{ "name": "職場の対立・コンフリクト・交渉・関係修復 研究メタデータ", "version": "0.1", "notice": "論文本文・尺度項目は含みません。各権利者の条件に従ってください。", "studies": [ { "id": "jehn-1995", "authors": "Jehn, K. A.", "year": 1995, "title": "A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict", "journal": "Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282", "doi": "10.2307/2393638", "type": "multimethod field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "職場集団", "sample": "複数職場集団", "method": "課題・関係対立と成果を定量・定性分析", "finding": "対立の種類と仕事特性で影響が異なると報告", "limitations": [ "観察研究", "古典的分類", "課題対立を常に有益としない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "jehn-1997", "authors": "Jehn, K. A.", "year": 1997, "title": "A Qualitative Analysis of Conflict Types and Dimensions in Organizational Groups", "journal": "Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530–557", "doi": "10.2307/2393737", "type": "qualitative field study", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "職場集団", "sample": "複数集団", "method": "対立内容・感情・規範等を質的分析", "finding": "課題・関係・過程対立の区別を発展", "limitations": [ "特定組織", "分類境界は重なる", "文化・仕事依存" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/2393737", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "simons-peterson-2000", "authors": "Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S.", "year": 2000, "title": "Task Conflict and Relationship Conflict in Top Management Teams", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102–111", "doi": "10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102", "type": "team field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "経営チーム", "sample": "職場チーム標本", "method": "信頼が課題対立と関係対立の結びつきをどう変えるか分析", "finding": "低信頼では課題対立が関係対立として受け取られやすい", "limitations": [ "経営チーム中心", "観察研究", "因果確定ではない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "de-dreu-weingart-2003", "authors": "De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R.", "year": 2003, "title": "Task versus Relationship Conflict, Team Performance, and Team Member Satisfaction", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749", "doi": "10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "チーム研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "課題・関係対立と業績・満足を統合", "finding": "両対立は平均して業績・満足と負に関連し、互いに強く相関", "limitations": [ "古い研究中心", "異質性", "課題対立の条件付き便益を否定し切らない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "de-wit-2012", "authors": "De Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A.", "year": 2012, "title": "The Paradox of Intragroup Conflict: A Meta-Analysis", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390", "doi": "10.1037/a0024844", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "集団内対立研究", "sample": "116独立標本等", "method": "対立種類、時期、仕事、測定等の条件を統合", "finding": "関係・過程対立は概して有害、課題対立の関係は条件依存", "limitations": [ "観察研究中心", "出版・測定差", "因果方向の制約" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024844", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "bradley-2012", "authors": "Bradley, B. H. et al.", "year": 2012, "title": "Reaping the Benefits of Task Conflict in Teams: The Critical Role of Team Psychological Safety Climate", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151–158", "doi": "10.1037/a0024200", "type": "team field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "チーム", "sample": "職場チーム標本", "method": "心理的安全性が課題対立と業績の関係を調整するか分析", "finding": "安全性が高い条件で課題対立の便益可能性を報告", "limitations": [ "観察研究", "単一調整モデル", "対立を意図的に増やす根拠ではない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024200", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "greer-2008", "authors": "Greer, L. L. et al.", "year": 2008, "title": "The Effects of Conflict Asymmetry on Work Group and Individual Outcomes", "journal": "Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 880–896", "doi": "10.5465/amj.2010.51468978", "type": "multilevel field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "職場集団", "sample": "複数チーム", "method": "成員間で対立認知が非対称な場合を分析", "finding": "同じチームでも対立の見え方が異なり結果に関係する", "limitations": [ "観察研究", "集約と個人認知を分ける" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.51468978", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "behfar-2008", "authors": "Behfar, K. J. et al.", "year": 2008, "title": "The Critical Role of Conflict Resolution in Teams", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 170–188", "doi": "10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.170", "type": "multimethod team study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "チーム", "sample": "複数チーム", "method": "対立管理パターンと成果を比較", "finding": "誰が正しいかより、明確なルール・公平・受容可能な割当等が機能と関係", "limitations": [ "観察・事例研究", "成功チームの後方視的説明" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.170", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "tjosvold-2008", "authors": "Tjosvold, D.", "year": 