Neall, A. M., & Tuckey, M. R. (2014)

225
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2014), 87, 225–257

© 2014 The British Psychological Society
www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
A methodological review of research on the

antecedents and consequences of workplace
harassment
Annabelle M. Neall and Michelle R. Tuckey*
Centre for Applied Psychological Research, School of Psychology, Social Work and
Social Policy, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Workplace harassment is a well-researched topic, especially in regard to the antecedents

and consequences of the phenomenon. A number of criticisms of this body of research
have been raised that influence our understanding of harassment, its causes, and effects.
Accordingly, this methodological review was conducted to identify current methodo-
logical gaps and propose new strategies for advancing knowledge on harassment at work.
A total of 234 samples, from 224 peer-reviewed articles published over a 26-year period
(1987–2012 inclusive), which focused on the antecedents, consequences, or process of
diverse forms of workplace harassment (e.g., bullying, abusive supervision, mobbing, and
victimization), were systematically analysed for methodological content. Our analysis
focused on identifying threats to construct, internal, external, and statistical conclusion
validity, covering issues such as sample characteristics, research design, measurement,
methods of data collection, and techniques to analyse data. Findings on the nature and
extent of existing methodological limitations underpin suggestions to advance theory
development in this area by improving study validity. These include adopting longitudinal
and experimental designs, utilizing within-person approaches, incorporating the
perspectives of witnesses and perpetrators of harassment, developing combined
group/organizational and individual levels of analysis, and focusing on the dynamic
processes of workplace harassment.
Practitioner points
Limitations in existing research have constrained what we know about workplace harassment, and
how to prevent harassment and its negative consequences.
This paper provides a comprehensive resource for evaluating the quality of the ever-growing body of
research on workplace harassment, which covers issues such as bullying, abusive supervision,
aggression, incivility, and other forms of victimization at work.
Workplace harassment is ‘any negative workplace interpersonal interaction that affects

the terms, conditions, or employment decisions related to an individual’s job, or creates an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment, but is not based on any legally
protected characteristic’ (Rospenda & Richman, 2004, p. 221–222). This phenomenon
continues to threaten an increasing number of employees across the globe: Although
*Correspondence should be addressed to Michelle R. Tuckey, Centre for Applied Psychological Research, School of Psychology,
Social Work and Social Policy, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia (email:
michelle.tuckey@unisa.edu.au).
DOI:10.1111/joop.12059
20448325, 2014, 2, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joop.12059 by Universidad De Chile, Wiley Online Library on [13/08/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
226 Annabelle M. Neall and Michelle R. Tuckey
it is difficult to pinpoint prevalence rates from representative samples, some high-quality

studies suggest that up to 12% of employees may be exposed at any one time
(Niedhammer, David, Degioanni, Drummond, & Philip, 2009).
Harassment has been studied under a number of different labels, including workplace
bullying (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011), incivility (Cortina, Magley, Williams, &
Langhout, 2001), victimization (Aquino & Lamertz, 2004), social undermining (Duffy,
Ganster, & Pagon, 2002), and abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000). The common thread
linking these various conceptualizations is that they all represent negative workplace
interactions that are associated with harm to the target, but do not relate to the legally
protected characteristics of sex and race. As such, these forms of negative behaviour
represent different manifestations of the underlying construct of workplace harassment
(Aquino & Thau, 2009; Bowling & Beehr, 2006). Focussing on harassment as an
over-arching construct can account for exposure to sporadic incidences of victimization,
as well as more frequent and enduring patterns of mistreatment (such as workplace
bullying). Likewise, there is no restriction regarding the severity of the behaviour (as per
incivility, which is low intensity by definition), nor the source of the mistreatment (as per
abusive supervision, which occurs only from supervisors), and there is no criterion of
intent (which is a core part of social undermining). Finally, although power imbalance
could be assumed to be central to enabling the negative behaviour to continue (as per the
literature on abusive supervision and as discussed in some literature on victimization), it is
not an explicit conceptual requirement in harassment (as per the definition of workplace
bullying). Hence, examining harassment facilitates the inclusion of different bodies of
literature that cover essentially the same antecedents and consequences of negative
workplace interactions (Hershcovis, 2011).
In recent years, a number of high-quality reviews and meta-analyses have been
published to advance knowledge about the substantive relationships between harass-
ment, its antecedents, and outcomes (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Barling, Dupre, & Kelloway,
2009; Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Einarsen, 2000; Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Hershcovis
et al., 2007; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2010). These publications have revealed adverse
outcomes for targets of harassment, such as poor physical and psychological health and
decreased job satisfaction, along with a selection of individual (e.g., gender, trait anger,
hierarchical position, and negative affectivity) and organizational (e.g., stressful work
environments, role conflict, role ambiguity, lack of job control) antecedents. However,
the understanding gained from any review or meta-analysis is limited by the quality of the
primary studies sampled (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). This is a critical issue for the literature on
workplace harassment, wherein a range of methodological problems in existing empirical
studies have been identified (e.g., the over-use of cross-sectional designs and sin-
gle-source, self-report data). These limitations have the potential to obscure understand-
ing of the risk factors for workplace harassment and the effects of harassment on workers,
knowledge that is vital for harassment prevention and harm minimization efforts.
Our goal in this review paper is to quantify the nature and extent of the
methodological limitations within the workplace harassment literature, to enable critical
appraisal of the existing literature and guide future research. To achieve this goal, we
conducted a systematic review of a range of methodological issues that can undermine the
validity of studies, focusing on research that has investigated the antecedents and outcomes
of harassment. Most importantly, our systematic analysis guides specific suggestions
regarding how research design and methods can be improved in a range of ways to assist
the progression of knowledge on the processes underpinning workplace harassment,
thereby providing an important and comprehensive resource for future research.
Methodological review of harassment research 227
Grasping the types of methodological shortcomings of existing research and the

degree to which they are found within the literature is important for reflecting on what we
know so far about workplace harassment. Further, using this knowledge to move research
outcomes forward is critical for addressing new, but overlooked, core theoretical
questions. For example, issues of interindividual and intra-individual variability in
harassment exposure; reciprocal relationships between individual and organizational
antecedents, harassment experiences, and individual and organizational outcomes;
moderators of the antecedent to harassment link, or the harassment to outcomes link; and
the evolution over time of the behavioural patterns of the different parties involved,
within the wider organizational context, are all fundamental theoretical enquiries for
advancing knowledge about the aetiological processes of workplace harassment. Yet
these issues elude our understanding because, at least in part, research methods and
designs utilized in harassment research have not facilitated exploration of these subjects.
Our strategy within this review is to examine potential threats to construct, internal,
external, and statistical conclusion validity within the existing body of research on the
antecedents and consequences of harassment. Our contribution therefore lies in aiding
researchers to improve the body of knowledge on harassment by improving these forms of
study validity. Construct validity concerns how well the theoretical constructs of interest
have been captured in the measurement process (Judd, Smith, & Kidder, 1991). Without
appropriate and valid measurement of harassment, we cannot learn about how it affects
workers nor what the potential causes and intervention points are. Next, internal validity
refers to the ability to draw causal inferences from the data (Calder, Phillips, & Tybout,
1982). When internal validity is high, we can make a stronger argument that one variable
causes another, in this case that certain individual and situational factors cause harassment
or that harassment leads to certain outcomes for individuals and organizations. External
validity, on the other hand, is the capacity to generalize to other relevant populations and
settings (Calder et al., 1982). Applying the findings beyond the research sample and
context under study is important for forming general understandings about harassment
predictors and outcomes and using these to guide harassment prevention measures that
are widely applicable. Moreover, as harassment may be perceived differently across
countries and cultures, it is important to consider cultural and other boundary conditions
for the application of findings. Finally, statistical conclusion validity is the extent to which
the conclusions drawn from the data are correct or reasonable (Ottenbacher & Barrett,
1990). It primarily concerns factors that can increase Type I and II error such as sampling
processes, statistical power, and the types of analysis procedures used. The effectiveness
of harassment prevention efforts is contingent on the quality of research underpinning
them so, along with internal validity, statistical conclusion validity must be high to
confidently use the findings of existing research.
In sum, a range of methodological limitations undermine the validity of existing
workplace harassment research. These concerns constrain our understanding of the
antecedents and consequences of harassment and, especially, the psychosocial processes
involved. The shortcomings must be resolved to enable further theoretical progression
and, ultimately, to result in meaningful practical impact in preventing the mistreatment of
workers. While scholars have demonstrated that obtaining even the most basic
information about harassment is hampered by methodological problems such as
measurement (Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010) and construct overlap (Hershcovis,
2011), to date there has not been a comprehensive review of the spectrum of potentially
important design and methods factors. Accordingly, in this paper we gauge the nature and
extent of such problems in the published international literature and the effects on study
validity. Unlike a meta-analysis, which quantifies the magnitude of relationships between

variables and potential methodological moderators of these effects, we catalogue the
kinds of limitations that exist, outline why they are important in terms of validity, and
document just how much of an issue they are. In doing so, we provide a resource for
critically consuming existing research, and open discussion regarding issues that are
nascent within current discourses on workplace harassment.
Method
Primary empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals over the 26-year period
from 1987 to 2012 (inclusive) were included in the review. Articles were identified via a
computer search of the PsycINFO and PubMed databases. Search terms included
‘workplace harassment’, ‘generalized workplace harassment’, ‘workplace bullying’,
‘workplace victimization’, ‘antisocial workplace behavior’, ‘workplace social undermin-
ing’, ‘workplace aggression’, ‘abusive supervision’, ‘workplace incivility’, and ‘workplace
mobbing’. These terms have been previously identified as similar manifestations of
negative interpersonal interactions that harm workers (Aquino & Lamertz, 2004). Studies
that investigated harassment based on the legally protected characteristics of sex and race
were excluded from the analysis. These are illegal forms of discrimination in the United
States (Rospenda & Richman, 2004) and other countries around the world that have been
extensively documented in other reviews (Likupe, 2006; Willness, Steel, & Lee, 2007). On
the other hand, we are interested in generalized forms of mistreatment that create a
negative working environment and have negative effects on workers. Finally, only
published journal articles were included in the review (i.e., book chapters, dissertations,
and unpublished works were excluded).
A total of 1,083 articles were available for review. Only 195 of these met the strict
inclusion criteria, as follows: primary empirical studies, published in English, which had
undergone a peer-review process, and that focused on one of four themes: (1) the
antecedents of workplace harassment, (2) the consequences of workplace harassment,
(3) a combination of the two, or (4) an investigation of a pathway or process of workplace
harassment. For example, while Leymann’s (1990) peer-reviewed article, published in
English, discussed mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces, the content was
conceptual in nature and was thus excluded from the methodological review.
Additionally, Cowie, Naylor, Rivers, Smith, and Pereira (2002) examined the definitions,
culture, and methods of bullying and harassment, but did not examine the antecedents
and/or consequences of harassment, and hence, this article was not included. Likewise,
Hershcovis et al.’s (2007) meta-analysis is useful to guide our work, but was not included
in the body of our studies, as it was not a primary empirical study.
Following the identification of this initial narrowed sample, a ‘snowballing’ technique
was utilized, where the reference lists of the articles found through the PsycINFO and
PubMed databases were searched for other articles that met the inclusion criteria. A
further 29 articles were identified as a result of this process, yielding a final total of 224
articles for the review. There were 10 cases wherein two relevant primary studies were
found within the same journal article; hence, there were 234 separate samples. All studies
were empirical and investigated at least one of the aforementioned themes. The majority
of coding was mutually exclusive; that is, only one coding option could be selected for the
category (e.g., in the study design category, mutually exclusive coding options were
longitudinal or cross-sectional). In contrast, some categories were coded exhaustively to
account for the realm of possible coding options (e.g., participant origin by country was
coded exhaustively to reflect the possibility that studies could sample participants from
multiple countries). Thirty-seven randomly selected articles were reviewed by an
independent coder to gauge inter-rater reliability. Point-by-point agreement is noted
throughout the following descriptions of the coding process. Where discrepancies were
identified, consensus was reached through discussion by both authors.
Overview of the coding process

