European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

ISSN: 1359-432X (Print) 1464-0643 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

When prey turns predatory: Workplace bullying as

a predictor of counteraggression/bullying, coping,
and well-being

Raymond T. Lee & Céleste M. Brotheridge

To cite this article: Raymond T. Lee & Céleste M. Brotheridge (2006) When prey turns predatory:
Workplace bullying as a predictor of counteraggression/bullying, coping, and well-being, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15:3, 352-377, DOI: 10.1080/13594320600636531

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320600636531

Published online: 17 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1695

View related articles

Citing articles: 97 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND
ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
2006, 15 (3), 352 – 377

When prey turns predatory: Workplace bullying as a

predictor of counteraggression/bullying, coping,
and well-being
Raymond T. Lee
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Céleste M. Brotheridge
Universite´ du Que´bec à Montre´al, Canada

This study examined workplace bullying through a self-report survey of a

sample of 180 adults from diverse occupations and industries in Canada. It
was predicted that bullying by others would lead to counteraggressive/bullying
behaviours and certain coping responses. In turn, coping with bullying was
predicted to impact burnout and well-being. Three different forms of bullying
were identified: verbal abuse, work being undermined, and belittlement. The
results of structural relations analyses reveal that both verbal abuse and work
being undermined were related to reciprocal forms of bullying. In addition,
whereas verbal abuse was related to problem solving as a way of coping with
bullying, belittlement was related to self-doubt, indirect/passive coping, and
ignoring the bully. Self-doubt was, in turn, related to burnout and symptoms
of ill-health.

Although estimates vary, workplace bullying is thought to be more

common than racial discrimination or sexual harassment (O’Reilly, 2000;
Rayner, 1997). According to the Campaign against Workplace Bullying,
‘‘one in five employees [in the US] is bullied with repeated, deliberately
harmful verbal abuse’’ (Namie, 2000). Rayner (1997) found that 53% of the

Correspondence should be addressed to Raymond Lee, Department of Business

Administration, I. H. Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
Manitoba, Canada R3T 5V4. E-mail: raylee@cc.umanitoba.ca
An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the Administrative
Sciences Association of Canada, Winnipeg, 2002. Portions of the data from this study also were
presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco,
2001. The authors thank Tricia Flude and Aimee Bernath for their assistance in data collection.
Both authors contributed equally to this article.

Ó 2006 Psychology Press Ltd

http://www.psypress.com/ejwop DOI: 10.1080/13594320600636531
 WORKPLACE BULLYING 353

respondents in her study reported that they had experienced some form of
workplace bullying. Bullying, an unwelcome social encounter, has become a
major occupational stressor, creating both legal and financial problems for
organizations (Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper, 1999), as well as decrements in
morale, health, and job performance and increased absenteeism and
turnover among the targets of bullying (Keashly, 1998; Rayner & Cooper,
1997).
Several prominent research teams have investigated the antecedents and
outcomes of workplace bullying (Einarson, Matthiesen, & Mikkelsen, 2000;
Hoel et al., 1999; Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996). Although research has
tended to examine the experiences of targets in the bullying process, our
understanding of this process may be enhanced if perpetrators were
also considered, preferably in a concurrent manner (Ireland, 1999). This
point of view is supported by Ireland’s (1999) research on adult prison
inmates that found that the boundary between targets and perpetrators were
blurred. Also, although researchers have theorized that mistreated
workers go on to mistreat others (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Folger &
Skarlicki, 1998; Ireland & Archer, 2002), this link has not been extensively
examined. Although counteraggression was considered in Salmivalli,
Karhunen, and Lagerspetz’s (1996) study of adolescents, their focus was
on the frequency with which they used helplessness and nonchalance
as coping responses rather than on their relationship to bullying per se. The
present study examines the combined experiences of targets and
perpetrators. Additionally, it addresses an area of research that requires
more attention: the link between bullying and coping, emotional strain, and
health outcomes among adult workers (Neuman & Baron, 1998; cf.
Robinson & Bennett, 1995).

CONCEPT OF BULLYING
Workplace bullying is defined as a persistent pattern of negative acts
directed at a worker (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Einarsen, Matthiesen, &
Skogstad, 1998; Keashly, 1998). It may incorporate actions falling within
the domain of incivility and aggression. As with incivility, the intentions of
perpetrators to cause humiliation, offence, or distress are not always
apparent and are of less importance than the cumulative effects of their
actions. Indeed, Einarsen et al. (1998) argued that perpetrators tend to
engage in acts that allow them to conceal any hostile intentions. This may be
explained by the effect/danger ratio (Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Hjelt-Back,
1994) in which perpetrators seek to maximize the impact of their aggression
while minimizing personal costs. Given its covert nature, indirect aggression
is less likely to evoke a response; yet, it still has damaging effects on its
targets. Hence, it combines high yield with low danger for the perpetrator.
354 LEE AND BROTHERIDGE

As suggested by Einarsen et al. (1998, p. 564), in the early stages,

perpetrators are most likely to engage in ‘‘behaviours that are difficult to
pinpoint because they are very indirect and discreet. Later on, more direct
aggressive acts appear.’’
Neuman and Baron (1998) proposed a three-dimensional typology of
workplace aggression including: verbal vs. physical, direct vs. nondirect, and
active vs. passive aggression. The most common form of aggression is
verbal-passive-indirect (e.g., failing to transmit information needed by the
target). In examining the prevalence of bullying behaviours, Namie (2000)
found that the following tactics were the most commonly used: blaming
targets for errors, making unreasonable demands, criticizing targets’ work
ability, inconsistently applying made-up rules, threatening job loss, offer-
ing insults and put-downs, discounting targets’ accomplishments, socially
excluding targets, yelling and screaming, and stealing credit for targets’
work. The nature of these tactics suggests that the most prevalent bullying
behaviours fall on the verbal and active ends of Neuman and Baron’s
continuums. However, the bullying literature generally suggests that
bullying tactics include both direct and indirect, and active and passive
aggressive actions.

A MODEL OF BULLYING OUTCOMES

To understand bullying as a process, Glasl’s (1982) conflict-escalation model
and Wilkie’s (1996) model of stress breakdown from abusive behaviour are
considered. Zapf and Gross (2001) suggested that bullying leads to conflict
escalation. According to Glasl, bullying progresses from rationality and
control in which targets attempt to resolve differences through problem
solving and rational discussion (phase 1), to severing the relationship when
conflict escalates to distrust, lack of respect, and overt hostility (phase 2), to
aggression and destruction such that targets feel pressure to leave the
organization (phase 3). Bullying as conflict-escalation appears to exist at the
boundary between phases two and three.
Adult workers may have a limited ability to manage bullying, and their
coping attempts may adversely affect their emotional well-being (cf. Glasl,
1982). Indeed, Zapf and Gross (2001) found that most targets were not
successful in coping with bullying, and that their responses often led to
heightened conflict between perpetrators and targets. Ironically, targets
using constructive coping strategies (phase 1) were less likely to be successful
in reducing bullying since targets had little control over the conflict situation
given the perpetrators’ power and influence over targets (Ireland & Archer,
2002). Indeed, targets relying on passive coping strategies such as cognitive
restructuring, relaxation techniques and avoidance may be better able to
lessen their levels of stress and emotional strain (cf. Hobfoll, 1989).
 WORKPLACE BULLYING 355

