729403 2017

research-article2017
XXX
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260517729403
10.1177/0886260517729403Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceZhang

Original Research
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
2021, Vol. 36(1-2) 957­–975
Workplace Victimization © The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
and Discrimination in sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0886260517729403
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517729403
China: A Nationwide journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv

Survey

Huiping Zhang, PhD1

Abstract
Workplace victimization and discrimination have been intensively
studied in the West, especially on the antecedents and consequences of
this phenomenon. Surprisingly, little is known about the incidence and
associated health problems of workplace victimization and discrimination
in contemporary China. Using a representative nationwide sample of 1,138
Chinese employees conducted in 2015, this study attempted to estimate
the prevalence, risk factors, and associated consequences of workplace
victimization and discrimination in China. It is found that the prevalence
rate of preceding 5-year workplace discrimination and victimization was
33% and 12.9%, respectively. Male employees who perceived higher
work gains were less likely to experience workplace victimization and
those who had higher career efficacy and unemployment anxiety were
more likely to experience job discrimination or victimization. Female
employees who received tertiary education were less likely to experience
job discrimination and being married tended not to experience workplace
victimization. Perceived job discrimination had negative impact on male
employees’ job satisfaction as well as on female employees’ happiness.
The implications of these findings are finally discussed in the Chinese
context.

1Renmin University of China, Beijing, China

Corresponding Author:
Huiping Zhang, Center for Studies of Sociological Theory and Method, Department of Social
Work, The School of Sociology and Population Studies, Renmin University of China, No. 59
Zhongguancun Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100872, China.
Email: zhang_huiping@yahoo.com
958 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

Keywords
workplace victimization, discrimination, well-being, job satisfaction,
organizational commitment

Introduction
Victimization in the workplace has been studied intensively by Western orga-
nizational researchers and practitioners over the past three decades, and it has
also received considerable public attention as a result of the mass media expo-
sure (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Bowling, Beehr, Bennett, & Watson, 2010; Kim
& Glomb, 2010; Mathisen, Ogaard, & Einarsen, 2012). The severity of work-
place victimization ranges from physical assault (Aquino & Thau, 2009;
Griffin, O’Leary-Kelly, & Collins, 1998) to emotional harm or psychological
aggression (Barling, Dupre, & Kelloway, 2009; Neuman & Baron, 1997).
Previous studies of workplace aggression have been conducted either from a
perpetrator or a victim’s perspective (Einarsen, 2000; Neuman & Baron, 1997;
Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Tepper, 2007), and we are interested in the work-
place victimization from the victim’s perspective, because it is reasonable to
classify a behavior as aggressive if the target perceives some possibility with
the intent to harm, and the target’s interpretation will be more consequential
for predicting his or her response. As aggression has been defined as behavior
directed toward another person or persons that is carried out with the intent to
harm (Anderson & Bushman, 2002), we refer to workplace victimization as
the experience of being a target of workplace aggression. Discrimination in
the workplace occurs when aggression creates a hostile working environment,
and the reasons can vary from a target’s sex, race/ethnicity, to a reason other
than a legally protected characteristic (Rospenda & Richman, 2005; Rospenda,
Richman, & Shannon, 2009), which is a milder form of workplace mistreat-
ment and also constitutes one of the focuses of the present study.
Previous research has revealed that workplace victimization is quite com-
mon phenomenon in the United States, European countries, and Australia,
although different definitions, measurement instruments, and time frames
have been adopted. One study using one nationally representative sample of
the United States indicated that over 60% of both men and women experi-
enced one or more generalized workplace harassment in the past year
(Rospenda et al., 2009). It is found that about 75% of Norwegian engineering
employees had endured generalized harassment at least once in the past 6
months (Einarsen & Raknes, 1997), and 30% of male and 55% female Finnish
University employees described their experience of aggression at work at
least occasionally in the preceding half year (Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Hjelt-
Back, 1994). With regard to workplace discrimination, 9% of the U.S.
Zhang 959

