Description
The workplace is the physical location where someone works. Such a place can range from a home office to a large office building or factory. The workplace is one of the most important social spaces other than the home, constituting "a central concept for several entities: the worker and his/her family, the employing organisation, the customers of the organisation, and the society as a whole"
Case Study on Workplace Victimization: Aggression from the Target's Perspective
Karl Aquino1 and Stefan Thau2
1
Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z2; email: [email protected]
2
Organizational Behavior Subject Area, London Business School, London, United Kingdom NW1 4SA; email: [email protected]
ords
aggression, bullying, harassment, victimization, incivility
Abstract
This article reviews research on workplace victimization, which we define as acts of aggression perpetrated by one or more members of an organization that cause psychological, emotional, or physical harm to their intended target. We compare several types of victimizing behav- iors that have been introduced into the organizational psychology lit- erature to illustrate differences and similarities among them. We then review studies looking at who is likely to become a victim of aggression. Predictors include personality, demographic, behavioral, structural, and organizational variables. We also review research on coping strategies for victimization, which include problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies. We conclude with a summary of challenges for victimization research. These include addressing the proliferation of constructs and terms into the literature, attempting to clarify inconclusive findings, and using theory to guide the selection of study variables.
K e y W
717
Contents
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TYPES OF VICTIMIZING BEHAVIOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WHO BECOMES A VICTIM? . . . . . . . Personality Characteristics . . . . . . . . . Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structural Predictors of Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONSEQUENCES OF VICTIMIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STRATEGIES FOR COPING WITH VICTIMIZATION . . . . . . . . Problem-Focused Coping Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emotion-Focused Coping Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proliferation of Constructs . . . . . . . . . Inconsistent Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Development . . . . . . . . . . Final Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718 720 722 722 724 724 725 726 727 728 729 731 732 732 733 733 734
INTRODUCTION
Work organizations are like any other social setting where competition, scarce resources, time pressure, differences in goals and personalities, and other stresses of group life can sometimes lead people to aggress against coworkers, subordinates, and even authorities. Aggression has been defined as behavior directed toward an- other person or persons that is carried out with the intent to harm (Anderson & Bushman 2002, Buss 1961). For every perpetrator of workplace aggression, there is at least one victim. It is the victim's perspective that we examine in this re- view. By taking this perspective, we comple- ment Anderson & Bushman's (2002) Annual Review of Psychology article that focused on the factors that motivate aggression and Barling et al.'s (2009) review of the predictors of workplace aggression appearing in this volume.
718 Aquino
•
Previous reviews of aggression from a victim's perspective have been conducted (e.g., Einarsen 2000, Hoel et al. 1999, Hogh & Viitasara 2005, Salin 2003b, Tepper 2007); however, these reviews focused on specific types of aggressive behaviors such as bullying and abusive supervision. In contrast, we take a broader perspec- tive by including studies examining other forms of aggressive behaviors along with studies of how employees cope with their victimization experiences. Our review extends a recent metaanalysis of workplace harassment (Bowling & Beehr 2006) by including studies examining antecedents (e.g., Big 5 traits and informal status) and outcomes of victimization (e.g., revenge, seeking social support). Also, we offer a critique of the current state of research on workplace ag- gression from the target's perspective and pro- pose challenges for future research. We refer to the experience of being a target of workplace aggression as "workplace victimization." Workplace victimization occurs when an employee's well-being is harmed by an act of aggression perpetrated by one or more mem- bers of the organization. An employee's well- being is harmed when fundamental psycho- logical and physiological needs are unmet or thwarted. In general, these needs include a sense of belonging, a feeling that one is a wor- thy individual, believing that one has the ability to predict and to cognitively control one's environment, and being able to trust others (Stevens & Fiske 1995). The most basic physiological need is the avoidance of pain. We assume that being the target of workplace aggression can thwart the satisfaction of fundamental psycho- logical needs and/or in?ict psychological, emotional, and even physical pain upon its target. We stated above that aggression has been defined as behavior directed toward another per- son or persons carried out with the intent to harm. Adopting this definition of aggression raises the epistemological challenge of deter- mining whether an act was intentional and therefore aggressive. The position we adopt in our review is that there is no easy way to re- solve this issue, but because we are interested in aggression from the target's perspective, we
Thau
elieve that for theoretical and practical purposes it is reasonable to classify a behavior is aggressive if the target perceives some possi- bility that it was performed with the intent to harm. Our position recognizes that the target's interpretation of another employee's behavior is likely to be most consequential from predict- ing his or her response. At the same time, we acknowledge that in some cases it is important to rely on more than just the target's interpre- tation; if, for example, he or she is seeking legal remedy or if internal disciplinary action is to be taken against the harmdoer. As we document in our review, the costs of workplace victimization are high. Victims of aggressive actions suffer psychologically, be- come fatigued, stressed, sick, and sometimes traumatized. Consequently, individual, group, and organizational performance can suffer (Leymann 1990). Research on workplace ag- gression has increased over the past 20 years as these costs have become widely recognized by organizational psychologists, human resource practitioners, and the general public. Interest- ingly, North American scholars have generally studied the motives or characteristics of per- petrators of aggression, paying relatively less attention to understanding the experiences of victims, with the exception being studies of sex- ual harassment. In contrast, Northern Euro- pean scholars have examined questions such as (a) Why do some employees but not oth- ers become victims of aggression? (b) What organizational conditions make victimization more likely? (c) What are the psychological and behavioral consequences of victimization? (d ) What strategies do employees use to cope with victimization? In this review, we examine research on workplace victimization published from 1990 to the present to document the an- swers that past studies provide to these four questions. Our review is necessarily selective. We chose articles that explicitly assess the target's experi- ence, although some articles included in our re- view might have taken into account the role of the perpetrator if it was critical for understand- ing the target's response. We excluded from our
review studies that focus primarily on sexual harassment. Other scholars have already conducted reviews on that topic (e.g., Cortina &Berdahl 2008, Fitzgerald 1993, O'Leary-Kelly et al. 2000), so rather than covering old ground we survey the literature on nonsexual forms of aggression. We also excluded from our review studies examining interactional justice, which has been defined as "the quality of interpersonal treatment received during the enactment of organizational procedures" (Bies & Moag 1986, p. 44). Interactional justice is a type of work- place behavior that arguably falls within the conceptual domain of workplace victimization. However, we chose not to review research on interactional justice for two reasons. First, re- views of this literature have already been con- ducted (Greenberg & Colquitt 2005), and sec- ond, we believe that the construct belongs in broader discussion of organizational justice that our review was not intended to address. We ac- cessed the relevant literature by conducting a PsychInfo search of titles and abstracts cover- ing the period from 1990 to 2005 and a man- ual search of more recent journals in applied psychology and organizational behavior. We chose for inclusion only empirical articles writ- ten in English and published in peer-reviewed journals. We cite theoretical papers if we deemed them relevant for clarifying construct definitions. Our review begins by categorizing the types of victimizing behaviors researchers have stud- ied. We then review studies examining the various factors that have been empirically re- lated to perceptions of workplace victimization, looking first at individual factors such as per- sonality, behavior, and demographics before turning to structural factors such as the tar- get's formal or informal social position and to broader organizational-level factors such as the nature of the work being performed, job characteristics, and management styles. Next, we review studies documenting the conse- quences of victimization and how victimized employees cope with their experiences. We conclude with observations of what progress has been made in understanding workplace
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization 719
victimization and offer suggestions for advancing research in this area.
TYPES OF VICTIMIZING BEHAVIOR
Many kinds of aggressive behaviors can occur in the workplace, and researchers have introduced a myriad of terms into the literature to describe them. Among the ones appearing frequently in the literature are workplace harassment (Bjorkqvist et al. 1994, Bowling &¨ Beehr 2006), mobbing (Leymann 1996, Zapf et al. 1996), petty tyranny (Ashforth 1997), bul- lying (e.g., Einarsen & Skogstad 1996, Salin 2003b, Vartia 1996), emotional abuse (Keashly 1998), abusive supervision (Tepper 2000), so- cial undermining (Duffy et al. 2002), incivility (Andersson & Pearson 1999, Cortina et al. 2001), identity threats (Aquino & Douglas 2003), and victimization (Aquino et al. 1999). An underlying assumption of these descriptive terms is that the behavior being observed is aversive and potentially harmful to the intended target (see Table 1). Consequently, we believe all of them can be circumscribed within the broader construct space of workplace victim- ization as we have defined it. There are obviously differences among the behaviors examined by various writers. But these differences are not substantial enough in our judgment to warrant exclusion from the larger "family" of workplace victimization be- haviors that are the focus of this review. To take just one example, consider the definitions of workplace incivility and social undermin- ing. Andersson & Pearson (1999) define work- place incivility as "low intensity deviant behav- ior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual re- spect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of re- gard for others" (p. 457). In contrast, social un- dermining is defined as "behavior intended to hinder, over time, the ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and favorable reputation" (Duffy et al. 2002, p. 332). The conceptual dis720 Aquino
tinction between these two behaviors is that the intent to harm is less transparent to the victim of incivility than of social undermining. Yet both behaviors can thwart the satisfaction of fundamental psychological needs for self-esteem, a controllable and predictable environment, and sense of belonging. Both can also be construed by the victim as having been done intentionally. Consequently, for our purposes, they represent acts of workplace victimization. The terms used in past studies to define and measure various forms of victimizations have some similarities and dissimilarities. We already mentioned that we can distinguish between behaviors that cause physiological and psychological harm. We can also distinguish between behaviors that cause direct and indirect harm (Buss 1961). Most of the studies we reviewed do not explicitly differentiate between direct and indirect forms of victimization, although some data suggest that indirect aggression is more frequent than direct aggression (Baron et al. 1999). Table 1 summarizes the definitions of victimizing behaviors introduced by researchers. The table indicates whether the instruments used to measure these behaviors tap direct ag- gression, indirect aggression, or both. A review of Table 1 yields several insights into the current state of victimization research. First, most operationalizations emphasize psy- chological rather than physical harm, which makes sense because the latter are less common than the former (Barling et al. 2009). Physical acts of aggression such as hitting or pushing a fellow employee would likely result in se- rious punishment including criminal prosecu- tion or dismissal from the job. Thus, we expect physical aggression to occur less frequently be- cause the costs of engaging in such behavior are high. Second, some researchers are broadly in- terested in victimization by all organizational members without specific reference to the sta- tus of perpetrator (e.g., identity threat, Aquino & Douglas 2003; incivility, Andersson & Pearson 1999), whereas others make a dis- tinction between whether the employee is vic- timized by higher- (e.g., supervisors, Tepper
•
Thau
able 1 status
Constructs consistent with victimization definition by thwarted needs, direct/indirect behavior, and perpetrator Victimizing Thwarted needs are Definition of construct Psychological ? Physiological ? behaviors are Direct ? Indirect ? Perpetrator's status Higher ? Coworker ? Lower ?
Workplace harassment (Bj ¨ orkqvist et al. 1994, pp. 173-74): "Repeated activities, with the aim of bringing mental (but sometimes also physical) pain, and directed towards one or more individuals who, for one reason or another, are not able to defend themselves." Bullying (Einarsen & Skogstad 1996, p. 191): "A situation where one or several individuals persistently over a period of time perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of negative actions from one or several persons, in a situation where the target of bullying has difficulty in defending him or herself against these actions." Mobbing (Zapf et al. 1996, p. 215): "Severe form of harassing people in organizations." A petty tyrant (Ashforth 1997, p. 126) is "someone who uses their power and authority oppressively, capriciously, and perhaps vindictively." Emotional abuse includes verbal and nonverbal modes of expression; repeated, or part of a pattern; unwelcome and unsolicited; violate a standard of appropriate conduct toward others; result in harm or injury; actor intended to harm; actor is in a more powerful position (Keashly 1998). Workplace incivility (Andersson & Pearson 1999, p. 457; Cortina et al. 2001, p. 64): "Low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect."
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
(Continued )
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization
721
Table 1
(Continued ) Victimizing Thwarted needs are behaviors are Direct ? Indirect ? Perpetrator's status Higher ? Coworker ? Lower ?
Definition of construct Victimization (Aquino et al. 1999, p. 260): "Individual's perception of having been exposed, either momentarily or repeatedly, to the aggressive acts of one or more other persons." Abusive supervision (Tepper 2000, p. 178): "Extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact."
Psychological ?
Physiological ?
?
?
?
?
Social undermining (Duffy et al. 2002, p. 332): "Behavior intended to hinder, over time, the ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and favorable reputation." Identity threat (Aquino & Douglas 2003, p. 196): "Overt action by another party that challenges, calls into question, or diminishes a person's sense of competence, dignity, or self-worth."
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
2000) or same-status (coworkers, Aquino et al. 1999) organizational members. We found no studies that explicitly operationalized the victimization of higher-status by lower-status organizational members. Third, most of the Northern European operationalizations of victimization allow participants to indicate the sta- tus of the perpetrator separately, whereas most North American operationalizations make vir- tually no reference to the possibility of low- status perpetrators. Finally, Table 1 shows that at some level all of the research using these dif- ferent definitions deals with essentially the same phenomenon: victimization. Our review of the victimization literature reveals three streams of research that attempt to answer the question of why someone is likely to
become the target of aggression. The first investigates the role of the target's personality; the second investigates the target's behavior; and the third examines positional, structural, and social predictors of victimization.
WHO BECOMES A VICTIM? Personality Characteristics
Among the many investigations into the role of personality as a predictor of victimization, the propensity to experience negative affect (trait NA, Watson & Clark 1984)—which in- cludes emotions such as anger, fear, worry, anxiousness, sadness, and depression—shows the most consistent relationship to various
722
Aquino
•
Thau
victimization measures (e.g., Aquino et al. 1999, Aquino & Bradfield 2000, Coyne et al. 2000, Duffy et al. 2006b, Glasø et al. 2007, Matthiesen & Einarsen 1991, Tepper et al. 2006, Vartia 1996, Zellars et al. 2002). Several explanations for the NAvictimization relationship have been pro- posed. According to some investigators, the relationship may be partly due to high-NA employees being perceived as hostile, de- manding, or interpersonally difficult, making them more likely targets of aggression from other organizational members (Aquino et al. 1999, Aquino & Bradfield 2000, Tepper et al. 2006). This explanation is consistent with victim precipitation (Amir 1967), symbolic interactionist (Felson & Steadman 1983), and con?ict escalation (Glomb 2002) models, which suggest that employees with certain personality characteristics tend to act in ways that violate social norms or threaten others' identities. As a result, they are targeted for aggression by those seeking to enforce norms prescribing cooperation, respect, or deference in interpersonal relations. An alternative explanation for the NAvictimization relationship is that employees who have experienced aggression over a pe- riod of time developed high NA as a result (cf. Hansen et al. 2006, Mikkelsen & Einarsen 2002). Which of these explanations is more likely is difficult to determine without addi- tional longitudinal studies, which are quite rare (for an exception, see Kivimaki et al. 2003). A third possibility is that employees high in NA selectively recall (Blaney 1986) more negative events than do employees low in trait NA. This explanation needs to be tested with multisource designs that match employee and coworker reports to determine the level of agreement. A related explanation is that high- NA employees are more prone to make hostile attributions for ambiguous behaviors, and con- sequently they report more victimization than do employees low in NA. Supporting this possi- bility, Matthiesen & Einarsen (2004) found that some victims of bullying were extremely suspi-
MOTIVATION TO PERCEIVE VICTIMIZATION
Arguably, it is functional to know whether environments put one at risk of victimization. Knowing that one may be victimized can satisfy one's fundamental needs for uncertainty reduction and protecting selfesteem (Fiske 2004). However, the possibility of victimization may motivate employees to become hypervigilant to potential risks (Allen & Badcock 2003). Both situational and personality factors may contribute to some people being chroni- cally overattuned to potential victimization (Kramer 1998). Some evidence in the close relationships literature suggests that people who are strongly motivated to acquire information that reveals harm will suffer from poor relationship quality (Ickes et al. 2003). If the risk of victimization is chronically salient, minor negative events will gain more importance in people's cognitive and emo- tional processes, and so events that would be unnoticed by others may be interpreted as victimization experiences.
cious of the outside world, which could make them more likely to interpret others' behavior as being more malevolent. Another study re- ported a positive relationship between a mea- sure of hostile attribution bias and victimization (Aquino et al. 2004) (see sidebar Motivation to Perceive Victimization). Research on the relationship between per-sonality factors from the Big 5 reveals mixed findings. One study found that victimized em- ployees tend to be more extraverted (Glasø et al. 2007), whereas other studies show that victims are more introverted than nonvictims (Coyne et al. 2000) or that victims and nonvictims do not differ on extraversion at all (Coyne et al. 2003, Vartia 1996). Some studies report that victimized employees tend to be more consci- entious (Coyne et al. 2000), but other studies fail to support this relationship (Coyne et al. 2003). Coyne et al. (2003) found that victims of bullying tended to be lower in emotional sta- bility in comparison with a control sample of nonvictims, which is consistent with the studies of NA reviewed above since people who lackemotional stability are more prone to experi- ence negative emotions including anxiety, de- pression, and hostility (e.g., Costa et al. 1991).
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization
723
Several studies have explored the role of self-esteem as a predictor of victimization. These studies show that employees with low self-esteem report more victimization (e.g., Einarsen et al. 1994, Harvey & Keashly 2003, Matthiesen & Einarsen 2001, Vartia 1996; see Bowling & Beehr 2006 for a meta-analytic review). A number of investigators have ar- gued that victimization can undermine employees' self-esteem (Bjorkvist et al. 1994, Lee &¨ Brotheridge 2006, Liefooghe & Davey 2001, Tepper 2000), but like the other personality variables reviewed, the causal direction of the selfesteem-victimization relationship is un- clear. It could be that the relationship is due to previous victimization encounters and ac- cumulated state self-esteem levels. It may also be that the emotional and behavioral tone of people with low self-esteem invites victimiza- tion because someone with low self-esteem is less able to assertively defend him or her- self against others' aggression (Matthiesen & Einarsen 2001), deal constructively with con- ?ict (Zapf 1999), or challenge those who try to exploit them. Supporting this latter view, Coyne et al. (2000) found that employee victims of ag- gression tended to score lower on personality measures of assertiveness, competitiveness, and extraversion than do nonvictims.
ies, women report more victimization than men report (Aquino & Bradfield 2000; Bjorkqvist ¨ et al. 1994; Cortina et al. 2001; Salin 2001, 2003a; Tehrani 2004); in others, men report more victimization than do women ( Jennifer et al. 2003). Finally, some studies find no or only marginal gender effects (Einarsen & Skogstad 1996, Hansen et al. 2006, Leymann 1996, Vartia & Hyyti 2002). Bowling & Beehr's (2006) meta-analysis found that some demographic variables are reliably related to victimization. Among these relationships were that females were less likely to be victimized than were men, employees with longer tenure were more likely to be victimized than were those with shorter tenure, and older employees were less likely to be victimized than were younger ones. How- ever, Bowling & Beehr (2006) described all of these relationships as being relatively weak compared with the effects of work environ- ment variables. One conclusion we draw from the studies we reviewed is that employee de- mographic variables are likely to explain rel- atively little variance in victimization, and so a more fruitful approach would be to exam- ine possible mediators and moderators of the demographics-victimization relationship.
