(ed.

)
Ósterman
Karin

lndirect
andDirect
Aggression

LANG
PETER
, NewYor koxf or d Wien
n Ber lin Ber n Br uxelL€s
' ft!,l ¡ r ¡ lila
B¡bl¡ographic Informationpubt¡shedby the Deutsche
Nationalb¡bliothek Contents
The DeulscheNarionalbibliothek tislsthispubtcationin the
Deursche Nalionalbibtiogratiei
detailedbibtiographicdatais
ava¡lable
in the nternetal hllp://dnb.d-ñb de.
PadI lndirectAggress'on

Whatis lndirectAgg.essio¡inAdulls?

Unilc$iiy of centtal L¡¡cashire. UK

CoverDesign:
OlafGlócklef,
AtelierPlaten,Friedberg '''lrippingthePromQueen'iFemaleIntrascxual Compelilionandlndicct 11
ArrressiL'n
. Je$ieI Vrllcr JnJ \rnjlal sh¿'rrd
lf¿c) \ ¿r''ancourr'
rUnivcNilYof oliawa. cúa.la
r'rrlclta\ler Unr!úsiry-'',Cmada

ll
ln¡tirecrAggressio¡andthc Media:Wathing "Mean"onúe Scre€n
SarahM. CloYne
BrighamYolng U¡ivcrsjtv. lrc\ o. Utal! USA

TheGenderFactor
tclevisionandAggression:
Setmoü FeshbachandNorm¿DeilchFcshbach
Us-{
Uni!úsily ofCalifo¡ria, Los AngeLes.

tu tbeDerelopmcnlofChitd- 5l
Ihe RoleofDeñcicnt¿ndHa$h Parenting
hoodIndirectAggression
NizereLy VallesandJohnF. Knutson
UúiveNilt oflo*¡, USA