employees perceived their experience as being gender discrimination and

10% perceived as being racial discrimination (Rospenda et al., 2009). One
recent study in Australia and New Zealand showed that 49.2% of the employ-
ees in surgery indicated that they had experienced one or more of discrimina-
tion, bullying, and sexual harassment (Crebbin, Campbell, Hillis, & Watters,
2015). A review of the literature has indicated that only a few studies of
workplace victimization or discrimination were conducted in contemporary
China and they generally focused on one specific population, such as school
teachers (McCormack, Casimir, Djurkovic, & Yang, 2006), manufacture
workers (Sims & Sun, 2012), or medical professionals (Wu et al., 2014).
Thus, our first research question is to explore the prevalence of workplace
victimization and discrimination in China.
Numerous studies have been published to identify the risk factors of work-
place victimization at demographic, individual, and organizational levels
(Aquino & Thau, 2009; Barling et al., 2009; Neall & Tuckey, 2014).
Regarding the role of demographic variables, there is still no consistent con-
clusion. Some studies found that ethnic minority group membership, youth,
unmarried status, and the underrepresentation of one’s gender within the
work group will affect victimization and discrimination vulnerability posi-
tively (Gutek, Cohen, & Konrad, 1990; Murrell, 1996). Some studies reported
that the employees’ gender and age were all unrelated to their perception of
supervisor abuse (Hansen et al., 2006; Vartia, 1996; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy,
2002). One recent meta-analysis found that females were less likely to be
victimized than males, and older employees were less likely to be victimized
than younger ones (Bowling & Beehr, 2006), but all of these relationships
were relatively weak compared with the effects of individual and organiza-
tional factors. With reference to individual factors, research has found strong
correlations between negative affect and workplace victimization (Hepworth
& Towler, 2004; Hershcovis et al., 2007). In addition, individuals with low
self-esteem will be more susceptible to perceived victimization in general
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Inness, Barling, & Turner, 2005). Finally,
workplace victimization has been found to be higher when work is boring,
stressful, competitive, and high role conflict (Coyne, Chong, Seigne, &
Randall, 2003; Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994; Vartia, 1996). It will
be interesting to examine whether demographic, individual, and organiza-
tional factors play a role in Chinese workplaces through empirical evidence.
Accumulative evidence has shown that the costs of workplace victimiza-
tion are quite high. Aggressive actions in the workplace will generate nega-
tive consequences on both individuals’ well-being and organizational
performance (Leymann, 1990). For instance, the victims of workplace
aggression reported greater physical health complaints (Einarsen & Skogstad,
960 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

1996), lower levels of life satisfaction (Tepper, 2000), and higher levels of
depression and anxiety (Haines, Marchand, & Harvey, 2006; Hogh,
Henriksson, & Burr, 2005). The associations between workplace aggression
and various adverse job-related consequences have also been identified
among the victims, which include lowered satisfaction with work, supervi-
sors, and coworkers (Donovan, Drasgow, & Munson, 1998; Lapierre, Spector,
& Leck, 2005; Leather, Beale, Lawrence, & Dickson, 1997); decreases in
organizational commitment (Barling & Phillips, 1993); and heightened turn-
over intentions (Donovan et al., 1998).
Compared with the relatively rich knowledge of workplace victimization
and discrimination in the West, little is known about this phenomenon in non-
Western countries (Neall & Tuckey, 2014). Based on one nationally represen-
tative sample of employees from different industries in China, the present
study aimed to address three research questions: first, to estimate the preva-
lence of workplace victimization and discrimination, respectively, in the
Chinese context; second, to examine the risk factors for workplace victimiza-
tion and discrimination; and third, to investigate the associations between
workplace victimization and discrimination and individual well-being as well
as job-related outcomes.

Method
Design and Participants
The data for this study were based on the Chinese General Social Survey
(CGSS) of 2015, which was conducted by the National Survey Research
Center of Renmin University of China. This is the first comprehensive social
survey program across nationwide, which has been performed every 2 years
since 2003, and different modules are included in each round of survey. To be
specific, the work module from International Social Survey Program (ISSP)
was included as part of the 2015 CGSS, which covers our concerned issues
of workplace victimization and discrimination in Chinese society.
A stratified multistage sampling was drawn across mainland China. First, 28
provinces were selected as the primary sampling units. Second, 17 towns were
randomly selected in each province. Third, 25 families were approached in
each community, and if there were more than one candidate eligible for the
survey, one participant was selected randomly to attend according to the Kish
method. Participants were invited to join in the survey by trained fieldworkers,
and face to face interviews were conducted unless they were requested to fill in
the questionnaires. Oral informed consent was obtained from each participant;
the questionnaire was anonymous and confidentiality was emphasized. Thus,
Zhang 961

the total sample was 11,559 residents in China. However, only one sixth of the
participants were randomly selected to answer the ISSP work module, and the
preliminary sample for workplace victimization and discrimination analyses
was 1,795. This study has been approved by the ethics committee of the
National Survey Research Center at Renmin University of China.