2008, "title": "The Conflict-Positive Organization: It Depends upon Us", "journal": "Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 19–28", "doi": "10.1002/job.473", "type": "integrative review", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織内対立", "sample": "主要研究", "method": "協力的目標と建設的論争の研究を整理", "finding": "相互依存目標が対立の扱いに関係すると整理", "limitations": [ "ナラティブレビュー", "規範的主張を含む", "権力濫用には直接適用しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1002/job.473", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "rahim-1983", "authors": "Rahim, M. A.", "year": 1983, "title": "A Measure of Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict", "journal": "Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368–376", "doi": "10.2307/255985", "type": "measure development", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織成員", "sample": "複数標本", "method": "自己・他者への関心から対立処理スタイルを測定", "finding": "統合、配慮、支配、回避、妥協の尺度を提示", "limitations": [ "自己報告", "固定人格分類にしない", "尺度権利を確認" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/255985", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "huffmeier-2014", "authors": "Hüffmeier, J. et al.", "year": 2014, "title": "Being Tough or Being Nice? A Meta-Analysis on the Impact of Hard- and Softline Strategies in Distributive Negotiations", "journal": "Journal of Management, 40(3), 866–892", "doi": "10.1177/0149206311423788", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "分配交渉研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "強硬・柔軟戦術と経済・社会心理的結果を統合", "finding": "戦術の効果は交渉結果の種類や条件で異なると報告", "limitations": [ "分配交渉中心", "実験研究が多い", "実職場・権力差への一般化" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311423788", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "mazei-2015", "authors": "Mazei, J. et al.", "year": 2015, "title": "A Meta-Analysis on Gender Differences in Negotiation Outcomes and Their Moderators", "journal": "Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 85–104", "doi": "10.1037/a0038184", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "交渉者", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "性別差と交渉条件を統合", "finding": "平均差は小さく、役割・情報・経験・交渉範囲等で変化", "limitations": [ "二元的性別分類中心", "構造・交差性を十分扱わない", "個人能力差としない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038184", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "bowles-2007", "authors": "Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & Lai, L.", "year": 2007, "title": "Social Incentives for Gender Differences in the Propensity to Initiate Negotiations", "journal": "Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 84–103", "doi": "10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.001", "type": "experimental studies", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "交渉参加者", "sample": "複数実験", "method": "交渉開始への社会的反応を検討", "finding": "女性の自己交渉に社会的ペナルティが生じる条件を報告", "limitations": [ "実験・米国文脈", "二元的性別", "交渉しない個人を責めない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.001", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "galinsky-2001", "authors": "Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T.", "year": 2001, "title": "First Offers as Anchors", "journal": "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657–669", "doi": "10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.657", "type": "laboratory experiments", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "交渉参加者", "sample": "複数実験", "method": "最初の提示とアンカリングを検討", "finding": "最初の提示が結果を引き寄せる効果を報告", "limitations": [ "実験中心", "倫理・関係・情報差を別途考慮" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.657", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "van-kleef-2004", "authors": "Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R.", "year": 2004, "title": "The Interpersonal Effects of Anger and Happiness in Negotiations", "journal": "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 57–76", "doi": "10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.57", "type": "laboratory experiments", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "交渉参加者", "sample": "複数実験", "method": "相手の怒り・幸福表出が譲歩へ与える影響を分析", "finding": "感情表出が相手の推論と行動に影響する条件を報告", "limitations": [ "実験中心", "怒りを戦術として推奨しない", "威圧・差別・文化差" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.57", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "thompson-1991", "authors": "Thompson, L.", "year": 1991, "title": "Information Exchange in Negotiation", "journal": "Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(2), 161–179", "doi": "10.1016/0022-1031(91)90020-7", "type": "laboratory experiments", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "交渉参加者", "sample": "実験標本", "method": "選好情報の交換と統合的合意を検討", "finding": "優先順位の情報交換が共同利益発見に寄与し得る", "limitations": [ "実験課題", "秘密情報・安全・権力差を別途考慮" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(91)90020-7", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "weingart-1990", "authors": "Weingart, L. R. et al.", "year": 1990, "title": "Tactical Behavior and Negotiation Outcomes", "journal": "International Journal of Conflict Management, 1(1), 7–31", "doi": "10.1108/eb022670", "type": "negotiation process study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "交渉参加者", "sample": "交渉標本", "method": "戦術行動と統合的結果の過程を符号化", "finding": "問題解決行動と情報交換の役割を報告", "limitations": [ "実験・符号化", "組織継続関係への一般化" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022670", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "curhan-2006", "authors": "Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., & Xu, H.", "year": 2006, "title": "What Do People Value When They Negotiate?", "journal": "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 493–512", "doi": "10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.493", "type": "measure development", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "交渉者", "sample": "複数標本", "method": "交渉の主観的価値尺度を開発", "finding": "経済結果だけでなく自己・過程・関係・道具的価値を区別", "limitations": [ "自己報告", "尺度権利", "文化差" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.493", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "elfenbein-2008", "authors": "Elfenbein, H. A. et al.", "year": 2008, "title": "Are Some Negotiators Better Than Others?", "journal": "Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1465–1475", "doi": "10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.010", "type": "individual differences study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "交渉参加者", "sample": "反復交渉標本", "method": "交渉成果の個人差安定性を分析", "finding": "一部の成果差に安定性があるが相手・課題との相互作用も大きい", "limitations": [ "実験・学生を含む", "能力の固定ラベルにしない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.010", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "wall-2001", "authors": "Wall, J. A., Stark, J. B., & Standifer, R. L.", "year": 2001, "title": "Mediation: A Current Review and Theory Development", "journal": "Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(3), 370–391", "doi": "10.1177/0022002701045003006", "type": "integrative review", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "調停・仲介研究", "sample": "主要文献", "method": "第三者仲介の行動・条件・結果を整理", "finding": "仲介は手続・文脈・当事者・第三者行動で変わると整理", "limitations": [ "分野横断で職場直接研究に限定されない", "研究設計の異質性" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002701045003006", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "pruitt-1993", "authors": "Pruitt, D. G. et al.", "year": 1993, "title": "Long-Term Success in Mediation", "journal": "Law and Human Behavior, 17(3), 313–330", "doi": "10.1007/BF01044513", "type": "longitudinal mediation study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "紛争当事者", "sample": "調停事例", "method": "合意と長期履行の予測因子を追跡", "finding": "合意形成と長期的な持続は同一でないことを示す", "limitations": [ "法・地域紛争中心", "職場への直接性限定" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044513", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "bingham-1997", "authors": "Bingham, L. B.", "year": 1997, "title": "Mediating Employment Disputes: Perceptions of REDRESS at the United States Postal Service", "journal": "Review of Public Personnel Administration, 17(3), 20–30", "doi": "10.1177/0734371X9701700302", "type": "program evaluation", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "雇用紛争当事者", "sample": "米国郵政の調停制度", "method": "雇用紛争調停の利用者認知を評価", "finding": "調停の公正・満足等を検討", "limitations": [ "単一大規模公的組織", "自己選択・自己報告", "法制度依存" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X9701700302", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "latreille-2012", "authors": "Latreille, P. L., Buscha, F., & Conte, A.", "year": 2012, "title": "Are You Experienced? SME Use of and Attitudes towards Workplace Mediation", "journal": "The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(3), 590–606", "doi": "10.1080/09585192.2012.641082", "type": "survey study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "英国の中小企業", "sample": "企業調査標本", "method": "中小企業の職場調停利用・態度を分析", "finding": "調停利用は組織規模、経験、制度能力等と関係することを報告", "limitations": [ "英国中小企業", "観察調査", "利用と効果を区別" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.641082", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "saundry-2013", "authors": "Saundry, R. et al.", "year": 2013, "title": "Reframing Resolution: Managing Conflict and Resolving Individual Employment Disputes in the Contemporary Workplace", "journal": "Acas Research Paper 01/13", "url": "https://www.acas.org.uk/research-and-commentary/reframing-resolution-managing-conflict-and-resolving-individual-employment-disputes", "type": "official workplace study", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "英国職場", "sample": "事例・実務調査", "method": "紛争の早期・非公式・公式解決の実態を検討", "finding": "現場管理、HR、代表、制度能力の相互作用を整理", "limitations": [ "英国制度", "事例研究", "非公式解決を強制しない" ], "source_url": "https://www.acas.org.uk/research-and-commentary/reframing-resolution-managing-conflict-and-resolving-individual-employment-disputes", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "andersson-pearson-1999", "authors": "Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M.", "year": 1999, "title": "Tit for Tat? The Spiraling Effect of Incivility in the Workplace", "journal": "Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471", "doi": "10.2307/259136", "type": "conceptual model", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "職場の無作法", "sample": "理論文献", "method": "低強度の無礼が相互作用で拡大するモデルを提示", "finding": "意図が曖昧な無礼も連鎖し得ると整理", "limitations": [ "概念論", "incivility概念で差別・暴力を薄めない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/259136", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "cortina-2001", "authors": "Cortina, L. M. et al.", "year": 2001, "title": "Incivility in the Workplace: Incidence and Impact", "journal": "Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64–80", "doi": "10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64", "type": "field survey", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "公的部門従業員", "sample": "大規模職域標本", "method": "無作法の経験、属性、仕事・健康結果を分析", "finding": "無作法が広く経験され、満足・離職・健康等と関連", "limitations": [ "横断自己報告", "単一組織群", "意図を確定しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "porath-erez-2007", "authors": "Porath, C. L., & Erez, A.", "year": 2007, "title": "Does Rudeness Really Matter?", "journal": "Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1181–1197", "doi": "10.5465/amj.2007.20159919", "type": "laboratory experiments", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "実験参加者", "sample": "複数実験", "method": "無礼を受ける・目撃することと課題成果を検討", "finding": "無礼が認知資源・業績・創造性を損なう可能性を報告", "limitations": [ "実験中心", "短期課題", "実職場の権力・反復性" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159919", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "hershcovis-2007", "authors": "Hershcovis, M. S. et al.", "year": 2007, "title": "Predicting Workplace Aggression: A Meta-Analysis", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228–238", "doi": "10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "職場攻撃研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "個人・状況要因と攻撃行動を統合", "finding": "不公正、対人葛藤、制約等の関連を整理", "limitations": [ "自己報告・横断研究が多い", "被害者非難に使わない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "hershcovis-barling-2010", "authors": "Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J.", "year": 2010, "title": "Towards a Multi-Foci Approach to Workplace Aggression", "journal": "Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1), 24–44", "doi": "10.1002/job.621", "type": "meta-analytic comparison", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "職場攻撃研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "上司・同僚・部下等の加害主体別に結果を比較", "finding": "同じ行為でも権力・主体により影響が異なり得る", "limitations": [ "研究の異質性", "相関研究中心" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1002/job.621", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "nielsen-einarsen-2012", "authors": "Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S.", "year": 2012, "title": "Outcomes of Exposure to Workplace Bullying: A Meta-Analytic Review", "journal": "Work & Stress, 26(4), 309–332", "doi": "10.1080/02678373.2012.734709", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "職場いじめ研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "いじめ曝露と健康・態度・行動結果を統合", "finding": "いじめ曝露は精神健康、身体症状、満足、離職意向等と関連", "limitations": [ "自己報告・観察研究中心", "診断ではない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.734709", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "verkuil-2015", "authors": "Verkuil, B., Atasayi, S., & Molendijk, M. L.", "year": 2015, "title": "Workplace Bullying and Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis on Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data", "journal": "PLOS ONE, 10(8), e0135225", "doi": "10.1371/journal.pone.0135225", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "職場いじめ研究", "sample": "横断・縦断研究群", "method": "いじめと抑うつ・不安・ストレス等を統合", "finding": "縦断でも双方向関連を含む精神健康との関連を報告", "limitations": [ "自己報告", "因果方向が複雑", "医療診断ではない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135225", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "willness-2007", "authors": "Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee, K.", "year": 2007, "title": "A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents and Consequences of Workplace Sexual Harassment", "journal": "Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 