AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Volume 25, pages 281–296 (1999)

Social and Personal Determinants of

Workplace Aggression: Evidence for the
Impact of Perceived Injustice and the Type A
Behavior Pattern
Robert A. Baron,1* Joel H. Neuman,2 and Deanna Geddes3
1
Lally School of Management and Technology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy,
New York
2
Department of Business Administration, State University of New York at New Paltz,
New Paltz, New York
3
Department of Human Resource Administration, Temple University, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Four hundred fifty-two employed persons rated the frequency with which they had been
the victims of a wide range of aggressive actions at work. In addition, they also rated the
frequency with which they themselves had aggressed against others in their workplaces.
Three hypotheses were investigated: (1) covert forms of aggression, in which aggressors
seek to conceal their identity from target persons, are significantly more frequent in
workplaces than overt forms of aggression; (2) the greater the perceived injustice re-
ported by employees, the greater their tendency to engage in workplace aggression; and
(3) the higher individuals’ scores on a measure of the Type A Behavior Pattern, the
greater their reported frequency of engaging in various forms of workplace aggression.
Results offered support for all three hypotheses. In addition, several demographic vari-
ables (participants’ age and gender; the physical location of their workplaces) were also
found to play a role in the occurrence of workplace aggression. Together, these findings
were interpreted as underscoring the importance of establishing close conceptual links
between research on workplace aggression andbasic research on human aggression. Aggr.
Behav. 25:281–296, 1999. © 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Key words: workplace aggression; perceived injustice; Type A Behavior Pattern

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, reports of dramatic instances of workplace violence have appeared
with increasing frequency in the mass media. Such reports have spurred increased pub-

*Correspondence to: Robert A. Baron, Lally School of Management and Technology, Rensselaer Polytech-
nic Institute, Troy, NY 12180-3590.
Received 30 October 1997; accepted 28 September 1998.

© 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

282 Baron et al.

lic concern with this topic—concern that has been reflected in a growing volume of
empirical research. Although fewer than 50 articles on workplace violence were pub-
lished during the period 1987–1993, more than 200 were published in the years 1994–
1996 alone.
This rapidly expanding body of research has added appreciably to our knowledge of the
nature and potential causes of workplace violence [e.g., Giacalone and Greenberg, 1997;
Keashly et al., 1994; O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1996; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997]. However, it
has not, in many instances, been closely linked to existing literature on human aggression
[e.g., Anderson et al., 1996; Baron and Richardson, 1994]. For example, although this
literature has long distinguished between aggression and violence, restricting the latter
term to instances of direct, physical assault, these words have often been used interchange-
ably in some papers on workplace violence [e.g., McPhail, 1996; Mullen, 1997].
The present research was designed, therefore, to help strengthen links between re-
search on workplace aggression and basic research on human aggression generally [e.g.,
Baron and Neuman, 1996]. Although such connections could be facilitated in many
different ways, the strategy adopted here was straightforward: Hypotheses relating to
important aspects of workplace aggression were derived from existing literature on
human aggression and were then tested with a large sample of employed persons. These
hypotheses were related both to the nature of workplace aggression (i.e., the specific
forms it takes in actual work settings) and its potential causes.
With respect to the first of these issues (the nature of workplace aggression), media
reports have tended to emphasize dramatic instances of violence—cases in which em-
ployees physically assault or even murder other persons in their organizations. How-
ever, there are grounds in the existing literature on human aggression for suggesting
that contrary to the impression created by such reports, most attempts at harm-doing in
work settings tend to be far less dramatic in nature. They may, instead, involve actions
that permit aggressors to conceal their identity, and perhaps their malevolent intentions,
from chosen victims. Several lines of research point to this possibility.
First, it has been found that human adults often prefer to maximize what is known as
the effect-danger ratio when aggressing against others [e.g., Björkqvist et al., 1994].
Specifically, they prefer to maximize the harm done to the victim while at the same time
minimizing the danger to themselves. This tendency leads to a preference for what has
been termed covert forms of aggression—actions that do, indeed, produce harm but
that are disguised and subtle in nature [Björkqvist et al., 1992].
Additional considerations suggest that several aspects of work settings might also
encourage a preference for covert forms of aggression. First, employees in a given
work unit generally have contact with one another on a regular, repetitive basis. This
may increase the perceived likelihood of retaliation for aggressive actions since their
origins can be readily traced [see, e.g., Baron and Richardson, 1994]. Similarly, be-
cause individuals in work settings often know each other well, anonymity, which has
been shown to increase aggression, is generally absent [e.g., Prentice-Dunn and Rogers,
1989]. Third, many potential witnesses to aggressive actions are present in work set-
tings, and this factor, too, might strengthen the preference for forms of aggression that
permit aggressors to conceal their identity from intended victims and other persons and
so avoid censure for such behavior [e.g., Borden, 1975]. Together, these considerations
suggest that a preference for covert forms of aggression may well exist in workplaces
[e.g., Spivey and Prentice-Dunn, 1990]. Thus, the following hypothesis was proposed:
 Workplace Aggression 283