Measures
The following demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the respon-
dents were surveyed: age (coded as ≤30 years, 31-40 years, 41-50 years,
51-60 years, or ≥61 years), gender (male coded as 1 and female coded as 2),
education (coded as primary school or below, junior school, high school, and
tertiary education), marital status (single, married, and divorce/separated/
widow), occupation (government organizations, government-owned or for-
eign enterprises, public institutions, social group or the army, and private
businesses), and ethnicity (Han coded as 1 and minority coded as 2). Other
measures are summarized in Table 1.

Data Analysis
The analyses were performed in three parts using SPSS 19.0 software (SPSS
Inc., Chicago, IL). First, chi-square tests were examined for all categorical vari-
ables to provide the prevalence of perceived discrimination and victimization in
the workplace in China by demographic and socioeconomic variables. Then,
descriptive statistic was provided for the reasons in which aspect the respon-
dents perceived discrimination in their job search, salary increase, and promo-
tion. Second, two multivariate logistic regressions were run to assess the relative
importance of risk factors associated with perceived discrimination and victim-
ization by gender, respectively. Both odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence
interval (CI) were provided, and an alpha level of .05 was set for bivariate com-
parisons and multivariate analyses. Third, hierarchical regressions were finally
performed to examine the impacts of perceived discrimination and victimization
on the respondents’ well-being and job-related outcomes. Demographic vari-
ables were entered into the first block after coding them as dummy variables,
and then perceived discrimination or victimization was entered into the second
block to see if additional significant changes occurred in variance explanation.

Results
Among the respondents, 567 reported that they had no work experience or
felt difficult to find a job in the past 5 years, and 90 did not answer the
962
Table 1. Measures in This Study: Summary and Statistics.

Construct Content Likert-Type Point Cronbach’s α

Perceived Have you been treated unfairly in employment (such as job search, 1 = yes —
discrimination salary increase, promotion, and so on) in the past 5 years? 2 = no
3 = not applicable
Aspects of 1. age — —
perceived 2. ethnicity/race
discrimination 3. nationality
4. gender
5. religion
6. health problems or disability
7. family burden
8. politics
9. others
Workplace Have you been victimized in the workplace by your supervisors 1 = yes —
victimization or colleagues in the past 5 years, such as being bullied or being 2 = no
subject to any physical or psychological harm? 3 = not applicable
Career efficacy Do you think it will be easy or difficult to find a job, which is 1 = very difficult —
similar or better than your current job? 5 = very easy
Unemployment How often do you worry about being fired someday? 1 = never —
anxiety 2 = sometimes
3 = often
4 = always

(continued)
 Table 1. (continued)

Construct Content Likert-Type Point Cronbach’s α

Work gains 1. my job is stable 1 = totally .81
2. my salary is high disagree
3. the opportunity to get promoted from my job is high 5 = totally agree
4. my job is interesting
5. I can work independently
6. I can help others in work
7. my job is beneficial to the society
8. I can get along well with others in my job
Self-rated How do you feel your physical health? 1 = very —
health unhealthy
5 = very healthy
Happiness Are you happy with your life? 1 = very unhappy —
5 = very happy
Job satisfaction Are you satisfied with your current job? 1 = very —
unsatisfied
7 = very satisfied
Organizational 1. I would like to work harder for my work unit 1 = totally .92
commitment 2. I feel proud of my work unit disagree
3. I would rather stay in my current work unit, even if others pay 5 = totally agree
me a much higher salary

963
964 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

questions of workplace victimization and discrimination, so there were 1,138

respondents for the final analysis. Males accounted for 49.2% of the total
sample; the average age of the respondents was 46.08 years (SD = 15.02);
and the proportion of educational attainment in primary or below, junior
school, high school, and tertiary education was 29.9%, 29.8%, 20.4%, and
19.9%, respectively. A majority of the respondents (79.8%) were married,
single respondents consisted of 9.4%, and divorce/separated/widowed was
10.8% of the sample. Occupations were diverse, which included government
organizations (4.1%), state-owned or foreign enterprises (45.7%), public
institutions (13.0%), social groups or the army (3.2%), and private businesses
(34.0%). Finally, the respondents from Han accounted for 95% of the sample.
The detailed demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the sample
were presented in Table 2.

