Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Leadermember exchange (LMX) theory is rooted in the principle that leaders differentiate between their followers (Liden & Graen, 1980). That is
leaders establish high-quality relationships with a few and lower-quality relationships with the rest. Within a group each leaderfollower dyad is therefore
characterized by a unique quality of exchange such that the entire group covers the continuum from low-quality relationships limited to the terms of the
employment contract to high-quality relationships characterized by affect and mutual influence (Gerstner & Day, 1997). It has been suggested by some
LMX scholars that this differentiation allows leaders to make effective use of their time and limited resources (Henderson, Liden, Glibkowski, & Chaudhry,
2009; Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2006).
LMX is a unique theory of leadership in that in contrast to other theories it does not assume followers are passive recipients of leadership. LMX theory
proposes that the relationship between a leader and a follower develops over three stages: role making, role taking, and role routinization (Bauer &
Green, 1996). Both the leader and the follower actively shape the tenor of this relationship. At the beginning the leader assigns a role to the follower,
which he or she chooses to accept or reject (i.e., complete the task well or not). Over a few repeated exchanges both parties adjust their expectations
and the relationship quality starts to mature. This entire process happens within the first few days of interactions between a leader and a follower. Highquality exchanges develop with followers who fulfill their assigned roles. The LMX literature attests to the broad array of rewards associated with a highquality relationship. Followers benefit through enhanced negotiation latitude, trust, respect, autonomy, challenging assignments, and satisfaction with
job and manager, whereas the organization benefits through enhanced positive attitudes and behaviors such as organizational commitment,
performance, and citizenship behaviors (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012).
Considering this process in the context of the workgroup, leaders assign challenging tasks to high LMX members because they are more likely to fulfill
those duties (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). Low LMX members, on the other hand, get more mundane tasks because that is what is expected from
them. Differentiation thus may allow leaders to be more effective. Workgroup members are quite aware of the differences in LMX status (Duchon, Graen,
& Taber, 1986) and therefore differentiation has significant effects on group dynamics and outcomes for both individual members and the group as a
whole.
Page 1 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
Though LMX theory has received continued attention from scholars for over 40 years, the bulk of this research has focused on individual followers
outcomes as if the relationship exists in a vacuum. Leadership scholars have noted this omission (e.g., Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997) and now
there is growing interest in understanding differentiation to explain outcomes of LMX for the individual followers and for the entire group. In this chapter,
we review developments in LMX differentiation research since 1995, when the first influential qualitative study by Sias and Jablin appeared. Our review
is based on studies cited in social sciences indexes since 1995. Our database searches between 1995 and 2014 showed 31 empirical and conceptual
studies with an explicit focus on differentiation in LMX. We do not include any conference papers or unpublished manuscripts. Our review begins with a
detailed discussion of primary theoretical perspectives used by scholars to understand differentiation. We focus on three theories: social comparison
theory, relative deprivation theory, and organizational justice theory. Then we provide a detailed review of empirical studies exploring the various
facets of differentiation. We conclude with a discussion of weaknesses in LMX differentiation research and make recommendations for future
researchers. Figure 1 depicts the antecedents and consequences of LMX differentiation, and Figure 2 represents moderating effects of LMX
differentiation.
Page 2 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
that outcomes of relative deprivation may partly depend on employees hopefulness or frustration regarding how their LMX status may change in the
future. Finally, the overlap of relative deprivation theory with social comparison theory and organizational justice theory (described next) is noteworthy.
Relative deprivation theory (Crosby, 1976; Martin, 1981; Walker & Smith, 2002) employed in LMX differentiation suggests that members compare their
own LMX with those their referents have (i.e., social comparison) and they perceive that their LMX is less than they could or should have (i.e., equity
theory). For example, many low LMX members are likely to perceive LMX differentiation as unfair (Lee, 2001; Sias & Jablin, 1995; Vecchio, Griffeth, &
Hom, 1986). Similarly, Erdogan and Bauer (2010) extended relative deprivation theory to reason that the relationships between LMX differentiation and
employee outcomes are dependent on the justice climate of the workgroup. Despite the similarities and overlaps between relative deprivation theory
and theories of organizational justice and social comparison (Festinger, 1954; Greenberg, 1987), relative deprivation theory remains more suited to
examine perspectives of low LMX members (Bolino & Turnley, 2009).
Within-group variance in LMX quality, also a measure of group LMX differentiation, is an indicator of dispersion or distribution in LMX in the workgroup.