Hypothesis 1: Covert forms of aggression are significantly more frequent in

workplaces than overt forms of aggression, including the direct assaults described
by the term workplace violence.
A second major focus of the present research concerned the potential causes of work-
place aggression. Decades of careful research indicate that aggressive behavior stems
from a wide range of social, cognitive, situational, environmental, and personal factors
[e.g., Anderson et al., 1996; Cohn and Rotton, 1997; Pihl et al., 1997]. It is suggested
here that workplace aggression, too, stems from a host of variables and that identifying
these is a crucial first step from the point of view of developing effective techniques for
reducing or managing such behavior.
Although many different factors have been found to influence aggression, two that seem
especially relevant to aggression in workplaces were selected for study: perceived injustice
(i.e., unfairness) and the Type A Behavior Pattern. With respect to perceived injustice, an
extensive body of research indicates that individuals are deeply concerned with the fairness
of the treatment they receive from others [e.g., Cropanzano, 1993; Greenberg, 1993a; Lind
and Tyler, 1988]. Indeed, this literature suggests that in work settings, individuals are often
highly sensitive to even very small departures from what they view as “fair treatment” with
respect to the outcomes they receive (distributive justice) and the procedures used to deter-
mine these outcomes (procedural justice; e.g., Greenberg, 1990, 1993b]. Moreover, they
often react to perceived unfairness by engaging in actions that can be interpreted as aggres-
sive in nature, such as theft and sabotage [e.g., Greenberg and Scott, 1997]. It should also
be noted, in this context, that individuals who have engaged in workplace violence (or
other forms of workplace aggression) often report that they did so to “even the score” with
someone—usually a boss or supervisor—who had treated them unfairly [e.g., Baron 1993;
Folger and Baron, 1996; Kinney, 1995; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997]. Thus, perceived injus-
tice has been emphasized as a potentially important determinant of workplace aggression
in recent studies on this topic [e.g., Greenberg and Alge, 1998], and growing evidence
suggests that it may play an important role in such behavior. On the basis of these findings,
the following hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 2: The greater the perceived injustice reported by employees, the
greater their tendency to engage in workplace aggression.
Turning to the second variable selected for study in the present research, the Type A
Behavior Pattern, a large body of evidence suggests that this cluster of behavioral ten-
dencies plays a role in human aggression. Specifically, individuals scoring high on this
pattern (Type A’s) have been found to demonstrate a high level of interpersonal irrita-
bility and to be significantly more prone to respond aggressively to various forms of
provocation than persons low on this dimension [Type B’s; Baron, 1989; Baron et al.,
1985; Berman et al., 1993]. Moreover, Type A persons have been found to show higher
levels of aggression in several work settings [e.g., Evans et al., 1987]. Finally, Type A
persons often describe others as “obstacles” who slow them down in their efforts to
complete various tasks [Contrada, 1989]. Such reactions seem especially likely to oc-
cur in work settings, and might, it is suggested here, tend to exacerbate the irritability of
Type A persons in such settings. On the basis of such considerations, the following
hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 3: The higher individuals’ scores on a measure of the Type A Behav-
ior Pattern, the greater their reported frequency of engaging in various forms of
workplace aggression.
284 Baron et al.

METHODS
Participants
Two independent groups of participants were employed in the present study—a pri-
mary sample of 452 subjects and a secondary sample of 105 subjects.
The primary sample. Our primary subject population consisted of 452 individuals
(250 females, 202 males) currently employed full-time. These persons, who ranged in
age from their 20’s through their 60’s, worked in a wide range of organizations in both
the public and private sectors, in six different states in the Northeast and Midwest of the
U.S. In terms of ethnic background, 83.2% were Caucasian, 6.6% were African-Ameri-
can, 5.5% were Hispanic, 3.3% were Asian, and the remainder described their ethnic
identity as “other.” They occupied a wide range of positions: managerial/professional
(36.1%); technical, sales, and administrative (27.9%); business and personal service
employees (19.2%); and craft persons, operators, and laborers (14.4%). Respondents’
workplaces were located in central cities and metropolitan areas (29%), bordering sub-
urbs (44.2%), small towns (18.6%), and rural areas (6.6%) and ranged in size from
fewer than 50 employees to more than 1000 employees. Most participants had held
their current jobs for from 1 to 5 years (53.0%), while smaller percentages had held
their positions for less than 1 year (14.5%) or more than 5 years (16.4%).
Participants were recruited for the study in the following manner. Members of the
research team met with operating officers, human resource officials, or other key man-
agement at a number of organizations. At these meetings they explained the nature of
the study and the importance of this type of research. Approximately 80% of the orga-
nizations contacted agreed to participate and to permit data collection at their work
sites. Members of the research team took sole responsibility for the distribution and
collection of the questionnaires; no employees of participating organizations were in-
volved. A wide variety of organizations and individuals occupying a wide range of jobs
within these organizations were included in the sample because of the authors’ belief
that such procedures would increase generalizability of the results over that which would
be obtained if a more restricted sample was employed.
The secondary sample. This independent sample consisted of 105 subjects (49 fe-
males, 56 males) ranging from 20 to 49 years of age (M = 22.05, SD = 8.44). These
individuals were recruited from a Department of Business Administration and con-
sisted of students (both graduate and undergraduate), faculty, and staff.

Procedure: Primary Sample

Participants in our primary sample were asked to complete a questionnaire that as-
sessed the frequency with which they personally had been the victims, at work, of a
wide range of aggressive actions. The questionnaire also contained items designed to
measure the frequency with which participants had engaged in workplace aggression
themselves, directed against several different potential targets (immediate supervisor,
co-workers, other supervisor, subordinates, their organization itself). Additional items
assessed perceived injustice [items from the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS); Hackman
and Oldham, 1975], the Type A Behavior Pattern [Jenkins et al., 1979], and basic demo-
graphic information.
Frequency of having been the recipient (target) of various forms of workplace
aggression. Forty items on the questionnaire related to the perceived frequency with
 Workplace Aggression 285

