British Journal of Guidance & Counselling

ISSN: 0306-9885 (Print) 1469-3534 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbjg20

Coping with bullying in the workplace: the effect of

gender, age and type of bullying

Hanna L. Jóhannsdóttir & Ragnar F. Ólafsson

To cite this article: Hanna L. Jóhannsdóttir & Ragnar F. Ólafsson (2004) Coping with bullying
in the workplace: the effect of gender, age and type of bullying, British Journal of Guidance &
Counselling, 32:3, 319-333, DOI: 10.1080/03069880410001723549

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03069880410001723549

Published online: 19 Oct 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1839

Citing articles: 67 View citing articles

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cbjg20
British Journal of Guidance & Counselling,
Vol. 32, No. 3, August 2004

Coping with bullying in the

workplace: the effect of gender, age
and type of bullying
RAGNAR F. ÓLAFSSON
Educational Testing Institute, Suðurgata 39, 101 Reykjavı́k, Iceland. E-mail:
rfo@namsmat.is

HANNA L. JÓHANNSDÓTTIR
Student Counselling Centre, University of Iceland, Hringbraut, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland

ABSTRACT A study of bullying, victimisation and the coping strategies employed to tackle it is
presented in the first study of bullying in the workplace conducted in Iceland. Participants were 398
members of a union of store and office workers and members of a national organisation of bank-
employees. A factor analysis of bullying items identified two factors: general bullying and work-related
bullying. Males score higher on both factors, but when asked directly if they have been bullied or not,
no significant gender difference appears. A measure of coping strategies when faced with bullying is
presented. A factor analysis and multidimensional scaling of these strategies identified four clusters:
assertive response, seek help, avoidance and do nothing. These can be arranged on a passive vs. active
dimension, which may reflect the severity or duration of the bullying situation. Multiple regressions
indicate that males seek help less and use avoidance less than females, and males are more likely to use
assertive strategies, confirming gender stereotypes about what constitutes appropriate behaviour.
Increased bullying is also associated with the use of avoidance and passive response (do nothing).
These results are mainly in accordance with findings from schools. It is suggested that active coping
styles are employed during the initial stages of bullying but that victims resort to more passive coping
strategies as the bullying becomes more serious. The need for a longitudinal design is proposed to
understand the relationship between duration and severity of the bullying experience and the choice of
coping strategies.

Introduction
The study of coping strategies used in response to an extreme stressor such as
bullying is important, as their effectiveness may be different in reducing the bullying
and the choice of coping strategies may also reflect the severity of the bullying and the
wider psychological state of the victim. Such research is useful for practitioners as it
may help them to steer the victim towards more fruitful coping strategies, and to give

ISSN 0306-9885/print/ISSN 1469-3534/online/04/030319-15 # 2004 Careers Research and Advisory Centre

DOI: 10.1080/03069880410001723549
320 Ragnar F. Ólafsson & Hanna L. Jóhannsdóttir

the support that is needed, taking into account the severity of the bullying, the coping
skills of the individual and other factors which may determine the choice of coping
strategies. Research on coping with bullying has mainly been conducted in schools,
and there is a need to extend this research further into the workplace, as the findings
so far in both areas bear close similarity. We shall summarise these below.
The main focus of this paper is on determinants of coping. However, it was also
necessary to develop a local measure of bullying and of the coping strategies used to
deal with it. Additionally, the prevalence of bullying in the workplace in Iceland will
be assessed.

