Content uploaded by Ståle Valvatne Einarsen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ståle Valvatne Einarsen on Sep 14, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Violence and Victims, Volume 22, Number 6, 2007
Perpetrators and Targets
of Bullying at Work: Role Stress
and Individual Differences
Stig Berge Matthiesen
Ståle Einarsen
University of Bergen, Norway
A workplace survey study (N = 2215, response rate 47%) revealed that about 16% of the
sample may be categorized as either perpetrators (5.4%), provocative victims (2.1%), or
as targets of bullying (8.3%). Targets of bullying, provocative victims, and bullies were
compared with those 84% who do not report any involvement with respect to bullying at
work, self-esteem, aggressive tendencies, prior experiences of bullying, or experiences of
role stress. Perpetrators were found to have a higher level of aggression than did the com-
parison group and the targets. Provocative victims manifested a low level of self-esteem
and social competency combined with a high level of aggressiveness. Targets of bullying
revealed low levels of self-esteem and social competency. Targets, provocative victims,
and perpetrators reported elevated levels of role stress in the form of unclear or conflicting
demands and expectations around work tasks and daily work.
Keywords: bullying at work; harassment at work; emotional abuse at work; provocative
victims; perpetrators; bullies; individual differences; personality; social stress
Bullying is considered to be a subset of the overarching concept of aggression
(Griffin & Gross, 2004). The first empirical studies in which the term “bullying”
or “mobbing” was applied without referring to schoolyard bullying were published
in Scandinavia around 1990 (Leymann, 1990; Matthiesen, Raknes, & Rokkum, 1989).
Since then, several studies have shown that bullying is a widespread phenomenon in
many countries, and large-scale studies in Scandinavia have indicated that approximately
3–4% of the working population are exposed to this kind of misbehavior (Einarsen &
Skogstad, 1996; Leymann, 1992). Finnish and British studies have revealed even higher
prevalence rates of approximately 10% (Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Vartia, 1996). Since the
onset of this research, the concept of bullying at work has been considered a synonym for
the concepts mobbing and harassment at work (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003).
The Scandinavian approach defines bullying as a situation in which one or more persons
systematically and over a long period of time perceive themselves to be on the receiving
end of negative treatment on the part of one or more persons, in a situation in which the
person(s) exposed to the treatment have difficulty in defending themselves against this
treatment (Einarsen, 2000). This definition is adapted from research on bullying among
schoolchildren (Olweus, 1978, 1993, 2003). Keashly and Jagatic (2003) defined bullying
as interactions between organizational members that are characterized by repeated hostile
© 2007 Springer Publishing Company 85
AQ1
AQ2
3072-027-006.indd 853072-027-006.indd 85 10/13/2007 8:12:12 AM10/13/2007 8:12:12 AM
86 Matthiesen and Einarsen
verbal and nonverbal behavior, often nonphysical, directed at a person in such a way that
the target’s sense of himself as a competent worker and person is negatively affected.
“Bullying can be considered as a form of coercive interpersonal influence. It involves
deliberately inflicting injury or discomfort on another person repeatedly through physical
contact, verbal abuse, exclusion, or other negative actions” (Forsyth, 2006, p. 206).
Hence, bullying is a long-lasting phenomenon that “wears down” its victims (Einarsen &
Skogstad, 1996). Typically the bullying process lasts for more than a year. Previous studies
on bullying have revealed approximately equal victimization rates among men and women
(Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Niedl, 1995; Vartia, 1996). Others have estimated that about
two-thirds of the targets are women, while 50–80% of the perpetrators are managers,
most often men (Zapf, Einarsen, Hoel, & Vartia, 2003). Many of the targets of bullying
suffer from severe health problems, such as depression, anxiety, compulsive behavior
(Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002b; Niedl, 1996), or post-
traumatic stress symptoms (Leymann & Gustavson, 1996; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2004;
Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002a; Niedl, 1996; Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2005). So
far there has been comparatively more research on the consequences of bullying than on its
antecedents (Einarsen et al., 2003). An especially controversial issue in the field has been
the role of personality characteristic as antecedents of bullying behaviors and experiences
of victimization from bullying (Zapf & Einarsen, 2003).
PERPETRATORS OF BULLYING
Important empirical knowledge about the phenomenon of workplace bullying has
been collected throughout the last decade (Einarsen et al., 2003). However, a paradox
exists, which Rayner and Cooper (2003) refer to as a “black hole” in the research field.
Perpetrator behavior and perpetrator characteristics have generally been reported by
the targets of bullying (e.g., Adams, 1992; Kile, 1990), or in anecdotal stories in more
popular books (e.g., Bing, 1992). There are only a few published studies in which the
perpetrators of bullying have been the subjects of empirical research. Some exceptions
do exist, however.
A survey study conducted by Coyne Chong, Seigne, and Randall (2003) revealed that
19.3% of a 288 personnel sample (members of various work groups) indicated that they
had subjected others to bullying. This somewhat surprisingly high percentage of bully
behavior decreased to 2.7%, however, when the role as a perpetrator was defined more
strictly operationally, namely as a combination of self-report and peer-report (i.e., the per-
son himself admits bullying of others, a confession validated by at least two colleagues).
The self-reported and peer-reported group of perpetrators was found to be different from
the control sample in terms of the personality factor mental stability. When personality
dimensions such as independence, conscientiousness, and extraversion were assessed,
minor and nonsignificant group differences were found.
According to victim reports, perpetrators are male more often than female, and supervi-
sors and managers more often than colleagues (Zapf & Einarsen, 2003; Zapf et al., 2003).
Summarizing the sparse empirical findings on the bully as a cause of workplace bullying,
Zapf and Einarsen (2003) have suggested three main antecedents of bullying related to per-
petrator characteristics: (a) self-regulatory processes with regard to threatened self-esteem,
(b) lack of social competencies, and (c) bullying as a result of what has been labeled as
micropolitical behavior (Neuberger, 1989), that is, internal rivalry or competition in the
3072-027-006.indd 863072-027-006.indd 86 10/13/2007 8:12:12 AM10/13/2007 8:12:12 AM
Bullying at Work 87
workplace, particularly when there is a lack of formal structures and clearly divided work
tasks and responsibilities.
Self-Esteem and Social Competence
In a review of self-esteem research, Baumaster, Smart, and Boden (1996) proposed that
it is high self-esteem that is related to aggressive behavior. Low self-esteem is linked to
depressive reactions and withdrawal. Individuals with low self-esteem are therefore rarely
aggressive because they fear losing the encounter (Zapf & Einarsen, 2003). Individuals
with low self-esteem experience self-doubt, anxiety, self-contempt, and ultimately
depression (Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979), that is, various reactions that on the
individual level are inner (intrinsic) directed, against the persons themselves. A high level
of self-esteem is not entirely positive, however. High self-esteem can constitute a stable
or an unstable self-evaluation. People with unstable high self-esteem may well become
aggressive in response to even seemingly minor or trivial threats to self-esteem (Zapf &
Einarsen, 2003), for example, after receiving unfavorable feedback (Kernis, Cornell, Sun,
Berry, & Harlow, 1993). Bullying may be regarded as a more external (extrinsic) reaction
directed against some part of the daily surroundings. Thus, a high level of self-esteem can
lead to external reactions such as facing others with tyrannical behavior. Correspondingly,
high self-esteem has been found to be related to perfectionism, arrogance, and narcissism
(Ashforth, 1994; Baumeister et al., 1996). Hence, perpetrating bullying behavior and a
high but unstable self-esteem should be associated, as proposed by Zapf and Einarsen
(2003). Unstable self-esteem can be viewed in different directions, however. Does an
unstable self-esteem indicate instability only across time, or is this instability reflected
across measures and scale-items applied to map this psychological construct? The latter
focus will be taken in the present study.