Prevalence
As shown in Table 2, the preceding 5-year prevalence of perceived discrimi-
nation in job search, salary increase, or promotion in the Chinese workplace
was 33% in total, being 33.6% for males and 32.4% for females, respectively.
The preceding 5-year prevalence of workplace victimization including being
bullied and being subject to physical and psychological violence from the
supervisors or colleagues was around 13% in total, being 13.0% for males
and 12.8% females, respectively. In general, there was no gender difference
in perceived discrimination as well as in victimization in contemporary
Chinese workplace.
Further ANOVA analyses showed that perceived discrimination in the
past 5 years indicated differences in age, education, and marital status. To
be specific, the respondents under 40 years were more likely to report job
discrimination than those over 40 years (χ2 = 28.21, p < .001). The respon-
dents with high school education experienced more job discrimination
than other groups (χ2 = 8.56, p < .05) and single respondents also reported
more job discrimination compared with those in marriage or the divorce/
separated/widow group (χ2 = 6.43, p < .05). In addition, age and education
differences were also found in workplace victimization. The respondents
over 60 years reported less perceived victimization than those below 60
years (χ2 = 9.66, p < .05), the respondents with junior school education
reported higher victimization than other groups (χ2 = 8.18, p < .05), but no
marital status difference was found in workplace victimization. Moreover,
there were no any occupation and ethnicity differences found in perceived
discrimination as well as in victimization.
Zhang 965

Table 2. The Prevalence of Perceived Discrimination and Victimization in the

Chinese Workplace.

Total Sample Discrimination Victimization

Variables n (%) n (%) n (%)

Total gender 1,138 (100) 375 (33.0) 147 (12.9)

Male 560 (49.2) 188 (33.6) 73 (13.0)
Female 578 (50.8) 187 (32.4) 74 (12.8)
χ2 0.19 0.02
Age
≤30 189 (16.6) 77 (40.7) 24 (13.4)
31-40 241 (21.2) 94 (39.0) 40 (17.2)
41-50 261 (22.9) 83 (31.8) 38 (15.8)
51-60 203 (17.8) 72 (35.5) 29 (16.0)
≥61 244 (21.4) 49 (20.1) 16 (7.8)
χ2 28.21*** 9.66*
Education
Primary or below 339 (29.9) 97 (28.6) 29 (10.4)
Junior school 338 (29.8) 111 (32.8) 56 (18.5)
High school 231 (20.4) 93 (40.3) 32 (14.5)
Tertiary education 225 (19.9) 72 (32.0) 30 (12.8)
χ2 8.56* 8.18*
Marital status
Single 107 (9.4) 47 (43.9) 16 (15.2)
Married 908 (79.8) 289 (31.8) 116 (14.0)
Divorce/separated/widow 123 (10.8) 39 (31.7) 15 (14.0)
χ2 6.43* 0.11
Occupation
Government organizations 22 (4.1) 4 (27.3) 3 (11.5)
State-owned or foreign 246 (45.7) 94 (38.2) 45 (17.9)
enterprise
Public institution 70 (13.0) 17 (24.3) 9 (12.3)
Social group or the army 17 (3.2) 6 (35.3) 0 (0)
Private business 183 (34.0) 67 (36.6) 26 (17.3)
χ2 5.38 5.63
Ethnicity
Han 1,048 (95.0) 341 (32.5) 135 (14.1)
Minority 55 (5.0) 19 (34.5) 6 (12.0)
χ2 0.09 0.18

*p < .05. ***p < .001.

966 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

Table 3. Reasons of Perceived Discrimination in the Chinese Workplace

(n = 351).

Reasons n %
Age 99 28.2
Family burden 65 18.5
Gender 35 10.0
Health problems or disability 22 6.2
Political belief 4 1.1
Race/ethnicity 2 0.5
Religion 2 0.5
Nationality 1 0.2
Others 121 34.4

Regarding the aspects of perceived discrimination in the workplace, age

discrimination (28.2%), family burden discrimination (18.5%), gender dis-
crimination (10.0%), and health problems or disability discrimination (6.2%)
were top four reasons as shown in Table 3.

Risk Factors
Table 4 presents the risk factors for perceived discrimination and victimiza-
tion separately after controlling for the significant demographic and socio-
economic variables found in Table 2. Although there is no gender difference
found in both perceived discrimination and victimization in general, the mul-
tivariate logistic regressions were performed to identify risk factors for males
and females separately to make comparisons with previous studies.
The results indicated that males with higher career efficacy were more
likely to experience workplace discrimination (OR = 1.32, p < .05) and vic-
timization (OR = 1.81, p < .01) than those with lower career efficacy, and
similarly male respondents with higher unemployment anxiety were also
more likely to experience job discrimination than those with lower unem-
ployment anxiety (OR = 1.42, p < .05), whereas males with higher work
gains were less likely to experience workplace victimization than those with
lower work gains (OR = 0.91, p < .05). In contrast, career efficacy, unem-
ployment anxiety, and work gains were not significant predictors of perceived
discrimination and victimization for females.
It was also found that female respondents with tertiary education were less
likely to experience job discrimination than those with primary or below edu-
cation (OR = 0.26, p < .05), and married females were less likely to experience
workplace victimization (OR = 0.22, p < .01) compared with single ones.
 Table 4. Multivariate Logistic Regressions for Identifying Risk Factors of Perceived Discrimination and Victimization in the
Workplace by Gender.