127–162", "doi": "10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00067.x", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "職場セクシュアルハラスメント研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "組織風土、経験、仕事・健康結果を統合", "finding": "寛容な組織風土等と経験、健康・態度の不良が関連", "limitations": [ "自己報告・観察研究中心", "法的定義・属性の多様性を別途確認" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00067.x", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "escartin-2016", "authors": "Escartín, J.", "year": 2016, "title": "Insights into Workplace Bullying: Psychosocial Drivers and Effective Interventions", "journal": "Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 9, 157–169", "doi": "10.2147/PRBM.S91211", "type": "narrative review", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "職場いじめ", "sample": "主要研究", "method": "原因・介入・予防を整理", "finding": "個人・チーム・組織レベルの多層予防が必要と整理", "limitations": [ "ナラティブレビュー", "介入比較試験が限定" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S91211", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "morrison-2014", "authors": "Morrison, E. W.", "year": 2014, "title": "Employee Voice and Silence", "journal": "Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173–197", "doi": "10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328", "type": "annual review", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "従業員の発言・沈黙", "sample": "主要研究", "method": "発言・沈黙の動機、対象、結果を統合", "finding": "沈黙は同意ではなく、恐れ・無力感・関係保護等から生じ得る", "limitations": [ "ナラティブレビュー", "発言を常に安全・有益としない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "detert-edmondson-2011", "authors": "Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C.", "year": 2011, "title": "Implicit Voice Theories", "journal": "Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461–488", "doi": "10.5465/amj.2011.61967925", "type": "multimethod field study", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "従業員", "sample": "複数研究", "method": "上司へ発言しない暗黙の信念を検討", "finding": "権威へ異議を言わない等の共有信念が発言を抑える可能性", "limitations": [ "自己報告・米国中心", "暗黙理論を個人欠陥にしない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61967925", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "burris-2012", "authors": "Burris, E. R.", "year": 2012, "title": "The Risks and Rewards of Speaking Up", "journal": "Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851–875", "doi": "10.5465/amj.2010.0562", "type": "field studies", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "従業員・管理職", "sample": "複数職域研究", "method": "支持的・挑戦的発言への管理職評価を分析", "finding": "挑戦的発言者が価値をもたらしても不利益評価を受け得る", "limitations": [ "観察研究", "発言内容・関係・文化依存" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0562", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "kish-gephart-2009", "authors": "Kish-Gephart, J. J. et al.", "year": 2009, "title": "Silenced by Fear: The Nature, Sources, and Consequences of Fear at Work", "journal": "Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 163–193", "doi": "10.1016/j.riob.2009.07.002", "type": "integrative review", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "職場の恐れ・沈黙", "sample": "主要研究", "method": "恐れの源泉と個人・組織結果を整理", "finding": "権力・不確実性・過去の処遇が沈黙を支えると整理", "limitations": [ "ナラティブレビュー", "恐れの測定・文化差" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2009.07.002", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "miceli-2008", "authors": "Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M.", "year": 2008, "title": "Whistle-Blowing in Organizations", "journal": "Routledge", "url": "https://www.routledge.com/Whistle-Blowing-in-Organizations/Miceli-Near-Dworkin/p/book/9780415967266", "type": "research monograph", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "公益通報・不正報告", "sample": "研究蓄積", "method": "通報決定、組織反応、報復等を統合", "finding": "通報を通常の対人葛藤と分け、報復防止の必要を整理", "limitations": [ "書籍", "法制度は更新確認", "事案・証拠保全を重視" ], "source_url": "https://www.routledge.com/Whistle-Blowing-in-Organizations/Miceli-Near-Dworkin/p/book/9780415967266", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "kim-2004", "authors": "Kim, P. H. et al.", "year": 2004, "title": "Removing the Shadow of Suspicion: The Effects of Apology versus Denial for Repairing Competence- versus Integrity-Based Trust Violations", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 104–118", "doi": "10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.104", "type": "laboratory experiments", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "信頼違反を評価する参加者", "sample": "複数実験", "method": "謝罪・否認と能力・誠実性違反の組合せを検討", "finding": "修復反応は違反の種類と対応で異なることを示す", "limitations": [ "実験シナリオ", "実際の被害・法的責任へ単純適用しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.104", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "dirks-2009", "authors": "Dirks, K. T., Lewicki, R. J., & Zaheer, A.", "year": 2009, "title": "Repairing Relationships within and between Organizations", "journal": "Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 