There is a link between hostile or aggressive behavior and lack of social competency.
For example, studies have portrayed that sex offenders have limited skills with respect to
close relationships, having a hostile, unempathetic style of relating to others, particularly
women (Hudson & Ward, 2000). Social and emotional competence requires the ability to
detect, understand, and respond appropriately to the feelings of others (Frey, Hirschstein, &
Guzzo, 2000). Social competency is closely linked with empathy, the capacity to share
the emotional state of another, and is also associated with altruistic behavior (Eisenberg,
1986). Hudson and Ward (2000) contend that deficits in social competency, specifically
those aspects relevant to close relationships, are clearly linked to engaging in offending or
humiliating behavior against others.
A low level of social competency also appears to be a dominant factor among many per-
petrators of bullying, at least according to some anecdotal case stories (Adams, 1992). Lack
of self-reflection and perspective taking may be important antecedent conditions to workplace
bullying, which is why some people become bullies. According to anecdotal reports, perpetra-
tors repeatedly report that they are not aware of the consequences of their behavior (Leymann,
1987). Social competency may be negatively related to anxiety or insecurity. Childhood stud-
ies have demonstrated that perpetrators usually report low levels of anxiety or insecurity, or
they are roughly average in such dimensions (Olweus, 1991; Pulkkinen & Tremblay, 1992).
Bullying and Micropolitical Behavior
A quite different explanatory model of bullying has been proposed, focusing on micropolitical
behavior as an antecedent of workplace bullying behavior (Salin, 2003; Zapf & Einarsen,
AQ3
3072-027-006.indd 873072-027-006.indd 87 10/13/2007 8:12:12 AM10/13/2007 8:12:12 AM
88 Matthiesen and Einarsen
2003). The concept of micropolitics is based on the premise that organizations do not con-
sist of fully determined structures and processes (Neuberger, 1989). Thus, the organization
expects its members to assist and close the gaps in the formal structure, for instance,
by striving for achieving personal goals, participating in decision making, improving
their level of influence, protecting their status, or rivalry. Intense micropolitical behavior
may, however, be experienced as highly stressful for those involved. For example, it may
result in increased levels of role conflict and role ambiguity because of frequent colli-
sions between various role senders or role sets (van Sell, Brief, & Schuler, 1981). Thus,
micropolitical behavior can lead to role stress. Role stress, such as role ambiguity and
role conflict, can also be regarded as integrated parts of ongoing micropolitical behavior
at the workplace. One may also argue that high levels of role stress are an invitation to
micropolitical behavior. In line with this, emotional abuse at work is found to be associ-
ated with role conflict and role ambiguity (Keashly, Hunter, & Harvey, 1997). A function
of micropolitical behavior could be that it is a strategy for protecting one’s self-interests
and improving one’s own position (Zapf & Einarsen, 2003). Hence, micropolitical behav-
ior may result in frequent episodes of interpersonal conflicts or aggression (De Roche,
1994). Bullying may therefore constitute an extreme type of micropolitical behavior or be
a next-step consequence after intense interpersonal striving or conflicts, in line with the
conflict-escalating model of Glasl (1980). If so, both perpetrators and targets of bullying
should report higher levels of role stress and micropolitical behavior.
TARGETS OF BULLYING
Several studies have investigated targets of bullying, searching for individual antecedent
conditions or risk factors of victimization. A Norwegian study of psychiatric and person-
ality disorders, using the MMPI-2 among 85 targets of bullying, portrayed clinically ele-
vated levels of psychosomatic complaints, depressive thoughts, compulsory behavior, and
paranoid or disturbed thoughts (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001). Zapf (1999), in a German
study, identified two subgroups of bullying targets. One of the subgroups of bullied vic-
tims could not be distinguished from the control group in terms of personality dimensions
measured. The other subgroup, however, tended to be significantly higher in anxiety and
depression as well as lower in social skills. A forthcoming study (Glasø, Matthiesen,
Nielsen, & Einarsen, in press), in which 79 bullied victims are compared with a matched
control group, also revealed that bullied victims could be split into two subgroups, when
the so-called big five personality perspective (McCrae, 1992) was applied. About 75%
of the bullied group was not significantly different from the matched control group in
terms of “big five” personality, whereas the other subgroup was significantly different
on four out of five dimensions (among those, being higher on neuroticism and lower on
agreeableness). These Norwegian and German studies highlight the notion that there may
be different types of victims, with different pre-existing personality traits (such as general
self-esteem and social competency).
Some of the empirical findings regarding victim characteristics in schoolyard bullying
may be important to note. Typically, victims tend to be more anxious and insecure than
what is typical among the pupils in general (Lagerspetz, Björkquist, Berts, & King, 1982;
Olweus, 1993). They are often cautious, sensitive, and quiet (Olweus, 2003). Olweus
labels this victim group as passive or submissive. When bullied, they frequently react
by crying and withdrawal. Thus, the targets of school bullying evidence low self-esteem
3072-027-006.indd 883072-027-006.indd 88 10/13/2007 8:12:12 AM10/13/2007 8:12:12 AM
Bullying at Work 89
(Carney & Merrell, 2001; Rigby & Slee, 1993). Most commonly, they have few friends
as a source of emotional support, and often have higher rates of problems such as depres-
sion or anxiety (Carney & Merrell, 2001). Targets of bullying also have negative attitudes
toward violence and violent means, according to Olweus (2003). Olweus concludes that
the behavior of passive-submissive victims signals to others that they are insecure and
worthless individuals, who will not retaliate if they are attacked or insulted.
Provocative Victims
Olweus (1978), furthermore, labeled a subgroup of victims as “the provocative victims.”
They are characterized by a combination of both anxious and aggressive reaction pat-
terns. This group of children often has problems with concentration, and behaves in
ways that may cause irritation and tension in their surroundings, be it among fellow
pupils or among teachers. They also risk social isolation or exclusion, because others
perceive their behavior as annoying and aggressive. Hence they may bully younger and
weaker children while being bullied themselves by older and more powerful children.
Such targets may have a history of involvement in bullying situations, both as targets
and as perpetrators.
Such bullying targets have also been studied among adults. A U.K. study of 5,288
adults in various workplace settings (Smith, Singer, Hoel, & Cooper, 2003) asked
respondents to recall their experiences with childhood bullying. An association between
childhood and workplace bullying was found: Former school victims were found to be
more exposed to bullying at work. This childhood-adulthood link was especially pro-
nounced among the bullying victims. Some 11% among former school victims and 13%
among former school bully-victims reported that they were exposed to bullying at work.