This variance in LMX is an indicator of equity such that high variance suggests greater equity in the allocation of LMX resources because more
deserving members develop high LMX relationships and unworthy members are relegated to low LMX relationships. On the other hand, low variance in
LMX serves the purpose of equality because most members have nearly the same level of LMX. Although this duality may be adequate to explain LMX
differentiation outcomes at the individual level, the average or median level of LMX is needed as an additional variable for theorizing group-level
relationships. Within-group median LMX (Liden et al., 2006) is an indicator of the average level of LMX in a workgroup. Median and variance are distinct
and both are essential to making group-level predictions. This is because even though differentiation in allocating time and energy and in economic and
social resources is an effective approach at the individual level, this approach can lead to unintended consequences at the group level as it may defy
the sense of equality. Figure 3 shows a conceptual mapping of high and low dispersion and group median LMX and their likely cognition at the group
level. Indeed, Le Blanc and Gonzalez-Roma (2012) showed that the relationships between LMX differentiation and team outcomes are moderated by
median LMX quality. Similarly, Erdogan and Bauer (2010) showed that justice climate buffered the relationship between LMX differentiation and
outcomes such that differentiation led to negative outcomes when justice climate was low. Scandura (1999) asserted that LMX differentiation leading to
the formation of ingroups and outgroups has implications for organizational justice, and Han and Bai (2012) provided empirical evidence of this effect.
Page 3 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
As a result, interest has grown among LMX researchers in exploring differentiation and understanding how it shapes outcomes for both the individual
and the group. LMX differentiation has been studied in three distinct ways. First, differentiation is a within-group dispersion construct, so a number of
scholars have operationalized it at the group level by assessing actual variability in LMX quality across workgroups (e.g., Liden et al., 2006). Several
others have operationalized it at the individual level by seeking individual followers perceptions of within-group variability (e.g., Van Breukelen, Konst,
& Van Der Vlist, 2002). More recently, scholars have also explored LMX differentiation at the individual within-group level or meso level (Yammarino,
Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau, 2005) to assess individuals relative LMX standing and its consequences (e.g., Henderson et al., 2008). In the following
sections we discuss findings from these three streams of LMX differentiation research.
Page 4 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
equally to all employees; those low on negative affectivity are more likely to respond to positive evaluations of RLMX. Contingency approach was also
employed by Epitropaki and Martin (2013) to explore the effect of RLMX on the relationship between leadership and employee upward influence tactics
in the context of perceived organizational support (POS)another harbinger of organizational resources parallel to LMX. They found positive
associations between transformational leadership and soft influence tactics (e.g., ingratiation), whereas transactional leadership was positively related
to the use of both soft and hard (e.g., assertiveness) influence tactics. Furthermore, employees perceive their environment to be resource constrained
when both RLMX and POS are low, whereas high RLMX and high POS create perceptions of resource munificence. Under resource constrained rather
than munificent conditions employees are more likely to use a higher degree of soft influence tactics with transformational managers and both soft and
hard tactics with transactional managers. These findings demonstrate the contextual effects of exchange relationships in that employees are motivated
by the quality of relationships to choose appropriate influence tactics.
Harris et al. (2014) explored LMXRS concomitant with group-level LMX differentiation, because both represent related yet independent differentiated
leadership constructs that are part of the team context and provide fairness cues needed for group members identity assessments. They found that
employees engage in their groups only in the presence of high individual LMX and low differentiation (LMX differentiation and LMXRS), possibly because
a high degree of differentiation undermines their perceptions of fairness and takes away from the positive effects of high-quality LMX.
In summary, studies of differentiation at the individual within-group level had in general positive outcomes for the individuals (see Harris et al., 2014, for
an exception). Various aspects of the group context set boundaries for these effects. These findings closely follow those from LMX research. There is a
strong need for consensus on operationalization of RLMX and analytical methods before firm conclusions can be made.
Page 5 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
differentiation may have positive effects in groups characterized by high justice climate; however, a lack of justice is likely to invoke negative effects of
LMX differentiation.
Liao, Liu, and Loi (2010) investigated how two dominant forms of social exchange in organizations, namely LMX and team member exchange (TMX),
function in each others presence. Drawing on social cognitive theory and social comparison theory, they developed a cross-level contingent process
model to explain the independent effects of LMX and TMX on employee creativity through self-efficacy. Using data gathered from steel manufacturing
technicians at three different time points they found that both LMX and TMX had unique positive effects on employee self-efficacy, which in turn led to
higher creativity. Furthermore, these indirect effects of LMX and TMX on employee creativity were moderated by LMX and TMX differentiation,
respectively. LMX was positively related to self-efficacy and creativity only when LMX differentiation was low. On the other hand, TMX was positively
related to self-efficacy and creativity only when TMX differentiation was high. These findings show that LMX is not the only source of social exchange in
workgroups; co-workers are another important party to social exchange. These two sources complement each other to provide resources and
motivation for promoting self-efficacy beliefs and creativity. Furthermore, differentiation in LMX and differentiation in TMX work in opposite ways. This is
because TMX is a horizontal exchange that provides socioemotional support, but LMX, being a vertical exchange, also involves economic resources.