Construct validity
The data collection methods and the quantitative measurement instruments used in each
study were coded as potential threats to construct validity; they all relate to the
measurement process. The content terms of each study were exhaustively coded to show
the forms of harassment to which each sample relates. Collection methods, again
exhaustively coded, included surveys, focus groups, interviews, and other measures (e.g.,
physiological). In terms of measurement of the harassment construct, when harassment
was operationalized via a quantitative measurement instrument, the different approaches
were mutually exclusively coded, based on the authors’ experience and familiarity with
the literature. The retrospective time frame for participants’ recall of harassment events
was also exclusively coded. The inter-rater agreement for this section was 85%.
Internal validity
Issues that relate to the internal validity of studies were also documented. In existing
harassment research, threats to internal validity have arisen from the design, setting, and
levels of control evident in studies. The design characteristics of each study, which were
all exclusively coded, follow those identified in a published review of work–family conflict
research methods (Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood, & Lambert, 2007). Studies were
coded as either cross-sectional or longitudinal, and the number of waves in each
longitudinal study was noted. Setting refers to either the field or laboratory (i.e., artificial
scenarios in a controlled setting). Levels of control were correlational, quasi-experiment,
experiment, or qualitative. There was a very high level of inter-rater agreement for this
section (92%).
External validity
Methodological issues pertaining to external validity included participant origin by
country (exhaustively coded), study population (coded as specified or not specified), and
sample representativeness (specified and not specified, and where specified coded as
representative or non-representative). These issues are important aspects of external
validity and the generalization of the studies, especially for non-westernized countries
where the understanding of harassment may differ from that of Western cultures.
Inter-rater agreement for external validity was 88%.
Statistical conclusion validity

Aspects of the data collection and analysis process that may affect the conclusions drawn
from the study were coded under statistical conclusion validity. These included the
purpose of each study, documenting the source (or perpetrator) of harassment, the level
of analysis, triangulation of data, and techniques used to analyse the data. Categories for
the purpose of each study were mutually exclusively coded and included: the
antecedents of workplace harassment (e.g., job characteristics), the consequences of
workplace harassment (e.g., psychological distress, physical health complaints), a
combination of the two (e.g., the effect of job characteristics on workplace harassment
and its associated consequences), or a focus on the process of harassment (e.g., the
social processes of workplace harassment). We also mutually exclusively recorded
whether the source of harassment was, or was not, reported for each sample. Neglecting
the source of harassment in studies may lead researchers to incorrect conclusions about
the development, nature, and consequences of harassment by prescribing to a ‘one size
fits all’ model. Levels of analysis were guided by ‘levels of theory’ (Klein, Dansereau, &
Hall, 1994) which included individuals, organizations, groups, or dyads (e.g., supervisor–
subordinate), again exclusively coded. Triangulation was recorded in the form of
multiple sources of data. Where studies used multiple data collection methods, all
techniques were accounted for by exhaustive coding. Finally, data analysis techniques
were coded under four meta-themes (see Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998):
techniques examining one dependent variable with a single relation, techniques
examining multiple dependent variables with a single relation, techniques examining
multiple relations with both independent variables and dependent variables, and
techniques examining the structure of data. As studies often utilized more than one data
analysis technique, exhaustive coding was used. Inter-rater agreement for statistical
conclusion validity was high at 85%.
Results
Research into workplace harassment has steadily and significantly increased since 1987
(r = .88, p < .01). Indeed, 58.1% of the articles included in the review were published in
the final 5 years of the review period (2008–2012 inclusive). Additionally, 2006 saw a
substantial rise in published articles compared with previous years (n = 20). Studies were
published in a range of peer-reviewed journals, across a number of disciplines, including
occupational health psychology, work and organizational psychology, counselling, and
management. Nearly a third of the studies (30.9%) came from four main journals
Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Work &
Stress, and Aggressive Behavior.
The following sections present the findings of our review regarding the threats to
construct, internal, external, and statistical conclusion validity within published
harassment research. Relationships between the different methodological limitations
and types of validity are summarized in Table 1. These concerns can all be addressed in
future research; accordingly, possible solutions to the problems, as well as recent
exemplars that have overcome the issues, are also shown in Table 1.
Construct validity
Content terms
Figure 1 depicts the different content terms within the harassment umbrella in the studies
sampled for the review. Overall, workplace bullying was the most common construct
label in the samples (36.0%), followed by workplace aggression (21.3%), workplace
harassment (10.0%), and both workplace incivility and abusive supervision (9.2% each).
Table 1. Major methodological concerns and their threats to study validity
Methodological Validity Illustrative examples that

concern threat Solutions overcome the threats
Overuse of Internal Utilize longitudinal and Snyder, Chen, and

cross-sectional design repeated-measures Vacha-Haase (2007),
designs Wheeler et al. (2013) and
Wu, Kwan, Liu, and
Resick (2012)
Overuse of Construct Utilize objective data Giumetti et al. (2013) and
self-report surveys and in conjunction with Hansen et al. (2006)
Internal self-report
Reliance on Statistical Triangulate with multiple Nandkeolyar, Shaffer,
one source of data conclusion data sources Li, Ekkirala, and
Bagger (2013)
Analysis at the Statistical Analyse data at dyadic, Hannah et al. (2013)
individual level conclusion group, or
organizational level
Focus on Statistical Investigate overall Taylor and Kluemper (2012)
antecedents/outcomes conclusion process
Overuse of a Construct Include definition, Tuckey, Chrisopoulos, and
behavioural checklist endorsement, frequency, Dollard (2012)
and severity scales with
behavioural checklist
Overuse of field studies Internal Incorporate Giumetti et al. (2013) and
experimental studies Niven, Sprigg, Armitage,
and Satchwell (2013)
Lack of Statistical Assess source/perpetrator Arnold, Dupre, Hershcovis,
information of source conclusion in harassment and Turner (2011)
(or perpetrator) measurement and improve
of harassment reporting of harassment
source/perpetrator
Non-representative External Improve sampling and Bunk and Magley (2013)
sampling or lack research reporting
of information
on sample
representativeness
Several geographical trends were noted among the content terms. For example, we
observed that the term ‘mobbing’ is specific to Western European countries (e.g., Italy,
Germany, Spain), while Scandinavian countries such as Norway, Denmark, and Sweden
used the terms ‘bullying’ and ‘harassment’ exclusively. By comparison, studies focusing
on 10 of the 12 content areas involved participants from the United States, suggesting
more diversity in the focus of harassment research.
Data collection methods

Table 2 illustrates the data collection methods utilized in the studies. The majority of
studies utilized self-report surveys (88.4%), while 12.0% involved interviews with
participants. Twenty-nine studies used two or more types of data collection (12.4%). Our
review did not identify any diary studies that matched the inclusion criteria within the
Workplace bullying 36.0%
Workplace aggression 21.3%
Workplace harassment 10%
Workplace incivility 9.2%
Workplace abusive supervision 9.2%
Workplace violence 3.3%
Workplace abuse 2.9%
Workplace mobbing 2.9%
Workplace victimisation 2.1%
Workplace hostile behavior 1.7%
Workplace anti-social behavior < 1.0%
Workplace social undermining < 1.0%
Workplace mistreatment < 1.0%
Figure 1. Percentage of different content domains within harassment research (n = 234 samples).
Table 2. Data collection, levels of analysis, and triangulation across the samples (n = 234)
Category Frequency (%)
Data collection methods

Survey 207 (88.4)
Interview 28 (12.0)
Focus groups 7 (3.0)
Physical health measures 3 (1.3)
Daily diary 1 (<1.0)
time frame considered (although note a recently published exception by Wheeler,

Halbesleben, & Whitman, 2013).
The quantitative measurement of harassment

Table 3 shows that over half of the studies (71.3%) measured a form of workplace
harassment using a behavioural checklist (which did not include a definition of
harassment). A further 9.7% measured workplace harassment by presenting a definition
of the phenomenon, plus an endorsement of the definition, followed by behaviours on a
checklist (n = 21). Finally, harassment was measured via a single-item measure, with no
definition presented, in 7.4% of the studies (n = 16).
The retrospective time frame of exposure to harassment was coded, as shown in
Table 3. More than half of the studies did not specify a time frame for participants to recall
events of harassment, which could therefore reflect exposure over the working life.
Table 3. The quantitative measurement of harassment across the samples (n = 216)
Method Frequency (%)
Quantitative method of measurement of harassment

Definition 23 (10.6)
Definition only 2 (<1.0)
Definition plus endorsement of harassment only 17 (6.9)
Endorsement via single yes/no categorical question 6 (2.8)
Endorsement via a single item rated on a Likert-type scale 11 (5.1)
Definition plus endorsement plus indication of frequency 4 (1.8)
Endorsement via a single item (no definition) 16 (7.4)
Checklist 154 (71.3)
Behaviour checklist, with no definition of harassment provided 154 (71.3)
Definition and checklist combined 25 (11.6)
Behaviour checklist preceded by a definition (with no 4 (1.8)
endorsement of the definition)
Definition plus endorsement, followed by behaviour checklist 21 (9.7)
Retrospective time frame
Not specified 110 (51.0)
Past 6 months 47 (21.8)
Past 12 months 54 (25.0)
Past 36 months or longer 13 (6.0)
Past month 8 (3.7)
Past 24 months 2 (<1.0)
The majority that did use a time bound measure (43.6% in total) asked participants to think
back over a 6- or 12-month period to recall their exposure to harassment.
Internal validity
Research design characteristics
All studies in the review were conducted in field settings (100.0%), and the majority of
studies were correlational (84.8%) with a cross-sectional design (84.4%; refer to Table 4).
Of the 36 longitudinal studies identified in our review, only nine utilized a design with
Table 4. Research design characteristics across the samples (n = 234)
Study Characteristics Frequency (%)
Time horizon
Cross-sectional 197 (84.4)
Longitudinal 36 (15.6)
Two waves 27 (11.5)
Three waves 6 (2.5)
Four waves 2 (<1.0)
Five waves 1 (<1.0)
Setting
Field 234 (100.0)
Level of control
Correlational 198 (84.6)
Correlational and qualitative 21 (9.2)
Qualitative 14 (6.2)
three or more waves of data. While this review uncovered a surplus of information on
variables that precede or follow workplace harassment (e.g., emotional exhaustion, job
demands, job resources), only one study examined reciprocal relationships between the
variables of interest (Rodrıguez-Mu~
noz, Baillien, De Witte, Moreno-Jimenez, & Pastor,
2009).
External validity
Participant country of origin
Table 5 breaks down the number of samples according to participant nationality. Over a
quarter of existing harassment research published in the international literature has been
conducted with workers in the United States, with English-speaking countries (United
States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada) contributing to over half the reviewed studies
(59.8%). Additionally, Scandinavian and Western European countries (Norway, Finland,
Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden) accounted for a fifth of published samples in our review
(17.1%), while 7.7% of studies did not report participant country of origin.
Sampling and sample characteristics

Table 6 documents the characteristics of the study samples. All but one study we
reviewed provided information about participant numbers. The median number of study
Table 5. Frequency of samples (n = 234) by participant country of origin
Country Frequency (%)
United States 83 (35.4)