The choice of coping strategy

Previous research among school children and in the workplace has identified a
number of factors which are associated with the choice of coping strategies when
faced with bullying. The attention has focused on the effect of gender, age, and status
as bully and/or victim and more recently on type of bullying experienced (Bijttebier &
Vertommen, 1998; Cowie, 2000; Kristensen & Smith, 2003; Ólafsson, 2003; Olafsen
& Viemerö, 2000; Smith et al., 2001). These studies have used a varied set of coping
measures, and close attention will be given to their contents to facilitate an
integration of the findings.
Information on gender differences is accumulating. In a study of school children
in Finland, Olafsen and Viemerö (2000) assessed coping styles with a modified
version of the Life Events and Coping Inventory (LECI) (Dise-Lewis, 1988). They
found that boys used more self-destructive strategies compared with girls. The self-
destruction scale included items like ‘smoking’, ‘thinking about suicide’ and ‘hurting
oneself physically’. Girls on the other hand used more stress recognition (including
‘crying’, ‘screaming’ and ‘getting advice from someone’). No gender differences were
found on aggression (e.g. ‘hitting or hurting someone’, ‘yelling’, ‘cursing’, ‘getting
into a fight’), distraction (e.g. ‘take a walk’, ‘do a hobby’) or on endurance strategies
(e.g. ‘hold it in’, ‘try to forget’).
Smith et al. (2001) found that female victims of bullying (aged 10 to 14) were
more likely to report ‘crying’ or to ask ‘friends/adults for help’ than boys, who more
often reported ‘fighting back’.
In a study of Danish school children (aged 9 to 16), using a modified version of
the Self-Report Coping Measure (SRCM; Causey & Dubow, 1992) Kristensen and
Smith (2003) found that girls used more social support (e.g. ‘getting help from
friends’, ‘teacher’ or ‘family’) and internalising (e.g. ‘worry to much’, ‘cry’) than
boys. Boys however used more externalising (e.g. ‘taking it out on others’, ‘cursing
out loud’ and ‘getting mad’).
Cowie (2000) did not find any gender differences on coping strategies among
victims which had not told anyone about the bullying, but girls were much more
likely than boys to tell someone. She classified the responses of those who had not
told anyone into six categories: ignore/endure (e.g. ‘put up with it’, ‘try to forget’,
‘plan revenge’, physical response (e.g. ‘hit or beat them’, ‘threaten with big brother’),
 Coping with workplace bullying 321

verbal response (‘telling them it hurts’, shout back’, ‘threaten to tell’), admitting to
not coping (e.g. ‘had difficulty’, ‘did not cope’, ‘got upset’), manipulating the social
situation without telling (‘stay close to other pupils, ‘avoid bullies’) and employing no
strategy.
Ólafsson (2003) found that boys (aged 10 to 14) scored higher on aggressive
items (‘get my revenge’ and ‘attack them (the bullies)’) and also on emotional
aggressive items like ‘go crazy’, but no gender differences were found on ‘screaming’
which can also be labelled as an emotional aggressive response. Boys are also more
likely to ‘get someone to attack’ the one who is bullying them, which is aggressive in
nature. This is consistent with their greater use of aggressive and emotional
aggressive items. Girls are however more likely to ‘seek help from friends’ and
adults (parents and teachers). They are significantly higher on passive emotional
responses such as ‘crying’ and ‘feeling helpless’. The classification of items was based
on factor analysis and multidimensional scaling. These methods present advantages
over a priori classifications of items into scales where subtle differences in meaning
confound results when aggregated in scales.
The studies above present on the whole a consistent picture of differences in
coping styles by gender, with boys responding more aggressively and girls being more
submissive and asking for social support.
A number of reasons may account for these gender differences. Research has
shown that the genders are subjected to different kinds of victimisation (boys more
physical, girls more indirect) and each of these forms may call for specific types of
coping. It can be expected that different types of bullying are associated with
different coping strategies. Ólafsson (2003) found that among school children social
exclusion is correlated to passive submissive strategies such as ‘feeling helpless’ and
‘waiting and hoping it stops’. Physical bullying on the other hand is more associated
with aggressive and aggressive emotional responses such as ‘fighting back’ and
‘screaming’ at the bullies. Indirect bullying (e.g. ‘talk behind back’) is more
associated with submissive response and appeasing strategies such as trying to
‘befriend the bully’ or ‘joining the gang’ and ‘trying to change myself so they stop
criticising me’. Cultural prescriptions about acceptable gender behaviour may also
favour or preclude certain kinds of responses, and the surrounding environment may
reinforce certain responses over other depending on the gender.
Age differences have been found by Smith et al. (2001). They found that older
children use more often the tactic of ignoring the bully, while younger children ‘cry’
or ‘run away’ and Kristensen and Smith (2003) found that distancing, seeking social
support and internalising were used more by younger children.
These age differences might be explained by the fact that younger children are
bullied more* and by older children. The younger children would therefore use
/