High LMX differentiation involving a favorable distribution of economic resources to a chosen few may create perceptions of unfairness and thus
undermine the linkage between LMX and creativity.
Taking a different approach, Ma and Qu (2010) turned their attention to antecedents of LMX differentiation. They argued that leaders individual
differences influence the development of LMX and thus the extent of LMX differentiation in a workgroup. They found a negative relationship between
leaders personal universalistic values (i.e., adherence to rule-based decision making without considering context or social relationships) and LMX
differentiation. Next, they tested LMX scholars (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1997) argument that leaders ratings reflect both objective performance and the
closeness of their relationships to the followers. After controlling for objective performance, LMX indeed inflated leaders subjective performance
evaluations of the followers. In addition, this relationship was strengthened by LMX differentiation. In other words, in high LMX differentiation groups
ingroup and outgroup distinction becomes prominent and leaders favor ingroup followers to a larger degree to evaluate their performance more
positively.
Finally, Gooty and Yammarino (2014) drew on shared reality theory to define a new construct, dyadic dispersion LMX, which refers to the degree to
which leaders and followers do not share similar perceptions of LMX quality. They argued that extant LMX research is based only on follower ratings of
LMX and ignores the other party in the exchange. Results showed that a lack of shared reality of LMX within the dyad attenuates the positive individual
LMXperformance association. This association is also weakened by group-level LMX differentiation possibly because followers perceive that norms of
equality are being violated by within-group differences in LMX.
In summary, the multilevel studies in particular attest to the positive effects of differentiation and the associated boundary conditions (Table 1). Studying
differentiation at only one level such as the individual level may falsely lead to the belief that differentiation is bad for the group (e.g., Hooper & Martin,
2008). Differentiation is not always good or bad; its effects depend on the group contexts.
Table 1 Summary of LMX Differentiation Research
Title and
Author(s)
Research
Design
Sample Industry
Sample
Country
Demographic
Details of
Sample
Data
Source
Levels of
Analysis
Measure
Findings
Crosssectional
Military
Canada
99% of
participants
were male
Group
members
only
Group level
LMX
differentiation:
Rwg index
Conceptual
paper
Based on relative
deprivation
theory, the
authors propose
a theoretical
model identifying
when employees
with relatively
low-quality LMX
are most likely to
feel aggrieved. In
addition, the
factors that may
Page 6 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
276286.
Dionne, S. D.,
Gupta, A., Sotak,
K. L., Shirreffs, K.
A., Serban, A.,
Hao, C., Kim, D.
H., & Yammarino,
F. J. (2014). A 25year perspective
on levels of
analysis in
leadership
research.
Leadership
Quarterly, 25, 6
35.
Review
paper
790
conceptual
and
empirical
studies
published
in the
Leadership
Quarterly
Only 37% of
conceptual and
33% of empirical
papers published
over the entire
history of LQ
explicitly
specified the
appropriate level
of analysis.
Multilevel data
analysis
techniques are
used in less than
one-fifth of all
articles. The
authors reiterate
the need for
appropriate
levels-based
measurement
and alignment
between theory
and data.
Time
lagged (1
year apart)
Manufacturing and
service companies
Great
Britain
Mostly male
(78%)
Employees
only
Individual
level
RLMX: individual
LMX minus the
group mean for
LMX
When employees
perceive their
managers as
transformational
leaders, they are
likely to use soft
upward tactics
under resourceconstrained
conditions (i.e.,
low RLMX and
low POS) than in
resourcemunificent
conditions (i.e.,
high RLMX and
high POS).
Employees are
also likely to
employ higher
levels of soft and
hard tactics to
influence a
transactional
manager in
resourceconstrained
rather than in
resourcemunificent
conditions.
Crosssectional
Retail (clothing)
Turkey
Young (mean
age 22 years)
employees with
about 1 year of
Employees
and
managers
Cross-level
(individual
level
outcomes
LMX
differentiation:
within-group
variance
(1) LMX
differentiation is
negatively
related to
Page 7 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
leadermember
exchanges: The
buffering role of
justice climate.