Canada 26 (11.1)
Norway 19 (8.1)
Australia 19 (8.1)
United Kingdom 12 (5.1)
Finland 7 (3.0)
Belgium 6 (2.5)
China 6 (2.5)
Italy 5 (2.1)
Philippines 5 (2.1)
Denmark 4 (1.7)
Sweden 4 (1.7)
Turkey 4 (1.7)
Germany 2 (<1.0)
Iceland 2 (<1.0)
Spain 2 (<1.0)
Singapore 2 (<1.0)
France 2 (<1.0)
New Zealand 2 (<1.0)
Notes. Participant country of origin was not reported for 18 samples (7.7%). Because some samples
comprised multiple countries of origin, the overall n is higher for this analysis. The following countries of
origin were each reported for one sample (<1.0%) in the review: Bosnia and Herzegovina, China,
Lithuania, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, the Netherlands, Taiwan,
Uganda.
Table 6. Participant sample characteristics (n = 234)
Sample characteristics No of studies (%)
Gender of participants
Female – (57.5)
Male – (42.5)
Sampling technique
Non-probability 126 (53.9)
Random 85 (36.2)
Convenience 22 (9.6)
Study population
Specified 82 (35.5)
Representativeness of study sample
Non-representative 41 (88.4)
Representative 26 (11.1)
participants was 320 (ranging from 15 to 34,209). Participant response rates varied widely
across the review sample (3–100%), with an average response rate of 52.9%. Across the
study samples, 42.5% of the participants were male and 57.5% were female. Researchers in
the harassment field have generally used a non-probability sampling technique (53.8%);
however, some random sampling (36.3%) and samples of convenience were reported
(9.4%).
Of concern, many studies (n = 151; 64.5%) did not comment on the study population.
The most commonly reported study populations were as follows: the working population
of a country (31 studies, 13.2%), nursing employees (13 studies, 5.5%), and hospital staff (8
studies, 3.4%). In addition, only 26 studies (11.1%) explicitly described a participant
sample that was representative of the study population. A further 17.3% studies
documented that the sample was non-representative of the population under review.
More often, however, the representativeness of the sample (71.6%) was not specified.
Statistical conclusion validity

Purpose of the research
We observed that studies regarding the outcomes (n = 105, 44.9%) and antecedents
(n = 63, 26.9%) of workplace harassment make up the bulk of research in the area
(combined total of 71.8%). Less than a tenth of the reviewed studies focused on the
process by which workplace harassment unfolds (n = 20, 8.7%). The remaining studies
(n = 45, 19.5%) focused on a combination of antecedents and outcomes. Figure 2 profiles
the use of these different purposes by the research designs of the study. No clear patterns
are evident, other than greater use of combined qualitative and correlational approaches
for the study of harassment outcomes.
Levels of analysis
The results of our review also reveal that the overwhelming majority of harassment
research has been conducted at the individual level (i.e., a single-level design) which in
100
90
Correlational &
qualitative
80
Qualitative
Correlational
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Antecedents Outcomes Combination Process
Figure 2. Use of research method by purpose of study (n = 234 samples).
turn has shaped current understanding of harassment. Specifically, 86.6% of studies

examined participants at the individual level, which means that individual employees
were the focus for data collection and analysis. Of the remaining studies, 17 collected data
from two members of a dyad (7.3%), and 14 collected information from employees nested
within units, specifically groups (n = 5; 2.1%) and organizations (n = 9; 3.9%).
Reporting the source of harassment

The vast majority of studies (n = 180, 76.9%) did not report information on the source (or
perpetrator) of the reported harassment. The studies that did include such information
(n = 54, 23.1%) focused primarily on the perpetrators’ position in the formal hierarchy
relative to the target (e.g., manager/supervisor, co-worker/peer, subordinate).
Triangulation
Only 29 studies (12.4%) in our review used triangulation of data from multiple sources,
typically consisting of third party reports of incidents of harassment (supervisors, peers,
or perpetrators).
Techniques used to analyse data

Table 7 shows the statistical techniques used to analyse data in the reviewed studies. Over
half the papers (67.5%) reported simple inferential statistics (e.g., Pearson’s/Spearman’s
Table 7. Techniques used to analyse data across the samples (n = 234)
Statistical technique Frequency (%)
Simple inferential
Correlations 115 (49.1)
Chi-square 16 (6.8)
T-tests 23 (9.9)
Other 4 (1.7)
One DV with a single relation
Multiple linear regression 71 (30.3)
Logistic regression 30 (12.8)
Poisson regression 3 (1.3)
Moderated regression 8 (3.4)
Discriminant regression 1 (<1.0)
Constrained nonlinear regression 2 (<1.0)
ANOVA and ANCOVA 40 (17.1)
Multiple DVs with a single relation
MANOVA and MANCOVA 13 (5.6)
Multiple relations with both IVs and DVs
Structural equation modelling 22 (9.4)
Path analysis 9
Structure of data
Confirmatory factor analysis 34 (14.5)
Exploratory factor analysis 18 (7.7)
Cluster analyses 2 (<1.0)
Variables at different level
HLM, MLM, Random coefficient models 29 (12.4)
Sociometric analysis, for example Sociograms 1 (<1.0)
Qualitative analysis
Other 35 (15.0)
Content analysis 9 (3.8)
Notes. IV, independent variable; DV, dependent variable.
correlation, chi-square, t-tests). Techniques examining one dependent variable with a

single relation (n = 155) were also frequently used relative to techniques that can handle
multiple dependent variables with a single relation (e.g., MANOVAs) and multiple
relations with both independent and dependent variables (e.g., structural equation
modelling and path analysis). Limited studies examined the structure of data (e.g.,
confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis; 14.3% and 7.7%, respectively), or variables at
different levels using multilevel analysis or hierarchical modelling (n = 29). These figures
are consistent with the few studies examining the processes of harassment, which
suggests that the complexities and mechanisms of the phenomenon remain uncovered.
Finally, 44 studies used a qualitative form of data analysis.
Discussion
Workplace harassment is a topic of interest in many different research fields, and the
attention directed to this issue continues to increase. Our paper meets a gap in the
literature by providing a systematic review of the methodologies utilized in harassment
research published in peer-reviewed papers from 1987 to 2012. While a few of the diverse
issues included here have been addressed individually in recent meta-analyses and reviews
(Berry, Gillespie, Gates, & Schafer, 2012; Hershcovis, 2011; Nielsen et al., 2010), we
present a comprehensive and integrated coverage of a full range of methodological issues
to provide an important resource for research in this field. A number of strong trends
emerged, which allowed us to gauge the major threats to study validity within the existing
literature. This knowledge is important for evaluating the conclusions scholars have
drawn about the factors that lead to harassment, how it affects workers and organizations,
and how to prevent it. Most importantly, our analysis supports specific recommendations
for advancements in methods so as to improve the validity of research in this area and
thereby progress both theory development and prevention efforts.
In relation to construct validity, we observed that harassment has typically been
assessed via a behavioural checklist. Examples included the Negative Acts Questionnaire
(Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaers, 2009), the Generalized Workplace Harassment Question-
naire (Rospenda & Richman, 2004), and the Leymann Inventory of Psychological
Terrorization (Leymann, 1989). Fewer studies provided a definition of harassment to
participants. Nielsen et al.’s (2010) meta-analysis focused on this aspect of methodology
for studies of workplace bullying and showed, unsurprisingly, that prevalence estimates
are influenced by the way in which bullying is measured. Specifically, they reported an
over-estimation of bullying prevalence when a definition is not presented to participants
(18%) and the lowest estimates when a definition is provided (11%). Differences between
layperson and operational definitions of harassment create the potential for under-report-
ing and over-reporting (cf. Nielsen et al., 2010; Saunders, Huynh, & Goodman-Delahunty,
2007). Benign and disciplinary workplace behaviours may be misinterpreted as
harassment by individuals without a clear understanding of the concept. In contrast,
some negative behaviours may not be viewed as problematic. By looking across the
spectrum of harassment constructs (rather than purely at studies of workplace bullying as
per Nielsen et al., 2010), we present a clearer picture of the extent to which various
measurement approaches have been utilized within the different streams of literature on
employee mistreatment. To achieve a balance, Nielsen et al. (2010) recommended using a
combination of the self-labelling with a definition and a behavioural checklist. We concur
with this recommendation but add that information on the perpetrator of harassment
should be collected.
The low percentage of studies in the review that measured and reported the source of
harassment is troubling in the light of the findings of Hershcovis and Barling’s (2010)
meta-analysis, which demonstrated differential effects of aggression from different
perpetrators – supervisors, co-workers, and persons outside of the organization. The
development, nature, and consequences of harassment may be very different depending
on who is involved (e.g., manager/supervisor vs. co-worker, individual perpetrator vs.
group), so too the most effective ways of dealing with it. For example, from a theoretical
standpoint, different pathways to harassment might exist via formal power structures held
by supervisors relative to informal power structures that co-workers or even subordinates
can access. Likewise, harassment from different sources sends different signals to targets
about how to interpret the behaviour and regarding their options to respond (cf.
Hershcovis & Barling, 2010). In reality, there are very little data on this issue because the
available measurement tools rarely capture this information. Future studies should thus
include questions distinguishing between different types of harassment from different
executors. Improving the measurement of harassment in this way will enable researchers
to uncover different processes in the development of harassment so that more effective
prevention guidelines can be implemented. Simultaneously, future studies should