tsBN978-3631-60028-3 l)irectAnd {ndirectBullying:Whichls MoreDistressingl

Mike Eslea
O PelerLangGmbH UK
of CenüalLancashirc'
Lrniversily
Intenat¡onaler VerlagderWissenschaf ten
Frankluftam l\,l|ain 2010 115
lhc Folm and Fünction ofFenale Aggression
All rightsreserved.
St¿cvM. Seclristr and JacquclynW. whitc'
All parisof thispublication areprotected by copyright.
Any !oTM ?ar1ne6. No¡ü Caroli¡aUSA
\\'i¡s¡on-S¿lem.
ulilisationoulsideihe stfrctlimitsof the copyrighitaw,without runivcNityol No¡ú Ca¡o1ina Usa
arGree¡sboro,
lhe permission ol the publlsher, is torbiddenandlabteto
101
prosecuiion. Th s appliesin pa¡ticutarto reproductions, lhc Mini Direct lndirect Aggressnn lnvenlorv (Mini-DIA)
, ¿nslal¡ons.n crofilmrng. anoslorage¿ndprocessng in Karin Ostennan
electron¡c relrievasystems. Abo Ak¿deFiUnilcEil] Vasa.Fi¡land
wwwpe¡enang.de
 partIL Bu ying in Schools
llet$een the Devil and the Deep Bluc See:Parallel Hierarchy, Role St¡ess 215
Th!'Ohrru^s^BLr|ying
prcvenrionprog¡¿m:Effecls ¡Dd WorkplaceBullying amongslNuNes
ne¡tsarDiffere¡tcrade Levels of Classroom
Compo_ t t5 Guy Nolclaersr.HansDe $¡itte:. and Stilc Einarseni
DanOlweusrandJanHelgeKalestad) 'Búgen L niveÁn1,.Nonvay
K U.Ler\e¡,Belgiun
dst), of Berg.n,Nonvay
r-'.6
búgcn Lnn!¡sny ColicgeandRes.arc¡
centcr fo¡ ltc¿tLhpromo¡io.. NoNav the Relalionshipbclween WorkplaceBullling and Suicidein lrel¿nd 239
rJer.Lpp,,nn Jrpdn.A per.fec..\ Mona O'Moore
e Lnn ,ncUur.rde l ri¡ily CoLLege
Dublin, lreland
Hete¡Coüie
Il¡rreNirjofsurey.critdford.Surcv.tjK
md H jroshiba tj¡n.c¡siIl., JaDan ll uIlyingin rhelrish Workplacc:A Causefor Concem 26I
KeithSullivan
+ Enpathy:Pcdagogicat ¡iational linl!úsi¡ oflrelúd. cr]\ ay. Rctrülic of l¡eLúd
ropromotcErnp¡thy
Strategies r43
BnüqueCt¡!L\ 'l wen! Y earsof Researtho¡ WorkplaceBullying:AltirudesandPercep
U¡ive^idaddetosAnder,tsogoriColo¡rbj¡ 291
tionsofPenonn€lMan¿gc¡s i¡ FinlandToday
P ( r .epl o n .. \n IL d e . ír,¡l | DeniseSalin
\p (ri e n ,e s !,,ncerrng B uJt)i ng.anrls,.fool 159 H¡¡ken Sc¡ooLot Economics.l{clslngfon. liinLdd
\ or al^. , r.mu r:' (o n rp a fi .u
A o fp a ti n d n ¿nd r,rst¡ d
K xb l a Il a n i f ¿ ¡d p .re r K Sn I¡h :
An Arlalysisofthe Work Hamssment Scale(WIIS) with Vicrir¡sofBull- 307
O ¿ rri -Aa mt n \.rn l \ r5 l J ma b ipl l¿t{ ú
ying at Work
' o ú\m rh\ Un(e¡\ r) úr LonLtnn. LIK \.l"naJ.,.cBaruen:r.
VJ-r. Pr/ ¡uldu.. \4Jfl¿Anre.e'Ac (.n¿,
K i\ : d l -rrru ,hJ n ¡o \¿ | o n ro l ¡.k te B u DavidMntinez. AmeliaDiaz,SalvadorAmigó,andMarí¿Consuelo
! , ní.rrn J \J ,r¡i \a l l i .A n .. )rne ¡1sch,,orr tl l Roldá¡
ñ ¿ ..n ¿.d¡d I rr.dpo.ki pdnJ Unlvúsidad de valeücia,E\paña
. un j ' c h r¡ u r fu ¡k L F
, trn ¡ 'Inrin¡to TecnológicodeEsrudiosSupúioresde lvlo¡terey. Mé\ico
'Uni!csf y of Slavangcr, Noñ.at
A ! ! - s . i\ L ^ B.h d \i o J r rm ,,tl g n c .U ,tc rrs
i n sourn \ustr¿,.ansj hoot!:A t85
uec ¿ deufR e s e a rrh PJrrI\ Suc:et¿l
A.pe(r.or \tsJr{..on
LaurenccOwens
Fli.de Ln(,eNiq,.Adelai.te. Solr¡Auslralja TheEffectsof Exposure10Violenceon AggressivcBchavior:TheC¡.\e 32I
ofAmb andJewishChildrcnin lsrael
SimhaF. Land¿u. ShiraDvir Gvirsmanr,L. RowellHuesmarurr,
paÍ lll. Adül1Bul]yirl8 Eric F. Dubow,l2,PaulBoxerr2,leremyclngesr,anrlKhallt
Shik¡ki"
PsychologicalHcalth, Social 'Hebre* Univc$ ity of JerusaLen. lsael
Setf-Esteemand tsu|y,ng Behaviour anong 201
r r r one . : A s F rJ ) o f tu \c n rtc .y o , 'Unive^ily of vichjCa¡, LSA
i g ¿ ndA dLt \4¿tepri ,oncrs 'Bowling GrecnSlalcUni!úsity. Obio,USA
r a¡ e L .l re ta n d a n dN a d e l aH a fi z :
'R¡¡geis Univ{sitv. Ne$ Jcse}¡.l-SA
!rNeAry ofCc¡l¡att_bcashi¡e, treston,UK, drd psychotogical
Scnices. 'Ne$,Sclbol io¡ SocralRcscarch,Ne$ Yort, USA
{ \ h\ ¡n h I trg hS e (u rc
H u \p i t¿Lt.i \e p o ü tLñ
r - fo rn s 1 q l sn . ... s r..1 r,n .J J l tH ..t l t. \. 'PaLesti¡id Cenlerfirr Policy a¡d Suney Resea¡ch.
Rar¡allah, the \\'estBank
r\. I K
AggressionandConflictResolurionamongfemalesin NomadicBand 3,15
Societics
Nina EkholmFry andDouglasP. Fry
AboAk¡dcmiUnivÍsiry,vasd,Finla¡d Prcface
gmpjricallySupported iq. on hi' 6oh
Ioward an Integrated. TheoryoflnlimatePadner 357 th( ¡re.cnt\ulüme$ ¿ l,,ttchr,tt for prufe'so-Kaj Bjórkq\
i' pr"fessorof Je\elunmenr¿l p')(loro!) ¿I qDo
¡r¡rhirr Kai Blórkqvr5r
AtnieLangerandErikaLawrence Hc r' $ c'l-rnoÑnall o\ ef rh( $or ld lor h s
nl¡¡cÁ' r ni'.''irl, v"sa.I inl¿.]d.
Universlt-voflora,lowo Cily, USA ,"**":i*. In p¿ni.ul¿r.hr' n'me i' lrnled Io rhe rf ind'rc't
"tud)
'"'.:""f, "" H?i' uell-knoqnror hn $o-\ oD remaleaggre's:on ard he l's
'-""-i"-r abou dirrerenr of aggrc'sron r'e
.li"r.¡.¿ u de\elopmerulrheor) 'unns
Par V. \nrnal Model'ofAgg'e'.ion t¡;'ecLagg'es'i,'n H'i h's ut'o 5rrdied bullvin!'n 'chool'
'l'"'i.li. '.Á"i. -¡ ,"d thceili.:r'or meú' ! flnhemore hc hd' 'rud-
i r 'olence
TheEvolutionof Aseression 377 "*kT|"*'.
"í conflicr
icJ iesolution,andconducted cross-cuhural rcscarchlle baspublished
o CarolineBiirchardr':andRobcf J. Blanchard'
rU¡iver\ily of Hawaii ¿t Manoa,LrSA. ij ¡*1. ,'J-"* tt'* , hun&edscienrific¿rticles,mainlvin English'bu1also
rJohnA. Bums SchoolofMcdicine, Uni!{sltyofHa$aii, in |innish,swedish,llalian,Celman,3ndJapanese'
*t aiwayswell knorvnto the genenl public,bul lbis-is nol the
USA
I.i*¡o
"*
ñ" ii-i,i Á,0'r0.",'rr' $ork hd' e"rnedmu(hpublc Inrerecr' andhe N rre-
Pare¡toffspringConflictsin theCo¡¡monMoorhen(Callinulachloropus) 389 rn rheprcs' radio ¿¡d oD T\ ' rn ¡ran) roLnrr'cs He
PaulF. BrainandDanW. Fom¿n u".n,lvU.i"iit".'*.¿ in
Ssmsea U¡ncFity.UK iii" I'i I*i"?* u.." 'nten'c"iat¡ rhc\e$ YorLt imcsrheuuarr'"n to-
p'oli" Radioin U S.A a¡d TV
Spiegel in cefmanv' iusr
il"nü"¿. Ñ"t¡"ur '
;"'"";;'f;';. ¿sked1o tecturefor the Parlianenrof
ie has also twice been
A MouseModel
DefeatandSocialStressr
CompelitiveAggression,
StefanoParmigiani,PaolsPala¡za,andAlcssandro
Bafolomucci Iirl¡nd on ho\¡'to counterviolenceln soclety'
*¿ *ti'e memberof rhelnlemationalSocietvfor Researchon
U¡iversity ol Pún4 ltaly i i" il i.r""¿
" (uuDcirmerberur'rhe socre')¿nd ha' co o gani'ed
;;-;.'.;", ; r.;;
''. meerrrg'in l!'rlu Frnrandlo¡4 andinsanrorin'
i"li.ii' ¡;.*¡i"*l¿
(;reece.2004.
\'lan)of üe¿b'o-
tamhaDD\andproud'.pre*nllhN\oluned'a¡es/'/J,''
as$e-ior re'earch In rhc \torlJ rodavha\e\^lul-
i,-"i' iJjii"*
"J"* "l'Áin
t"r rr' rccor<linpllrheehapre ' :re ufhighqú'lir) The
i.*r.i
'" ""i..¡r¡." on inrerper'ondl ¿sc'e\iunof
i'."i-*'l¿.', c;.¿ o'enicu or rhere'earch
numo'e'
,,"1-"'l,t¿ i' .- ú. *..t ttoLhtor reachrng and ¿' a 'ourceb'rok

Karin Ostetman
 An Analysisof the Work HarassmentScale(WHS)
with Victims of Bull)'ing at Work
I,lafla to* Rait'c"d Ua'k PL talJ"' . U¿r;n A¿L,t., Bcteñr.
Dar¡d Maúíncz, Anelia Diaz, SalLadar Amigó, an.l Mdia Cansuelo Ral¿¿n
Depafamcnro h¡lL¡¡cióny Tr¿t¡úie¡tosPsicológicos.
dcPctsonalidad,
facultadde?sicología,
U¡ive^idaddeVaLencia. EsFña
dcl.rudlos Slpe¡iores
'lnstitutoTecDológco deMontercy.
Camfuscuadalalan. Nlérrco