Journal of
Applied
Psychology, 95,
11041120.
job experience
Crosssectional
Crosssectional
Manufacturing and
graveyard facilities
Europe and
United
States
Mostly male
(75%)
United
States
and group
level main
effects)
employees
organizational
commitment and
satisfaction with
co-worker
relations only
when the
distributive or
procedural
justice climate is
low.(2) LMX
differentiation is
positively related
to employee
withdrawal
behaviors only
when the
distributive or
procedural
justice climate is
low. (3) LMX
differentiation is
positively related
to helping
behaviors
targeting coworkers only
when the
distributive
justice climate is
high.
Employees
only
Group level
LMX
differentiation:
standard
deviation of LMX
within group
Employees
and
supervisors
Individual
and group
level
LMX
differentiation:
standard
deviation of LMX
within group
(1) Dyadic
dispersion LMX
(differences in
follower and
leader ratings of
LMX) moderates
the individual
LMX
performance
association such
that the
relationship is
positive only
when dyadic
dispersion LMX is
low. (2) LMX
differentiation
attenuates the
individual LMX
performance
Page 8 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
association.
Gooty, J., Serban,
A., Thomas, J. S.,
Gavin, M. B., &
Yammarino, F. J.
(2012). Use and
misuse of levels
of analysis in
leadership
research: An
illustrative review
of leader
member
exchange.
Leadership
Quarterly, 23,
10801103.
Review
paper
163
empirical
studies
published
between
1972 and
2012
Crosssectional
Manufacturing,
electronics,
telecommunication
and hotels
China
Henderson, D. J.,
Wayne, S. J.,
Shore, L. M.,
Bommer, W. B., &
Tetrick, L. E.
(2008). Leader
member
exchange,
differentiation,
and
psychological
contract
fulfillment: A
multilevel
examination.
Journal of
Applied
Psychology, 93,
12081219.
Crosssectional
Manufacturing
United
States
Henderson, D. J.,
Liden, R.C.,
Glibkowski, B. C.,
& Chaudhry, A.
(2009). LMX
differentiation: A
multilevel review
and examination
of its antecedents
and outcomes.
Leadership
Quarterly, 20,
517534.
Conceptual
paper
Mostly white
male (97.5%)
Interest in LMX
research
continues to
grow, and the
majority of
multilevel studies
cast theory and
hypotheses at
the same level.
However,
measurement
and data
analyses still
need to improve.
Employees
and
managers
Cross-level
(individuallevel
outcomes,
meso-level
and grouplevel
moderators)
LMX
differentiation:
within-group
varianceLMX
relational
separation: the
square root of
the summed
squared
differences
between an
individuals LMX
and other
individuals LMX
divided by the
total number of
respondents in
the group.
LMX
differentiation
and LMXRS both
attenuate the
association
between LMX and
OCB and
turnover intent.
Employees
and
managers
Cross-level
and
individual
withingroup level
RLMX
(individual
group mean
LMX) and LMX
differentiation
(within-group
variance)
(1) PC fulfillment
mediates the
relationship
between RLMX
and performance
and OCB.(2) The
positive
relationship
between RLMX
and PC fulfillment
is strengthened
by LMX
differentiation.
The authors
provide a
theoretical
framework
identifying
antecedents and
outcomes of LMX
differentiation.
Page 9 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
Crosssectional
Customer service,
sales, healthcare,
administrative staff,
firefighters
Australia
Mostly male
(97%)
Employees
only
Individual
level
One-item
measure of
individual
perception of
LMX
differentiation
Employee
perceptions of
LMX variability
have a negative
indirect effect on
job satisfaction
and well-being
via relational
team conflict.
Crosssectional
Beverage
China
All participants
hold at least a
college degree
Employees
and
managers
Cross-level
and
individual
withingroup level
RLMX:
divergence
between
individual and
group
aggregate LMX
(1) RLMX is
positively related
to in-role
performance,
OCB, and job
satisfaction via
self-efficacy (2)
Self-efficacy
partially mediates
the relationship
between RLMX
and in-role
performance and
job satisfaction,
and fully
mediates the
relationship
between RLMX
and OCB. (3)
Team
identification
(group level)
attenuates
RLMXs direct
effect on selfefficacy, and
indirect effects
on in-role
performance and
OCB. (4) Team
supportive
behavior
(individual level)
attenuates
RLMXs direct
effect on selfefficacy and
indirect effect on
in-role
performance.
Crosssectional
Education
(secondary school
level)
Netherlands
Autonomy was
recently
increased for
the school
teachers
School
teachers
and
principals
Group level
LMX
differentiation:
standard
deviation of LMX
within group
(1) LMX
differentiation is
positively related
to team
commitment and
team
performance only
when the group
median of LMX
quality is low. (2)
Team members
perception of
dissimilarities
regarding work
values among
members are
Page 10 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
members are
positively related
to LMX
differentiation.