escape as a strategy, due to their inability to defend themselves against often older
bullies. ‘Ignoring the bullies’ may be prominent among older children again because
of their greater physical strength, but they could also have developed this strategy to
try to make the bully lose interest, to ‘extinguish’ the behaviour. The interpretation
of this item (‘ignoring the bully’) may be ambiguous, as it is difficult to assess
whether the victim was genuinely unaffected by the bullies’ actions, or whether the
322 Ragnar F. Ólafsson & Hanna L. Jóhannsdóttir

victim is e.g. pretending not to notice to avoid drawing further attention to him/
herself.
The amount or duration of bullying may also affect the choice of coping
strategies.
A study by Ólafsson et al. (1999); see Ólafsson, 2003) on school children in
Iceland indicates that there is a progressive change in the use of coping strategies
(from active, assertive and aggressive, to passive, submissive and appeasing), as the
bullying experience increases in severity. However, the cross-sectional nature of the
data does not allow to draw any conclusions about whether these strategies change
within individual, or whether each individual has a favourite strategy and sticks to it.
Previous research in the workplace has shown that there is a discrepancy
between what people believe they would do in case they were bullied and what actual
victims do when bullied (see Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003). Rayner (1998, 1999,
cited in Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003) found that a smaller percentage of victims
confronted the bully or complained to the manager compared with what non-victims
claimed they would do if they were to find themselves in a bullying situation. The
same discrepancy was found between victims and non-victims with respect to the use
(or expected use) of other support seeking strategies such as going to the union and
seeking support from colleagues. Non-victims claim they would use these strategies
more than turns out to be the case for actual victims. Conversely, research indicates
that a greater percentage of victims uses escape strategies such as leaving their job,
compared with what non-victims claim they would do if bullied: only 7% of non-
victims believed they would quit their job if bullied, but figures from three studies
indicate that this figure ranges from about 14 to 36% for victims (Cox, 1987, cited in
Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003; Keashly et al., 1994; Rayner, 1998). Hogh and
Dofradóttir (2001) and Niedl (cited in Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003) also provide
indications that victims use less problem solving strategies than non-victims.
Overall, it seems that victims use more passive and avoiding strategies to deal
with the bullying and that non-victims believe they would use more assertive and
help-seeking behaviours to tackle the bullying.
The discrepancy between what non-victims claim they would do if bullied and
what actual victims do when bullied is interesting. The findings above are echoed in
children’s coping with bullying (Ólafsson, 2003). When participants are divided up
into percentiles, according to amount of bullying experienced, there is a tendency for
the non-bullied to use more assertive and aggressive strategies, compared with the
seriously bullied, who use more passive, submissive and avoiding strategies and
seeking support from adults instead of peers.
From the workplace, there are indications that people change their strategies
from active to more passive and avoiding as the bullying is prolonged. Zapf and
Gross (2001) used Rahim and Magner’s (1995) five type model of strategies to
handle conflict at work. They found that victims of bullying had a tendency to use
‘dominating’ less often than non-victims and to use ‘avoidance’ more often. Zapf and
Gross’ study (2001) indicates that victims of bullying may start with more active
strategies, but ultimately end with avoidance (e.g. by leaving the company). They
interviewed victims of workplace bullying and found that victims used a varied set of
 Coping with workplace bullying 323