The pddcipúLs in úi\ studyscr. 279 cDplol,ces(138 r¡e¡ md l4l

Fone¡) erhacled lioú a Largersdnple sho repoñcd hari¡g been vic-
¡ims of buLLyi¡g as deñned b, the Psrchosoctu¡ lrl,kplu.. lno¡ory
(PNr) (Bjórkqli$ & oreúm. 1998). Th.se cm¡loyccs atso con,
rt.red rh. í'.rk atus'ú.nt &d/¿ ($HS) (Bjórtqlisr & Osrennm.
1998).\ince it was rhc oblcdive of the sn¡dyto an¡lyzethe catcgories
ofbullyi.g bchaviorcne¡gi¡g ilil¡ tle useofúis \cale Tbc $HS is
co¡{osed of 26 ne'¡s (2,1fion ¡he o¡igi¡aL sc¿leplus 2 drat qere
added i¡r this srLd,v).Thc data s!rc slbni¡¡ed to a feror anatysis
(prnop¡l coúponentwith raima{ rolalion)ilhere eme¡ged1¡ü fac,
tors, togethere¡pl¿úr¡g 55.05% ofthc variance.the four iddfricd
fac¡orscorespordedwith 0) att¡ckso¡ rhc social¡eLatio¡ships of rhc
llclim lsi¡g socialisolarñnj (ii) lcüal agsre$io¡i(il]) ¿tk k\ on r¡.
priv¡le life of the vicLih (rncludinerumoN)i and (i\') auacts on rbc
vidin nsing orgúl2alioDal neans Thc factots presenrreliabitirics
(( ronbach\ a) oeillaLi¡g bel{ een .?,1and 9I ( .95 fo¡ ¡he rokl que!
rion.¡nc). The WHS sloñed ¡self ro be a \ensirivc insllmem dis-
cú¡inating betveer levelsofselerity olbullyi.g as reportedbl en!
ployc.s. Olhei resul¡s \rere related to gender diffcrcncesi fo¡ er¿¡rple.
uoncn ob¡ai.cd much higher scoreson factüs pcrainiig 10persoúl
bullyins (fado$ i. ii, and ili) $üile men obt¿inedhighcr scorcson o¡
ganizationalb!llyi¡g (fado¡ i!)

Bullyingal work is understood as "all thoscrepeated

u¡reasonablc andinappro-
priateaclionsandpracticesthat are dircclcdto one or moreenployees.$hich
areunwaDted by the vjctim, uhich may be donedeliberately or unconscjously,
but do cause]ümili¿tion,offenseánd distress.andihat n1ayintcrferewirh job
peformance,and/orcausean unplcasant workingatnosphere" (Einarsen,1999).
This definitionconsidersthe two essentialelementsof bullyi¡gi repeatedand
permanent behaviorsthatin addilionareperceivedas hostjlcby ihe receiÍer.In
gene¡al,evaluationinstumenlshavc emphasized one or the othcr of theseas-
pects.Ihose that emphasize perceivedvictimizationin the radition of Olweus

Cor$po¡dúce shouldbe a¡¡lrescd to Mdia Josétságena, Deparancfro de feisonalid¡d,

EvaLuació¡y T¡atamientosPsicolóCicos,
facull¿d de ¡slcologia, Unircrsidad de Valetuia.
A!d.tsLascolb¡ñez.21..16010\¡alcncia-
Hspaña.E1mi]:¡aguda -ruv.cs
308 An atlult\i\ oJ rhe tvotk lldra\snent S.ule 109