The corresponding numbers were found to be 9% for an ordinary student group as well
for the former school bullies. Palmer and Thakordas (2005) made a study among 70 male
imprisoned offenders. Here, the bully-victim group reported higher levels of hostility
than the other offenders. In this selected prison sample, some 43% were categorized as
belonging to the bully-victim group (12% were pure bullies and 16% were classified as
pure victims).
AIMS OF THE STUDY
The first aim of the present study was to investigate whether targets and perpetrators of bul-
lying at work portray certain personality characteristics. Second, what is the relative num-
ber of provocative victims among self-reported targets of bullying? Provocative victims are
defined as those employees who admit to having bullied others at the work place as well as
claiming to be targets of bullying. The third aim of the study was to ascertain the number
of self-reported perpetrators of bullying in a diverse sample of leaders and employees. The
fourth aim was to investigate whether role stress and role ambiguity characterize work-
places where bullying flourishes, creating a futile soil for intense micropolitical behavior.
Micropolitical behavior, as measured by the concepts of role stress and role ambiguity,
has been suggested as a major antecedent of bullying at work. We therefore suggest that
bullying may be particularly common in work situations characterized by a high level of
role stress. Unclear or conflicting demands and expectations around tasks, obligations,
privileges, and priorities lay the foundation for a high level of micropolitical behavior
AQ4
3072-027-006.indd 893072-027-006.indd 89 10/13/2007 8:12:13 AM10/13/2007 8:12:13 AM
90 Matthiesen and Einarsen
among highly frustrated individuals, which will increase the risk of bullying behaviors.
The following hypotheses will be investigated:
1. Provocative victims will report more prior acquaintance with bullying compared to
others victims, be it in (a) former job(s) or (b) in their childhood. Provocative vic-
tims will also (c) report more childhood experiences as perpetrators of bullying.
2. Perpetrators of bullying will report high levels of aggression, a high but unstable
level of self-esteem, and a low level of social competence.
3. Provocative victims will (a) report a low level of self-esteem, combined with a high
level of aggressiveness, and low level of social competence. Targets of bullying will
report a low level of self-esteem combined with a low level of social competence.
4. Targets of bullying, as well as provocative victims and perpetrators, will report an
elevated level of role conflict and role ambiguity.
METHOD
Respondents
Respondents participating in this cross-sectional survey study were randomly selected
members from six Norwegian labor unions and members of the Norwegian Employers’
Federation (NHO). The participating unions, all situated in the geographical area around
the city of Bergen, represented a convenient sample that reflected a diversity of work
environments, hence increasing the validity and generalizability of the results. The labor
unions included the Teachers Union, the Union of Hotel and Restaurant Workers, the
Union of Trade and Commerce (consisting mainly of employees in shops and the admin-
istration of private businesses), the Union of Graphical Workers, the Union of Electricians,
and the Union of Clerical and Officials (consisting of employees in the city administration
of Bergen). All samples were studied as part of a more comprehensive research project on
bullying and harassment in the workplace (see also Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994;
Einarsen, Raknes, Matthiesen, & Hellesøy, 1994; Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996).
A total of 4,742 labor union members and employers’ representatives were selected
from a total population of 10,616 individuals (a 47% response rate). The number of
respondents (4,742) is equal to the number of valid questionnaires received. All of the
questionnaires were distributed by mail. In the total sample 53% are men and 47% are
women. All age groups between 16 and 70 are covered, with a mean age of 38 years
(SD = 11.9). About 12% are 25 years of age or less, whereas 5% of the respondents are
aged 60 or above. About 80% are employed on a full-time basis. Most of the respondents
(62%) are employed in private enterprises. Thus, 38% are public employees. Furthermore,
about 20% of the respondents work in organizations with more than 100 employees, and
9% in organizations with 5 or fewer employees.
Questionnaires
The questionnaire used in the present study consisted of demographic variables, health-
related variables, scales on psychological traits, single questions and scales on harassment
and bullying, and scales and questions measuring perceived work environment quality. The
following scales and measurements were included in the present study.
AQ5
3072-027-006.indd 903072-027-006.indd 90 10/13/2007 8:12:13 AM10/13/2007 8:12:13 AM
Bullying at Work 91
Three single questions measured exposure to bullying at work during the last 6 months
as well as earlier exposure to bullying (in present job, or in earlier jobs). Prior to these
questions the respondents were presented with the following definition of bullying:
“Bullying (harassment, badgering, niggling, freezing out, offending someone) is a problem
in some workplaces and for some workers. To label something as bullying it has to occur
repeatedly over a period of time, and the person confronted has to have difficulties defend-
ing himself/herself. It is not bullying if two parties of approximately equal “strength” are
in conflict or the incident is an isolated event.”
The question on exposure to bullying and harassment was stated as follows: “Have you
been subjected to bullying at the work place during the last six months?” The response
categories were: “no,” “occasionally,” “now and then,” “about once a week,” and “many
times a week.” All respondents who confirmed that they “occasionally” or more often were
targets of bullying were defined as being exposed to bullying at work. This single question
has been shown to be a valid measure of exposure to bullying at work (Mikkelsen &
Einarsen, 2001; Salin, 2001). The respondents were also asked if they had bullied oth-
ers at the workplace. Respondents who confirmed that this was the case were defined as
perpetrators of bullying. Provocative victims are those who claim to be both a victim and
a perpetrator of bullying. Two additional questions addressed childhood experiences with
bullying at school, be it as a target or a perpetrator of bullying. Two questions addressed
earlier experiences of bullying at work.
In addition to the single questions on bullying, the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ)
and Bergen Bullying Index (Einarsen & Raknes, 1997; Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen,
1994; Einarsen, Raknes, Matthiesen, et al., 1994) were administrated. The NAQ consists of
18 items measuring exposure to negative episodes or situations typical of bullying and may
be regarded as a quantitative inventory on exposure to bullying, according to Einarsen and
Raknes (1997) and Mikkelsen and Einarsen (2001). The response categories for NAQ are
“daily,” “weekly,” “sometimes,” and “never.” The Cronbach’s alpha of NAQ was found to be
0.86, indicating a high internal stability. The Bergen Bullying Index is a global measurement
of perceived individual and organizational consequences of bullying and harassment. It con-
sists of five items, each scored on a four-point Likert scale from “agree strongly” to “disagree
strongly.” The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.82, indicating satisfactory internal stability.
Personality Traits. The study contained three measures of aggressive tendencies adopted
from research on schoolyard bullying (Olweus, 1987, 1991). Aggression after provocation
was measured by three items (with Cronbach’s alpha = 0.76). Aggression against superiors
contained two items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.52). Aggression against peers was measured by
three items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.70). One measure on self-esteem was included in the study,
measuring general self-esteem (Alsaker & Olweus, 1986; Rosenberg, 1965). The measure of
general self-esteem, consisting of six items, had satisfactory internal stability (Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.84). A four-item measure of social anxiety was also added (Alsaker & Olweus,
1986), measuring perceived incompetence and anxiety in social settings. Cronbach’s alpha
for this scale was found to be 0.73. In total, the personality inventories consisted of 25 items,
all formulated as statements describing oneself as a person. Six response alternatives were
applied, with the range from agree completely (1) to disagree completely (6). Negative
statements were reversed, resulting in a positive–negative continuum for all scales, with a
theoretical range of 1–6 points, with 1 denoting the most positive value.
Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity. These constructs were measured using two scales
developed by Rizzo, House, & Lirzman (1970). Role conflict, consisting of eight items,
measures the degree to which one perceives contradictory expectations, demands, or
3072-027-006.indd 913072-027-006.indd 91 10/13/2007 8:12:13 AM10/13/2007 8:12:13 AM
92 Matthiesen and Einarsen
values in one’s job. Role ambiguity, consisting of six items, measures the degree to which
the respondents experience their job situation as unpredictable and not clarified. Both
scales are scored on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from “totally agree” to “totally
disagree.” Both scales are scored in a positive–negative direction, with 1 denoting the most
positive value. Cronbach’s alphas were found to be 0.78 and 0.81 for role conflict and role
ambiguity, respectively.
Statistics. The data were analyzed by the use of SPSS 11.5 statistical package. The fol-
lowing analyses were performed: One-way ANOVA, reliability analysis with Cronbach’s
alpha, cross-tab analysis for categorical data, and frequency statistics.
RESULTS
Some 8% of the sample reported exposure to bullying at work (Figure 1). In addition, 2%
can be defined as provocative victims. About 5% of the respondents admitted to being per-
petrators of bullying at work. In sum, about 1 in 10 respondents reported to be a victim of
bullying, whereas 1 in 20 acknowledged acting as a perpetrator of bullying. Respondents
with no experience of bullying were used as a comparison group (n = 1838).
Most provocative victims (78%) and most perpetrators (74%) were males (χ2 = 34.32,
df = 3, p < .001). Most targets and provocative victims (60% and 80%, respectively) were
employed in private sector (χ2 = 21.80, df = 3, p < .001). Both present and former targets
of bullying, as well as perpetrators, were overrepresented in companies with 100 or more
employees (χ2 = 40.87, df = 15, p < .001), and in companies with skewed gender distribu-
tion of either males or females (χ2 = 31.62, df = 6, p < .001). Union representatives made
up about 25% of both the targets and the perpetrator groups, whereas they constituted 36%
of the provocative victim group (χ2 = 18.47, df = 3, p < .001). In the rest of the sample
18% were union representatives.
Acquaintance With Bullying
The first hypothesis addressed whether provocative victims would report more prior expe-
riences with bullying compared to other victims, be it in former jobs or in their childhood.
In general, the provocative victim group reported more former workplace experience as
Figure 1. Three bullying groups, percentage distribution (number of respondents in parentheses).
The comparison group is omitted (84.3%, n = 1838).
3072-027-006.indd 923072-027-006.indd 92 10/13/2007 8:12:13 AM10/13/2007 8:12:13 AM
Bullying at Work 93
bullying targets, relative to all other groups. Thirty-two percent of the provocative victims
admitted that they had been bullied earlier in their career, in another work place. The cor-
responding number in the target group is 17%, 10% in the perpetrator group, and 5% in the
comparison group. The group differences are significant (χ2 = 77.54, df = 3, p < .001).
The provocative victims also report more experienced bullying than do the others with
respect to childhood experiences (Figure 2). Forty-eight percent of the provocative vic-
tims claimed that they were bullied as children. In the target group, as well as among the
bullies, the corresponding number was 27%, whereas 19% of the comparison group had
experienced bullying in childhood (χ2 = 53.18, df = 9, p < .001). The provocative victims
also frequently admit that they acted as bullies in their childhood. Forty-five percent in
this group report childhood experiences as bullies. This number is higher than for the bul-
lies (38%) and for the targets of bullying (14%). The group difference is significant (χ2 =
94.38, df = 9, p < .001). Summarized, we may regard the first hypothesis as confirmed.
Perpetrators
Our second hypothesis stated that perpetrators will report a high level of aggression, high
but unstable self-esteem, and low social competence. The results showed that perpetrators
scored significantly higher on aggressiveness compared to targets, provocative victims, and
the comparison group (see Table 1 for details). The perpetrators describe themselves as more
aggressive after provocation than the others (M = 3.92, as compared to mean values between
3.43 and 3.77 for the other three groups; two out of three LSD post hoc tests were signifi-
cant). Correspondingly, the perpetrator group reported a higher level of aggression against
superiors (M = 3.58, as compared to mean values between 3.40 and 3.50 for the other three
groups; two out of three post hoc tests were significant). On the other hand, provocative vic-
tims reported a higher level of aggression against peers than did the other groups, including
the perpetrator group (M = 2.51, whereas the mean values were 2.24 for the perpetrators, and
1.92 and 1.91 for the bullied victims group and the comparison group, respectively).
Reliability analyses using Cronbach’s alpha were conducted to investigate the second
part of the second hypothesis, predicting that the perpetrators have a high but unstable
Figure 2. Childhood bullying experiences. Group comparisons (χ2 = 53.19 and 94.39, p < .001
for both).
3072-027-006.indd 933072-027-006.indd 93 10/13/2007 8:12:14 AM10/13/2007 8:12:14 AM
94 Matthiesen and Einarsen
within-scale self-esteem. The hypothesis can be verified to the extent that the perpetrators
report a high level of self-esteem combined with a low internal stability (that is, a markedly
lower level of Cronbach’s alpha than for the other three groups) on the scale measuring
self-esteem. As shown in Table 1, perpetrators portray a higher level of self-esteem com-
pared to the two target groups (lack of self esteem scores: M = 2.28 versus M = 2.67 for
the target group and M = 2.75 for the provocative victim group). The highest level of self-
esteem was reported by the comparison group (lack of self-esteem score of M = 2.19).
Unstable self-esteem can be reflected as low interitem reliability score, summarized as
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients. Whereas the Cronbach’s alpha for the general
self-esteem scale was found to be 0.76 in the perpetrator group, the corresponding numbers
for the other groups were 0.82 (targets), 0.69 (provocative victims), and 0.81 (the com-
parison group). Hence, the perpetrator group seems to have a more unstable self-esteem
than the comparison group, as the internal stability of the scale measuring self-esteem is
somewhat lower. The provocative victims, who are also perpetrators themselves, portrayed
an internal stability lower than 0.70 (that is, 0.69) on general self-esteem. Coefficient 0.70
is seen as the criterion for a sufficient level of internal stability by Nunnally (1978). Higher
instability was also verified, using a sum score procedure, in which all combinations of
self-esteem items minus the rest of the other items, compared separately, was calculated.
The item comparisons were then summed up to constitute a measure of variability in
one’s response set. Thus, low score on the variability measure denotes high stability when
responding to the items of the scale.