However targets attempt to cope, their health is likely to worsen over

time with the strain becoming increasingly difficult to handle. The coping
approach employed by adult targets may be inferred from Wilkie’s (1996)
model of stress breakdown from abusive behaviour. Initially, targets may
feel a sense of free-floating anxiety characterized by trying to do too many
things at once or taking on overly difficult challenges. In this state, they may
experience insufficient sleep, poor nutrition, illness and hormonal imbalance,
and reliance on chemical stimulants. Later, targets may find it difficult to
maintain emotional control and motivate themselves. They tend to feel run
down and emotionally drained. When they lose emotional control, they may
exhibit aggressive tendencies toward others at and outside of work (i.e.,
behaviours indicative of frustration-aggression). Such defensive aggression
may be sudden, unpredictable, and even violent. Finally, targets may
emotionally withdraw as a means of avoiding stimulation as much as possible.
As well, they may become less able to ignore things that they previously
tolerated. Their changed affective state may even resemble a change in
disposition (Watson, Suls, & Haig, 2002).
Given Glasl’s (1982) and Wilkie’s (1996) models, being bullied may be
linked to counteraggressive actions towards others. It may also serve a
stressor that leads to coping directed at mitigating the impact of bullying. In
turn, these coping responses tax targets’ emotional and physical states.
Below, we consider in greater detail how targets of bullying may react by
engaging in counteraggressive/bullying behaviours, and bullying’s broader
impact on coping, burnout, and well-being.

Counteraggressive/bullying behaviours
Counteraggressive/bullying behaviours involve the displacement of frustra-
tions and anger onto other individuals (Hoel et al., 1999; Hoobler, 2003).
Hoel et al. (1999) believed that this occurs as a result of a transfer of arousal
from one event to another. For example, if a manager yells insults at a
secretary, the secretary might, as in a ripple effect, insult another person, and
so on (Hoobler, 2003). Bullying may also be a means of gaining social
control by isolating targets for abuse, who, in turn, become abusive towards
others (Ireland & Ireland, 2000; Mann, 1996). Such individuals may come to
believe that they have a right to exercise such control, precisely because they
suffered at the hands of others.
When individuals perceive that established norms of acceptable
behaviour have been violated, abusive treatment may spiral into further
acts of mistreatment (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Hoobler, 2003). Targets
may experience negative emotions that fuel their need to abuse others. This
dovetails with Folger and Skarlicki’s (1998) popcorn metaphor in which
mistreatment creates interpersonal heat that, in turn, leads to displaced
356 LEE AND BROTHERIDGE

aggression. The threat to one’s self-concept appears to be at the core of this

process. As argued by Andersson and Pearson, personal identity becomes so
salient during interpersonal conflict that individuals engage in coercive
behaviours in proportion to the extent that their identity has been
threatened or attacked. Targets may thus mistreat others as a means of
repairing an eroded sense of self (Aquino & Douglas, 2003; Bies & Tripp,
1996) or rebalancing the social injustices visited upon them (Hoobler, 2003).
Studies of workplace retaliation (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997) and revenge
(Tripp & Bies, 1997; Tripp, Bies, & Aquino, 2002) have found that workers
seek to somehow even the score in response to the poor treatment that they
received (Bies & Tripp, 1996; Hoobler, 2003; Miller, 2001). In particular,
Bies and Tripp (1996) found that retaliatory responses were more likely to
occur if adult targets attributed the perpetrator’s intentions as malicious and
actions as undertaken with the express purpose of causing harm. Moreover,
they found that the actions that were most likely to lead to a desire for
retaliation included: being criticized in public, wrongly or unfairly accused,
and insulted by the perpetrator. Not coincidently, these behaviours were on
Namie’s (2000) list of the top bullying tactics.
The possibility that targets of bullying would engage in counter-
aggressive/bullying behaviours can be considered in light of studies of
adult and adolescent prison inmates (Ireland, 1999; Ireland & Archer, 2002;
Ireland & Ireland, 2000). Ireland and Archer (2002) found that, of a
sample of male and female inmates, 14% identified themselves as ‘‘pure’’
perpetrators, 23% identified themselves as ‘‘pure’’ targets, 35% identified
themselves as both perpetrators and targets, and the remaining 28% were
uninvolved (also see Ireland & Ireland, 2000). When asked what would
happen if they responded aggressively to hypothetical bullying situations,
the ‘‘pure’’ perpetrators believed that significantly more positive than
negative consequences would result, especially in response to theft-related
bullying. Also, the combined perpetrators-targets believed that significantly
more positive than negative consequences would result if they responded
aggressively to indirect and indirect-physical bullying. These findings
suggest that different forms of bullying may elicit different responses from
targets. The ‘‘pure’’ perpetrators thought that an aggressive response to
theft would lead to positive consequences since it showed that they were still
in control of their prison environment. The combined perpetrator-targets
thought that indirect aggression was the best way to vent their frustrations
regarding their serving as targets of indirect bullying. Moreover, Ireland
(1999) reported that inmates preferred to use indirect rather than direct
aggression since it maximized the effect/danger ratio (Bjorkqvist et al.,
1994). Ireland et al.’s prison studies imply that bullying and counter-
aggression may be reciprocally related (see also Mann, 1996). Some of the
inmates in Ireland and Archer’s study may have been the targets of bullying
 WORKPLACE BULLYING 357

because they had bullied other inmates initially. Based on this body of
research, bullying in one form may engender aggressive actions of the same
or a similar form by the target, but not necessarily toward the original
perpetrator(s). Given the preceding discussion, we posit that:

Hypothesis 1: Being bullied by others leads to counteraggressive/bullying

behaviours on the part of targets. That is, how a person is bullied will
determine how s/he will act toward others.

However, given the conflict escalation nature of bullying (Glasl, 1982; Zapf
& Gross, 2001), an alternative hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 1a: Aggressive/bullying behaviours towards others may lead

to being bullied by others. That is, how a person acts towards others will
determine how others will bully him/her.

Coping with bullying

Research on coping with bullying has concentrated on identifying the most
prevalent coping responses employed by targets rather than on the strength
of their associations with bullying itself. For example, Rayner (1997) found
that the most popular responses were: confronting the perpetrator, doing
nothing, consulting with human resources or colleagues, or leaving their
jobs. The least popular coping responses were requesting counselling or
seeking outside help. In their study, Keashly, Trott, and MacLean (1994)
found that targets typically attempted to not deal directly with the
perpetrator by, for example, avoiding the perpetrator or getting ideas from
others on how to deal with the perpetrator. Keashly et al. suggested that this
coping response tended to maintain the status quo and allowed problems to
persist. The more direct action of challenging perpetrators or reporting their
behaviours to higher authorities may have a more positive impact since they
address the problems directly. The least frequently employed coping
responses were: threatening to tell others, threatening to harm perpetrators,
and taking sick days or time off.
According to the contingency view of stress management, coping
strategies, regardless of their nature, should fit the given situation (Latack,
1986). Thus, the form of bullying directed at targets affects their choice of
coping strategies. For instance, yelling or screaming is more likely to lead to
a response in which the target shouts abuse back to the perpetrator. In
contrast, consistent with Neuman and Baron’s (1998) model, exclusion or
‘‘icing out’’ is more likely to lead to an indirect response such as seeking
emotional and/or political support from co-workers. In short, coping
358 LEE AND BROTHERIDGE

responses are likely to mirror the nature of the bullying that is experienced.
Based on the foregoing, we posit that:

Hypothesis 2: Targets’ coping responses are positively associated with

‘‘equivalent’’ forms of bullying.