Liao, H., Liu, D., &
Loi, R. (2010).
Looking at both
sides of the
social exchange
coin: A social
cognitive
perspective on
the join effects of
relationship
quality and
differentiation on
creativity.
Academy of
Management
Journal, 53,
10901109.
Timelagged
Manufacturing
China
Employees
and
managers
Cross-level
(individuallevel
outcomes
and grouplevel
moderators)
LMX
differentiation:
within-group
variance
(1) LMX is
positively related
to employee
creativity via
self-efficacy. (2)
LMX quality is
positively related
to self-efficacy
and creativity
when LMX
differentiation is
low.
Liden, R. C.,
Erdogan, B.,
Wayne, S. J., &
Sparrowe, R. T.
(2006). Leadermember
exchange,
differentiation,
and task
interdependence:
Implications for
individual and
group
performance.
Journal of
Organizational
Behavior, 27,
723746.
Crosssectional
Manufacturing,
distribution,
telecommunication,
education
(university level)
United
States
Employees
and
managers
Individual
and group
level (both
individuallevel and
group-level
outcomes
and
moderators)
LMX
differentiation:
within-group
variance in
individual-level
LMX scores
(1) Increases in
LMX
differentiation are
accompanied by
increases in
individual
performance only
for low LMX
members. (2) The
relation between
LMX
differentiation
and group
performance is
strengthened by
task
interdependence.
(3) LMX
differentiation is
positively related
to group
performance only
in groups with a
low LMX median.
Crosssectional
China
Employees
and
managers
Cross-level
(individuallevel
outcomes
and grouplevel
moderator)
LMX
differentiation:
standard
deviation of LMX
within group
(1) Leaders
universal values
are negatively
associated with
LMX
differentiation. (2)
LMX
differentiation
strengthens the
relation between
LMX and
followers
subjective
performance.
Maksom, H. H. B.,
& Winter, R.
(2009). Leadermember
exchange
differentiation in
the military
platoon.
Leadership &
Organization
Cross
sectional
Military
Singapore
Employees
only
Group level
Group mean of
LMX
Leaders (military
platoon
commanders)
develop higherquality LMX with
higher ranking
and permanent
employees
(NCOs) than with
the lower ranking
Young
participants
with little job
experience
Page 11 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
Organization
Development
Journal, 30, 696
708.
McClane, W. E.
(1991).
Implications of
member role
differentiation:
Analysis of a key
concept in the
LMX model of
leadership. Group
& Organizational
Studies, 16, 102
113.
Crosssectional
Education
(university level)
United
States
Students
Employees
and
managers
Group level
Group mean of
LMX
(operationalized
as negotiating
latitude)LMX
differentiation:
sum of the
absolute value
of the difference
between each
group members
LMX and the
group mean
LMX
Naidoo, L. J.,
Scherbaum, C.
A., Goldstein, H.
W., & Graen, G.
B. (2011). A
longitudinal
examination of
the effects of
LMX, ability, and
differentiation on
team
performance.
Journal of
Business and
Psychology, 26,
347357.
Longitudinal
Education
(university level)
United
States
Students
Employees,
managers,
external
raters
Group level
LMX
differentiation:
within-group
varianceLeaderrated LMX was
used
LMX
differentiation is
positively related
to team
performance, but
not to team
development.
Crosssectional
Retail (superstore)
United
States
Mostly white
male (81%)
Employees
and
archival
data
Group level
LMX
differentiation:
standard
deviation of LMX
within group
(1) The
relationship
between diversity
and turnover is
weaker under
conditions of high
LMX mean for
both forms of
diversity (i.e.,
demographic and
tenure diversity).
(2) High LMX
differentiation
exacerbates (or
low LMX
differentiation
attenuates) the
positive
relationship
between
demographic
diversity and
turnover. (3)
Tenure diversity
is negatively
associated with
turnover only
when LMX
differentiation is
low.(4) The
interaction
between
demographic
diversity and LMX
differentiation is
significant only
Page 12 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
significant only
when the LMX
mean is high.
Scandura, T. A.
(1999).
Rethinking
leadermember
exchange: An
organizational
justice
perspective.
Leadership
Quarterly, 10,
2540.
Conceptual
paper
The author
presents a
theoretical
framework of LMX
development
over time and
suggests that
LMX
differentiation
divides
workgroups into
ingroups and
outgroups, which
has implications
for organizational
justice.
Schyns, B.
(2006). Group
consensus in
leader-member
exchange (LMX)
and shared work
values related to
organizational
outcomes? Small
Group Research,
37, 2035.