Using this procedure, it was found that the comparison group had the lowest level of
self-esteem instability (M = 23.54, SD = 7.79), whereas the provocative victim group
revealed the highest level (M = 27.43, SD = 8.85). The scores for the bullying target group
and the perpetrator group were in-between (respectively M = 25.12, SD = 9.18 and M =
24.66, SD = 7.50). The group difference regarding self-esteem instability was significant
(one-way ANOVA; F (3/ 2064) = 5.56, p < .001). Post hoc tests (LSD procedure) revealed
that provocative victims had a more unstable self-esteem than the comparison group ( p = .01),
whereas the other group of bullies, the perpetrator group, did not differ. Summed up, the sec-
ond hypothesis was partially verified. Only one of the perpetrator groups, the provocative
victims, reported a higher self-esteem instability.
Targets and Provocative Victims
The third hypothesis indicated that provocative victims will report a low level of self-
esteem, combined with a high level of aggressiveness and a low level of social competence.
The hypothesis also states that targets of bullying will report a lower level of self-esteem
combined with a lower level of social competence. The provocative victims scored lower
on self-esteem and social competency than did the target group and the comparison group
(M = 2.75 and M = 2.67, as opposed to M = 2.67 and M = 2.53 for the bullying target
group and M = 2.19 and M = 2.40 for the comparison group). Thus, the provocative victim
group, as target group, reports a lower level of social self-esteem and social competency
than the comparison group. Correspondingly, Table 1 portrays that the provocative victims
report more aggression than do targets of bullying, and also more than the comparison
group (the three measures of aggression vary between M = 3.77 and M = 2.51 for the
provocative victims, targets scored between M = 3.43 and M = 1.92, while the comparison
group scored between M = 3.63 and M = 1.91). Only the perpetrator group report more
aggression, in terms of aggression after provocation and aggression against superiors, than
3072-027-006.indd 943072-027-006.indd 94 10/13/2007 8:12:14 AM10/13/2007 8:12:14 AM
TABLE 1. Personality Differences Between Targets, Provocative Bullied Victims, Bullies and a Comparison Group
Targets
(1)
Provocative
victims
(2)
Perpetrators
(3)
Comparison
group
(4)
M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)M (SD) Post hoc +) df F
Lack of self-esteem and
social competency
General self-esteem 2.67 (1.05) 2.75 (0.91) 2.28 (.81) 2.19 (.85) 1> 3–4, 2> 3–4 3/ 2124 21,14***
Social competency 2.53 (0.85) 2.67 (0.68) 2.46 (0.68) 2.40 (0.72) 1>4 3/ 2130 3.21*
Aggression
Aggression after
provocation
3.43 (1.22) 3.77 (1.30) 3.92 (1.14) 3.63 (1.21) 1<3, 3>4 3/ 2130 3.94**
Aggression
against superiors
3.40 (0.62) 3.50 (0.76) 3.58 (0.68) 3.41 (0.63) 1<3, 3>4 3/ 2124 3.03*
Aggression
against friends
1.92 (0.82) 2.51 (1.22) 2.24 (0.79) 1.91 (0.81) 1<2–3, 2>4, 3>4 3/ 2130 12.78***
Note. One-way ANOVA with post-hoc tests.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Range: 1–4, in which 1 reflects the most positive value. + The numbers in post hoc column refer to
significant pair-wise group comparisons. LSD procedure.
3072-027-006.indd 953072-027-006.indd 95 10/13/2007 8:12:14 AM10/13/2007 8:12:14 AM
TABLE 2. Variations in Micropolitical Behavior, Operationalized as Group Differences in Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity. Group
Comparison of Targets, Provocative Bullied Victims, Bullies and a Comparison Group
Targets
(1)
Provocative
victims
(2)
Perpetrator
group
(3)
Comparison
group
(4)
M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)M (SD) Post hoc tests +) df F
Role conflict 3.68 (1.21) 3.88 (1.13) 3.25 (1.11) 2.81 (1.13) 1 > 3–4, 2 > 3–4, 3/ 2132 45.99*
Role ambiguity 3.01 (1.17) 3.24 (1.20) 2.72 (0.91) 2.56 (0.93) 1 >3–4, 2 > 3–4, 3 > 4 3/ 2130 18.58*
Note. One-way ANOVA with post-hoc tests.
*p < .001. Range: 1–7, 1 reflects the most positive value. + The numbers in post hoc column refer to significant pair-wise group
comparisons. LSD-procedure.
3072-027-006.indd 963072-027-006.indd 96 10/13/2007 8:12:15 AM10/13/2007 8:12:15 AM
Bullying at Work 97
the provocative victim group. Provocative victims did, however, report more aggression
against their friends as compared to the perpetrator group. In sum, the third hypothesis can
be regarded as supported.
Role Stress
The fourth hypothesis stated that perpetrators, targets, and provocative victims will report
an elevated level of role conflict and role ambiguity. High levels of such role stress may
lead to micropolitical behavior that in turn may be perceived as or may escalate into bul-
lying, as aggression provoked by frustration, for example. Table 2 provides an overview
of the group comparisons regarding role conflict and role ambiguity. One-way ANOVA
statistics revealed significant group differences between the four sub-samples ( p < .001 for
both role conflict and role ambiguity), with the three bullying groups reporting elevated
levels of role stress compared to the comparison group. Table 1 portrays that the two
groups of bullying targets, respectively provocative victims and the other target group,
reported a higher level of role conflict (M = 3.88 and M = 3.68) than the perpetrator group
(M = 3.25) and the comparison group (M = 2.81). The group differences are much the same
for role ambiguity (M = 3.01 and M = 3.24, as compared to M = 2.72 and M = 2.56). The
perpetrators also experienced significantly more role stress in terms of role ambiguity than
did the comparison group, according to the post hoc test. In sum, the fourth hypothesis
may therefore be regarded as supported.
DISCUSSION
The present study has shown that while some 8% claim to be targets of bullying at work,
another 2% may be classified as provocative victims, a concept borrowed from schoolyard
bullying studies (Olweus, 2003). Additionally, 4% claim to be perpetrators of bullying.
Systematic exposure to negative social experiences in childhood, such as bullying, may
cause serious negative aftereffects in adult life (e.g., a vulnerable personality). Thus,
empirical findings indicate that persons who were victimized at school are more likely to
be victimized in the workplace (Smith et al., 2003).
The target group, and especially the provocative victims, has more prior experiences
with bullying than others. They reported more exposure to bullying in the schoolyard but
also in former jobs. For many of the provocative victims, bullying experience in school
also consisted of experiences as perpetrators. Nearly one in two had such experiences. The
notion addressed in our first hypothesis was thus confirmed. Some of the provocative vic-
tims may possess what Levinson (1978) labeled as an “abrasive personality.” An abrasive
personality reflects a tendency to behave in an insensitive, ruthless way, especially when
the person is confronted with social pressure situations.
This study did also reveal an elevated level of aggressiveness among the provocative
victims. Brodsky (1976) has pointed this out quite categorically, claiming that “after study-
ing harassers and studying their victims, it seemed that there was never a victim who would
not have made an excellent harasser” (p. 109). This statement seems to be supported in
the present study as far as the provocative victims are concerned. Among schoolchildren,
Lorber, Felton, and Reid (1984) found that victims of abuse are more often likely to be
disruptive, aggressive, and violent than their nonabused counterparts. They explained such
results as socially learned behaviors.
AQ6
3072-027-006.indd 973072-027-006.indd 97 10/13/2007 8:12:15 AM10/13/2007 8:12:15 AM
98 Matthiesen and Einarsen
A high level of self-esteem has generally been regarded as desirable and adaptive and
has been used as an indicator of good adjustment (Taylor, 1989; Taylor & Brown, 1988).
Schoolyard bullying research has indicated that the child bully in general seems to have
high self-esteem (Olweus, 2003). In line with Olweus’s notion, our findings portrayed that
the adult perpetrator report a relatively high level of self-esteem. However, an Irish study
of over 8,000 schoolchildren showed that children who had been involved in bullying as
victims, were bullies, or both had significantly lower global self-esteem than did children
who had neither bullied nor been bullied (O’Moore & Kirkham, 2001). The notion that per-
petrators are characterized by elevated levels of self-esteem runs contrary to an entrenched
body of wisdom that has long pointed to low self-esteem as the root of violence and other
destructive kinds of social behavior (Baumeister et al., 1996). Building on a theoretical
assumption by Baumeister et al. that violent perpetrators are characterized by an elevated
but unstable self-esteem, we proposed that perpetrators of workplace bullying will report
an unstable self-esteem. This statement was only partially supported, however.
The perpetrators did report a somewhat lower level of self-esteem stability, operation-
alized as high interitem correlations between the self-esteem measure items, compared
to victims and nonvictims in the comparison group, although above the recommended
threshold for acceptable internal stability recommended by Nunnally (1978). However,
a low stability, below the recommended threshold, was found among the provocative
victims. Furthermore, a measure of variability in response set between items showed sig-
nificant differences between the groups, where provocative targets, followed by victims,
showed the highest variability in scores, again indicating unstable self-esteem. Thus, the
second hypothesis in the present study was supported, but for the provocative victims only.
However, it is possible that our applied six-item measure of general self-esteem is not
adequate or sensitive enough as a measure of stability-instability in self-esteem. A longitu-
dinal design would probably be better, looking at stability over time.
The perpetrators, comprising 5% of the sample, did report more aggressiveness than
the victim group and the comparison group. The difference is unambiguous as perpetrators
admit stronger aggressive reactions after provocations in the workplace. Correspondingly,
the perpetrators also aggress more against superiors and against peers. This is in line with
Olweus’s (1994, 2003) findings from school bullying research. The bullies in the workplace
tend to react more aggressively than others across different social situations. This may lend
support to an aggressiveness hypothesis, that is: The perpetrators in general manifest a
more aggressive behavioral pattern at the workplace than others. This aggressiveness has
been described by Ashforth (1994) as “petty tyranny” among superiors. The workplace,
and the bullying that take place therein, may be one of several modes and arenas for the
expression of aggressiveness in general. In line with this finding, bullying behaviors have
been found to be strongly related to high levels of overall aggression, physical and verbal
aggression, hostility, and anger (Buss & Perry, 1992).
Our findings indicate that all targets of bullying, but especially the provocative victims,
report a lower level of self-esteem and social competency than do perpetrators and the
comparison group, in line with our third hypothesis. Research among schoolchildren has
also found that provocative victims had the lowest self-esteem of the subgroups investi-
gated (O’Moore & Kirkham, 2001). A possible explanation of this group difference may
be that many victims possess a more fragile self-esteem, in accordance with Brockner’s
(1988) “plasticity hypothesis,” an explanation also in line with our results on their unstable
self-esteem. According to Brockner, individuals with so-called plastic self-esteem are very
dependent on good work performance and positive appraisal from others to maintain their
AQ7
3072-027-006.indd 983072-027-006.indd 98 10/13/2007 8:12:15 AM10/13/2007 8:12:15 AM
Bullying at Work 99
self-esteem. Hence, a low self-esteem may then easily become a consequence of bullying.
The necessary self-esteem nurturance, leading to a stable, favorable global evaluation of
oneself, thus cannot be obtained. It may also be that some of the targets of bullying feel
frustrated or irritated because of lack of self-esteem support in the worksite, with the result
that they act in a provocative manner, which others may perceive as a general lack of social
competency. The low internal stability among provocative targets on the scale measuring
self-esteem supports the hypothesis that these victims suffer from a fragile self-esteem.
The importance of social competency in relation to bullying is also demonstrated by
Coyne et al. (2003) in their Irish workplace study. Self- and peer-reported victims tended
to be more likely than controls to have difficulty coping with personal criticism, to be
easily upset, to view the world as threatening, to be anxious, tense, and suspicious of oth-
ers. Among schoolchildren, social intelligence has been found to be negatively related to
victimization (Kaukainen et al., 2002).
However, bullying has also been explained by references to factors in the psychosocial
work environment (Leymann, 1996; Einarsen, 2000). For instance, bullying has been
claimed to be a consequence of micropolitical behavior, rivalry, and competition in the
worksite (Zapf et al., 2003). The compression of career structures resulting from de-
layering processes represent fewer opportunities for advancement in many workplaces,
thereby increasing the competition between managers for promotion to a shrinking pools
of jobs (Sheehan, 1999), with growing interpersonal conflict and bullying as possible out-
comes (Hoel & Salin, 2003). Role stress, that is, work roles that interfere with each other
(role conflict) or work roles that are experienced as unclear or confusing (role ambiguity)
may indicate a certain need for micropolitical behavior. The fourth hypothesis in the pres-
ent study addressed this issue, claiming that the perpetrator group in particular, with their
self-reported bullying behavior, but also the two groups of bullying targets, would report
this kind of job stress. The aforementioned hypothesis was supported. The perpetrator
group portrayed a higher level of role stress indicative of a need for micropolitical behavior
than did the comparison group. However, targets of bullying, both the provocative victims
as the well as the targets only, reported an even higher level of experienced role stress than
did the perpetrators. Previous findings have shown that bullying seems to occur in stress-
ful, competitive, and negative working environments (Vartia, 1996), in particular in work-
places with a high level of role conflict. Thus, it should come as no surprise that targets
of bullying report exposure to micropolitical behavior reflected by role conflict and role
ambiguity, equal to or even higher than levels experienced by the perpetrator group.
Methodological Constraints
The present study was conducted by the use of survey method. The respondents were
asked about sensitive topics, issues that may have led them to respond with denial or
social desirability. The respondents were asked not only if they felt subjected to bullying
at the workplace, but also if they had acted as perpetrators themselves. Hence, an indi-
vidual research level was applied (Matthiesen, Aasen, Holst, Wie, & Einarsen, 2003). The
result may be valid to the extent that the respondents answered the questions in an honest
way and in accordance with their inner, subjective experience. However, measurement of
perpetrator behavior is methodologically difficult. The bullying definition presented in
our study, and most other bullying studies, does not require any intention about bullying
among the perpetrators to meet the definition. When someone is asked if they have bullied
others, many will reject or deny the question, because they may never have had any intent
AQ8
3072-027-006.indd 993072-027-006.indd 99 10/13/2007 8:12:15 AM10/13/2007 8:12:15 AM
100 Matthiesen and Einarsen
to do so. Still, the other part in a dyadic relationship at the worksite may feel subjected to
bullying. To admit perpetrator behavior in retrospect, thus, requires a certain level of empa-
thy or skill to imagine social situations from the perspective of other people. “False negative”
bullies or provocative victims may then pose a methodological problem in the present study.
