Publications Database

Welcome to the new Schulich Peer-Reviewed Publication Database!

The database is currently in beta-testing and will be updated with more features as time goes on. In the meantime, stakeholders are free to explore our faculty’s numerous works. The left-hand panel affords the ability to search by the following:

  • Faculty Member’s Name;
  • Area of Expertise;
  • Whether the Publication is Open-Access (free for public download);
  • Journal Name; and
  • Date Range.

At present, the database covers publications from 2012 to 2020, but will extend further back in the future. In addition to listing publications, the database includes two types of impact metrics: Altmetrics and Plum. The database will be updated annually with most recent publications from our faculty.

If you have any questions or input, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.


Search Results

Claartje, L., Johns, G., Lieke, L., Lyons, B., Ten, B. and Ter, H. (2016). "Why and When Do Employees Imitate the Absenteeism of Peers?", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 134, 16-30.

View Paper

Abstract We aimed to shed light on the reason why individual employees adjust their absence levels to their co-workers’ absence behavior and under what conditions imitation is most likely by integrating social learning theory and social exchange theory. In Study 1, a vignette study among 299 employees, we found that respondents were more likely to call in sick when coworkers were often absent because respondents had more tolerant absence norms and more economic as opposed to cooperative exchange norms. This study also showed that employees strongly disapproved of absence and had stronger cooperative exchange norms when they worked in highly cohesive and task interdependent teams. In Study 2, a field study in 97 teams, we found that coworker absence was less strongly imitated under conditions of high cohesiveness and task interdependency. Our findings suggest that employee behavior is not only influenced by team norms about acceptable absence levels, but also by norms on what level of cooperation is expected. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

Lyons, B, and Scott, B.A. (2012). "Integrating Social Exchange and Emotion Centered Explanations for the Receipt of Help and Harm: A Social Network Approach", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 66-79.

Open Access Download

Abstract We integrated theories of social exchange and emotion to explain the receipt of interpersonal citizenship (help) and counterproductive behaviors (harm). Using social network methodology, data on a total of 534 relationships were obtained from three samples of employees working for a food services organization. Results were consistent across all three samples. Employees received help and harm from coworkers toward whom they engaged in those behaviors, as well as from coworkers in whom they elicited positive and negative affective states, respectively. Additionally, affective states predicted the receipt of help and harm controlling for engagement, suggesting a means by which social exchanges may become imbalanced. Overall, findings demonstrate the validity of social exchange and affective explanations for the receipt of help and harm in the workplace.

Jones, K., Liao, H. Rupp, D.E. and Shao, R.. "The Utility of a Multifoci Approach to the Study of Organizational Justice: A Meta-analytic Investigation into the Consideration of Normative Rules, Moral Accountability, Bandwidth-fidelity, and Social Exchange", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 159-185.

View Paper

Abstract Multifoci justice pulls from research on social exchange theory to argue that despite the proliferation of rule sets in the literature (often referred to as the “types” of justice), individuals seek to hold some party accountable for the violation/upholding of such rules, and it is these parties (e.g., supervisors, the organization as a whole) that are most likely to be the recipients of attitudes and behaviors (i.e., target similarity effects). To explore these issues, we meta-analytically (k = 647, N = 235,682) compared the predictive validities of source- vs. type-based justice perceptions and found that (a) multifoci justice perceptions more strongly predicted outcomes directed at matched sources than did type-based justice perceptions, (b) multifoci justice perceptions more strongly predicted target similar than dissimilar outcomes, and (c) the relationships between multifoci justice perceptions and target similar outcomes were mediated by source-specific social exchange.