Behaviors
A handful of studies have directly examined how a target's behaviors might be associated with his or her perceptions of victimization. These studies show that low levels of citizenship be- havior (Aquino & Bommer 2003), voicing dis- content with previous mistreatment (Cortina & Magley 2003), and adopting an overly accom- modating con?ict management style (Aquino 2000, Zapf & Gross 2001) are associated with higher levels of victimization. However, Aquino (2000) also found that frequent victims used a dominant con?ict style more so than did non- victims. Aquino & Byron (2002) qualified the relationship between dominating behavior and victimization by showing a curvilinear pattern in student workgroups. The pattern was such that group members who were perceived as ex- hibiting either high or low levels of dominating
Demographics
Studies looking at the relationship between demographic variables including age, tenure, gender, and victimization do not show an obvious relationship between these variables. Zellars et al. (2002) report that employees' gender, age, and tenure were all unrelated to their percep- tion of supervisor abuse. Vartia (1996) found no correlations between gender and bullying and only a small correlation between age and bul- lying. Einarsen & Skogstad (1996) found that older employees reported significantly more bullying than younger ones reported. However, Einarsen & Raknes (1997) found that among male workers, older ones reported significantly less exposure to potentially harassing behavior than did younger ones. In a number of stud724 Aquino
•
Thau
behavior reported higher levels of victimization by group members than those who exhibited moderate levels of dominating behavior. However, this relationship was only found among men. The studies discussed in previous sections of this review examined how characteristics of victims might predict whether they are likely to become targets of workplace aggression. Other studies have examined social structural predic- tors of victimization. By social structural pre- dictors, we mean an employee's position within a larger social structure such as a formal hierar- chy or an informal social network.
Structural Predictors of Victimization
Employees occupying lower positions in the organization's formal hierarchy have been shown in several studies to report higher levels of victimization (Aquino 2000, Aquino et al. 2004, Bjorkqvist et al. 1994, Hoel et al. 2001, Keashly et al. 1994, Salin 2001). But other studies show no significant, direct effects of formal hier- archical position on victimization (Aquino &Bradfield 2000, Aquino & Douglas 2003). One study reports that employees in managerial po- sitions were more often victimized than those in nonmanagerial positions (Lamertz & Aquino 2004). We reviewed two studies that looked at victimization as a function of employees' struc- tural position within an informal social net- work. Using sociometric analysis, Coyne et al. (2004) studied 36 fire service teams in the United Kingdom and found that in contrast to the commonly held view that victims of bul- lying are usually social isolates (e.g., Salmivalli et al. 1996), fire service personnel who reported higher levels of bullying also tended to be con- sidered preferred people to work with and to be placed within the main informal network. Self- and peer-reported victims were also more frequently nominated as stars in their team, al- though 24% of such victims were also rejected by the rest of the team. Lamertz & Aquino (2004) also used sociometric methods to study victimization among 32 employees in a single
bureau of a city government. They found that employees who maintained a balance in their dyadic friendship networks reported lower lev- els of victimization than did employees whose friendship networks were imbalanced. An example of an imbalanced friendship network would be one where one actor in a relation- ship chooses another actor as a friend, but the other actor does not make the same choice (i.e., the relationship is nonreciprocated). Such a pat- tern indicates a discrepancy in mutual esteem between two parties. There do not appear to be consistent find- ings regarding the direct relationship between formal status and victimization. Studies looking at informal status by taking a social networks perspective are too few to draw firm conclu- sions. Based on our review of the existing lit- erature, we believe the inconsistencies associ- ated with the effect of formal status might be addressed by testing more complex models hy- pothesizing that status interacts with other fac- tors to predict victimization. A few status stud- ies have taken this approach and have found evidence supporting our argument. Vartia & Hyyti (2002) found no differences in perceived victimization between men and women, but they did find that women were vic- timized more often by coworkers, whereas men were victimized equally across status groups. Salin (2003a) found that men were typically bul- lied by superiors, whereas women were typically bullied by superiors and colleagues in approxi- mately equal proportions. In addition, none of the male victims, but one-fifth of female vic- tims, reported being bullied by subordinates. Hoel et al. (2001) found an interaction between formal status and gender such that women in the highest organizationalstatus positions are more likely to be victimized than are men. Another perspective suggests that possess- ing particular status characteristics in combi- nation with behaving in certain ways can make employees more likely to be targets of aggres- sion. Consistent with this perspective, one study found that loworganizational-status employ- ees are more likely to be victimized when they also tend to use a highly accommodating style to
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization 725
esolve con?icts with coworkers (Aquino 2000). Another study showed that whites who exhib- ited higher levels of organizational citizenship behavior reported lower levels of victimization than did African Americans who exhibited sim- ilar levels of citizenship (Aquino & Bommer 2003).
Organizational Factors
A stream of empirical research on workplace aggression from the target's perspective has examined how organizational factors might af- fect employees' vulnerability to being victim- ized. One organizational factor that has been found to predict the likelihood of being vic- timized is the type of work the organization performs. Mikkelsen & Einarsen (2001) found that employees in a manufacturing company re- ported significantly more exposure to bullying than did employees in hospitals. A survey of 7787 employees from 14 Norwegian organiza- tions found that respondents from public com- panies reported less bullying than those from private enterprises (Einarsen & Skogstad 1996). The investigators also reported that the high- est prevalence rate of bullying over a six-month period was found among industrial workers, with 17.4% reporting having been bullied. The lowest prevalence rate was among psychologists and university employees. However, Salin (2001) surveyed 377 Finnish employees from various organizations and found that public sec- tor employees reported higher levels of bul- lying than private sector employees reported, although this difference was statistically not sig- nificant. Hubert & van Veldhoven (2001) mea- sured the prevalence of aggression in 11 dif- ferent workforce sections in the Netherlands and found that aggression from colleagues or the boss was higher in sectors such as indus- try, education, (local) government, and public administration than in sectors such as business services and financial institutions. Our review of studies comparing various forms of victimization as a function of occu- pation or work sector does not present a clear conclusion about what types of organizations
726 Aquino
•
or job sectors are likely to be associated with higher victimization. One logical prediction is that employees are more likely at risk of being victimized in organizations where they are required to interact frequently with others and to work interdependently. The ambiguity regard- ing occupation or work sector is to be expected given the multitude of other factors that are likely to vary across organizations even within the same industry. Consequently, researchers have examined specific attributes of the work environment. Employees who report having less control over their jobs are more likely to report being mobbed (Zapf et al. 1996), bullied (Agervold & Mikkelsen 2004, Einarsen et al. 1994, Quine 2001), or directly and indirectly victimized by coworkers (Aquino et al. 1999). Bullying has been found to be higher when work is uninteresting and has low variability (Einarsen et al. 1994, Vartia 1996) or lacks meaning (Agervold & Mikkelsen 2004). Stressful and competitive work environments have been associated with higher levels of victimization (Coyne et al. 2003, Vartia 1996), as has role con?ict (Einarsen et al. 1994, Skogstad et al. 2007a), role ambiguity (Agervold & Mikkelsen 2004, Jennifer et al. 2003, Quine 2001), the number of employees in the workplace (Einarsen & Skogstad 1996), high cooperation requirements (Zapf et al. 1996), greater work- loads (Quine 2001), and being in a male- rather than femaledominated organization (Einarsen & Skogstad 1996). Liefooghe & Davey (2001) interviewed 113 employees and concluded that various organizational practices contribute to what the authors referred to as institutional- ized bullying. These practices revolve around mechanisms of organizational control such as rules for monitoring and controlling time, the use of numerical performance measures, or the use of performance improvement mandates as a punishment for failure to perform. Their study is distinctive because it asserts that the organization rather than individuals within it is responsible for bullying. Finally, we found one study showing that organizational changes in- volving changes in technology, staff reductions,
Thau
and wage cuts were positively related to what the researchers described as task-related bully- ing (e.g., "Being given tasks with unreasonable targets or deadlines," "Being exposed to an unmanageable workload") (Skogstad et al. 2007b). Skogstad and colleagues (2007b) speculated that one explanation for the re- lationship between organizational changes and bullying was that these changes led to reduced role clarity, higher workloads, and task fragmentation, which as the findings cited above show, are related to victimization. Our review of studies examining workplace attributes as predictors of victimization reveals that the most consistent finding is the effect of role con?ict or ambiguity. Our conclusions are supported by Bowling & Beehr's (2006) metaanalysis, which shows these two variables showed the strongest effect sizes among poten- tial antecedents of various forms of victimizing behaviors, with ? = 0.44 and ? = 0.30 for the role con?ict and role ambiguity, respectively. A lack of control over one's work environment was also found to be strongly associated with vic- timization in Bowling & Beehr's (2006) metaanalysis (? = ?0.25), and this relationship is supported by our own review of published empirical studies. A few studies have looked at the relation- ship between managerial or leadership styles and victimization. Ashforth (1997) found that subordinate ratings of petty tyranny were negatively correlated with managers' tolerance for ambiguity and Theory X beliefs and were positively correlated with managers having a bureaucratic orientation. Agervold & Mikkelsen (2004) found that bullied employees reported that they had received insufficient information from immediate superiors and had a serious con?ict with their manager that was not satis- factorily resolved. Coyne et al. (2003) reported that victims of bullying perceived their work organizations to be characterized by more nega- tive aspects, which included authoritarian management, and Einarsen et al. (1994) found that employees who were bullied reported being more dissatisfied with their organization's lead- ership. A study of bullying in public sector or-
ganizations concluded that weak and indistinct leadership contributed to workplace con?icts going unresolved and eventually escalating into bullying (Strandmark & Hallberg 2006). This qualitative study concluded that bullying re- sults from unresolved value con?icts that are exacerbated by weak leadership. Skogstad et al. (2007a) showed that employees who described their superiors as adopting a laissez-faire leadership style, which is characterized by an absence of leadership, an unwillingness to in- tervene in employee affairs, a lack of transac- tions or agreements with followers, and a fail- ure to meet the expectations of subordinates, reported higher levels of victimization. More- over, Skogstad and colleagues (2007a) showed that the relationship between leadership style and victimization was partly mediated through role con?ict and increased con?ict with coworkers. Skogstad et al.'s (2007a) study is the only one we found that tested mediating mech- anisms through which leader behavior might predict victimization. Our review of studies examining relationships between leadership and victimization suggests that leaders can poten- tially in?uence their subordinates' vulnerabil- ity to being victimized by failing to establish clear guidelines for what constitutes inappro- priate conduct. It is also possible that certain types of management styles, such as those that are highly authoritarian or bureaucratic, result in subordinates being victimized by leaders.
CONSEQUENCES OF VICTIMIZATION
Not surprisingly, many studies have found consistent relationships between experiencing workplace victimization and a host of negative psychological, emotional, and physiological outcomes. Among the negative psychological consequences that have been reported are increased depression and anxiety (Bjorkqvist ¨ et al. 1994, Cortina et al. 2001, Haines et al. 2006, Hansen et al. 2006, Matthiesen & Einarsen 2001, Niedl 1996, Quine 2001, Tepper 2000, Zapf 1999), job stress (Agervold & Mikkelsen 2004, Budd et al. 1996,
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization 727
artia & Hyyti 2002), posttraumatic stress (Fitzpatrick & Wilson 1999, Leymann & Gustavson 1996, Matthiesen & Einarsen 2004, Mikkelsen & Einarsen 2002), and decreased mental health (Hansen et al. 2006, Hoel et al. 2004, Hogh et al. 2005, Rogers &Kelloway 1997, Vartia & Hyyti 2002). Frequent victimization is also associated with negative somatic symptoms (LeBlanc & Kelloway 2002; Rogers & Kelloway 1997, Mikkelsen & Einarsen 2001, Schat & Kelloway 2000, Zapf et al. 1996), fatigue (Agervold & Mikkelsen 2004; Hogh et al. 2003, 2005), and sickness (Agervold & Mikkelsen 2004; Kivim¨ et al. aki 2000). Affective responses to being victimized include diminished emotional well-being (LeBlanc & Kelloway 2002; Schat & Kelloway 2000), lower levels of job satisfaction (Budd et al. 1996, Keashly et al. 1997, Lapierre et al. 2005, Quine 2001, Tepper 2000, Vartia & Hyyti 2002) and life satisfaction (Tepper 2000), shame (Hallberg & Strandmark 2006, Lewis 2004), fear (Rogers & Kelloway 1997), and emotional exhaustion (Goldberg & Grandey 2007, Grandey et al. 2007, Tepper 2000, Winstanley & Whittington 2002). Bowling & Beehr's (2006) meta-analysis reports effect sizes as- sociated with several of the psychological, physiological, and emotional consequences listed above, making their study a helpful guide for evaluating the effect sizes of victimization on a variety of individual outcomes. Bowling & Beehr (2006) found that the strongest effect sizes were between victimization and individual outcomes such as negative emotions at work, frustration, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion (burnout). Victimization showed weaker relationships (mean ?> 0.25) to self-esteem and life satisfaction. We reviewed three studies that show relationships between victimization and outcomes external to the organization. Tepper (2000) reported that abusive supervision was positively related to work and family life con?ict. Lewis &Orford (2005) showed that victimized employees also negatively affected participants' non- work relationships, and they suggested that victimization at work can produce a ripple effect
that compromises other potential sources of support. Haines et al. (2006) found that work- place aggression experienced by one partner in a dualearner couple was related to the other partner's psychological distress. The investiga- tors concluded that this relationship supported a crossover model in which one partner's work and family experiences affect the other partner's experiences. Most of the studies we reviewed tested direct relationships between victimization and employee outcomes, but some looked at whether the relationship is moderated by other factors. Kaukiainen et al. (2001) found that victimiza- tion was more strongly related to negative phys- ical and psychological symptoms for men than for women. Lapierre et al. (2005) showed that the negative relationship between victimization and job satisfaction was stronger for women than men. Hoel et al. (2004) reported that the relationship between victimization and mental health was stronger for older than for younger employees and for workers than for senior man- agers. Tepper (2000) found that the relation- ship between abusive supervision and outcomes such as depression, job satisfaction, and emo- tional exhaustion was stronger for subordinates who had low as compared to high job mobil- ity. Duffy et al. (2006a) examined the conse- quences of social undermining and found that the relationship between undermining and out- comes such as job satisfaction, depression, and intention to quit was stronger when group-level supervisor undermining (the amount of super- visor or coworker undermining experienced by all group members) was low rather than high. The authors concluded that this pattern sup- ported a "singled out" hypothesis in which the level of victimization within a group moderates the relationship between individual perceptions of victimization and outcomes.
STRATEGIES FOR COPING WITH VICTIMIZATION
We reviewed several studies that examined employee responses to victimization. We consider these responses to be examples of a broader
728
Aquino
•
Thau
set of strategies for coping with victimization. Lazarus & Folkman's (1984) transaction model of stress distinguishes between problem- and emotion-focused coping strategies. The goal of problem-focused strategies is to change the situation by eliminating the source of stress (e.g., by taking direct action against the per- petrator, seeking support from others) or one's view of the situation (e.g., positive reappraisal). Included in the category of problem-focused strategies are behaviors that could be consid- ered aggressive, such as taking revenge against the perpetrator, but that are performed in re- sponse to an initial provocation. Also included are attempts to take advantage of social or or- ganizational support systems that might act as a buffer against further victimization or provide protection or redress to the victim. The goal of emotion-focused strategies is to manage the emotional consequences of the stressor and could include attempts to escape psychologically (e.g., substance abuse) or to execute emotion-regulation strategies that mini- mize the negative impact of being victimized. We turn first to studies of problem-focused strategies.
Problem-Focused Coping Strategies
One problem-focused coping strategy is to retaliate against the perpetrator as a way of al- tering his or her behavior through punish- ment or by demonstrating one's willingness to defend against further mistreatment (Glomb 2002, Lee & Brotheridge 2006). An emerg- ing empirical literature on revenge in organi- zations suggests that retaliatory aggression is considered by many people to be a morally le- gitimate response to being victimized (Tripp et al. 2002). Supporting this conclusion, Zapf & Gross (2001) reported that defending oneself was identified by 9% of their sample as a recom- mended strategy for coping with bullying, plac- ing it somewhere between the most frequently recommended strategy of leaving the organiza- tion (22%) and the least-recommended strategy of protocol events (2%).
We reviewed three studies examining the possibility that victimization provokes retaliatory aggression against perpetrators. Dupr´ eet al. (2006) found that teenage part-time em- ployees who perceived high levels of abusive supervision reported more aggression against their supervisors when their financial reasons for working were high. Mitchell& Ambrose (2007) showed that subordinates who perceived high levels of abusive supervision reported en- gaging in more aggressive behavior directed toward their supervisors, and more so if the subordinate endorsed negative reciprocity be- liefs. Tepper et al. (2001) found that victims of abusive supervision reported using dysfunc- tional resistance (e.g., ignoring one's supervi- sor or making a half-hearted effort on a task and letting the boss know that the employee could not do it) and constructive resistance (e.g., asking for additional clarification or explain- ing to the supervisor that the task could be done in a different way) against their supervisors more frequently than their nonabused counter- parts reported. Tepper et al. (2001) interpreted the results involving dysfunctional resistance as indicating that victimizing behaviors can pro- voke behavioral coping responses that can po- tentially harm the perpetrator by threatening relationship quality and undermining the su- pervisor's authority to make a request. The find- ings involving constructive resistance were in- terpreted by Tepper et al. (2001) as indicating one possible way of breaking a cycle of hostility in interpersonal con?ict by responding to abu- sive supervision in a nondestructive manner. Most of the studies we reviewed show a relationship between victimization and aggres- sive behavioral responses that might be directed toward the perpetrator of aggression. More- over, these responses were moderated by other factors. Aquino & Douglas (2003) found that employees who reported high levels of vic- timization and held favorable attitudes toward revenge reported engaging in more antiso- cial behavior directed toward other employ- ees than those who held less-favorable atti- tudes toward revenge. Jockin et al. (2001) found that employees who reported high levels of
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization 729
victimization had more aggressive con?icts with coworkers if they were high in neuroticism. A third study found that perceived victimization was positively related to overt expressions of anger, but more so for em- ployees who had a hostile attribution bias or who perceived the norms of their organization as encouraging oppositional behavior (Aquino et al. 2004). Zellars et al. (2002) found that em- ployees who perceived higher levels of abusive supervision exhibited fewer organizational cit- izenship behaviors, but more so if they viewed citizenship behavior as an extrarole behavior. The investigators interpreted this pattern as suggesting that withholding extrarole behaviors might be one way for employees to take revenge against supervisors who victimize them. Lee & Brotheridge (2006) found that employees who reported being undermined were also more likely to report undermining others. Duffy et al. (2006a) showed that the group social con- text moderates the relationship between being the target of undermining and undermining others such that the relationship was stronger in groups where group-level undermining was low than in groups where it was high. Duffy et al. (2006a) interpreted this pattern as indicat- ing that victimized employees are more likely to reciprocate negative behavior when they per- ceive themselves as being singled out for such treatment. Demographic factors have been shown to moderate relationships between victimization and aggressive, problem-focused strategies.
