An analysis of the work harassment scale (WHS) with victims of bullying at work

Karin Ósterman (ed.)

lndirectand DirectAggression

PETER LANG,

' f t ! , l ¡ r ¡ l i la n Ber l in Bern BruxelL€s NewYork oxford Wien

B¡bl¡ographic Information pubt¡shed by the DeutscheNationalb¡bliothekThe Deulsche Narionalbibliothek tisls this pubtcation in theDeursche Nalionalbibtiogratiei detailed bibtiographic data isava¡lable in the nternet al hllp://dnb.d-ñb de.

Cover Design:Olaf Glócklef, Atelier Platen, Friedberg

tsBN 978-3 631-60028-3

O Peler Lang GmbHIntenat¡onaler Verlag der Wissenschaf ten

Frankluft am l\,l|ain 2010All rights reserved.

All paris of this publication are protected by copyright. Anyulilisation oulside ihe stfrct limits of the copyrighi taw, without

lhe permission ol the publlsher, is torbidden and labte toprosecuiion. Th s applies in pa¡ticutarto reproductions,

, ¿nslal¡ons. n crofilmrng. ano slorage ¿nd process ng inelectron¡c relrieva systems.

wwwpe¡enang.de

Pad I lndirect Aggress'on

What is lndirect Agg.essio¡ inAdulls?

Unilc$iiy of centtal L¡¡cashire. UK

'''lripping the Prom Queen'i Female Intrascxual Compelilion and lndicct

ArrressiL'nl f¿c) \ ¿r ' 'ancourr ' . Je$ie I Vr l lcr JnJ \rnj la l sh¿'rrdrUnivcNilY of oliawa. cúa.lar'rrlclta\ler Unr!úsiry-'', Cmada

ln¡tirecr Aggressio¡ and thc Media: Wathing "Mean" onúe Scre€n

Sarah M. CloYneBrigham Yolng U¡ivcrsjtv. lrc\ o. Utal! USA

tclevision and Aggression: The GenderFactorSetmoü Feshbach and Norm¿Deilch FcshbachUni!úsily ofCalifo¡ria, Los AngeLes. Us-{

Ihe Role ofDeñcicnt ¿nd Ha$h Parenting tu tbe Derelopmcnl ofChitd-

hood Indirect AggressionNizere Ly Valles and John F. KnutsonUúiveNilt oflo*¡, USA

l)irect And {ndirect Bullying: Which ls More Distressingl

Mike EsleaLrniversily of Cenüal Lancashirc' UK

lhc Folm and Fünction ofFenale Aggression

St¿cv M. Seclristr and Jacquclyn W. whitc'!oTM ?ar1ne6. \\'i¡s¡on-S¿lem. No¡ü Caroli¡a USArunivcNity ol No¡ú Ca¡o1ina ar Gree¡sboro, Usa

lhc Mini Direct lndirect Aggressnn lnvenlorv (Mini-DIA)

Karin OstennanAbo Ak¿deFi UnilcEil] Vasa. Fi¡land

Contents

11

l l

5 l

115

101

part IL Bu ying in Schools

Th!' Ohrru^s^BLr|ying prcvenrion prog¡¿m: Effecls of Classroom Compo_ne¡ts ar Differe¡t crade LevelsDan Olweusr and Jan Helge Kalestad)r-'.6 dst), of Berg.n, Nonvaybúgcn Lnn!¡sny Colicge and Res.arc¡ centcr fo¡ ltc¿tLh promo¡io.. NoNav

rJer .Lpp,,n n Jrpdn. A per. fec.. \ e Lnn ,nc Uur.rdeHete¡ Coü ieIl¡rreNirj ofsurey. critdford. Surcv. tjKmd H jroshiba tj¡n.c¡siIl., JaDan

+ Enpathy: Pcdagogicat Strategies ro promotc Ernp¡thyBnüque Ct¡!L\U¡ive^idad de tosAnder, tsogori Colo¡rbj¡

P(r . epl on. . \nILde. í r , ¡ l | \p(r ien, es ! , ,ncerrng BuJt) ing. anr l s, . fool\or a l^. , r .mur: ' A (onrpaf i .u ofpat indn ¿nd r , rst¡ dKxb la I lani f ¿¡dp.rer K SnI¡h:O ¿rr i - Aamt n \ . rn l \ r5 lJmabi l l p¿t {ú' o ú\m rh\ Un(e¡\ r) úr LonLtnn. LIK

Ki\ : d l - r r ru,h Jn¡o\¿|onro l ¡ .kteBu )rne ¡1sch,,orr! ,ní . r rnJ\J,r¡ i \a l l i .An.. ñ¿..n¿. d¡d I r r .d po.kipdnJ.unj 'chr¡ ur fu¡kL, F t rn¡'Uni!csf y of Slavangcr, Noñ.at

A!!-s. i \ L^B. hd\ ioJr rm,, t lgn c.U,tcrrs in sourn \ustr¿, .an s jhoot! :Auec¿de ufResearrhLaurencc OwensFli.de Ln(,eNiq,. Adelai.te. Solr¡Auslralja

paÍ lll. Adül1Bul]yirl8

Psychological Hcalth, Social Setf-Esteem and tsu|y,ng Behaviour anongrrrone . : A sFrJ) of tu\cnrtc. yo, ig ¿nd AdLt \4¿te pr i ,oncrsra¡e L. l retand and Nadela Haf iz:!rNeAry ofCc¡l¡at t_bcashi¡e, treston, UK, drd psychotogical Scnices.{ \h\¡nh I t rgh Se(urc Hu\pi t¿t . L i \e poüt Lñr- forns1qls n . . . . sr . .1r , n.JJl tH. . t l t . \ . r \ . I K

llet$een the Devil and the Deep Bluc See: Parallel Hierarchy, Role St¡ess 215¡Dd Workplace Bullying amongsl NuNes

t t5 Guy Nolclaersr. Hans De $¡itte:. and Stilc Einarseni'Búgen L niveÁn1,. N onvayK U.Ler\e¡, Belgiun

the Relalionship bclween Workplace Bullling and Suicide in lrel¿nd 239Mona O'Moore

t85

t l l

r43

l ri¡ily CoLLege Dublin, lreland

ll u I lying in rhe lrish Workplacc: A Cause for Concem 26 IKeith Sullivan¡iational linl!úsi¡ oflrelúd. cr]\ ay. Rctrülic of l¡eLúd

'l wen! Y ears of Researth o¡ Workplace Bullying: Altirudes and Percep 291tions ofPenonn€l Man¿gc¡s i¡ Finland Today

