ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
A meta-analysis of workplace exclusion on employee work behavior in the Chinese context.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- When managing the boss at a cost: perceived threat to hierarchy and supervisor ostracism.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Negative Legal Emotion and Prosocial Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model of Peer Attachment and Social Exclusion in a Chinese Undergraduate Sample.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Workplace ostracism in nursing: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Why do knowledge workers choose knowledge hiding: the mediating role of perceived stress.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study explores the impact of workplace exclusion on employee work behavior in the Chinese context. By employing the doctrine of the mean value orientation and self-consistency theory, the study aims to enhance the understanding of local workplace exclusion in China and its effects on employees' work behavior. Furthermore, the study investigates the moderating role of employee types, data collection points, and data sources. Our meta-analysis included 24,662 participants from 72 independent samples. The findings indicate that workplace exclusion significantly influences employees' positive work behavior negatively and their negative behavior positively. Moreover, the study identifies a moderating effect based on employee type (knowledge vs. non-knowledge type), revealing a stronger relationship between workplace exclusion and employee work behavior among knowledge employees. Examining the data collection point (cross-sectional vs. non-cross-sectional) as another moderating factor, the study demonstrates a stronger relationship between workplace exclusion and employee work behavior in the cross-sectional mode. Additionally, the data source (self-evaluation vs. superior evaluation plus self-evaluation) plays a moderating role, with employee self-evaluation strengthening the relationship between workplace exclusion and employee work behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.