integrate information from a range of informants – perpetrators and witnesses, along with
targets – regarding the same harassment situation. This recommendation arises from our
finding that more than 85% of studies included information from only one data source,
most commonly the target. Gathering information from multiple perspectives will yield a
better coverage of the construct domain and support a better understanding of how
different factors associated with each of the parties and with the job and work context are
involved. It will also reduce common method bias, which is a potential threat to the
validity of any correlational survey study (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
Similar to the issue of source, it is concerning that vital information about the time
frame of the harassment measure is missing from half of the published studies in this area.
Researchers should report the time frames used in measurement so that prevalence rates
can be meaningfully collated and compared, and so that the time course processes of
harassment can be understood.
Also in regards to time frames, instruments that rely on participants to think back over a
long period of time are subject to retrospective bias, thereby limiting the construct validity
of the measure (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003; Ohly, Sonnentag, Niessen, & Zapf, 2010). A
diary approach has the advantage of asking workers to report on harassment experiences
closer to the time at which they occurred, thereby minimizing recall biases and
retrospective errors (Bolger et al., 2003) arguably inherent to the recall time frames we
catalogued in the existing literature. If a single estimate is needed, aggregating reports of
harassment experiences from a worker over sequential work days and weeks should yield
a much more accurate picture of harassment exposure than looking back over a long time
frame. Only with this sort of accurate data can predictors of variability in exposure truly be
identified.
A final issue relevant to construct validity is that, theoretically, there are potentially
important differences between different types of harassment experiences. Workplace
bullying, for example, explicitly involves victimization enabled by power imbalance and
must occur weekly for 6 months (Einarsen et al., 2011), whereas these elements are not
characteristic of other forms of mistreatment at work. However, as Hershcovis (2011)
explained rarely has the empirical measurement of the various interpersonal mistreat-
ment constructs appropriately captured all of the theoretically defining features. In the
example of workplace bullying, the behavioural checklist method does not address
power imbalance despite power imbalance being a core component. In reality, it
remains an empirical question whether specific durations (e.g., 6 months) and
frequencies (e.g., once per week) of exposure, or combinations of these two elements,
actually lead to greater or different types of harm relative to other exposure patterns.
Likewise, it is not clear whether one-time exposure to extreme physical or verbal abuse
leads to more severe outcomes than more subtle forms of harassment such as social
undermining which take place over a longer period of time. Nor is the role of power
imbalance in harassment understood. As suggested by Hershcovis (2011), perceived
severity, frequency, and duration of different harassment behaviours, and other factors
such as the type of power imbalance, could actually be moderators of the harassment –
consequences link and/or separate endpoints in the antecedents – harassment link in
recognition that different factors may trigger different harassment responses. Rather
than constraining these factors within the definition and operationalization of the
various mistreatment constructs, examining them as independent outcomes or
moderators of substantive interest may yield the best understanding of their role in
the harassment process.
We confirmed that a major threat to internal validity, evident within the majority of
published studies on workplace harassment, comes from the use of a cross-sectional
survey design, with data provided by only one source, analysed at an individual level.
Longitudinal studies and other forms of repeated-measures designs were rarely found in
the literature, probably because of the increased financial costs, logistical difficulties,
time, and participant burden. Moreover, most of the published longitudinal studies
contained just two measurement waves. While a two-wave design represents an
improvement over a cross-sectional design, the mere ordering of variables across two time
points is not enough to demonstrate a true causal process. Two data points also restrict the
nature of change to be linear by default. Experimental studies have even more rarely been
conducted to date. Although there are ethical and logistical issues to overcome, there is
certainly the potential for experimental work in this area to increase control over the
independent variables. For instance, an experimental study by Giumetti et al. (2013)
measured performance on maths tasks while interacting with a supervisor. In the
laboratory-based study, simulating a workplace setting, participants were randomly
assigned to interact with either an uncivil or a supportive supervisor over e-mail while
completing a series of math tasks. Additionally, the authors measured the effect of type of
supervisor on physiological measures, such as cardiovascular activity (measured via ECG).
It is clear that in future research, scholars should aim to use longitudinal and/or
experimental designs to increase confidence about the causal relationships between
harassment, its antecedents, and consequences.
In addition to increasing internal validity, repeated measures allow for more complex
substantive relationships between factors to be clearly examined and untangled, which
cross-sectional research does not. Harassment antecedents may themselves be influ-
enced by factors that have traditionally been viewed within the literature as harassment
outcomes, just as, for example, emotional exhaustion can lead to the perception of
higher work demands (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). And some variables may be both
antecedents and outcomes of harassment. For example, a number of studies have linked
low job control with increased exposure to harassment both cross-sectionally and
longitudinally (Baillien, De Cuyper, & De Witte, 2011; Baillien, Rodrıguez-Mu~ noz, Van
den Broeck, & De Witte, 2011; Tuckey, Dollard, Hosking, & Winefield, 2009), and control
was identified by Bowling and Beehr’s (2006) meta-analysis as an organizational
antecedent (q = .25). It is also possible, however, that exposure to harassment can
undermine target employees’ control over their work, but this possibility has yet to be
investigated. Accordingly, collecting data on three or more occasions could greatly
improve the internal validity of harassment research and give insight into different
growth or loss patterns, reciprocal relationships, and mediation pathways (Cole &
Maxwell, 2003).
Due to the limited use of repeated-measures designs, intra-individual variability in
exposure to harassment and the predictors of this change remain important theoretical
issues not yet touched by existing research. How harassment and its effects unfold
within-persons may take several months or longer to become apparent. Research that
investigates the exposure, antecedents, and effects of harassment by tracking the time
course of development within workers is sorely needed and will improve the statistical
conclusion validity of future harassment research. If such an approach is adopted, it would
be possible to identify more precise points of prevention and intervention. Multiple data
collection points are required to uncover the complex processes involved. For example,
certain antecedent conditions (such as high workload) may cause individuals to act in
ways (e.g., miss work deadlines) that attract harassment (or punitive responses) from their
supervisors (i.e., a stressor creation phenomenon; Spector, Zapf, Chen, & Frese, 2000),
which is a potential mediating pathway best studied over three or more time points.
Likewise, the link between harassment and its outcomes may occur through within-per-
son changes in affect or self-efficacy, possibilities which again need to be studied using
repeated measurements. Overall, our results show that studying the processes involved in
the development of harassment is an important theoretical gap that remains to be filled.
Understanding the mechanisms will enable researchers to reach more accurate
conclusions about preventing harassment and devise more effective strategies for its
removal from the workplace (cf. Einarsen et al., 2011).
Knowledge on the mechanisms could be tackled with a diary study design. Diary
studies are now commonly used to investigate a range of areas of organizational life (Ohly
et al., 2010), but only very recently has this design been applied to study harassment
(specifically, abusive supervision; Wheeler et al., 2013). Diary methods could be used to
identify the points at which escalations in specific harassment situations occur, along with
work-related (e.g., supervisor and colleague social support, perceptions of role conflict)
and personal (e.g., personality characteristics of the target) factors that account for these
changes. Other complex and dynamic within-person processes could also be studied, for
example how power dynamics and personal resources shift within a specific relationship
to enable harassment to continue. Hence, our review suggests that future research could
expand the theoretical understanding of harassment by incorporating the use of diaries,
alongside the more common survey and interview methods. In addition, qualitative
studies will also be useful for extending our understanding of the complexities involved
and raising new research questions to explore. For instance, qualitative interviews could
shed light on whether or not there are different pathways to harassment from different
perpetrators, which draw on different power bases.
Another continuing threat to statistical conclusion validity is the focus on individual
level associations. The role of the organization and workgroup in enabling or preventing
harassment within workplaces remains underdeveloped in current research and theory,
and in translation to practice. Indeed, Hutchinson, Wilkes, Jackson, and Vickers (2010)
noted that the lack of multilevel research into workplace harassment has limited strategies
to address organizational climate and other antecedents at group and organizational
levels. Victimization from a group or as part of dyad, centred on power imbalance, is
common in the workplace, and the organizational stance on harassment can limit or (more
often) exacerbate antecedents and outcomes (Aquino & Lamertz, 2004). By studying
predictors from different organizational levels, future research could draw more accurate
and informative conclusions. Hence, greater use of multilevel designs is needed to
examine the effect of workgroup and organization antecedents and to investigate the
effectiveness of harassment prevention policies, guided by research from the individual
level of analysis (see also Rousseau, 1985).
A chief concern in terms of external validity that we uncovered in our review was
omissions in the literature in terms of reporting the study population and whether the
sample was representative of the population. Due to the lack of random sampling and
sample representativeness in existing literature (or lack of reporting on these
elements), we can conclude that few existing studies can provide accurate and
reliable prevalence information. Time, financial, and ethical constraints (see Bolger
et al., 2003) can limit the ability of researchers to recruit a truly representative sample,
but researchers should aim to enlist a large and diverse sample wherever possible to
increase the likelihood of generalizing the results to the study population. This is
important in the study of harassment if scholars are to build a high-quality and
informative evidence base that sheds light on the general principles about harassment
and how to combat it.
It is also clear from our review that mainstream organizational science has a limited
knowledge of harassment research in non-English-speaking countries. It should be
acknowledged that publication in English was a selection criterion, which undoubtedly
contributed to the lack of non-western research studies identified for this review.
Nevertheless, these figures reflect the current state of the international peer-reviewed
literature. While there could be a wealth of studies in Asian languages, for example, they
are not influencing the main international literature field. Two reasons stand out, through
discussion with Asian colleagues. Articles published in Asian languages are not typically
indexed in a central database or other systematic manner, meaning that it is very difficult
to find them unless they are eventually published in an English-language journal (Patah,
Abdullah, Naba, Zahari, & Radzi, 2010). Even if relevant studies could be identified in a
literature search, researchers may lack the resources, time, or interest needed to translate
the publications into English. As a result, these studies are often restricted to university
bulletins and smaller journals (Sarawati, 2011). Consequently, the results of potentially
influential studies elude the main research field. As an example, the antecedents,
consequences, and process of harassment may in fact be contingent on cultural factors,
thereby requiring scholars to extend their research to underrepresented countries and
continents (e.g., Asia, Africa, and South America). For instance, a study by Loh, Restubog,
and Zagenczyk (2010) found that culture moderated perceptions of and reactions to
bullying, such that workers in westernized countries were less likely to see bullying as
standardized behaviour compared with those in non-westernized countries. This example
underscores the need for more research, and publication in international journals,
regarding negative interpersonal behaviour at work in Eastern and other cultures.
Limitations
It is important to consider several factors relevant to utilizing the conclusions and
recommendations presented here. As previously mentioned, only published peer-re-
viewed journal literature was reviewed. The inclusion criteria excluded unpublished
papers, dissertations, book chapters, and conference papers. Unpublished research is
essential for meta-analyses that aim to quantify the magnitude of relationships between
different variables, wherein a publication bias for significant findings could over-inflate
relationships were only published data examined. Our main focus was on classifying the
methodological features of studies in the public domain that are positioned to influence
knowledge development internationally. The potential effect of publication bias is
therefore slightly different in our review. As our review included only those studies
rigorous enough to have survived a peer-review process, our findings may understate the
true extent of problems were unpublished research and other forms of publication also
taken into account.
Additionally, the inclusion criterion which limited the review to articles published in
English may have biased the frequency of articles by country. Almost certainly within
Europe, and most likely Asia, India, and South America as well, there exist bodies of
workplace harassment literature published in languages other than English. The gap in
knowledge, in terms of the total number of studies from each region, may be smaller than
that identified here, and potentially, the methods utilized in such research may differ from
those reported here. Finally, we used the PsycINFO and PubMed databases to search for
articles, perhaps limiting the scope of information available for disciplines that do not use
PsycINFO or PubMed (e.g., education). However, this issue was partially counteracted by
use of the snowballing technique, which directed additional articles from outside of these
databases to the review pool.
Conclusion
The results of this review provide explicit evidence to evaluate the nature of the
methodological limitations in the workplace harassment field and gauge the
magnitude of these problems within existing empirical research. Interest in the
phenomenon of harassment has grown substantially in the 26-year period investigated
in this review. Despite this growth, studies remain characterized by an over-reliance of
certain aspects of research methodology, which in turn limits the construct, internal,
external, and statistical conclusion validity of existing research. The progression of
knowledge in this area will be aided by utilizing more diverse techniques for data
collection and analysis, alongside a renewed focus on the process and complex
mechanisms involved in harassment, not just on the antecedents or the consequences.
The comprehensive, integrated coverage that we present here regarding the key
threats to validity within harassment research provides an overarching guide for future
research in this field.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded in part by Grant LP100100340 from the Australian Research
Council and the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate articles included in the methodological
review.
*Agervold, M., & Mikkelsen, E. G. (2004). Relationships between bullying, psychosocial work
environment and individual stress reactions. Work & Stress, 18, 336–351. doi:10.1080/
02678370412331319794
*Ahmer, S., Yousafzai, A. W., Bhutto, N., Alam, S., Sarangzai, A. K., & Iqbal, A. (2008). Bullying of
medical students in Pakistan: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. PLoS One, 3, e3889.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003889
*Andersen, G. R., Aasland, O. G., Fridner, A., & L€
ovseth, L. T. (2010). Harassment among university
hospital physicians in four European cities. Results from a cross-sectional study in Norway,
Sweden, Iceland and Italy (the HOUPE study). Work, 37, 99–110. doi:10.3233/WOR20101061
*Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimisation the effects of
hierachical status and conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26, 171–193.
doi:10.1177/014920630002600201
*Aquino, K., & Bommer, W. H. (2003). Preferential mistreatment: How victim status moderates the
relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace victimization.
Organization Science, 14, 374–385. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4135116
*Aquino, K., Grover, S. L., Bradfield, M., & Allen, D. G. (1999). The effects of negative affectivity,
hierarchical status, and self-determination on workplace victimization. Academy of
Management Journal, 42, 260–272. doi:10.2307/256918
Aquino, K., & Lamertz, K. (2004). A relational model of workplace victimization: Social roles and
patterns of victimization in dyadic relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1023–1034.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1023
Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective.
Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717–741. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163703
*Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Hershcovis, M. S., & Turner, N. (2011). Interpersonal targets and types of
workplace aggression as a function of perpetrator sex. Employee Rights and Responsibilities,
23, 163–170. doi:10.1007/s10672-010-9155-x
*Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive
supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191–201.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.191
*Astrauskaite, M., & Kern, R. M. (2011). A lifestyle perspective on potential victims of workplace
harassment. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 67, 420–431.
*Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J., & H€artel, C. E. J. (2003). Workplace conflict, bullying, and
counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 283–
301. doi:10.1108/eb028976
*Azodo, C. C., Ezeja, E. B., & Ehikhamenor, E. E. (2011). Occupational violence against dental
professionals in southern Nigeria. African Health Sciences, 11, 486–492. doi:10.4314%2Fahs.
v11i3
*Baillien, E., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2011). Job autonomy and workload as antecedents of
workplace bullying: A two-wave test of Karasek’s job demand control model for targets
and perpetrators. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 191–208.
doi:10.1348/096317910X508371
*Baillien, E., Neyens, I., & De Witte, H. (2008). Organizational, team related and job related risk
factors for bullying, violence and sexual harassment in the workplace: A qualitative study.
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 13, 132–146.
*Baillien, E., Rodrıguez-Mu~ noz, A., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2011). Do demands and
resources affect target’s and perpetrators’ reports of workplace bullying? A two-wave
cross-lagged study. Work & Stress, 25, 128–146. doi:10.1080/02678373.2011.591600
*Balducci, C., Cecchin, M., & Fraccaroli, F. (2012). The impact of role stressors on workplace
bullying in both victims and perpetrators, controlling for personal vulnerability factors: A
longitudinal analysis. Work & Stress, 26, 195–212. doi:10.1080/02678373.2012.714543
Barling, J., Dupre, K. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting workplace aggression and
violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 671–692. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.
110707.163629
*Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence
on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161–173.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996
*Baron, R. A., Neuman, J. H., & Geddes, D. (1999). Social and personal determinants of workplace
aggression: Evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and the Type A behavior pattern.
Aggressive Behavior, 25, 281–296. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1999
*Bentley, T. A., Catley, B., Cooper-Thomas, H., Gardner, D., O’Driscoll, M. P., Dale, A., &
Trenberth, L. (2012). Perceptions of workplace bullying in the New Zealand travel industry:
Prevalence and management strategies. Tourism Management, 33, 351–360. doi:10.1016/
j.tourman.2011.04.004
*Ben-Zur, H., & Yagil, D. (2005). The relationship between empowerment, aggressive behaviours of
customers, coping, and burnout. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 14, 81–99. doi:10.1080/13594320444000281
*Berry, P. A., Gillespie, G. L., Gates, D., & Schafer, J. (2012). Novice nurse productivity following
workplace bullying. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 44, 80–87. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.
2011.01436.x
*Berthelsen, M., Skogstad, A., Lau, B., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Do they stay or do they go? A longitudinal
study of intentions to leave and exclusion from working life among targets of workplace
bullying. International Journal of Manpower, 32, 178–193. doi:10.1108/01437721111130198
*Bilgel, N., Aytac, S., & Bayram, N. (2006). Bullying in Turkish white-collar workers. Occupational
Medicine, 56, 226–231. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqj041
*Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Hjeit-Back, M. (1994). Aggression among university employees.
Aggressive behavior, 20, 173–184.
*Bogaerts, S., & Van der Laan, A. M. (2012). Intracolleague aggression in a group of Dutch
prison workers: Negative affectivity and posttraumatic stress disorder. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 544–556. doi:10.1177/
0306624X12442825
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual
Review of Psychology, 54, 579–616. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145030
*Bond, S. A., Tuckey, M. R., & Dollard, M. F. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate, workplace bullying,
and symptoms of posttraumatic stress. Organization Development Journal, 28, 37–56.
Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective:
A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 998–1012.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998
*Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., Bennett, M. M., & Watson, C. P. (2010). Target personality and
workplace victimization: A prospective analysis. Work & Stress, 24, 140–158. doi:10.1080/
02678373.2010.489635
*Brewer, G., & Whiteside, E. (2012). Workplace bullying and stress within the prison
service. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 4, 76–85. doi:10.1108/
17596591211208283
*Brown, L. P., Rospenda, K. M., Sokas, R. K., Conroy, L., Freels, S., & Swanson, N. G. (2011).
Evaluating the association of workplace psychosocial stressors with occupational injury, illness,
and assault. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 8, 31–37. doi:10.1080/
15459624.2011.537985
*Brown, T. J., & Sumner, K. E. (2006). Perceptions and punishments of workplace aggression:
The role of aggression content, context, and perceiver variables. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 36, 2509–2531. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00115.x
*Budd, J. W., Arvey, R. D., & Lawless, P. (1996). Correlates and consequences of workplace
violence. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 197–210. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.
1.2.197
Bunk, J. A., & Magley, V. J. (2013). The role of appraisals and emotions in understanding experiences
of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 87–105. doi:10.1037/
a0030987
*Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2011). Aggressive reactions to abusive supervision: The role of
interactional justice and narcissism. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 389–398.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00886.x
*Burton, J. P., Hoobler, J. M., & Scheuer, M. L. (2012). Supervisor workplace stress and abusive
supervision: The buffering effect of exercise. Journal of Business Psychology, 27, 271–279.
doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9255-0
Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1982). The concept of external validity. Journal of
Consumer Research, 9, 240–244. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488620
*Carlson, D., Ferguson, M., Hunter, E., & Whitten, D. (2012). Abusive supervision and work–family
conflict: The path through emotional labor and burnout. The Leadership Quarterly, 23,
849–859. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.003
*Casimir, G., McCormack, D., Djurkovic, N., & Nsubuga-Kyobe, A. (2012). Psychosomatic model
of workplace bullying: Australian and Ugandan schoolteachers. Employee Relations, 34,
411–428. doi:10.1108/01425451211236841
Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, T., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). A review of research
methods in IO/OB work–family research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 28–43.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.28
*Chang, C. H., & Lyons, B. J. (2012). Not all aggressions are created equal: A multifoci approach to
workplace aggression. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 79–92. doi:10.1037/
a0026073
*Claybourn, M. (2011). Relationships between moral disengagement, work characteristics and