(19:14)are basedon thc label tlat the \icrin producesfrom hls ot her expcrr,,tr í, To explorervhetherthc WHS discrinrinatcs amongindividualswho diiler in
in ¡ccordanceüilh a dctinition ofbullying. The instrunentsthat foLlowthi\ lr $'i1hüe P\Il
theperceivcdseverjt)oflhe viclimizationby bullying.measurcd
ccdure i¡1I $ ithin whár is calledthe pefccrl'edvictinlzationmethod On lhe ' r ,
cr band, instrunents conslsti¡g of items that exprcssnegativeactilitjes ,,rrl Methocl
which individuáls must indic¡te th€ frcquency\tirh which tley havesecnI r,,,'
s elv € s e x p o s e d ro s u c h a c ti v i ti e s , al l casl dunngl heL¿stsi xmonths(thccri r,l r, Sanple
of durarion m¡y var), but must ncvcr be less lhan this pefiod),are inch(I.,| ,, The paficipanlsin the studyúere 279 employees (138 men and l4l women)
wh¡t is called thc cxposure1o bullyirg behaviorsmelhod Amo¡g thc lnn ', wbo hadbeenliclims ofbullying ¡t som€time in thcn workinglives The sam
ments co¡slructcd accolding 1o this logic. the bestknown are lh€ LIP I (/ ' ple consistedmainlyofyoung adulls,69.t % werc ¡ged 25 to 4'1.Aboul 43 9;
nann Invent¡¡n ol Ps:chologj.al TeÍatizdtion) bt l-eymann(1990), lhe N \r I hadtsachcbr'sor Master'sunilersitydegrecs, ¿nd57 % hadprimaryo¡ second-
(,\"s.'¡¡rz .l¿¡s Qüestio nar'e) of Eir\arsen¿nd Rakncs(1997), ¿nd lhe \\ rr" ary sludics.H¡lf of the cnployeeswere m¿laied. 9 % lived \'rith a par|ner.8%
(rrotk HdrassmentS..lle) by Bjórkqvisl and osterman(1998) were sepár¿ted or divorced. and 31 9/"wcrc single. Regardingthc work expe-
lhe factor analysesconductcdb-vLep¡nn $'itl lhc LIPT lde¡tified ñ\c l , rienccoflhe sample. 35 li' had I 1o5 y€ars ol experience, and 19%had5 to 10
lors of nobbing (bullying). *ltich he labcllcd as ¡eg¡Lile communic¡lio| iLl years.The 1e¿sr reprcscnled intenals corrcspond with lessth¡n onc yearof ex-
milialion behavior, jsolation behavior,frcq'rentchrngesof tasksas a melr¡ 'r pedcüce(6 %) or nrcrethan20 yeaN(10 %). ln addition,33 % ol theemployees
puDishmcnt, a¡d Íiolenoc or rh¡ealof liolence. lI the facror¿nabs1sb,"-\ ,, , hadjobs which includedhig¡ 1o very lrigh physicalrisk. ll% jobs with lor
(1995), sclen factors werc identified: aÍa.ks on pcrsonalintegrrri'.isol¡r 'rl physic¡rlrisk, and34% \tith ver) 1o$ physicaldsk. As canbc sc¡:nin Flgurel,
direct and lndirect criticism. pünishmenl*ith cedair lasks. threats.sf\1,,1 thepcrcentages with respectto theselerilyofúe viclimiTalioD ¿scstablished by
abuse.ánd allacks on the prilalc llle ofthe pcrson l¿lfelal (199ó),ti¡rrr I , the Psrchasodulfi orkplacelnwntotr (PWI) of lhe 279 victimizcd cnployees
rerical supositions and a factorialan¿lysisol respolscs10the LIPT usji! 1s,' lverethefollo\\jngi 66 % at LeÍel l, 24 9/oal Levelll. and l0 % al LevelIll
samplcs.identitled sele¡ acti\ilies of¡rr1i,g: negati!ework-relatedacrL\rir
that impcde \vorl perfornancc (orga¡izalionalmeans),sociallsol¿tion.per\rtr)
attacks or atlacks on the prilalc lile of the lictim, verbal threalsin uüiclr l|tr 7 A%
person is critlcized or humiliatcd in public. sprcadingol mors,¿tlackson I
attitudcsol the victim, and lhlsical vioLenceThesel¿sltwo táctorsdo nol r'
quently .ippearin shrdieson bullying,becausenot allresea¡chets includefh\'
cal abusein the defini1rc¡ ofbullying, and ¡ddilio¡¿lly.it is rare 10 includi 'l
t¿ckson religious or politioallreliefs.
Rcg¡rding the NAQ. Einanen a¡d Raknes(1997)co¡ducteda lrincilal (,'
ponents analysis of wjth vadmax rot¿lionth¡r ¿lLowedlhcm to idenlilv llri,'
facrors:person¡l con|emp¡.$ork rel¿ledharassme¡t, and sociale¡cluslon lr
more recent, rcvised venion of this queslionnaire, Ein¿rsen and Hoel (:r)l)l) FJB¡r¿ / Dstibudoroft¡ericriñsa.cor¡ingbthepe(eiveltlevel
concluded that acliviti€s of ,ror¡i,s/ó?r/¡ t¡g could be diflere¡ti¿ted in L\' (ñ 2r9)
ol \e!úiryofvictinizotion
majn catcgories: those relalcd 1o work (ryanizalionálbul\'ing) a¡d thosc r'
laled t{r the person(person¿lbullynl-s).
Regardingthe WHS. il is suggesled dr¡r the itemsthat composerhis sc¡le ,rr, ln úe contcxr of a broader study (Báguenael al.. 2006: 2007), trvo qlrestlon-
relatcd to two subscalcsol nasked ¡ggression:appareftl,!rarion¡l agg¡csir¡l naires werc usedin ihe evaluationof bullying: the Psrchoeridl /orkplúu In'
and socialmanipulatñn (Bjórkqvistet d., 1994) rcntort tú¿ rhe ,lrork Hdrussnant S.dle.
F¡om what h¿s been prese¡ledabole' ]n this studl'we conside¡üe fbllo$ rrl The Pl,(hosockl ltartElau Inwntorr lP\t¡I; Biürkqlisl & Óstennan, 1998)
evalu¡fesbull-vingfrcm thc perspecliveofthc nlclhoá al perceired rictinizatian
1, To explorc lhe categoriesofbullylng thal cnelge $ith the WHS, consldcrrril Gubjecdven.-thod). ¡ccording to which lhc indilidual is presented\\ith ¡ dcii-
as well diffctcncesrelatedto gcnderina viclin]lzeds¡nple nitñn ofbullying and decldesifhis ot hct cxperienceshould be labellcda\ such
This insÍulnent allows tbe ldentiñcalion of groups of srüects accordnrgro the
I0 An ana$ts ol the ,l:ork Hutltssnent Sole 3

levelofseverilyofvictimizaliontheyhaveexpe¡ierrced. Subjects $ere not aslü

aboutthe regularilyor durationoflbe experience of bullyi¡g, bul aboutdrc sf Fd.t , 1n¿lfsis l Prrncrryl Citnp.t¿k¡ ra/iñur Rol.tlk r tt the LoÁ Hot16sn.nt Súl¿
qt'rs) (N=:79.
verit]. or ]eÍel ofthe bull]'ingthe]'haveenperienced. Ahhoughthe PWI e\rlLl
atesothefaspects ofnlerest, in thisstudy\ie havepaidattentiononly to úe s., Unduly rcduccdoDportun itlcs¡o expres yourself .42 .0E .i0 44
tion relatedto bullyjngexperienced." Lics aboulyo! roldto ollrcN l0 28 .,18 . ti ..1r1
The trotk Hutusstnent S.d/¿(wHS; Bjórkqrist & Osteman,1998).ThnrL,,rl, BcinCuduly dñruFcd .23 55 .]ri .22 .13
26 items(21 fiom the originalversionand2 addedfbr thisstudy),this quesri,rl Bcing shoúcd at loudly .02 6l .20 .l] .5:t
naireevaluates the frequency(never,seldom.occasionally. often,and very,' Bcing unduly criticizcd .10 60 . 30 . 0lt . 61
t€n)ofthe exposure ofthe employees to bullyingactivities(e.g.,excessive cr I Insllting comnrcnrsabolr you. pfilatc lifc .IJ'1 . 19 . 76 . 10 . ól
cism. offensiveconrmentsaboutone's privatelifc. ridioulcin Fonl of oth.l lt . 24 . 17 . 5r l
lIa\ing \eD!¡re d.rails abou¡,votrr
etc.)nr the lastsix r¡oDlhs.TheWHS pennilsan clalu.tlionofbullying tutn rltr t7 . 73 .t6 59
perspective ofthe nrethodof ex?osweta hu ring d.¡¡,i/t¿slobjcctivcnretho(ir . 26 .5r .32
Insinuativeglanccsan¡,or ncganlc gcs¡urcs .50 .2E
. 19 . 58 . 37
Thc s¿mplcol victin]izedemployees wasoblained,in theliameworkofa ¡fri,r . 29 ..11 .,1¡ . ] li . il
cr sludy.lbrougbcontacts,ilh peoplelion differentcompanies or insrituli¡ Retus¡l to \peaksir¡ you .68 . 19 . 22 . 19 . 58
who g¿!c uspennissjon1ocarryorlrlhe g¿úeringofinfo¡m¿tion.Oncethen, Belittling of your orinn,ns .?8 .69
, 70 ..12 .(J6 .2i .13
tacl was cst¿blished. and accordingto ageementlvith ihe person¡esponsil,lr Bci.g rcatcd ¡5 non-cxisicnt . 76 . 21 t5 . 21 .t\
thc gathc ng ol inlbrnalionproceeded wilh t\o methods. ln the firsl metho(1. , Words arnred¡t ¡unrng yor .50 .1,1
nunber "x" ol envelopes. eachcontainingthe questio¡¡aireand insirucli,ú. Beinggi!en meaningless ta\k\ . 2i . 58 . 52
w¡s given to the companycontact.Volun¡arily.eachemployeefilled our rli Beinggiven i.sulting ta\k\ . 12 21 . 3: . 62 55
queslionnane (or left it bla¡k), pul it backin the envelope, closedthe envcor\ Ha\ nrg nalcrous runro$ \p¡eadbchind
. 2t . 57 . 11 . 57
anddeposlted i¡ in a previouslydesignated place(for example,a cardboa.dl',,'
labelledtbr thatpurpose).Atter a felv days.the researcher wentto the com|rLr\ Bei¡g n¡licule¡lin 1l.ontofotheN :16 .¡¡ . 35 50
Halirg your wo¡k ¡¡dged in ¡n
andcollecledtheclosedenvelopes. lnlhe secondmcthod,lhccnlclopcssrrlr rl¡ i¡corec¡ úd i¡suLti¡gúamer
. 35 6l
qu€stjonnaire and instructions weredistribuleddircctlyby thc researcber 101l' Hali¡g your senseof rudEnenlquesrioned . 19 .16 d0 29 . 51
employees, lvhololuntarilyfilled out thequestionnaircs at úal tjme. of bei¡g ne¡rally disturbed .t5 . 12 , 49 .16 ..15
^ccusations
Othctslaking crcditfor you work o¡ re$lls .t0 . 19 . 15 .56 ..ll
Reerlts Not bei¡g give¡ r¡] tasks
(nol havins anythrnsio do)
.1.1 . 0, 1 . 16 . 12 l2