strategies when faced with bullying incidents. Most participants were seen to change
their strategies several times during the conflict. Zapf & Gross (2001) also analysed
their data in terms of the EVLN-model (Whitney & Cooper, 1989), which contains
four coping strategies (exit, voice, loyalty, neglect). The outcome of this analysis
gives essentially the same picture as the one using Rahim and Magner’s model. Most
participants started with voice and ended with exit. They shifted between strategies,
and only two participants (out of 20) went straight to exit from voice. Thus, there are
indications that people start with assertive strategies, but that they resort to
avoidance and passivity as the bullying continues and no solutions are found.
The aims of the present study are to examine the contents and determinants of
coping strategies when faced with bullying in the workplace. As a prerequisite, there
is a need for the development of a local measure of bullying, to explore the
relationship between type of bullying experienced (general and work-related) and the
choice of coping strategies. Steps are taken to develop a local measure of coping with
bullying in the workplace. To assist the classification of coping items, items are factor
analysed and subjected to multidimensional scaling, which supplements the factor
analysis as it allows a visual exploration of the relationship between factor items. It is
expected that a passive vs. active dimension will be identified, as in previous research
(Ólafsson, 2003). In light of results from schools and previous research in the
workplace, the effects of age, gender and type of bullying (general and work-related)
on the use of coping strategies will be explored.

Method
Participants
The sample (N398, females 67%) consisted of members of a large union of store
/

and office workers in Reykjavik, working in nine companies, and of members of a

national organisation of bank-employees.

Measures
The data presented here are based on a 155 item questionnaire which was developed
to assess bullying victimisation and perpetration, coping strategies when oneself and
others are bullied, and lay theories about the causes of bullying. In this paper
however, the focus will be exclusively on victimisation and coping strategies. The
relevant parts of the questionnaire for the present purposes are described below. The
development of the questionnaire is mainly based on focus group interviews with
people from the union and pre-existing measures from workplace and school
research.

Victimisation. Participants were asked, ‘How often have the following incidents
happened to you in your present workplace over the last year?’ and were given 18
bullying-type experiences (e.g. ‘I was humiliated in front of other staff’ and ‘I was
324 Ragnar F. Ólafsson & Hanna L. Jóhannsdóttir

unfairly criticised for my work’) to rate in terms of frequency on a 5-point scale (1 /

never; 2once or twice; 3two to three times per month; 4once a week; 5 a few
/ / / /

times per week). Interspersed were five filler items, describing more positive
experiences (e.g. ‘someone offered to help me with a particular assignment’).
The 18 victimisation items were factor analysed, using a direct oblimin rotation.
A four factor solution (with eigenvalues greater than 1) emerged, accounting for
53.6% of the variance. The scree test suggested one factor. However, a two factor
solution was opted for as it yielded two clearly interpretable factors, accounting for
40% of the variance. These factors were a general bullying with 11 items loading
above 0.35, describing humiliation, social exclusion, negative emotional experience
and indirect bullying and a work-related bullying factor consisting of five items
describing excessive work loads, unfair criticism and treatment by superiors and
having to do tasks which were not part of the job description. Two items did not load
highly on either factor. One item loaded slightly higher on the general bullying factor,
but belonged conceptually with the work-related factor and was included in the latter
when mean scores on the two factors were computed. Cronbach’s alpha for general
bullying was 0.85 and 0.78 for work-related bullying. The Pearson Correlation
between the two victimisation scales is 0.63.
A single item measure of bullying experience was included. Participants were
asked, ‘Have you been bullied in your workplace during the past year?’ Answers were
provided on a 5-point scale (1 never; 2once or twice; 3two to three times per
/ / /

month; 4once a week; 5 a few times per week). Participants responded on

/ /

identical scales to the questions ‘Have you witnessed the bullying of an employee in
your workplace during the past year?’ and ‘Have you bullied someone in your
workplace during the last year?’.
Age was measured in 10 year categories, starting with ages 16 25. /