workplace harassment. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 283–301. doi:10.1007/
s10551-010-0680-1
*Cole, L. L., Grubb, P. L., Sauter, S. L., Swanson, N. G., & Lawless, P. (1997). Psychosocial correlates of
harassment, threats and fear of violence in the workplace. Scandinavian Journal of Work
Environment & Health, 23, 450–457. doi:10.5271/sjweh.268
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions
and tips in the use of structural equation modelling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112,
558–577. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558
*Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following
interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
8, 247–265. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.247
*Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2009). Patterns and Profiles of Response to Incivility in the
Workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 272–288. doi:10.1037/
a0014934
*Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace:
Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64–80. doi:10.1037/
1076-8998.6.1.64
Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Rivers, I., Smith, P. K., & Pereira, B. (2002). Measuring workplace bullying.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 33–51. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(00)00034-3
*Coyne, I., Craig, J., & Chong, P. S. L. (2004). Workplace bullying in a group context. British
Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32, 301–317. doi:10.1080u03069880410001723530
*De Cuyper, N., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity, perceived employability and
targets’ and perpetrators’ experiences of workplace bullying. Work & Stress, 23, 206–224.
doi:10.1080/02678370903257578
*Deery, S., Walsh, J., & Guest, J. (2011). Workplace aggression: The effects of harassment on job
burnout and turnover intentions. Work, Employment and Society, 25, 742–759. doi:10.1177/
0950017011419707
*Demir, D., & Rodwell, J. (2012). Psychosocial antecedents and consequences of workplace
aggression for hospital nurses. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 44, 376–384. doi:10.1111/j.
1547-5069.2012.01472.x
*Detert, J. R., Trevi~
no, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007). Managerial modes of influence
and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 993–1005. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.993
*Dionisi, A. M., Barling, J., & Dupre, K. E. (2012). Revisiting the comparative outcomes of
workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17,
398–408. doi:10.1037/a0029883
*Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the
prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 547–559. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.86.4.547
*Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy
of Management Journal, 45, 331–351. doi:10.2307/3069350
*Dupre, K. E., & Barling, J. (2006). Predicting and preventing supervisory workplace aggression.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 13–26. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.13
*Dupre, K. E., Barling, J., Turner, N., & Stride, C. B. (2010). Comparing perceived injustices from
supervisors and romantic partners as predictors of aggression. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 15, 359–370. doi:10.1037/a0020520
*Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., Connelly, C. E., Barling, J., & Hoption, C. (2006). Workplace aggression
in teenage part-time employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 987–997. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.91.5.987
Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 379–401. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00043-3
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at
work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts
Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress, 23, 24–44. doi:10.1080/02678370902815673
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.) (2011). Bullying and harassment in the
workplace: Developments in theory, research and practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
*Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. I. (1997). Harassment in the workplace and the victimisation of men.
Violence and Victims, 12, 247–263.
*Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., & Matthiesen, S. B. (1994). Bullying and harassment at work and their
relationships to work environment quality: An exploratory study. The European Work and
Organizational Psychologist, 4, 381–401.
*Farrell, G. A., Bobrowski, C., & Bobrowski, P. (2006). Scoping workplace aggression in nursing:
Findings from an Australian study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 55, 778–787. doi:10.1111/j.
1365-2648.2006.03956.x
*Farrell, G. A., & Shafiei, T. (2012). Workplace aggression, including bullying in nursing and
midwifery: A descriptive survey (the SWAB study). International Journal of Nursing Studies,
49, 1423–1431. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.06.007
*Freels, S. A., Richman, J. A., & Rospenda, K. M. (2005). Gender differences in the causal
direction between workplace harassment and drinking. Addictive Behaviors, 30, 1454–1458.
doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.01.014
*Fujishiro, K., Gee, G. C., & de Castro, A. B. (2011). Associations of workplace aggression with
work-related well-being among nurses in the Philippines. American Journal of Public Health,
101, 861–867. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.188144
*Giorgi, G. (2012). Workplace bullying in academia creates a negative work environment. An
Italian study. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 24, 261–275. doi:10.1007/
s10672-012-9193-7
Giumetti, G. W., Hatfield, A. L., Scisco, J. L., Schroeder, A. N., Muth, E. R., & Kowalski, R. M.
(2013). What a rude e-mail! Examining the differential effects of incivility versus support on
mood, energy, engagement, and performance in an online context. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 18, 297–309. doi:10.1037/a0032851
*Glasø, L., & Notelaers, G. (2012). Workplace bullying, emotions, and outcomes. Violence and
Victims, 27, 360–377. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.27.3.360
*Glomb, T. M. (2002). Workplace anger and aggression: Informing conceptual models with
data from specific encounters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 20–36.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.7.1.20
*Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence,
reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 486–496.
doi:10.2307/30040640
*Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against coworkers,
subordinates and supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace factors.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 897–913. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199911)
20:6<897::AID-JOB975>3.0.CO;2-Z
*Griffin, B. (2010). Multilevel relationships between organizational-level incivility, justice and
intention to stay. Work & Stress, 24, 309–323. doi:10.1080/02678373.2010.531186
*Gumbus, A., & Lyons, B. (2011). Workplace harassment: The social costs of bullying. Journal of
Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 8, 72–90.
*Haines, III, V. Y., Marchand, A., & Harvey, S. (2006). Crossover of workplace aggression
experiences in dual-earner couples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 305–314.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.11.4.305
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.)
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
*Hallberg, L. R. M., & Strandmark, M. (2006). Health consequences of workplace bullying:
Experiences from the perspective of employees in the public service sector. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 1, 109–119. doi:10.1080/