which respondents had personally experienced (i.e., been the target of) various forms
of aggression. These items were derived from recent research on human aggression
[cf., Baron and Neuman, 1996; Baron and Richardson, 1994; Harris, 1993], abusive
behavior in the workplace [Keashly et al., 1994], a survey of recent research on work-
place aggression [Geddes, 1994], and (most especially) research that has focused on
the distinction between covert and overt forms of aggression [e.g., Björkqvist et al.,
1994]. The items were carefully chosen to reflect a very wide range of actions through
which individuals seek to harm others. Special care was taken to include items relating
to all major forms of aggression described and investigated in research on human ag-
gression—physical (e.g., attack with a weapon; pushing, shoving, hitting) and verbal
assaults (e.g., unfair criticism; insults; holding the target person or this person’s work
up to ridicule), as well as a wide range of more covert forms of aggression [e.g., inten-
tionally damning the target person with faint praise; failing to transmit needed informa-
tion to the target person; cf., Baron and Richardson, 1994]. Participants rated the extent
to which they had been victims of each type of aggression on 5-point scales ranging
from 1 (“Never”) to 5 (“Very Often”). Scale reliability was acceptable, Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.95.
Frequency of having engaged in workplace aggression against others. An addi-
tional measure simply asked participants to indicate the frequency with which they had
ever engaged in any form of aggression against various targets: their immediate super-
visor, a co-worker, a superior other than their immediate supervisor, a subordinate, or
their organization. Ratings were again made on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (“Never”)
to 5 (“Very Often”). Participants were instructed to think of aggression as any form of
intentional harm-doing—any kind of behavior in which they (the aggressor) sought to
harm one or more others or an organization (the target).
Measure of perceived injustice. Respondents also completed Section 4 of the JDS
[Hackman and Oldham, 1975; Oldham et al., 1978]. The 14 items included in this sec-
tion assess respondents’ satisfaction with several aspects of their jobs. The items of
central interest in this research were those dealing with respondents’ perceptions of the
degree to which their supervisors treated them in a fair manner (e.g., “the degree of
respect and fair treatment I receive from my boss”). Respondents’ rated their satisfac-
tion with the fairness of their supervisors’ behavior toward them on a 7-point scale
ranging from 1 (“Extremely Dissatisfied”) to 7 (“Extremely Satisfied”). Previous re-
search indicates that the JDS subscale for perceptions of fair treatment by one’s super-
visor has acceptable reliability [Cronbach’s alpha = .87; Oldham et al., 1978]. Data
from the present study yielded a levelof reliability for this scale virtually identical to
that reported in previous research, alpha =.86.
Measure of the Type A Behavior Pattern. Finally, participants also completed the
Jenkins Activity Survey [Jenkins et al., 1979], one widely used measure of the Type A
Behavior Pattern. This scale consists of 21 items relating to a wide range of behaviors
indicative of the Type A Behavior Pattern (e.g., being in a hurry, being irritable, etc.).
Respondents receive 1 point for each answer shown, in extensive previous research, to
be indicative of the Type A Behavior Pattern; thus, scores range from 0–21.
Completion of the questionnaire was voluntary in all participating organizations, and
employees were assured of complete anonymity. Surveys were distributed both on-site
in various private and public sector organizations and on campus to students in gradu-
ate business courses. (Students constituted 26.2% of the total sample; however, it should
286 Baron et al.

be noted that all were part-time students who were employed full-time.) Reflecting
current high levels of interest among employees in workplace violence, the return rate
averaged more than 60% from on-site administrations; return rate for class administra-
tions was very high (approximately 95%).

Procedure: Secondary Sample

An independent sample of 105 participants were given a list of the 40 aggressive
behaviors employed in our primary study and asked to classify each of these as either
overt or covert in nature. To clarify this task, participants were provided with the fol-
lowing guidelines:
A behavior should be classified as overt if:
(1) the aggressor makes no attempt to conceal his/her identity from the target per-
son; or,
(2) the target person can tell that any harm he/she experienced was due to someone
trying to harm him/her; or,
(3) the target person is aware that someone sought to harm him/her.
A behavior should be classified as covert if:
(1) the aggressor attempts to conceal his/her identity from the target person; or,
(2) the target person can’t tell whether harm that he/she experienced was due to
someone trying to harm him/her; or,
(3) the target person is unaware that someone sought to harm him/her.
In those instances where subjects were unable to classify a behavior
as either overt or covert, they indicated their uncertainty by placing a check mark in
a column labeled with a question mark.
Participation in this study was completely voluntary, and all persons asked to partici-
pate in it agreed to take part.

RESULTS
Our initial analyses focused on the nature and relative frequency with which indi-
viduals experience various forms of aggression in work settings. Following this, we
examined perceived injustice and the Type A Behavior Pattern as potential causes of
such behavior.

Forms of Workplace Aggression and Their Relative Frequency

First, we sought to test Hypothesis 1, that covert forms of aggression are more frequent
in occurrence than overt forms. Second, we sought to determine whether individuals dif-
ferentially experience workplace aggression as instances of overt and covert behavior.
Overt vs. covert aggression. With respect to the classification of overt and covert be-
haviors obtained from our secondary sample, our acceptance criterion was 75%. That is,
75% of the subjects had to agree on the classification of an item as either overt or covert if it
was to qualify for inclusion. Using this criterion, 13 variables qualified as overt, 7 as covert,
and 20 could not be classified. (Refer to Table I for a list of qualifying variables.)
We then turned our attention to the frequency with which these behaviors occur in
work settings. To do this, we calculated mean frequency ratings for overt and covert
 Workplace Aggression 287
TABLE I. Forms of Aggression Classified as Overt and Covert
Aggressive behaviors % agreeing
Overt aggression
Insults, yelling and shouting 100
Physical attack/assault (e.g., pushing, shoving, etc.) 100
Physical sexual harassment (touching, grabbing, etc.) 100
Attack with a weapon 97
Staring, dirty looks, or other negative eye-contact 94
Verbal sexual harassment (e.g., tasteless jokes, remarks) 91
Negative or obscene gestures toward the target 91
Threats of physical violence 87
Directly refusing requests 86
Directly refusing to provide needed resources or equipment 83
Directly interfering with/blocking work activities 81
Delivering unfairly negative performance appraisals 75
Holding person, or this person’s work, up to ridicule 75
Covert aggression
Failing to warn target of impending danger/difficulty 85
Talking behind someone’s back/spreading false rumors 84
Working slowdowns that prevent the target from completing tasks 81
Whistle-blowing 77
Failing to deny false rumors about the target 77
Failing to transmit information needed by the target 75
Failing to defend the target’s plans/proposals to others 75