Crosssectional
Banking and
insurance
Germany
Employees
and
managers
Group level
LMX
differentiation:
standard
deviation of LMX
(1) LMX
consensus
(opposite of
differentiation) is
positively
associated with
group mean level
of job
satisfaction. (2)
LMX consensus
is positively
related to group
performance in
the presence of
high work values.
Crosssectional
Engineering and
health services
United
States
Employees
only
Individuallevel and
individual
withingroup level
(co-worker
dyad)
Social networkbased
(dis)similarity
between coworkers LMX
Co-workers with
high LMX are
likely to develop
high-quality
relationships with
each other and
low-quality
relationships with
colleagues in
lower LMX
relationship.
Crosssectional
Multiple
United
States
Employees
only
Individual
level
Qualitative
study with
detailed
interviews
(1) Differential
treatment
changes the
dynamics of
communication
among coworkers such
that members
perceived to
receive favorable
treatment unfairly
tend to get
isolated from the
group
communication
network, whereas
those perceived
to be rewarded
fairly play a
central role. (2)
Members
Page 13 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
Members
perceived to be
punished fairly
tend to be
isolated from the
rest of the group,
whereas those
receiving
punishment
unfairly are
drawn into the
group
communication
network.
Stewart, M. M., &
Johnson, O. E.
(2009). Leadermember
exchange as a
moderator of the
relationship
between work
group diversity
and team
performance.
Group &
Organizational
Studies, 34, 507
535.
Cross
sectional
Military
United
States
Tse, H. H. M.,
Ashkanasy, N. M.,
& Dasborough,
M. T. (2012).
Relative leader
member
exchange,
negative
affectivity and
social
identification: A
moderatedmediation
examination.
Leadership
Quarterly, 23,
354366.
Crosssectional
Banking
Tse, H. H. M.,
Lam, C. K.,
Lawrence, S. A.,
& Huan, X.
(2013). When my
supervisor
dislikes you more
than me: The
effect of
dissimilarity in
leadermember
exchange on
coworkers
interpersonal
emotion and
perceived help.
Journal of
Applied
Psychology, 98,
Crosssectional
Telecommunication
and high tech
Data were
collected
during 8-day
interactive
strategic crisis
simulation
Mostly male
(83%)
Followers
and
external
rating
providers
Group level
Group mean of
LMX and LMX
differentiation
(standard
deviation)
When
aggregated LMX
(group mean of
LMX) is high, LMX
differentiation is
positively
associated with
work group
performance in
more gender
diverse groups.
Australia
Employees
and
managers
Individual
withingroup level
RLMX
(individual
group mean
LMX)
(1) After
controlling for
perceptions of
LMX, social
identification
mediates the
relationship
between RLMX
and job
performance. (2)
Negative
affectivity (NA)
attenuates the
relationship
between RLMX
and social
identification. (3)
NA moderated
the indirect effect
of RLMX on job
performance.
China
Employees
and
managers
Individual
level and
individual
withingroup level
(co-worker
dyad)
(Dis)similarity
between
individual LMX
quality and coworkers LMX
quality
(1) (Dis)similarity
in LMX between
co-workers A and
B increases Coworker As
feelings of
contempt for coworker B and
decreases coworker As
perception of
help received
from co-worker B.
(2) These
relationships hold
only for focals
with high social
comparison
orientation (SCO).
Page 14 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
974988.
(3) Contempt is a
crucial mediator
that transmits the
interactive effect
of LMX
(dis)similarity and
SCO on
perceptions of
help received
from co-workers.
(4) Aggregate
level of
perceived help
from co-workers
is positively
related to sales
performance of
individual
employees.
Van Breukelen,
W., Konst, D., &
Van Der Vlist, R.
(2002). Effects of
LMX and
differential
treatment on
work unit
commitment.
Psychological
Reports, 91, 220
230.
Crosssectional
Government
Netherlands
Van Breukelen,
W., Van Der
Leeden, R.,
Wesselius, W., &
Hoes, M. (2010).
Differential
treatment within
sports teams,
leadermember
(coachplayer)
exchange
quality, team
atmosphere, and
team
performance.
Journal of
Organizational
Behavior, 33, 43
63.
Crosssectional
Amateur sports
Vidyarthi, P. R.,
Liden, R. C.,
Anand, S.,
Erdogan, B., &
Gosh, S. (2010).
Where do I
stand? Examining
the effects of
leadermember
exchange social
comparison on
Crosssectional
Manufacturing
Mostly male
(85%)
Employees
only
Individual
level
Individual
perception of
LMX
differentiation
Perception of
differential
treatment
weakens the
positive
relationship
between LMX
quality and work
unit commitment.