Job burnout and well-being

Coping responses do not necessarily lead to satisfactory outcomes for the
targets of bullying. For example, Zapf and Gross (2001) found that active
strategies such as talking to or confronting perpetrators were unlikely to
lead to a successful resolution. Indeed, successful targets tended to use active
strategies less often than unsuccessful ones (cf. Keashly et al., 1994). In the
advanced stages of bullying, targets had little or no control, and, thus, found
that the only viable option was to distance themselves in some fashion (e.g.,
working separately from perpetrators or leaving the organization alto-
gether). Zapf and Gross also found that active problem-solving strategies in
bullying situations actually increased the targeting of individuals (Aquino,
2000) and retaliation by perpetrators (Rayner, 1999). The effect is not only
conflict escalation (Glasl, 1982), but also heightened emotional strain and
ill-health. As concluded by Hoel et al. (1999) in their review of the empirical
literature, bullying indirectly affected how targets experienced emotional
exhaustion through the particular coping strategy that they employed.
The Conservation of Resource (COR) model of stress suggests that, when
targets are forced to cope with unwanted social encounters, their resources
become overtaxed (Hobfoll, 1989). They can respond by either mitigating
the emotional and/or physical impact of bullying (i.e., lowering the
demands) or by seeking social support (i.e., increasing resources). When
their coping responses are unable to rebalance demands and resources,
burnout and strain are likely to occur. In extreme situations, attempts to
cope may cause a severe drain of emotional resources, which, in turn, lead
to severe depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (Leymann &
Gustafsson, 1996). More commonly, the inability to adequately cope may
lead to psychosomatic stress symptoms (Leymann, 1996), anxiety, and mild
depression (Bjorkqvist et al., 1994).
The COR model has implications for understanding how targets are
likely to respond to bullying. First, it suggests that targets are adversely
affected when they lack adequate means to cope. Second, their expenditure
of resources in mitigating the impact of bullying leads to emotional strain
that builds up over time until a psychological breaking point is reached.
The symptoms of this breaking point include: low self-esteem, poor
communication skills, insecurity in developing relationships, and a desire
 WORKPLACE BULLYING 359

for revenge or retaliation (Mann, 1996). Third, in the long term, targets tend
to lack the self-confidence and sense of personal power needed to initiate
change (Lee, 2000). As argued by Mann (1996, p. 88), ‘‘Because of the
constant drive to meet unreasonable demands and expectations in order to
gain approval and stop the abuse, the target becomes physically, and in turn,
emotionally weak which reinforces compliance rather than challenging the
abusive behaviour.’’
Taken together, the evidence suggests that coping with bullying is highly
stressful (Hoel et al., 1999; Leymann, 1996; Zapf & Gross, 2001) and may
lead to burnout (Einarsen et al., 1998; Matthiesen, Raknes, & Rokkum,
1989). Moreover, targets have reported experiencing physical symptoms
(Einarsen & Raknes, 1991; Leymann, 1996; Matthiesen et al., 1989) as well
as psychological or affective symptoms, including depression and anxiety
(Bjorkqvist et al., 1994; Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001;
Niedl, 1996). An inability to cope not only leads to burnout, but may also
independently undermine one’s physical health and affective state. In turn,
burnout has been found to negatively affect levels of personal health (Lee &
Ashforth, 1996; Leiter & Maslach, 1988). Hence, we posit that:

Hypothesis 3: An inability to cope with bullying is positively related to

the three dimensions of burnout: emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and
low self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 4: An inability to cope with bullying is positively related to

the physiological and affective symptoms of ill-health.

Building on existing research, this study examines how bullying is related

to counteraggressive/bullying behaviours and various coping responses
and their effects on mental and physical health. Figure 1 shows the paths
specified in Hypotheses 1 – 4. Given its potential negative consequences

Figure 1. Model of bullying and its outcomes.

360 LEE AND BROTHERIDGE

(Ireland & Archer, 2002), bullying by others may directly influence burnout
levels without necessarily eliciting a counteraggressive behaviour or any
coping response. This is especially so for ‘‘pure targets’’ who choose to
withdraw socially and isolate themselves (Ireland, 1999). This link has not
been systematically tested but is worth exploring. Hence, in addition to the
specified hypotheses, the possibility that bullying by others is directly related
to the three dimensions of burnout will be examined.

METHOD
Participants
Workers from the Canadian prairies were asked to take part in a survey
study entitled, ‘‘Workplace Thoughts and Experiences’’. They were not told
that the study was on workplace bullying per se. Of the 341 invited to
participate, 53% or 180 took part. All 180 respondents completed an
anonymous questionnaire on their own time and mailed the completed
survey directly to the second author. The workers were sampled from four
organizational settings: the public service, an elementary school, a hospital,
and a potash mine. About 40% of the respondents were clerical workers,
30% were professionals, and 16% were managers, with the remaining
employed in miscellaneous areas. Of the respondents, 108 were female, and
104 were married. Their mean age was 38 years. Most (146) were full-time
employees. Their mean organizational tenure was 11.4 years; and their mean
job tenure was 6 years.

Measures
Bullying. Bullying by others and counteraggression/bullying were
measured by 43 behavioural items, all drawn from existing scales with
the exception of one item (Cortina et al., 2001; Keashly et al., 1994;
Quine, 1999; Rayner, 1997). Some of the items overlap conceptually with
those of the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terrorization (LIPT;
Leymann & Tallgren, 1989) and the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ;
Einarsen & Raknes, 1997), but cover a broader range of behaviours than the
latter. For example, criticism of an individual’s performance or contribution
is addressed in a single item in the LIPT (i.e., ‘‘You are criticized and your
job or contribution is devalued’’) and the NAQ (i.e., ‘‘Persistent criticism of
your work and effort’’). The present study addressed this type of bullying
with a broader range of items. These items were largely derived from
Keashly et al. (1994) and Quine (1999) (e.g., ‘‘Criticized your abilities’’,
‘‘Told you that you were incompetent’’, ‘‘Belittled and undermined you’’,
 WORKPLACE BULLYING 361

‘‘Undervalued your efforts’’, ‘‘Treated you as incompetent’’, and ‘‘You are

given meaningless tasks’’).
Respondents indicated how frequently each of the 43 behaviours were
directed towards them during the past 6 months (i.e., bullied by others),
using a 5-point response scale: 1 ¼ ‘‘not at all’’, 2 ¼ ‘‘once or twice’’,
3 ¼ ‘‘now and then’’, 4 ¼ ‘‘once a week’’, and 5 ¼ ‘‘many times a week’’.
Respondents then indicated how frequently they directed each of these same
43 behaviours towards others during the past 6 months (i.e., bullied others),
using the identical response scale (1 ¼ ‘‘not at all’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘many times a
week’’).

Coping with bullying. This scale was measured with 22 items drawn from
existing scale items of how targets coped with bullying or psychological
abuse (Einarsen et al., 2000; Keashly et al., 1994; Salmivalli et al., 1996).
Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently they responded to the
bullying behaviours of others using a 5-point response scale ranging from
1 ¼ ‘‘never’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘always’’.

Burnout. Maslach, Jackson, and Leiter’s (1996) modified Maslach

Burnout Inventory (MBI-GS) was used to measure emotional exhaustion
(eight items; e.g., ‘‘I feel emotionally drained from my work’’), cynicism (five
items; e.g., ‘‘I have become more cynical about whether my work
contributes anything’’), and efficacy (six items; e.g., ‘‘In my opinion, I am
good at my job’’). The MBI-GS uses a 7-point frequency response scale.

Symptoms of ill-health. Two types of symptoms were assessed:

physiological and affective. The first was measured with Wahler’s (1983)
Physical Symptoms Inventory, containing 40 items with a 5-point response
scale (e.g., ‘‘Please indicate how often each of these physical troubles bothers
you: ‘Nausea’.’’). The second was measured with McNair, Lorr, and
Doppleman’s (1971) Profile of Mood States. This measure includes 65 items
rated on a 5-point scale (e.g., ‘‘Rate how you have been feeling during the
past few days including today: ‘friendly’.’’).