Males (n = 560) Females (n = 578)

Perceived Perceived
Discrimination OR Victimization OR Discrimination Victimization OR
Variables (95% CI) (95% CI) OR (95% CI) (95% CI)
Age
≤30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
31-40 0.73 [0.34, 1.56] 1.46 [0.47, 4.51] 1.24 [0.57, 2.69] 1.67 [0.55, 5.04]
41-50 0.79 [0.34, 1.79] 1.09 [0.31, 3.79] 0.53 [0.23, 1.20] 2.18 [0.71, 6.69]
51-60 1.65 [0.70, 3.90] 1.51 [0.42, 5.45] 0.77 [0.25, 2.34] 1.34 [0.26, 6.90]
≥61 0.61 [0.16, 2.22] 1.26 [0.18, 8.60] 0.41 [0.11, 1.57] 1.89 [0.31, 11.55]
Education
Primary or below 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Junior school 0.70 [0.32, 1.52] 2.19 [0.63, 7.59] 0.66 [0.28, 1.53] 1.41 [0.45, 4.39]
High school 0.88 [0.40, 1.91] 1.42 [0.38, 5.21] 0.80 [0.31, 2.02] 1.53 [0.44, 5.30]
Tertiary education 0.95 [0.41, 2.21] 1.38 [0.35, 5.45] 0.26* [0.14, 0.90] 0.99 [0.29, 3.31]
Marital status
Single 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Married 0.78 [0.35, 1.73] 4.29 [0.8, 21.18] 0.58 [0.24, 1.39] 0.22** [0.07, 0.67]
Divorce/separated/widow 0.85 [0.24, 3.07] 2.71 [0.29, 25.22] 0.25 [0.05, 1.25] 0.09 [0.01, 1.00]
Career efficacy 1.32* [1.01, 1.73] 1.81** [1.25, 2.63] 0.83 [0.63, 1.10] 0.81 [0.56, 1.18]
Unemployment anxiety 1.42* [1.07, 1.89] 1.42 [0.96, 2.11] 1.09 [0.81, 1.48] 0.81 [0.54, 1.21]
Work gains 0.94 [0.89, 1.00] 0.91* [0.84, 0.99] 1.00 [0.95, 1.05] 1.01 [0.94, 1.07]

Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

967
*p < .05. **p < .01.
968 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

Associations With Well-Being and Job Outcomes

Table 5 presents the associations between perceived job discrimination and
workplace victimization and the respondents’ well-being (e.g., self-rated
health and happiness, as well as with job satisfaction and organizational com-
mitment), respectively, by gender.
Hierarchical regressions showed that perceived job discrimination was
negatively associated with male respondents’ job satisfaction (β1 = −.12,
p < .05), and also associated with female respondents’ happiness in a
negative direction (β2 = −.15, p < .05), after controlling for the demo-
graphic variables, including age, education, and marital status. However,
the associations between workplace victimization and the individuals’
well-being as well as job-related outcome variables were not significant
for both males and females.

Discussion
Based on a nationally representative sample of the employees in Mainland
China, the present study provides the most updated firsthand empirical evi-
dence for the prevalence, risk factors, and associated health consequences of
workplace discrimination and victimization in the last 5 years in a non-West-
ern context.
It has been found that 33% of Chinese employees experience the discrimi-
nation in job search, salary increase, and promotion in the preceding 5 years,
which is much lower than the past-year prevalence rate of 60% in the United
States using a representative national sample (Rospenda et al., 2009).
Regarding the reasons for job discrimination, age discrimination came first in
the Chinese context, which was much higher than family burden and gender
discrimination. This phenomenon may reflect the surplus characteristics of
Chinese young workforce for the employers to select, which is quite different
from the high prevalence of sexual and racial discrimination in the United
States (Hay & Elig, 1999; Triana, Jayasinghe, & Pieper, 2015). In addition,
approximately 13% of Chinese employees have experienced workplace vic-
timization, which is also lower than the prevalence rate of 41% from one
national survey in the United States (Schat, Frone, & Kelloway, 2006), but is
similar to the prevalence rate of 12% at any one time in French working
population (Niedhammer, David, Degioanni, Drummond, & Philip, 2009).
One interpretation of the lower prevalence rate of workplace discrimination
and victimization in China may be attributed to the single-item measurement,
as multi-item measurement shall produce higher prevalence rate as reflected
in previous research (Rospenda et al., 2009).
 Table 5. Hierarchical Regressions for Predicting Well-Being and Job-Related Outcomes by Gender.