forms of aggression for our primary sample of 452 participants; these ratings were
then compared in a paired t-test. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, participants indicated
that they personally experienced (were the victims of) covert aggression (M = 1.81,
SD = .66) significantly more often than overt aggression (M = 1.62, SD = .50), t(451)
= 8.85, P < .000.
In our next analysis, we attempted to determine if individuals differentially experience
overt and covert aggression as unique phenomena. More precisely, we were interested in
whether overt and covert forms of aggression form distinct and recognizable clusters with
respect to individuals’ actual experience with workplace aggression.
The nature of workplace aggression. To examine the latent structure of workplace
aggression, we subjected participants’ ratings of the frequency with which they had
been the targets of each of the 40 forms of aggressive behavior described above to a
principal component analysis with a Varimax rotation. The decision to employ this
procedure, as opposed to a more restrictive confirmatory approach, derived from the
exploratory nature of this portion of our study. A Scree plot was employed to determine
the number of factors to be retained [Cattell, 1966], and only variables with factor
loadings ≥ .40 were selected for inclusion [Cliff and Hamburger, 1967] to maximize
factor interpretability. Additionally, items were eliminated if they loaded significantly
on two or more factors.1
A two-factor model, representing overt and covert dimensions, did not emerge; rather,

1
The seven items that did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the final scale were as follows: insults,
yelling, and shouting; whistle-blowing; directly refusing requests; sexual harassment of a physical nature;
criticizing/attacking someone’s protégé; intentional work slowdowns; and reducing others’ opportunities to
express themselves (e.g., scheduling them at the end of a meeting).
288 Baron et al.

the analysis resulted in a three-factor solution interpreted and labeled as follows (refer
to Table II).
Expressions of hostility. Behaviors that are primarily verbal or symbolic in nature
(e.g., belittling others’ opinions, talking behind the target’s back). (This factor accounted
for 33.3% of the variance.)
Obstructionism. Behaviors that are designed to obstruct or impede the target’s
performance (e.g., failure to return phone calls or respond to memos, failure to
transmit needed information, interfering with activities important to the target).
These behaviors are largely passive in nature. (This factor accounted for 6.4% of
the variance.)

TABLE II. Results of Factor Analysis on 40 Forms of Workplace Aggression

Factorsa and factor loadings
Expressions Obstruct- Overt
Items of hostility ionism aggression
Staring, dirty looks, or other negative eye-contact .73 .03 .12
Belittling someone’s opinions to others .66 .34 .13
Giving someone “the silent treatment” .62 .15 .24
Negative or obscene gestures toward the target .61 .04 .40
Talking behind the target’s back/spreading rumors .60 .35 .06
Interrupting others when they are speaking/working .59 .37 .01
Intentionally damning with faint praise .58 .44 .07
Holding target, or this person’s work, up to ridicule .57 .14 .28
Flaunting status or authority/acting in a condescending manner .56 .43 .04
Sending unfairly negative information to higher levels in the company .55 .34 .26
Leaving the work area when the target enters .54 .15 .32
Delivering unfair/negative performance appraisals .52 .25 .20
Failing to deny false rumors about the target .51 .38 .26
Verbal sexual harassment .50 .12 .18
Failing to object to false accusations about the target .45 .36 .22
Failing to return phone calls or respond to memos .20 .69 .08
Failing to transmit information needed by the target .14 .68 .11
Causing others to delay action on matters important to the target .24 .68 .07
Failing to warn the target of impending danger .23 .68 .19
Showing up late for meetings run by the target .05 .61 .11
Failing to defend the target’s plans to others .35 .60 .10
Interfering with or blocking the target’s work activities .38 .55 .32
Needlessly consuming resources needed by the target .17 .54 .26
Direct refusal to provide needed resources or equipment .19 .54 .32
Intentional work slowdowns .33 .52 .20
Attack with weapon .04 .02 .74
Physical attack/assault (e.g., pushing, shoving, hitting) .09 –.02 .73
Theft/destruction of personal property belonging to the target .11 .28 .68
Threats of physical violence .19 .04 .68
Failing to protect the target’s welfare or safety .22 .33 .60
Damaging/sabotaging company property needed by target .20 .27 .52
Steals/removes company property needed by target .30 .24 .51
Destroying mail or messages needed by the target .24 .20 .47
Unrotated eigenvalues 13.3 2.56 1.83
Variance explained 33.3 6.4 4.6
Cronbach’s alpha .91 .87 .81
a
Underlined numbers indicate factor loadings that were used to define each factor.
 Workplace Aggression 289