Coping strategies. Participants were asked, ‘How would you react if you were
subjected to bullying in your workplace?’ and given 16 strategies to rate (e.g. ‘tell my
boss’, ‘feel helpless’) on a 5-point scale (1have done it; 2I would do it; 3I
/ / /

would probably do it; 4 I would probably not do it; 5I would never do it) (these
/ /

scores were later reversed for the regression analyses). The coping strategies were
mainly derived from the focus group interviews, and consideration was given to the
more detailed bullying coping measure developed in schools (Ólafsson et al., 1999).
Finally, the measure was examined by two psychologists with extensive experience of
dealing with workplace bullying incidents.

Procedure
Participants were approached individually or in groups in their place of work and at
meetings of employee organisations. The questionnaire was filled in anonymously
and the response rate was 57%. The questionnaires were returned in closed
envelopes and were collected by the researcher or a member of staff who returned
them later to the researcher.
 Coping with workplace bullying 325

Results
Before presenting the results on coping, we shall present briefly the data on the
frequency of bullying in the workplaces studied here.
The percentage of participants who claim they have been bullied, have witnessed
the bullying of others and/or have bullied others is shown in Table 1.
Women report bullying others significantly less than men (Mann Whitney U /

test; p B0.001), but no significant gender differences were observed for being bullied
/

or for witnessing the bullying of others.

A new approach was adopted here to identify victims of bullying on the general
bullying and work-related bullying scales described in the methods section above.
For each of the two scales, participants were sorted in order of increasing bullying
experience, and a graph made which represents the steady increase in bullying (see
Appendix, Figs 2 and 3). To begin with, the curve is relatively flat, but towards the
83rd percentile (for general bullying) and towards the 81st percentile for work-
related bullying, the curves become steep, showing a drastically increased mean
bullying experience. Participants whose mean score on the scale was situated at the
steep end of the curve were identified as victims of that particular type of bullying.
This corresponds to an average score of 1.5 for the general bullying scale, and to 2.0
for the work-related bullying. This approach presents an alternative to the more
arbitrary classification criteria, where victims are e.g. those who report being bullied
‘sometimes’ or more often. In the approach used here, the ‘elbow’ in the curve
presents an empirical determinant of victim status. Using this method, victims of
general bullying are 17% of participants and 18.7% for work-related bullying.
According to the single item measure, i.e. where victims are those who have been
bullied ‘two to three times per month’ or more often, 2.6% are victims. The
agreement between the single item measure and the classification based on the
general bullying and the work-related bullying scales is 87% and 84%, respectively.
Males score higher on both general victimisation (Mann Whitney U test; p B
/ /

0.005) and work-related bullying (p B0.001)./

The percentage of participants who have been victimised two to three times per
month or more often for each victimisation item is shown in Table 2 below.
Overall, some of the work-related bullying items are experienced more
frequently than the general bullying items, and would not on their own constitute
bullying. However, when many of these are experienced simultaneously or for greater
periods of time, they can be seen as bullying.

TABLE 1. The number and percentage of participants who have been bullied, witnessed the
bullying of others and/or have bullied others over the past year

Been % Witnessed bullying % Bullied %

bullied of others others

Never 343 89.1 269 70.1 377 98.2

Once or twice 32 8.3 90 23.4 7 1.8
2 /3 times per month (or more) 10 2.6 25 6.5 0 0
326 Ragnar F. Ólafsson & Hanna L. Jóhannsdóttir

TABLE 2. The percentage of participants who have been victimised two to three times per month or
more on each of the 18 victimisation items

Item Percentage who have been

subjected to this 2 /3 times per
month (or more often)