The Work Hdra\smenr S.dle (WHS): Cdtepries ol Bullr¡ng Behdriot I t . 5: l I 7. 1 1. 66 ] l7

To cslablish the categoriesol bullying thal emerged ftom the WHS, a llLt,r
analysis lp nc\rál compone¡ls wiú larimax rotation) was conducted. lh.
rcsulls 3rc prcsenledin Table 1. To ascribeilems to different categories,lwo ,
lerla {ere followed: an empirical crite¡ion consisting in choosi¡g thc itc r rli,
had the highestsatulationin the faclor (wiúout drscardingredundancics.ir L ,.
the l¿clori¡1load was also high in anolherfactot, and a rational criicrioD biÁ,,1
on groupingspreviously establishedby other researche$.
9; of erplaind va¡iance t 5. 15 l261 9. 64
3] 6r¡ 27. 89229l 11. 52
.92 .89 E2 11
In total. four factors úere oblained explainjng 55.05 % of tlre tdal varia¡ce.
The inte,?relationofthese factors is as lbllows:
a, The firsl faclor has an eigenvalueol1l.53 explaining 17.44 9ó oflhe lotal
varianceand 31.68% oflhal extracledby the rotation. The 6 ilems rlith highest
loadings in this faclor suggestbullying activjties direcled al limlling thc social
contacl and communicationof the victim, accordingly it \!as named ¿/&cfr o,l
tha socidl relarianshipsoJ the ticrim üsingso.¡t¡l isoldl¡or. The intemal consis-
tency ofl¡e subscalebasedon this thjs factorwas.92.
312 A tn¿l)vt ol th¿ tt uÁ Hd,!¡{{,,.,r -SL¿L' lt3

1i, The secondf¿c1orhad a¡ eigenvalueof 1.7,1drplai¡nrg 15.3-\1..i, ol rtr

tal varianceand 27.899'"ofthe rotatd variance.T¡is f¿clor groupedlt jl( ,, , , I D¡lfeftnkr in th. ttork H¿ra\snent S.ole lÜ ts) ¿.!.tu1ins b thc Lcrcl af
becauseof theit contents,the l¡c|or was named y¿r¡dl dggl€$lor. Thc rL I
", Lcvel f-ll Lelell Ul Level 11Ill
ty olthe f¡c1or w¡s.89
/tr) The thnd üctor had an eigenvalueof 1.6ó and explaiDed12.6t , ,,r , ,
\ ., | , , r te .r a i " .1 .,, .,
ldalvaria ce and 22.91% ofthe rot¡tcd variance.Eight bulying acti\ir . ,, "- ¡ L
. f th c \ ( l i m i si ¡ p s. ¿r i o n - l 04 Li)
grouped in this f¿clor: d/Lt( lts on the priwte I ile of the rictin 16 rten\ rr,t , ,, 4. 98r *' - 6 12**! - 2. 87*i
no¡r (2 items). Thc inlernal consisrncy ofthe subscalebasedon ihis iil l, , r\tacts on rheprirare lifc ofrhe victin
. 82.
", - : 1ll ** - 5. 19** 285*'
/jr, Thc fourth faclor hls an eigenv¿lueof l.l7 and explains9.64 9i, (i 1t¡ ,, Auackson ¡helictinr using
- 2. . 1\ ' 4. 56**. , 2 84*,
t al! ¿ r ia n c e a n d 1 7 .5 2 % o fl h e ro l a l e dl ari ancc.T¡econtenl softhcIi t.,,,1,,1
conposcd this faclor (úe lasl two \lere rhoseadded in this srudy) ctc¡rl\ . , , - <. 10f *i rr'
_6. 17 1. 0E. ,
* P <. 05. **/ <. 01 ***P<. 001.
üat this flctü relales to ¿¡tack o, the ,i.tin using oryani.dtíondt rt\r¡\
inlemal consistencywas .74.
The resul¡sshow a progressiveand significanl i¡cr€asein the scoresoblained by
the victims in thc $¡IIS as we passfrom a Level I of severity (,V total - 30.62)
The ,york Hdrusenent S.ole IWHS) dnd the Sewrit| aJ Percei*.¿ ri.f",r., r ,,
l o a Level ll ( M : 45. 46) 3nd t o a Lelel I I I ( M : 63. 15) . lt is woÍ h Dot ingt h¿l
An impo¡bnt ¡spect for this rudy was to find out to whai extenl lhc !\, ,
this significa¡t differenlial paüern
sensitivein relalion to the le\el of scverily ofvicliniz¡tron by bullyins r. !, ¡,,1
by the subjecrsas defined by the Pst.hologicol lltorl<placelnwntaD,lP\\ )) \ l, significanlly discrlminatesvictims of Level I ftonl 1¡ose of Lclcl II. and
the le!els of selerily of perceiÍed viclimizarion in rhe PWI i¡crease.llre $r, those of Lclcl II tiom those of Lc\el III. the difTerenccbcrwccn Lelel I and
Level lll logically being largcr. Furlhemlore victims of Lclel II dlllered more
should be progressi!ely higher in rbe $¡HS.ln order to conductthis ¿n¡l)\,.. r1l
from rho:( of I e\ el I r hJn nuT r h. . e ul Le\ el L
victins \{ere dilided inlo thiee groups accordingto iheir scorcson the p\\ | l, l
(i, is feplicated€qually for thc difter€nt categoriesisol¿tedin lhe WHS in lhis
Dho repofed a Levcl I ofseverity, 68 who reporteda Level II. and 17 $t¡, ,,
pofed a t-evel lll T¿ble 2 shows the nrcansand standarddevi¿lionsol rh( 1t,,,,
study.
groups. ¿nd Table 3 shols the resuhs of a comparisonanong thc ihrec lrLñrt.
r¡ lúal scoresand calcgoriesofbullyjng identified by the subscalescrcrr.,l Canput¡s.n oJ .n N - 138)dk¿ ,'onEn tti = t11) oh the ttrotk lta
russñeat S.dl¿ (\ = )79)