Overt aggression. Behaviors that have typically been included under the heading
“workplace violence” (e.g., physical assault, theft or destruction of property, threats of
physical violence). (This factor accounted for 4.6% of the variance.)
In comparing Tables I and II, it is clear that both overt and covert behaviors can be
found within each of the three factors. However, it is also apparent that the most clearly
overt (i.e., visible, dramatic, and serious) forms of aggression appear in our third fac-
tor, hence the label overt aggression. These are the behaviors that are typically sub-
sumed under the heading of workplace violence, e.g., physical assault, attack with a
weapon, etc. We did not term such behavior “physical aggression” because this term
did not seem to apply to several of the items included in this factor. In a sense, one
could suggest that expressions of hostility and obstructionism are more covert when
compared with the majority of variables in our overt aggression factor. If expressions
of hostility and obstructionism occur more frequently than overt aggression, this would
be additional (albeit indirect) support for Hypothesis 1. To test this possibility, we
calculated mean unit-weighting scores for each of the threefactors and analyzed them
by means of paired t-tests. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, respondents rated expres-
sions of hostility (M = 2.02, SD = .69) and instances of obstructionism (M = 1.76, SD
= .65) as significantly more frequent in occurrence than instances of overt aggression
(M = 1.24, SD = .42), P < .001 in both cases. In addition, expressions of hostility were
rated as significantly more frequent than instances of obstructionism, P < .001.
Perceived Unfairness and Workplace Aggression
Hypothesis 2 predicts that the greater the degree of perceived injustice reported by
participants, the greater their tendency to engage in workplace aggression. To assess
this hypothesis, the JDS items relating most directly to perceived injustice (e.g., the
degree of respect and fair treatment received from one’s boss) were correlated with the
reported frequency of aggression against various targets. Results indicated that, as pre-
dicted, the greater the degree of perceived injustice (i.e., the lower participants’ satis-
faction with treatment from their supervisor), the greater their tendency to aggress against
their supervisors, r(420) = –.31, P < .001. In addition, and consistent with previous
findings suggesting that perceived injustice is related to aggressive actions against one’s
company [e.g., employee theft; Greenberg and Scott, 1996], the greater the dissatisfac-
tion with treatment by one’s supervisor, the greater the level of aggression against the
organization, r(403) = –.26, P < .001.
To determine whether perceived injustice was also related to the frequency with
which participants had been the recipients of various forms of workplace aggres-
sion, the three workplace aggression factors identified above (expressions of hostil-
ity, obstructionism, and overt aggression) were correlated with the JDS measure of
perceived injustice. Results indicated that for each workplace aggression factor,
greater perceived injustice was related to greater aggression, r(431) = –.36, –.30,
and –.24, P < .001, for expressions of hostility, obstructionism, and overt aggres-
sion, respectively. Males and females did not differ with respect to perceived injus-
tice, t(449) = –.112, P = .91).
Type A Behavior Pattern and Aggression
Hypothesis 3 suggests that the higher individuals’ scores on the Jenkins Activity
Survey (the measure of Type A Behavior Pattern), the greater their tendency to engage
290 Baron et al.

in workplace aggression. To test this hypothesis, participants’ reports of the frequency

with which they had engaged in workplace aggression against others were correlated
with scores on the Jenkins Activity Survey. Results indicated that the higher partici-
pants’ score on this measure of the Type A Behavior Pattern, the greater the frequency
with which they had engaged in workplace aggression, r(392) = .18, P < .001. More-
over, when a median split was employed to distinguish Type A persons from Type B
persons, it was found that Type A’s reported having engaged in workplace aggression
against others significantly more frequently than those who were classified as Type B
(MType A = 1.46; MType B = 1.34), t(353) = 2.23, P < .03.2 However, a closer inspection of
the data reveals that this increased aggression is primarily targeted against immediate
supervisors as opposed to other superiors, co-workers, subordinates, or the entire orga-
nization. With respect to aggression against an immediate supervisor, Type A’s report
significantly more aggression than Type B’s (MType A = 1.58; MType B = 1.36), t(372) =
2.71, P = .007. Type A’s and Type B’s did not differ significantly with respect to aggres-
sion toward any of the other targets.
Additional analyses examined the question of whether Type A’s also reported being
on the “receiving end” of aggression more frequently than Type B’s. Results indicated
that they did: The higher participants’ scores on the Jenkins Activity Survey, the greater
the reported frequency with which they had experienced various forms of workplace
aggression, r(420) = .24, P < .001. Scores on the Jenkins Activity Survey also corre-
lated significantly with each of the three workplace aggression factors: r(444) = .20 (P
< .001), .27 (P < .001), and .14 (P < .003) for expressions of hostility, obstructionism,
and overt aggression, respectively. Finally, persons classified as being Type A (those
who scored above the median on the Jenkins Activity Survey) reported experiencing
various forms of workplace aggression significantly more often than participants who
were classified as being Type B (MType A = 1.82 MType B = 1.63), t(401) = 3.82, P < .001. In
sum, the higher individuals’ scores on the Type A Behavior Pattern, the more frequently
they reported engaging in workplace aggression against others and the more frequently
they reported being the victim of such behavior.
Relative Frequency of Aggression Toward Various Targets
Although not a major focus of the present research, the question of whether partici-
pants aggressed equally against all targets was also of interest. To investigate this issue,
a repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance was performed on the mean fre-
quency with which respondents reported having aggressed against each of five targets
(their immediate supervisor, co-worker, other supervisor, subordinate, organization).
This analysis yielded a significant effect for Target, F(4,392) = 69.95, P < .001. The
means and standard deviations for each of the five targets are shown in Table III. As
indicated by this table, respondents reported that they were most likely to aggress against
a co-worker or their immediate supervisor, significantly less likely to aggress against
subordinates, and least likely to aggress against their entire organization. Thus, it ap-
peared that the frequency of workplace aggression varied across potential targets, being
highest for co-workers or immediate supervisors.

2
The median score on the Jenkins Activity Survey was 8.00 (M = 8.414). This figure is comparable to that
observed in many other studies that have employed this instrument and have classified individuals as Type
A or Type B by means of a median split (e.g., Baron et al., 1985).
 Workplace Aggression 291
TABLE III. Mean Rated Frequency of Workplace Aggression Toward Five Targets*
Target Rated frequency of aggression toward this source S.D.
Immediate supervisor 1.86a 0.92
Co-worker 1.93a 0.87
Other supervisor 1.72b 0.84
Subordinate 1.77b 0.83
Organization 1.29c 0.71
*Means that do not share a common subscript differ significantly by t-test (P < .01).

Demographic Factors and Workplace Aggression

Additional analyses examined the potential effects of various demographic factors
(e.g., age of participants, gender, union membership, occupation, workplace location)
on workplace aggression. Results indicated that younger participants (19–24 years old)
reported engaging in workplace aggression significantly more frequently than older
participants (those 35 years or older), F(4,393) = 3.52, P < .008. However, there was no
significant effect of age on the frequency with which participants reported having been
the victim of workplace aggression, F(1,450) = 1.93, P = .167.
Females and males did not differ with respect to the frequency with which they had
been the victim of workplace aggression, t(450) = 1.39, P = .167. However, females did
report engaging in workplace aggression against others less frequently than males
(MFemales = 1.37, MMales = 1.48), t = 2.23, P < .025.
Workplace aggression did not differ significantly across various occupations, but
individuals who worked in central city/metropolitan areas reported being the victim of
workplace aggression significantly more often than those who worked in suburban ar-
eas (MCity = 1.84, M Suburban = 1.68), F(3,441) = 2.96, P < .03. Finally, union members
reported engaging in significantly more workplace aggression against others than non-
union members (Mnon-union = 1.38, Munion = 1.54), t(390) = 2.53, P < .01. In sum, several
demographic factors were related to workplace aggression.