Self-Rated Health Happiness Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment

Variables Beta ΔR2 Beta ΔR2 Beta ΔR2 Beta ΔR2

Step 1: Demographics .06*** .13*** .09*** .05*
Step 2: Perceived discrimination (M) .002 .00 −.06 .004 −.12* .01* −.08 .006
Step 1: Demographics .07** .10*** .04 .02
Step 2: Perceived discrimination (F) −.02 .00 −.15* .02* −.03 .001 −.03 .001
Step 1: Demographics .08** .15*** .09** .05*
Step 2: Victimization (M) −.04 .001 −.07 .005 −.10 .01 .001 .000
Step 1: Demographics .08** .11*** .05 .03
Step 2: Victimization (F) −.03 .001 −.08 .007 −.03 .001 .01 .000

Note. Demographics include age, education, and marital status, which were dummy coded before entering the regression. M = males; F = females.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

969
970 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

Gender difference in perceived discrimination is not found in work-

place victimization in the last 5 years, suggesting the gender difference in
prevalence rate of general workplace discrimination and victimization
may not be as great as previous thought, which is consistent with some
previous studies (Hansen et al., 2006; Richman et al., 1999). Our study
has also indicated that Chinese employees being younger, worse edu-
cated, and single are more likely to report workplace discrimination and
victimization, which confirms the hypothesis of social power theory argu-
ing that individuals lacking resources are at greater risk for having power
against them and being subject to workplace victimization (Carli, 1999;
French & Raven, 1959). However, no occupation difference is found in
both workplace discrimination and victimization. One possible explana-
tion is that occupation itself is neutral, but its influence on workplace
discrimination and victimization depends on the organizational culture
and management style. Similarly, ethnicity is also unrelated to workplace
discrimination as well as victimization, which is associated with Chinese
government’s ethnicity policy on intentionally prioritizing the minority in
many industries.
Our study has also indicated that male employees perceiving high work
gains tend to experience less workplace victimization, which is consistent
with previous studies on the importance of work meaning (Einarsen et al.,
1994; Vartia, 1996) and implies that the organization can prevent workplace
victimization by providing more benefits to the employees. Furthermore,
male employees with higher unemployment anxiety tend to experience
more job discrimination. In other words, when male employees often worry
about losing their jobs, they have less control over their job, thus suffering
from job discrimination (Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996). Contrary to previous
findings on self-esteem (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Einarsen et al., 1994;
Harvey & Keashly, 2003), career efficacy is positively associated with
workplace discrimination and victimization in the present study. It is highly
possible that male employees with high career efficacy may display high
pitch tone in front of their colleagues or supervisors, which in turn increases
the vulnerability of workplace discrimination and victimization, as Chinese
people do not like those displaying one’s individualism in the workplace or
interpersonal relationship; however, this association is worthy of further
study. Finally, it is found that tertiary education and being married are pro-
tective factors for female employees from workplace discrimination or vic-
timization, which echoes again the social power theory (Carli, 1999; French
& Raven, 1959).
Regarding the health consequences of workplace discrimination and victim-
ization, our study has shown that perceived discrimination is negatively
Zhang 971