1. I was humiliated in front of other staff 3.6

2. I had to do things that were not part of my job description 19.7
3. I was unfairly criticised for my work 6.2
4. I was pushed or kicked 1
5. I was overlooked for particular tasks 3.7
6. A certain individual goes out of his way to torment me 4.3
7. I received a humiliating e-mail 1.1
8. Someone talked behind my back 4.7
9. I was kept in the dark about a staff party 1.9
10. I was screamed at 2.6
11. An inordinate amount of work was piled on me 20.9
12. I had to do overtime against my will 4.2
13. Someone said something hurtful to me 4.6
14. I was tormented at work 2.1
15. I was excluded from entertaining activities after work 1.6
16. The boss treated me badly 3.6
17. I had little self-esteem at work 13.1
18. I felt bad because of how others treated me at work 5.4

Coping
The items measuring coping strategies if subjected to bullying were factor analysed
using a varimax rotation. Initially, a five factor solution emerged, accounting for 57%
of the variance. However, a four factor solution, accounting for 51% of the variance,
was opted for as it yielded more interpretable factors. The emerging factors are seen
in Table 3. Factor loadings greater than 0.35 are shown.
The four factors can be interpreted clearly. Seek help contains five items about
seeking help from company officials, colleagues or union. Avoidance contains four
items, taking sick-leave, quitting job, asking for transfer and feeling helpless. The
assertive factor has three items depicting active engagement with the perpetrator:
fight back, talk to the perpetrator and ask him to stop and also bullying the
perpetrator. The fourth factor, do nothing , contains three items: ‘not let it affect me’,
‘wait and hope it will stop’ and ‘ignore it and do nothing’.
Cronbachs alpha was computed for each of the scales and these are reported in
Table 4. Bold factor loadings in Table 3 show the items that were included in the
scales.
In this initial study, the reliability coefficients are somewhat low for three of the
dimensions. We will proceed with all dimensions and note later on how these items
could be improved for inclusion in future studies. The results of further analyses
involving these factors were checked separately using one item at a time. These
 Coping with workplace bullying 327

TABLE 3. Factor analysis of coping strategies

Components

Seek help Avoidance Assertiveness Do nothing

6. Talk to union representative at work 0.797

11. Tell the HR director at work about it 0.707
7. Ask colleagues for help 0.691
16. Go to my union 0.623
1. Tell my boss 0.566
2. Take sick-leave 0.760
12. Quit my job 0.744
15. Ask for transfer with the company 0.679
10. Feel helpless 0.584
4. Answer back 0.731
13. Bully the bully myself 0.620
9. Talk to the bully and ask him/her to stop 0.611
14. Ignore it and do nothing 0.732
3. Wait and hope it stops 0.703
8. Not let it affect me 0.637
5. See psychologist (or other) for counsel

separate analyses however yielded results which are mostly consistent with the
outcomes using the factor scales, and therefore, it was judged satisfactory to limit the
reporting to outcomes based on factor scales, instead of individual items.

Coping dimensions
In addition to the factor analysis, a multidimensional scaling analysis was conducted
on the normalised 16 coping items (Fig. 1). This helps to find the structure of the
coping strategies and explore the relationship between them. As expected the clusters
reveal a structure similar to the factor analysis, but in addition, it enables the
identification of dimensions which show the factors in perspective.
Two dimensions were identified with a stress value of 0.09. These dimensions
can be interpreted as passive vs. active and more tentatively as emotional vs. detached.
The solution can also be interpreted in terms of clusters. These two approaches are
used simultaneously below.

TABLE 4. Reliability coefficients for the four factors

Factor Cronbach’s alpha

Seek help 0.71

Avoidance 0.64
Assertive 0.47
Do nothing 0.60
328 Ragnar F. Ólafsson & Hanna L. Jóhannsdóttir

FIG. 1. Multidimensional scaling of coping items.