DISCUSSION
The results of the present study provide support for Hypothesis 1, which suggests
that covert forms of aggression are significantly more frequent in workplaces than overt
forms. Two types of evidence offer support for this hypothesis. First, forms of aggres-
sion rated as covert in nature by the participants in our secondary sample were rated by
our primary sample as occurring significantly more frequently than forms rated as overt.
Second, two clusters of workplace aggression that can be described as relatively covert
in nature (expressions of hostility and obstructionism) were found to be more frequent
in occurrence than the factor we labeled as overt aggression (which contains behaviors
typically subsumed under the heading of workplace violence). These findings are con-
sistent with the results of many studies on human aggression suggesting that adults
often prefer covert forms of harm-doing behavior, especially in situations where they
are not anonymous nor anticipate potential retaliation from the victim, and where there
are many potential witnesses to overt forms of aggression [e.g., Björkqvist et al., 1994].
In this respect, the present findings serve to link previous results concerning the nature
of workplace aggression [e.g., Baron and Neuman, 1996, 1998; Neuman and Baron,
292 Baron et al.

1997; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997] more closely to the findings of basic research on
human aggression.
The present findings also offer support for Hypothesis 2, which suggests that the
greater the perceived injustice reported by participants, the higher their tendency to
engage in workplace aggression. Consistent with this prediction, perceived injustice
was significantly related to the frequency with which participants reported aggressing
against supervisors and their organizations. Since supervisors and the organization are
often perceived by employees as the likely sources of unfair treatment, it is not surpris-
ing that the greater the perceived injustice (unfairness) reported by respondents, the
greater their reported aggression against these targets [cf., Greenberg and Alge, 1998].
In addition, perceived injustice was significantly related to respondents’ reports of hav-
ing served as the victim of workplace aggression themselves. This latter finding sug-
gests that high levels of injustice within an organization may trigger a mounting spiral
of aggression and counter-aggression that results in a situation where few, if any, orga-
nization members escape unscathed. Rather, as is often the case, aggression elicits ag-
gression, so that the number of persons involved and the range of tactics employed
increases over time [White and Gruber, 1982]. The existence of such a pattern is consis-
tent with the findings of a growing body of evidence suggesting that perceptions of
having been treated unfairly play an important role in the occurrence of disruptive,
antisocial behaviors in workplaces [e.g., Giacalone and Greenberg, 1997; Greenberg,
1990, 1993b; Greenberg and Alge,1998; Williams, 1994]. For instance, in a recent study
of a large quasi-governmental agency well known for its high levels of workplace ag-
gression and violence, Folger and his colleagues [Folger et al., 1998] found that feel-
ings of perceived procedural and distributive injustice were significant predictors of
actual assaults in this organization. Similarly, Skarlicki and Folger [1997] have reported
that perceptions of injustice play a strong role in the occurrence organizational retalia-
tory behavior—efforts by individuals to “even the score” with the sources of such treat-
ment. In sum, the present findings are consistent with a growing body of evidence
suggesting that perceived injustice is an important determinant of workplace aggres-
sion and are also consistent with research on aggression suggesting that such condi-
tions may set up a spiral of aggression and counter-aggression.
It should be noted, however, that the present results, being correlational in nature, do
not establish perceived injustice as a direct cause of workplace aggression. Indeed, it is
also possible that the relationship between a perceived injustice and workplace aggres-
sion observed here may stem from a response bias of general hostility or negativity;
that is, individuals who report high levels of injustice may also be likely, because of
such a bias, to report high levels of workplace aggression, even if there is no direct link
between these variables. This possibility can be readily examined in future research
that adopts an experimental design in which perceived injustice in systematically var-
ied as an independent variable and its effects on aggression then observed.
Finally, results also provided support for the prediction that the higher individuals’
scores on the Type A Behavior Pattern, the greater their reported frequency of engaging in
various forms of workplace aggression (Hypothesis 3). As anticipated, there was a sig-
nificant correlation between scores on the Jenkins Activity Survey (the measure of Type A
Behavior Pattern employed) and participants’ reported frequency of engaging in work-
place aggression. In addition, a median split on this dimension revealed that Type A’s
reported a significantly higher incidence of workplace aggression than did Type B’s. Fi-
 Workplace Aggression 293