work (Kivim¨ et al. 2000, Zapf et al. 1996), aki or avoiding the perpetrator(s) and/or ignor- ing their behavior (Keashly et al. 1994). An- other type of nonaggressive, problem-focused strategy is to seek support from the organi- zation, family, friends, and fellow employees, or from professional services such as coun- selors. Rospenda et al. (2006) found that the experience of chronic, nonsexual harassment at work increased the likelihood that employ- ees would use professional services (e.g., pri- mary care physician, psychiatrist, clergy) to deal with workrelated stress. However, their study failed to find evidence that these services ame- liorated the negative effects of work harassment on mental health. Schat & Kelloway (2003) found that instrumental support, operational- ized as support received from coworkers, man- agers, and supervisors following victimization, was associated with a reduction in negative psy- chological health consequences (i.e., low emo- tional well-being, poor somatic health, and negative job-related affect). They also found that informational support, operationalized as whether or not employees received training on how to deal with aggressive or threaten- ing events at work, was associated with higher emotional well-being following victimization. Lewis& Orford (2005) interviewed 10 female victims of bullying and described how a lack of support from colleagues and the organization impaired these employees' ability to defend themselves against their perpetrators and led to increasing isolation, vulnerability, and diminished self-worth. How effective are the various problemfocused strategies for coping with victimiza- tion? Zapf & Gross (2001) looked at 14 con?ictmanagement coping strategies that victims of bullying used, including talking with the bul- lies, calling in the supervisor, taking long-term sick leave, and fighting back with similar means. The only strategy that was reported to have produced a significant improvement in their current situation was transferring to another job. Strategies that involved an active response to the bullies (i.e., fighting back with similar means, talking to the bullies) made the victim's
Olafsson & Johannsdottir (2004) found that ´ ´ ´ males are more likely to confront bullies and less likely to seek help from organizational author- ities than are females, and Aquino & Douglas (2003) found that interpersonally directed an- tisocial behavior against other employees was more strongly related to victimization among younger as compared to older employees. A problem-focused strategy that does not involve an aggressive response by the victim is escaping the situation. Escape could include quitting or requesting a transfer within the organization (Niedl 1996, Tepper 2000, Zapf & Gross 2001), being frequently absent from
730 Aquino
•
Thau
ituation significantly worse. Cortina & Magley (2003) found that employees who tried to cope with having been targets of aggressive action by confronting the perpetrator were more likely to report being recipients of work-retaliation victimization (e.g., discharge, involuntary transfer, demotion). Employees who used other voice strategies, such as seeking social support from others or whistle blowing, were more likely to be recipients of social-retaliation victimiza- tion (e.g., harassment, ostracism, threats) when dealing with powerful wrongdoers. Although Cortina & Magley (2003) found that retalia- tory victimization has negative psychological and health consequences, worse consequences were experienced by employees who failed to speak out at all. Studies of problem-focused strategies sug- gest that the more confrontational or aggressive the strategy, the more likely it is that the re- lationship between victim and perpetrator will escalate into a cycle of reciprocal aggression. Strategies such as expressing voice (Cortina & Magley 2003) or taking more of a constructive, problem-solving approach to con?ict (Hogh & Dofradottir 2001) can be effective, perhaps be- cause they help victims gain a sense of con- trol over their situation. Perceiving control over the situation is important because these per- ceptions have been associated with reduced fear and enhanced emotional well-being for people who experience victimization (Schat &Kelloway 2000). Based on our review, it appears that avoiding the perpetrator(s) or finding a way to leave the situation is the most effective coping strategy if effectiveness is defined in terms of reducing the frequency of being victimized, minimizing the cost of executing the strategy for the victim, and avoiding further con?ict escalation. According to some studies (Keashly et al. 1994, Zapf &Gross 2001), it is also the preferred option for many victims. If leaving the situation is im- practical or undesirable, then problem-solving strategies that allow the victim to gain a sense of control over his or her environment are likely to be most efficacious (see sidebar Self-Defeating Responses to Thwarted Needs).
SELF-DEFEATING RESPONSES TO THWARTED NEEDS
Some evidence suggests that employees who are victimized en- gage in a pattern of interpersonal work behaviors that might lead to further victimization. Thau et al. (2007) refer to these behaviors as selfdefeating because they are inimical to the needs employ- ees pursue (Baumeister & Scher 1988). In a study with employees and their supervisors in a clinical chemical laboratory, Thau et al. (2007) found that employees who feel that their belongingness needs are thwarted are more likely to engage in interpersonally harmful behaviors and less likely to engage in helping behaviors. Based on the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner 1960), coworkers will likely respond negatively and further thwart employees' be- longingness needs. This may occur because employees who are victimized undergo self-regulation problems that make them fo- cus on themselves and ignore the normative demands of their context (Blackhart et al. 2006). If this is true, then victimized employees may become locked into a vicious cycle in which the experience of victimization motivates them to engage in behav- iors that invite further victimization.
Emotion-Focused Coping Strategies
We found some studies that examined the use of internal coping strategies to minimize the nega- tive emotional and psychological consequences of victimization. One emotion-focused strategy is to use humor as a way to cope with victim- ization. Hogh & Dofradottir (2001) found that employees who were classified as being sub- jected to bullying (i.e., twice a month or daily over a 12-month period) used humor as a cop- ing strategy more than those who reported be- ing somewhat exposed to bullying (i.e., they reported being bullied between 1-23 times within the past 12 months) or not exposed at all. Keashly et al. (1994) reported that 40% of the 59 student participants in their sample said that they made a joke of the behavior as a way of coping with a hostile workplace event. Studies of how employees respond to cus- tomers' verbal aggression show that they use either of two emotion-focused coping strate- gies: surface acting, which involves modifying behaviors by suppressing or faking expressions,
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization 731
and deep acting, which involves changing cognitions through perspective taking or focusing on positive things to regulate feelings (Grandey 2004). Grandey (2004) found that call center employees who experienced high stress as a result of an aggressive encounter with a cus- tomer performed more surface than deep act- ing compared to employees who experienced lower stress as a result of an aggressive customer encounter. Positive refocusing and perspective taking were more likely to be used by the low- stress than the high-stress employee group. Another emotion-focused coping strategy is alcohol consumption. Although alcohol consumption is a behavior, we classify it as an emotion-focused strategy because in the context of workplace victimization, imbibing alcohol can reduce negative anxiety-related physiological and emotional effects of being victimized (Rospenda 2002). Supporting this possibility, nonsexual forms of victimization have been shown to be associated with increased drinking for men and women (Richman et al. 1992, 1996), suggesting that for some employ- ees, drinking might be perceived as a legitimate way of managing the stress of being victimized. Forgiveness is a third emotion-focused cop- ing strategy that has begun to receive some at- tention in the literature. Forgiveness has been defined as an effort by the victim of harm-doing to overcome negative emotions and thoughts about the perpetrator and replace them with neutral or even positive ones (Aquino et al. 2006). Studies have shown that victimized em- ployees are sometimes willing to forgive their transgressors (Aquino et al. 2006, Bradfield &Aquino 1999, Hallberg & Strandmark 2006, Struthers et al. 2005). However, despite ev- idence in the psychology literature that for- giveness can neutralize negative psychological consequences that result from being seriously victimized (Freedman & Enright 1996), we could not find one published empirical study that explicitly examined the consequences of forgiveness in the context of workplace victimization. The paucity of research on forgiveness as a coping strategy following victimization is an obvious gap in the literature we reviewed.
732 Aquino
CONCLUSIONS
Our review of the literature identified three main challenges facing the study of work- place aggression from the target's perspective. First, the proliferation of constructs for de- scribing the phenomenon poses a potential ob- stacle to achieving theoretical parsimony. Sec- ond, the causal direction of several relationships reported in the literature, particularly those regarding personality and victimization, is un- clear. Third, a large number of studies that ex- amine relationships between victimization and various individual and organizational factors were not theoretically motivated. We consider each of these challenges and offer suggestions for how the field might address them.
Proliferation of Constructs
Philosophers of science have argued that the introduction of multiple terms to describe a similar phenomenon can impede scientific par- simony and theoretical progress (e.g., Popper 1959/2002, Sober 1981). We do not advocate the use any particular measure of victimiza- tion in our review; however, we do believe it is worth exploring whether the conceptual over- lap among the various measures used by re- searchers who claim to be tapping different con- structs may actually be tapping into the same general construct that we have labeled work- place victimization. If this is true, then it im- plies that one measure may be as good as any other for examining the consequences of workplace victimization, so long as one makes clear what the relationship is between victim and perpetrator (i.e., is the perpetrator a coworker, supervisor, customer, etc.). Following the lead of the organizational citizenship literature (LePine et al. 2002), perhaps it is time for an empirical assessment to be conducted on the various measures of victimization most commonly used by researchers to determine whether they tap a common construct or whether there are in fact important dis- tinctions between them that have implica- tions for developing a theory of victimization. Alternatively, researchers who believe their
•
Thau
articular construct, and the instrument used to measure it, does in fact capture a type of victimization that is distinct from other conceptualizations could support their claim empiri- cally by showing that their construct predicts consequences that other constructs within the same victimization family (see Table 1) do not predict. For now, it seems important for inves- tigators to acknowledge how related construct definitions used by other scholars working in the area can inform the state of the art of their own favored niche constructs.
Inconsistent Findings
We reported several inconsistent findings in the literature for variables that might indicate an employee's vulnerability to victimization, such as his or her gender or position within the organization's formal hierarchy or informal social network. We view these variables as possible indicators of vulnerability because they signify an employee's status and relative power within the organization. Perhaps one reason for the inconsistent findings is that markers of vulnerability may not always be salient to perpetrators (Fiske & Taylor 2007). If so, then situational factors that heighten the salience of such markers may also increase an employee's risk of victimization if the employee happens to possess them. A sec- ond reason why indicators of vulnerability have not been consistently related to victimization is that the perpetrator needs to be motivated to aggress. It follows that situational conditions that increase a would-be perpetrator's moti- vation to aggress, such as experiencing role con?ict, working interdependently, or being in the presence of others who violate norms of so- cial respect, can increase the likelihood that the would-be perpetrator will aggress against employees who possess markers of vulnerability.
Theoretical Development
Theoretical models of victimization have been proposed (e.g., Aquino & Lamertz 2004, Einarsen 2000, Keashly & Harvey 2005, OlsonBuchanan & Boswell 2008); however,
many of the studies we reviewed failed to provide a clear theoretical rationale for variable selection. We found theoretical underspecification to be particularly true of research on bullying and mobbing conducted in North- ern Europe. Many of the Northern European studies we reviewed were more epidemiolog- ical, designed to assess frequencies of victim- ization among various groups rather than test theoretically derived hypotheses. One way to bring greater coherence to the literature would be for researchers to conduct more theory- guided meta-analyses similar to that of Bowling & Beehr (2006). We also note that both Euro- pean and North American researchers often ig- nore well-established criminological literature on victimization (e.g., Hindelang et al. 1978, Schafer 1968). For example, Hindelang and col- leagues (1978) proposed a model that explains victimization risk in terms of lifestyle exposure. Their model proposes that sociodemographic characteristics are associated with lifestyle dif- ferences that are expressed in the types of activ- ities a person engages in, the time during which these activities occur, and the places they occur. With some modifications, their model could be applied to explain the risk of victimization in or- ganizational settings since it is likely that factors that make people vulnerable to being victimized in one setting will do so in another. We found numerous studies documenting consistent relationships between victimization and personality variables including negative affectivity and self-esteem. As we noted above, the causal direction of these relationships needs to be more firmly established. Theoretical ar- guments support the causal links from person- ality characteristics to victimization and vice versa. A case can also be made for bidirectional causality. What is clearly needed are studies us- ing longitudinal or experimental designs to test which of these possibilities is best supported by data. Answering the causality question is impor- tant because it can help researchers understand whether the likelihood of being victimized may partly be a function of the victim's behav- ioral tendencies, which might be amenable to modification.
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization
733
VICTIMIZATION IN DYADIC RELATIONSHIPS
Victimization often emerges in the context of dyadic relation- ships. Aquino & Lamertz (2004) proposed that employees some- times enact certain relational roles within the organization's social system, leading them to experience either episodic or institution- alized forms of victimization. Aquino & Lamertz (2004) proposed four archetypal relational roles that can emerge in organizations: the dominating perpetrator, the reactive perpetrator, the submis- sive victim, and the provocative victim. Aquino & Lamertz (2004) theorized that the relationship between a given pair of employees who fit these role types will be characterized by certain behavioral styles, some of which can lead to interactions that are volatile and can lead one party to perceive that he or she has been victimized by the other. For example, a relational role composed of an em- ployee who fits the provocative victim role type (i.e., he or she consistently behave in ways that violate social norms and threaten others' identities) and one who fits the reactive perpetrator role type (i.e., he or she responds very aggressively to perceived threats to his or her status or identity) is likely to be characterized by spo- radic negative interactions over time that one or both parties can label as victimizing behavior.
Final Observations
We close with three final observations about the state of workplace victimization research. First, few studies make cross-cultural compar- isons of victimization. For example, many of the bullying studies have been conducted in Scan- dinavian countries, which Hofstede (1980) has shown to be more egalitarian and feminine- oriented than the United States. In contrast, most studies of abusive supervision and inci- vility have been conducted in U.S. samples. It would be valuable to know whether the patterns of relationships found among these variables in existing studies would be replicated in another culture. Second, relatively few studies describe the process of victimizaSUMMARY POINTS
tion. Given the dynamic nature of social interaction and the possibility that victimiza- tion likely involves actions and reactions of would-be perpetrators and likely victims (An- dersson & Pearson 1999, Aquino & Lamertz 2004, Glomb 2002), it seems important for re- searchers to conduct more studies document- ing the complexity of this unfolding process, particularly in the context of ongoing rela- tionships (see sidebar Victimization in Dyadic Relationships). Finally, more work is needed examining the efficacy of prevention and intervention pro- grams designed to help employees cope with being victimized. We reported some studies showing how institutional and social support might buffer the negative effects of victimiza- tion, but such studies are rare. The aim of our review was to bring greater coherence to the study of what we have referred to as workplace victimization. We have tried to show that the many constructs that researchers have introduced into the literature to study aggression from the target's perspective share a common assumption about how these be- haviors thwart the satisfaction of fundamental human needs. For this reason, we encouraged researchers to give due recognition to other constructs occupying the same conceptual space as their own. Another goal of our review was to document the parallel efforts of European and North American researchers. A number of findings reported by these scholars converge; others do not. What we noticed, though, is that researchers on one continent do not always acknowledge the work being done on the other. We hope that our review will help researchers bridge this continental divide so the study of workplace aggression from the target's perspective can become a truly international enterprise.
1. An employee's well-being is harmed when fundamental psychological and physiological needs are unmet or thwarted. In general, psychological needs include a sense of belonging, a feeling that one is a worthy individual, believing that one has the ability to predict and
734
Aquino
•
Thau
to cognitively control one's environment, and being able to trust others. The most basic physiological need is the avoidance of pain. 2. Many constructs that researchers have introduced into the literature share a common assumption about how the behaviors of interest thwart the satisfaction of fundamental human needs. Conceptual differences among these constructs are subtle, and research that focuses exclusively on constructs that are only marginally different from others within the family of victimizing behaviors impedes theoretical progress. 3. The costs of workplace victimization are high: Victims of aggressive actions suffer psychologically, become fatigued, stressed, sick, and sometimes traumatized. Consequently, group and organizational performance can suffer. 4. Among the many investigations into the role of personality as a predictor of victimization, the propensity to experience negative affect, which includes emotions such as anger, fear, worry, anxiousness, sadness, and depression, shows the most consistent relationship to various victimization measures. 5. Many studies have found reliable relationships between experiencing workplace victimization and a host of negative psychological, emotional, and physiological outcomes. Among the negative psychological consequences that have been reported are increased depression and anxiety, job stress, posttraumatic stress, and decreased mental health. Affective responses to being victimized include diminished emotional well-being, lower levels of job and life satisfaction, shame, fear, and emotional exhaustion. 6. Organizational factors such as role con?ict and role ambiguity as well as management styles that do not provide clear guidelines for what constitutes inappropriate conduct can increase employees' risk of being victimized. 7. The coping strategy that appears to consistently produce a significant improvement in a victim's current circumstances is finding a way to avoid the perpetrator(s) or to leave the situation. Strategies that involve an active response to the bullies (e.g., fighting back with similar means, talking to the bullies) often make the situation significantly worse by escalating con?ict. Coping strategies that allow victims to experience greater control over their situation, such as expressing voice or engaging in constructive problem solving, can also be effective.
FUTURE ISSUES 1. Past studies have focused on negative outcomes of victimization but have paid almost no attention to how victims may forgive or reconcile with perpetrators. The paucity of research on forgiveness as a coping strategy following victimization is an obvious gap in the literature. 2. It is time for an empirical assessment to be conducted on the various measures of victimization most commonly used by researchers to determine whether they tap a common construct or whether important distinctions exist between them that have implications for developing a theory of victimization.