RESULTS
Principal components analyses of bullying
and coping measures
The number of factors retained for the bullying and coping measures was
based on the pattern of item loadings. Any factor that had two or more
items cross-loading .50 or greater on another factor was dropped since this
suggested conceptual redundancy or overlap. Also, any factor that had only
362 LEE AND BROTHERIDGE

one or two items loading .50 or greater were dropped since the factor
stability could not be assured.
The bullying items were subjected to two separate principal components
analyses. Three meaningful factors emerged for bullied by others and
accounted for 43% of the common variance. Table 1 indicates the rotated

TABLE 1
Bullied by others: Factors, items, and loadings

Factor

Item 1 2 3

29. Talked down to you .81 .13 .12

26. Doubted your judgement .75 .27 .16
1. Intimidated you .69 .04 .16
30. Interrupted/prevented you from expressing yourself .66 .09 .01
5. Belittled and undermined you .64 .25 .10
28. Ignored you or your contributions .64 .46 .10
27. Flaunted their status .58 .21 .03
38. Undervalued your efforts .57 .56 .09
7. Told you that you were incompetent .56 .16 .17
13. Criticized your abilities .52 .24 .43
19. Treated you like an incompetent .50 .26 .14
25. Ignored or excluded you .48 .47 .05
6. Put down/humiliated you in front of others .46 .26 .20
37. Shifted goals without telling you .22 .75 .02
35. Put undue pressure to produce work .16 .73 .05
34. Withheld necessary information .12 .65 .07
41. Set you up to fail .38 .61 .08
36. Set impossible deadlines .24 .56 .07
24. Showed little interest in your opinion .42 .50 .14
39. Attempted to demoralize you .40 .41 7.05
8. Yelled at you .12 7.03 .85
12. Made angry outbursts .18 .06 .68
20. Swore at you .03 .04 .61
9. Accused you of wrongdoing .36 .11 .60
32. Threatened you verbally and/or nonverbally .07 .15 .52
16. Had a tantrum .09 .05 .51
21. Blamed you for other’s errors .34 .30 .44
Eigenvalue 13.55 2.87 1.96
Percentage of variance explained 31.5 6.7 4.6

Respondent rated how often each of the behaviours was done to him/her during the past
6 months using the response scale: 1 ¼ ‘‘not at all’’, 2 ¼ ‘‘once or twice’’, 3 ¼ ‘‘now and then’’,
4 ¼ ‘‘about once a week’’, 5 ¼ ‘‘many times a week’’. Items 24 – 26 (Cortina et al., 2001), 32 – 39
(Quine, 1999), 41 (Rayner, 1997), remaining (Keashly et al., 1994). Item numbers correspond to
the order in which they were presented in the survey. Factor 1 is labelled ‘‘belittlement’’, Factor
2 is labelled ‘‘work undermined’’, and Factor 3 is labelled ‘‘verbal abuse’’. Loading in boldface
indicates the factor to which the corresponding item was assigned when computing the scale
score.
 WORKPLACE BULLYING 363

factors, items, and factor loadings. The first factor was labelled ‘‘belittle-
ment’’ (13 items), the second factor was labelled ‘‘work undermined’’ (seven
items), and the third factor was labelled ‘‘verbal abuse’’ (seven items). For
bullied others, three meaningful factors emerged, which accounted for 39%
of the common variance. Table 2 provides the rotated factors, items, and
factor loadings. The first factor was labelled ‘‘created ‘fall guy/gal’’’ (six
items), the second factor was labelled ‘‘undermined others’ work’’ (five
items), and the third factor was labelled ‘‘emotional abuse’’ (four items).
Although six items loaded significantly on one of the three bullied others
factors, their parallel items did not load significantly on any of the first three
bullied by others factors. Conversely, although 17 of the 27 items loaded
significantly on one of the three bullied by others factors, their parallel
items did not load significantly on any of the first three bullied others

TABLE 2
Bullied others: Factors, items, and loadings

Factor

Item 1 2 3

41. Set you up to fail .84 .12 .02

2. Ordered to stay late .76 .08 7.02
5. Belittled and undermined you .74 7.01 .00
22. Threw items at you .68 7.02 .02
21. Blamed you for other’s errors .53 .13 .04
18. Spread rumours about you .51 .12 .03
36. Set impossible deadlines 7.07 .84 7.02
42. Overloaded you with work .18 .66 7.01
38. Undervalued your efforts .25 .64 .00
37. Shifted goals without telling you .52 .61 .02
35. Put undue pressure to produce work .09 .56 .03
10. Made jokes at your expense .01 .00 .91
16. Had a tantrum 7.04 7.06 .84
32. Threatened you verbally and/or nonverbally 7.06 7.01 .82
13. Criticized your abilities .33 .11 .65
Eigenvalue 10.30 3.42 2.81
Percentage of variance explained 24.0 8.0 6.5

Respondent rated how often s/he did each of the behaviours to others during the past
6 months using the response scale: 1 ¼ ‘‘not at all’’, 2 ¼ ‘‘once or twice’’, 3 ¼ ‘‘now and then’’,
4 ¼ ‘‘about once a week’’, 5 ¼ ‘‘many times a week’’. Items 32 – 39 (Quine, 1999), 41 and 42
(Rayner, 1997), remaining (Keashly et al., 1994). Item numbers correspond to the order in
which they were presented in the survey. Factor 1 is labelled ‘‘created ‘fall guy/gal’’’, Factor 2 is
labelled ‘‘undermined others’ work’’, and Factor 3 is labelled ‘‘emotional abuse’’. Loading in
boldface indicates the factor to which the corresponding item was assigned when computing the
scale score.
364 LEE AND BROTHERIDGE

factors. This suggested some conceptual distinction in how the respondents

viewed the way in which they were treated by others versus how they
treated others. Due to the low scale internal consistency for emotional
abuse (alpha ¼ .46), this factor was excluded from the structural relations
analyses.
For coping with bullying, four meaningful factors emerged and
accounted for 49% of the common variance. Table 3 indicates the rotated
factors, items, and factor loadings. The first factor was labelled ‘‘self-doubt’’
(five items), the second factor was labelled ‘‘ignored bully’’ (five items), the
third factor was labelled ‘‘indirect or passive’’ (three items), and the fourth
factor was labelled ‘‘problem solving’’ (five items).

