Psychological Harassment in the Workplace: Methods of Evaluation and Prevalence

Abstract

Abstract:Estimates of the prevalence of psychological harassment (mobbing/bullying) in the workplace vary enormously from one country to another. One of the main reasons for this variation is the method of evaluation used to make these estimates. Research on mobbing or bullying at work is basically guided by two methods: the perceived victimization method and the perceived exposure to bullying behaviors method. These methods, and their combination, were used to estimate the prevalence of bullying in a representative sample of the working population (N = 1730) of the Region of Valencia (Spain). The results obtained suggest the following percentages of victims: (i) perceived victimization: 19.5% (N = 338); (ii) exposure to bullying behavior: 12.8% (N = 221); (iii) both methods: 8.4% (N = 146). The study offers other results related to the correspondence between the methods, the most and least frequent bullying behaviors, and the gender and status of the bully.

Workplace Bullying: A Review of the Defining Features, Measurement Methods and Prevalence across Continents

“…The studies within each continent also report a slight variation in the prevalence rates. The variation of prevalence rates within the continents might be due to the inconsistency in the use of measurement methods, tools and operational criteria (Baguena et al, 2011). This makes the comparison of prevalence rates within the continents very complex and difficult.…”

“…Using a self-reporting questionnaire, 10 per cent of the respondents were identified as victims of bullying; 39 per cent of the respondents reported to have observed bullying behaviours during the past six months. Baguena et al (2011) studied a representative sample of the working population in Spain ( N = 1,730). The measurement using Psychosocial Workplace Inventory with a definition revealed that 19.5 per cent of the sample self-labelled as victims of psychological harassment/bullying at various times in their work life.…”

“…Most of the English-speaking countries use the label ‘workplace bullying’ to explain the concept of repeated mistreatment in the workplaces (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Sheehan, 1999). Various alternate terminologies that refer to the phenomenon are mobbing (Leymann, 1996; Zapf, Knorz & Kulla, 1996), emotional abuse (Keashly, 1997) and aggression (Baron & Neuman, 1996), work harassment (Bjorkqvist, Osterman & Hjelt-Back, 1994), psychological harassment (Baguena, Belena, Toldos & Martinez, 2011), lateral violence and horizontal violence (Johnson, 2009; Sá & Fleming, 2008). In the workplace bullying literature, the bully or the perpetrator is one who instigates the bullying behaviours and the person being bullied is called a target or victim.…”

Factor structure and descriptive characteristics of the Croatian version of the revised Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ-R) as applied in the workplace, on a sample of police officers in the Split-Dalmatia Police District

“…A key element of the definition of mobbing is that the individual exposed to the negative behaviours sees herself as a victim of these activities (Baguena, Belena, Toldos and Martinez, 2011).…”

“…The research on mobbing uses various measurements which results in variation in results across but also within individual countries (Nielsen et al, 2010). This variation may also be attributed to inconsistency in the use of the measurement instruments (Baguena et al, 2011;Zapf et al, 2011). Two methods of quantitative measurement are most common.…”