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization
735
3. The field could benefit from more cross-disciplinary applications of criminological theories to explain workplace victimization since many of the factors that make people vulnerable to being victimized in one setting are likely to do so in another. 4. Establishing causality for many of the relationships found in the literature among personality, behavior, and victimization is important because it can help researchers understand whether the likelihood of being victimized may partly be a function of the victim's be- havioral tendencies, which might be amenable to modification. 5. Very few studies make cross-cultural comparisons of victimization. 6. It would be valuable to know whether the patterns of relationships found among these variables in existing studies would be replicated in another culture. 7. Like many phenomena in organizational behavior, causal tests of theories are scarce because longitudinal and experimental data are rare. More experimental and longitudinal studies are needed to triangulate cross-sectional field studies of victimization. 8. More work is needed examining the efficacy of prevention and intervention programs designed to help employees cope with being victimized.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Susan Fiske, Helge Hoel, Gregory Marr, Denise Salin, and Daniel Skarlicki for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. We also thank Marjorie Laven, Anne Pedersen, and Xiaozhou Hu for their assistance with the prepartion of the manuscript. This work was partially supported by a grant, awarded to Karl Aquino, from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
LITERATURE CITED
Agervold M, Mikkelsen EG. 2004. Relationships between bullying, psychosocial work environment and individual stress reactions. Work Stress 18:336-51 Allen NB, Badcock PBT. 2003. The social risk hypothesis of depressed mood: evolutionary, psychosocial, and neurobiological perspectives. Psychol. Bull. 129:887-913 Amir M. 1967. Victim precipitated forcible rape. J. Crim. Law 58(4):493-502 Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. 2002. Human aggression. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53:27-51 Andersson LM, Pearson CM. 1999. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Acad. Manage. Rev. 24:452-71 Aquino K. 2000. Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: the effects of hierarchical status and con?ict management style. J. Manage. 26:171-93 Aquino K, Bommer WH. 2003. Preferential mistreatment: how victim status moderates the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace victimization. Organ. Sci. 14:374-85 Aquino K, Bradfield M. 2000. Perceived victimization in the workplace: the role of situational factors and victim characteristics. Organ. Sci. 11:525-37
736 Aquino
•
Thau
Aquino K, Byron K. 2002. Dominating interpersonal behavior and perceived victimization in groups: evidence for a curvilinear relationship. J. Manage. 28:69-87 Aquino K, Douglas S. 2003. Identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations: the moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 90:195-208 Aquino K, Douglas S, Martinko MJ. 2004. Overt anger in response to victimization: attributional style and organizational norms as moderators. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 9:152-64 Aquino K, Grover SL, Bradfield M, Allen D. 1999. The effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-determination on workplace victimization. Acad. Manage. J. 42:260-72 Aquino K, Lamertz K. 2004. A relational model of workplace victimization: social roles and patterns of victimization in dyadic relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:1023-34 Aquino K, Tripp TM, Bies RJ. 2006. Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, and avoidance in organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:653-68 Ashforth BE. 1997. Petty tyranny in organizations: a preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Can. J. Admin. Sci. 14:126-40 Barling J, Dupr´ KE, Kelloway EK. 2009. Predicting workplace aggression and violence. Annu. Rev. Psychol. e 60:In press Baron RA, Neuman JH, Geddes D. 1999. Social and personal determinants of workplace aggression: evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and the type A behavior pattern. Aggress. Behav. 25:281-96 Bies RJ, Moag JS. 1986. Interactional justice: communication criteria for fairness. In Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 1, ed. B Sheppard, pp. 43-55. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Bj ¨ orkqvist K, Osterman K, Hjelt-B¨ M. 1994. Aggression among university employees. Aggress. Behav. ¨ ack 20:173-83 Blackhart GC, Baumeister RF, Twenge JM. 2006. Rejection's impact on self-defeating, prosocial, antisocial, and self-regulatory behaviors. In Self and Relationships: Connecting Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Processes, ed. KD Vohs, EJ Finkel, pp. 237-53. New York: Guilford Blaney PH. 1986. Affect and memory: a review. Psychol. Bull. 99:229-46 Bowling NA, Beehr TA. 2006. Workplace harassment from the victim's perspective: a theoretical model and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:998-1012 Bradfield M, Aquino K. 1999. The effects of blame attributions and offender likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. J. Manage. 25:607-31 Budd JW, Arvey RD, Lawless P. 1996. Correlates and consequences of workplace violence. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 1:197-210 Buss AH. 1961. The Psychology of Aggression. New York: Wiley Cortina LM, Berdahl J. 2008. Sexual harassment in organizations: a decade of research in review. In Handbook of Organizational Behavior, ed. L Cooper, J Barling, pp. 469-97. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Cortina LM, Magley VJ. 2003. Raising voice, risking retaliation: events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 8:247-65 Cortina LM, Magley VJ, Williams JH, Langhout RD. 2001. Incivility in the workplace: incidence and impact. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 6:64-80 Costa PT, McCrae RR, Dye DA. 1991. Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: a revision of the NEO personality inventory. Personal. Individ. Differ. 12: 887-98 Coyne I, Chong PSL, Seigne E, Randall P. 2003. Self and peer nominations of bullying: an analysis of incident rates, individual differences, and perceptions of the working environment. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 12:209-28 Coyne I, Craig J, Chong PSL. 2004. Workplace bullying in a group context. Br. J. Guid. Couns. 32:301-17 Coyne I, Seigne E, Randall P. 2000. Predicting workplace victim status from personality. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 9:335-49 Duffy MK, Ganster DC, Pagon M. 2002. Social undermining and social support in the workplace. Acad. Manage. J. 45:331-51 Duffy MK, Ganster DC, Shaw JD, Johnson JL, Pagon M. 2006a. The social context of undermining behavior at work. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 101:105-26
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization
737
Duffy MK, Shaw JD, Scott KL, Tepper BJ. 2006b. The moderating roles of self-esteem and neuroticism. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:1066-77 Dupr´ KE, Inness M, Connelly CE, Barling J, Hoption C. 2006. Workplace aggression in teenage part-time e employees. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:987-97 Einarsen S. 2000. Harassment and bullying at work: a review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggress. Violent Behav. 5:379-401 Einarsen S, Raknes BI. 1997. Harassment at work and the victimization of men. Violence Vict. 12:247-63 Einarsen S, Raknes BI, Matthiesen SB. 1994. Bullying and harassment at work and their relationship to work environment quality: an exploratory study. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 4:381-401 Einarsen S, Skogstad A. 1996. Bullying at work: epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 5:185-201 Felson RB, Steadman HJ. 1983. Situational factors in disputes leading to criminal violence. Criminology 21:5974 Fiske ST. 2004. Intent and ordinary bias: unintended thought and social motivation create causal prejudice. Soc. Just. Res. 17:117-27 Fiske ST, Taylor SE. 2007. Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill Fitzgerald LF. 1993. Sexual harassment—violence against women in the workplace. Am. Psychol. 48:1070-75 Fitzpatrick KM, Wilson M. 1999. Exposure to violence and posttraumatic stress symptomatology among abortion clinic workers. J. Trauma. Stress 12:227-42 Freedman SR, Enright RD. 1996. Forgiveness as an intervention goal with incest survivors. J. Couns. Clin. Psychol. 64:983-92 Glasø L, Matthiesen SB, Nielsen MB, Einarsen S. 2007. Do targets of workplace bullying portray a general victim personality profile? Scand. J. Psychol. 48:313-19 Glomb TM. 2002. Workplace anger and aggression: informing conceptual models with data from specific encounters. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 7:20-36 Goldberg LS, Grandey AA. 2007. Display rules versus display autonomy: emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and task performance in a call center simulation. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 12(3):301-18 Gouldner AW. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 25:161-78 Grandey AA. 2004. The customer is not always right: customer aggression and emotional regulation of service employees. J. Org. Behav. 25:397-418 Grandey AA, Kern JH, Frone MR. 2007. Verbal abuse from outsiders versus insiders: comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotional labor. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 12(1):63-79 Greenberg J, Colquitt J. 2005. Handbook of Organizational Justice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Haines VY, Marchand A, Harvey S. 2006. Crossover of workplace aggression experiences in dual-earner couples. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 11:305-14 Hallberg LRM, Strandmark M. 2006. Health consequences of workplace bullying: experiences from the perspective of employees in the public service sector. Int. J. Qual. Studies Health Well. 1:109-19 Hansen AM, Hogh A, Persson R, Karlson B, Garde AH, Orbaek P. 2006. Bullying at work, health outcomes, and physiological stress response. J. Psychosom. Res. 60:63-72 Harvey S, Keashly L. 2003. Predicting the risk for aggression in the workplace: risk factors, self-esteem and time at work. Soc. Behav. Personal. 31:807-14 Hindelang MJ, Gottfredson MR, Garofolo J. 1978. Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Hoel H, Cooper CL, Faragher B. 2001. The experience of bullying in Great Britain: the impact of organizational status. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 10:443-65 Hoel H, Rayner C, Cooper CL. 1999. Workplace bullying. Int. Rev. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 10:195-230 Hoel H, Faragher B, Cooper CL. 2004. Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying behaviors are not necessarily equally damaging. Br. J. Guid. Couns. 32:367-87 Hofstede G. 1980. Culture's Consequences: Individual Differences in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Hogh A, Borg V, Mikkelsen KL. 2003. Work-related violence as a predictor of fatigue: a 5-year follow-up of the Danish work environment cohort study. Work Stress 17:182-94
738 Aquino
•
Thau
Hogh A, Dofradottir A. 2001. Coping with bullying in the workplace. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 10:485-95 Hogh A, Henriksson ME, Burr H. 2005. A 5-year follow-up study of aggression at work and psychological health. Int. J. Behav. Med. 12:256-65 Hogh A, Viitasara E. 2005. A systematic review of longitudinal studies of nonfatal workplace violence. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 14:291-313 Hubert AB, van Veldhoven M. Risk sectors for undesirable behavior and mobbing. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 10:415-24 Ickes W, Dugosh JW, Simpson JA, Wilson CL. 2003. Suspicious minds: the motivation to acquire relationship threatening information. Pers. Relat. 10:131-48 Jennifer D, Cowie H, Ananiadou K. 2003. Perceptions and experience of workplace bullying in five different working populations. Aggress. Behav. 29:489-96 Jockin V, Arvey RD, McGue M. 2001. Perceived victimization moderates self-reports of workplace aggression and con?ict. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:1262-69 Kaukiainen A, Salmivalli C, Bjorkqvist K, Osterman K, Lahtinen A, et al. 2001. Overt and covert aggression in work settings in relation to the subjective well-being of employees. Aggress. Behav. 27:360-71 Keashly L. 1998. Emotional abuse in the workplace: conceptual and empirical issues. J. Emot. Abuse 1:85-117 Keashly L, Harvey S. 2005. Emotional abuse in the workplace. In Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets, ed. S Fox, PE Spector, pp. 201-35. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. Keashly L, Hunter S, Harvey S. 1997. Abusive interaction and role state stressors: relative impact on student residence assistant stress and work attitudes. Work Stress. 11:175-85 Keashly L, Trott V, MacLean LM. 1994. Abusive behavior in the workplace: a preliminary investigation. Violence Vict. 9:341-57 Kivim¨ M, Elovainio M, Vahtera J. 2000. Workplace bullying and sickness absence in hospital staff. Occup. aki Environ. Med. 57:656-60 Kivimaki M, Virtanen M, Vartia M, Elovainio M, Vahtera J, Keltikangas-Jarvinen L. 2003. Workplace bullying and the risk of cardiovascular disease and depression. Occup. Environ. Med. 60:779-83 Kramer RM. 1998. Paranoid cognition in social systems: thinking and acting in the shadow of doubt. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2:251-75 Lamertz K, Aquino K. 2004. Social power, social status and perceptual similarity of workplace victimization: a social network analysis of stratification. Hum. Relat. 57:795-822 Lapierre LM, Spector PE, Leck JD. 2005. Sexual versus nonsexual workplace aggression and victims' overall job satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 10:155-69 Lazarus RS, Folkman S. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer LeBlanc MM, Kelloway EK. 2002. Predictors and outcomes of workplace violence and aggression. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:444-53 Lee R, Brotheridge C. 2006. When prey turns predatory: workplace bullying as a predictor of counteraggression/bullying, coping, and well being. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 15:352-77 LePine JA, Erez A, Johnson DE. 2002. A meta-analysis of the dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 87(1):52-65 Lewis D. 2004. Bullying at work: the impact of shame among university and college lecturers. Br. J. Guid. Couns. 32:281-99 Lewis SE, Orford JLM. 2005. Women's experiences of workplace bullying: changes in social relationships. J. Comm. Appl. Soc. 15:29-47 Leymann H. 1990. Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence Vict. 5:119-26 Leymann H. 1996. The content and development of mobbing at work. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 5:165-84 Leymann H, Gustavson A. 1996. Mobbing at work and the development of post-traumatic stress disorders. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 5:251-75 Liefooghe APD, Davey KM. 2001. Accounts of workplace bullying: the role of the organization. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 10:375-92 Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. 2001. MMPI-2 configurations among victims of bullying at work. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 10:467-84 Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. 2004. Psychiatric distress and symptoms of PTSD among victims of bullying at work. Br. J. Guid. Couns. 32:335-56
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization
739
ikkelsen EG, Einarsen S. 2001. Bullying in Danish work-life: prevalence and health correlates. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 10:393-413 Mikkelsen EG, Einarsen S. 2002. Basic assumptions and post-traumatic stress among victims of workplace bullying. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 11:87-111 Mitchell MS, Ambrose ML. 2007. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:1159-68 Niedl K. 1996. Mobbing and well-being: economic and personnel development implications. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 5:239-49 Olafsson RF, J ´ ´ ohannsd ´ ottir HL. 2004. Coping with bullying in the workplace: the effect of gender, age and type of bullying. Br. J. Guid. Couns. 32:319-33 O'Leary-Kelly AM, Paetzold RL, Griffin RW. 2000. Sexual harassment as aggressive behavior: an actor-based perspective. Acad. Manage. Rev. 25:372-88 Olson-Buchanan JB, Boswell WR. 2008. An integrative model of experiencing and responding to mistreatment at work. Acad. Manage. Rev. 33:76-96 Popper K. 2002 (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Routledge. 2nd Engl. ed. Quine L. 2001. Workplace bullying in nurses. J. Health Psychol. 6:73-84 Richman JA, Flaherty A, Rospenda KM. 1996. Perceived workplace harassment experiences and problem drinking among physicians: broadening the stress/alienation paradigm. Addiction 91:391-403 Richman JA, Flaherty A, Rospenda KM, Christensen ML. 1992. Mental health consequences and correlates of reported medical student abuse. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 267:692-94 Rogers KA, Kelloway EK. 1997. Violence at work: personal and organizational outcomes. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2:63-71 Rospenda KM. 2002. Workplace harassment, services utilization, and drinking outcomes. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 7:141-55 Rospenda KM, Richman JA, Shannon CA. 2006. Patterns of workplace harassment, gender, and use of services: an update. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 11:379-93 Salin D. 2001. Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: a comparison of two different strategies for measuring bullying. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 10:425-41 Salin D. 2003a. The significance of gender in the prevalence, forms and perceptions of workplace bullying. Nord. Organ. 5:30-50 Salin D. 2003b. Ways of explaining workplace bullying: a review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Hum. Relat. 56:1213-32 Salmivalli C, Lagerspetz K, Bj ¨ orkqvist K, Osterman K, Kauikianen A. 1996. Bullying as a group process: ¨ participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggress. Behav. 22:1-15 Schafer S. 1968. The Victim and His Criminal: A Study in Functional Responsibility. New York: Random House Schat ACH, Kelloway EK. 2000. Effects of perceived control on the outcomes of workplace aggression and violence. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 5:386-402 Schat ACH, Kelloway EK. 2003. Reducing the adverse consequences of workplace aggression and violence: the buffering effects of organizational support. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 8:110-22 Skogstad A, Einarsen S, Torsheim T, Aasland MS, Hetland H. 2007a. The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 12:80-92 Skogstad A, Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. 2007b. Organizational changes: a precursor of bullying at work. Int. J. Org. Theory Behav. 10:58-94 Sober E. 1981. The principle of parsimony. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 32(2):145-56 Stevens LE, Fiske ST. 1995. Motivation and cognition in social life: a social survival perspective. Soc. Cogn. 13:189-214 Strandmark MK, Hallberg LRM. 2006. The origin of workplace bullying: experiences from the perspective of bully victims in the public service sector. J. Nurs. Manage. 14:1-10 Struthers CW, Dupuis R, Eaton J. 2005. Promoting forgiveness among coworkers following a workplace transgression. The effects of social motivation training. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 37:299-308 Tehrani N. 2004. Bullying: a source of chronic post traumatic stress? Br. J. Guid. Couns. 32:357-466 Tepper BJ. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Acad. Manage. J. 43:178-90
740 Aquino
•
Thau
Tepper BJ. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: review, synthesis, and research agenda. J. Manage. 33:261-89 Tepper BJ, Duffy MK, Shaw JD. 2001. Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates' resistance. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:974-83 Tepper BJ, Duffy MK, Henle CA, Lambert LS. 2006. Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Pers. Psychol. 59:101-23 Thau S, Aquino K, Poortvliet PM. 2007. Self-defeating behaviors in organizations: the relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal work behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:840-47 Tripp TM, Bies RJ, Aquino K. 2002. Poetic justice or petty jealousy? The aesthetics of revenge. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 89:966-84 Vartia M. 1996. The sources of bullying—psychological work environment and organizational climate. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 5:203-14 Vartia M, Hyyti J. 2002. Gender differences in workplace bullying among prison officers. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 11:113-26 Watson D, Clark LA. 1984. Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychol. Bull. 96:465-90 Winstanley S, Whittington R. 2002. Anxiety, burnout and coping styles in general hospital staff exposed to workplace aggression: a cyclical model of burnout and vulnerability to aggression. Work Stress 16:302-15 Zapf D. 1999. Organizational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying at work. Int. J. Manpower 20:70-85 Zapf D, Gross C. 2001. Con?ict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: a replication and extension. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 10:497-522 Zapf D, Knorz C, Kulla M. 1996. On the relationship between mobbing factors, and job content, social work environment, and health outcomes. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 5:215-37 Zellars KL, Tepper BJ, Duffy MK. 2002. Abusive supervision and subordinate's organizational citizenship behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:1068-76
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization
741
Annual Review of Psychology
Contents
Prefatory Emotion Theory and Research: Highlights, Unanswered Questions, and Emerging Issues CarrollE.Izardppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppp1 Concepts and Categories Concepts and Categories: A Cognitive Neuropsychological Perspective BradfordZ.MahonandAlfonsoCaramazzapppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppp27 Judgment and Decision Making Mindful Judgment and Decision Making ElkeU.WeberandEricJ.Johnsonpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppp53 Comparative Psychology Comparative Social Cognition NathanJ.EmeryandNicolaS.Claytonpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppp87 Development: Learning, Cognition, and Perception Learning from Others: Children's Construction of Concepts SusanA.Gelmanppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppp115 Early and Middle Childhood Social Withdrawal in Childhood KennethH.Rubin,RobertJ.Coplan, andJulieC.Bowkerppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 141 Adulthood and Aging The Adaptive Brain: Aging and Neurocognitive Scaffolding DeniseC.ParkandPatriciaReuter-Lorenzppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppp173
Volume 60, 2009
Substance Abuse Disorders A Tale of Two Systems: Co-Occurring Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorders Treatment for Adolescents ElizabethH.Hawkinspppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppp197
vii
Therapy for Specific Problems Therapy for Specific Problems: Youth Tobacco Cessation SusanJ.Curry,RobinJ.Mermelstein,andAmyK.Sporerpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 229 Adult Clinical Neuropsychology Neuropsychological Assessment of Dementia DavidP.SalmonandMarkW.Bondippppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppp257 Child Clinical Neuropsychology Relations Among Speech, Language, and Reading Disorders BruceF.PenningtonandDorothyV.M.Bishopppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppp283 Attitude Structure Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities JohnT.Jost,ChristopherM.Federico,andJaimeL.Napierppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 307 Intergroup relations, stigma, stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination Prejudice Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment of Research and Practice ElizabethLevyPaluckandDonaldP.Greenppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppp339 Cultural In?uences Personality: The Universal and the Culturally Specific StevenJ.HeineandEmmaE.Buchtelpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppp369 Community Psychology Community Psychology: Individuals and Interventions in Community Context EdisonJ.Trickettppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppp395 Leadership Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions BruceJ.Avolio,FredO.Walumbwa,andToddJ.Weberppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pp421 Training and Development Benefits of Training and Development for Individuals and Teams, Organizations, and Society HermanAguinisandKurtKraigerppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppp451
Marketing and Consumer Behavior Conceptual Consumption DanArielyandMichaelI.Nortonpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppp475
viii
Contents
Psychobiological Mechanisms Health Psychology: Developing Biologically Plausible Models Linking the Social World and Physical Health GregoryE.Miler,EdithChen,andSteveColepppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppp501 Health and Social Systems The Case for Cultural Competency in Psychotherapeutic Interventions Stanley Sue, Nolan Zane, Gordon C. Nagayama Hall, and Lauren K. Berger p p p p p p p p p p 525 Research Methodology Missing Data Analysis: Making It Work in the Real World JohnW.Grahampppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppp549 Psychometrics: Analysis of Latent Variables and Hypothetical Constructs Latent Variable Modeling of Differences and Changes with Longitudinal Data JohnJ.McArdleppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppp577 Evaluation The Renaissance of Field Experimentation in Evaluating Interventions WiliamR.ShadishandThomasD.Cookpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppp607 Timely Topics Adolescent Romantic Relationships W.AndrewCollins,DeborahP.Welsh,andWyndolFurmanpppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 631 Imitation, Empathy, and Mirror Neurons MarcoIacobonippppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppp653 Predicting Workplace Aggression and Violence JulianBarling,KathryneE.Dupr´e,andE.KevinKelloway ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 671 The Social Brain: Neural Basis of Social Knowledge RalphAdolphspppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppp693 Workplace Victimization: Aggression from the Target's Perspective KarlAquinoandStefanThauppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppp717 Indexes
C u m u l a t i v e I n d e x o f C o n t r i b u t i n g A u t h o r s , V o l u m
es50-60 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p743 CumulativeIndexofChapterTitles,Volumes50-60pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp748 Errata An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology articles may be found at http://psych.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
Contents
ix
doc_675262711.docx
The workplace is the physical location where someone works. Such a place can range from a home office to a large office building or factory. The workplace is one of the most important social spaces other than the home, constituting "a central concept for several entities: the worker and his/her family, the employing organisation, the customers of the organisation, and the society as a whole"
Case Study on Workplace Victimization: Aggression from the Target's Perspective
Karl Aquino1 and Stefan Thau2
1
Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z2; email: [email protected]
2
Organizational Behavior Subject Area, London Business School, London, United Kingdom NW1 4SA; email: [email protected]
ords
aggression, bullying, harassment, victimization, incivility
Abstract
This article reviews research on workplace victimization, which we define as acts of aggression perpetrated by one or more members of an organization that cause psychological, emotional, or physical harm to their intended target. We compare several types of victimizing behav- iors that have been introduced into the organizational psychology lit- erature to illustrate differences and similarities among them. We then review studies looking at who is likely to become a victim of aggression. Predictors include personality, demographic, behavioral, structural, and organizational variables. We also review research on coping strategies for victimization, which include problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies. We conclude with a summary of challenges for victimization research. These include addressing the proliferation of constructs and terms into the literature, attempting to clarify inconclusive findings, and using theory to guide the selection of study variables.
