What's Wrong with Exploitation?

abstract  This paper offers a new answer to an old question. Others have argued that exploitation is wrong because it is coercive, or degrading, or fails to protect the vulnerable. But these answers only work for certain cases; counter-examples are easily found. In this paper I identify a different answer to the question by placing exploitation within the larger family of wrongs to which it belongs. Exploitation is one species of wrongful gain, and exploiters always gain at the expense of others by inflicting relative losses on disadvantaged parties. They do harm to their victims, even when their interactions are mutually advantageous, by failing to benefit the disadvantaged party as fairness requires. This failure is the essential wrong in every case of wrongful exploitation. At the end of the paper I assess how wrong this failure is as a way to gain at another's expense.     

A TRICKLE‐DOWN MODEL OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISION

Much of the abusive supervision research has focused on the supervisor–subordinate dyad when examining the effects of abusive supervision on employee outcomes. Using data from a large multisource field study, we extend this research by testing a trickle‐down model of abusive supervision across 3 hierarchical levels (i.e., managers, supervisors, and employees). Drawing on social learning theory and social information processing theory, we find general support for the study hypotheses. Specifically, we find that abusive manager behavior is positively related to abusive supervisor behavior, which in turn is positively related to work group interpersonal deviance. In addition, hostile climate moderates the relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and work group interpersonal deviance such that the relationship is stronger when hostile climate is high. The results provide support for our trickle‐down model in that abusive manager behavior was not only related to abusive supervisor behavior but was also associated with employees’ behavior 2 hierarchical levels below the manager.     

Giving dyadic data analysis away: A user‐friendly app for actor–partner interdependence models

The actor–partner interdependence model (APIM) is widely used for analyzing dyadic data. Although dyadic research has become immensely popular, its statistical complexity can be a barrier. To remedy this, a free user‐friendly web application, called APIM_SEM, has been developed. This app automatically performs the statistical analyses (i.e., structural equation modeling) of both simple and complex APIMs. It allows the researcher to analyze distinguishable or indistinguishable dyads, to examine dyadic patterns, to estimate actor and partner effects of one or two predictors, and to control for covariates. Results are provided in software and text format, complemented by summary tables and figures. As an illustration, the effect of perception of the partner on satisfaction is assessed by fitting APIMs with varying complexity.     

Timeout: guidelines for its selection and use

This article focuses on the use of “timeout” as a classroom behavior modification technique, examining whether or not the counselor should suggest its use in a given situation and how to insure its maximal effectiveness once it has been chosen as an appropriate procedure. The authors present some questions to be considered when deciding whether or not to use timeout and give guidelines for its best use. The questions and guidelines are presented in a flow chart format in order to facilitate easy and quick use by practitioners.     

PLEKHANOV,LENIN AND WORKING-CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS

Studies in East European Thought - According to the prevailing scholarly view, made popular by Neil Harding, Lenin is said to have derived his well-known theory of working-class consciousness in...