Denise SalinH¡¡ken Sc¡ooL ot Economics. l{clslngfon. liinLdd

An Arlalysis ofthe Work Hamssment Scale (WIIS) with Vicrir¡s ofBull- 307ying at Work

\. l "na J. , .c Baruen:r. VJ-r. Pr/ ¡uldu. . \4Jf l¿ Anre.e' Ac ( .n¿,David Mntinez. Amelia Diaz, Salvador Amigó, and Marí¿ ConsueloRoldá¡Unlvúsidad de valeücia, E\paña'Inrin¡to Tecnológicode Esrudios Supúiores de lvlo¡terey. Mé\ico

PJrr I \ Suc:et¿l A.pe(r. or \ tsJr{. . on

The Effects of Exposure 10 Violence on Aggressivc Bch avior: The C¡.\e 32 IofAmb and Jewish Childrcn in lsrael

Simha F. Land¿u . Shira Dvir Gvirsmanr, L. Rowell Huesmarurr,Eric F. Dubow,l2, Paul Boxerr2,leremy clngesr, anrl KhalltShik¡ki"'Hebre* Univc$ ity of JerusaLen. lsael'Unive^ily of vichjCa¡, LSA'Bowling Grecn Slalc Uni!úsity. Obio,USA'R¡¡geis Univ{sitv. Ne$ Jcse}¡. l-SA'Ne$,Sclbol io¡ Socral Rcscarch, Ne$ Yort, USA'PaLesti¡id Cenler firr Policy a¡d Suney Resea¡ch. Rar¡allah, the \\'estBank

159

201

Aggression and Conflict Resolurion among females in Nomadic BandSocietics

Nina Ekholm Fry andDouglas P. FryAbo Ak¡dcmi UnivÍsiry, vasd, Finla¡d

Ioward an Integrated. gmpjrically Supported Theory oflnlimate Padner

Atnie Langer and Erika LawrenceUniverslt-v oflora,lowo Cily, USA

Par V. \nrnal Model ' ofAgg'e' . ion

The Evolution of Aseressiono Caroline Biirchardr': andRobcf J. Blanchard'rU¡iver\ily of Hawaii ¿t Manoa, LrSA.rJohn A. Bums School ofMcdicine, Uni!{sltyofHa$aii, USA

Pare¡t offspring Conflicts in the Co¡¡mon Moorhen (Callinula chloropus)Paul F. Brain and Dan W. Fom¿nSsmsea U¡ncFity. UK

Compelitive Aggression, Defeat and Social Stressr A Mouse ModelStefano Parmigiani, Paols Pala¡za, and Alcssandro BafolomucciU¡iversity ol Pún4 ltaly

Prcface

th( ¡re.cnt \ulüme $ ¿ l , , t tchr, t t for prufe'so- Kaj Bjórkq\ iq. on hi ' 6oh

¡r¡rhirr Kai Blórkqvr5r i ' pr"fessor of Je\elunmenr¿l p ')( loro!) ¿I qDo

nl¡¡cÁ' r ni ' . ' ' i r l , v"sa. I in l¿.]d. Hc r ' $ c ' l - rnoÑn al l o\ ef rh( $or ld lor h s

'" ' . : "" f , "" ,"**": i* . In p¿ni. ul¿r. hr ' n 'me i ' l rnled Io rhe "tud) r f ind'rc ' t

' -""- i "-r H?i ' uel l -knoqn ror hn $o-\ oD remale aggre's:on ard he l 's

. l i " r . ¡ .¿ u de\elopmerul rheor) abou dirrerenr 'unns of aggrc'sron r 'e

' l ' " ' i . l i . ' .Á" i . -¡ t ¡ ; 'ecL agg'es' i , 'n H' i h 's ut 'o 5rrdied bul lv in! 'n 'chool '

i " í

r "*kT|"* ' .

, "d thc ei l i . : r ' or meú' ! 'o lence f lnhemore hc hd' ' rud-icJ conflicr iesolution, and conducted cross-cuhural rcscarch lle bas published

ij ¡*1. ,'J-"* tt'* , hun&ed scienrific ¿rticles, mainlv in English' bu1 also

in |innish,swedish, llalian, Celman, 3nd Japanese'

I.i*¡o "*

*t aiways well knorvn to the genenl public, bul lbis-is nol the

ñ" i i - i , i Á,0'r0." , ' r r ' $ork hd' e"rned mu(h publc Inrerecr ' and he N rre-

u".n, lv U. i" i i t " . ' * .¿ rn rhe prcs' radio ¿¡d oD T\ ' rn ¡ran) roLnrr 'cs He

i i i" I ' i I*i"?* u.." 'nten'c"ia t¡ rhc \e$ YorL t imcs rhe uuarr'"n in

il"nü"¿. Ñ"t¡"ur p'oli" Radio in U S.A ' a¡d Spiegel TV in cefmanv' iusr to-

;"'"";;'f;';. ie has also twice been ¿sked 1o tecture for the Parlianenr of

Iirl¡nd on ho\¡'to counter violence ln soclety'i i" il

" i.r""¿ *¿ *ti'e member of rhe lnlemational Societv for Research on

;;- ; . ' . ; " , ; r . ; ; ' ' .

(uuDcir merber ur ' rhe socre') ¿nd ha' co o gani 'ed

i" l i . i i ' ¡ ; .*¡ i "* l¿ meerrrg ' in l ! ' r lu Frnrand lo¡4 andinsanror in '

( ; reece.2004.

tamhaDD\ andproud' .pre*nl lhN\oluned'a¡es/ ' /J, ' ' \ ' lan) of üe¿b'o-

i , -" i ' iJ j i i "* "J"* " l 'Áin

as$e-ior re 'earch In rhc \ tor lJ rodav ha\e \^ lul-

i .*r . i ' " "" i . . ¡ r¡ ."

t"r rr ' rccor<l inpl l rhe ehapre ' : re ufhigh qú' l i r ) The

i ' . " i -* ' l¿. ' , c; .¿ o'enicu or rhe re'earch on inrerper 'ondl ¿sc'e\ iun of

,,"1-"' l,t¿ i' .- ú. *..t ttoLh tor reachrng numo'e' and ¿' a 'ource b'rok

3,15

357

377

389

Karin Ostetman

An Analysis of the Work Harassment Scale (WHS)with Victims of Bull)'ing at Work

I,lafla to* Rait'c"d Ua'k PL talJ"' . U¿r;n A¿L,t., Bcteñr.Dar¡d Maúíncz, Anelia Diaz, SalLadar Amigó, an.l Mdia Cansuelo Ral¿¿n

Depafamcnro dc Pctsonalidad, h¡lL¡¡ción y Tr¿t¡úie¡tos Ps icológicos.facultad de ?sicología, U¡ive^idad de VaLencia. EsFña

'lnstitutoTecDológco dc l.rudlos Slpe¡iores de Montercy.Camfus cuadalal an. Nlérrco

The pddcipúLs in úi\ study scr. 279 cDplol,ces (138 r¡e¡ md l4lFone¡) erhacled lioú a Larger sdnple sho repoñcd hari¡g been vic-¡ims of buLLyi¡g as deñned b, the Psrchosoctu¡ lrl,kplu.. lno¡ory(PNr) (Bjórkqli$ & oreúm. 1998). Th.se cm¡loyccs atso con,rt.red rh. í'.rk atus'ú.nt &d/¿ ($HS) (Bjórtqlisr & Osrennm.1998). \ince it was rhc oblcdive of the sn¡dy to an¡lyze the catcgoriesofbullyi.g bchavior cne¡gi¡g ilil¡ tle use ofúis \cale Tbc $HS isco¡{osed of 26 ne'¡s (2,1 fion ¡he o¡igi¡aL sc¿le plus 2 drat qereadded i¡r this srLd,v). Thc data s!rc slbni¡¡ed to a feror anatysis(prnop¡l coúponent with raima{ rolalion)i lhere eme¡ged 1¡ü fac,tors, together e¡pl¿úr¡g 55.05 % ofthc variance. the four iddfricdfac¡ors coresporded with 0) att¡cks o¡ rhc social ¡eLatio¡ships of rhcllclim lsi¡g social isolarñnj (ii) lcüal agsre$io¡i(il]) ¿tk k\ on r¡.priv¡le life of the vicLih (rncludine rumoN)i and (i\') auacts on rbcvidin nsing orgúl2alioDal neans Thc factots presenr reliabitirics(( ronbach\ a) oeillaLi¡g bel{ een .?,1 and 9I ( .95 fo¡ ¡he rokl que!rion.¡nc). The WHS sloñed ¡self ro be a \ensirivc insllmem dis-cú¡inating betveer levels ofselerity olbullyi.g as reported bl en!ployc.s. Olhei resul¡s \rere related to gender diffcrcncesi fo¡ er¿¡rple.uoncn ob¡ai.cd much higher scores on factüs pcrainiig 10 persoúlbullyins (fado$ i. ii, and ili) $üile men obt¿ined highcr scorcs on o¡ganizational b!llyi¡g (fado¡ i!)

Bullying al work is understood as "all thosc repeated u¡reasonablc and inappro-priate aclions and practices that are dircclcd to one or more enployees. $hichare unwaDted by the vjctim, uhich may be done deliberately or unconscjously,but do cause ]ümili¿tion, offense ánd distress. and ihat n1ay intcrfere wirh jobpeformance, and/or cause an unplcasant working atnosphere" (Einarsen, 1999).This definition considers the two essential elements of bullyi¡gi repeated andpermanent behaviors that in addilion are perceived as hostjlc by ihe receiÍer. Ingene¡al, evaluation instumenls havc emphasized one or the othcr of these as-pects. Ihose that emphasize perceived victimization in the radition of Olweus

Cor$po¡dúce should be a¡¡lrescd to Mdia José tságena, Deparancfro de feisonalid¡d,EvaLuació¡ y T¡atamientos PsicolóCicos, facull¿d de ¡slcologia, Unircrsidad de Valetuia.A!d.tsLascolb¡ñez.21..16010\¡alcncia- Hspaña.E 1mi]:¡aguda -ruv.cs

308

(19:14) are based on thc label tlat the \icrin produces from hls ot her expcrr,,trin ¡ccordance üilh a dctinition ofbullying. The instrunents that foLlow thi\ lrccdure i¡1I $ ithin whár is called the pefccrl'ed victinlzation method On lhe ' r ,

cr band, instrunents conslsti¡g of items that exprcss negative actilitjes ,,rrl

which individuáls must indic¡te th€ frcquency \tirh which tley have secn I r,,,'

selv€sexposedrosuchact iv i t ies,al lcasldunnglheL¿stsixmonths(thccr i r , l r ,of durarion m¡y var), but must ncvcr be less lhan this pefiod), are inch(I.,| ,,

wh¡t is called thc cxposure 1o bullyirg behaviors melhod Amo¡g thc lnn ',ments co¡slructcd accolding 1o this logic. the best known are lh€ LIP I (/ 'nann Invent¡¡n ol Ps:chologj.al TeÍatizdtion) bt l-eymann (1990), lhe N \r I

(,\"s.'¡¡rz .l¿¡s Qüestio nar'e) of Eir\arsen ¿nd Rakncs (1997), ¿nd lhe \\ rr"(rrotk Hdrassment S..lle) by Bjórkqvisl and osterman (1998)

lhe factor analyses conductcd b-v Lep¡nn $'itl lhc LIPT lde¡tified ñ\c l ,

lors of nobbing (bullying). *ltich he labcllcd as ¡eg¡Lile communic¡lio| iLl

milialion behavior, jsolation behavior, frcq'rent chrnges of tasks as a melr¡ 'rpuD ishmcnt, a¡d Íiolenoc or rh¡eal of liolence. lI the facror ¿nab s1s b,"- \ ,, ,

(1995), sclen factors werc identified: aÍa.ks on pcrsonal integrrri'. isol¡r 'rldirect and lndirect criticism. pünishmenl *ith cedair lasks. threats. sf\1,,1

abuse. ánd allacks on the prilalc llle ofthe pcrson l¿lfelal (199ó), ti¡rrr I ,

rerical supositions and a factorial an¿lysis ol respolscs 10 the LIPT usji! 1s,'

samplcs. identitled sele¡ acti\ilies of¡rr1i,g: negati!e work-related acrL\rir

that impcde \vorl perfornancc (orga¡izalional means), social lsol¿tion. per\rtr)

attacks or atlacks on the prilalc lile of the lictim, verbal threals in uüiclr l|tr

person is critlcized or humiliatcd in public. sprcading ol mors, ¿tlacks on I

attitudcs ol the victim, and lhlsical vioLence These l¿sl two táctors do nol r'

quently .ippear in shrdies on bullying, because not allresea¡chets include fh\'cal abuse in the defini1rc¡ ofbullying, and ¡ddilio¡¿lly. it is rare 10 includi

'lt¿cks on religious or politioal lreliefs.

Rcg¡rding the NAQ. Einanen a¡d Raknes (1997) co¡ducted a lrincilal (,'

ponents analysis of wjth vadmax rot¿lion th¡r ¿lLowed lhcm to idenlilv llri,'

facrors: person¡l con|emp¡. $ork rel¿led harassme¡t, and social e¡cluslon lr

more recent, rcvised venion of this queslionnaire, Ein¿rsen and Hoel (:r)l)l)

concluded that acliviti€s of ,ror¡i,s/ó?r/¡ t¡g could be diflere¡ti¿ted in L\'

majn catcgories: those relalcd 1o work (ryanizalionál bul\'ing) a¡d thosc r'

laled t{r the person (person¿l bullynl-s).Regarding the WHS. il is suggesled dr¡r the items that compose rhis sc¡le ,rr,

relatcd to two subscalcs ol nasked ¡ggression: appareftl,! rarion¡l agg¡csi r¡l

and social manipulatñn (Bjórkqvist et d., 1994)F¡om what h¿s been prese¡led abole' ]n this studl' we conside¡ üe fbllo$ rrl

1, To explorc lhe categories ofbullylng thal cnelge $ith the WHS, consldcrrril

as well diffctcnces related to gcnder ina viclin]lzed s¡nple

An atlult\i\ oJ rhe tvot k lldra\snent S.ule 109

í, To explore rvhether thc WHS discrinrinatcs among individuals who diiler inthe perceivcd severjt) oflhe viclimization by bullying. measurcd $'i1h üe P\Il

Methocl

SanpleThe paficipanls in the study úere 279 employees (138 men and l4l women)wbo had been liclims ofbullying ¡t som€ time in thcn working lives The sample consisted mainly ofyoung adulls, 69.t % werc ¡ged 25 to 4'1. Aboul 43 9;had tsachcbr's or Master's unilersity degrecs, ¿nd 57 % had primary o¡ second-ary sludics. H¡lf of the cnployees were m¿laied. 9 % lived \'rith a par|ner. 8%were sepár¿ted or divorced. and 31 9/" wcrc single. Regarding thc work expe-riencc oflhe sample. 35 li' had I 1o 5 y€ars ol experience, and 19% had 5 to 10years. The 1e¿sr reprcscnled inten als corrcspond with less th¡n onc year of ex-pedcüce (6 %) or nrcre than 20 yeaN (10 %). ln addition, 33 % ol the employeeshad jobs which included hig¡ 1o very lrigh physical risk. ll% jobs with lorphysic¡rl risk, and 34% \tith ver) 1o$ physical dsk. As can bc sc¡:n in Flgure l,the pcrcentages with respect to the selerily ofúe viclimiTalioD ¿s cstablished bythe Psrchasodul fi orkplace lnwntotr (PWI) of lhe 279 victimizcd cnployeeslvere the follo\\ jngi 66 % at LeÍel l, 24 9/o al Level ll. and l0 % al Level Ill

7A%

FJB¡r¿ / Dstibudorof t¡ericriñsa.cor¡ingbthepe(eiveltlevelol \e!úiry ofvictinizotion (ñ 2r9)

ln úe contcxr of a broader study (Báguena el al.. 2006: 2007), trvo qlrestlon-

naires werc used in ihe evaluation of bullying: the Psrchoeridl /orkplúu In'rcntort tú¿ rhe ,lrork Hdrussnant S.dle.

The Pl,(hosockl ltartElau Inwntorr lP\t¡I; Biürkqlisl & Óstennan, 1998)

evalu¡fes bull-ving frcm thc perspeclive ofthc nlclhoá al perceired rictinizatian

Gubjecdve n.-thod). ¡ccording to which lhc indilidual is presented \\ith ¡ dcii-nitñn ofbullying and decldes ifhis ot hct cxperience should be labellcd a\ such

This insÍulnent allows tbe ldentiñcalion of groups of srüects accordnrg ro the

I0 An ana$ts ol the ,l:ork Hutltssnent Sole 3

level ofseverily ofvictimizalion they have expe¡ierrced. Subjects $ere not aslüabout the regularily or duration oflbe experience of bullyi¡g, bul about drc sfverit]. or ]eÍel ofthe bull]'ing the]' have enperienced. Ahhough the PWI e\rlLlates othef aspects ofnlerest, in this study \ie have paid attention only to úe s.,tion related to bullyjng experienced."

The trotk Hutusstnent S.d/¿ (wHS; Bjórkqrist & Osteman, 1998). ThnrL,,rl,26 items (21 fiom the original version and 2 added fbr this study), this quesri,rlnaire evaluates the frequency (never, seldom. occasionally. often, and very,'t€n) ofthe exposure ofthe employees to bullying activities (e.g., excessive cr Icism. offensive conrments about one's private lifc. ridioulc in Fonl of oth.letc.) nr the last six r¡oDlhs. The WHS pennils an clalu.tlion ofbullying tutn rltrperspective ofthe nrethod of ex?oswe ta hu ring d.¡¡,i/t¿s lobjcctivc nretho(ir

Thc s¿mplc ol victin]ized employees was oblained, in the liamework ofa ¡fri,rcr sludy. lbrougb contact s,ilh people lion different companies or insrituli¡who g¿!c us pennissjon 1o carry orlr lhe g¿úering ofinfo¡m¿tion. Once the n,tacl was cst¿blished. and according to ageement lvith ihe person ¡esponsil,lrthc gathc ng ol inlbrnalion proceeded wilh t\o methods. ln the firsl metho(1. ,nunber "x" ol envelopes. each containing the questio¡¡aire and insirucli,ú.w¡s given to the company contact. Volun¡arily. each employee filled our rliqueslionnane (or left it bla¡k), pul it back in the envelope, closed the envc or\and deposlted i¡ in a previously designated place (for example, a cardboa.d l',,'labelled tbr that purpose). Atter a felv days. the researcher went to the com|rLr \and collecled the closed envelopes. lnlhe second mcthod,lhc cnlclopcs srrlr rl¡qu€stjonnaire and instructions were distribuled dircctly by thc researcber 10 1l'employees, lvho loluntarily filled out the questionnaircs at úal tjme.

Fd.t , 1n¿lfsis l Prrncrryl Citnp.t¿k¡ ra/iñur Rol.tlk r tt the LoÁ Hot16sn.nt Súl¿

Unduly rcduccd oDportun itlcs ¡o expres yourselfLics aboul yo! roldto ollrcNBcinC uduly dñruFcdBcing shoúcd at loudlyBcing unduly criticizcdInsllting comnrcnrs abolr you. pfilatc lifc

lIa\ing \eD!¡re d.rails abou¡,votrr

Insinuative glanccs an¡,or ncganlc gcs¡urcs

Retus¡l to \peak sir¡ youBelittling of your orinn,ns

Bci.g rcatcd ¡5 non-cxisicntWords arnred ¡t ¡unrng yorBeing gi!en meaningless ta\k\Being given i.sulting ta\k\Ha\ nrg nalcrous runro$ \p¡ead bchind

Bei¡g n¡licule¡l in 1l.ont ofotheNHalirg your wo¡k ¡¡dged in ¡n

i¡corec¡ úd i¡suLti¡g úamerHali¡g your sense of rudEnenl quesrioned

^ccusations of bei¡g ne¡rally disturbed

Othcts laking crcdit for you work o¡ re$llsNot bei¡g give¡ r¡] tasks

(nol havins anythrns io do)Reerlts

The Work Hdra\smenr S.dle (WHS): Cdtepries ol Bullr¡ng BehdriotTo cslablish the categories ol bullying thal emerged ftom the WHS, a llLt,ranalysis lp nc\rál compone¡ls wiú larimax rotation) was conducted. lh.rcsulls 3rc prcsenled in Table 1. To ascribe ilems to different categories, lwo ,lerla {ere followed: an empirical crite¡ion consisting in choosi¡g thc itc r rli,had the highest satulation in the faclor (wiúout drscarding redundancics. ir L ,.the l¿clori¡1 load was also high in anolher factot, and a rational criicrioD biÁ,,1on groupings previously established by other researche$.

l0.23.02.10.IJ'1

.26

.19

.29

.68

,70.76

.2i

.12

.19

.t5

.t0

.1.1

.42 .0E28 .,1855 .]ri6l .2060 .30.19 .76l t .24

t7 .73

.5r .32

.50 .2E

.58 .37

..11 .,1¡

.19 .22

..12 .(J6

.21 t5

.50 .1,1

21 .3:

.2t .57

:16 .¡¡

.16 d0

.12 ,49

.19 .15

.0,1 .16

.i0 44

. ti ..1r1

.22 .13

.l] .5:t

.0 l t .61

.10 .ól

.17 .5r l

. t6 59

.] l i . i l

.19 .58

.?8 .69

.2i .13

.21 . t \

.58 .52

.62 55

.11 .57

.35 50

.35 6l

29 .51.16 ..15.56 ..ll

.12 l2

9; of erplaind va¡ianceI 7.1 1.66 ] l7t5.15 l261 9.6427.89 22 9l 11.52.89 E2 11

I t .5: l

3 ] 6r¡.92

In total. four factors úere oblained explainjng 55.05 % of tlre tdal varia¡ce.The inte,?relation ofthese factors is as lbllows:

a, The firsl faclor has an eigenvalue ol1l.53 explaining 17.44 9ó oflhe lotalvariance and 31.68% oflhal extracled by the rotation. The 6 ilems rlith highestloadings in this faclor suggest bullying activjties direcled al limlling thc socialcontacl and communication of the victim, accordingly it \!as named ¿/&cfr o,ltha socidl relarianships oJ the ticrim üsing so.¡t¡l isoldl¡or. The intemal consis-tency ofl¡e subscale based on this thjs factorwas.92.

qt'rs) (N =:79.

312 A tn¿l)vt ol th¿ tt uÁ Hd,!¡{{,,.,r -SL¿L' l t3

1i, The second f¿c1or had a¡ eigenvalue of 1.7,1drplai¡nrg 15.3-\ 1..i, ol rtrtal variance and 27.899'" ofthe rotatd variance. T¡is f¿clor grouped lt jl( ,, , , Ibecause of theit contents, the l¡c|or was named y¿r¡dl dggl€$lor. Thc rL

", I

ty olthe f¡c1or w¡s.89/tr) The thnd üctor had an eigenvalue of 1.6ó and explaiDed 12.6t , ,,r , ,

ldalvaria ce and 22.91% ofthe rot¡tcd variance. Eight bulying acti\ir . ,,grouped in this f¿clor: d/ Lt( lts on the priwte I ile of the rictin 16 rten\ rr,t , ,,no¡r (2 items). Thc inlernal consisrncy ofthe subscale based on ihis iil l, , ",.82.

/jr, Thc fourth faclor hls an eigenv¿lue of l.l7 and explains 9.64 9i, (i 1t¡ ,,ta l !¿r ianceand17.52%oflherolaledlar iancc.T¡econtenlsof thcI i t . , , ,1, ,1conposcd this faclor (úe lasl two \lere rhose added in this srudy) ctc¡rl\ . , ,üat this flctü relales to ¿¡tack o, the ,i.tin using oryani.dtíondt rt\r¡\inlemal consistency was .74.

The ,york Hdrusenent S.ole IWHS) dnd the Sewrit| aJ Percei*.¿ ri.f",r., r ,,An impo¡bnt ¡spect for this rudy was to find out to whai extenl lhc !\, ,sensitive in relalion to the le\el of scverily ofvicliniz¡tron by bullyins r. !, ¡,,1by the subjecrs as defined by the Pst.hologicol lltorl<place lnwntaD,lP\\ )) \the le!els of selerily of perceiÍed viclimizarion in rhe PWI i¡crease. llre $r,should be progressi!ely higher in rbe $¡HS.ln order to conduct this ¿n¡l)\,.. r1lvictins \{ere dilided inlo thiee groups according to iheir scorcs on the p\\ | l, lDho repofed a Levcl I ofseverity, 68 who reported a Level II. and 17 $t¡, ,,pofed a t-evel lll T¿ble 2 shows the nrcans and standard devi¿lions ol rh( 1t,,,,groups. ¿nd Table 3 shols the resuhs of a comparison anong thc ihrec lrLñrt.r¡ lúal scores and calcgories ofbullyjng identified by the subscales crcrr.,l

Trblc 2u.dns dnd srtrdut¿ D¿tidtu$ o1th¿ tu-k H¿nssnknr s.¿te lbHS) for Edrh 1,,, t ,l\ ' . , ¡ \ ' -o,

D¡lfeftnkr in th. ttork H¿ra\snent S.ole lÜ ts) ¿.!.tu1ins b thc Lcrcl af

Lcvel f-ll Lelell Ul Level 11 Ill

\ . , | , , r te "-¡L

. ra i " .1. , , - l 04 . , L i )

. f thc \ ( l im is i ¡p s. ¿r ion

r\tacts on rhe prirare lifc ofrhe victin

Auacks on ¡he lictinr using

4.98 r* ' -6 12 **! -2.87 * i

- :1 l l ** -5.19** 285* '

-2. .1\ ' 4.56 **. ,2 84 *,

-<.10 f* i _6.17 rr ' 1.0E.,*P <.05. ** / <.01 ***P<.001.

The resul¡s show a progressive and significanl i¡cr€ase in the scores oblained bythe victims in thc $¡IIS as we pass from a Level I of severity (,V total - 30.62)lo a Level l l (M:45.46) 3nd to a Lelel I I I (M:63.15). l t is woÍh Dot ing th¿l

this significa¡t differenlial paüern

l, significanlly discrlminates victims of Level I ftonl 1¡ose of Lclcl II. and

those of Lclcl II tiom those of Lc\el III. the difTerencc bcrwccn Lelel I andLevel lll logically being largcr. Furlhemlore victims of Lclel II dlllered morefrom rho:( of I e\el I rhJn nuT rh. .e ul Le\el L(i, is feplicated €qually for thc difter€nt categories isol¿ted in lhe WHS in lhis

study.

Canput¡s.n oJ .n N - 138) dk¿ ,'onEn tti = t11) oh the ttrotk ltarussñeat S.dl¿ (\ = )79)

, \1:138 , \= l .1 lMSDMSD

Lelcl II l,er.L I l,=68 i=)1

M SD .U \ t )

AlLacts o¡ thc social relatronshlpsof the viclim usi¡g $cial isoladon

Atacks oúrhe prilatc li1¿ ofthevicriú (]¡cludine rumo$)

Att¡cks o¡ the lictim using

9.16 6.04 I1.06 7.20 2. :19 *

12.72 6.68 | ] .80 ¡ i .57 -L lu

8.82 6. ,1.1 9.98 l .ó0 1.38

, l91 3.80 :1.29 3.83 l . l5

15.60 19.61 l9 l l 24.10 -1.16

\ l l¿.ks on the:ú! i ¡ l r . ¿r.n\h ps ! )ouf l l r . \ ic t i i u\ lng Lüld¡, ,n

Veúal aggr.$io¡ l0 95

5.72 t2 ói 6 89

6.1| 16.16 1.79

7.52 5.76 11.,17 6 7l

3 86 I29 5.19 :1.00

:10 62 ] t 52 :15.,16 21.52

Attacks on lhe p¡i!¡Lelit¡ ofrhcvictin(inc]!di¡e ruúo¡,

usnrg organizalional ne¡ns

16.22 r i t

21.18 ¡ \ r

l l 07 Lr 1l

ó3.1i t r , \ .The WHS: ri.tit¡ii..tt¡on dndGen ler Relote.l D¡ffere cesln dris scclion \re e¡amine \\hclhcr gender influences the acri\itics of bullying.More global analysis, centered o¡ calegoriesfactors. and a morc spccific ¡naly-sis relaledlo thc concrete items thal make up th€ WHS are presented

3l, l

The I'aú Hdn \úen¡ &11¿tIl = lll)

Bá911.üd, t ,,t

SrtNrt ¡hC P.rc¿nrag¿s .l¿r M¿n tN - I 38) ond lf.D, '

An analrsis of the Woú Ha/usen.kt :ir4t.

Discussion

. i11_r6] rl !rde' no u roce,nfo-,nurion.

". a,r *, ,*".oi.,ri .fnf,-i."rIenon r ' .e. rhr l some irem\ pre.enr rcJundancies In.o", . ." ,ur, ] io." , t , . , .1: . - : . - "" ,^- ' . ' ¡

sone ra(rors) to esrJbt is ' i¡ne (dregúnes la\ torc. Such a reduldanc) occurred { i l t , rn rne Frsr lqo t¿\1or jlmefgrDg n rhe ¡cro a¡¿l ls. . uhich qcre i¿hel ,ed,r /* .Laa the,. . tJ, , .1¿-llonships ú the úctin usjns socídt isotdtion nd r.,.toi ,gg"",";nr. i,, tt ur t*oo-flhe jlelns wilbnighest ioadings i¡ the lirst facror atso havin-q strbstanrial toad_

fjllillil Hi,.f?ff i:'iil il#[""1'5,:.tnHii]!:::'.':t i::ti:i:ional and empnic.tt analyses. the fi¡sr'facro¡ concsponds mainty with the facthat reymann (1990) calted . isolation bchavior..and parrty with thc factor

1"^! l l - l l '1)"1 '"1 ' )" . ' ' .¿¡cbo'c.ofburr) .nrbeh,, \ io u. , , r¡ sai¡rnrc or ¡panr\r em¡to)ee. \ icrrmi/eo b) bu t l ing. Tt i . , ru¿. qa. co.,oucred rn l f e, oDte\. ot ¿ broadr. , .ud) rB:rguend cr at :00b )ou-i l o lr c. . .Sorres r¿clor i ha\e heer i .uldreJ. in col | tm,l ro olher stuJies r \J. | . . rnd f i \e ormore l I elmann lqoo. \ , \ .d1. ,oo5 /¿pfet ¿t . looor. \crennele.. . t l i , Jr . .el

Insrrumcrl . rs.LbsrJnrial l ) drf terenr: r fe I tpT b¿{ 15. rh. .NAó ta" 2,¿_J) rLr_l l l l:1 & Yf:'j "^"1, 1,"-*. & uer.200,, ,.a,r," r.rrri,s¡*rqJ" au.remán. iqqxl h¿s z. plu. , rhe rqo em. r t-ar qc ¿ddert in r fr . . . rr jy rn:rberr

U¡duLy reduced opportu-nlties ro exprc$ louEclfLier about you told 10 odi.¡sBeing úduLy disruplcdBeing s¡outed al lo!dl-!Bejng udlLy criicrzcdlnsulline comments aboul

H¿!lng sc.snire derails

Insinuativc glances anüo¡

Retusal lo speak *ilh lorB.litrling of )ou oprnions

Being lrealcd as.on-existentWords aimcd al nLúmg youBci.g gtren nedingles

Bcing given insulhng msksHavine nalicious rumorsspread bchnrd your b¿ck

Being ¡idiculed n lio¡¡

15.5 35.5 15.9

37? 268 21.2:19.8 14. | 1¡1. I60.2 24.6 ri.0:19.1 3,1.1 11.6

68.2 15.2

l9l : t 1.9

r2 l

r0.9 6.5

ó0.2 21.0 10.1 8.7

79.1 10.1 ó.-{ ,1.3

13.I

12.:l

1.215.2

6.5

10.1 6.5

10 9

872912.313.0E7

1.2

L2. l

L0. l

4.3

109

2.9 3.aJ

18.8 15.9

1.6 4.3

31.1 33.: l 1?.0

40.3 29.1 11.147.5 17.0 22.053.9 21.: t 14.135.5 27.0 19.1

69.5 15.6 5.1

50.4 I8. .1 163

.T¿bie 4 pre.n,s the ¿¡dt \ . is ot me1 , . r ¡ r r t . . , , , t , . . , ¡ . , , . , , . ¡ t , . , r , , , I ,

¡n€ r 'aÍou-s rdenrrrred (a¡egor ies ofbul l ) jnsr\cepr r¡r lhf cr t (gort -eferred .o ¿. ' . - r . , , . t . , . r r t .

l ro¡a] me¡ns." i t may be nored lhar v ic l imiTcd \ ! ( , , r . | , , t , r . , r ¡ Lt r , r t , , ¡ - " , r , !(cveni f thedi f i¿rcncei¡rhiscasewasnorsignrf j . , , , , , r u, l r , , , , " , r , , , , , , , , ,men ¿nd\omen rL ched a. ignrf iccn¡ te\e, , , r t r , r , | ( . Ln r . , , . , t , . , , , r . { ,InesorrJt -e¡r l ron. l ips ot rhe\r . r imu, ine,u(Jt r . . , t r , , , , . , , , , . . . rwomen sco¡ing highcr.

.Tdble 5 'boq. t re \upporr ' rg prrcertdpc, tbr (Jctr r , | | , , { , , , , , , , . , t . . , , . , , ,

Addrng trdeüer ¡ ter(sfunse¿trem¿ri \es i , f ien . , ¡d. \ . . , . . . r . . ¡ , t . . . , ¡ r . , ,1iy,ng dcLr\ r , re: lha, mol< \ ic t im. ,ut lcr $ i r t - j fe¿re.r . r ( r , r ( r . . \ | . , , t , , , . , ,you lu^,d.o,r¡er- l l5 < 0, , arJ .urhers rdki . rg Lrr¿¡r , r r , . , , , "1. , , , . . . , Ll ra. "o). In rhec¿\col úr ,men. rhe nu. l t reqJenr J( i \ " . s. . t i r , r . r , , . , r . .1¡snon.errsr(nr" l404d.r . . t tet , t iDgot )ou,, ,Din"n. \Jo r . , r r t t , , . , , , , . , r , \ ,8ra¡ce\ and or negah\e ge.! tures. . l . lq ol

Inversely, ifwe focus on the rcsponsc altemative of..ncver.. rtr. t., r, t.rrlru¡ppofed by Dren a¡d q¡omen arc rhe sane: ..Accusations

ofbenrr rrrcrrl \,tr.It¡¡bed" (87 % of the rne¡ and 81.6 % of rhe women), -Not be-ilrg sr\.| .,,r\l^k, l t . l ,_:"^"^, rhc ner .rnd sn l oo,t| rtre somen). ard eerr¡ !r, . , . . , , r.lng rd, \ , - - r -a a 0. ot the Incn a¡d 88. I oo of hc q on.en,.

5ó.5 22.5 12.370.3 22.5 :1.3ó].8 t8. l 5 850.8 2l . l 14.551.5 27.5 12.160.1 22.5 8.055. i 26.1 11.6

11.9 21.6 \5.2

75.ii 1,1.2

71.0 10.ó

169 24.1

53.1ó:1.5

19.048.3

39.1

57.5

r i ! .1

51.9

22.0 16I r(r r19.9 lE rr2ó.2 I '1.2 | ] s22.0 21.: l r7 ll r i .4 16..1 r i0t7.0 17.7 rr i27.0 ¡6: l Lr 0

163

5

IIarüg your sork rudeed

Orhcrs taking credf ibr

Not bcing grlen úy tasks

79.8 8.1

55.9 21.9

? l . l l l6. l

'12

'1.2.

2¡.0 8.7

10.9

6.5

18.,1 9.9

l l .1 2.1

2.E

65.2

E1.2

r0.6

5ó.1 21.4 l0 6

16.9 27.1 17.1 . l

5:1.9 l9.r

56.0 16.3

E0. l 10.6

14.2 r .

(nor h¡ling a¡t¡hllc !!!!¡¿/¡,. I Ncvcriscldon,2 = Occasio¡¡lly.3 = Oflel. I = Very olten

he labellcd "negative conmunic¡tion"; the lácior ide¡dfi;d i¡ the p;e;;;

316 An cnub.sís ú ¡he Wo* Itaftssnent S.dle 317

D. (1994). Annotalion: Bullying at school - B¿sic facrs and efTccts ofaschool based inleNcntion program. Jaumdl ol Chil.l Psrchob? and psychia-/ry, JJ, I 171- l I90.

study appears ro repr€sent an attack on social reiailonships in $hich the ag!'re'

sor engages predomjnantly in activitics aimed at sociallv isolaling the v'clrrrl

The faitor here labclled |erbal oggrcssiol comp(ises irems that havc 1o do $rrll

thre¿ts. criticisms. and also $ilh a limitation of conrmunication The third ti'r'"

anr,A5 na th¿ p'na^ l t^ at th, ld i ' ¡n, l"dias tunor ' groupt oge hc 'tiljlies aimingio attack the victim by bumilialing bim or her in ftont ol co$orl

ers. lmDoúa; components of this faclor are 1ies, conrments, and ihe sprea(lLr Iof rumo¡s aboLtt the rictim; thesc compo¡€nls have ¿ clear sjmjlaritv üilh th"'

suggested by Zapfet ¿1. (1996) in úen an¿lvsis ofthe LIPT Th€ last facbr"'

tu;kr an the úd¡n usitls orlakízat¡ondl neans' etll,erged very clearlv, lion' irr

emnirical Doiú of vicw, since the items wilh the highest loadings did nol cotrrr

bure substi¡rial variance to othc| facrors in the matrix l¡ sum, the redundanerr

among the filsl three facrors, as opposed to the foufh' induces us 1o think ¡lr'¡11

thc su;sestion of Einarsen a¡d Hoel (2001) that it is possiblc lo consider lhc f\

istence ofrwo largc categories ofbullying activilies: personal and organiz¡l¡rral. And, given the order in which these categorics appear, and thus the pcr(frl

t¿ge of \ariance lIal they explain, the bullies of the victims of our stud)'- t n

n;stly bullying actiljties of th€ ñrst type more than of the seco¡d Also rl¡

four iatnnal-empnlcal caregories havc a high intemal consistencv (oscill¡r I "bel\\'ee¡.74 and.92), reaching avaluc ol 95 for the total questionnaire ln Ir4r

clusion. il would be i eresting to conduct olhcr laclor analvses with t¡e N ll\

both üilhout any identified licrims and with a hi-qher nunber of \icti¡]s lli I I

ú¿t obrained i¡ ihe present slüdv. Other imponant validation dala in relat'orr L"

the WHS i¡vohe lhe 1$o nethods of evalualion mcnlioned in the introd!'r '{lof this chaptcr. The wlIS discrininates perfectlv among viclims $irc pef'er\f

rhemselves to have been victir¡ized wirh different lcvels of scveritv ns e\'ahLir'l

lhr. 'Jqh üe P$l. l¿\ ' rg rolourrounr rh¿r rh s le\Jl olse\cnrvsu¡i tse'r ' : r " i "nuum ol a¡rresion in rhree sruges errelJing l rorn rhe J- ol Indi ' (cr ' f ( ' ¡ 'of aggresstin to more ditect and open foms of abuse of pox'er resulting rrr rll

.lehuma¡ization of úe victjm (Bj órkqvht, 1992)' il $ ould be inleresti¡g l(' lr'r \ '¿vailable ¿ sufficicnl numbd ofviclims to b€ able lo conduct a t¿ctor ¡ ¡ \!r

for each ofthe scverity groups From this pelspeclive, p€rhaps il is logicxL rlúrl

üe factor thar explains the nost variance in our ¿nalysis relales 1o soc'¿l trllitr r¡

on lhe victim and. more specifically, srraregies aimed at isolaling th€ vrcllni "'cially. a type of indirect agg¡essñn that is suffer€d more characterilrc ll\ l'\

victrns of sevcriry Level I (recall üat in this srudv 6ó% of th€ emplovecs e\¡

luared tall into üis level)Finallv. r'e have repofted some results r€l¡lÉd to gender dilGre¡ccs Thc (liri

suggcsithal in gener;I, wome¡ are attacked more than me¡ \\'irh ncgaiivc r'rr\ I

tiei üat reflect personal bullying rvhile this differcnce is jnverted for or8¡irr/i

tionalbullyi¡g. ihis resull coutd be explainedbv datapresenled in anoilcr rrrl\(Básucna €1a1., 2006) lvbich considers rh€ g€nder ofthe aggressor and the rrrí

iorii' render of the viclim's coworkers ln this studv. the women liclilns \.'

harassed mainly b) other women, becxusc the victims wo.ked nainly wlthwomen, and it rs lnorc charactenstjc o1 \!om€n to use indireot strategies of ag-gression (Bjórkq!isr el ¡1., 1992). ln iine ü,ith this, lnen and lvomen differ in drelype ofnegalive aclivilics that they e¡perience more freque¡lly: wonen's expe-rienccs co[espond wilh ilenis that have to do wnh the fiIst ralionat empiricall^ctot (dtt.rclr.s on sa.ial relationships uring saci.tl isolat;.,¡) and lnen s erpe-riences conespond wrth an item relaled to ara¿ir o,] the ri.tin using oryan¡.dthrnal neans aú anothet lnvolved $ith rulnors.

Referenc€s

Bágr¡cna, M. J., Beleña. ^.,

Dí¿2. A Toldos. M. P., Roldá¡. C., & Amigó, S.12006). Un ¿stud¡a erplorarnia de ld údenci¡i psi.alóeica en el conterb ta-¡t¿ld¿ Investigaclón sub!cncionada por la Consellería de Educ¿cntD y Cienciade la Comunidad Valenciana. Unpublish€d manuscript.

Báguen¡. M. 1., Beleña,4.. Diaz. A Toldos, M. P.. Roldán. C., & Amigó, S.(2007). Estrés laboral y sintomalologia posl lraumática. tnvestig¿ción subven-cionada por el Minisle o de Educación y Ciencia. Unpublishcd manuscript.

Djó¡kqvist, K.. Lagenpetz, K. M. J,. & Kaúkiaincn. A. (t992). Do gjrls manipu-Iate and boys fighll Dev€lopmental t¡ends in regard 10 direct and indirect ag-gression. ,4gal¿"$ir¿ t¿r¿úo. 13, lll-121.

Bjórkqvist, K.. & Os1ennan, K. (l998). Scales for rescarch on inlel?ersonat rela-tions. Pro Fdcuhdte,4. Abo Ak¿demi Unive¡sity, V¿tsa. Finlan{t.

Ejdrkqvist, K.. Osterman. K. & IIjclr Back. M. (1994). Aggressjon anro¡g unr-versily employees- ,4gg/e ss ire Behdrior, 20, 113-1a4.

Einarsen, S. (1999). The natu¡e and c¿uses ofbullying ar wotu Joundt d Mtn-power, 20, 16-2.'7.

Einarsen. S., & Hoel. tL (2001, May). r¡e ^¡egarlre

Acts Questiannujre: Deyet-opnent, wl¡.ld.tbn and reti\ion ol o t easurc of bulb,ins dt ,,t.)rk paper pre,sented ar üc 9"'European Congress of Work aDd Organizadonal psychology inPrague.

Einalsen, S.. & Raknes. B. L (1997). H¿rassment at $ork and thc victimiz¿tjonof men. t/iolence and t/i.t¡ns, 12,241-263.

Lcymann, H. (1990). Manu¿l (f the LtPT questíonnaire íor assessing the risk afp\.c halogi. al liolence ar

"o¡*. StockhoLm, Sweden: Violen.

Niedl, K. (1995). Mobbing/butl.,íng dn Arbeitsptat. Eine eüpirísche Anat):sezum Ph.itlonen sovie zu personatuirtschaftlig rcleranten Eleken úns iste n.!t ¡ s r hen F e in.ls e I igker¿,. Munich, cemmny: Hamp.

318 Bágut n rl

ZapC D.. Knor/ . ( . . & Kul la. M. I lqqo). On lhe rel¿r ionshrp berueen nx'factors a¡d job oonlent, social work environment, and heallh oulcomcs /lpean Jounal of Wo* and Orsanízational Psycholos/, 5, 215-231 .

Pqrt IV

S o cietql Asp e cts oÍ Aggrc ssion

rsBN s73-3-631 60028 3

llillilril ililililililrlrrl