K e y W
717
Contents
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TYPES OF VICTIMIZING BEHAVIOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WHO BECOMES A VICTIM? . . . . . . . Personality Characteristics . . . . . . . . . Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structural Predictors of Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONSEQUENCES OF VICTIMIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STRATEGIES FOR COPING WITH VICTIMIZATION . . . . . . . . Problem-Focused Coping Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emotion-Focused Coping Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proliferation of Constructs . . . . . . . . . Inconsistent Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Development . . . . . . . . . . Final Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718 720 722 722 724 724 725 726 727 728 729 731 732 732 733 733 734
INTRODUCTION
Work organizations are like any other social setting where competition, scarce resources, time pressure, differences in goals and personalities, and other stresses of group life can sometimes lead people to aggress against coworkers, subordinates, and even authorities. Aggression has been defined as behavior directed toward an- other person or persons that is carried out with the intent to harm (Anderson & Bushman 2002, Buss 1961). For every perpetrator of workplace aggression, there is at least one victim. It is the victim's perspective that we examine in this re- view. By taking this perspective, we comple- ment Anderson & Bushman's (2002) Annual Review of Psychology article that focused on the factors that motivate aggression and Barling et al.'s (2009) review of the predictors of workplace aggression appearing in this volume.
718 Aquino
•
Previous reviews of aggression from a victim's perspective have been conducted (e.g., Einarsen 2000, Hoel et al. 1999, Hogh & Viitasara 2005, Salin 2003b, Tepper 2007); however, these reviews focused on specific types of aggressive behaviors such as bullying and abusive supervision. In contrast, we take a broader perspec- tive by including studies examining other forms of aggressive behaviors along with studies of how employees cope with their victimization experiences. Our review extends a recent metaanalysis of workplace harassment (Bowling & Beehr 2006) by including studies examining antecedents (e.g., Big 5 traits and informal status) and outcomes of victimization (e.g., revenge, seeking social support). Also, we offer a critique of the current state of research on workplace ag- gression from the target's perspective and pro- pose challenges for future research. We refer to the experience of being a target of workplace aggression as "workplace victimization." Workplace victimization occurs when an employee's well-being is harmed by an act of aggression perpetrated by one or more mem- bers of the organization. An employee's well- being is harmed when fundamental psycho- logical and physiological needs are unmet or thwarted. In general, these needs include a sense of belonging, a feeling that one is a wor- thy individual, believing that one has the ability to predict and to cognitively control one's environment, and being able to trust others (Stevens & Fiske 1995). The most basic physiological need is the avoidance of pain. We assume that being the target of workplace aggression can thwart the satisfaction of fundamental psycho- logical needs and/or in?ict psychological, emotional, and even physical pain upon its target. We stated above that aggression has been defined as behavior directed toward another per- son or persons carried out with the intent to harm. Adopting this definition of aggression raises the epistemological challenge of deter- mining whether an act was intentional and therefore aggressive. The position we adopt in our review is that there is no easy way to re- solve this issue, but because we are interested in aggression from the target's perspective, we
Thau
elieve that for theoretical and practical purposes it is reasonable to classify a behavior is aggressive if the target perceives some possi- bility that it was performed with the intent to harm. Our position recognizes that the target's interpretation of another employee's behavior is likely to be most consequential from predict- ing his or her response. At the same time, we acknowledge that in some cases it is important to rely on more than just the target's interpre- tation; if, for example, he or she is seeking legal remedy or if internal disciplinary action is to be taken against the harmdoer. As we document in our review, the costs of workplace victimization are high. Victims of aggressive actions suffer psychologically, be- come fatigued, stressed, sick, and sometimes traumatized. Consequently, individual, group, and organizational performance can suffer (Leymann 1990). Research on workplace ag- gression has increased over the past 20 years as these costs have become widely recognized by organizational psychologists, human resource practitioners, and the general public. Interest- ingly, North American scholars have generally studied the motives or characteristics of per- petrators of aggression, paying relatively less attention to understanding the experiences of victims, with the exception being studies of sex- ual harassment. In contrast, Northern Euro- pean scholars have examined questions such as (a) Why do some employees but not oth- ers become victims of aggression? (b) What organizational conditions make victimization more likely? (c) What are the psychological and behavioral consequences of victimization? (d ) What strategies do employees use to cope with victimization? In this review, we examine research on workplace victimization published from 1990 to the present to document the an- swers that past studies provide to these four questions. Our review is necessarily selective. We chose articles that explicitly assess the target's experi- ence, although some articles included in our re- view might have taken into account the role of the perpetrator if it was critical for understand- ing the target's response. We excluded from our
review studies that focus primarily on sexual harassment. Other scholars have already conducted reviews on that topic (e.g., Cortina &Berdahl 2008, Fitzgerald 1993, O'Leary-Kelly et al. 2000), so rather than covering old ground we survey the literature on nonsexual forms of aggression. We also excluded from our review studies examining interactional justice, which has been defined as "the quality of interpersonal treatment received during the enactment of organizational procedures" (Bies & Moag 1986, p. 44). Interactional justice is a type of work- place behavior that arguably falls within the conceptual domain of workplace victimization. However, we chose not to review research on interactional justice for two reasons. First, re- views of this literature have already been con- ducted (Greenberg & Colquitt 2005), and sec- ond, we believe that the construct belongs in broader discussion of organizational justice that our review was not intended to address. We ac- cessed the relevant literature by conducting a PsychInfo search of titles and abstracts cover- ing the period from 1990 to 2005 and a man- ual search of more recent journals in applied psychology and organizational behavior. We chose for inclusion only empirical articles writ- ten in English and published in peer-reviewed journals. We cite theoretical papers if we deemed them relevant for clarifying construct definitions. Our review begins by categorizing the types of victimizing behaviors researchers have stud- ied. We then review studies examining the various factors that have been empirically re- lated to perceptions of workplace victimization, looking first at individual factors such as per- sonality, behavior, and demographics before turning to structural factors such as the tar- get's formal or informal social position and to broader organizational-level factors such as the nature of the work being performed, job characteristics, and management styles. Next, we review studies documenting the conse- quences of victimization and how victimized employees cope with their experiences. We conclude with observations of what progress has been made in understanding workplace
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization 719
victimization and offer suggestions for advancing research in this area.
TYPES OF VICTIMIZING BEHAVIOR
Many kinds of aggressive behaviors can occur in the workplace, and researchers have introduced a myriad of terms into the literature to describe them. Among the ones appearing frequently in the literature are workplace harassment (Bjorkqvist et al. 1994, Bowling &¨ Beehr 2006), mobbing (Leymann 1996, Zapf et al. 1996), petty tyranny (Ashforth 1997), bul- lying (e.g., Einarsen & Skogstad 1996, Salin 2003b, Vartia 1996), emotional abuse (Keashly 1998), abusive supervision (Tepper 2000), so- cial undermining (Duffy et al. 2002), incivility (Andersson & Pearson 1999, Cortina et al. 2001), identity threats (Aquino & Douglas 2003), and victimization (Aquino et al. 1999). An underlying assumption of these descriptive terms is that the behavior being observed is aversive and potentially harmful to the intended target (see Table 1). Consequently, we believe all of them can be circumscribed within the broader construct space of workplace victim- ization as we have defined it. There are obviously differences among the behaviors examined by various writers. But these differences are not substantial enough in our judgment to warrant exclusion from the larger "family" of workplace victimization be- haviors that are the focus of this review. To take just one example, consider the definitions of workplace incivility and social undermin- ing. Andersson & Pearson (1999) define work- place incivility as "low intensity deviant behav- ior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual re- spect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of re- gard for others" (p. 457). In contrast, social un- dermining is defined as "behavior intended to hinder, over time, the ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and favorable reputation" (Duffy et al. 2002, p. 332). The conceptual dis720 Aquino
tinction between these two behaviors is that the intent to harm is less transparent to the victim of incivility than of social undermining. Yet both behaviors can thwart the satisfaction of fundamental psychological needs for self-esteem, a controllable and predictable environment, and sense of belonging. Both can also be construed by the victim as having been done intentionally. Consequently, for our purposes, they represent acts of workplace victimization. The terms used in past studies to define and measure various forms of victimizations have some similarities and dissimilarities. We already mentioned that we can distinguish between behaviors that cause physiological and psychological harm. We can also distinguish between behaviors that cause direct and indirect harm (Buss 1961). Most of the studies we reviewed do not explicitly differentiate between direct and indirect forms of victimization, although some data suggest that indirect aggression is more frequent than direct aggression (Baron et al. 1999). Table 1 summarizes the definitions of victimizing behaviors introduced by researchers. The table indicates whether the instruments used to measure these behaviors tap direct ag- gression, indirect aggression, or both. A review of Table 1 yields several insights into the current state of victimization research. First, most operationalizations emphasize psy- chological rather than physical harm, which makes sense because the latter are less common than the former (Barling et al. 2009). Physical acts of aggression such as hitting or pushing a fellow employee would likely result in se- rious punishment including criminal prosecu- tion or dismissal from the job. Thus, we expect physical aggression to occur less frequently be- cause the costs of engaging in such behavior are high. Second, some researchers are broadly in- terested in victimization by all organizational members without specific reference to the sta- tus of perpetrator (e.g., identity threat, Aquino & Douglas 2003; incivility, Andersson & Pearson 1999), whereas others make a dis- tinction between whether the employee is vic- timized by higher- (e.g., supervisors, Tepper
•
Thau
able 1 status
Constructs consistent with victimization definition by thwarted needs, direct/indirect behavior, and perpetrator Victimizing Thwarted needs are Definition of construct Psychological ? Physiological ? behaviors are Direct ? Indirect ? Perpetrator's status Higher ? Coworker ? Lower ?
Workplace harassment (Bj ¨ orkqvist et al. 1994, pp. 173-74): "Repeated activities, with the aim of bringing mental (but sometimes also physical) pain, and directed towards one or more individuals who, for one reason or another, are not able to defend themselves." Bullying (Einarsen & Skogstad 1996, p. 191): "A situation where one or several individuals persistently over a period of time perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of negative actions from one or several persons, in a situation where the target of bullying has difficulty in defending him or herself against these actions." Mobbing (Zapf et al. 1996, p. 215): "Severe form of harassing people in organizations." A petty tyrant (Ashforth 1997, p. 126) is "someone who uses their power and authority oppressively, capriciously, and perhaps vindictively." Emotional abuse includes verbal and nonverbal modes of expression; repeated, or part of a pattern; unwelcome and unsolicited; violate a standard of appropriate conduct toward others; result in harm or injury; actor intended to harm; actor is in a more powerful position (Keashly 1998). Workplace incivility (Andersson & Pearson 1999, p. 457; Cortina et al. 2001, p. 64): "Low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect."
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
(Continued )
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization
721
Table 1
(Continued ) Victimizing Thwarted needs are behaviors are Direct ? Indirect ? Perpetrator's status Higher ? Coworker ? Lower ?
Definition of construct Victimization (Aquino et al. 1999, p. 260): "Individual's perception of having been exposed, either momentarily or repeatedly, to the aggressive acts of one or more other persons." Abusive supervision (Tepper 2000, p. 178): "Extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact."
Psychological ?
Physiological ?
?
?
?
?
Social undermining (Duffy et al. 2002, p. 332): "Behavior intended to hinder, over time, the ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and favorable reputation." Identity threat (Aquino & Douglas 2003, p. 196): "Overt action by another party that challenges, calls into question, or diminishes a person's sense of competence, dignity, or self-worth."
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
2000) or same-status (coworkers, Aquino et al. 1999) organizational members. We found no studies that explicitly operationalized the victimization of higher-status by lower-status organizational members. Third, most of the Northern European operationalizations of victimization allow participants to indicate the sta- tus of the perpetrator separately, whereas most North American operationalizations make vir- tually no reference to the possibility of low- status perpetrators. Finally, Table 1 shows that at some level all of the research using these dif- ferent definitions deals with essentially the same phenomenon: victimization. Our review of the victimization literature reveals three streams of research that attempt to answer the question of why someone is likely to
become the target of aggression. The first investigates the role of the target's personality; the second investigates the target's behavior; and the third examines positional, structural, and social predictors of victimization.
WHO BECOMES A VICTIM? Personality Characteristics
Among the many investigations into the role of personality as a predictor of victimization, the propensity to experience negative affect (trait NA, Watson & Clark 1984)—which in- cludes emotions such as anger, fear, worry, anxiousness, sadness, and depression—shows the most consistent relationship to various
722
Aquino
•
Thau
victimization measures (e.g., Aquino et al. 1999, Aquino & Bradfield 2000, Coyne et al. 2000, Duffy et al. 2006b, Glasø et al. 2007, Matthiesen & Einarsen 1991, Tepper et al. 2006, Vartia 1996, Zellars et al. 2002). Several explanations for the NAvictimization relationship have been pro- posed. According to some investigators, the relationship may be partly due to high-NA employees being perceived as hostile, de- manding, or interpersonally difficult, making them more likely targets of aggression from other organizational members (Aquino et al. 1999, Aquino & Bradfield 2000, Tepper et al. 2006). This explanation is consistent with victim precipitation (Amir 1967), symbolic interactionist (Felson & Steadman 1983), and con?ict escalation (Glomb 2002) models, which suggest that employees with certain personality characteristics tend to act in ways that violate social norms or threaten others' identities. As a result, they are targeted for aggression by those seeking to enforce norms prescribing cooperation, respect, or deference in interpersonal relations. An alternative explanation for the NAvictimization relationship is that employees who have experienced aggression over a pe- riod of time developed high NA as a result (cf. Hansen et al. 2006, Mikkelsen & Einarsen 2002). Which of these explanations is more likely is difficult to determine without addi- tional longitudinal studies, which are quite rare (for an exception, see Kivimaki et al. 2003). A third possibility is that employees high in NA selectively recall (Blaney 1986) more negative events than do employees low in trait NA. This explanation needs to be tested with multisource designs that match employee and coworker reports to determine the level of agreement. A related explanation is that high- NA employees are more prone to make hostile attributions for ambiguous behaviors, and con- sequently they report more victimization than do employees low in NA. Supporting this possi- bility, Matthiesen & Einarsen (2004) found that some victims of bullying were extremely suspi-
MOTIVATION TO PERCEIVE VICTIMIZATION
Arguably, it is functional to know whether environments put one at risk of victimization. Knowing that one may be victimized can satisfy one's fundamental needs for uncertainty reduction and protecting selfesteem (Fiske 2004). However, the possibility of victimization may motivate employees to become hypervigilant to potential risks (Allen & Badcock 2003). Both situational and personality factors may contribute to some people being chroni- cally overattuned to potential victimization (Kramer 1998). Some evidence in the close relationships literature suggests that people who are strongly motivated to acquire information that reveals harm will suffer from poor relationship quality (Ickes et al. 2003). If the risk of victimization is chronically salient, minor negative events will gain more importance in people's cognitive and emo- tional processes, and so events that would be unnoticed by others may be interpreted as victimization experiences.
cious of the outside world, which could make them more likely to interpret others' behavior as being more malevolent. Another study re- ported a positive relationship between a mea- sure of hostile attribution bias and victimization (Aquino et al. 2004) (see sidebar Motivation to Perceive Victimization). Research on the relationship between per-sonality factors from the Big 5 reveals mixed findings. One study found that victimized em- ployees tend to be more extraverted (Glasø et al. 2007), whereas other studies show that victims are more introverted than nonvictims (Coyne et al. 2000) or that victims and nonvictims do not differ on extraversion at all (Coyne et al. 2003, Vartia 1996). Some studies report that victimized employees tend to be more consci- entious (Coyne et al. 2000), but other studies fail to support this relationship (Coyne et al. 2003). Coyne et al. (2003) found that victims of bullying tended to be lower in emotional sta- bility in comparison with a control sample of nonvictims, which is consistent with the studies of NA reviewed above since people who lackemotional stability are more prone to experi- ence negative emotions including anxiety, de- pression, and hostility (e.g., Costa et al. 1991).
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization
723
Several studies have explored the role of self-esteem as a predictor of victimization. These studies show that employees with low self-esteem report more victimization (e.g., Einarsen et al. 1994, Harvey & Keashly 2003, Matthiesen & Einarsen 2001, Vartia 1996; see Bowling & Beehr 2006 for a meta-analytic review). A number of investigators have ar- gued that victimization can undermine employees' self-esteem (Bjorkvist et al. 1994, Lee &¨ Brotheridge 2006, Liefooghe & Davey 2001, Tepper 2000), but like the other personality variables reviewed, the causal direction of the selfesteem-victimization relationship is un- clear. It could be that the relationship is due to previous victimization encounters and ac- cumulated state self-esteem levels. It may also be that the emotional and behavioral tone of people with low self-esteem invites victimiza- tion because someone with low self-esteem is less able to assertively defend him or her- self against others' aggression (Matthiesen & Einarsen 2001), deal constructively with con- ?ict (Zapf 1999), or challenge those who try to exploit them. Supporting this latter view, Coyne et al. (2000) found that employee victims of ag- gression tended to score lower on personality measures of assertiveness, competitiveness, and extraversion than do nonvictims.
ies, women report more victimization than men report (Aquino & Bradfield 2000; Bjorkqvist ¨ et al. 1994; Cortina et al. 2001; Salin 2001, 2003a; Tehrani 2004); in others, men report more victimization than do women ( Jennifer et al. 2003). Finally, some studies find no or only marginal gender effects (Einarsen & Skogstad 1996, Hansen et al. 2006, Leymann 1996, Vartia & Hyyti 2002). Bowling & Beehr's (2006) meta-analysis found that some demographic variables are reliably related to victimization. Among these relationships were that females were less likely to be victimized than were men, employees with longer tenure were more likely to be victimized than were those with shorter tenure, and older employees were less likely to be victimized than were younger ones. How- ever, Bowling & Beehr (2006) described all of these relationships as being relatively weak compared with the effects of work environ- ment variables. One conclusion we draw from the studies we reviewed is that employee de- mographic variables are likely to explain rel- atively little variance in victimization, and so a more fruitful approach would be to exam- ine possible mediators and moderators of the demographics-victimization relationship.