17482620600555664
Hannah, S. T., Schaubroeck, J. M., Peng, A. C., Lord, R. G., Trevino, L. K., Kozlowski, S. W. J., . . .
Doty, J. (2013). Joint influences of individual and work unit abusive supervision on ethical
intentions and behaviors: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98,
579–592. doi:10.1037/a0032809
*Hansen, A. M., Hogh, A., & Persson, R. (2011). Frequency of bullying at work, physiological
response, and mental health. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 70, 19–27.
*Hansen, A. M., Hogh, A., Persson, R., Karlson, B., Garde, A. H., & Ørbæk, P. (2006). Bullying at work,
health outcomes, and physiological stress response. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60,
63–72. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2005.06.078
*Harlos, K. P., & Axelrod, L. J. (2005). Investigating hospital administrators’ experiences
of workplace mistreatment. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 37, 262–272.
doi:10.1037/h0087261
*Harvey, S., & Keashly, L. (2003). Predicting the risk for aggression in the workplace: Work factors,
self-esteem and time at work. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,
31, 807–814. doi:10.2224/sbp.2003.31.8.807
*Hauge, L. J., Einarsen, S., Knardahl, S., Lau, B., Notelaers, G., & Skogstad, A. (2011). Leadership and
role stressors as departmental level predictors of workplace bullying. International Journal
of Stress Management, 18, 305–323. doi:10.1037/a0025396
*Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work
environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work & Stress, 21, 220–
242. doi:10.1080/02678370701705810
*Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Individual and situational predictors of workplace
bullying: Why do perpetrators engage in the bullying of others? Work & Stress, 23, 349–358.
doi:10.1080/02678370903395568
*Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The relative impact of workplace bullying as a
social stressor at work. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 426–433. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9450.2010.00813.x
*Hennessy, D. A. (2008). The impact of commuter stress on workplace aggression. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2315–2335. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00393.x
*Hepworth, W., & Towler, A. (2004). The effects of individual differences and charismatic
leadership on workplace aggression. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 176–185.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.9.2.176
Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). ‘Incivility, social undermining, bullying. . . oh my!’: A call to reconcile
constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32,
499–519. doi:10.1002/job.689
Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression:
A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 31, 24–44. doi:10.1002/job.621
*Hershcovis, M. S., Reich, T. C., Parker, S. K., & Bozeman, J. (2012). The relationship between
workplace aggression and target deviant behaviour: The moderating roles of power and task
interdependence. Work & Stress, 26, 1–20. doi:10.1080/02678373.2012.660770
Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre0 , K. E., Inness, M., . . . Sivanathan, N.
(2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
228–238. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228
*Hoel, H., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying
behaviours are not necessarily equally damaging. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling,
32, 367–387. doi:10.1080/03069880410001723594
*Hogh, A., & Dofradottir, A. (2001). Coping with bullying in the workplace. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 485–495. doi:10.1080/13594320143000825
*Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced
aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1125–1133. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1125
*Hoobler, J. M., Rospenda, K. M., Lemmon, G., & Rosa, J. A. (2010). A within-subject longitudinal
study of the effects of positive job experiences and generalized workplace harassment on
well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 434–451. doi:10.1037/
a0021000
*Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M. H., Wilkes, L., & Jackson, D. (2009). ‘The worse you behave, the more
you seem, to be rewarded’: Bullying in nursing as organizational corruption. Employee Rights
and Responsibilities Journal, 21, 213–229. doi:10.1007/s10672-009-9100-z
*Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M. H., Wilkes, L., & Jackson, D. (2010). A typology of bullying
behaviours: The experiences of Australian nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19, 2319–2328.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03160.x
*Hutchinson, M., Wilkes, L., Jackson, D., & Vickers, M. H. (2010). Integrating individual, work group
and organizational factors: Testing a multidimensional model of bullying in the nursing
workplace. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 173–181. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2009.
01035.x
*Hutchison, M., Vickers, M. H., Jackson, D., & Wilkes, L. (2006). Like wolves in a pack: Predatory
alliances of bullies in nursing. Journal of Management and Organization, 12, 235–250.
doi:10.5172/jmo.2006.12.3.235
*Hutton, S., & Gates, D. (2008). Workplace incivility and productivity losses among direct care
staff. AAOHN Journal, 56, 168–175.
*Inness, M., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2005). Understanding supervisor-targeted aggression: A
within-person, between-jobs design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 731–739. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.90.4.731
*Inness, M., LeBlanc, M. M., & Barling, J. (2008). Psychosocial predictors of supervisor-, peer-,
subordinate-, and service-provider-targeted aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,
1401–1411. doi:10.1037/a0012810
*Jennifer, D., Cowie, H., & Ananiadou, K. (2003). Perceptions and experience of workplace bullying
in five different working populations. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 489–496. doi:10.1002/ab.10055
*Jockin, V., Arvey, R. D., & McGue, M. (2001). Perceived victimization moderates self-reports
of workplace aggression and conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1262–1269.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1262
Judd, C. M., Smith, E. R., & Kidder, L. H. (1991). Research methods in social relations. Fort Worth,
TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
*Kaukiainen, A., Salmivalli, C., Bj€ €
orkqvist, K., Osterman, K., Lahtinen, A., Kostamo, A., &
Lagerspetz, K. (2001). Overt and covert aggression in work settings in relation to the
subjective well-being of employees. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 360–371. doi:10.1002/ab.1021
*Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L. M. (1994). Abusive behaviour in the workplace: A preliminary
investigation. Violence and Victims, 9, 1994.
*Kennedy, D. B., Homant, R. J., & Homant, M. R. (2004). Perception of injustice as a predictor
of support for workplace aggression. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 323–336.
doi:10.1023/B:JOBU.0000016709.52870.2c
*Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Scott, K. D., Ick Raymund James, M., Garcia, P. R., &
Tang, R. L. (2012). Sins of the parents: Self-control as a buffer between supervisors’ previous
experience of family undermining and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervision.
The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 869–882. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.005
*Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). Get smarty pants: Cognitive ability, personality, and victimization.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 889–901. doi:10.1037/a0019985
*Kivim€aki, M., Elovainio, M., & Vahtera, J. (2000). Workplace bullying and sickness absence in
hospital staff. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 57, 656–660. doi:10.1136/oem.57.
10.656
*Kivim€aki, M., Virtanen, M., Vartia, M., Elovainio, M., Vahtera, J., & Keltikangas-J€arvinen, J. (2003).
Workplace bullying and the risk of cardiovascular disease and depression. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 60, 779–783. doi:10.1136/oem.60.10.779
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection,
and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195–229. doi:10.5465/AMR.1994.
9410210745
*Lallukka, T., Haukka, J., Partonen, T., Rahkonen, O., & Lahelma, E. (2012). Workplace bullying and
subsequent psychotropic medication: A cohort study with register linkages. BMJ Open, 2, 1–7.
doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001660
*Laschinger, H. L. K., Grau, A. L., Finegan, J., & Wilk, P. (2010). New graduate nurses’ experiences
of bullying and burnout in hospital settings. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66, 2732–2742.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05420.x
*Laschinger, H. K. S., Leiter, M., Day, A., & Gilin, D. (2009). Workplace empowerment, incivility, and
burnout: Impact on staff nurse recruitment and retention outcomes. Journal of Nursing
Management, 17, 302–311. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2009.00999.x
*Laschinger, H. K. S., Wong, C. A., & Grau, A. L. (2012). The influence of authentic leadership
on newly graduated nurses’ experiences of workplace bullying, burnout and retention
outcomes: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49, 1266–1276.
doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.05.012
*Law, R., Dollard, M. F., Tuckey, M. R., & Dormann, C. (2011). Psychosocial safety climate as a lead
indicator of workplace bullying and harassment, job resources, psychological health and
employee engagement. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43, 1782–1793. doi:10.1016/j.aap.
2011.04.010
*LeBlanc, M. M., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Predictors and outcomes of workplace violence and
aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 444–453. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.444
*Lee, R. T., & Brotherbridge, C. M. (2010). Sex and position status differences in workplace
aggression. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26, 403–418. doi:10.1108/02683941111139010
*Lee, R. T., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2006). When prey turns predatory: Workplace bullying as a
predictor of counteraggression/bullying, coping, and well-being. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 352–377. doi:10.1080/13594320600636531
*Lewis, D. (2004). Bullying at work: The impact of shame among university and college
lecturers. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32, 281–299. doi:10.1080/
03069880410001723521
*Lewis, P. S., & Malecha, A. (2011). The impact of workplace incivility on the work environment,
manager skill, and productivity. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 41, 41–47.
doi:10.1097/NNA.0b013e3182002a4c
Leymann, H. (1989). Presentation av LIPT-formularet: € konstruktion, validering, utfall. [Leymann
inventory of psychological terrorization: Development, validation and results]. Stockholm,
Sweden: Violen.
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and Psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5,
119–126.
*Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012a). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the
effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,
107–123. doi:10.1037/a0024610107
*Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012b). Does taking the good with the bad make things worse?
How abusive supervision and leader–member exchange interact to impact need satisfaction
and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117,
41–52. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.10.003
Likupe, G. (2006). Experiences of African nurses in the UK national health service: A literature
review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 15, 1213–1220. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01380.x
*Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work
and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95–107. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.
95
*Lim, S., & Lee, A. (2011). Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility: Does family support
help? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 95–111. doi:10.1037/a0021726
*Lind, K., Glasø, L., Pallesen, S., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Personality profiles among targets and
nontargets of workplace bullying. European Psychologist, 14, 231–237. doi:10.1027/
1016-9040.14.3.231
*Lindy, C., & Schaefer, F. (2010). Negative workplace behaviours: An ethical dilemma for nurse
managers. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 285–292. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.
01080.x
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the
cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management
Journal, 55, 1187–1212. doi:10.5465/amj2010.0400
*Loh, J., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2010). Consequences of workplace bullying on
employee identification and satisfaction among Australians and Singaporeans. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 236–252. doi:10.1177/0022022109354641
*Løkke Vie, T., Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Does trait anger, trait anxiety or organisational
position moderate the relationship between exposure to negative acts and self-labelling as a
victim of workplace bullying? Nordic Psychology, 62, 67–79. doi:10.1027/1901-2276/
a000017
*Løkke Vie, T., Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Health outcomes and self-labeling as a victim of
workplace bullying. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 70, 37–43. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.
2010.06.007
*Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2006). Take this job and. . .: Quitting and other forms of resistance to workplace
bullying. Communication Monographs, 73, 406–433. doi:10.1080/03637750601024156
*Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & McDermott, V. (2011). Making sense of supervisory bullying: Perceived
powerlessness, empowered possibilities. Southern Communication Journal, 76, 342–368.
doi:10.1080/10417941003725307
*MacIntosh, J. (2012). Workplace bullying influences women’s engagement in the workforce.
Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 33, 762–768. doi:10.3109/01612840.2012.708701
*MacIntosh, J., Wuest, J., Merritt Gray, M., & Cronkhite, M. (2010). Workplace bullying in health care
affects the meaning of work. Qualitative Health Research, 20, 1128–1141. doi:10.1177/
0193945910362226
*Marın, A. J., Grzywacz, J. G., Arcury, T. A., Carrillo, L., Coates, M. L., & Quandt, S. A. (2009). Evidence
of organizational injustice in poultry processing plants: Possible effects on occupational health
and safety among Latino workers in North Carolina. American Journal of Industrial Medicine,
52, 37–48. doi:10.1002/ajim.20643
*Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2004). Psychiatric distress and symptoms of PTSD among
victims of bullying at work. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32, 335–356.
doi:10.1080/03069880410001723558
*Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Perpetrators and targets of bullying at work: Role
stress and individual differences. Violence and Victims, 22, 735–753. doi:10.1891/
088667007782793174
Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Bullying in the workplace: Definition, prevalence,
antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior,
13, 202–248.
*Matthisen, G. E., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2008). The occurrences and correlates of bullying
and harassment in the restaurant sector. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 59–68.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00602.x
*Matthisen, G. E., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2011). The relationship between supervisor
personality, supervisors’ perceived stress and workplace bullying. Journal of Business Ethics,
99, 637–651. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0674-z
*McCormack, D., Casimir, G., Djurkovic, N., & Yang, L. (2006). The concurrent effects of
workplace bullying, satisfaction with supervisor, and satisfaction with co-workers on affective
commitment among school-teachers in China. International Journal of Conflict Management,
17, 316–331. doi:10.1108/10444060610749473
*McFarlin, S. K., Fals-Stewart, W., Majora, D. A., & Justice, E. M. (2001). Alcohol use and workplace
aggression: An examination of perpetration and victimization. Journal of Substance Abuse,
13, 303–321. doi:10.1016/S0899-3289(01)00080-3
*McGinley, M., Richman, J. A., & Rospenda, K. M. (2011). Duration of sexual harassment and
generalized harassment in the workplace over ten years: Effects on deleterious drinking
outcomes. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 30, 229–242. doi:10.1080/10550887.2011.
581988
*McKay, R., Arnold, D. H., Fratzl, J., & Thomas, R. (2008). Workplace bullying in academia:
A Canadian study. Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, 20, 77–100. doi:10.1007/
s10672-008-9073-3
*Merecz, D., Drabek, M., & Moœcicka, A. (2009). Aggression at the workplace — psychological
consequences of abusive encounter with co-workers and clients. International Journal
of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 22, 243–260. doi:10.2478/
v10001-009-0027-2
*Meseguer de Pedro, M., Soler-Sanchez, M. I., Saez-Navarro, M. C., & Garcıa-Izquierdo, M. (2008).
Workplace mobbing and effects on workers’ health. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11,
219–227.
*Miedema, B., Easley, J., Fortin, P., Hamilton, R., & Tatemichi, S. (2009). Disrespect, harassment,
and abuse: All in a day’s work for family physicians. Canadian Family Physician, 55, 279–
285.
*Miedema, B., Tatemichi, S., Hamilton, R., Lambert-Lanning, A., Lemire, F., Manca, D. P., & Ramsden,
V. R. (2011). Effect of colleague and co-worker abuse on family physicians in Canada. Canadian
Family Physician, 54, 1424–1431.
*Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in Danish work-life: Prevalence and
health correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 393–413.
doi:10.1080/13594320143000816
*Milam, A. C., Spitzmueller, C., & Penney, L. M. (2009). Investigating individual differences
among targets of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 58–69.
doi:10.1037/a0012683
*Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the
moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1158–
1168. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159
Nandkeolyar, A. K., Shaffer, J. A., Li, A., Ekkirala, S., & Bagger, J. (2013). Surviving an abusive
supervisor: The joint roles of conscientiousness and coping strategies. Journal of Applied
Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0034262
*Niedhammer, I., David, S., Degioanni, S., & 143 occupational physicians (2006). Association
between workplace bullying and depressive symptoms in the French working population.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 61, 251–259. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2006.03.051
*Niedhammer, I., David, S., Degioanni, S., Drummond, A., Philip, P., & 143 occupational physicians
(2009). Workplace bullying and sleep disturbances: Findings from a large scale cross-sectional
survey in the French working population. Sleep, 32, 1211–1219.
*Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2008). Sense of coherence as a protective
mechanism among targets of workplace bullying. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
13, 128–136. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.13.2.128
Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The impact of methodological moderators on
prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83, 955–979. doi:10.1348/096317909X481256
Niven, K., Sprigg, C. A., Armitage, C. J., & Satchwell, A. (2013). Ruminative thinking exacerbates