To the far right on the first dimension are two assertive items (‘answer back’ and
‘talk to the bully and ask him to stop’). These items are at opposing ends in position
and meaning to the two extreme items on the left (‘ignore it and do nothing’ and
‘wait and hope it stops’) which form a passive cluster. Above the assertive cluster are
six items, which form a help-seeking cluster. Within those items, there is an
interpretable gradation in meaning as one moves from right to left. The first two
items (‘tell my boss’ and ‘tell the HR director’) are more assertive, hence the
proximity to the assertive cluster below them. Informing these top people in the
company seems to imply a belief that something will be done, that these people have
the power to solve the problem by taking affirmative action. As one progresses
towards the left within the help-seeking cluster, the content of the items (or the
choice of supporting bodies) reflects a more entangled and perhaps protracted
bullying situation. Here, participants are seeking help from ‘union’ and ‘union
representative’. In this area, seeking help from ‘colleagues’ also figures. Colleagues
are likely to provide a different sort of help than superiors within the company. One
can envision that this help would mainly consist of emotional or cognitive support
(i.e. help the victim to think about the issue, and perhaps suggest solutions, but no
power to directly tackle the problem, as one would expect from superiors or HR
director). I would argue that the choice of different sources of help reflects a
gradation in the escalation of the conflict as one moves from right to left. To the
extreme left in the help-seeking cluster is an item that reflects a further deterioration
of the situation, where ‘help from psychologist’ is sought. Here, the problem
obviously is not easily solved. There is psychological damage and the victim seeks to
remedy that. If we follow the progression from right to left within the help-seeking
cluster, the sources of help range from company superiors (boss and HR director) via
union representatives and colleagues over to psychologists on the far left. This
mutation in content may reflect a progressively greater deterioration in the bullying
situation* and also in parallel a difference in the nature of help sought (form direct
/

action to psychological support).

A new set of strategies is evoked in the next cluster, where all the items reflect
avoidance of one sort or another. ‘Take sick-leave’ and ‘ask for transfer’ both reflect
 Coping with workplace bullying 329

this, and furthest to the left in that cluster is ‘quit my job’ which can be seen as the
most extreme form of avoidance in this context. Closely located to this item is an
item that reflects the emotional state of the persons who are driven to such extreme
avoidance: they ‘feel helpless’. Thus, the travel from the assertive, via the help-
seeking cluster to the avoidance cluster reflects the same pattern as observed above
within the help-seeking and avoidance cluster: A progressive deterioration of the
bullying situation, greater distress and more extreme (albeit ineffective) remedies to
attempt to tackle it. In the bottom left corner are the passive items, as mentioned
above, which gave rise to the labelling of the second dimension as detached vs.
emotional. Among those, there seems also to be a gradation in meaning, from the
relatively unaffected ‘don’t let it affect me’ to more negative emotional content (‘wait
and hope it stops’). In the middle of the graph is a single item depicting an active but
destructive reaction to bullying (‘bully the bullies myself’).
Overall, a diagonal dimension (from bottom right to top left) may capture best
the meaning in the constellation of clusters. In the bottom right are reactions
characterised by action, assertiveness and belief in the system to solve the problem,
while towards the top left are items which reflect hopelessness, avoidance and need
for professional psychological help.

Predictors of coping strategies

Four multiple regressions (stepwise) were conducted to identify predictors of the use
of different coping strategies (seek help, assertive, avoidance and do noting), leading
to four different models. Two dichotomous variables were created to identify victims
of general bullying and work-related bullying respectively, based on the location of
the ‘elbow’ in the distribution of mean scores. Gender (female0; male1) and age
/ /

were also included. Results are presented in the tables below. Of the four variables
included initially, only the ones contributing significantly to the explanation of
coping variance are included in the models and shown in Table 5.
Overall, the amount of variance explained is low. Males seek help less and use
avoidance less than females. Males are also more likely to confront the bully
(assertive scale) in response to bullying. General bullying increases the use of
avoidance as a coping strategy and to doing nothing as a response to bullying. There
is also an increased tendency with age to do nothing when faced with bullying. Work-
related bullying does not contribute uniquely to any of the models.