Behaviors
A handful of studies have directly examined how a target's behaviors might be associated with his or her perceptions of victimization. These studies show that low levels of citizenship be- havior (Aquino & Bommer 2003), voicing dis- content with previous mistreatment (Cortina & Magley 2003), and adopting an overly accom- modating con?ict management style (Aquino 2000, Zapf & Gross 2001) are associated with higher levels of victimization. However, Aquino (2000) also found that frequent victims used a dominant con?ict style more so than did non- victims. Aquino & Byron (2002) qualified the relationship between dominating behavior and victimization by showing a curvilinear pattern in student workgroups. The pattern was such that group members who were perceived as ex- hibiting either high or low levels of dominating
Demographics
Studies looking at the relationship between demographic variables including age, tenure, gender, and victimization do not show an obvious relationship between these variables. Zellars et al. (2002) report that employees' gender, age, and tenure were all unrelated to their percep- tion of supervisor abuse. Vartia (1996) found no correlations between gender and bullying and only a small correlation between age and bul- lying. Einarsen & Skogstad (1996) found that older employees reported significantly more bullying than younger ones reported. However, Einarsen & Raknes (1997) found that among male workers, older ones reported significantly less exposure to potentially harassing behavior than did younger ones. In a number of stud724 Aquino
•
Thau
behavior reported higher levels of victimization by group members than those who exhibited moderate levels of dominating behavior. However, this relationship was only found among men. The studies discussed in previous sections of this review examined how characteristics of victims might predict whether they are likely to become targets of workplace aggression. Other studies have examined social structural predic- tors of victimization. By social structural pre- dictors, we mean an employee's position within a larger social structure such as a formal hierar- chy or an informal social network.
Structural Predictors of Victimization
Employees occupying lower positions in the organization's formal hierarchy have been shown in several studies to report higher levels of victimization (Aquino 2000, Aquino et al. 2004, Bjorkqvist et al. 1994, Hoel et al. 2001, Keashly et al. 1994, Salin 2001). But other studies show no significant, direct effects of formal hier- archical position on victimization (Aquino &Bradfield 2000, Aquino & Douglas 2003). One study reports that employees in managerial po- sitions were more often victimized than those in nonmanagerial positions (Lamertz & Aquino 2004). We reviewed two studies that looked at victimization as a function of employees' struc- tural position within an informal social net- work. Using sociometric analysis, Coyne et al. (2004) studied 36 fire service teams in the United Kingdom and found that in contrast to the commonly held view that victims of bul- lying are usually social isolates (e.g., Salmivalli et al. 1996), fire service personnel who reported higher levels of bullying also tended to be con- sidered preferred people to work with and to be placed within the main informal network. Self- and peer-reported victims were also more frequently nominated as stars in their team, al- though 24% of such victims were also rejected by the rest of the team. Lamertz & Aquino (2004) also used sociometric methods to study victimization among 32 employees in a single
bureau of a city government. They found that employees who maintained a balance in their dyadic friendship networks reported lower lev- els of victimization than did employees whose friendship networks were imbalanced. An example of an imbalanced friendship network would be one where one actor in a relation- ship chooses another actor as a friend, but the other actor does not make the same choice (i.e., the relationship is nonreciprocated). Such a pat- tern indicates a discrepancy in mutual esteem between two parties. There do not appear to be consistent find- ings regarding the direct relationship between formal status and victimization. Studies looking at informal status by taking a social networks perspective are too few to draw firm conclu- sions. Based on our review of the existing lit- erature, we believe the inconsistencies associ- ated with the effect of formal status might be addressed by testing more complex models hy- pothesizing that status interacts with other fac- tors to predict victimization. A few status stud- ies have taken this approach and have found evidence supporting our argument. Vartia & Hyyti (2002) found no differences in perceived victimization between men and women, but they did find that women were vic- timized more often by coworkers, whereas men were victimized equally across status groups. Salin (2003a) found that men were typically bul- lied by superiors, whereas women were typically bullied by superiors and colleagues in approxi- mately equal proportions. In addition, none of the male victims, but one-fifth of female vic- tims, reported being bullied by subordinates. Hoel et al. (2001) found an interaction between formal status and gender such that women in the highest organizationalstatus positions are more likely to be victimized than are men. Another perspective suggests that possess- ing particular status characteristics in combi- nation with behaving in certain ways can make employees more likely to be targets of aggres- sion. Consistent with this perspective, one study found that loworganizational-status employ- ees are more likely to be victimized when they also tend to use a highly accommodating style to
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization 725
esolve con?icts with coworkers (Aquino 2000). Another study showed that whites who exhib- ited higher levels of organizational citizenship behavior reported lower levels of victimization than did African Americans who exhibited sim- ilar levels of citizenship (Aquino & Bommer 2003).
Organizational Factors
A stream of empirical research on workplace aggression from the target's perspective has examined how organizational factors might af- fect employees' vulnerability to being victim- ized. One organizational factor that has been found to predict the likelihood of being vic- timized is the type of work the organization performs. Mikkelsen & Einarsen (2001) found that employees in a manufacturing company re- ported significantly more exposure to bullying than did employees in hospitals. A survey of 7787 employees from 14 Norwegian organiza- tions found that respondents from public com- panies reported less bullying than those from private enterprises (Einarsen & Skogstad 1996). The investigators also reported that the high- est prevalence rate of bullying over a six-month period was found among industrial workers, with 17.4% reporting having been bullied. The lowest prevalence rate was among psychologists and university employees. However, Salin (2001) surveyed 377 Finnish employees from various organizations and found that public sec- tor employees reported higher levels of bul- lying than private sector employees reported, although this difference was statistically not sig- nificant. Hubert & van Veldhoven (2001) mea- sured the prevalence of aggression in 11 dif- ferent workforce sections in the Netherlands and found that aggression from colleagues or the boss was higher in sectors such as indus- try, education, (local) government, and public administration than in sectors such as business services and financial institutions. Our review of studies comparing various forms of victimization as a function of occu- pation or work sector does not present a clear conclusion about what types of organizations
726 Aquino
•
or job sectors are likely to be associated with higher victimization. One logical prediction is that employees are more likely at risk of being victimized in organizations where they are required to interact frequently with others and to work interdependently. The ambiguity regard- ing occupation or work sector is to be expected given the multitude of other factors that are likely to vary across organizations even within the same industry. Consequently, researchers have examined specific attributes of the work environment. Employees who report having less control over their jobs are more likely to report being mobbed (Zapf et al. 1996), bullied (Agervold & Mikkelsen 2004, Einarsen et al. 1994, Quine 2001), or directly and indirectly victimized by coworkers (Aquino et al. 1999). Bullying has been found to be higher when work is uninteresting and has low variability (Einarsen et al. 1994, Vartia 1996) or lacks meaning (Agervold & Mikkelsen 2004). Stressful and competitive work environments have been associated with higher levels of victimization (Coyne et al. 2003, Vartia 1996), as has role con?ict (Einarsen et al. 1994, Skogstad et al. 2007a), role ambiguity (Agervold & Mikkelsen 2004, Jennifer et al. 2003, Quine 2001), the number of employees in the workplace (Einarsen & Skogstad 1996), high cooperation requirements (Zapf et al. 1996), greater work- loads (Quine 2001), and being in a male- rather than femaledominated organization (Einarsen & Skogstad 1996). Liefooghe & Davey (2001) interviewed 113 employees and concluded that various organizational practices contribute to what the authors referred to as institutional- ized bullying. These practices revolve around mechanisms of organizational control such as rules for monitoring and controlling time, the use of numerical performance measures, or the use of performance improvement mandates as a punishment for failure to perform. Their study is distinctive because it asserts that the organization rather than individuals within it is responsible for bullying. Finally, we found one study showing that organizational changes in- volving changes in technology, staff reductions,
Thau
and wage cuts were positively related to what the researchers described as task-related bully- ing (e.g., "Being given tasks with unreasonable targets or deadlines," "Being exposed to an unmanageable workload") (Skogstad et al. 2007b). Skogstad and colleagues (2007b) speculated that one explanation for the re- lationship between organizational changes and bullying was that these changes led to reduced role clarity, higher workloads, and task fragmentation, which as the findings cited above show, are related to victimization. Our review of studies examining workplace attributes as predictors of victimization reveals that the most consistent finding is the effect of role con?ict or ambiguity. Our conclusions are supported by Bowling & Beehr's (2006) metaanalysis, which shows these two variables showed the strongest effect sizes among poten- tial antecedents of various forms of victimizing behaviors, with ? = 0.44 and ? = 0.30 for the role con?ict and role ambiguity, respectively. A lack of control over one's work environment was also found to be strongly associated with vic- timization in Bowling & Beehr's (2006) metaanalysis (? = ?0.25), and this relationship is supported by our own review of published empirical studies. A few studies have looked at the relation- ship between managerial or leadership styles and victimization. Ashforth (1997) found that subordinate ratings of petty tyranny were negatively correlated with managers' tolerance for ambiguity and Theory X beliefs and were positively correlated with managers having a bureaucratic orientation. Agervold & Mikkelsen (2004) found that bullied employees reported that they had received insufficient information from immediate superiors and had a serious con?ict with their manager that was not satis- factorily resolved. Coyne et al. (2003) reported that victims of bullying perceived their work organizations to be characterized by more nega- tive aspects, which included authoritarian management, and Einarsen et al. (1994) found that employees who were bullied reported being more dissatisfied with their organization's lead- ership. A study of bullying in public sector or-
ganizations concluded that weak and indistinct leadership contributed to workplace con?icts going unresolved and eventually escalating into bullying (Strandmark & Hallberg 2006). This qualitative study concluded that bullying re- sults from unresolved value con?icts that are exacerbated by weak leadership. Skogstad et al. (2007a) showed that employees who described their superiors as adopting a laissez-faire leadership style, which is characterized by an absence of leadership, an unwillingness to in- tervene in employee affairs, a lack of transac- tions or agreements with followers, and a fail- ure to meet the expectations of subordinates, reported higher levels of victimization. More- over, Skogstad and colleagues (2007a) showed that the relationship between leadership style and victimization was partly mediated through role con?ict and increased con?ict with coworkers. Skogstad et al.'s (2007a) study is the only one we found that tested mediating mech- anisms through which leader behavior might predict victimization. Our review of studies examining relationships between leadership and victimization suggests that leaders can poten- tially in?uence their subordinates' vulnerabil- ity to being victimized by failing to establish clear guidelines for what constitutes inappro- priate conduct. It is also possible that certain types of management styles, such as those that are highly authoritarian or bureaucratic, result in subordinates being victimized by leaders.
CONSEQUENCES OF VICTIMIZATION
Not surprisingly, many studies have found consistent relationships between experiencing workplace victimization and a host of negative psychological, emotional, and physiological outcomes. Among the negative psychological consequences that have been reported are increased depression and anxiety (Bjorkqvist ¨ et al. 1994, Cortina et al. 2001, Haines et al. 2006, Hansen et al. 2006, Matthiesen & Einarsen 2001, Niedl 1996, Quine 2001, Tepper 2000, Zapf 1999), job stress (Agervold & Mikkelsen 2004, Budd et al. 1996,
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization 727
artia & Hyyti 2002), posttraumatic stress (Fitzpatrick & Wilson 1999, Leymann & Gustavson 1996, Matthiesen & Einarsen 2004, Mikkelsen & Einarsen 2002), and decreased mental health (Hansen et al. 2006, Hoel et al. 2004, Hogh et al. 2005, Rogers &Kelloway 1997, Vartia & Hyyti 2002). Frequent victimization is also associated with negative somatic symptoms (LeBlanc & Kelloway 2002; Rogers & Kelloway 1997, Mikkelsen & Einarsen 2001, Schat & Kelloway 2000, Zapf et al. 1996), fatigue (Agervold & Mikkelsen 2004; Hogh et al. 2003, 2005), and sickness (Agervold & Mikkelsen 2004; Kivim¨ et al. aki 2000). Affective responses to being victimized include diminished emotional well-being (LeBlanc & Kelloway 2002; Schat & Kelloway 2000), lower levels of job satisfaction (Budd et al. 1996, Keashly et al. 1997, Lapierre et al. 2005, Quine 2001, Tepper 2000, Vartia & Hyyti 2002) and life satisfaction (Tepper 2000), shame (Hallberg & Strandmark 2006, Lewis 2004), fear (Rogers & Kelloway 1997), and emotional exhaustion (Goldberg & Grandey 2007, Grandey et al. 2007, Tepper 2000, Winstanley & Whittington 2002). Bowling & Beehr's (2006) meta-analysis reports effect sizes as- sociated with several of the psychological, physiological, and emotional consequences listed above, making their study a helpful guide for evaluating the effect sizes of victimization on a variety of individual outcomes. Bowling & Beehr (2006) found that the strongest effect sizes were between victimization and individual outcomes such as negative emotions at work, frustration, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion (burnout). Victimization showed weaker relationships (mean ?> 0.25) to self-esteem and life satisfaction. We reviewed three studies that show relationships between victimization and outcomes external to the organization. Tepper (2000) reported that abusive supervision was positively related to work and family life con?ict. Lewis &Orford (2005) showed that victimized employees also negatively affected participants' non- work relationships, and they suggested that victimization at work can produce a ripple effect
that compromises other potential sources of support. Haines et al. (2006) found that work- place aggression experienced by one partner in a dualearner couple was related to the other partner's psychological distress. The investiga- tors concluded that this relationship supported a crossover model in which one partner's work and family experiences affect the other partner's experiences. Most of the studies we reviewed tested direct relationships between victimization and employee outcomes, but some looked at whether the relationship is moderated by other factors. Kaukiainen et al. (2001) found that victimiza- tion was more strongly related to negative phys- ical and psychological symptoms for men than for women. Lapierre et al. (2005) showed that the negative relationship between victimization and job satisfaction was stronger for women than men. Hoel et al. (2004) reported that the relationship between victimization and mental health was stronger for older than for younger employees and for workers than for senior man- agers. Tepper (2000) found that the relation- ship between abusive supervision and outcomes such as depression, job satisfaction, and emo- tional exhaustion was stronger for subordinates who had low as compared to high job mobil- ity. Duffy et al. (2006a) examined the conse- quences of social undermining and found that the relationship between undermining and out- comes such as job satisfaction, depression, and intention to quit was stronger when group-level supervisor undermining (the amount of super- visor or coworker undermining experienced by all group members) was low rather than high. The authors concluded that this pattern sup- ported a "singled out" hypothesis in which the level of victimization within a group moderates the relationship between individual perceptions of victimization and outcomes.
STRATEGIES FOR COPING WITH VICTIMIZATION
We reviewed several studies that examined employee responses to victimization. We consider these responses to be examples of a broader
728
Aquino
•
Thau
set of strategies for coping with victimization. Lazarus & Folkman's (1984) transaction model of stress distinguishes between problem- and emotion-focused coping strategies. The goal of problem-focused strategies is to change the situation by eliminating the source of stress (e.g., by taking direct action against the per- petrator, seeking support from others) or one's view of the situation (e.g., positive reappraisal). Included in the category of problem-focused strategies are behaviors that could be consid- ered aggressive, such as taking revenge against the perpetrator, but that are performed in re- sponse to an initial provocation. Also included are attempts to take advantage of social or or- ganizational support systems that might act as a buffer against further victimization or provide protection or redress to the victim. The goal of emotion-focused strategies is to manage the emotional consequences of the stressor and could include attempts to escape psychologically (e.g., substance abuse) or to execute emotion-regulation strategies that mini- mize the negative impact of being victimized. We turn first to studies of problem-focused strategies.
Problem-Focused Coping Strategies
One problem-focused coping strategy is to retaliate against the perpetrator as a way of al- tering his or her behavior through punish- ment or by demonstrating one's willingness to defend against further mistreatment (Glomb 2002, Lee & Brotheridge 2006). An emerg- ing empirical literature on revenge in organi- zations suggests that retaliatory aggression is considered by many people to be a morally le- gitimate response to being victimized (Tripp et al. 2002). Supporting this conclusion, Zapf & Gross (2001) reported that defending oneself was identified by 9% of their sample as a recom- mended strategy for coping with bullying, plac- ing it somewhere between the most frequently recommended strategy of leaving the organiza- tion (22%) and the least-recommended strategy of protocol events (2%).
We reviewed three studies examining the possibility that victimization provokes retaliatory aggression against perpetrators. Dupr´ eet al. (2006) found that teenage part-time em- ployees who perceived high levels of abusive supervision reported more aggression against their supervisors when their financial reasons for working were high. Mitchell& Ambrose (2007) showed that subordinates who perceived high levels of abusive supervision reported en- gaging in more aggressive behavior directed toward their supervisors, and more so if the subordinate endorsed negative reciprocity be- liefs. Tepper et al. (2001) found that victims of abusive supervision reported using dysfunc- tional resistance (e.g., ignoring one's supervi- sor or making a half-hearted effort on a task and letting the boss know that the employee could not do it) and constructive resistance (e.g., asking for additional clarification or explain- ing to the supervisor that the task could be done in a different way) against their supervisors more frequently than their nonabused counter- parts reported. Tepper et al. (2001) interpreted the results involving dysfunctional resistance as indicating that victimizing behaviors can pro- voke behavioral coping responses that can po- tentially harm the perpetrator by threatening relationship quality and undermining the su- pervisor's authority to make a request. The find- ings involving constructive resistance were in- terpreted by Tepper et al. (2001) as indicating one possible way of breaking a cycle of hostility in interpersonal con?ict by responding to abu- sive supervision in a nondestructive manner. Most of the studies we reviewed show a relationship between victimization and aggres- sive behavioral responses that might be directed toward the perpetrator of aggression. More- over, these responses were moderated by other factors. Aquino & Douglas (2003) found that employees who reported high levels of vic- timization and held favorable attitudes toward revenge reported engaging in more antiso- cial behavior directed toward other employ- ees than those who held less-favorable atti- tudes toward revenge. Jockin et al. (2001) found that employees who reported high levels of
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization 729
victimization had more aggressive con?icts with coworkers if they were high in neuroticism. A third study found that perceived victimization was positively related to overt expressions of anger, but more so for em- ployees who had a hostile attribution bias or who perceived the norms of their organization as encouraging oppositional behavior (Aquino et al. 2004). Zellars et al. (2002) found that em- ployees who perceived higher levels of abusive supervision exhibited fewer organizational cit- izenship behaviors, but more so if they viewed citizenship behavior as an extrarole behavior. The investigators interpreted this pattern as suggesting that withholding extrarole behaviors might be one way for employees to take revenge against supervisors who victimize them. Lee & Brotheridge (2006) found that employees who reported being undermined were also more likely to report undermining others. Duffy et al. (2006a) showed that the group social con- text moderates the relationship between being the target of undermining and undermining others such that the relationship was stronger in groups where group-level undermining was low than in groups where it was high. Duffy et al. (2006a) interpreted this pattern as indicat- ing that victimized employees are more likely to reciprocate negative behavior when they per- ceive themselves as being singled out for such treatment. Demographic factors have been shown to moderate relationships between victimization and aggressive, problem-focused strategies.
