No abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate how different measurement methods and sampling techniques contribute to the observed variation in prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A total of 102 prevalence estimates of bullying from 86 independent samples (N ¼ 130; 973) were accumulated and compared by means of meta-analysis. At an average, the statistically independents samples provided an estimate of 14.6%. Yet, the findings show that methodological moderators influence the estimated rates. As for measurement method, a rate of 11.3% was found for studies investigating self-labelled victimization from bullying based on a given definition of the concept, whereas a rate of 14.8% was found for behavioural measure studies, and 18.1% for self-labelling studies without a given definition. A difference of 8.7% points was found between randomly sampled and non-randomly sampled studies. When controlling for geographical differences, the findings show that geographical factors also influence findings on bullying. Hence, findings from different studies on workplace bullying cannot be compared without taking moderator variables into account. Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the SocietyAlthough several factors, such as cultural characteristics and societal changes, may contribute to explain variations in prevalence rates, issues related to research methodology must also be taken into consideration (Nielsen et al., 2009). As studies on workplace bullying have utilized a variety of different measurement methods, instruments, and study designs (Agervold, 2007;Zapf et al., 2003), it is reasonable to assume that methodological artifacts influence observed prevalence rates. Hence, it is difficult to determine from the literature with any degree of certainty the percentage of employees who have experienced workplace bullying. As we will show in this paper, attempts to derive such basic information are obstructed by important methodological problems shared by many studies. A resolution of these problems is critical in order for social scientists to have a meaningful impact on legal and policy-related issues. Furthermore, reliable and valid methods to assess workplace bullying are important for the development and implementation of effective intervention strategies to prevent workplace bullying (cf. Schat, Frone, & Kelloway, 2006). For instance, governments and organizations are dependent on correct estimates of bullying in order to know how much time and resources that is needed to handle the problem. Precise estimates are also important in research, as over or underestimation of the occurrence of bullying may lead to Types I and II errors.By using a meta-analytic design, the aim of this study was to investigate how methodological issues contribute to the variance in the reported prevalence rates of workplace bullying. More specifically, the study's first objective was to provide some reasonable cumulative estimates, given the limitations of the research literature, of the ...

No abstract

No abstract

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 comparison 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.