Trblc 2 ,\1 :1 3 8 ,\= l .1 l

u.dns dnd srtrdut¿ D¿tidtu$ o1th¿ tu-k H¿nssnknrs.¿te lbHS) for Edrh 1,,, t ,l M SD M SD
\'.,¡ \ ' - o, AlLactso¡ thc socialrelatronshlps *
9. 16 6. 04 I 1. 06 7. 20 2. : 19
Lelcl II l,er.L I l of the viclim usi¡g $cial isoladon
,=68 i =)1 12. 72 6. 68 |] . 80 ¡ i. 57- L lu
M SD .U \t) Atacks oúrhe prilatc li1¿ofthe
8. 82 6. , 1. 19. 98 l. ó0 1. 38
\ll¿.ks on t he: ú! i¡ l r . ¿r . n\ h ps ! )o vicriú (]¡cludine rumo$)
ufllr. \ ic t ii u\ lng Lüld¡ , , n 5.72 t2 ói 6 89 16.22 r i t Att¡cks o¡ the lictim using , l91 3. 80 : 1. 29 3. 83 l. l5
Veúal aggr.$io¡ l0 95 6.1| 16.16 1.79 21.18 ¡ \ r
Attackson lhe p¡i!¡Lelit¡ ofrhc 15. 6019. 61l9 ll 24. 10- 1. 16
victin(inc]!di¡e ruúo¡, 7 .5 2 5.76 11.,17 6 7l l l 07 Lr1l

usnrgorganizalional
ne¡ns
3 86 I29 5.19 :1.00
The WHS: ri.tit¡ii..tt¡on dndGen ler Relote.l D¡ffere ces
:1 06 2 ]t 52 :15.,1621.52 ó3.1i tr, \.
ln dris scclion \re e¡amine \\hclhcr gender influencesthe acri\itics of bullying.
More global analysis,centeredo¡ calegoriesfactors.and a morc spccific ¡naly-
sis relaledlo thc concreteitems thal make up th€ WHS are presented
3 l,l Bá911.üd, t ,,t An analrsis of the Woú Ha/usen.kt :ir4t.