nally, Type A’s reported being the target of workplace aggression significantly more often
than did Type B’s. Together, these findings suggest that the Type A Behavior Pattern is
indeed one personal characteristic that plays a significant role in workplace aggression.
Together, the findings relating to the Type A Behavior Pattern offer support for a
model of workplace aggression proposed recently by Folger and his associates [e.g.,
Folger and Baron, 1996; Folger and Skarlicki, 1995]. According to this model, negative
conditions existing in an organization may induce cognitions and emotions among
employees that make them “ready to aggress” [e.g., Berkowitz, 1994]. Whether they
actually engage in harm-doing behavior then depends, to an important degree, on sev-
eral personal characteristics. The present findings suggest that the Type A Behavior
Pattern may be one of these characteristics [e.g., Strube et al., 1984]. Previous research
[e.g., Baron and Neuman, 1996, 1998] suggests that various conditions in organiza-
tions (e.g., pay cuts and freezes, downsizing, increased use of part-time help) can also
increase workplace aggression. Integrating the present and previous findings, it seems
possible that the combination of negative work conditions and the Type A Behavior
Pattern may be especially deadly where workplace aggression is concerned. This possi-
bility can be investigated in future research that assesses both the conditions existing in
workplaces and the personal characteristics of employees. The finding that respondents
reported being most likely to aggress against their immediate supervisor or co-workers
suggests that it is such targets who may be most at risk in such situations.
Additional findings indicated that several demographic variables play a role in work-
place aggression. Younger employees reported aggressing against others in their work-
places significantly more often than older employees, and males reported engaging in
such aggression significantly more often than females. These findings are consistent
with basic research indicating that age and gender are indeed significant determinants of
human aggression [e.g., Bettancourt and Miller, 1996; Russell, 1989]. In addition, the
present findings indicate that individuals working in central city locations are more likely
to engage in workplace aggression than those working in suburban areas and that union
members are more likely to engage in such behavior than persons who are not members
of unions. The former findings are consistent with results reported by Folger et al. [1998]
suggesting that the violent crime rate in the geographic area surrounding an organization
is a significant predictor of aggression within that organization. Since violent crime rates
are generally higher in central city areas than in suburbs, the present results provide
additional, if indirect, evidence for the role of this factor in workplace aggression.
At this point, it is important to take a step back from the present findings to note, once
again, that all of the hypotheses tested in this study were derived from the extensive
literature on human aggression. The fact that all were at least partially confirmed serves
to underscore the potential value of establishing closer links between current investiga-
tions of workplace aggression and the findings of basic research on human aggression.
Such links may provide investigators studying workplace aggression with interesting
hypotheses worthy of careful study, and also with sophisticated theoretical frameworks
that can shed much light on the nature, causes, and prevention of such behavior [cf.,
Baron and Neuman, 1998; Neuman and Baron, 1998].
Before concluding, it is essential to note certain limitations of the present data. The
most important of these concerns the fact that the findings reported here are based on
self-reports by participants. No information on the actual frequency of workplace ag-
gression or on the kind of treatment actually received by individuals from their super-
294 Baron et al.

visors was obtained. Although the sample size is substantial and there are no strong
grounds for assuming that participants would report information on these variables
inaccurately, the need for additional, confirming data is apparent. One means of ob-
taining such information is suggested by a recent study on organizational retaliatory
behavior by Skarlicki and Folger [1997]. These investigators asked employees to rate
the extent to which peers had engaged in various forms of retaliatory behavior. Thus,
information on the occurrence of such behaviors was derived from coworkers rather
than participants themselves. Similar procedures can be readily adapted to the study of
workplace aggression and may be combined with, or compared to, the kind of self-
report data collected here to provide more complete data on harm-doing behavior in
work settings.
Even taking these limitations into account, however, it does seem reasonable to
suggest that the present findings add to our knowledge of workplace aggression in
several respects. First, they serve to counter the misleading impression, fostered by
many mass media reports, that violence—direct and extreme physical assault—is
rampant in work settings. On the contrary, the findings of the present study and
those of previous investigations [e.g., Baron and Neuman, 1996] suggest that such
dramatic and overt forms of aggression are considerably less frequent in occurrence
than more subtle forms of aggression—forms that, nonetheless, may prove quite
costly to the intended victims.
Second, the present findings provide information on two potentially important causes of
workplace aggression: perceived injustice and the Type A Behavior Pattern. Consistent with
previous research on human aggression and with recently proposed theoretical frameworks
for understanding workplace aggression [e.g., O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1996; Folger and Baron,
1996], it appears that such behavior stems from many different factors. Knowledge of the
causes of workplace aggression is valuable in and of itself but, in addition, may offer an-
other, more practical, benefit as well. In the study of human aggression, effective procedures
for reducing the frequency and intensity of such behavior did not begin to emerge until after
researchers had acquired a relatively clear picture of the basic causes of aggression [e.g.,
Huesmann, 1994]. In other words, knowledge of these factors was a crucial first step toward
identifying a wide range of effective interventions [e.g., Baron, 1993]. It seems possible that
the corresponding progress with respect to the reduction of workplace aggression will be
facilitated by a thorough understanding of the many factors that contribute to its occurrence.
To the extent that the current research has helped to clarify some of these factors, it can be
viewed as contributing to the attainment of this important goal.

REFERENCES
Anderson CA, Anderson KB, Deuser WE. 1996.
Examining an affective aggression framework:
weapon and temperature effects on aggressive
thoughts, affect, and attitudes. Pers Soc Psychol
Bull 22:366–376.
Associated Press. 1996, January 6. Charges filed in
office attack. The Times Picayune. p A6.
Baron RA. 1993. Reducing aggression and conflict:
the incompatible response approach or why
people who feel good usually won’t be bad. In:
Brannigan GG, Merrens MR, editors. The un-
daunted psychologist. Philadelphia: McGraw-
Hill, Inc. p 203–218.
Baron RA, Neuman JH. 1996. Workplace violence
and workplace aggression: evidence on their rela-
tive frequency and potential causes. Aggr Behav
22:161–173.
Baron RA, Neuman JH. 1998. Workplace aggres-
sion: the iceberg beneath the tip of workplace
violence: evidence on its forms, frequency,
and potential causes. Public Admin Q 21:
446–464.