Netherlands
Players and
coaches
Individual
level (with
group-level
control
variables)
Individual
perceptions of
differential
treatment within
teams
(1) Social
differential
treatment is
negatively
associated with
team atmosphere
and LMX. (2)
Task-related
differential
treatment
(regarding
influence on
team composition
and tactics) is
negatively
related to
subjective team
performance. (3)
After controlling
for differential
treatment LMX
quality is
positively related
to team
atmosphere and
subjective team
performance.
India
Employees
and
managers
Individual
withingroup level
RLMX
(divergence
between
individual LMX
and group mean
LMX) and
LMXSC
(employees
subjective rating
of RLMX)
(1) After
controlling for
LMX and RLMX,
employees
perceptions of
LMXSC are
positively related
to job
performance and
citizenship
behaviors. (2) A
Page 15 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
employee work
behaviors.
Journal of
Applied
Psychology, 98,
974988
significant part of
the effects of
RLMX on job
performance and
citizenship
behaviors is
mediated through
LMXSC.
Page 16 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
research one question is: Do leaders emulate their leaders in their behaviors pertaining to LMX differentiation? Drawing on social learning theory
another related question is: Do leaders observe their colleagues and emulate their LMX differentiation patterns?
Conclusions
LMX researchers have examined antecedents and consequences of dyadic relationship between leaders and members for over 40 years. Although
inherent in the original conceptualization, LMX differentiation research has only burgeoned in recent years with the recognition that dyadic relationships
are embedded in workgroups where other LMXs coexist and they impact one another. Our review outlined the major theoretical frameworks underlying
LMX differentiation and their relationship with correlates at individual and group levels. We described what extant LMX differentiation research has
explored and we extend the research by outlining what remains to be discovered in the future.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 15381567.
Beach, S. R., & Tesser, A. (2000). Self-evaluation maintenance and evolution: Some speculative notes. In L. Wheeler & J. Suls (Eds.), Handbook of
social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 123140). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Boies, K., & Howell, J. M. (2006). Leadermember exchange in teams: An examination of the interaction between relationship differentiation and mean
LMX in explaining team-level outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 246257.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2009). Relative deprivation among employees in lower-quality leader-member exchange relationships. Leadership
Quarterly, 20, 276286.
Buunk, B. P., & Mussweiler, T. (Eds.). (2001). New directions in social comparison research. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 467607.
Page 17 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng., K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of
organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425445.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.),
International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 317372). New York: Wiley.
Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83, 85113.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation
of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 4678.
Darley, J. M. (2004). Social comparison motives in ongoing groups. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone. (Eds.), Emotion and motivation (pp. 281297).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Duchon, D., Green, S. G., & Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of antecedents, measures, and consequences.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 5660.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R, L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member
exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38, 17151759.
Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 58, 51100.
Edwards, J. R, & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 15771613.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2013). Transformationaltransactional leadership and upward influence: The role of Relative LeaderMember Exchanges
(RLMX) and Perceived Organizational Support (POS). Leadership Quarterly, 24, 299315.
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2010). Differentiated leadermember exchanges: The buffering role of justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95,
11041120.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117140.
Ford, L. R., & Seers, A. (2006). Relational leadership and team climates: Pitting differentiation versus agreement. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 258270.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leadermember exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 827844.
Goethals, G. R., & Darley, J. (1977). Social comparison theory: An attributional approach. In J. M. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes:
Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 259278). Washington, DC: Halsted/Wiley.
Goodman, P. S. (1977). Social comparison process in organizations. In G. Salancik and B. Staw (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior.
Chicago: St. Clair Press.
Gooty, J., Serban, A., Thomas, J. S., Gavin, M. B., & Yammarino, F. J. (2012). Use and misuse of levels of analysis in leadership research: An illustrative
review of leadermember exchange. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 10801103.
Gooty, J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2014). The leader-member exchange relationship: A multisource, cross-level investigation. Journal of Management.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 922.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399432.
Greenberg, J., Ashton-James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2007). Social comparison process in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 102, 2241.
Han, H. G., & Bai, Y. (2012). In need of each other: The moderator of task interdependence between LMX variability and justice. Journal of Nursing
Management, 20, 18.
Harris, T. B., Li, N., & Kirkman, B. L. (2014). Leadermember exchange (LMX) in context: How LMX differentiation and LMX relational separation attenuate
LMXs influence on OCB and turnover intention. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 314328.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
Henderson, D. J., Liden, R.C., Glibkowski, B. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review and examination of its antecedents and
outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 517534.
Henderson, D. J., Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. B., & Tetrick, L. E. (2008). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and psychological
contract fulfillment: A multilevel examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 12081219.