68–84", "doi": "10.5465/amr.2009.35713285", "type": "integrative framework", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織内外関係", "sample": "理論・研究", "method": "交換、否定的感情、アイデンティティから修復を整理", "finding": "言葉だけでなく構造・行動・時間を含む修復枠組みを提示", "limitations": [ "概念統合", "介入効果は手段ごとに異なる" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.35713285", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "tomlinson-mayer-2009", "authors": "Tomlinson, E. C., & Mayer, R. C.", "year": 2009, "title": "The Role of Causal Attribution Dimensions in Trust Repair", "journal": "Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 85–104", "doi": "10.5465/amr.2009.35713291", "type": "conceptual model", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "信頼修復", "sample": "理論文献", "method": "原因帰属と謝罪・説明・再発防止の関係を理論化", "finding": "修復は責任、統制可能性、安定性の判断と関係すると整理", "limitations": [ "概念モデル", "被害者に信頼回復義務を課さない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.35713291", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "lewicki-brinsfield-2017", "authors": "Lewicki, R. J., & Brinsfield, C.", "year": 2017, "title": "Trust Repair", "journal": "Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 287–313", "doi": "10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113147", "type": "annual review", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "信頼違反・修復", "sample": "主要研究", "method": "謝罪、補償、否認、構造改革等を統合", "finding": "修復可能性は違反、関係、対応、時間で変わる", "limitations": [ "実験研究が多い", "赦し・和解・再契約を区別" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113147", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "fehr-2010", "authors": "Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M.", "year": 2010, "title": "The Road to Forgiveness: A Meta-Analytic Synthesis of Its Situational and Dispositional Correlates", "journal": "Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 894–914", "doi": "10.1037/a0019993", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "対人違反・赦し研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "謝罪、共感、関係、性向等と赦しを統合", "finding": "謝罪等は赦しと関連するが、赦しは自動・義務ではない", "limitations": [ "職場直接研究に限定されない", "自己報告・相関研究", "赦しを強制しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019993", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "wenzel-2008", "authors": "Wenzel, M. et al.", "year": 2008, "title": "Retributive and Restorative Justice", "journal": "Law and Human Behavior, 32, 375–389", "doi": "10.1007/s10979-007-9116-6", "type": "theoretical and experimental review", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "違反後の正義反応", "sample": "理論・実験研究", "method": "応報と修復の心理的機能を比較", "finding": "価値確認、地位、関係修復など異なる必要を整理", "limitations": [ "法・社会心理中心", "職場制度へ直接移植しない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9116-6", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "okimoto-wenzel-2009", "authors": "Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M.", "year": 2009, "title": "Punishment as Restoration of Group and Offender Values Following a Transgression: Value Consensus through Symbolic Labelling and Offender Reform", "journal": "European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(3), 346–367", "doi": "10.1002/ejsp.537", "type": "experimental studies", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "違反判断参加者", "sample": "実験研究", "method": "制裁の象徴的・修復的意味を検討", "finding": "制裁と修復は単純な二者択一ではない可能性を示す", "limitations": [ "実験中心", "職場の具体的安全・法的義務は別途" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.537", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "shnabel-nadler-2008", "authors": "Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A.", "year": 2008, "title": "A Needs-Based Model of Reconciliation", "journal": "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 116–132", "doi": "10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116", "type": "experimental studies", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "被害・加害の集団間関係", "sample": "複数実験", "method": "被害側の力・地位、加害側の道徳的受容の必要を検討", "finding": "立場により修復に必要な承認が異なる可能性を示す", "limitations": [ "集団間実験", "職場直接性限定", "二者役割の固定化に注意" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "colquitt-scale-2001", "authors": "Colquitt, J. A.", "year": 2001, "title": "On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400", "doi": "10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386", "type": "measure validation", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "従業員・学生", "sample": "複数研究", "method": "分配・手続・対人・情報公正の4次元を検証", "finding": "紛争対応でも結果・手続・扱い・説明を分ける基盤", "limitations": [ "尺度項目は再配布しない", "法的適法性と同一でない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "colquitt-meta-2001", "authors": "Colquitt, J. A. et al.", "year": 2001, "title": "Justice at the