TABLE 3
Coping with bullying: Factors, items, and loadings

Factor

Items 1 2 3 4

15. Felt worthless .83 .11 .01 .10

16. Felt helpless to do anything .82 .10 .24 7.01
14. Felt bad about myself .82 .08 .17 .13
17. Lowered my productivity .66 .00 .11 .06
18. Thought about quitting .54 .02 .37 7.24
20. Didn’t take the behaviour seriously 7.06 .71 .00 .07
21. Acted as if you didn’t care .22 .70 .17 7.04
22. Stayed calm 7.23 .65 .21 .08
9. Went along with the behaviour .30 .61 7.08 .04
1. Ignored the behaviour or did nothing .19 .54 .34 7.19
11. Talked with others about the behaviour .09 .18 .70 .08
2. Avoided the person .21 .23 .69 .01
19. Thought about getting revenge .30 7.11 .41 .12
3. Asked the person to stop 7.07 .07 7.10 .75
5. Told my supervisor/boss .11 7.19 .50 .59
10. Got someone else to speak to the .27 .00 .04 .56
person about the behaviour
4. Threatened to tell others .09 .13 .31 .46
12. Behaved extra nice to the person .13 7.09 7.10 .41
Eigenvalue 5.12 2.44 1.90 1.24
Percentage variance explained 23.3 11.1 8.6 5.7

Each respondent was asked to rate how frequently s/he responded to each behaviour using the
response scale: 1 ¼ ‘‘never’’ (those that did not experience a given bullying behaviour answered
‘‘never’’), 2 ¼ ‘‘rarely’’, 3 ¼ ‘‘sometimes’’, 4 ¼ ‘‘often’’, 5 ¼ ‘‘always’’. Items 14 – 16 (Einarsen et al.,
2000), 17 – 19 (present study), 20 – 22 (Salmivalli et al., 1996), remaining (Keashly et al., 1994).
Item numbers correspond to the order in which they were presented in the survey. Factor 1 is
labelled ‘‘self-doubt’’, Factor 2 is labelled ‘‘ignored bully’’, Factor 3 is labelled ‘‘indirect or
passive’’, Factor 4 is labelled ‘‘problem solving’’. Loading in boldface indicates the factor to which
the corresponding item was assigned when computing the scale score.
 WORKPLACE BULLYING 365

Incidence of bullying
Leymann and Tallgren (1989) considered adults to have been bullied if they
were exposed to at least one of 45 negative acts on a weekly basis for more
than 6 months. Using the same approach to measure the incidence of
bullying, we found that 72 respondents, or 40% of the sample, reported that
they had experienced one or more acts of bullying or aggressive behaviours
at least once per week in the past 6 months. Additionally, 18 respondents, or
10% of the sample, had experienced five or more such acts at least once per
week in the past 6 months. Given that bullying involves repeated behaviours
as reported by the targets, the foregoing suggests that between 10% and
40% of the present sample were targets of bullying or aggressive behaviours.
We also found that 44 respondents, or 24% of the sample, reported that
they themselves had engaged in one or more forms of bullying or aggressive
acts at least once per week in the past 6 months. Additionally, 36
respondents, or 20% of the sample, had been both the target and
perpetrator of at least one form of bullying or aggressive act once per week
or more in the past 6 months.

Relationships among the bullying variables

Table 4 presents the means, standard deviations, scale reliability estimates,
and correlations of the variables used in the model shown in Figure 1, as
well as the summated scores for bullied by others and bullied others. The
summated scales were strongly related (r ¼ .63, p5 .001). The three forms of
bullied by others also were highly interrelated, as were the two forms of
bullied others. The high correlations among the bullying factors may have
been due to their overlap with a broader variable, such as ‘‘negative social
acts’’, which may need to be controlled before proceeding to the structural
relations model. A negative social acts scale was, therefore, constructed by
summing across the 43 bullied by others and the 43 bullied others items.
However, a comparison of the zero- and partial-order correlations revealed
an inversion in signs among the bullying factors and didn’t make conceptual
sense. For example, although the zero-order correlation between belittle-
ment and work undermined was .71, their partial correlation was – .20. As
another example, although the zero-order correlation between belittlement
and verbal abuse was .52, their partial correlation was – .49. Therefore,
support was not found for the use of negative social acts as a control
variable in the structural relations model.
It is also possible that the correlation between bullied by others and
bullied others was due to hostile work climates in which bullying within the
workplace or, at least, among members of the same occupational groups
was encouraged (Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994; Vartia, 1996). To
 TABLE 4

366
Means, standard deviations, scale reliability estimates, and correlations
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1. Bullied by 1.48 3.88 .94

others
2. Work 1.42 0.57 .89** .85
undermined
3. Belittled 1.53 0.61 .80** .71** .91
by others
4. Verbal abuse 1.36 0.50 .68** .51** .40** .81
5. Bullied others 1.24 2.55 .63** .44** .33** .50** .82
6. Created 1.07 0.25 .41** .26** .19** .44** .66** .80
‘‘fall
guy/gal’’
7. Undermine 1.16 0.33 .36** .29** .31** .28** .48** .36** .78
others
8. Problem 1.76 0.59 .39** .31** .25** .48** .22** .30** .12 .60
solving
9. Self-doubt 1.71 0.81 .55** .58** .48** .29** .12 .05 .08 .32** .85
10. Indirect 2.27 0.81 .37** .45** .27** .22** .20** .12* .00 .35** .47** .56
coping
11. Ignore bully 3.50 0.99 .20** .24** .16* .06 .13* .09 .11 .16* .23** .33** .70
12. Exhaustion 2.66 1.38 .28** .31** .27** .21** .00 .00 .03 .15* .31** .20** .02 .87
13. Cynicism 2.10 1.46 .23** .21** .25** .10 .05 .08 .04 .05 .41** .21** .07 .43** .85
14. Efficacy 4.85 0.96 7.17* 7.12 7.20** 7.03 7.11 7.21** 7.04 7.09 7.28** 7.12 7.04 7.13* 7.49 .78
15. Affective 2.05 0.38 .43** .38** .32** .31** .26** .14* .17* .21** .40** .26** .11 .35** .37** 7.17 .89
symptoms
16. Physical 1.69 0.50 .39** .34** .34** .25** .22** .07 .20** .16* .38** .15* .09 .44** .23** 7.13 .54 .88
symptoms

N ¼ 173, after list-wise deletion of missing cases. Scale reliability (alpha) estimates are on the main diagonal.
*p5 .05, **p5 .01.
 WORKPLACE BULLYING 367

the extent that bullying is perceived to be prevalent, dysfunctional responses

to such acts may also be equally prevalent. This suggests that high within-
group perceptual agreement may be inflating the relationship between how
the participants perceived and reacted to bullying. This possibility was tested
by computing one-way analysis-of-variance intraclass correlations (ICC-1;
Bartko, 1976) for bullied by others and bullied others across the four
organizational groups of workers in our sample. Gauging perceptual
agreement with ICC-1 has been recommended for organizational climate
research (Jackofsky & Slocum, 1988; James, 1982) and is particularly
applicable here. In our sample, the ICC-1 coefficients were found to be less
than .01 for both bullied by others and bullied others. This diminishes the
likelihood that contextual factors such as hostile work environments would
have accounted for the association between bullied by others and bullied
others.

Potential covariates of bullying

Prior to testing the structural relations model, several demographic and
dispositional covariates of bullying were considered. Accordingly, age,
gender, education, job seniority, and organizational tenure were related to
the summated scales of bullied by others and bullied others. None of the
zero-order correlations were significant. However, a measure of self-esteem
(Rosenberg, 1965) was correlated – .20 (p5 .01) with bullying by others and
– .19 (p5 .01) with bullied others. Given the strong association between self-
esteem and negative affectivity established in previous research (e.g., Watson
et al., 2002), the correlations among the bullying factors were reexamined
after controlling for self-esteem. A comparison of the zero- and partial-order
correlations revealed no significant difference. For example, the zero-order
correlation between belittlement and work undermined was .71 while their
partial correlation was .70. As another example, the zero- and partial-order
correlations between created ‘‘fall guy/gal’’ and undermined others were
both .38. Given this, self-esteem was not used as a control in the structural
relations model.