work (Kivim¨ et al. 2000, Zapf et al. 1996), aki or avoiding the perpetrator(s) and/or ignor- ing their behavior (Keashly et al. 1994). An- other type of nonaggressive, problem-focused strategy is to seek support from the organi- zation, family, friends, and fellow employees, or from professional services such as coun- selors. Rospenda et al. (2006) found that the experience of chronic, nonsexual harassment at work increased the likelihood that employ- ees would use professional services (e.g., pri- mary care physician, psychiatrist, clergy) to deal with workrelated stress. However, their study failed to find evidence that these services ame- liorated the negative effects of work harassment on mental health. Schat & Kelloway (2003) found that instrumental support, operational- ized as support received from coworkers, man- agers, and supervisors following victimization, was associated with a reduction in negative psy- chological health consequences (i.e., low emo- tional well-being, poor somatic health, and negative job-related affect). They also found that informational support, operationalized as whether or not employees received training on how to deal with aggressive or threaten- ing events at work, was associated with higher emotional well-being following victimization. Lewis& Orford (2005) interviewed 10 female victims of bullying and described how a lack of support from colleagues and the organization impaired these employees' ability to defend themselves against their perpetrators and led to increasing isolation, vulnerability, and diminished self-worth. How effective are the various problemfocused strategies for coping with victimiza- tion? Zapf & Gross (2001) looked at 14 con?ictmanagement coping strategies that victims of bullying used, including talking with the bul- lies, calling in the supervisor, taking long-term sick leave, and fighting back with similar means. The only strategy that was reported to have produced a significant improvement in their current situation was transferring to another job. Strategies that involved an active response to the bullies (i.e., fighting back with similar means, talking to the bullies) made the victim's
Olafsson & Johannsdottir (2004) found that ´ ´ ´ males are more likely to confront bullies and less likely to seek help from organizational author- ities than are females, and Aquino & Douglas (2003) found that interpersonally directed an- tisocial behavior against other employees was more strongly related to victimization among younger as compared to older employees. A problem-focused strategy that does not involve an aggressive response by the victim is escaping the situation. Escape could include quitting or requesting a transfer within the organization (Niedl 1996, Tepper 2000, Zapf & Gross 2001), being frequently absent from
730 Aquino
•
Thau
ituation significantly worse. Cortina & Magley (2003) found that employees who tried to cope with having been targets of aggressive action by confronting the perpetrator were more likely to report being recipients of work-retaliation victimization (e.g., discharge, involuntary transfer, demotion). Employees who used other voice strategies, such as seeking social support from others or whistle blowing, were more likely to be recipients of social-retaliation victimiza- tion (e.g., harassment, ostracism, threats) when dealing with powerful wrongdoers. Although Cortina & Magley (2003) found that retalia- tory victimization has negative psychological and health consequences, worse consequences were experienced by employees who failed to speak out at all. Studies of problem-focused strategies sug- gest that the more confrontational or aggressive the strategy, the more likely it is that the re- lationship between victim and perpetrator will escalate into a cycle of reciprocal aggression. Strategies such as expressing voice (Cortina & Magley 2003) or taking more of a constructive, problem-solving approach to con?ict (Hogh & Dofradottir 2001) can be effective, perhaps be- cause they help victims gain a sense of con- trol over their situation. Perceiving control over the situation is important because these per- ceptions have been associated with reduced fear and enhanced emotional well-being for people who experience victimization (Schat &Kelloway 2000). Based on our review, it appears that avoiding the perpetrator(s) or finding a way to leave the situation is the most effective coping strategy if effectiveness is defined in terms of reducing the frequency of being victimized, minimizing the cost of executing the strategy for the victim, and avoiding further con?ict escalation. According to some studies (Keashly et al. 1994, Zapf &Gross 2001), it is also the preferred option for many victims. If leaving the situation is im- practical or undesirable, then problem-solving strategies that allow the victim to gain a sense of control over his or her environment are likely to be most efficacious (see sidebar Self-Defeating Responses to Thwarted Needs).
SELF-DEFEATING RESPONSES TO THWARTED NEEDS
Some evidence suggests that employees who are victimized en- gage in a pattern of interpersonal work behaviors that might lead to further victimization. Thau et al. (2007) refer to these behaviors as selfdefeating because they are inimical to the needs employ- ees pursue (Baumeister & Scher 1988). In a study with employees and their supervisors in a clinical chemical laboratory, Thau et al. (2007) found that employees who feel that their belongingness needs are thwarted are more likely to engage in interpersonally harmful behaviors and less likely to engage in helping behaviors. Based on the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner 1960), coworkers will likely respond negatively and further thwart employees' be- longingness needs. This may occur because employees who are victimized undergo self-regulation problems that make them fo- cus on themselves and ignore the normative demands of their context (Blackhart et al. 2006). If this is true, then victimized employees may become locked into a vicious cycle in which the experience of victimization motivates them to engage in behav- iors that invite further victimization.
Emotion-Focused Coping Strategies
We found some studies that examined the use of internal coping strategies to minimize the nega- tive emotional and psychological consequences of victimization. One emotion-focused strategy is to use humor as a way to cope with victim- ization. Hogh & Dofradottir (2001) found that employees who were classified as being sub- jected to bullying (i.e., twice a month or daily over a 12-month period) used humor as a cop- ing strategy more than those who reported be- ing somewhat exposed to bullying (i.e., they reported being bullied between 1-23 times within the past 12 months) or not exposed at all. Keashly et al. (1994) reported that 40% of the 59 student participants in their sample said that they made a joke of the behavior as a way of coping with a hostile workplace event. Studies of how employees respond to cus- tomers' verbal aggression show that they use either of two emotion-focused coping strate- gies: surface acting, which involves modifying behaviors by suppressing or faking expressions,
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization 731
and deep acting, which involves changing cognitions through perspective taking or focusing on positive things to regulate feelings (Grandey 2004). Grandey (2004) found that call center employees who experienced high stress as a result of an aggressive encounter with a cus- tomer performed more surface than deep act- ing compared to employees who experienced lower stress as a result of an aggressive customer encounter. Positive refocusing and perspective taking were more likely to be used by the low- stress than the high-stress employee group. Another emotion-focused coping strategy is alcohol consumption. Although alcohol consumption is a behavior, we classify it as an emotion-focused strategy because in the context of workplace victimization, imbibing alcohol can reduce negative anxiety-related physiological and emotional effects of being victimized (Rospenda 2002). Supporting this possibility, nonsexual forms of victimization have been shown to be associated with increased drinking for men and women (Richman et al. 1992, 1996), suggesting that for some employ- ees, drinking might be perceived as a legitimate way of managing the stress of being victimized. Forgiveness is a third emotion-focused cop- ing strategy that has begun to receive some at- tention in the literature. Forgiveness has been defined as an effort by the victim of harm-doing to overcome negative emotions and thoughts about the perpetrator and replace them with neutral or even positive ones (Aquino et al. 2006). Studies have shown that victimized em- ployees are sometimes willing to forgive their transgressors (Aquino et al. 2006, Bradfield &Aquino 1999, Hallberg & Strandmark 2006, Struthers et al. 2005). However, despite ev- idence in the psychology literature that for- giveness can neutralize negative psychological consequences that result from being seriously victimized (Freedman & Enright 1996), we could not find one published empirical study that explicitly examined the consequences of forgiveness in the context of workplace victimization. The paucity of research on forgiveness as a coping strategy following victimization is an obvious gap in the literature we reviewed.
732 Aquino
CONCLUSIONS
Our review of the literature identified three main challenges facing the study of work- place aggression from the target's perspective. First, the proliferation of constructs for de- scribing the phenomenon poses a potential ob- stacle to achieving theoretical parsimony. Sec- ond, the causal direction of several relationships reported in the literature, particularly those regarding personality and victimization, is un- clear. Third, a large number of studies that ex- amine relationships between victimization and various individual and organizational factors were not theoretically motivated. We consider each of these challenges and offer suggestions for how the field might address them.
Proliferation of Constructs
Philosophers of science have argued that the introduction of multiple terms to describe a similar phenomenon can impede scientific par- simony and theoretical progress (e.g., Popper 1959/2002, Sober 1981). We do not advocate the use any particular measure of victimiza- tion in our review; however, we do believe it is worth exploring whether the conceptual over- lap among the various measures used by re- searchers who claim to be tapping different con- structs may actually be tapping into the same general construct that we have labeled work- place victimization. If this is true, then it im- plies that one measure may be as good as any other for examining the consequences of workplace victimization, so long as one makes clear what the relationship is between victim and perpetrator (i.e., is the perpetrator a coworker, supervisor, customer, etc.). Following the lead of the organizational citizenship literature (LePine et al. 2002), perhaps it is time for an empirical assessment to be conducted on the various measures of victimization most commonly used by researchers to determine whether they tap a common construct or whether there are in fact important dis- tinctions between them that have implica- tions for developing a theory of victimization. Alternatively, researchers who believe their
•
Thau
articular construct, and the instrument used to measure it, does in fact capture a type of victimization that is distinct from other conceptualizations could support their claim empiri- cally by showing that their construct predicts consequences that other constructs within the same victimization family (see Table 1) do not predict. For now, it seems important for inves- tigators to acknowledge how related construct definitions used by other scholars working in the area can inform the state of the art of their own favored niche constructs.
Inconsistent Findings
We reported several inconsistent findings in the literature for variables that might indicate an employee's vulnerability to victimization, such as his or her gender or position within the organization's formal hierarchy or informal social network. We view these variables as possible indicators of vulnerability because they signify an employee's status and relative power within the organization. Perhaps one reason for the inconsistent findings is that markers of vulnerability may not always be salient to perpetrators (Fiske & Taylor 2007). If so, then situational factors that heighten the salience of such markers may also increase an employee's risk of victimization if the employee happens to possess them. A sec- ond reason why indicators of vulnerability have not been consistently related to victimization is that the perpetrator needs to be motivated to aggress. It follows that situational conditions that increase a would-be perpetrator's moti- vation to aggress, such as experiencing role con?ict, working interdependently, or being in the presence of others who violate norms of so- cial respect, can increase the likelihood that the would-be perpetrator will aggress against employees who possess markers of vulnerability.
Theoretical Development
Theoretical models of victimization have been proposed (e.g., Aquino & Lamertz 2004, Einarsen 2000, Keashly & Harvey 2005, OlsonBuchanan & Boswell 2008); however,
many of the studies we reviewed failed to provide a clear theoretical rationale for variable selection. We found theoretical underspecification to be particularly true of research on bullying and mobbing conducted in North- ern Europe. Many of the Northern European studies we reviewed were more epidemiolog- ical, designed to assess frequencies of victim- ization among various groups rather than test theoretically derived hypotheses. One way to bring greater coherence to the literature would be for researchers to conduct more theory- guided meta-analyses similar to that of Bowling & Beehr (2006). We also note that both Euro- pean and North American researchers often ig- nore well-established criminological literature on victimization (e.g., Hindelang et al. 1978, Schafer 1968). For example, Hindelang and col- leagues (1978) proposed a model that explains victimization risk in terms of lifestyle exposure. Their model proposes that sociodemographic characteristics are associated with lifestyle dif- ferences that are expressed in the types of activ- ities a person engages in, the time during which these activities occur, and the places they occur. With some modifications, their model could be applied to explain the risk of victimization in or- ganizational settings since it is likely that factors that make people vulnerable to being victimized in one setting will do so in another. We found numerous studies documenting consistent relationships between victimization and personality variables including negative affectivity and self-esteem. As we noted above, the causal direction of these relationships needs to be more firmly established. Theoretical ar- guments support the causal links from person- ality characteristics to victimization and vice versa. A case can also be made for bidirectional causality. What is clearly needed are studies us- ing longitudinal or experimental designs to test which of these possibilities is best supported by data. Answering the causality question is impor- tant because it can help researchers understand whether the likelihood of being victimized may partly be a function of the victim's behav- ioral tendencies, which might be amenable to modification.
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization
733
VICTIMIZATION IN DYADIC RELATIONSHIPS
Victimization often emerges in the context of dyadic relation- ships. Aquino & Lamertz (2004) proposed that employees some- times enact certain relational roles within the organization's social system, leading them to experience either episodic or institution- alized forms of victimization. Aquino & Lamertz (2004) proposed four archetypal relational roles that can emerge in organizations: the dominating perpetrator, the reactive perpetrator, the submis- sive victim, and the provocative victim. Aquino & Lamertz (2004) theorized that the relationship between a given pair of employees who fit these role types will be characterized by certain behavioral styles, some of which can lead to interactions that are volatile and can lead one party to perceive that he or she has been victimized by the other. For example, a relational role composed of an em- ployee who fits the provocative victim role type (i.e., he or she consistently behave in ways that violate social norms and threaten others' identities) and one who fits the reactive perpetrator role type (i.e., he or she responds very aggressively to perceived threats to his or her status or identity) is likely to be characterized by spo- radic negative interactions over time that one or both parties can label as victimizing behavior.
Final Observations
We close with three final observations about the state of workplace victimization research. First, few studies make cross-cultural compar- isons of victimization. For example, many of the bullying studies have been conducted in Scan- dinavian countries, which Hofstede (1980) has shown to be more egalitarian and feminine- oriented than the United States. In contrast, most studies of abusive supervision and inci- vility have been conducted in U.S. samples. It would be valuable to know whether the patterns of relationships found among these variables in existing studies would be replicated in another culture. Second, relatively few studies describe the process of victimizaSUMMARY POINTS
tion. Given the dynamic nature of social interaction and the possibility that victimiza- tion likely involves actions and reactions of would-be perpetrators and likely victims (An- dersson & Pearson 1999, Aquino & Lamertz 2004, Glomb 2002), it seems important for re- searchers to conduct more studies document- ing the complexity of this unfolding process, particularly in the context of ongoing rela- tionships (see sidebar Victimization in Dyadic Relationships). Finally, more work is needed examining the efficacy of prevention and intervention pro- grams designed to help employees cope with being victimized. We reported some studies showing how institutional and social support might buffer the negative effects of victimiza- tion, but such studies are rare. The aim of our review was to bring greater coherence to the study of what we have referred to as workplace victimization. We have tried to show that the many constructs that researchers have introduced into the literature to study aggression from the target's perspective share a common assumption about how these be- haviors thwart the satisfaction of fundamental human needs. For this reason, we encouraged researchers to give due recognition to other constructs occupying the same conceptual space as their own. Another goal of our review was to document the parallel efforts of European and North American researchers. A number of findings reported by these scholars converge; others do not. What we noticed, though, is that researchers on one continent do not always acknowledge the work being done on the other. We hope that our review will help researchers bridge this continental divide so the study of workplace aggression from the target's perspective can become a truly international enterprise.
1. An employee's well-being is harmed when fundamental psychological and physiological needs are unmet or thwarted. In general, psychological needs include a sense of belonging, a feeling that one is a worthy individual, believing that one has the ability to predict and
734
Aquino
•
Thau
to cognitively control one's environment, and being able to trust others. The most basic physiological need is the avoidance of pain. 2. Many constructs that researchers have introduced into the literature share a common assumption about how the behaviors of interest thwart the satisfaction of fundamental human needs. Conceptual differences among these constructs are subtle, and research that focuses exclusively on constructs that are only marginally different from others within the family of victimizing behaviors impedes theoretical progress. 3. The costs of workplace victimization are high: Victims of aggressive actions suffer psychologically, become fatigued, stressed, sick, and sometimes traumatized. Consequently, group and organizational performance can suffer. 4. Among the many investigations into the role of personality as a predictor of victimization, the propensity to experience negative affect, which includes emotions such as anger, fear, worry, anxiousness, sadness, and depression, shows the most consistent relationship to various victimization measures. 5. Many studies have found reliable relationships between experiencing workplace victimization and a host of negative psychological, emotional, and physiological outcomes. Among the negative psychological consequences that have been reported are increased depression and anxiety, job stress, posttraumatic stress, and decreased mental health. Affective responses to being victimized include diminished emotional well-being, lower levels of job and life satisfaction, shame, fear, and emotional exhaustion. 6. Organizational factors such as role con?ict and role ambiguity as well as management styles that do not provide clear guidelines for what constitutes inappropriate conduct can increase employees' risk of being victimized. 7. The coping strategy that appears to consistently produce a significant improvement in a victim's current circumstances is finding a way to avoid the perpetrator(s) or to leave the situation. Strategies that involve an active response to the bullies (e.g., fighting back with similar means, talking to the bullies) often make the situation significantly worse by escalating con?ict. Coping strategies that allow victims to experience greater control over their situation, such as expressing voice or engaging in constructive problem solving, can also be effective.
FUTURE ISSUES 1. Past studies have focused on negative outcomes of victimization but have paid almost no attention to how victims may forgive or reconcile with perpetrators. The paucity of research on forgiveness as a coping strategy following victimization is an obvious gap in the literature. 2. It is time for an empirical assessment to be conducted on the various measures of victimization most commonly used by researchers to determine whether they tap a common construct or whether important distinctions exist between them that have implications for developing a theory of victimization.