the negative effects of workplace violence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 86, 67–84. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2012.02066.x
*Nolfe, G., Petrella, C., Blasi, F., Zontini, F., & Nolfe, G. (2008). Psychopathological dimensions of
harassment in the workplace (Mobbing). International Journal of Mental Health, 36, 67–85.
doi:10.2753/IMH0020-7411360406
*O0 Lafsson, R. F. (2004). Coping with bullying in the workplace: The effect of gender, age and
type of bullying. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32, 319–333. doi:10.1080/
03069880410001723549
*Oblitas, F. Y. M., & Caufield, C. (2007). Workplace violence and drug use in women workers in a
Peruvian Barrio. International Nursing Review, 54, 339–345. doi:10.1111/j.1466-7657.2007.
00568.x
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research:
An introduction and some practical recommendations. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9,
79–93. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000009
Ottenbacher, K. J., & Barrett, K. A. (1990). Statistical conclusion validity of rehabilitation
research: A quantitative analysis. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation,
69, 102–107.
*Pai, H.-C., & Lee, S. (2011). Risk factors for workplace violence in clinical registered nurses in
Taiwan. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20, 1405–1412. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03650.x
Patah, M. O. R. A., Abdullah, R., Naba, M. M., Zahari, M. S. M., & Radzi, S. M. (2010). Workplace
bullying experiences, emotional dissonance and subsequent intentions to pursue a career in the
hospitality industry. Journal of Global Business and Economics, 1, 15–26.
*Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility and counterproductive work
behaviour (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26, 777–796. doi:10.1002/job.336
€
*Persson, R., Hogh, A., Hansen, A. M., Nordander, C., Ohlsson, K., Balogh, I., Osterberg, K., & Ørbæk,
P. (2009). Personality trait scores among occupationally active bullied persons and witnesses to
bullying. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 387–399. doi:10.1007/s11031-009-9132-6
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438
*Pompili, M., Lester, D., Innamorati, M., De Pisa, E., Iliceto, P., Puccinno, M., . . . Girardi, P. (2008).
Suicide risk and exposure to mobbing. Work, 31, 237–243.
*Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. M. (2012). Emotional and behavioral responses to workplace incivility
and the impact of hierarchical status. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 326–357.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01020.x
*Pranjic, N., Males-Bilic, L., Beganlic, A., & Mustajbegovic, J. (2006). Mobbing, stress, and work
ability index among physicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Survey study. Croatian Medical
Journal, 47, 750–758.
*Privitera, C., & Campbell, M. A. (2009). Cyberbullying: The new face of workplace bullying?
CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12, 395–400. doi:10.1089/cpb.2009.0025
*Pseekos, A. C., Bullock-Yowell, E., & Dahlen, E. R. (2011). Examining Holland’s
person-environment fit, workplace aggression, interpersonal conflict and job satisfaction.
Journal of Employment Counseling, 48, 63–71. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1920.2011.tb00115.x
*Quine, L. (1999). Workplace bullying in NHS community trust: Staff questionnaire survey. British
Medical Journal, 318, 228–232. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7178.228
*Quine, L. (2001). Workplace bullying in nurses. Journal of Health Psychology, 6, 73–84.
doi:10.1177/135910530100600106
*Raver, J. L., & Nishii, L. H. (2010). Once, twice, or three times as harmful? Ethnic harassment, gender
harassment, and generalized workplace harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 236–
254. doi:10.1037/a0018377
*Reio, Jr, T. G., & Ghosh, R. (2009). Antecedents and outcomes of workplace incivility: Implications
for human resource development research and practice. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 20, 237–264. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20020
*Reio, Jr, T. G., & Sanders-Reio, J. (2011). Thinking about workplace empowerment: Does
supervisor and co-worker incivility really matter? Advances in Developing Human Resources,
13, 462–478. doi:10.1177/1523422311430784
*Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2011). When distress hits home: The role of
contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive
supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 713–729. doi:10.1037/a0021593
*Richman, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., Flaherty, J. A., Freels, S., & Zlatoper, K. (2005). Perceived
organizational tolerance for workplace harassment and distress and drinking over time
[harassment and mental health]. Women and Health, 40, 1–23. doi:10.1300/J013v40n04_01
*Rodrıguez-Mu~ noz, A., Baillien, E., De Witte, H., Moreno-Jimenez, B., & Pastor, J. C. (2009).
Cross-lagged relationships between workplace bullying, job satisfaction and engagement: Two
longitudinal studies. Work & Stress, 23, 225–243. doi:10.1080/02678370903227357
*Rodwell, J., & Demir, D. (2012a). Oppression and exposure as differentiating predictors of
types of workplace violence for nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21, 2296–2305.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2012.04192.x
*Rodwell, J., & Demir, D. (2012b). Psychological consequences of bullying for hospital and aged
care nurses. International Nursing Review, 59, 539–546. doi:10.1111/j.1466-7657.2012.
01018.x
*Rospenda, K. M. (2002). Workplace harassment, services utilization, and drinking outcomes.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 141–155. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.7.2.141
*Rospenda, K. M., Fujishiro, K., Shannon, C. A., & Richman, J. A. (2008). Workplace harassment,
stress, and drinking behavior over time: Gender differences in a national sample. Addictive
Behaviors, 33, 964–967. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.02.009
Rospenda, K. M., & Richman, J. A. (2004). The factor structure of Generalized Workplace
Harassment. Violence and Victims, 19, 221–238.
*Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., Ehmke, J. L. Z., & Zlatoper, K. W. (2005). Is workplace harassment
hazardous to your health? Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 95–110. doi:10.1007/
s10869-005-6992-y
*Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., & Shannon, C. A. (2006). Patterns of workplace harassment,
gender, and use of services: An update. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 379–
393. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.11.4.379
*Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., & Shannon, C. A. (2009). Prevalence and mental health correlates
of harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Results from a national study. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 24, 819–843. doi:10.1177/0886260508317182
*Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., Wislar, J. S., & Flaherty, J. A. (2000). Chronicity of sexual
harassment and generalized work-place abuse: Effects on drinking outcomes. Addiction, 95,
1805–1820. doi:10.1080/09652140020011117
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organisational research: Multi-level and cross-level
perspectives. Research in Organisational Behavior, 7, 1–37.
*Rutter, A., & Hine, D. W. (2005). Sex differences in workplace aggression: An investigation of
moderation and mediation effects. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 254–270. doi:10.1002/ab.20051
*Sahin, B., Cetin, M., Cimen, M., & Yildiran, N. (2012). Assessment of Turkish junior male physicians’
exposure to mobbing behaviour. Croatian Medical Journal, 53, 357–366. doi:10.3325/cmj.
2012.53.357
*Sakellaropoulos, A., Pires, J., Estes, D., & Jasinski, D. (2011). Workplace aggression: Assessment of
prevalence in the field of nurse anesthesia. American Association of Nurse Anesthetists
Journal, 79, 51–57.
*Sakurai, K., & Jex, S. M. (2012). Coworker incivility and incivility targets’ work effort and
counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating role of supervisor social support. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 150–161. doi:10.1037/a0027350
Sarawati, S. (2011). Dimensi personaliti psiko tisisme di kalangan ketua dan impaknya terhadap
estim kendiri pekerja di tempat kerja [The dimension of psychotic personality among leaders
and its’ impact on employees’ self-esteem at work]. Retrieved from http://eprints.uthm.edu.my/
2036/1/Siti_Sarawati_Johar_FSSW_(ICoH).pdf
Saunders, P., Huynh, A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2007). Defining workplace bullying
behaviour professional lay definitions of workplace bullying. International Journal of Law
and Psychiatry, 30, 340–354. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2007.06.007
*Savicki, V., Cooley, E., & Gjesvold, J. (2003). Harassment as a predictor of job burnout in
correctional officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 602–619. doi:10.1177/
0093854803254494
*Sayers, J. K., Sears, K. L., Kelly, K. M., & Harbke, C. R. (2011). When employees engage in workplace
incivility: The interactive effect of psychological contract violation and organizational justice.
Employee Rights and Responsibilities, 23, 269–283. doi:10.1007/s10672-011-9170-6
*Schat, A. C. H., & Frone, M. R. (2011). Exposure to psychological aggression at work and job
performance: The mediating role of job attitudes and personal health. Work & Stress, 25, 23–40.
doi:10.1080/02678373.2011.563133
*Schat, A. C. H., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Effects of perceived control on the outcomes of
workplace aggression and violence. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 386–402.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.3.386
*Schat, A. C. H., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003). Reducing the adverse consequences of workplace
aggression and violence: The buffering effects of organizational support. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 110–122. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.8.2.110
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–
315. doi:10.1002/job.248
*Shannon, C. A., Rospenda, K. M., & Richman, J. A. (2007). Workplace harassment patterning,
gender, and utilization of professional services: Findings from a US national study. Social
Science & Medicine, 64, 1178–1191. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.10.038
*Shannon, C. A., Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., & Minich, L. M. (2009). Race, racial discrimination,
and the risk of work-related illness, injury, or assault: Findings from a national study. Journal
of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 51, 441–448. doi:10.1097/JOM.
0b013e3181990c17
*Shinsako, S. A., Richman, J. A., & Rospenda, K. M. (2001). Training-related harassment and drinking
outcomes in medical residents versus graduate students. Substance Use & Misuse, 36, 2043–
2063. doi:10.1081/JA-100108436
*Simons, S. (2008). Workplace bullying experienced by Massachusetts registered nurses and the
relationship to intention to leave the organization. Advances in Nursing Science, 31, E48–
E59.
*Sims, R. L., & Sun, P. (2012). Witnessing workplace bullying and the Chinese manufacturing
employee. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27, 9–26. doi:10.1108/02683941211193839
*Sinclair, R. R., Martin, J. E., & Croll, L. W. (2002). A threat-appraisal perspective on employees’ fears
about antisocial workplace behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 37–56.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.7.1.37
*Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of
laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 80–92.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80
*Skogstad, A., Torsheim, T., Einarsen, S., & Hauge, L. J. (2011). Testing the work environment
hypothesis of bullying on a group level of analysis: Psychosocial factors as precursors of
observed workplace bullying. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 475–495.
doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00444.x
*Sliter, K. A., Sliter, M. T., Withrow, S. A., & Jex, S. M. (2012). Employee adiposity and incivility:
Establishing a link and identifying demographic moderators and negative consequences.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 409–424. doi:10.1037/a0029862
*Smith, L. M., Andrusyszyn, M. A., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2010). Effects of workplace incivility and
empowerment on newly graduated nurses organizational commitment. Journal of Nursing
Management, 18, 1004–1015. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01165.x
*Snyder, L. A., Chen, P. Y., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2007). The underreporting gap in aggressive incidents
from geriatric patients against certified nursing assistants. Violence and Victims, 22, 367–379.
doi:10.1891/088667007780842784
Spector, P. E., Zapf, D., Chen, P. Y., & Frese, M. (2000). Why negative affectivity should not be
controlled in job stress research: Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 79–95. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200002)21:1<79::
AID-JOB964>3.0.CO;2-G
*Strandmark, K. M., & Hallberg, L. R.-M. (2007). The origin of workplace bullying: Experiences from
the perspective of bully victims in the public service sector. Journal of Nursing Management,
15, 332–341. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2007.00662.x
*Sulea, C., Filipescu, R., Horga, A., Orțan, C., & Fischmann, G. (2012). Interpersonal mistreatment
at work and burnout among teachers. Cognition, Brain, Behavior: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 26, 553–570. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.483
*Taylor, S. G., & Kluemper, D. H. (2012). Linking perceptions of role stress and incivility to
workplace aggression: The moderating role of personality. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 17, 316–329. doi:10.1037/a0028211
*Tehrani, N. (2004). Bullying: A source of chronic post-traumatic stress? British Journal of
Guidance & Counselling, 32, 357–366. doi:10.1080/03069880410001727567
*Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 178–190. doi:10.2307/1556375
*Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim
precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101–123. doi:10.1111/
j.1744-6570.2006.00725.x
*Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the relationships
between coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455–465. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.455
*Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators of the relationship
between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 974–983. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.974
*Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive
supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 721–
732. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.721
*Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing
explanations of the supervisor abuse and employee deviance relationship through
perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1009–1031.
doi:10.1037/a0020540
*Tonini, S., Lanfranco, A., Dellabianca, A., Lumelli, D., Giorgi, I., Mazzacane, F., . . . Candura, S. M.
(2011). Work-related stress and bullying: Gender differences and forensic medicine issues in the
diagnostic procedure. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 6, 1–6.
*Trudel, J., & Reio, Jr, T. G. (2011). Managing workplace incivility: The role of conflict management
styles—antecedent or antidote? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 395–423.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.20081
*Tuckey, M. R., Chrisopoulos, S., & Dollard, M. F. (2012). Job demands, resource deficiencies, and
workplace harassment: Evidence for micro-level effects. International Journal of Stress
Management, 19, 292–310. doi:10.1037/a0030317
*Tuckey, M. R., Dollard, M. F., Hosking, P. J., & Winefield, A. H. (2009). Workplace bullying:
The role of psychosocial work environment factors. International Journal of Stress
Management, 16, 215–232. doi:10.1037/a0016841
*Tuckey, M. R., Dollard, M. F., Saebel, J., & Berry, N. M. (2010). Negative workplace behaviour:
Temporal associations with cardiovascular outcomes and psychological health problems in
Australian police. Stress and Health, 26, 372–381. doi:10.1002/smi.1306
*Vartia, M. A. L. (2001). Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of its
targets and the observers of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health,
27, 63–69. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40967116
*Vartia, M., & Hyyti, J. (2002). Gender differences in workplace bullying among prison officers.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 113–126. doi:10.1080/
1359432014300087 0
*Vie, T. L., Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S. (2012). How does it feel? Workplace bullying, emotions and
musculoskeletal complaints. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53, 165–173. doi:10.1111/j.
1467-9450.2011.00932.x
*Wang, W., Mao, J., Wu, W., & Liu, J. (2012). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance:
The mediating role of interactional justice and the moderating role of power distance.
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50, 43–60. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7941.2011.00004.x
Wheeler, A. R., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Whitman, M. V. (2013). The interactive effects of abusive
supervision and entitlement on emotional exhaustion and co-worker abuse. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86, 477–496. doi:10.1111/joop.12034
*Whitaker, T. (2012). Social workers and workplace bullying: Perceptions, responses and
implications. Work, 42, 115–123. doi:10.3233/WOR-2012-1335
Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of
workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60, 127–162. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.
2007.00067.x
*Winstanley, S., & Whittington, R. (2002). Anxiety, burnout and coping styles in general hospital
staff exposed to workplace aggression: A cyclical model of burnout and vulnerability to
aggression. Work & Stress, 16, 302–315. doi:10.1080/0267837021000058650
*Wu, T. Y., & Hu, C. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion:
Dispositional antecedents and boundaries. Group and Organization Management, 34, 143–
169. doi:10.1177/1059601108331217
*Wu, L.-Z., Kwan, H. K., Liu, J., & Resick, C. J. (2012). Work-to-family spillover effects
of abusive supervision. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27, 714–731. doi:10.1108/
02683941211259539
*Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive supervision and work behaviors:
The mediating role of LMX. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 531–543. doi:10.1002/
job.768
*Yildirim, D. (2009). Bullying among nurses and its effects. International Nursing Review, 56,
504–511. doi:10.1111/j.1466-7657.2009.00745.x
*Yildirim, A., & Yildirim, D. (2007). Mobbing in the workplace by peers and managers: Mobbing
experienced by nurses working in healthcare facilities in Turkey and its effect on nurses.
Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16, 1444–1453. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01814.x
*Zapf, D. (1999). Organisational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying at
work. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 70–85. doi:10.1108/01437729910268669
*Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication
and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 497–522.
doi:10.1080/13594320143000834
*Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068–1076.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1068
Received 5 August 2013; revised version received 3 February 2014