Structural relations analyses

The first step in performing the structural relations analyses was to identify a
best fitting model in order to determine if our hypotheses were supported. In
the second step, two other models were nested within this model: one with
the burnout dimensions not linked to each other (as their linkages were not
explicitly predicted but their residuals were allowed to be correlated), and a
second with the burnout dimensions not linked and the bullied by others
factors directly related to the burnout dimensions. The third step was to
368 LEE AND BROTHERIDGE

compare the best fitting model with a major alternative model where bullied
others led to bullied by others (opposite path to that specified in Figure 1),
along with the two nested models identified above.
Since the bullying and coping factors were not determined a priori, the
structural relations among all variables were freely estimated with all
residual correlations estimated until a best fitting solution was obtained
using the maximum likelihood solution. The only constraint was that the
three bullied by others factors were specified as exogenous variables. Amos
3.6 (Arbuckle, 1997) identified the best fitting model after six iterations with
the chi-square likelihood ratio at its minimum. The final model (henceforth
Model 1) retained 18 significant structural relations paths and nine
significant correlated residuals. As shown in Table 5, for Model 1, given
that the chi-square was not significant at the .05 level, all three fit indices
were greater than .90, and the RMSEA were less than .05, the data were
judged to fit the model.
Before interpreting the structural relations found in Model 1, the
correlations among the residuals were first examined. Nine pairs of residuals
correlated: (1) belittlement and work undermined, (2) belittlement and
verbal abuse, (3) work undermined and verbal abuse, (4) created ‘‘fall guy/
gal’’ and undermined others, (5) physical symptoms and affective symptoms,

TABLE 5
Overall fit indices of original and alternative models

df chi-square GFI AGFI NFI TLI RMSEA

Original model: Bullied by others à Bullied others

1. Predicted path 64 73.70 .95 .91 .91 .98 .03
2. Without the burnout interlinks 66 134.95* .91 .85 .83 .87 .08
3. Without the burnout 57 116.02* .92 .85 .85 .87 .08
interlinks and bullied by
others linked directly
to burnout
Alternative model: Bullied others à Bullied by others
4. Opposite path 64 220.24* .86 .77 .73 .69 .12
5. Without the burnout 66 281.50* .83 .72 .65 .59 .14
interlinks
6. Without the burnout 52 111.87* .92 .84 .86 .86 .08
interlinks and bullied by
others linked directly
to burnout
Null model
7. Used to estimate the 91 812.00* .49 .41 .00 .00 .21
TLIs of Models 1 – 6

In all models, the residual terms were allowed to be correlated.

*p5 .001.
 WORKPLACE BULLYING 369

(6) ignored bully and indirect coping, (7) problem solving and indirect
coping, (8) self-doubt and indirect coping, and (9) self-doubt and problem
solving. Only the within-construct residual terms were intercorrelated, and
no correlation existed between a residual of a factor from one construct with
a residual of a factor from another construct.
Figure 2 shows the parameter estimates of the 18 significant structural
relations. Of the 18, only the path from created ‘‘fall guy/gal’’ to efficacy
was not as predicted. The strongest parameter estimates were found for:
verbal abuse to created ‘‘fall guy/gal’’, verbal abuse to problem solving,
belittlement to self-doubt, and belittlement to indirect/passive coping. For
Hypothesis 1, whereas verbal abuse was related to both forms of bullied
others, work being undermined was related to undermined others. Thus,
Hypothesis 1 received partial support. For Hypothesis 2, verbal abuse was
related to problem solving, and belittlement was related to self-doubt,
indirect/passive coping, and ignored bully. Thus, it received partial support.
For Hypothesis 3, self-doubt was the only coping variable related to all three
dimensions of burnout. Similarly, for Hypothesis 4, self-doubt was the only
coping variable related to both health symptoms. Thus, both hypotheses

Figure 2. Standardized parameter estimates of the structural relations model.

370 LEE AND BROTHERIDGE

were supported only for self-doubt. As expected, whereas emotional

exhaustion was related to both symptoms, cynicism was related only to
affective symptoms. Lastly, consistent with Leiter and Maslach (1988), both
emotional exhaustion and efficacy had a direct impact on cynicism.
Model 1 was compared to a model in which the two significant burnout
paths were constrained to equal zero (Model 2) and to a model containing
the zero constraints and all three bullied by others factors directly related to
the burnout dimensions (Model 3). As Table 5 indicates, both of these
models yielded a poorer fit with the data than Model 1. Taken together, the
three models reveal that the burnout dimensions were significantly
interrelated, and that seven of the nine paths from the bullied by others
factors to the burnout dimensions were not significant. These results suggest
that self-doubt partially mediated the relationship between bullied by others
and burnout.
We also compared Model 1 to an alternative model in which bullied
others led to bullied by others (Model 4). As Table 5 indicates, for Model 4,
the chi-square value was significant at the .001 level, all three fit indices were
less than .90, and the RMSEA was greater than .05. Thus, the data were
judged to fit this model poorly. As such, Hypothesis 1a was not supported.
Comparing Model 4 with the nested alternative models (Models 5 and 6)
revealed that the burnout dimensions were significantly interrelated and that
seven of the nine paths from the bullied by others factors to the burnout
dimensions were not significant. Here again, the results suggest that self-
doubt partially mediated the relationship between bullied by others and
burnout.

DISCUSSION
The present study examined the relationships among bullying, coping with
bullying, and well-being. Several trends emerged from the data. First, how
targets were treated predicted how they treated others. Second, how they
were bullied also predicted the strategies that they used for coping. Third,
self-doubt emerged as an important mediating link between bullying and
emotional and physical health. That is, being bullied by others was not
directly linked to burnout or ill-health in targets, but appeared to operate
through their sense of self-doubt, which, in turn, affected targets’ level of well-
being. This was confirmed by testing alternative models in which the paths
from bullying by others to burnout were, for the most part, not significant.
Although our measures were drawn from the bullying literature, it must
be acknowledged that our findings suggest the possibility of milder forms of
aggressive and hostile behaviours directed at targets and from the targets
themselves. Given that a pivotal aspect of bullying is a persistent pattern of
negative acts directed at specific target(s) (Einarsen et al., 1998; Keashly,
 WORKPLACE BULLYING 371

1998), the cross-sectional nature of our study prevents us from determining

if such behaviours were indeed consistently directed at the same person(s)
over time. Establishing a temporal pattern for such acts is important since it
may help to establish whether a perpetrator sought to intentionally cause
psychological and/or physical harm (Einarsen et al., 1998) and escalate
the cycle of conflict with a target (Zapf & Gross, 2001). Therefore, a
longitudinal design is required to determine if such aggressive behaviours
and counterbehaviours meet the noted condition for establishing that
bullying has indeed occurred.
Nevertheless, a key finding of our study was that hostile acts from others
were likely to be met with counteraggression from targets. It should be
noted that our measures of bullied others did not ask respondents to
indicate if they directed their aggressive acts toward their original
perpetrators or other(s) in general. This distinction is important because
different psychological mechanisms may be operating. Gaining revenge and
a sense of control require that the original perpetrators be targeted, whereas
enhancing one’s self-worth/esteem can come from belittling anyone, not
necessarily the original perpetrators. In our study, revenge and retaliation
were possible motives for some targets (Bies & Tripp, 1996), but for the
remainder, counteraggression towards nonperpetrators may have been a
direct, if brutal, way to ameliorate frustration (Hoel et al., 1999). In this
sense, the well-known sports adage, that ‘‘the best defence is a good
offence’’, seems to ring true.
A recent study suggested that certain emotions may serve as catalysts for
taking action against a predator-bully (i.e., eye-for-an-eye; Pearson &
Porath, 2001). This study found that, although mistreatment was associated
with both fear and anger, it was the latter that spawned retaliatory
behaviours. Both Mann (1996) and Ireland (1999) argued that counter-
aggression, which includes bullying, is an attempt by targets to regain the
control that they lost when they were bullied by others. Alternatively,
Hoobler (2003) suggested that abusive behaviours by those in positions of
control were due to displaced anger in response to organizational injustices.
The most parsimonious explanation, however, may be that targets learned
to imitate the bullying/aggressive behaviours that they experienced
(Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). In other words, people did unto others
what was done unto them. However, as noted by Zapf and Gross (2001),
targets who successfully coped with bullying fought back with similar
means less often and sought to avoid further escalation. In contrast, the
less successful targets contributed to the escalation of bullying by their
own aggressive counterattacks and ‘‘fight for justice’’ (Zapf & Gross, 2001,
p. 497).
In any case, the targets in our study may have found it more tempting to
handle verbal abuse through reciprocal verbal aggression because of its
372 LEE AND BROTHERIDGE