associated with male employees’ job satisfaction, and also negatively associated
with female employees’ happiness, but is not related with self-rated health and
organizational commitment, which only partially support previous findings
(Neall & Tuckey, 2014). The gender difference of the association between per-
ceived discrimination and the individuals’ well-being and job-related variables
implies that the significance of work itself for men and women is quite distinct.
Men are expected to take the breadwinner role in the traditional Chinese culture
(Shek, 2006), so they would attach more importance to work than women.
However, the associations between workplace victimization and the individuals’
well-being as well as job-related outcomes are not significant for both genders,
and one possibility is that the cases of workplace victimization are too small in
this study and the time frame is much longer than that in other studies.
Several limitations of this study may affect the generalization of the
results: First, only single-item measurements of workplace discrimination
and victimization are used in the current study, although it is very necessary
for the large-scale community survey. The multi-item measurements of both
discrimination and victimization in the workplace should be adopted to
enrich the dimensions of these concepts and improve the measurement reli-
ability. In addition, the time frame of workplace discrimination and victim-
ization measures can be shortened to past year or past 6 months to reduce the
recall bias. Second, all results should be interpreted as associations due to the
cross-sectional design of this study, and the causal relationships between risk
factors, workplace discrimination and victimization, and well-being could
not be established. Third, our data are only collected from the victim’s per-
spective, which may omit the workplace interaction process, so data from
other sources (e.g., supervisors and coworkers) are necessary to reduce self-
report bias. Other important variables (e.g., personality and self-esteem)
should be included to compare the relative importance with other individual
and organizational factors.

Conclusion
To conclude, based on a representative national survey of 1,138 Chinese
employees, this study has contributed to our understanding of workplace dis-
crimination and victimization in China in the following ways: First, this
study has estimated the prevalence rate of workplace discrimination and vic-
timization in preceding 5 years using the most updated empirical evidence.
Second, career efficacy and unemployment anxiety are risk factors for male
employees’ perception of job discrimination, and higher education and being
married are protective factors for female employees’ perception of discrimi-
nation. Third, perceived job discrimination has negative influence on male
972 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

employees’ job satisfaction and also on female employees’ happiness. These

findings will generate significant implications for the organizations to build
stable and meaning-oriented company culture to decrease the incidence of
perceived discrimination and victimization in the Chinese workplace, espe-
cially for male employees.

Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the members of the research committee of the “Chinese
General Social Survey (CGSS)” research project, which is carried out by the National
Survey Research Center at Renmin University of China. They appreciate the assis-
tance in providing data by the institute and individuals aforementioned.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study has been supported by Beijing
Education Science “12th Five-Year” special topics for the planning of youth “MSW
students’ career preferences and strategies: An ecological perspective” (Grant No.:
CDA13091).

References
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 27-51.
Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the tar-
get’s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717-741.
Barling, J., Dupre, K. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting workplace aggression
and violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 671-692.
Barling, J., & Phillips, M. (1993). Interactional, formal and distributive justice in the
workplace: An exploratory study. Journal of Psychology, 127, 649-656.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Hjelt-Back, M. (1994). Aggression among university
employees. Aggression Behavior, 20, 173-184.
Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victims’ per-
spective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 998-1012.
Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., Bennett, M. M., & Watson, C. P. (2010). Target per-
sonality and workplace victimization: A prospective analysis. Work & Stress, 24,
140-158.
Carli, L. L. (1999). Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. Journal of
Social Issues, 55(1), 81-99.
Zhang 973

Coyne, I., Chong, P. S. L., Seigne, E., & Randall, P. (2003). Self and peer nominations
of bullying: An analysis of incident rates, individual differences, and percep-
tions of the working environment. European Journal of Work & Organizational
Psychology, 12, 209-228.
Crebbin, W., Campbell, G., Hillis, D. A., & Watters, D. A. (2015). Prevalence of
bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment in surgery in Australasia. ANZ
Journal of Surgery, 85, 905-909. doi:10.1111/ans.13363
Donovan, M. A., Drasgow, F., & Munson, L. J. (1998). The perceptions of Fair
Interpersonal Treatment Scale: Development and validation of a measure of inter-
personal treatment in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 683-692.
Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian
approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 379-401.
Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., & Matthiesen, S. B. (1994). Bullying and harassment at
work and their relationship to work environment quality: An exploratory study.
European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 4, 381-401.
Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. J. (1997). Harassment in the workplace and the victimiza-
tion of men. Violence and Victims, 12, 247-263.
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in
public and private organizations. European Journal of Work & Organizational
Psychology, 5, 185-201.
French, R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.),
Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Griffin, R. W., O’Leary-Kelly, A., & Collins, J. M. (1998). Dysfunctional behavior in
organizations: Violence and deviant behavior. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Gutek, B. A., Cohen, A. G., & Konrad, A. M. (1990). Predicting social-sexual context
behavior at work: A context hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal, 33,
560-577.
Haines, V. Y., Marchand, A., & Harvey, S. (2006). Crossover of workplace aggression
experiences in dual-earner couples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
11, 305-314.
Hansen, A. M., Hogh, A., Persson, R., Karlson, B., Garde, A. H., & Orbak, P. (2006).
Bullying at work, health outcomes, and physiological stress response. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 60, 63-72.
Harvey, S., & Keashly, L. (2003). Predicting the risk for aggression in the workplace:
Risk factors, self-esteem and time at work. Social Behavior and Personality, 31,
807-814.
Hay, M. S., & Elig, T. W. (1999). The 1995 Department of Defense Sexual Harassment
Survey: Overview and methodology. Military Psychology, 11, 233-242.
Hepworth, W., & Towler, A. (2004). The effects of individual differences and char-
ismatic leadership on workplace aggression. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 9, 176-185.
Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Inness, M.,
. . . Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228-238.
974 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