4 pr e. n, s t he ¿¡ dt \ . is ot m e1 , . r ¡ r r t . . , , , t , . . , ¡ . , , . , , . ¡ t , . , r , , , I ,
The I'aú Hdn \úen¡ &11¿ SrtNrt ¡hCP.rc¿nrag¿s.l¿r M¿n tN - I 38) ond lf.D, .T¿bi e
' ¡n€r' aÍou- sr denr r r r ed ( a¡ egor ies
of bull) jns
tIl = lll)
r\cepr r ¡ r lhf cr t ( gor t - ef er r ed. o ¿. '. - r . , , . t . , . r r t .
r2l l ro¡a] m e¡ ns. " it m ay be nor edlhar viclim iTcd\ ! ( , , r . | , , t , r . ,¡r Lt r ,
(cveni fthedif i¿r cncei¡ r hiscasewasnor signr f j. , , , , , r r t , , ¡ - ", r , !
U¡duLyreducedopportu- u, l r , , , , ", r , , , , , , , , ,
1 5 .5 35.5 15.9 13.I 31.1 33.:l 1?.0 men¿nd \ om en r L cheda. ignr f iccn¡t e\ e, , , r t r , r , | ( . Ln r . , ,
nltiesro exprc$ louEclf . , t , . , , , r . {,
Lier aboutyou told 10odi.¡s 3 7 ? 268 21.2 12.:l 40.3 29.1 11.1 InesorrJt - e¡ r lr on. lipsot r he\ r . r im u, ine, u( Jt r . . , t r , , , , .,,,,. ..r
BeingúduLy disruplcd :1 9 .8 14.| 1¡1.I 47.5 17.0 22.0 women sco¡ing highcr.
Being s¡outed al lo!dl-! 60.2 24.6 ri.0 1.2 53.9 21.:t 14.1 5 t r e \ uppor r 'r gpr r cer t dpc,t br ( Jct r r , | | , , { , , , , , , , . , t. . , , . , , ,
BejngudlLy criicrzcd :1 9 .1 3,1.1 11.6 15.2 35.5 27.0 19.1 .Tdbl e 'boq.
A ddrngtr deüer ¡ t er ( sf unse¿t r em ¿r i\ esi, f ien . , ¡ d. \ . . , . . . r . . ¡ , t . . . , ¡ r . , , 1
lnsulline commentsaboul
r0.9 6.5 6.5 69.5 15.6 5.1 i y,ngdcL rr\ , r e:lha, m ol<\ ict im . , ut lcr $ ir t -jf e¿r e. r. r ( r , r ( r . .\
| ., ,t,,,.,,
ó 0 .2 21.0 10.1 8.7 50.4 I8..1 163 you l u^, d. o, r ¡ er - ll5 < 0, , ar J . ur her sr dki. r gLr r ¿¡ r , r r , . ,
, , "1. , , , . . . , L
H¿!lng sc.snire derails l ra. " o). I n r hec¿\ col úr , m en.r he nu. l t r eqJenrJ( i\ s. . ti r,r. r,,.,r..1
7 9 .1 10.1 ó.-{ ,1.3 75.ii 1,1.2 ¡snon.er r sr ( nr "l404d. r . . t t et , t iDgot ".
) ou, , , Din"n. \ Jo r . , r r t t , , . , , , , . , r , \ ,
8ra¡ce\a nd or negah\ ege. ! t ur es. . l. lqol
6 8 .2 15.2 10.1 6.5 71.0 10.ó Inversely,ifwe focus on the rcsponscaltemative of..ncver.. rtr.
Insinuativcglancesanüo¡ t., r, t.rrl
l9l :t1.9 109 169 24.1 163 ru¡ppofedby Drena¡d q¡omenarc rhe sane: ..Accusationsofbenrr rrrcrrl
\,tr.
It¡¡bed" (87 % of the rne¡ and 81.6 % of rhe women),
5 ó .5 22.5 12.3 87 53.1 22.0 16I r(rr -Not be-ilrgsr\.| .,,r\
70.3 22.5 :1.3 29 ó:1.5 19.9 lE rr rhcner .rndsn l oo,t|rtresomen).
,_:"^"^, ard eerr¡!r,., .., , r.
l^k, lt.l
l ng rd,\,--r - a a 0. ot t he I ncna¡ d 88.I ooof hc q on. en, .
Retusallo speak*ilh lor ó ].8 t8.l 58 12.3 2ó.2 I' 1.2 | ] s
B.litrling of )ou oprnions 5 0 .8 2l .l 14.5 13.0 19.0 22.0 21.:l r7l
5 1 .5 27.5 12.1 E 7 48.3 l ri .4 16..1 ri 0 Discussion
Beinglrealcdas.on-existent 6 0 .1 22.5 8.0 t7.0 17.7 rr i
Wordsaimcdal nLúmg you 5 5 i. 26.1 11.6 1.2 39.1 27.0 ¡6:l Lr0
.¿ ¡ cb o ' c.o fb u r r ) .n r bue.,,r
h ,,\i o
Bci.g gtren nedingles
1 1 .9 21.6 \5.2 L2.l 57.5 18.,1 9.9 ¡1 sai¡rnrc
" ^ ! ll- lorl ' 1¡panr\r
) "1 ' "1 ' ) ".' '
em¡to)ee.\icrrmi/eob) bu tling. Tt i. ,ru¿. qa. co.,
Bcing given insulhngmsks 7 9 .8 8.1 ' 12 ri !.1 l l .1 2.1 5 oucred rnlf e, oDte\.ot ¿ broadr.,.ud)rB:rguend cr at :00b )ou-i l olr c...
Havine nalicious rumors Sorres r¿cloriha\eheeri.uldreJ. in col|tm,lro olherstuJies
r\J. |..rndfi\e or
5 5 .9 21.9 L0.l 51.9 r0.6 morelI elmann lqoo.\,\.d1.,oo5 /¿pfet ¿t . looor.\crennele...
spreadbchnrdyour b¿ck tl i, Jr..el
Being ¡idiculedn lio¡¡ '1.2. 4.3 5ó.1 21.4 l 0 6
? l .l l l 6.l
Insrrumcrl.
rs.LbsrJnriall)
drfterenr:
rfe I tpT b¿{15. rh..NAó ta" 2,¿_J)
IIarüg your sork rudeed rLr_
109 16.9 27.1 17.1 . l
&
llll:1 Yf:'j 1,"-*. & uer.200,,
,.a,r,"r.rrri,s¡*rqJ"
a
u.remán. "^"1,
iqqxl h¿sz. plu.,rherqo em. rt-arqc ¿ddert
in rfr...rrjy rn:rberr
rl !rde'no u roce,nfo-,nurion.
a,r *, ,*".oi.,ri .fnf,-i."r
6 5 .2 2¡.0 8.7 5:1.9 l 9.r .i11_r6]
Ienonr'.e.rhrl some ". In.o",..",ur,]io.",t,.,.1
:. - : .-"", ^- '.irem\pre.enr
rcJundanciessone r a( r or s)t o esr Jbt is'i
¡ne (dregúnesla\ t or c.Such a r eduldanc)occur r ed '¡{ilt , r n r ne
Fr sr lqo t ¿\ 1or j
6.5 2.9 3.aJ 2.E
l mefgrD g n r he ¡ cr o a¡ ¿lls. . uhich qcr e i¿hel, ed, r / *. Laa t he, . . t J, , . 1¿-
Orhcrstaking credf ibr llonshipsú the úctin usjns socídt isotdtion nd r.,.toi ,gg"",";nr. i,,
18.8 15.956.0 16.3 14.2 r. tt ur t*o
o-flhejlelnswilbnighestioadingsi¡ thelirst facroratsohavin-q strbstanrial
Not bcing grlen úy tasks toad_

fjllillilHi,.f?ff
E 1 .2 10.9 1.6 4.3 E 0.l 10.6

i:'iilil#[""1'5,:.tnHii]!:::'.':
(norh¡ling a¡t¡hllc !!!!
¡¿/¡,. I Ncvcriscldon,2 = Occasio¡¡lly.3 = Oflel. I = Very olten
ionalandempnic.ttanalyses. i::ti:i:
thefi¡sr'facro¡concspondsmaintywith thefac
thatreymann (1990)calted. isolationbchavior..andparrtywith
thc factor
he labellcd "negative conmunic¡tion"; the lácior ide¡dfi;d
i¡ the p;e;;;
316 An cnub.sísú ¡he Wo* Itaftssnent S.dle 317