direct and confrontational nature. In contrast, finding the appropriate

action for handling the other two forms of bullying may have been more
difficult because they were indirect and less confrontational. Undermining a
target’s work and reputation may have been effective for the perpetrator
because of the difficulty associated with responding effectively to it or even
proving that it was occurring. This point was reinforced by Mann (1996)
who observed that such forms of abuse are often difficult to detect and
document precisely because they involve subtle, behind the scenes
manoeuvring (Neuman & Baron, 1998; cf. Ashforth, 1994). Many of the
more subtle bullying tactics may appear to be trivial and innocuous,
particularly when presented as isolated acts. As such, it is only when they are
linked together that third-party observers are likely to attribute malicious
intentions to the bully’s actions (Hoel et al., 1999). This may contribute to
the target’s sense of helplessness in dealing with a perpetrator (Mann, 1996;
Wilkie, 1996).
Verbal abuse from others was strongly associated with creating a ‘‘fall
guy/gal’’. Such abuse not only led to a confrontational response, but to an
active problem-solving approach to coping. However, belittlement by others
led to self-doubt and passivity as coping responses. That is, belittlement may
have adversely affected the targets’ ability to carry out their work, thus
eroding their self-confidence (Lee, 2000) and creating self-doubt in dealing
with the bullying situation. In contrast, because verbal abuse may have
been more fleeting, done in the heat of the moment, or included general
comments not necessarily tied to the targets’ abilities or skills, such an act
may not necessarily erode one’s self-confidence to the same extent.
A second key finding was that, as self-doubt grew, psychological strain
also became more intense, as reflected in significant paths from self-doubt to
burnout and symptoms of ill-health. This is noteworthy since the other
coping responses were not significantly related to these two outcomes. Self-
doubt is especially critical in Glasl’s (1982) phase 2 of bullying in which the
identity of the parties is at stake, and the perpetrators undermine the self-
image of their targets (see Mann, 1996). At this point, there is intense
emotional involvement (i.e., ‘‘It’s not about the issue but about one’s
honour or saving face’’), which not only escalates to further antagonism
between perpetrators and their targets, but adversely affects a target’s
emotional state.
The COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) suggests that, if targets are unable to
muster the necessary resources to meet the emotional demands of coping
with bullying, they will experience increased stress and strain. Since indirect
and passive forms of coping do not provide the resources needed to meet
such demands, they may lead to the need to confront the issue in the future
(Hobfoll, 1989). On the other hand, active forms of coping could have
an undesirable effect by escalating conflict and increasing victimization
 WORKPLACE BULLYING 373

(Glasl, 1982; Zapf & Gross, 2001). As suggested by Zapf and Gross (2001),
in such situations, the only viable option may be leaving the organization or
separating a perpetrator from a target.
In sum, self-doubt appears to bridge the link between bullying and
emotional well-being. To the extent that the targets’ sense of mastery and
control are diminished as a result of bullying, as they inevitably are (Zapf &
Gross, 2001), feelings of helplessness and futility are likely to result (Lee,
2000). Along this line, Lee (2000) found that bullying was associated with
decreased self-confidence, which, in turn, led to heightened stress and strain
among targets in the UK and in Scandinavian countries.

Limitations
Several caveats are worth noting. First, as mentioned above, the cross-
sectional design prevented us from ascertaining patterns of bullying
behaviours over time. Second, multiple data sources could have been used
to examine the veracity of respondents’ claims. Although common method
variance may have inflated some of the relations presently found (see Hoel
et al., 1999), it would not have yielded the differential effects also found.
Third, the factor analysis of the bullying items revealed only a few forms of
bullying, with less than 50% of the common variance explained. Other
forms may have been just as relevant (Namie, 2000) but were not evident in
this sample. More work is needed to validate and possibly expand upon the
number of bullying forms. Also, as already discussed, pinpointing the nature
of the targets (i.e., original perpetrators vs. others in general) will help to
tease out differences in their underlying psychological mechanisms. Last, the
nonexperimental nature of our study made the causal direction difficult to
establish. Although bullying is thought to affect burnout through ineffective
coping, it is possible that burned-out workers were more susceptible to
bullying in the first place, as the bully-predator prefers to target weaker
prey.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The present findings underscore several key points. First, the most potent
forms of bullying may well be subtle in nature rather than direct and
confrontational, such as verbal abuse (cf. Ashforth, 1994). Verbal abuse is
easily recognized by targets and observers alike as a form of aggression and
is often met with justifiable confrontational force. Acts such as political
backstabbing and undermining are more difficult to detect given their less
confrontational nature, and, perhaps more significantly, given the difficulty
in conjuring up an ‘‘appropriate’’ justifiable response (Bjorkqvist et al.,
1994). Second, given self-doubt’s centrality in the bullying-outcome process,
374 LEE AND BROTHERIDGE

an effective means of mitigating the detrimental impact of bullying may be

to bolster one’s sense of self-worth through cognitive reappraisal training.
Instead of engaging in self-blame or questioning their own abilities and
skills, targets could learn to externalize the blame (e.g., inadequate policies
or mechanisms for dealing with bullying). Moreover, they could adopt the
perspective that being bullied in no way diminishes their ability to do their
work (cf. Lee, 2000), and that their relations with others can serve as a
resource base to better manage such situations (Hobfoll, 1989). Third,
targets may be trained to choose the appropriate coping strategies
depending on the stage of bullying that they are experiencing (Rayner,
1999). As indicated earlier, active problem-solving strategies do not always
lead to successful outcomes (Zapf & Gross, 2001); indeed, as an unintended
effect, they may lead to conflict escalation between perpetrators and targets
(Aquino, 2000). Conversely, passive strategies may serve to deescalate
conflicts and, thus, may be more effective.
In light of our findings, research should address two specific issues. First,
the conditions under which different forms of bullying and aggressive
behaviours occur and the impact of these behaviours on targets over time
should be examined. Biderman’s (1957) stage model of coercion (cited in
Mann, 1996) is a good starting point for understanding how the bully –
target relationship develops. Longitudinal research would help to tease out
the conflict escalation process and changes in coping strategies as outlined in
Glasl’s model (cf. Zapf & Gross, 2001). Such studies would help to confirm
and, potentially, extend some of the causal links presently inferred. One
causal path may be that indirect, subtle forms of bullying lead to a more
severe erosion in self-efficacy, which, in turn, leads to greater cynicism and
emotional strain. A second causal path may be that direct, confrontational
forms of bullying lead to reciprocal bullying and problem solving, which in
turn, leads to a less severe erosion of self-confidence.
Last, research should examine how targets attribute the perpetrators’
reasons for bullying (Bies & Tripp, 1996). This is a crucial aspect of the
dynamics of bullying because such attributions may affect counteraggressive
and coping responses (Einarsen et al., 1994; Glasl, 1982). For example, one
possible attribution may be that perpetrators are not really bullying per se,
but are engaging in hostile acts and ‘‘lashing out’’ at their colleagues as a
way of alleviating their frustrations with the organizational injustices that
they have experienced (Hoobler, 2003; Neuman & Baron, 1998). Since the
acts are not target-specific over time, the behavioural responses may be
milder and less likely to generate further conflict. In contrast, attributions of
malevolent intentions are more likely to lead to conflict escalation (e.g.,
Ireland, 1999). If targets attribute hostile acts to task-related differences,
they may be more likely to employ a problem-solving coping approach. But
if targets attribute such acts as a desire to seek power, as in the case of petty
 WORKPLACE BULLYING 375

tyrants (Ashforth, 1994) in which perpetrators are seen as undermining the

targets’ emotional welfare (Glasl, 1982), targets may be more likely to
employ confrontational and/or political coping approaches (Zapf & Gross,
2001). In sum, a better understanding the complex dynamics of bullying and
aggressive behaviours and their impact on workers’ well-being should serve
as an impetus for organizations to develop effective policies for discouraging
these dysfunctional and conflict-escalating behaviours.