Neall, A. M., & Tuckey, M. R. (2014)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neall, A. M., & Tuckey, M. R. (2014)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neall, A. M., & Tuckey, M. R. (2014)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

225

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2014), 87, 225–257

A methodological review of research on the

Workplace harassment is a well-researched topic, especially in regard to the antecedents

Workplace harassment is ‘any negative workplace interpersonal interaction that affects

it is difficult to pinpoint prevalence rates from representative samples, some high-quality

Grasping the types of methodological shortcomings of existing research and the

validity. Unlike a meta-analysis, which quantifies the magnitude of relationships between

Overview of the coding process

Statistical conclusion validity

Table 1. Major methodological concerns and their threats to study validity

Methodological Validity Illustrative examples that

Overuse of Internal Utilize longitudinal and Snyder, Chen, and

Data collection methods

Workplace bullying 36.0%

Workplace aggression 21.3%

Workplace harassment 10%

Workplace incivility 9.2%

Workplace abusive supervision 9.2%

Workplace violence 3.3%

Workplace abuse 2.9%

Workplace mobbing 2.9%

Workplace victimisation 2.1%

Workplace hostile behavior 1.7%

Workplace anti-social behavior < 1.0%

Workplace social undermining < 1.0%

Workplace mistreatment < 1.0%

Category Frequency (%)

Data collection methods

time frame considered (although note a recently published exception by Wheeler,

The quantitative measurement of harassment

Table 3. The quantitative measurement of harassment across the samples (n = 216)

Method Frequency (%)

Quantitative method of measurement of harassment

Table 4. Research design characteristics across the samples (n = 234)

Study Characteristics Frequency (%)

Sampling and sample characteristics

Table 5. Frequency of samples (n = 234) by participant country of origin

Country Frequency (%)

United States 83 (35.4)

Table 6. Participant sample characteristics (n = 234)

Sample characteristics No of studies (%)

Statistical conclusion validity

Figure 2. Use of research method by purpose of study (n = 234 samples).

turn has shaped current understanding of harassment. Specifically, 86.6% of studies

Reporting the source of harassment

Techniques used to analyse data

Table 7. Techniques used to analyse data across the samples (n = 234)

Statistical technique Frequency (%)

Notes. IV, independent variable; DV, dependent variable.

correlation, chi-square, t-tests). Techniques examining one dependent variable with a

prevention guidelines can be implemented. Simultaneously, future studies should

*Claybourn, M. (2011). Relationships between moral disengagement, work characteristics and

Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 1, 109–119. doi:10.1080/

Received 5 August 2013; revised version received 3 February 2014

You might also like