Hogh, A., Henriksson, M. E., & Burr, H. (2005). A 5-year follow-up study of aggres-
sion at work and psychological health. International Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 12, 256-265.
Inness, M., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2005). Understanding supervisor-targeted
aggression: A within-person, between-job design. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93, 1401-1411.
Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). Get smarty pants: Cognitive ability, personality, and
victimization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 889-901.
Lapierre, L. M., Spector, P. E., & Leck, J. D. (2005). Sexual versus nonsexual work-
place aggression and victims’ overall job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 155-169.
Leather, P., Beale, D., Lawrence, C., & Dickson, R. (1997). Effects of exposure to
occupational violence and the mediating impact of fear. Work & Stress, 11, 329-
340.
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and
Victims, 5, 119-126.
Mathisen, G. E., Ogaard, T., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Individual and situational anteced-
ents of workplace victimization. International Journal of Manpower, 33, 539-555.
McCormack, D., Casimir, G., Djurkovic, N., & Yang, L. (2006). The concurrent
effects of workplace bullying, satisfaction with supervisor, and satisfaction
with co-workers on affective commitment among school-teachers in China.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 17, 316-331.
Murrell, A. J. (1996). Sexual harassment and women of color: Issues, challenges, and
future directions. In M. S. Stockdale (Ed.), Sexual harassment in the workplace:
Perspectives, frontiers, and response strategies (pp. 51-66). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Neall, A., & Tuckey, M. (2014). A methodological review of research on the anteced-
ents and consequences of workplace harassment. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 87, 225-257.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997, April). Type A behavior pattern, self-mon-
itoring, and job satisfaction as predictors of aggression in the workplace.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Industrial Organization
Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
Niedhammer, I., David, S., Degioanni, S., Drummond, A., & Philip, P. (2009).
Workplace bullying and sleep disturbances: Findings form a large scale cross-
sectional survey in French working population. Sleep, 32, 1211-1219.
Richman, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., Nawyn, S. J., Flaherty, J. A., Fendich, M., & Drum,
M. L. (1999). Sexual harassment and generalized workplace abuse among uni-
versity employees: Prevalence and mental health correlates. American Journal of
Public Health, 89, 358-363.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of sexual harassment:
Characteristics of harassers and the social circumstances under which sex-
ual harassment occurs. In W. O’ Donahue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory,
research and treatment (pp. 129-151). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Zhang 975

Rospenda, K. M., & Richman, J. A. (2005). Harassment and discrimination. In J.

Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp.
149-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., & Shannon, C. A. (2009). Prevalence and mental
health correlates of harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Results from
a national survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 819-843.
Schat, A. C. H., Frone, M. R., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Prevalence of workplace
aggression in the U.S. workforce: Findings from a national study. In E. K.
Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp.
47-89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shek, D. (2006). Chinese family research: Puzzles, progress, paradigms, and policy
implications. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 275-284.
Sims, R. L., & Sun, P. (2012). Witnessing workplace bullying and the Chinese manu-
facturing employee. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27, 9-26.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 178-190.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis,
and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261-289.
Triana, M. C., Jayasinghe, M., & Pieper, J. R. (2015). Perceived workplace racial
discrimination and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 36, 491-513.
Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying: Psychological work environment and
organizational climate. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology,
5, 203-214.
Wu, S., Lin, S., Li, H., Chao, W., Zhang, Q., & Wu, Y. (2014). A study of workplace
violence and its effect on quality of life among medical professionals in China.
Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, 69, 81-88.
Zapf, D., Knorz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationship between mobbing fac-
tors, and job content, social work environment, and health outcomes. European
Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 5, 215-237.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and sub-
ordinates’ organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 1068-1076.

Author Biography
Huiping Zhang is an associate professor of family study at Renmin University. She
received a PhD degree in family study at the University of Hong Kong. Her research
focuses on women’s socioeconomic status and marital relationship. Her research
interests include gender study and public health.