“False positives” may of course also exist, self-critical individuals who are eager to admit
perpetrator behavior, but without ever being in the power position or acting in a manner
where others actually feel subjected to bullying. Social desirability (Crowne & Marlowe,
1964) or guilt reduction (Sigmund Freud, see, e.g., Gomez, 2005) may cause perpetrators
of bullying to reject that they act in the role of a bully.
Another limitation inherent within the present study is its cross-sectional design. The
general self-esteem among the targets of bullying, and the proneness to express frustration
or complex aggression overtly or covertly, may constitute a function of former bullying
exposure, to give an example. The behavior pattern of the victims may have changed as a
consequence of bullying. It is possible that some individuals possess a higher propensity
to become troubled with bullying than most others, because they have a more vulnerable
personality (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001). Negative perceptions of the work situation
have previously been found to be associated with workplace deviance, with personality
traits such as conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness as moderating fac-
tors (Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004).
CONCLUSION
This study has portrayed, in line with previous research on bullying among children,
that individual differences exist when perpetrators and targets of bullying are compared.
Bullied victims can be divided into at least two groups: targets of bullying and provoca-
tive victims. The provocative victim group has only briefly been focused on in previous
workplace research and deserves more attention. Correspondingly, it is time to shed more
light on the perpetrator in workplace bullying, and not only from the perspective of the
target. Only a few papers have been published so far, such as the aforementioned survey
study carried out by Coyne et al. (2003), where perpetrators and their responses have been
mapped. Most studies on workplace bullying are anecdotal in this respect, with the conse-
quence that perpetrators mostly have been studied at a distance. This study may therefore
provide an important contribution to the field by breaking the “at a distance” research habit
regarding research on perpetrators of workplace bullying.
REFERENCES
Adams, A. (1992). Bullying at work—how to confront and overcome it. London: Virago.
Alsaker, F. D., & Olweus, D. (1986). Assessment of global negative self-evaluations and perceived
stability of self in Norwegian pre-adolescents and adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence,
6, 269–278.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755–778.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and
aggression: The dark side of high self esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5–33.
Beck, A., Rush, A., Shaw, B., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive theory of depression. New York:
Guildford Press.
3072-027-006.indd 1003072-027-006.indd 100 10/13/2007 8:12:15 AM10/13/2007 8:12:15 AM
Bullying at Work 101
Bing, S. (1992). Crazy bosses: Spotting them, serving them, surviving them. New York: William
Marrow.
Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Brodsky, C. M. (1976). The harassed worker. Toronto: Lexington Books.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, 452–459.
Carney, A. G., & Merrell, K. W. (2001). Bullying in schools: Perspectives on understanding and
preventing an international problem. School Psychology International, 22(3), 364–382.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects
of personality and perception of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(4), 599–609.
Coyne, I., Chong, P. S.-L., Seigne, E., & Randall, P. (2003). Self and peer nominations of bullying:
An analysis of incident rates, individual differences, and perceptions of the working environ-
ment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12 (3), 209–228.
Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New
York: John Wiley.
De Roche, C. P. (1994). On the edge of regionalization: Management style and the construction of
conflict in organizational change. Human Organization, 53(3), 209–219.
Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4(5), 379–401.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). The concept of bullying at work: The
European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and
emotional abuse in the workplace (pp. 3–30). London: Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. I. (1997). Harassment in the workplace and the victimization 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. European Work and
Organizational Psychologist, 4(4).
Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., Matthiesen, S. B., & Hellesøy, O. H. (1994). Mobbing og harde person-
konflikter. Helsefarlig samspill på arbeidsplassen [Bullying and tough interpersonal conflicts.
Health injurious interaction at the workplace]. Bergen: Sigma Forlag.
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and pri-
vate organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 185–201.
Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition and behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Forsyth, D. R. (2006). Group dynamics (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., & Guzzo, B. A. (2000). Second step: Preventing aggression by pro-
moting social competence. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(2), 102–112.
Glasl, F. (1980). Konfliktmanagement: Diagnose und Behandlung von Konflikten in Organizationen.
Bern: Haupt.
Glasø, L., Matthiesen, S. B., Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (in press). Do targets of workplace bul-
lying portray a general victim personality profile? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.
Gomez, L. (2005). The Freud wars: An introduction to the philosophy of psychoanalysis. London:
Routledge.
Griffin, R. S., & Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and future
directions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 379–400.
Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at work. Manchester: Manchester
School of Management.
Hoel, H., & Salin, D. (2003). Organizational antecedents of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen,
H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace
(pp. 203–218). London: Taylor & Francis.
Hudson, S. M., & Ward, T. (2000). Interpersonal competency in sex offenders. Behavior Modi-
fication, 24(4), 494–527.
AQ9
AQ10
3072-027-006.indd 1013072-027-006.indd 101 10/13/2007 8:12:15 AM10/13/2007 8:12:15 AM
102 Matthiesen and Einarsen
Kaukainen, A., Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Tamminen, M., Vaura, M., Maki, H., et al. (2002).
Learning difficulties, social intelligence, and self-concept: Connections to bully-victim prob-
lems. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 269–278.
Keashly, L., Hunter, S., & Harvey, S. (1997). Abusive interaction and role state stressors: Relative
impact on student residence assistant stress and work attitudes. Work and Stress, 11, 175–185.
Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003). By another name: American perspectives on workplace bullying.
In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the
workplace (pp. 31–61). London: Taylor & Francis.
Kernis, M. H., Cornell, D. P., Sun, C. R., Berry, A., & Harlow, T. (1993). There is more to self-
esteem than whether it is high or low: The importance of stability of self-esteem. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1190–1204.
Kile, S. (1990). Helsefarlige ledere og medarbeidere [Health dangerous leaders and their co-workers].
Oslo: Hjemmets bokforlag.
Lagerspetz, K. M., Björkquist, K., Berts, M., & King, E. (1982). Group aggression among school
children in three schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 45–52.
Levinson, H. (1978). The abrasive personality. Harvard Business Review, 56, 86–94.
Leymann, H. (1987). Mobbing i arbeidslivet [Bullying in working life]. Oslo: Friundervisningens
forlag.
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5(2),
119–126.
Leymann, H. (1992). Psykiatriska halsoproblem i samband med vuxenmobbning. En rikstackende
undersøkning med 2428 intervjuer [Psychiatric problems after mobbing—a study of 2428 indi-
viduals] (Report no. 3). Stockholm: Arbetarskyddsstyrelsen.
Leymann, H., & Gustavson, A. (1996). Mobbing at work and the development of post-traumatic
stress disorders. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 251–275.
