A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations
反驳了构念泛滥损害研究可解释性的观点，认为多数构念标签（如欺凌、偏差、报复等）存在理论差异，但测量未能体现；同时指出当前更紧迫的问题是忽视了不端行为具体形式间的区别，并提出了改进建议。
Abstract Leading organizational behavior scholars have argued that construct proliferation threatens the interpretability of interpersonal mistreatment research and have argued that researchers should employ the same terminology to refer to constructs that have been studied under distinct labels (e.g., bullying, deviance, retaliation, abuse, undermining). We argue that most of the construct labels researchers regularly employ capture meaningful theoretical differences, although the corresponding measures often fail to capture the distinctive features of mistreatment constructs. We further argue that a more immediate threat to the interpretability of research in this area is that scholars have overlooked the distinctions among the individual forms of mistreatment that comprise extant operational definitions. We offer recommendations for addressing what we perceive to be the major limitations of current interpersonal mistreatment research. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.