, S. C. (2011). Perceptions of abusive supervision: The role of subordinates' attribution styles. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 751–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S120–S137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Koopman, J., & Conlon, D. E. (2015). Does seeing “eye to eye” affect work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior? A role theory perspective on LMX agreement. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1686–1708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Matta, F. K., & Van Dyne, L. (2018). Understanding the disparate behavioral consequences of LMX differentiation: The role of social comparison emotions. Academy of Management Review. Scholar
  61. McAllister, C. P., Mackey, J. D., & Perrewé, P. L. (2018). The role of self-regulation in the relationship between abusive supervision and job tension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(4), 416–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., & Folger, R. (2015). Third parties’ reactions to the abusive supervision of coworkers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1040–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Motro, D., Ordóñez, L. D., Pittarello, A., & Welsh, D. T. (2018). Investigating the effects of anger and guilt on unethical behavior: A dual-process approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(1), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. O’Doherty, J. P. (2004). Reward representations and reward-related learning in the human brain: Insights from neuroimaging. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14(6), 769–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Peng, A. C., Schaubroeck, J. M., & Li, Y. (2014). Social exchange implications of own and coworkers’ experiences of supervisory abuse. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1385–1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Priesemuth, M. (2013). Stand up and speak up: Employees’ prosocial reactions to observed abusive supervision. Business & Society, 52(4), 649–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Priesemuth, M., & Schminke, M. (2019). Helping thy neighbor? Prosocial reactions to observed abusive supervision in the workplace. Journal of Management, 45(3), 1225–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Qin, X., Huang, M., Johnson, R. E., Hu, Q., & Ju, D. (2018). The short-lived benefits of abusive supervisory behavior for actors: An investigation of recovery and work engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1951–1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rudolph, U., & Tscharaktschiew, N. (2014). An attributional analysis of moral emotions: Naïve scientists and everyday judges. Emotion Review, 6(4), 344–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Samnani, A.-K., & Singh, P. (2014). Performance-enhancing compensation practices and employee productivity: The role of workplace bullying. Human Resource Management Review, 24(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, 12, 10–24.Google Scholar
  75. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Shao, P., Li, A., & Mawritz, M. (2018). Self-protective reactions to peer abusive supervision: The moderating role of prevention focus and the mediating role of performance instrumentality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(1), 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: The roles of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 158–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Skarlicki, D. P., O’Reilly, J., & Kulik, C. T. (2015). The third party perspective of (in)justice. In R. Cropanzano & M. L. Ambrose (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 235–255). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Smith, R. H., Powell, C. A. J., Combs, D. J. Y., & Schurtz, D. R. (2009). Exploring the when and why of schadenfreude. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(4), 530–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Takahashi, H., Kato, M., Matsuura, M., Mobbs, D., Suhara, T., & Okubo, Y. (2009). When your gain is my pain and your pain is my gain: Neural correlates of envy and schadenfreude. Science, 323(5916), 937–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Staying engaged during the week: The effect of off-job activities on next day work engagement. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(4), 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190.Google Scholar
  84. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z. Y., & Hui, C. (2004). Team learning from mistakes: The contribution of cooperative goals and problem-solving. Journal of Management Studies, 41(7), 1223–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Ünal, A. F., Warren, D. E., & Chen, C. C. (2012). The normative foundations of unethical supervision in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Van Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (2011). Task type as a moderator of positive/negative feedback effects on motivation and performance: A regulatory focus perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(8), 1084–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Van Dijk, W. W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., Goslinga, S., Nieweg, M., & Gallucci, M. (2006). When people fall from grace: Reconsidering the role of envy in schadenfreude. Emotion, 6(1), 156–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Van Dijk, W. W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., Smith, R. H., & Cikara, M. (2015). The role of self-evaluation and envy in schadenfreude. European Review of Social Psychology, 26(1), 247–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K., & Manstead, A. S. (2004). The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations: A motivated information processing approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(4), 510–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Vogel, R. M., & Mitchell, M. S. (2017). The motivational effects of diminished self-esteem for employees who experience abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 43(7), 2218–2251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wang, H.-J., Lu, C.-Q., & Siu, O.-L. (2015). Job insecurity and job performance: The moderating role of organizational justice and the mediating role of work engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1249–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: Atheoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequencesof affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organization behavior: anannual series of analytical essays and critical reviews. Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  94. Wong, A., Tjosvold, D., & Yu, Z.-Y. (2005). Organizational partnerships in China: Self-interest, goal interdependence, and opportunism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 782–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Woolum, A., Foulk, T., Lanaj, K., & Erez, A. (2017). Rude color glasses: The contaminating effects of witnessed morning rudeness on perceptions and behaviors throughout the workday. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(12), 1658–1672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wu, L.-Z., Ferris, D. L., Kwan, H. K., Chiang, F., Snape, E., & Liang, L. H. (2015). Breaking (or making) the silence: How goal interdependence and social skill predict being ostracized. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 131, 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zhang, H., Kwan, H. K., Zhang, X., & Wu, L.-Z. (2014). High core self-evaluators maintain creativity: A motivational model of abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 40(4), 1151–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementXi’an Jiaotong UniversityXi’anChina
  2. 2.School of ManagementNorthwestern Polytechnical UniversityXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations