2. Materials and Methods
Conflicts of Interest
- Nielsen, M.B.; Matthiesen, S.B.; Einarsen, S. The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010, 83, 955–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leymann, H. The content and development of mobbing at work. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 1996, 5, 165–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Einarsen, S. The nature, causes and consequences of bullying at work: The Norwegian experience. Pistes: Perspectives Interdisciplin¬aire sur le Travail et la Sante 2005, 7, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Einersen, S.; Hoel, H.; Diater Zapt, C.L.C. The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd ed.; Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., Cooper, C.L., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; pp. 3–40. [Google Scholar]
- Hoel, H.; Cooper, C.L.; Faragher, B. The experience of bullying in Great Britain: The impact of organizational status. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 2001, 10, 443–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pheko MM, Monteiro NM, Segopolo MT. When work hurts: A conceptual framework explaining how organizational culture may perpetuate workplace bullying. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 2017, 27, 571–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Theorell, T.; Hammarström, A.; Aronsson, G.; Träskman Bendz, L.; Grape, T.; Hogstedt, C.; Marteinsdottir, I.; Skoog, I.; Hall, C. A systematic review including meta-analysis of work environment and depressive symptoms. BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verkuil, B.; Atasayi, S.; Molendijk, M.L. Workplace Bullying and Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis on Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data. Courvoisier DS, editor. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0135225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, M.B.; Gjerstad, J.; Jacobsen, D.P.; Einarsen, S.V. Does ability to defend moderate the association between exposure to bullying and symptoms of anxiety? Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butterworth, P.; Leach, L.S.; Kiely, K.M. Why it’s important for it to stop: Examining the mental health correlates of bullying and ill-treatment at work in a cohort study. Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry 2016, 50, 1085–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, M.B.; Einarsen, S.; Notelaers, G.; Nielsen, G.H. Does exposure to bullying behaviors at the workplace contribute to later suicidal ideation? A three-wave longitudinal study. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2016, 42, 246–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lallukka, T.; Rahkonen, O.; Lahelma, E. Workplace bullying and subsequent sleep problems—The Helsinki health study. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2011, 37, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Takaki, J.; Taniguchi, T.; Fukuoka, E.; Fujii, Y.; Tsutsumi, A.; Nakajima, K.; Hirokawa, K. Workplace bullying could play important roles in the relationships between job strain and symptoms of depression and sleep disturbance. J. Occup. Health 2010, 52, 367–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glambek, M.; Nielsen, M.B.; Gjerstad, J.; Einarsen, S. Gender differences in the relationship between workplace bullying and subjective back and neck pain: A two-wave study in a Norwegian probability sample. J. Psychosom. Res. 2018, 106, 73–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kivimäki, M.; Virtanen, M.; Vartia, M.; Elovainio, M.; Vahtera, J.; Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. Workplace bullying and the risk of cardiovascular disease and depression. Occup. Environ. Med. 2003, 60, 779–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, T.; Magnusson Hanson, L.L.; Lange, T.; Starkopf, L.; Westerlund, H.; Madsen, I.E.H.; Rugulies, R.; Pentti, J.; Stenholm, S.; Vahtera, J.; et al. Workplace bullying and violence as risk factors for type 2 diabetes: A multicohort study and meta-analysis. Diabetologia 2018, 61, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssens, H.; Braeckman, L.; De Clercq, B.; Casini, A.; De Bacquer, D.; Kittel, F.; Clays, E. The indirect association of job strain with long-term sickness absence through bullying: A mediation analysis using structural equation modeling. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillen, P.A.; Sinclair, M.; Kernohan, W.G.; Begley, C.M.; Luyben, A.G. Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 1, CD009778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moayed, F.A.; Daraiseh, N.; Shell, R. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science Workplace bullying: A systematic review of risk factors and outcomes. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2006, 7, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowling, N.A.; Beehr, T.A. Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 998–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, M.B.; Glasø, L.; Einarsen, S. Exposure to workplace harassment and the Five Factor Model of personality: A meta-analysis. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2017, 104, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trépanier, S.-G.; Fernet, C.; Austin, S.; Boudrias, V. Work environment antecedents of bullying: A review and integrative model applied to registered nurses. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2016, 55, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Downs, S.H.; Black, N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomized and non-randomized studies of health care interventions. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 1998, 52, 377–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stroup, D.F.; Berlin, J.A.; Morton, S.C.; Olkin, I.; Williamson, G.D.; Rennie, D.; Moher, D.; Becker, B.J.; Sipe, T.A.; Thacker, S.B. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology: A Proposal for Reporting. JAMA 2000, 283, 2008–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rosta, J.; Aasland, O.G. Perceived bullying among Norwegian doctors in 1993, 2004 and 2014–2015: A study based on cross-sectional and repeated surveys. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e018161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forsell, K.; Eriksson, H.; Järvholm, B.; Lundh, M.; Andersson, E.; Nilsson, R. Work environment and safety climate in the Swedish merchant fleet. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2017, 90, 161–168. [Google Scholar]
- Niedhammer, I.; David, S.; Degioanni, S. Economic activities and occupations at high risk for workplace bullying: Results from a large-scale cross-sectional survey in the general working population in France. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2007, 80, 346–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quine, L. Workplace bullying in junior doctors: Questionnaire survey. BMJ 2002, 324, 878–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cole, L.L.; Grubb, P.L.; Sauter, S.L.; Swanson, N.G.; Lawless, P. Psychosocial correlates of harassment, threats and fear of violence in the workplace. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 1997, 23, 450–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rouse, L.P.; Gallagher-Garza, S.; Gebhard, R.E.; Harrison, S.L.; Wallace, L.S. Workplace Bullying Among Family Physicians: A Gender Focused Study. J. Women’s Health 2016, 25, 882–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salin, D. Risk factors of workplace bullying for men and women: The role of the psychosocial and physical work environment. Scand. J. Psychol. 2015, 56, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ariza-Montes, A.; Leal-Rodríguez, A.L.; Leal-Millán, A.G. A Comparative Study of Workplace Bullying Among Public and Private Employees in Europe. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2015, 57, 695–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Khubchandani, J.; Price, J.H. Workplace Harassment and Morbidity Among US Adults: Results from the National Health Interview Survey. J. Community Health 2015, 40, 555–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ariza-Montes, J.A.; Muniz, R.N.M.; Leal-Rodríguez, A.L.; Leal-Millán, A.G. Workplace bullying among managers: A multifactorial perspective and understanding. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 2657–2682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ariza-Montes, A.; Muniz, N.M.; Montero-Simó, M.J.; Araque-Padilla, R.A. Workplace bullying among healthcare workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 3121–3139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Toksoy, D.; Bayramoǧlu, M.M. Bullying within the forestry organizations of Turkey. Sci. World J. 2013, 2013, 851839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- González Trijueque, D.; Graña Gómez, J.L. Workplace bullying: Prevalence and descriptive analysis in a multi-occupational sample. Psicothema 2009, 21, 288–293. [Google Scholar]
- Norton, P.; Costa, V.; Teixeira, J.; Azevedo, A.; Roma-Torres, A.; Amaro, J.; Cunha, L. Prevalence and Determinants of Bullying Among Health Care Workers in Portugal. Workplace Health Saf. 2017, 65, 188–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medina-Gómez, O. Prevalencia de mobbing en trabajadores y factores de riesgo asociados. Gac Med. Mex. 2016, 152, 452–456. [Google Scholar]
- Quine, L. Workplace bullying in NHS community trust: Staff questionnaire survey. BMJ 1999, 318, 228–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picakciefe, M.; Acar, G.; Colak, Z.; Kilic, I. The Relationship Between Sociodemographic Characteristics, Work Conditions, and Level of “Mobbing” of Health Workers in Primary Health Care. J. Interpers. Violence 2017, 32, 373–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carretero, N.; Luciano, J.V. Prevalence and incidence of workplace bullying among Spanish employees working with people with intellectual disability. Disabil. Health J. 2013, 6, 405–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Askew, D.A.; Schluter, P.J.; Dick, M.-L.; Régo, P.M.; Turner, C.; Wilkinson, D. Bullying in the Australian medical workforce: Cross-sectional data from an Australian e-Cohort study. Aust. Health Rev. 2012, 36, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Notelaers, G.; Vermunt, J.K.; Baillien, E.; Einarsen, S.; De Witte, H. Exploring risk groups workplace bullying with categorical data. Ind. Health 2011, 49, 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Keuskamp, D.; Ziersch, A.M.; Baum, F.E.; Lamontagne, A.D. Workplace bullying a risk for permanent employees. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2012, 36, 116–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ortega, A.; Høgh, A.; Pejtersen, J.H.; Olsen, O.; Olsen, O. Prevalence of workplace bullying and risk groups: A representative population study. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2009, 82, 417–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pranjić, N.; Males-Bilić, L.; Beganlić, A.; Mustajbegović, J. Mobbing, stress, and work ability index among physicians in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Survey study. Croat. Med. J. 2006, 47, 750–758. [Google Scholar]
- Bilgel, N.; Aytac, S.; Bayram, N. Bullying in Turkish white-collar workers. Occup. Med. (Lond.) 2006, 56, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lipscomb, J.; London, M.; McPhaul, K.M.; Ghaziri MEl Lydecker, A.; Geiger-Brown, J.; Johnson, J.V. The Prevalence of Coworker Conflict Including Bullying in a Unionized U.S. Public Sector Workforce. Violence Vict. 2015, 30, 813–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carter, M.; Thompson, N.; Crampton, P.; Morrow, G.; Burford, B.; Gray, C.; Illing, J. Workplace bullying in the UK NHS: A questionnaire and interview study on prevalence, impact and barriers to reporting. BMJ Open 2013, 3, e002628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez, C.A.; Moore, K.; McClure, L.A.; Caban-Martinez, A.J.; LeBlanc, W.G.; Fleming, L.E.; Cifuentes, M.; Lee, D.J. Occupational psychosocial hazards among the emerging U.S. green collar workforce. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2017, 59, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oxenstierna, G.; Elofsson, S.; Gjerde, M.; Magnusson Hanson, L.; Theorell, T. Workplace bullying, working environment and health. Ind. Health 2012, 50, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Varhama, L.M.; Björkqvist, K. Conflicts, workplace bullying and burnout problems among municipal employees. Psychol. Rep. 2004, 94, 1116–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bayramoǧlu, M.M.; Toksoy, D. Leadership and Bullying in the Forestry Organization of Turkey. BioMed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 9454682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahin, B.; Cetin, M.; Cimen, M.; Yildiran, N. Assessment of Turkish junior male physicians’ exposure to mobbing behavior. Croat. Med. J. 2012, 53, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tong, M.; Schwendimann, R.; Zúñiga, F. Mobbing among care workers in nursing homes: A cross-sectional secondary analysis of the Swiss Nursing Homes Human Resources Project. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2017, 66, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amponsah-Tawiah, K.; Annor, F. Do Personality and Organizational Politics Predict Workplace Victimization? A Study among Ghanaian Employees. Saf. Health Work 2017, 8, 72–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pihl, P.; Albertsen, K.; Hogh, A.; Andersen, L.P.S. Social capital and workplace bullying. Work 2017, 57, 535–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guglielmi, D.; Mazzetti, G.; Villano, P.; Cantisano, G.T. The impact of perceived effort—Reward imbalance on workplace bullying: Also a matter of organizational identification. Psychol. Health Med. 2018, 23, 511–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardner, D.; O’Driscoll, M.; Cooper-Thomas, H.; Roche, M.; Bentley, T.; Catley, B.; Teo, S.; Trenberth, L. Predictors of Workplace Bullying and Cyber-Bullying in New Zealand. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ariza-Montes, A.; Muniz, R.N.M.; Leal-Rodríguez, A.L.; Leal-Millán, A.G. Workplace Bullying Among Teachers: An Analysis from the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model Perspective. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2016, 58, 818–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tsuno, K.; Kawakami, N.; Tsutsumi, A.; Shimazu, A.; Inoue, A.; Odagiri, Y.; Yoshikawa, T.; Haratani, T.; Shimomitsu, T.; Kawachi, I. Socioeconomic determinants of bullying in the workplace: A national representative sample in Japan. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0119435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tsuno, K.; Kawakami, N. Multifactor leadership styles and new exposure to workplace bullying: A six-month prospective study. Ind. Health 2015, 53, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rodríguez-Muñoz, A.; Moreno-Jiménez, B.; Sanz-Vergel, A.I. Reciprocal relations between workplace bullying, anxiety, and vigor: A two-wave longitudinal study. Anxiety Stress Coping 2015, 28, 514–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dussault, M.; Frenette, É. Supervisors’ Transformational Leadership and Bullying in the Workplace. Psychol. Rep. 2015, 117, 724–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuckey, M.R.; Neall, A.M. Workplace bullying erodes job and personal resources: Between- and within-person perspectives. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2014, 19, 413–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reknes, I.; Pallesen, S.; Magerøy, N.; Moen, B.E.; Bjorvatn, B.; Einarsen, S. Exposure to bullying behaviors as a predictor of mental health problems among Norwegian nurses: Results from the prospective SUSSH-survey. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2014, 51, 479–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nielsen, M.B. Bullying in work groups: The impact of leadership. Scand. J. Psychol. 2013, 54, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figueiredo-Ferraz, H.; Gil-Monte, P.R.; Grau-Alberola, E.; Llorca-Pellicer, M.; García-Juesas, J.A. Influence of some psychosocial factors on mobbing andits consequences among employeesworking with people with intellectual disabilities. J. Appl. Res. Intell. Disabil. 2012, 25, 455–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Law, R.; Dollard, M.F.; Tuckey, M.R.; Dormann, C. Psychosocial safety climate as a lead indicator of workplace bullying and harassment, job resources, psychological health and employee engagement. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 1782–1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carretero Domínguez, N.; Gil-Monte, P.R.; Devis, J.V.L. Antecedentes y consecuencias del acoso psicológico en el trabajo. Psicothema 2011, 23, 617–623. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Mageroy, N.; Lau, B.; Riise, T.; Moen, B.E. Association of psychosocial factors and bullying at individual and department levels among naval military personnel. J. Psychosom. Res. 2009, 66, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Agervold, M. The significance of organizational factors for the incidence of bullying. Scand. J. Psychol. 2009, 50, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matthiesen, S.B.; Einarsen, S. Perpetrators and Targets of Bullying at Work: Role Stress and Individual Differences. Violence Vict. 2007, 22, 735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Glasø, L.; Matthiesen, S.B.; Nielsen, M.B.; Einarsen, S. Do targets of workplace bullying portray a general victim personality profile?: Personality and Social Sciences. Scand. J. Psychol. 2007, 48, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Einarsen, S.; Hoel, H.; Notelaers, G. Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the negative acts questionnaire-revised. Work Stress 2009, 23, 24–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, I.V.; de Aquino, E.M.L.; Pinto, I.C. Características psicométricas do Negative Acts Questionnaire para detecção do assédio moral no trabalho: Estudo avaliativo do instrumento com uma amostra de servidores estaduais da saúde. Rev. Bras. Saúde Ocup. 2017, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, M.B.; Notelaers, G.; Einersen, S. Measuring Exposure to Workplace Bullying. In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd ed.; Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., Cooper, C.L., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; pp. 149–174. [Google Scholar]
- Barreto, M.; Heloani, R. Violência, saúde e trabalho: A intolerância e o assédio moral nas relações laborais. Serviço Soc. Soc. 2015, 123, 544–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krieger, N.; Chen, J.T.; Waterman, P.D.; Hartman, C.; Stoddard, A.M.; Quinn, M.M.; Sorensen, G.; Barbeau, E.M. The inverse hazard law: Blood pressure, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, workplace abuse and occupational exposures in US low-income black, white and Latino workers. Soc. Sci. Med. 2008, 67, 1970–1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harvey, D. Condição Pós-Moderna: Uma Pesquisa Sobre as Origens da Mudança Cultural; Edições Loyola: São Paulo, Brazil, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Gaulejac, V. La société Malade de la Gestion. Idéologie Gestionnaire, Pouvoir Managérial et Harcèlement Social; Seuil: Paris, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Beale, D.; Hoel, H. Workplace bullying and the employment relationship: Exploring questions of prevention, control and context. Work Employ Soc. 2011, 25, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, D.; Rayner, C. Bullying and human resource management: A wolf in sheep’s clothing? In Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Hoel, H.; Salin, D. Organisational antecedents of workplace bullying. In Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2003; pp. 203–218. [Google Scholar]
- Hoel, H.; Beale, D. Workplace bullying, psychological perspectives and industrial relations: Towards a contextualized and interdisciplinary approach. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 2006, 44, 239–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antunes, R. Os Sentidos do Trabalho: Ensaio Sobre a Afirmação e a Negação do Trabalho; Boitempo: São Paulo, Brazil, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Keashly, L.; Nowell, B.L. Conflict, conflict resolution and bullying. In Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Okechukwu, C.A.; Souza, K.; Davis, K.D.; de Castro, A.B. Discrimination, harassment, abuse, and bullying in the workplace: Contribution of workplace injustice to occupational health disparities. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2014, 57, 573–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
|Study Design/Methods to Measure Bullying/Statistics||Confounders/|
|Main Results||Downs and Black Score|
|1||Rosta  |
|Representative sample of Norwegian doctors.|
Response rates were 72.8% (2628/3608) in 1993, 67% (1004/1499) in 2004, and 78.2% (1261/1612) in 2014–2015.
485 doctors responded both in 2004 and 2014–2015.
|Cross-sectional from three surveys|
Single question: ‘Have you during the last year been subjected to vexation or uncomfortable teasing (bullying) from colleagues or superiors?’
|Gender and age||Controlled for gender and age, neuroticism was a significant predictor in the|
cross-sectional samples from 2004 (odds ratio (OR) 1.28, 95% CI 1.13
to 1.44) and 2014–2015 (1.24, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.45). Introversion–
extraversion showed no effect.
Being a woman (OR = 2.02 (1.18 to 3.47)), having lower job satisfaction
(OR = 0.92 (0.90 to 0.94)), and lower levels of self-rated health (good compared to very good (OR = 3.50 (1.49 to 8.25)) and average or poor compared to very good (OR = 2.29 (1.21 to 4.33))) were significant univariate and multivariate predictors of bullying.
|2||Tong  |
|5311 care workers from 162 randomly selected nursing homes with 20 or more beds in Switzerland.|
Response rate = 76%.
Sub-study of the Swiss Nursing Homes Human Resource Project (SHURP).
|Cross-sectional, multi-centre study.|
National Acts Questionnaire (NAQ)-short version
Generalized estimation equation models with binary logistic regression
|Facility characteristics (size, profit status, language region) |
Workers characteristics (gender, age, educational background, length of employment in nursing home, and percentage employment).
|Supportive leadership style OR = 0.42 (0.30–0.58) |
Staffing and resources adequacy OR = 0.66 (0.48–0.92)
Teamwork and safety climate OR = 0.41 (0.30–0.58)
Mobbing was associated with:
|3||Amponsah-Tawiah  |
|Convenience sample from diverse occupations in Ghana.|
750 questionnaires distributed,
631 were returned (response rate = 84%).
Hierarchical regression model including demographic characteristics (1st level), personality characteristics (2nd level), and organizational politics (3rd level).
|Age, sex, marital status, level of|
education, and position in organization
|The overall model was significant and accounted for 22% of the |
variance in workplace victimization (adjusted R2 = 0.22).
Model including demographic and personality characteristics explained only 2% of the variance (adjusted R2 = 0.02), while model including only organizational politics explained 19% of the variance (adjusted R2 = 0.19)
Personality was significantly associated with workplace bullying in a small magnitude, whereas organizational politics were positively and strongly related to workplace bullying.
|4||Pihl  |
|Representative sample of the Danish working population (n = 10,037).|
Response rate = 53%.
Single question: ‘Have you within the last 12 months been exposed to bullying at your workplace (i.e., over several months been exposed to unpleasant or humiliating acts which have been difficult to defend
|Age, sex, seniority, work environment variables, and work-related self-efficacy||Low and medium social capital (vertical) are strongly associated to bullying: |
OR = 3.25 (2.34–4.51) (low)/OR=1.59 (1.16–2.18) (medium)
Low social capital (horizontal) is strongly associated with bullying:
OR = 3.17 (2.41–4.18) (low)
|5||Norton  |
|Of the 5657 questionnaires provided to workers at the São João Hospital Centre (SJHC), the first 707 returned were included in this study.|
Response rate = 12.5%
Chi-squared and logistic regression
|Gender, age group, occupational group, type of contract, and work schedule||After adjustment, only one type of contract (indefinite duration employment contracts) was associated with workplace bullying; OR= 0.43 (0.20-0.95) (government employees were the reference group).|
OR showed wide confidence intervals
|6||Guglielmi  |
|Sample of 195 Spanish employees from different occupational sectors filled in an online questionnaire at two different times with a time lag of eight months.||Longitudinal study|
Moderated mediation model based on 5000 bootstrap re-samples
|Gender and job tenure||The index of moderated mediation was significant: B = −0.120, SE = 0.061, 95% CI (−0.259; −0.014).|
Analysis revealed a conditional indirect effect of T1 Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) on T2 workplace bullying through T2 organizational justice, with the indirect effect significant at low (−1SD; B = 0.383, SE = 0.104, 95% CI (0.214; 0.626)) and moderate (mean; B = 0.267, SE = 0.088, 95% CI (0.119; 0.455)) levels of T1 organizational identification.
There was also a direct effect of Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) on workplace bullying; B = 0.456 (0.134; 0.778), p < 0.01.
|7||Forsell  |
|1,972 (10% women, 90% men) seafarers with a personal e-mail address in the Swedish Maritime Registry (5608 e-mails were sent).|
Response rate = 35%
‘Have you at least once during the last 12 months felt exposed to offensive actions or harassment at your work place?’ For example—your actions or comments were ignored, you are not taken seriously, were ridiculed or patronized (y/n).
T-test and chi-squared
|Age||Although common among men (22%), offensive actions or harassment were twice as common in women (45%; PR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6–2.4, controlling for age). The majority of female engine room crew members reported harassment or bullying, but they were few in total numbers (11/19; 58%).||10|
|8||Fernandez  |
|14,725 individuals from probability household national survey:|
2010 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Occupational Supplement and 2010 Occupational Information Network online (O*NET) database.
‘Workplace harassment’ was defined as participants answering ‘yes’ to the question: ‘During the past 12 months, were you threatened, bullied, or harassed by anyone while you were on the job?’
Multivariable logistic regression
|Age, race, education, and type of work.||Being a green-collar worker: OR = 0.77 (0.62–0.95) (reference: non-green-collar)|
Having an older age (>65 years): OR = 0.37 (0.22–0.64) (reference: 19–44 years)
Race (others) 0.72 (0.54–0.96) (reference: white)
Education was not associated with harassment.
|1189 forest engineers working at 25 different Regional Directorates of Forestry in Turkey.||Cross-sectional|
NAQ-r (analysed in three outcomes)
T-test, Analyses of Variance (ANOVA), multinomial regression analyses
|Gender, in house position, age, marital status, educational level, duration of professional life.||Three categories of bullying: relevant to person (RP); tasks related (TR); physical violence/verbal threat (PV/VT)|
RP was associated with age, duration of professional life, and type of leadership.
TR was associated with gender, age, duration of professional life, and type of leadership.
PV/VT was associated with educational level.
|Part of the larger Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance omnibus Survey.|
1049 individuals (33.5% response rate) from 3184 academic family physicians.
NAQ-r + direct questions
|None||Prevalence of being bullied:|
Women = 34.0% answered ‘yes’ (150/441)
Men = 24.7% answered ‘yes’ (139/563). (p < 0.001)
Prevalence of being a perpetrator:
Women = 7.7%
Men = 11.2%
|499 workers who attended one medical unit.||Cross-sectional|
Inventario de violencia y acoso psicológico em el trabajo
|Age||ORs (Risk factors for bullying):|
Female Sex (compared to male) = 1.07 (0.92–1.23)
Neuroticism (compared to stability) = 1.23 (1.04–1.46)
Self-satisfaction (compared to high satisfaction)
High = 2.08 (1.64–2.64)
|826 workers from New Zealand.|
Does not describe whether they were randomly selected.
Time 1: 991 men (40.9%) and 1421 women (58.6%).
Time 2: 349 men (42%) and 477 women (58%).
|Cohort, two waves, three months apart|
and correlational analysis
Destructive leadership Perceived organizational support (POS)
Effectiveness of org. responses
|Job performance and absenteeism were unrelated to workplace bullying.|
Those with worse physical health (beta = 0.15, p < 001) and higher strain (beta = 0.11, p < 0.05) at Time 1 experienced more bullying at Time 2.
There was stronger support for the importance of organizational factors in workplace bullying.
While positive organizational resources, such as ethical leadership and POS, were not related to workplace bullying, destructive leadership (beta = 0.22, p < 0.001) and more team conflict (beta = 0.20, p < 0.001) at Time 1 were associated with higher levels of bullying at the Time 2. Effective organizational strategies were protective (beta = −0.11, p < 0.01).
Full model explained 37% of bullying variance.
|5th European Working Conditions Survey, including 27 European countries.|
Sub-sample of 261 employees (48.7% experiencing workplace bullying) from 2873 teaching professionals.
Single question: ‘Over the past 12 months, during the course of your work, have you been subjected to bullying/harassment?’
Structural equation model
|Not described.||Stress and motivation explained 11.2% of workplace bullying.|
Six causation hypotheses were tested between job demands (JD), job resources (JR), stress (S), motivation (M), and workplace bullying (WB).
H1: JD→S 0.315 (2.118) p < 0.05
H2: JD→M (−0.177) (1.274) ns
H3: JR→M (0.416) (4.167) p < 0.001
H4: JR→S (−0.104) (0.739) ns
H5: S→WB 0.245 (4.191) p < 0.001
H6: M→WB _0.218 (4.011) p < 0.001
Job demands were associated with stress. Job resources were associated with motivation. Stress and motivation were strongly associated with workplace bullying, supporting the work environment hypothesis.
|5000 workers randomly selected, 2384 participants.|
Response rate = 47.7%.
After excluding 87 with missing data and 751 who were not active in the labour force at that time, the final sample was 1546 respondents.
(809 men and 737 women), aged 20–60 years old.
Bullying assessed using a single question: ‘Have you been bullied in your workplace during the past 30 days?’
Multiple logistic regression
|Gender and age|
Full model included education, household income, occupation, employment contract, company size, establishment size, and type of industry.
|After adjusting for gender and age:|
Temporary employees OR = 2.45 (1.03–5.85)
Junior high school graduates OR: 2.62 (1.01–6.79)
Workers with lowest household income OR: 4.13 (1.58–10.8)
Workers in the lowest subjective social status (SSS) stratum OR: 4.21 (1.66–10.7)
|All civil servants in the city (n = 2069) located in the east coast region of Japan.|
99 questionnaires were returned.
404 participants also returned follow-up questionnaire (response rate of 40.8%). After 87 exclusions (missing values), 317 workers were analysed.
|Cohort, 6-months follow-up|
NAQ-r, Leymann criteria
Multiple logistic regression
|Gender, age, education, marital status, chronic condition, occupation, employment|
contract, shift work at baseline and life events in the previous six months at follow-up.
Full model included leadership characteristics.
|Passive laissez-faire leadership increased 4.3 times (95% CI: 1.29−14.2) the risk of new exposureto bullying, (p for trend = 0.018).|
Respondents whose supervisors had high consideration of the individual had a 70% lower risk of new exposure to bullying.
The results of a multilevel analysis showed that group level charismatic/inspirational leadership, intellectual stimulation leadership, individual consideration leadership, and contingent reward leadership had significant negative relationships with individual follower experiences for
workplace bullying (γ = −4.02, −3.12, −3.41, and −3.63, all p < 0.05).
On the other hand, passive laissez-faire leadership had significant positive relationships with individual follower experiences for workplace bullying (γ = 4.29, p < 0.01).
|Stratified random sampling from 17 autonomous communities of Spain.|
1000 employees were invited to participate and 600 (response rate = 60%) agreed to participate at the time 1
At the time 2 all 600 employees were invited to answer the same telephone interview, and 348 participated (response rate 58%).
|Cohort: two-wave longitudinal study |
Time-lag: six months
s-NAQ (9 items)
Structural equation models
|Gender and educational level||Time 1 (T1) vigor was negatively related to Time 2 (T2) workplace bullying (β = −0.18, p < 0.01), whereas T1 anxiety (β = 0.12, p < 0.05) was positively related to T2 workplace bullying.||15|
|119 from 130 healthcare workers from the city centre of Mugla, Turkey (91.5% response rate).||Cross-sectional|
Self-report of 28 types of mobbing behaviours based on Leymann’s conceptual framework
|Gender, age, educational level, marital status, total working time, psychosocial reactions, and behaviours.||Marital status (married): OR = 3.06 (1.41–12.94) p = 0.024.|
Total working time (year: ≥16): OR = 2.72 (1.19–6.21) p = 0.018.
Psychosocial reactions (yes): OR = 9.77 (4.72–25.53) p < 0.001 2.
Counterproductive behaviours (yes): OR = 3.24 (2.50–29.39) p < 0.001.
|11,874 participants from four agencies from unionized public-sector workforce in United States.|
Overall response rate (for three agencies) was 71.8% (61.5% to 81.9%). The fourth agency had an estimated response rate of 55–60%.
NAQ + single question
|None||Prevalence of bullying was higher in:|
Men 2.4 vs 2.1 women (p < 0.01).
Non-white 3.0 vs. 2.3 white (p < 0.05).
Age 36–45 2.6% vs. 2.1 age <36 (p < 0.05).
Support/administrative workers 2.6% vs. professionals 2.0% vs. management/confidential 0.7% (p < 0.01).
|Sample of 288 adults|
153 were attending evening undergraduate classes in organizational behaviour management at a Canadian regional university, and 135 were employed within a multinational company in construction.
Structural Equation Modelling.
Given the non-normality of the data, robust maximum likelihood estimation was used.
|Covariates not described.||Transformational leadership was negatively related to work-related bullying|
(β = –0.57), perceived Person-related bullying (β = –0.57), and perceived
physically intimidating bullying (β = –0.45).
Transactional leadership was also negatively related to work-related bullying (β = –0.38), perceived Person-related bullying (β = –0.30), and perceived physically intimidating bullying (β = –0.14).
Laissez-faire leadership was positively related to work-related bullying (β = 0.51), perceived Person-related bullying (β = 0.53), and perceived physically intimidating bullying (β = 0.51).
|5th European Working Conditions Survey, including 27 European countries||Cross-sectional|
Single question: ‘Over the past 12 months, during the course of your work, have you been subjected to bullying/harassment?
|Sex, age, having children at home, working hours, night shift, type of contract, shift work, working day, responsibility, complex tasks, motivation, likely to be dismissed, flexibility, expectation of career growth, work stress, working condition satisfaction, wage satisfaction, and company size.||Public sector: |
The best predictors of workplace bullying were:
working condition satisfaction (odds ratio (OR), 3.04; CI, 1.93 to 4.80), shift work (OR, 2.46; CI, 1.53 to 3.95), motivation (OR, 2.14; CI, 1.52 to 3.02), work stress (OR, 2.40; CI, 1.60 to 3.60), flexibility in work methods (OR, 1.93; CI, 1.32 to 2.82), and gender (female) (OR, 1.81; CI, 1.28 to 2.56).
The best predictors were:
satisfaction with working conditions (OR, 4.37; CI, 3.11 to
6.15), work stress (OR, 2.01; CI, 1.45 to 2.79), shift work (OR,
1.94; CI, 1.37 to 2.73), gender (female) (OR, 1.78; CI, 1.35 to 2.36),
satisfaction with the wage perceived (OR, 1.77; CI, 1.32 to 2.37),
and type of contract (OR, 1.74; CI, 1.19 to 2.56).
|Retail workers (n = 4000) identified from the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (SDA) South Australian membership database were invited to participate in a self-report survey.|
A total of 609 responded at Time 1 (response rate = 15%), and 419 at Time 2.
Final sample: 221 participants who responded at both waves (36% of the original Time 1 sample).
|Cohort: two waves, six months apart|
10 items relevant to retail work from a short version of the NAQ.
|Not described.||The ‘path’ from emotional exhaustion (Time 1) to workplace|
bullying (Time 2) was significant (beta = 0.14, p < 0.05)
|Representative sample of Finnish employees (n = 4392).||Cross-sectional|
|Gender, age, leadership, job demands, physical work environment, gender incongruence, and performance-based pay.||Men (OR = 0.676, CI = 0.550–0.831) and older employees (OR = 0.988, CI = 0.979–0.997) reported a significantly lower risk of having observed bullying in their work communities.|
High job demands (OR = 2.001; CI = 1.620–2.471), constructive leadership (OR = 0.776, CI = 0.688–0.902), and a poor physical work environment (OR = 1.430, CI = 1.238–1.651) were associated with bullying.
Gender-congruence of the respondent’s work tasks and the compensation system were not related to observations of bullying.
|2835 Norwegian employees, from 20 Norwegian organizations in the private and public sectors, collected during the period 2004 to 2009.||Cohort|
|Gender, age, and educational level||Role ambiguity OR = 1.58 (1.18–2.13)|
Role conflict OR = 1.92 (1.43–2.57)
|National Health Interview|
Survey (NHIS) 2010 data
A total of 17,524 adults were included in this study (51.5% females, 74.9% white, 46.3% married, and 73.3% worked for a private company).
Single question: ‘’During the past 12 months, were you
threatened, bullied or harassed by anyone while you were
on the job?’
|None regarding descriptive data.||Prevalence of harassment = 8.1%|
Odds was higher in:
Females OR = 1.47, p < 0.001
Multiracial individuals OR = 2.30, p < 0.001
Divorced or separated individuals OR = 1.88, p < 0.001
Individuals who worked for the state OR = 1.74 (1.28–2.37), p < 0.001
Individuals who worked for state local government: 1.73 (1.30–2.30), p < 0.001
Regular night shifts OR = 1.74 (1.16–2.62), p < 0.01
People who have more than one job OR = 1.38 (1.01–1.94), p < 0.01
Paid hourly OR = 1.30 (1.10–1.55), p < 0.001
|Sample population of 661|
Managers was obtained from the micro data file of the 5th European Working Conditions Survey 2010
Single question: ‘Over the past 12 months, during the course of your work have you been subjected to bullying/harassment?’
|Gender, having children at home, work at night, shift work, work stress, satisfaction with work, satisfaction with payment, and opportunities for promotion||The risk for a manager to feel bullied was higher in:||14|
|27 Regional Directorates of Forestry that are under the aegis of the Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs. |
The questionnaire was filled in by 845 forest engineers.
NAQ-r (analysed in four factors)
T-test and ANOVA
|ANOVA analyses included:|
Duration of the professional life
Change of the number of units worked
|Female forest engineers were more exposed to humiliation compared to male (p ≤ 0.05), |
People in the 34–44 age group were more exposed to ‘relevant to person’ (p ≤ 0.05) and ‘task-related’ behaviours (p ≤ 0.05).
No significant relationship was found between the marital status and the levels of exposure to bullying.
A significant relationship was found between education level and humiliation (p ≤ 0.05), indicating that forest engineers with a doctor’s degree were more exposed to humiliation compared to those with a bachelor’s or a master’s degree.
|594 seafarers working on 40 vessels from two large Norwegian shipping companies.|
Response rate = 73% of 817 crew members working at that time.
Binary logistic regression and mediation analyses
|Type of leadership and occurrence of bullying:|
Laissez-faire leadership - OR = 3.25 (2.21–4.79)
Transformational leadership - OR = 0.58 (0.36–0.94)
Authentic leadership OR = 0.50 (0.33–0.78)
|2689 staff from seven NHS Trusts from the northeast of England.|
Convenience sample (1.2% to 22.2% response rate depending on the occupational group).
NAQ-r (mean scores)
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)
|Not described for data of interest.||There was no significant difference on the overall NAQ-R mean score between white (27.3) and black or ethnic minority staff (27.5), t(2546) = 0.26, p = 0.80|
The overall NAQ-R mean score was significantly higher for male staff (28.3) than female staff (27.0), t(925.4) = 3.15, p = 0.002.
|422 workers from 61 centres answered Time 1 and Time 2 (response rate of T1 sample = 61.82%).)|
At T1, 1470 questionnaires were distributed in 66 care centres for people with intellectual disability in Valencia.
T1 response rate = 47.32% (696 workers).
Mobbing-UNIPSICO Questionnaire. This scale contains 20 items adapted from the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terrorization (LIPT) and the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ)
Chi-squared and Student’s t-test
|None||At Time 1, no statistically significant differences between victims and non-victims were found with respect to gender, age, civil status, and years of service in the profession.|
Statistically significant differences were found between workplace bullying victims and non-victims in contract type (p < 0.05), in years with the organization (p = 0.004), and in the position (p = 0.006), indicating that a higher percentage of workplace bullying victims have a stable contract, more years of service, and a longer period in the position.
At Time 2, no statistically significant differences between victims and non-victims were found by gender, age, marital status, contract, and years of service in the profession, in the organization or in the position.
|Sub-sample of 284 health professionals|
5th European Working Conditions Survey 2010.
Single question: ‘Over the past 12 months, during the course of your work, have you been subjected to bullying/harassment?’
|Gender, age, education, children at home, and occupational characteristics||Risk Factors:||p-value||OR||95% CI||13|
|Gender (0: male; 1: female)||0.005||2.77||(1.36–5.66)|
|Age (0: 15–24; 1: 25–39; 2: 40–54; 3: 55 or over)||0.065||0.63||(0.38–1.03)|
|Level of education (0: university education, 1: secondary education)||0.003||5.51||(1.79–16.95)|
|Children at home (0: yes; 1: no)||0.014||2.87||(1.24–6.63)|
|Shift work (0: no; 1: yes)||0.005||2.68||(1.35–5.31)|
|Monotonous tasks (0: no; 1: yes)||0.025||2.20||(1.10–4.40)|
|Rotating tasks (0: no; 1: yes)||0.010||2.60||(1.26–5.39)|
|Work stress (0: no; 1: yes)||0.003||4.96||(1.70–14.46)|
|Working condition satisfaction (0: yes; 1: no)||0.033||2.43||(1.07–5.51)|
|Expectation of career growth (0: yes; 1: no)||0.000||4.52||(2.09–9.76)|
|Swedish occupational longitudinal study of health|
Single question: “Are you exposed to personal persecution by means of vicious words or actions from your superiors or your workmates?”
Multiple logistic regressions
|Age, education, sector, supervisory duties, and all workplace characteristics||Sociodemographic factors:|
Age in men was associated with bullying (OR = 0.74; 0.55–0.99)
No association with age in women. No association with educational level and work sector.
Dictatorial leadership in men (OR = 1.79; 1,29–2.49), organizational change in women (OR = 1.28; 1.00–1.63), lack of procedural justice in men (OR = 1.54;1.00–2.38) and social support, lack of humanity in women (OR = 1.61; 1.10–2.35), and attitude of expendability in men (OR =1.59; 1.13–2.23) were associated with bullying.
Conflicting demands in men (OR = 1.52; 1.14–2.04) and decision authority
in women (OR = 0.77; 0.61–0.97) were associated with bullying.
|422 Spanish employees working|
with people with intellectual disabilities at 61 companies.
in the Valencian community.
Response rate = 61.82%.
scale (20 items adapted from the LIPT and from the NAQ)
Structural equation model
|Not described||The relationships between role clarity (coef = −0.19, p < 0.001), interpersonal conflict (coef = 0.27, p < 0.001), social support at work (coef = −0.32, p < 0.001), and mobbing were significant and in the expected direction.|
Role clarity, interpersonal conflict, and social support at work explained 37% of the variance of mobbing.
|33||Sahin  |
|278 male physicians who started|
compulsory military service in the Ministry of Defence in April 2009
Response rate: 95%.
Structural equation model
|Four factors had significant effects on mobbing:||13|
|34||Askew  |
|747 participants of the Australian medical workforce|
Single question: ‘In
the last 12 months, have you been subjected to persistent behaviour
by others which has eroded your professional confidence or self-esteem?’
T-test, Fisher exact test
|None||There were no differences in the reported rates of bullying across age groups, sex, and country of medical qualification.||6|
|35||Notelaers  |
|8985 Flemish speaking respondents within 86 firms spread over the main sectors of Flemish working life.||Cross-sectional|
NAQ (Belgium version)
|Gender, age, occupational status, sector, employment contract, working hours.||Employees at higher risk of being a victim of bullying:|
Working schedule was associated with being bullied sometimes.
|36||Law  |
|215 Australian income earners from randomly selected households from the state of South Australia.|
The overall sample response rate was 31.2% and the participation rate was 38.4% of 1134 participants who completed the Australian Workplace Barometer Questionnaire (AWBQ2009).
Single question: ‘Have you been subjected to bullying at the workplace during the last 6 months?’
ANOVA and multilevel mediation analysis
|Age, gender, and income||The relationship between organizational PSC and bullying/harassment was negative and significant, B = −0.25, S.E. = 0.06, t = −3.51, p < 0.01.||13|
|37||Keuskamp  |
|Initial sample of 4500 households, 3103 in-frame contacts, 1853 households were surveyed (response rate = 59.7%).|
A total of 1016 self-reported as currently employed.
Single question: ‘Have you personally experienced bullying in your current job?’
Chi-squared and logistic regression
|Age, sex, marital status||Bivariate analysis:|
Prevalence of bullying was higher in:
After controlling (logistic regression model), only marital status
remained associated with bullying (OR = 2.26 (1.28–3.99))
|38||Carretero-Dominguez  |
|T1 = 696 participants from 1470 questionnaires distributed in 66 assistance centres (47.3% response rate)|
T2 = 422 participants (61.8% response rate).
Mobbing-UNIPSICO (based on LIPT and NAQ)
Structural equation model
|Interpersonal conflicts, role conflicts, role ambiguity, social support||In cross-sectional analyses (T1 and T2), all factors (interpersonal conflicts, role conflicts, role ambiguity and social support) were associated with workplace bullying.|
Variables explained 52% of mobbing.
|39||Trijueque  |
|2861 workers from several workforce sectors (4000 questionnaires distributed).||Cross-sectional|
Analyses were descriptive.
|Groups more likely to being bullied:|
Female (6.9% vs. 4.3%) male
Public sector (9.1% vs. 4.8%) Private
Companies with less than 50 employees (6.1% vs. 5.4%) >50 employees
Unionized (9.9% vs. 5.1%) non-unionized
Sick leave (current and previous)
Treatment (current and previous)
|40||Ortega  |
|3429 employees between 20 and 59 years from the second Danish Psychosocial Work Environment Study (DPWES). |
Response rate = 60.4%.
Bullying was assessed with a single question: ‘Have you been bullied in the past 12 months?’
|None||No significant gender or age differences were found.|
Unskilled workers reported the highest prevalence of bullying (13.5%),
while managers/supervisors the lowest prevalence (4%).
People working with things (male-dominated occupations) and people working with clients/ patients (female-dominated occupations) reported higher prevalence of bullying than people working with symbols or customers.
|41||Mageroy  |
|1604 military personnel from the Royal Norwegian Navy were included in the analyses.|
Response rate = 62.5% (1657 of
Single question: ‘Have you been subjected to bullying or harassment at the workplace during the last six months?’
|Age and sex||Fair leadership, OR = 0.59 (0.44–0.78)|
Innovative climate, OR = 0.71 (0.52–0.96)
Inequality, OR = 0.72 (0.60–0.86)
Empowering leadership, OR = 1.36 (1.07–1.73)
Human resource primacy, OR = 0.77 (0.60–1.01)
Support from superior, non significant (ns)
Support from co-workers, ns
Support from friends and relatives, ns
Main organizational categories:
Defence command and other offices vs. operational, OR = 0.42 (0.24–0.75)
Logistics vs. operational, OR = 0.60 (0.35–1.02), ns
Schools vs. operational, OR = 1.18 (0.80–1.76), ns
|42||Agervold  |
|898 participants from 12 different|
local government social security offices (local authority-educated social workers with equivalent competence and general office personnel).