REFERENCES
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiralling effect of incivility in the
workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452 – 471.
Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual determination of workplace targetization: The
effects of hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26,
171 – 193.
Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations: The
moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 195 – 208.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). Amos User’s guide version 3.6. Chicago: SmallWaters.
Ashforth, B. E. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755 – 778.
Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence
on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161 – 178.
Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological
Bulletin, 83, 762 – 765.
Biderman, A. D. (1957). Communist attempts to elicit false confessions from Air Force
prisoners-of-war. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 9, 616 – 625.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: ‘‘Getting even’’ and the need for revenge. In
R. M. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 246 – 260). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Hjelt-Back, M. (1994). Aggression among university
employees. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 173 – 184.
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the
workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64 – 80.
Einarsen, S., Matthieson, S. B., & Mikkelsen, E. (2000). Short- and long-term effects of exposure
to persistent aggression and bullying at work. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Academy of Management, Toronto, Canada.
Einarsen, S., Matthiesen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1998). Bullying, burnout and well-being among
assistant nurses. Occupational Health and Safety, 14, 563 – 568.
Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. I. (1991). Mobbing I Arbeidshlivet. En undersokelse av forekomst og
helsemessige konskvenser a mobbing pa norske arbeidsplasser. Bergen, Norway: FAHS,
Universitetet i Bergen.
Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. I. (1997). Harassment at work and the victimization of men. Victims
and Violence, 12, 247 – 263.
Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., & Matthiesen, S. (1994). Bullying and harassment at work and their
relationships to work environment quality: An exploratory study. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 4, 381 – 401.
Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). A ‘‘popcorn’’ metaphor for employee aggression. In
R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in
organizations: Violent and deviant behaviors (pp. 43 – 81). Stanford, CT: JAI Press.
376 LEE AND BROTHERIDGE

Glasl, F. (1982). The process of conflict escalation and roles of third parties. In G. B. J. Bomers
& R. Peterson (Eds.), Conflict management and industrial relations (pp. 119 – 140). Boston:
Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. The
American Psychologist, 44, 513 – 524.
Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper (1999). Workplace bullying. International Review of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 14, 195 – 230.
Hoobler, J. M. (2003). Kicking the dog: A restorative justice perspective on abusive
supervision. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management,
Seattle, WA, USA.
Ireland, C. A., & Ireland, J. L. (2000). Descriptive analysis of the nature and extent of bullying
behaviour in a maximum-security prison. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 213 – 233.
Ireland, J. L. (1999). Bullying behaviours among male and female prisoners: A study of adult
and young offenders. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 161 – 178.
Ireland, J. L., & Archer, J. (2002). The perceived consequences of responding to bullying with
aggression: A study of male and female adult prisoners. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 257 – 272.
Jackofsky, E. F., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1988). A longitudinal study of climates. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 9, 319 – 334.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67, 219 – 229.
Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and empirical issues. Journal
of Emotional Abuse, 1, 85 – 117.
Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L. (1994). Abusive behavior in the workplace: A
preliminary investigation. Violence and Targets, 9, 341 – 357.
Latack, J. C. (1986). Coping with job stress: Measures and future directions for scale
development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 377 – 385.
Lee, D. (2000). An analysis of workplace bullying in the UK. Personnel Review, 29, 593 – 612.
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three
dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123 – 133.
Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (1988). The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout and
organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 297 – 308.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165 – 184.
Leymann, H., & Gustafsson, A. (1996). Mobbing at work and the development of post-
traumatic stress disorders. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5,
251 – 275.
Leymann, H., & Tallgren, U. (1989). An investigation of the frequency of bullying in SSAB with
a new questionnaire. Arbete, Manniska, Miljo, 1, 3 – 12.
Mann, R. (1996). Psychological abuse in the workplace. In P. McCarthy, M. Sheehan, &
W. Wilkie (Eds.), Bullying: From backyard to boardroom (pp. 83 – 92). Alexandria, Australia:
Millennium Books.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory manual (3rd
ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Matthiesen, S. B., Raknes, B. I., & Rokkum, O. (1989). Bullying at work. München: Rainer
Hampp Verlag.
McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Doppleman, L. F. (1971). Manual for the Profile of Mood States.
San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
Miller, D. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injustice. American Review of Psychology,
52, 527 – 553.
Namie, G. (2000). US Hostile Workplace Survey, 2000: Survey results. Retrieved from the
Campaign Against Workplace Bullying Web site: www.bullybusters.org
 WORKPLACE BULLYING 377
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence
concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management,
24, 391 – 419.
Niedl, K. (1996). Mobbing and well-being: Economic and personnel development implications.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 239 – 249.
O’Reilly, F. (2000, September 21). Women achieve workplace equality—as bullies. National
Post, A1, A2.
Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. (2001). Effects of incivility on the target: Fight, flee or take care of
‘‘me’’? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington,
DC, USA.
Quine, L. (1999). Workplace bullying in NHS community trust staff questionnaire survey.
British Medical Journal, 318, 228.
Rayner, C. (1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied
Social Psychology, 7, 199 – 208.
Rayner, C. (1999). From research to implementation: Finding leverage for prevention.
International Journal of Manpower, 20, 28 – 38.
Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1997). Workplace bullying: Myth or reality—can we afford to
ignore it? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 18, 211 – 214.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555 – 572.
Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of
work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41,
658 – 672.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Salmivalli, C., Karhunen, J., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1996). How do the targets respond to
bullying? Aggressive Behavior, 22, 99 – 109.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434 – 443.
Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (1997). What’s good about revenge? The avenger’s perspective. In
R. J. Lewicki, R. J. Bies, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations
(pp. 145 – 160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Tripp, T. M., Bies, R. J., & Aquino, K. (2002). Poetic justice or petty jealousy? The aesthetics of
revenge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 966 – 984.
Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying: Psychological work environment and organizational
climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 203 – 214.
Wahler, H. J. (1983). Wahler Physical Symptoms Inventory: Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western
Psychological Services.
Watson, D., Suls, J., & Haig, J. (2002). Global self-esteem in relation to structural models of
personality and affectivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 185 – 197.
Wilkie, W. (1996). Understanding the behavior of targetised people. In P. McCarthy,
M. Sheehan, & W. Wilkie (Eds.), Bullying: From backyard to boardroom (pp. 1 – 11).
Alexandria, Australia: Millennium Books.
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A
replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10,
497 – 522.

Manuscript received October 2004

Revised manuscript received October 2005
PrEview proof published online 27 April 2006