Millennium: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research", "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445", "doi": "10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織的公正研究", "sample": "183研究等", "method": "公正次元と態度・行動を統合", "finding": "各公正次元は関連しつつ異なる結果と関係", "limitations": [ "相関研究中心", "紛争解決施策の直接効果ではない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "greenberg-1993", "authors": "Greenberg, J.", "year": 1993, "title": "Stealing in the Name of Justice", "journal": "Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(1), 81–103", "doi": "10.1006/obhd.1993.1004", "type": "field quasi-experiment", "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "賃金削減を経験する工場従業員", "sample": "複数工場", "method": "説明・対人扱いと窃盗率を比較", "finding": "十分な説明・扱いが反応と関係したが実質的不利益を正当化しない", "limitations": [ "古典的準実験", "単一企業", "説明で賃金削減の正当性は決まらない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1004", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "tyler-blader-2003", "authors": "Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L.", "year": 2003, "title": "The Group Engagement Model", "journal": "Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361", "doi": "10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07", "type": "integrative theory", "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "集団成員", "sample": "理論・研究", "method": "手続、公正、尊重、同一視、協力を統合", "finding": "手続と扱いが所属・地位の情報を伝えると整理", "limitations": [ "理論統合", "協力を忠誠義務にしない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "rupp-2014", "authors": "Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Jones, K. S., & Liao, H.", "year": 2014, "title": "The Utility of a Multifoci Approach to the Study of Organizational Justice", "journal": "Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 159–185", "doi": "10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.10.011", "type": "meta-analysis", "evidence_role": "統合研究", "status": "peer-reviewed", "population": "組織的公正研究", "sample": "統合研究群", "method": "公正の規範・主体・対象と結果をメタ分析", "finding": "公正判断の主体・焦点を分ける有用性を示す", "limitations": [ "相関研究中心", "紛争対応施策の直接効果ではない" ], "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.10.011", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "ilo-c190", "authors": "International Labour Organization", "year": 2019, "title": "Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190)", "journal": "ILO NORMLEX", "url": "https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C190", "type": "international labour convention", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "批准国の仕事の世界", "sample": "規範文書", "method": "暴力・ハラスメントのない仕事の世界への権利と予防・保護・救済を規定", "finding": "職場外・通信・通勤等を含む仕事の世界を広く捉える", "limitations": [ "批准・国内実施を確認", "個別法的助言ではない" ], "source_url": "https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C190", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "ilo-r206", "authors": "International Labour Organization", "year": 2019, "title": "Violence and Harassment Recommendation, 2019 (No. 206)", "journal": "ILO NORMLEX", "url": "https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:R206", "type": "international recommendation", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "暴力・ハラスメント対策", "sample": "規範文書", "method": "リスク評価、方針、相談、救済、訓練、家庭内暴力影響等を補足", "finding": "予防から救済までの制度設計を具体化", "limitations": [ "勧告であり条約・国内法と地位が異なる" ], "source_url": "https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:R206", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "ilo-c154", "authors": "International Labour Organization", "year": 1981, "title": "Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154)", "journal": "ILO NORMLEX", "url": "https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C154", "type": "international labour convention", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "批准国の団体交渉", "sample": "規範文書", "method": "自発的な団体交渉の促進を規定", "finding": "個人間交渉と労使の集団交渉を区別する基盤", "limitations": [ "批准・国内制度を確認", "個人交渉へ還元しない" ], "source_url": "https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C154", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "ilo-c98", "authors": "International Labour Organization", "year": 1949, "title": "Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98)", "journal": "ILO NORMLEX", "url": "https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C098", "type": "international labour convention", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "批准国の労働者・使用者", "sample": "規範文書", "method": "反組合差別からの保護と団体交渉促進を規定", "finding": "労組活動を通常の人間関係問題や不忠誠と扱わない最低線", "limitations": [ "批准・適用除外・国内制度を確認" ], "source_url": "https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C098", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "ilo-c135", "authors": "International Labour Organization", "year": 1971, "title": "Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135)", "journal": "ILO