studyappears ro repr€sent an attackon socialreiailonships in $hich the ag!'re' harassed mainly b) other women,becxuscthe victims wo.ked nainly wlth
sor engages predomjnantly in activiticsaimedat sociallvisolalingthe v'clrrrl women,and it rs lnorc charactenstjc o1 \!om€nto useindireotstrategies of ag-
iremsthathavc1odo $rrll gression (Bjórkq!isrel ¡1., 1992).ln iine ü,iththis,lnenandlvomendiffer in dre
The faitor herelabclled|erbal oggrcssiolcomp(ises
thre¿ts. criticisms.andalso$ilh a limitationof conrmunication Thethirdti'r'" lypeofnegaliveaclivilicsthattheye¡periencemorefreque¡lly:wonen's expe-
anr,A5na th¿ p'na^ lt^ at th, ldi '¡n,l"diastunor' groupt ogehc ' rienccsco[espondwilh ilenis that haveto do wnh the fiIst ralionatempirical
tiljlies aimingio attackthevictim by bumilialing bim or her in ftont ol co$orl l^ctot (dtt.rclr.son sa.ial relationships uring saci.tl isolat;.,¡) and lnen s erpe-
ers.lmDoúa; components of this faclorare 1ies, conrments, and ihe sprea(lLr I riencesconespondwrth an item relaledto ara¿ir o,] the ri.tin usingoryan¡.d
of rumo¡saboLttthe rictim; thesc compo¡€nls have ¿ clear sjmjlaritv üilh th"' thrnal neans aú anothetlnvolved $ith rulnors.
suggested by Zapfet ¿1.(1996)in úen an¿lvsisofthe LIPT Th€ lastfacbr"'
tu;kr an the úd¡n usitlsorlakízat¡ondlneans' etll,erged very clearlv,lion' irr Referenc€s
emniricalDoiú of vicw, since the items wilh the highest loadings did nol cotrrr
buresubsti¡rialvarianceto othc|facrorsin the matrix l¡ sum,the redundanerr Bágr¡cna, M. J., Beleña. Dí¿2.A Toldos.M. P., Roldá¡. C., & Amigó, S.
^.,
12006).Un ¿stud¡aerplorarnia de ld údenci¡i psi.alóeica en el conterb ta-
amongthe filsl threefacrors,asopposedto the foufh' inducesus 1othink ¡lr'¡11
thc su;sestionof Einarsen a¡d Hoel (2001)thatit is possiblclo considerlhc f\ ¡t¿ld¿Investigaclón sub!cncionada por la Consellería de Educ¿cntD y Ciencia
istenceofrwo largccategories ofbullying activilies:personalandorganiz¡l¡rr de la Comunidad Valenciana. Unpublish€d manuscript.
al. And, giventhe orderin which thesecategorics appear,andthusthe pcr(frl Báguen¡.M. 1., Beleña,4.. Diaz. A Toldos,M. P.. Roldán.C., & Amigó, S.
they explain, the bullies of the victims of our stud)'- tn (2007).Estréslaboraly sintomalologia posl lraumática. tnvestig¿ción subven-
t¿geof \ariancelIal
n;stly bullying actiljties of th€ ñrst type more than of the seco¡d Also rl¡ cionadapor el Minisle o de Educación y Ciencia.Unpublishcd manuscript.
four iatnnal-empnlcalcaregories havc a high intemalconsistencv (oscill¡rI Djó¡kqvist,K.. Lagenpetz,K. M. J,. & Kaúkiaincn.A. (t992). Do gjrls manipu-
bel\\'ee¡.74and.92),reachingavaluc ol 95 for thetotalquestionnaire ln Ir4r" Iateandboysfighll Dev€lopmental t¡endsin regard10directandindirectag-
analvses with t¡e N ll\ gression. ,4gal¿"$ir¿t¿r¿úo. 13,lll-121.
clusion.il wouldbe i erestingto conductolhcr laclor
both üilhout any identifiedlicrims and with a hi-qher nunber of \icti¡]s lli I I Bjórkqvist,K.. & Os1ennan, K. (l998). Scalesfor rescarch on inlel?ersonat rela-
ú¿t obrainedi¡ ihe present slüdv.Other imponant validation dala in relat'orr L" tions.Pro Fdcuhdte,4.AboAk¿demiUnive¡sity,V¿tsa. Finlan{t.
the WHS i¡vohe lhe 1$o nethods of evalualion mcnlioned in the introd!'r '{l Ejdrkqvist,K.. Osterman. K. & IIjclr Back.M. (1994).Aggressjon anro¡gunr-
versilyemployees- ,4gg/e
of this chaptcr.The wlIS discrininatesperfectlvamongviclims$irc pef'er\f ssire Behdrior,20, 113-1a4.
rhemselves to havebeenvictir¡izedwirh differentlcvelsof scveritvnse\'ahLir'l Einarsen, S. (1999).Thenatu¡eandc¿uses ofbullying ar wotu Joundt d Mtn-
rh¿rrhs le\Jlolse\cnrvsu¡itse'r':r power, 20, 16-2.'7.
lhr.'Jqhüe P$l. l¿\'rg rolourrounr "i"
(' ¡ Einarsen. S.,& Hoel.tL (2001,May). r¡e
nuumol a¡rresionin rhreesrugeserrelJinglrornrheJ- ol Indi'(cr' f ' ActsQuestiannujre: Deyet-
of aggresstinto moreditectandopenfoms of abuseof pox'er resulting rrrrll opnent, wl¡.ld.tbn and reti\ion ol o t easurc of bulb,ins dt ,,t.)rk paper pre,
^¡egarlre
psychologyin
.lehuma¡ization of úe victjm (Bjórkqvht, 1992)'il $ ouldbe inleresti¡gl(' lr'r\ ' sentedar üc 9"'European Congress of Work aDdOrganizadonal
¿vailable¿ sufficicnlnumbd ofviclims to b€ ablelo conducta t¿ctor¡ ¡ \!r Prague.
for eachofthe scveritygroupsFrom this pelspeclive, p€rhapsil is logicxLrlúrl Einalsen,S..& Raknes.B. L (1997).H¿rassment at $ork andthc victimiz¿tjon
üe factortharexplains the nost variance in our ¿nalysis relales1osoc'¿ltrllitrr¡ of men.t/iolence and t/i.t¡ns, 12,241-263.
on lhe victim and. more specifically, srraregies aimed at isolaling th€ vrcllni"' Lcymann,H. (1990).Manu¿l(f theLtPT questíonnaire íor assessing the riskaf
p\.c halogi.al liolencear
cially. a type of indirectagg¡essñnthat is suffer€dmorecharacterilrcll\ l'\ "o¡*.
StockhoLm, Sweden:Violen.
victrns of sevcriryLevelI (recallüat in this srudv6ó% of th€ emplovecs e\¡ Niedl,K. (1995).Mobbing/butl.,íng dn Arbeitsptat.Eine eüpiríscheAnat):se
luaredtall intoüis level) zum Ph.itlonen sovie zu personatuirtschaftligrcleranten Eleken ún
(liri sisten.!t ¡sr henFein.lseIigker¿,. Munich, cemmny: Hamp.
Finallv.r'e haverepoftedsomeresultsr€l¡lÉdto genderdilGre¡ccs Thc
suggcsithalin gener;I,wome¡ are attacked more than me¡ \\'irh ncgaiivc r'rr\ I D. (1994).Annotalion:Bullyingat school- B¿sicfacrsandefTccts ofa
personal bullying rvhile this differcnce is jnvertedfor or8¡irr/i schoolbasedinleNcntion program.Jaumdl ol Chil.l Psrchob? and psychia-
tiei üat reflect
tionalbullyi¡g.ihis resullcoutdbe explainedbvdatapresenled in anoilcrrrrl\ /ry,JJ, I 171-l I90.
(Básucna€1a1.,2006)lvbichconsiders rh€ g€nderofthe aggressor andtherrrí
iorii' renderof the viclim's coworkersln this studv.the women liclilns \.'
318 Bágut n rl

ZapCD.. Knor/.(.. & Kulla.M. I lqqo).On lhe rel¿rionshrp berueennx'

factors a¡d job oonlent,social work environment,and heallh oulcomcs /l
pean Jounal of Wo* and OrsanízationalPsycholos/, 5, 215-231.

Pqrt IV

Societql Aspe cts oÍ Aggrc ssion

rsBNs73-3-631
600283

ililililililrlrrl
llillilril