Baron RA, Richardson DR. 1994. Human aggres-
sion. 2nd edition. New York: Plenum.
Baron RA, Russell GW, Arms RL. 1985. Negative
ions and behavior: impact on mood, memory, and
aggression among Type A and Type B persons. J
Pers Soc Psychol 36:746–754.
Berkowitz L. 1994. Is something missing? Some
observations prompted by the cognitive-neo-
associationst view of anger and aggressive be-
havior: current perspectives. In: Huesmann LR,
editor. Aggressive behavior: current perspectives.
New York: Plenum. p 35–47.
Bettencourt BA, Miller N. 1996. Gender differences
in aggression as a function of provocation: a
meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 119:422–447.
Björkqvist K, Österman K, Hjelt-Bäck M. 1994.
Aggression among university employees. Aggr
Behav 20:173–184.
Björkqvist K, Lagerspetz KMJ, Kaukiainen A. 1992.
Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Develop-
mental trends in regard to direct and indirect ag-
gression. Aggr Behav 18:117–127.
Borden RJ. 1975. Witnessed aggression: influence
of an observer’s sex and values on aggressive
responding. J Pers Soc Psychol 31:567–573.
Cattell RB. 1966. The meaning and strategic use of
factor analysis. In: Cattell RB, editor. Handbook
of multivariate experimental psychology. Chi-
cago: Rand McNally. p 174–243.
Cliff N, Hamburger CD. 1967. The study of sam-
pling errors in factor analysis by means of artifi-
cial experiments. Psychol Bull 68:430–445.
Cohn EG, Rotton J. 1997 Assault as a function of time
and temperature: a moderator-variable time-series
analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 72:1322–1334.
Contrada RJ. 1989. Type A behavior, personality
hardiness, and cardiovascular response to stress.
J Pers Soc Psychol 57:895–903.
Cropanzano R. 1993. Justice in the workplace: ap-
proaching fairness in human resource man-
agement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Evans GW, Palsane MN, Carrere S. 1987. Type A
behavior and occupational stress: a cross-cultural
study of blue-collar workers. J Pers Soc Psychol
52:1002–1007.
Folger R. 1993. Reactions to mistreatment at work.
In: Murnighan JK, editor. Social psychology in
organizations: advances in theory and research.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. p 161–183.
Folger R, Baron RA. 1996. Violence and hostility at
work: a model of reactions to perceived injus-
tice. In: VandenBos GR, Bulatao EQ, editors.
Violence on the job: identifying risks and devel-
oping solutions. Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association. p 51–85.
Workplace Aggression 295
Folger R, Skarlicki D. 1995, August. A popcorn
model of workplace violence. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Management, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada.
Folger R, Robinson SL, Dietz J, McLean Parks J,
Baron RA. 1998, August. When colleagues be-
come violent: employee threats and assaults as a
function of societal violence and organizational
injustice. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Academy of Management.
Geddes D. 1994. The relationship between negative
feedback and increased organizational aggres-
sion. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
Academy of Management, Dallas.
Giacalone RA, Greenberg G, editors. 1997. Anti-
social behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage. p 18–36.
Greenberg J. 1990. Employee theft as a reaction to
underpayment inequity: the hidden cost of pay
cuts. J Appl Psychol 75:561–568.
Greenberg J. 1993a. The social side of fairness: in-
terpersonal and informational classes of justice.
In: Cropanzano R, editor. Justice in the work-
place: approaching fairness in human resource
management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. p 79–103.
Greenberg J. 1993b. Stealing in the name of justice:
informational and interpersonal moderators of
theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Org
Behav Hum Decis Process 54:81–103.
Greenberg J, Alge BJ. 1999. Aggressive reactions to
workplace injustice. In: Griffin RW, O’Leary-
Kelly A, Collins J, editors. Dysfunctional behav-
ior in organizations, vol 1: violent behaviors in
organizations. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press (in press).
Hackman JR, Oldham GR. 1975. Development of
the Job Diagnostic Survey. J Appl Psychol
60:159–170.
Harris MB. 1993. How provoking! What makes men
and women angry? Aggr Behav 19:199–211.
Huesmann LR, editor. 1994. Aggressive behavior:
current perspectives. New York: Plenum.
Jenkins CD, Zyzanski SJ, Rosenman RH. 1979.
Jenkins activity survey. Cleveland, OH: Psychol-
ogy Corp.
Keashly L, Trott V, MacLean LM. 1994. Abusive
behavior in the workplace: a preliminary inves-
tigation. Violence Vict 9:341–357.
Lind EA, Tyler TR. 1988. The social psychology of
procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
McPhail SM. 1996, April. A proposed taxonomy of
workplace violence. Paper presented at the An-
nual Meeting of the Society of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology. San Diego, CA.
Mullen EA. 1997. Workplace violence: cause for
296 Baron et al.
concern or the construction of a new category of
fear. J Industrial Relations 39:21–32.
Neuman JH, Baron RA. 1997. Aggression in the
workplace. In: Giacalone R, Greenberg J, edi-
tors. Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage. p 37–67.
Neuman JH, Baron RA. 1998. Workplace violence
and workplace aggression: evidence concerning
specific forms, potential causes, and preferred
targets. J Manage 24:391–419.
Oldham GR, Hackman JR, Stepina LP. 1978. Norma
for the Job Diagnostic Survey. New Haven, CT:
Yale University School of Management.
O’Leary-Kelly AM, Griffin RW, Glew DJ. 1996.
Organization-motivated aggression: a research
framework. Academy Manage Rev 21:225–253.
Pihl RO, Lau ML, Assaad JM. 1997. Aggressive dis-
position, alcohol, and aggression. Aggr Behav
23:11–18.
Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers RW. 1989. Deindividuation
and the self-regulation of behavior. In: Paulus
PB, editor. Psychology of group influence. 2nd
edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-
ciates. p 87–109.
Russell GW. 1989. Violence in intimate relation-
ships. New York: PMA Publishing Corp.
Skarlicki DP, Folger R. 1997. Retaliation in the work-
place: the roles of distributive, procedural, and in-
teractional justice. J Appl Psychol 821:434–443.
Spivey EB, Prentice-Dunn S. 1990. Assessing the
directionality of deindividuated behavior: effects
of deindividuation, modeling, and private self-
consciousness on aggressive and prosocial re-
sponses. Basic Appl Soc Psychol 11:387–403.
Strube M, Turner CW, Cerro D, Stevene J, Hinchey
F. 1984. Interpersonal aggression and the Type
A coronary-prone behavior pattern: a theoretical
distinction and practical implications. J Pers Soc
Psychol 47:839–847.
White JW, Gruber KJ. 1982. Instigative aggression
as a function of past experience and target char-
acteristics. J Pers Soc Psychol 42:1069–1075.
Williams LC. 1994. Organizational violence.
Westport, CT: Quorum Books.