Hooper, D. T., & Martin, R. (2008). Beyond personal leader-member exchange (LMX) quality: The effects of perceived LMX variability on employee
reactions. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 2030.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409473.
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2013). Relative leader-member exchange within team contexts: How and when social comparison impacts individual
effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 65, 146.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, personorganization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281342.
Page 18 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
Le Blanc, P. M., & Gonzalez-Roma, V. (2012). A team level investigation of the relationship between leader-member exchange (LMX) differentiation, and
commitment and performance. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 534544.
Lee, J. (2001). Leader-member exchange, perceived organizational justice, and cooperative communication. Management Communication Quarterly,
14, 574589.
Liao, H., Liu, D., & Loi, R. (2010). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship
quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 10901109.
Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for
individual and group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 723746.
Liden, R. C., & Graen, G. (1980). Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 451465.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),
Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 15, pp. 47119). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 662674.
Ma, L., & Qu, Q. (2010). Differentiation in leadermember exchange: A hierarchical linear modeling approach. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 733744.
Maksom, H. H. B., & Winter, R. (2009). Leader-member exchange differentiation in the military platoon. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 30, 696708.
Martin, J. (1981). Relative deprivation: A theory of distributive injustice for an era of shrinking resources. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research
in organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 53107). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Maslyn, J. M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001) Leadermember exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and others effort on relationship quality. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86, 697708.
Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader-member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance
influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 256266.
Naidoo, L. J., Scherbaum, C. A., Goldstein, H. W., & Graen, G. B. (2011). A longitudinal examination of the effects of LMX, ability, and differentiation on
team performance. Journal of Business Psychology, 26, 347357.
Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leadermember exchange in
the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 14121426.
Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Scandura, T. A. (1999). Rethinking leadermember exchange: An organizational justice perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 2540.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leadermember exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement,
and data-analytic practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63113.
Schyns, B. (2006). Group consensus in Leader-member exchange (LMX) and shared work values related to organizational outcomes? Small Group
Research, 37, 2035.
Sherony, K. M., & Green, S. G. (2002). Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers, leadermember exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 14121426.
Sias, P. M., & Jablin, F. M. (1995). Differential superior-subordinate relations, perceptions of fairness, and coworker communication. Human
Communication Research, 22, 538.
Smith, H. J., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G. M., & Bialosiewicz, S. (2012). Relative deprivation: A theoretical and meta-analytic review. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 16, 203232.
Spence, J. R., Ferris, L., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2011). Understanding daily citizenship behaviors: A social comparison perspective. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 32, 547571.
Stewart, M. M., & Johnson, O. E. (2009). Leader-member exchange as a moderator of the relationship between work group diversity and team
performance. Group & Organizational Studies, 34, 507535.
Tangirala, S., Green, S. G., & Ramanujam, R. (2007). In the shadow of the bosss boss: Effects of supervisors upward exchange relationships on
employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 309320.
Tse, H. H. M., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2012). Relative leadermember exchange, negative affectivity and social identification: A
moderated-mediation examination. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 354366.
Tse, H. H. M., Lam, C. K., Lawrence, S. A., & Huan, X. (2013). When my supervisor dislikes you more than me: The effect of dissimilarity in leadermember exchange on coworkers interpersonal emotion and perceived help. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 974988.
Van Breukelen, W., Konst, D., & Van Der Vlist, R. (2002). Effects of LMX and differential treatment on work unit commitment. Psychological Reports, 91,
220230.
Van Breukelen, W., Van Der Leeden, R., Wesselius, W., & Hoes, M. (2010). Differential treatment within sports teams, leader-member (coach-player)
exchange quality, team atmosphere, and team performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 4363.
Vecchio, R. P., Griffeth, R. W., & Horn, P. W. (1986). The predictive utility of the vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 617
Page 19 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015
LMX Differentiation
625.
Vidyarthi, P. R., Erdogan, B., Anand, S., Liden, R. C., & Chaudhry, A. (2014). One member, two leaders: Extending leader-member exchange theory to a
dual leadership context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 468483.
Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., Anand, S., Erdogan, B., & Gosh, S. (2010). Where do I stand? Examining the effect of leader-member exchange social
comparison on employee work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 849861.
Walker, I., & Smith, H. J. (2002). Fifty years of relative deprivation research. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification,
development, and integration (pp. 19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, J. V. (1996). What is social comparison and how should we study it? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 520537.
Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. A., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. Leadership
Quarterly, 16, 879919.
Smriti Anand
Smriti Anand, Illinois Institute of Technology
Prajya R. Vidyarthi
Prajya R. Vidyarthi, University of Texas at El Paso
Page 20 of 20
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: New York University; date: 11 June 2015