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization
735
3. The field could benefit from more cross-disciplinary applications of criminological theories to explain workplace victimization since many of the factors that make people vulnerable to being victimized in one setting are likely to do so in another. 4. Establishing causality for many of the relationships found in the literature among personality, behavior, and victimization is important because it can help researchers understand whether the likelihood of being victimized may partly be a function of the victim's be- havioral tendencies, which might be amenable to modification. 5. Very few studies make cross-cultural comparisons of victimization. 6. It would be valuable to know whether the patterns of relationships found among these variables in existing studies would be replicated in another culture. 7. Like many phenomena in organizational behavior, causal tests of theories are scarce because longitudinal and experimental data are rare. More experimental and longitudinal studies are needed to triangulate cross-sectional field studies of victimization. 8. More work is needed examining the efficacy of prevention and intervention programs designed to help employees cope with being victimized.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Susan Fiske, Helge Hoel, Gregory Marr, Denise Salin, and Daniel Skarlicki for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. We also thank Marjorie Laven, Anne Pedersen, and Xiaozhou Hu for their assistance with the prepartion of the manuscript. This work was partially supported by a grant, awarded to Karl Aquino, from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
LITERATURE CITED
Agervold M, Mikkelsen EG. 2004. Relationships between bullying, psychosocial work environment and individual stress reactions. Work Stress 18:336-51 Allen NB, Badcock PBT. 2003. The social risk hypothesis of depressed mood: evolutionary, psychosocial, and neurobiological perspectives. Psychol. Bull. 129:887-913 Amir M. 1967. Victim precipitated forcible rape. J. Crim. Law 58(4):493-502 Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. 2002. Human aggression. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53:27-51 Andersson LM, Pearson CM. 1999. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Acad. Manage. Rev. 24:452-71 Aquino K. 2000. Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: the effects of hierarchical status and con?ict management style. J. Manage. 26:171-93 Aquino K, Bommer WH. 2003. Preferential mistreatment: how victim status moderates the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace victimization. Organ. Sci. 14:374-85 Aquino K, Bradfield M. 2000. Perceived victimization in the workplace: the role of situational factors and victim characteristics. Organ. Sci. 11:525-37
736 Aquino
•
Thau
Aquino K, Byron K. 2002. Dominating interpersonal behavior and perceived victimization in groups: evidence for a curvilinear relationship. J. Manage. 28:69-87 Aquino K, Douglas S. 2003. Identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations: the moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 90:195-208 Aquino K, Douglas S, Martinko MJ. 2004. Overt anger in response to victimization: attributional style and organizational norms as moderators. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 9:152-64 Aquino K, Grover SL, Bradfield M, Allen D. 1999. The effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-determination on workplace victimization. Acad. Manage. J. 42:260-72 Aquino K, Lamertz K. 2004. A relational model of workplace victimization: social roles and patterns of victimization in dyadic relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:1023-34 Aquino K, Tripp TM, Bies RJ. 2006. Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, and avoidance in organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:653-68 Ashforth BE. 1997. Petty tyranny in organizations: a preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Can. J. Admin. Sci. 14:126-40 Barling J, Dupr´ KE, Kelloway EK. 2009. Predicting workplace aggression and violence. Annu. Rev. Psychol. e 60:In press Baron RA, Neuman JH, Geddes D. 1999. Social and personal determinants of workplace aggression: evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and the type A behavior pattern. Aggress. Behav. 25:281-96 Bies RJ, Moag JS. 1986. Interactional justice: communication criteria for fairness. In Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 1, ed. B Sheppard, pp. 43-55. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Bj ¨ orkqvist K, Osterman K, Hjelt-B¨ M. 1994. Aggression among university employees. Aggress. Behav. ¨ ack 20:173-83 Blackhart GC, Baumeister RF, Twenge JM. 2006. Rejection's impact on self-defeating, prosocial, antisocial, and self-regulatory behaviors. In Self and Relationships: Connecting Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Processes, ed. KD Vohs, EJ Finkel, pp. 237-53. New York: Guilford Blaney PH. 1986. Affect and memory: a review. Psychol. Bull. 99:229-46 Bowling NA, Beehr TA. 2006. Workplace harassment from the victim's perspective: a theoretical model and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:998-1012 Bradfield M, Aquino K. 1999. The effects of blame attributions and offender likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. J. Manage. 25:607-31 Budd JW, Arvey RD, Lawless P. 1996. Correlates and consequences of workplace violence. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 1:197-210 Buss AH. 1961. The Psychology of Aggression. New York: Wiley Cortina LM, Berdahl J. 2008. Sexual harassment in organizations: a decade of research in review. In Handbook of Organizational Behavior, ed. L Cooper, J Barling, pp. 469-97. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Cortina LM, Magley VJ. 2003. Raising voice, risking retaliation: events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 8:247-65 Cortina LM, Magley VJ, Williams JH, Langhout RD. 2001. Incivility in the workplace: incidence and impact. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 6:64-80 Costa PT, McCrae RR, Dye DA. 1991. Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: a revision of the NEO personality inventory. Personal. Individ. Differ. 12: 887-98 Coyne I, Chong PSL, Seigne E, Randall P. 2003. Self and peer nominations of bullying: an analysis of incident rates, individual differences, and perceptions of the working environment. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 12:209-28 Coyne I, Craig J, Chong PSL. 2004. Workplace bullying in a group context. Br. J. Guid. Couns. 32:301-17 Coyne I, Seigne E, Randall P. 2000. Predicting workplace victim status from personality. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 9:335-49 Duffy MK, Ganster DC, Pagon M. 2002. Social undermining and social support in the workplace. Acad. Manage. J. 45:331-51 Duffy MK, Ganster DC, Shaw JD, Johnson JL, Pagon M. 2006a. The social context of undermining behavior at work. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 101:105-26
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization
737
Duffy MK, Shaw JD, Scott KL, Tepper BJ. 2006b. The moderating roles of self-esteem and neuroticism. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:1066-77 Dupr´ KE, Inness M, Connelly CE, Barling J, Hoption C. 2006. Workplace aggression in teenage part-time e employees. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:987-97 Einarsen S. 2000. Harassment and bullying at work: a review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggress. Violent Behav. 5:379-401 Einarsen S, Raknes BI. 1997. Harassment at work and the victimization of men. Violence Vict. 12:247-63 Einarsen S, Raknes BI, Matthiesen SB. 1994. Bullying and harassment at work and their relationship to work environment quality: an exploratory study. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 4:381-401 Einarsen S, Skogstad A. 1996. Bullying at work: epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 5:185-201 Felson RB, Steadman HJ. 1983. Situational factors in disputes leading to criminal violence. Criminology 21:5974 Fiske ST. 2004. Intent and ordinary bias: unintended thought and social motivation create causal prejudice. Soc. Just. Res. 17:117-27 Fiske ST, Taylor SE. 2007. Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill Fitzgerald LF. 1993. Sexual harassment—violence against women in the workplace. Am. Psychol. 48:1070-75 Fitzpatrick KM, Wilson M. 1999. Exposure to violence and posttraumatic stress symptomatology among abortion clinic workers. J. Trauma. Stress 12:227-42 Freedman SR, Enright RD. 1996. Forgiveness as an intervention goal with incest survivors. J. Couns. Clin. Psychol. 64:983-92 Glasø L, Matthiesen SB, Nielsen MB, Einarsen S. 2007. Do targets of workplace bullying portray a general victim personality profile? Scand. J. Psychol. 48:313-19 Glomb TM. 2002. Workplace anger and aggression: informing conceptual models with data from specific encounters. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 7:20-36 Goldberg LS, Grandey AA. 2007. Display rules versus display autonomy: emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and task performance in a call center simulation. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 12(3):301-18 Gouldner AW. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 25:161-78 Grandey AA. 2004. The customer is not always right: customer aggression and emotional regulation of service employees. J. Org. Behav. 25:397-418 Grandey AA, Kern JH, Frone MR. 2007. Verbal abuse from outsiders versus insiders: comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotional labor. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 12(1):63-79 Greenberg J, Colquitt J. 2005. Handbook of Organizational Justice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Haines VY, Marchand A, Harvey S. 2006. Crossover of workplace aggression experiences in dual-earner couples. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 11:305-14 Hallberg LRM, Strandmark M. 2006. Health consequences of workplace bullying: experiences from the perspective of employees in the public service sector. Int. J. Qual. Studies Health Well. 1:109-19 Hansen AM, Hogh A, Persson R, Karlson B, Garde AH, Orbaek P. 2006. Bullying at work, health outcomes, and physiological stress response. J. Psychosom. Res. 60:63-72 Harvey S, Keashly L. 2003. Predicting the risk for aggression in the workplace: risk factors, self-esteem and time at work. Soc. Behav. Personal. 31:807-14 Hindelang MJ, Gottfredson MR, Garofolo J. 1978. Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Hoel H, Cooper CL, Faragher B. 2001. The experience of bullying in Great Britain: the impact of organizational status. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 10:443-65 Hoel H, Rayner C, Cooper CL. 1999. Workplace bullying. Int. Rev. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 10:195-230 Hoel H, Faragher B, Cooper CL. 2004. Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying behaviors are not necessarily equally damaging. Br. J. Guid. Couns. 32:367-87 Hofstede G. 1980. Culture's Consequences: Individual Differences in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Hogh A, Borg V, Mikkelsen KL. 2003. Work-related violence as a predictor of fatigue: a 5-year follow-up of the Danish work environment cohort study. Work Stress 17:182-94
738 Aquino
•
Thau
Hogh A, Dofradottir A. 2001. Coping with bullying in the workplace. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 10:485-95 Hogh A, Henriksson ME, Burr H. 2005. A 5-year follow-up study of aggression at work and psychological health. Int. J. Behav. Med. 12:256-65 Hogh A, Viitasara E. 2005. A systematic review of longitudinal studies of nonfatal workplace violence. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 14:291-313 Hubert AB, van Veldhoven M. Risk sectors for undesirable behavior and mobbing. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 10:415-24 Ickes W, Dugosh JW, Simpson JA, Wilson CL. 2003. Suspicious minds: the motivation to acquire relationship threatening information. Pers. Relat. 10:131-48 Jennifer D, Cowie H, Ananiadou K. 2003. Perceptions and experience of workplace bullying in five different working populations. Aggress. Behav. 29:489-96 Jockin V, Arvey RD, McGue M. 2001. Perceived victimization moderates self-reports of workplace aggression and con?ict. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:1262-69 Kaukiainen A, Salmivalli C, Bjorkqvist K, Osterman K, Lahtinen A, et al. 2001. Overt and covert aggression in work settings in relation to the subjective well-being of employees. Aggress. Behav. 27:360-71 Keashly L. 1998. Emotional abuse in the workplace: conceptual and empirical issues. J. Emot. Abuse 1:85-117 Keashly L, Harvey S. 2005. Emotional abuse in the workplace. In Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets, ed. S Fox, PE Spector, pp. 201-35. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. Keashly L, Hunter S, Harvey S. 1997. Abusive interaction and role state stressors: relative impact on student residence assistant stress and work attitudes. Work Stress. 11:175-85 Keashly L, Trott V, MacLean LM. 1994. Abusive behavior in the workplace: a preliminary investigation. Violence Vict. 9:341-57 Kivim¨ M, Elovainio M, Vahtera J. 2000. Workplace bullying and sickness absence in hospital staff. Occup. aki Environ. Med. 57:656-60 Kivimaki M, Virtanen M, Vartia M, Elovainio M, Vahtera J, Keltikangas-Jarvinen L. 2003. Workplace bullying and the risk of cardiovascular disease and depression. Occup. Environ. Med. 60:779-83 Kramer RM. 1998. Paranoid cognition in social systems: thinking and acting in the shadow of doubt. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2:251-75 Lamertz K, Aquino K. 2004. Social power, social status and perceptual similarity of workplace victimization: a social network analysis of stratification. Hum. Relat. 57:795-822 Lapierre LM, Spector PE, Leck JD. 2005. Sexual versus nonsexual workplace aggression and victims' overall job satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 10:155-69 Lazarus RS, Folkman S. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer LeBlanc MM, Kelloway EK. 2002. Predictors and outcomes of workplace violence and aggression. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:444-53 Lee R, Brotheridge C. 2006. When prey turns predatory: workplace bullying as a predictor of counteraggression/bullying, coping, and well being. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 15:352-77 LePine JA, Erez A, Johnson DE. 2002. A meta-analysis of the dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 87(1):52-65 Lewis D. 2004. Bullying at work: the impact of shame among university and college lecturers. Br. J. Guid. Couns. 32:281-99 Lewis SE, Orford JLM. 2005. Women's experiences of workplace bullying: changes in social relationships. J. Comm. Appl. Soc. 15:29-47 Leymann H. 1990. Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence Vict. 5:119-26 Leymann H. 1996. The content and development of mobbing at work. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 5:165-84 Leymann H, Gustavson A. 1996. Mobbing at work and the development of post-traumatic stress disorders. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 5:251-75 Liefooghe APD, Davey KM. 2001. Accounts of workplace bullying: the role of the organization. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 10:375-92 Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. 2001. MMPI-2 configurations among victims of bullying at work. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 10:467-84 Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. 2004. Psychiatric distress and symptoms of PTSD among victims of bullying at work. Br. J. Guid. Couns. 32:335-56
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization
739
ikkelsen EG, Einarsen S. 2001. Bullying in Danish work-life: prevalence and health correlates. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 10:393-413 Mikkelsen EG, Einarsen S. 2002. Basic assumptions and post-traumatic stress among victims of workplace bullying. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 11:87-111 Mitchell MS, Ambrose ML. 2007. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:1159-68 Niedl K. 1996. Mobbing and well-being: economic and personnel development implications. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 5:239-49 Olafsson RF, J ´ ´ ohannsd ´ ottir HL. 2004. Coping with bullying in the workplace: the effect of gender, age and type of bullying. Br. J. Guid. Couns. 32:319-33 O'Leary-Kelly AM, Paetzold RL, Griffin RW. 2000. Sexual harassment as aggressive behavior: an actor-based perspective. Acad. Manage. Rev. 25:372-88 Olson-Buchanan JB, Boswell WR. 2008. An integrative model of experiencing and responding to mistreatment at work. Acad. Manage. Rev. 33:76-96 Popper K. 2002 (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Routledge. 2nd Engl. ed. Quine L. 2001. Workplace bullying in nurses. J. Health Psychol. 6:73-84 Richman JA, Flaherty A, Rospenda KM. 1996. Perceived workplace harassment experiences and problem drinking among physicians: broadening the stress/alienation paradigm. Addiction 91:391-403 Richman JA, Flaherty A, Rospenda KM, Christensen ML. 1992. Mental health consequences and correlates of reported medical student abuse. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 267:692-94 Rogers KA, Kelloway EK. 1997. Violence at work: personal and organizational outcomes. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2:63-71 Rospenda KM. 2002. Workplace harassment, services utilization, and drinking outcomes. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 7:141-55 Rospenda KM, Richman JA, Shannon CA. 2006. Patterns of workplace harassment, gender, and use of services: an update. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 11:379-93 Salin D. 2001. Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: a comparison of two different strategies for measuring bullying. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 10:425-41 Salin D. 2003a. The significance of gender in the prevalence, forms and perceptions of workplace bullying. Nord. Organ. 5:30-50 Salin D. 2003b. Ways of explaining workplace bullying: a review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Hum. Relat. 56:1213-32 Salmivalli C, Lagerspetz K, Bj ¨ orkqvist K, Osterman K, Kauikianen A. 1996. Bullying as a group process: ¨ participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggress. Behav. 22:1-15 Schafer S. 1968. The Victim and His Criminal: A Study in Functional Responsibility. New York: Random House Schat ACH, Kelloway EK. 2000. Effects of perceived control on the outcomes of workplace aggression and violence. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 5:386-402 Schat ACH, Kelloway EK. 2003. Reducing the adverse consequences of workplace aggression and violence: the buffering effects of organizational support. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 8:110-22 Skogstad A, Einarsen S, Torsheim T, Aasland MS, Hetland H. 2007a. The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 12:80-92 Skogstad A, Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. 2007b. Organizational changes: a precursor of bullying at work. Int. J. Org. Theory Behav. 10:58-94 Sober E. 1981. The principle of parsimony. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 32(2):145-56 Stevens LE, Fiske ST. 1995. Motivation and cognition in social life: a social survival perspective. Soc. Cogn. 13:189-214 Strandmark MK, Hallberg LRM. 2006. The origin of workplace bullying: experiences from the perspective of bully victims in the public service sector. J. Nurs. Manage. 14:1-10 Struthers CW, Dupuis R, Eaton J. 2005. Promoting forgiveness among coworkers following a workplace transgression. The effects of social motivation training. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 37:299-308 Tehrani N. 2004. Bullying: a source of chronic post traumatic stress? Br. J. Guid. Couns. 32:357-466 Tepper BJ. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Acad. Manage. J. 43:178-90
740 Aquino
•
Thau
Tepper BJ. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: review, synthesis, and research agenda. J. Manage. 33:261-89 Tepper BJ, Duffy MK, Shaw JD. 2001. Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates' resistance. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:974-83 Tepper BJ, Duffy MK, Henle CA, Lambert LS. 2006. Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Pers. Psychol. 59:101-23 Thau S, Aquino K, Poortvliet PM. 2007. Self-defeating behaviors in organizations: the relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal work behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:840-47 Tripp TM, Bies RJ, Aquino K. 2002. Poetic justice or petty jealousy? The aesthetics of revenge. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 89:966-84 Vartia M. 1996. The sources of bullying—psychological work environment and organizational climate. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 5:203-14 Vartia M, Hyyti J. 2002. Gender differences in workplace bullying among prison officers. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 11:113-26 Watson D, Clark LA. 1984. Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychol. Bull. 96:465-90 Winstanley S, Whittington R. 2002. Anxiety, burnout and coping styles in general hospital staff exposed to workplace aggression: a cyclical model of burnout and vulnerability to aggression. Work Stress 16:302-15 Zapf D. 1999. Organizational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying at work. Int. J. Manpower 20:70-85 Zapf D, Gross C. 2001. Con?ict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: a replication and extension. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 10:497-522 Zapf D, Knorz C, Kulla M. 1996. On the relationship between mobbing factors, and job content, social work environment, and health outcomes. Eur. J. Work Org. Psychol. 5:215-37 Zellars KL, Tepper BJ, Duffy MK. 2002. Abusive supervision and subordinate's organizational citizenship behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:1068-76
www.annualreviews.org?• Workplace Victimization
741
Annual Review of Psychology
Contents
Prefatory Emotion Theory and Research: Highlights, Unanswered Questions, and Emerging Issues CarrollE.Izardppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppppp1 Concepts and Categories Concepts and Categories: A Cognitive Neuropsychological Perspective BradfordZ.MahonandAlfonsoCaramazzapppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppp27 Judgment and Decision Making Mindful Judgment and Decision Making ElkeU.WeberandEricJ.Johnsonpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppp53 Comparative Psychology Comparative Social Cognition NathanJ.EmeryandNicolaS.Claytonpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppp87 Development: Learning, Cognition, and Perception Learning from Others: Children's Construction of Concepts SusanA.Gelmanppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppp115 Early and Middle Childhood Social Withdrawal in Childhood KennethH.Rubin,RobertJ.Coplan, andJulieC.Bowkerppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 141 Adulthood and Aging The Adaptive Brain: Aging and Neurocognitive Scaffolding DeniseC.ParkandPatriciaReuter-Lorenzppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppp173
Volume 60, 2009
Substance Abuse Disorders A Tale of Two Systems: Co-Occurring Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorders Treatment for Adolescents ElizabethH.Hawkinspppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppp197
vii
Therapy for Specific Problems Therapy for Specific Problems: Youth Tobacco Cessation SusanJ.Curry,RobinJ.Mermelstein,andAmyK.Sporerpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 229 Adult Clinical Neuropsychology Neuropsychological Assessment of Dementia DavidP.SalmonandMarkW.Bondippppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppp257 Child Clinical Neuropsychology Relations Among Speech, Language, and Reading Disorders BruceF.PenningtonandDorothyV.M.Bishopppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppp283 Attitude Structure Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities JohnT.Jost,ChristopherM.Federico,andJaimeL.Napierppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 307 Intergroup relations, stigma, stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination Prejudice Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment of Research and Practice ElizabethLevyPaluckandDonaldP.Greenppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppp339 Cultural In?uences Personality: The Universal and the Culturally Specific StevenJ.HeineandEmmaE.Buchtelpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppp369 Community Psychology Community Psychology: Individuals and Interventions in Community Context EdisonJ.Trickettppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppppppppp395 Leadership Leadership: Current Theories, Research, and Future Directions BruceJ.Avolio,FredO.Walumbwa,andToddJ.Weberppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pp421 Training and Development Benefits of Training and Development for Individuals and Teams, Organizations, and Society HermanAguinisandKurtKraigerppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppp451
Marketing and Consumer Behavior Conceptual Consumption DanArielyandMichaelI.Nortonpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppp475
viii
Contents
Psychobiological Mechanisms Health Psychology: Developing Biologically Plausible Models Linking the Social World and Physical Health GregoryE.Miler,EdithChen,andSteveColepppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppp501 Health and Social Systems The Case for Cultural Competency in Psychotherapeutic Interventions Stanley Sue, Nolan Zane, Gordon C. Nagayama Hall, and Lauren K. Berger p p p p p p p p p p 525 Research Methodology Missing Data Analysis: Making It Work in the Real World JohnW.Grahampppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppp549 Psychometrics: Analysis of Latent Variables and Hypothetical Constructs Latent Variable Modeling of Differences and Changes with Longitudinal Data JohnJ.McArdleppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppp577 Evaluation The Renaissance of Field Experimentation in Evaluating Interventions WiliamR.ShadishandThomasD.Cookpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppp607 Timely Topics Adolescent Romantic Relationships W.AndrewCollins,DeborahP.Welsh,andWyndolFurmanpppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 631 Imitation, Empathy, and Mirror Neurons MarcoIacobonippppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppp653 Predicting Workplace Aggression and Violence JulianBarling,KathryneE.Dupr´e,andE.KevinKelloway ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp 671 The Social Brain: Neural Basis of Social Knowledge RalphAdolphspppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppppppp693 Workplace Victimization: Aggression from the Target's Perspective KarlAquinoandStefanThauppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp ppppppppppppppp717 Indexes
C u m u l a t i v e I n d e x o f C o n t r i b u t i n g A u t h o r s , V o l u m
es50-60 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p743 CumulativeIndexofChapterTitles,Volumes50-60pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp748 Errata An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology articles may be found at http://psych.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
Contents
ix
doc_675262711.docx