NORMLEX", "url": "https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C135", "type": "international labour convention", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "批准国の労働者代表", "sample": "規範文書", "method": "代表活動を理由とする不利益からの保護と便宜を規定", "finding": "代表・相談担当者の独立性と報復防止の基盤", "limitations": [ "批准・国内実施を確認" ], "source_url": "https://normlex.ilo.org/dyn/nrmlx_en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C135", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "japan-individual-disputes", "authors": "日本国", "year": 2001, "title": "個別労働関係紛争の解決の促進に関する法律（平成十三年法律第百十二号）", "journal": "e-Gov法令検索", "url": "https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=413AC0000000112", "type": "Japanese statute", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "日本の個別労働関係紛争", "sample": "法令", "method": "都道府県労働局の情報提供・相談、助言・指導、あっせん等を規定", "finding": "社内経路以外の公的な個別紛争解決制度を示す", "limitations": [ "適用除外・手続・時効等を確認", "個別法的助言ではない" ], "source_url": "https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=413AC0000000112", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "japan-labor-adjustment", "authors": "日本国", "year": 1946, "title": "労働関係調整法（昭和二十一年法律第二十五号）", "journal": "e-Gov法令検索", "url": "https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=321AC0000000025", "type": "Japanese statute", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "日本の労働関係当事者", "sample": "法令", "method": "労働争議のあっせん・調停・仲裁等を規定", "finding": "集団的労使紛争の公的調整枠組みを示す", "limitations": [ "個別紛争制度と区別", "現行手続を確認" ], "source_url": "https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=321AC0000000025", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "japan-labor-policy", "authors": "日本国", "year": 1966, "title": "労働施策の総合的な推進並びに労働者の雇用の安定及び職業生活の充実等に関する法律", "journal": "e-Gov法令検索", "url": "https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=341AC0000000132", "type": "Japanese statute", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "日本の労働者・事業主", "sample": "法令", "method": "職場における優越的関係を背景とした言動への雇用管理上の措置等を規定", "finding": "パワーハラスメント対策の国内法的枠組みを示す", "limitations": [ "指針・判例・個別事実を確認", "単なる厳しい指導との線引きを一般化しない" ], "source_url": "https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=341AC0000000132", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "japan-equal-opportunity", "authors": "日本国", "year": 1972, "title": "雇用の分野における男女の均等な機会及び待遇の確保等に関する法律", "journal": "e-Gov法令検索", "url": "https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=347AC0000000113", "type": "Japanese statute", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "日本の雇用", "sample": "法令", "method": "性差別、セクシュアルハラスメント、妊娠・出産等に関する措置・不利益取扱い等を規定", "finding": "性別・妊娠・セクハラを通常の対人葛藤へ矮小化しない基盤", "limitations": [ "現行指針・適用・救済を確認" ], "source_url": "https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=347AC0000000113", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "japan-whistleblower", "authors": "日本国", "year": 2004, "title": "公益通報者保護法（平成十六年法律第百二十二号）", "journal": "e-Gov法令検索", "url": "https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=416AC0000000122", "type": "Japanese statute", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "日本の公益通報者・事業者等", "sample": "法令", "method": "公益通報を理由とする解雇無効・不利益取扱い禁止、体制整備等を規定", "finding": "不正報告を通常の意見対立・守秘違反だけで処理しない基盤", "limitations": [ "対象事実・通報先・要件・改正を確認" ], "source_url": "https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=416AC0000000122", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "mhlw-harassment-guidance", "authors": "厚生労働省", "year": 2026, "title": "職場におけるハラスメントの防止のために", "journal": "厚生労働省", "url": "https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/koyou_roudou/koyoukintou/seisaku06/index.html", "type": "official guidance portal", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "日本の事業主・労働者", "sample": "行政案内・指針", "method": "パワハラ、セクハラ、妊娠・出産等ハラスメントの指針・相談等を案内", "finding": "国内の防止措置・相談対応を原典へ接続", "limitations": [ "ページ更新・指針改正を確認", "個別該当性は専門窓口へ" ], "source_url": "https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/koyou_roudou/koyoukintou/seisaku06/index.html", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" }, { "id": "acas-code-2015", "authors": "Acas", "year": 2015, "title": "Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures", "journal": "Acas", "url": "https://www.acas.org.uk/acas-code-of-practice-on-disciplinary-and-grievance-procedures", "type": "official code of practice", "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度", "status": "official", "population": "英国の懲戒・苦情手続", "sample": "実務コード", "method": "迅速、一貫、調査、通知、同伴、異議等の基本を提示", "finding": "公式手続でも公正・説明・再審が必要と示す", "limitations": [ "英国法・制度", "日本へ直接適用しない", "最新版を確認" ], "source_url": "https://www.acas.org.uk/acas-code-of-practice-on-disciplinary-and-grievance-procedures", "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12" } ] }