Compara mètodes

	Abusive Supervision Scale	Three-Component Model of Organizational Commitment
Camp	Comportament organitzatiu	Comportament organitzatiu
Família	Latent structure	Latent structure
Any d'origen	2000	1991
Autor original	Bennett J. Tepper	John P. Meyer & Natalie J. Allen
Tipus	Self-report perceptual scale of destructive leadership	Multidimensional attitudinal commitment model and scale
Font seminal	Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190.	Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.
Àlies	Tepper Abusive Supervision Scale, Abusive Supervision Measure, Supervisory Hostility Scale, Destructive Leadership (Abusive) Scale	TCM, Meyer-Allen Model, Affective-Continuance-Normative Commitment, Organizational Commitment Scale (Meyer & Allen)
Relacionats	3	3
Resum	The Abusive Supervision Scale measures subordinates' perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in sustained displays of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact. Bennett Tepper introduced both the construct and the scale in his 2000 Academy of Management Journal study, framing abusive supervision through justice theory and showing that subordinates who perceived more abuse were more likely to quit and, if they stayed, suffered lower satisfaction and commitment, greater work-family conflict, and more psychological distress. The scale captures abuse as a perceived, subjective phenomenon rather than as an objectively verified act, and treats it as a sustained pattern rather than an isolated incident. Tepper's 2007 Journal of Management review synthesized the rapidly growing literature into an integrative model of antecedents, consequences, and moderators. The measure has become the foundation of destructive-leadership research.	The Three-Component Model (TCM) of organizational commitment, developed by John Meyer and Natalie Allen, is the dominant framework for understanding why employees stay with and bind themselves to their organizations. Its central claim is that commitment is not one thing but three distinguishable psychological states: affective commitment (an emotional desire to stay — you want to), continuance commitment (the perceived cost of leaving — you need to), and normative commitment (a felt obligation — you ought to). Each is measured by its own subscale and arises from different antecedents, and although all three reduce turnover, they relate very differently to performance, citizenship, and well-being. Allen and Meyer's 1991 paper laid out the conceptualization, and Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky's 2002 meta-analysis confirmed that the components are distinguishable and have systematically different correlates and consequences.