Lorber, R., Felton, D. K., & Reid, J. B. (1984). A social learning approach to the reduction of coer-
cive process in child abuse families: A molecular analysis. Advances in Behavior Research and
Therapy, 6, 29–45.
Matthiesen, S. B., Aasen, E., Holst, G., Wie, K., & Einarsen, S. (2003). The escalation of conflict:
A case study of bullying at work. International Journal of Management and Decision Making,
4(1), 96–112.
Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2001). MMPI-2 configurations after persistent bullying at work.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 467–484.
Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2004). Psychiatric distress and symptoms of PTSD after bullying
at work. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 32(3), 335–356.
Matthiesen, S. B., Raknes, B. I., & Rokkum, O. (1989). Mobbing pa arbeidsplassen. [Bullying at the
worksite]. Journal of the Norwegian Psychological Association, 26(11), 761–774.
McCrae, R. R. E. (1992). The five-factor model: Issues and applications. Journal of Personality,
60(2).
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in Danish work-life: Prevalence and health cor-
relates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 393–413.
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002a). Basic assumptions and post-traumatic stress among vic-
tims of workplace bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(1),
87–111.
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002b). Relationships between exposure to bullying at work and
psychological and psychosomatic health complaints: The role of state negative affectivity and
generalized self-efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43(5), 397–405.
Neuberger, O. (1989). Mikropolitik als Gegenstand der Personalentwicklung [Micropolitics as object
of personnel development]. Zeitschrift fuer Arbeits und Organisationspsychologie, 33(1), 40–46.
Niedl, K. (1995). Mobbing/bullying am Arbeitsplatz. Munchen: Rainer Hampp Verlag.
Niedl, K. (1996). Mobbing and well-being: Economic and personnel development implications.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 203–214.
AQ11
3072-027-006.indd 1023072-027-006.indd 102 10/13/2007 8:12:15 AM10/13/2007 8:12:15 AM
Bullying at Work 103
Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2005). Ledelse og personkonflikter: Symtomer på
postraumatisk stress blant ofre for mobbing fra ledere [Leadership and bullying. Posttraumatic
symptoms among victims after bullying by their leaders]. Nordisk Psykologi, 57(4), (in press).
Nunnally, J. O. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: Mc-Graw Hill.
O’Moore, M., & Kirkham, C. (2001). Self-esteem and its relationship to bullying behaviour.
Aggressive Behavior, 27, 269–283.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington: Hemisphere,
Wiley.
Olweus, D. (1987). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren in Scandinavia. In J. P. Mykebust &
R. Ommundsen (Eds.), Psykologprofesjonen mot år 2000 [The psychological profession towards
year 2000], (pp. 395–413). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/ victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school
based intervention program. In K. Rubin & D. Pepler (Eds.), The development and treatment of
childhood aggression (pp. 411–448). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic fact and effect of a school based intervention program.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1171–1190.
Olweus, D. (2003). Bully/ victim problems in school. Basic facts and an effective intervention pro-
gramme. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse
in the workplace (pp. 62–78). London: Taylor & Francis.
Palmer, E. J., & Thakordas, V. (2005). Relationship between bullying and scores on the Buss-Perry
aggression questionnaire among imprisoned male offenders. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 55–66.
Pulkkinen, L., & Tremblay, R. E. (1992). Pattern of boys’ social adjustment in two cultures and at
different ages: A longitudinal perspective. International Journal of Behaviour Development,
15, 527–553.
Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). The black hole in “bullying at work research.” International
Journal of Management and Decision Making, 4(1), 47–64.
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Australian children and
implications for psychological well-being. Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1), 33–42.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organiza-
tions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Salin, D. (2001). Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: A comparison of
two different strategies for measuring bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 10(4), 425–441.
Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and
precipating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56(10),
1213–1232.
Sheehan, M. (1999). Workplace bullying: Responding with some emotional intelligence. International
Journal of Manpower, 20(1–2), 57–69.
Smith, P. K., Singer, M., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Victimization in the school and the work-
place: Are there any links? British Journal of Psychology, 94, 175–188.
Taylor, S. E. (1989). Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind. New York:
Basic Books.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on
mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.
van Sell, M., Brief, A. P., & Schuler, R. S. (1981). Role conflict and role ambiguity: Integration of
the literature and directions for future research. Human Relations, 34, 43–71.
Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying—psychological work environment and organizational
climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 203–205.
AQ12
AQ13
AQ14
3072-027-006.indd 1033072-027-006.indd 103 10/13/2007 8:12:16 AM10/13/2007 8:12:16 AM
104 Matthiesen and Einarsen
Zapf, D. (1999). Organisational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/ bullying at
work. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 70–85.
Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2003). Individual antecedents of bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel,
D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace (pp. 165–184).
London: Taylor & Francis.
Zapf, D., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2003). Empirical findings on bullying in the work-
place. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse
in the workplace (pp. 103–126). London: Taylor & Francis.
Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Stig Berge Matthiesen, University of
Bergen, Department of Psychosocial Science, Christiesgate 12, N-5015 Bergen, Norway. E-mail:
stig@uib.no
3072-027-006.indd 1043072-027-006.indd 104 10/13/2007 8:12:16 AM10/13/2007 8:12:16 AM
AUTHOR QUERIES
AQ1: If either author of this article has academic degrees that should be listed, please
provide them.
AQ2: Springer journals have four to six keywords per article, but this one has nine;
please delete at least three of these.
AQ3: Baumaster, Smart, and Boden (1996): Please confirm the spelling of the first
author’s name. It appears in the reference list (and is cited elsewhere) as
Baumeister, not Baumaster. Please confirm the correct spelling and make it con-
sistent throughout.
AQ4: creating a futile soil for intense micropolitical behavior.: do you mean “fertile
soil”?
AQ5: the Union of Clerical and Officials: is this title of the union correct? Is there a
noun missing after Clerical? Or should it be plural (Clericals)?
AQ6: claiming that “after studying harassers and studying their victims...”: Is this quote
emphasized/italicized in the original text? If not, please remove italic formatting
from this quote.
AQ7: This is in line with Olweus’s (1994, 2003) findings...: This sentence originally
said “Olweas and associates’ findings...” However, in the reference list, none of
the Olweus sources list any co-authors, so I’ve deleted “and associates” here. Is
my edit acceptable?
AQ8: Leymann, 1996 is not in the reference list. Do you mean Leymann, 1992 or
Leymann & Gustavson, 1996? If not, either add Leymann, 1996 to the reference
list or delete this citation.
AQ9: Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen (1994): Please provide the inclusive page num-
bers for this article.
AQ10: Hoel & Cooper (2000): In what state/country is Manchester? England?
AQ11: McCrae (1992): Please provide the inclusive page numbers for this article.
AQ12: Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen (2005): Please provide inclusive page numbers
for this article instead of “in press.” If the article really is in press, change 2005
to “in press” here and in all in-text citations.
AQ13: Olweus (1978) was this book published in Washington, DC, or a city in
Washington State?
AQ14: Salin (2003): Please check the original title. Should “precipating” be “precipitating”?
3072-027-006.indd 1053072-027-006.indd 105 10/13/2007 8:12:16 AM10/13/2007 8:12:16 AM