1023 questionnaires were distributed.
Response rate = 88%.
NAQ (10 negative acts)
Chi-squared and Mann–Whitney
|None||Demands of work, pressure of work, autocratic management style, unclarity of duties, and social work climate were strongly associated with bullying.||12|
|43||Matthiesen  |
|4742 participants from six Norwegian labour unions and members of the Norwegian Employers’ Federation (NHO) from a total population of 10,616 individuals.|
Response rate = 47%.
Single question: ‘Have you been subjected to bullying at the work place during the last six months?’
|None.||Lack of self-esteem and social competency were positively associated with bullying.|
Role conflict and role ambiguity were positively associated with bullying.
|44||Niedhammer  |
|7770 respondents from 19,655 employees from the general working population in the southeast of France.|
National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) in 2004
Response rate = 40%.
LIPT + single question
Chi-squared and Logistic regression
|Adjusted for age|
Stratified by gender
|A total of 343 men (10.95%) and 583 women (12.78%) had experienced bullying weekly or more, and for 6 months or more (Leymann’s definition).|
Using self-reported exposure, 684 men (21.84%) and 1223 women (26.81%)
reported being exposed to bullying within the last 12 months.
Using both Leymann’s definition and self-reported exposure, 275 men (8.78%) and 488 women (10.70%) had been bullied.
For men, the point prevalence was significantly higher among services activities,
and lower among managers and professionals.
For women, no significant difference was found according to economic activities and occupations.
For men, the point prevalence ranged from 3.69% in construction to 14.63% in other community, social and personal service activities, and from 3.27% in physical, mathematical, and engineering science professionals to 17.74% in protective services workers.
|45||Glaso  |
|144 total participants, 72 bullied and 72 not bullied (matched control group regarding demographic variables; work tasks, age and gender).||Cross-sectional|
|None (used a matched control group)||There were significant differences between victims and non-victims on four out of five personality dimensions.|
Victims tended to be more neurotic and less agreeable, conscientious and extraverted than non-victims.
However, a cluster analysis showed that the victim sample can be divided into two personality groups. One cluster (64% of the victims sample), did not differ from non-victims. On the other hand, a small cluster of victims tended to be less extrovert, less agreeable, less conscientious, and less open to experience but more emotionally unstable than victims in the major cluster and in the control group.
|46||Pranjic  |
|511 physicians from 1 hospital and 7 health centres in Tuzla, Brčko District and Banja Luka region.|
Response rate = 73% (total of 700 in the target population).
|Cross-sectionalMobbing questionnaire (produced by researchers)Chi-squared||None||Explicitly type A personality (people with a chronic sense of time urgency, usually busy and very competitive, even in non-competitive situations) was the only factor associated with the bullying report.|
Age, gender, hours of work, and job title were not associated with the bullying report.
|47||Bilgel  |
|877 full-time government employees in the three main public sectors: health, education, and security.|
25 primary healthcare units and one public hospital, nine schools (two kindergartens, four primary
schools, three high schools) and 13 police stations were randomly selected.
Final response rate = 73.0%
20-item inventory of bullying developed by
|Gender, age, marital status, occupational characteristics||Occupation (doctors) OR = 0.34 (0.09–0.93), p = 0.035 (reference: secretary)|
Low support at work OR = 3.02 (2.22–4.11), p < 0.001
High stress OR = 1.38 (1.15–1.66), p = 0.001
Low job satisfaction OR = 1.98 (1.46–2.68) p < 0.001
Gender, age, marital status, work sector, and working years were not associated to bullying.
|48||Varhama  |
|1979 permanent employees from a municipality in Finland. A total of 3500 questionnaires were distributed.|
Response rate = 56.5%
|None||Prevalence of bullying increased with age, being higher in those aged 50–62 years old, followed by 40–49, 29–38, and 18–28, respectively.|
Prevalence of bullying was higher in the Fire Department,
compared to Technical, Educational, Health, and Social Departments.
|49||Quine  |
|594 junior doctors from 1000 randomly selected from the BMA members’ mailing list. |
Response rate = 62%, excluding
48 questionnaires that returned
undelivered by the post office.
Previous definition and a single question whether the person had been subjected to bullying in the
past 12 months. Also, a 21-item bullying scale.
|None||Black and Asian doctors were more likely to report being bullied than|
white doctors (78 (45%) vs. 139 (34%); RR = 1.59 (1.11–2.28).
Women were more likely to report being bullied than men (43% (126) vs. 32% (92); RR = 1.61 (1.14–2.26).
Reports of bullying did not vary by job grade or age.
|50||Quine  |
|1100 out of 1580 employees from a community NHS trust in southeast England, as part of a larger survey of working life in 1996|
Response rate = 70%.
Scale with twenty types of bullying behaviour were taken from the literature, based on Rayner and Hoel definitions (in the past 12 months)
|None||Sex was not associated with workplace bullying.|
Younger workers (18–30 years old) were more likely to be bullied (prevalence = 51%) than the others (31–40 yo = 40%; 41–50 yo = 34%; >50 yo = 35%).
Bullying was more frequent among full-time workers (full-time, prevalence = 47%; part-time = 30%).
Unqualified residential care staff (48%) and nurses (44%) presented higher prevalence of exposure to bullying, compared to doctors (31%), ancillary staff (27%), administrative staff (37%), therapists (37%) and psychologists (36%).
|51||Cole  |
|598 participants from 2250 eligible workers (who represented the national population of fulltime workers).|
Response rate = 26.6%.
Question about harassment directed at the respondent while at work in the past 12 months.
|Age, gender, work climate, work structure, job uncertainty, and professional status.||Age, gender, work climate, and job uncertainty were associated with harassment.|
Age (19–44), OR 2.13 (1.19–3.81)
Gender (female), OR 1.81 (1.15–1.82)
Low co-worker support, OR 2.04 (1.16–3.62)
Low work group harmony, OR 2.51 (1.52–4.13)
Layoffs, OR 1.97 (1.26–3.09)
Professional status and work structure were not associated with bullying.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).