Discussion
The regression analyses confirmed previous findings on the gender stereotypic choice
of coping strategies. Females seek help more readily while males are more likely to
respond actively by confronting the bully. This echoes the findings form schools. The
results also showed that increased bullying is associated with increased avoidance,
e.g. by seeking transfer or reporting sick. The increased passivity observed with age
330 Ragnar F. Ólafsson & Hanna L. Jóhannsdóttir

TABLE 5. Regression models for four coping strategies: seek help, avoidance, assertive response
and do nothing

R2 Coefficients Beta t Sig.

Seek help
Constant 2.967 63.486 0.001
Gender 0.04 /0.32 /0.201 /3.854 0.001
Avoidance
Constant 2.061 42.724 0.001
Gender 0.03 /0.291 /0.188 /3.597 0.001
General bullying 0.06 0.328 0.162 3.103 0.002
Assertive
Constant 3.288 65.943 0.001
Gender 0.02 0.207 0.124 2.347 0.019
Do nothing
Constant 1.644 14.176 0.001
Age 0.07 0.224 0.283 5.469 0.001
General bullying 0.09 0.31 0.124 2.4 0.017

needs further study, as this may reflect a progressive loss in faith in the system and its
ability to address bullying.
The other main objective of the study was to develop a specific measure of the
coping strategies employed by victims of bullying and other people faced with
bullying-type experiences and to identify the determinants of their use. The main
factors replicate factors identified in coping studies conducted in other domains
(Compas et al., 2001). The multidimensional scaling analysis of the coping strategies
shows that these can be arranged along a passive vs. active dimension (see Zeidner &
Endler, 1996) and more tentatively on a detached vs. emotional dimension. The
configuration and dimensions of the coping strategies observed here for adults bear
close relationship with the dimensions identified in a study of coping strategies
employed by children when faced with bullying (Ólafsson, 2003).
An examination of the item positions within and between clusters favours an
interpretation of the dimensions in terms of increased severity of the bullying
experiences. In the adult configuration for example, seeking help from the boss is
located more closely to the assertive items (e.g. ‘answer back’) than ‘seek the help of
a psychologist’ which is located towards the more passive end of the configuration.
This example, and others, suggests that the choice of different sources of help reflects
a different situation, emotional and practical, of the victim of bullying, and that
further study should distinguish between the help providers, and the nature of the
help they are likely to give. A ‘psychologist’ is e.g. likely to give emotional help and
facilitate cognitive restructuration of the problematic situation, while ‘the boss’ or the
‘HR director’ are more likely (or will be expected) to provide practical active help, if
they indeed do so at all. It could be suggested that the victim of bullying initially
seeks help from the agents which provide practical help in the belief that they can
take action against the bullies, while long term victims of bullying may loose faith in
 Coping with workplace bullying 331

such agents progressively, and seek help from psychologist, having eventually sought
help from colleagues and union representatives on that route. Further longitudinal
study should aim toward tracing the suggested progressive change in the choice of
coping strategies, as the bullying situation gets more protracted, accompanied by a
progressive deterioration of the mental state of the victim, and build on studies such
as Zapf and Gross (2001) who attempted to put an longitudinal angle on the study of
coping strategies.
Previous studies, both in school and workplace bullying have identified
differences in the coping strategies of victims and non-victims, and further study
must establish further whether these are different from the start, or whether the
victim changes strategies progressively as their situation deteriorates.
Further research on coping should improve on the coping scale used here, by
adding more items and taking further into account subtle differences in meaning
between items, which superficially are identical. For example, it may be necessary in
future studies, using more sensitive predictor variables, to break up the social support
scale, which here includes seeking assistance from different agents such boss,
colleagues and trade union. It could be hypothesised that people would seek the help
of one and not the others, depending on the type or duration of the bullying. Such
differences will not be identified if scales are an aggregation of items with too
heterogeneous contents. It is also necessary to look further at items measuring
passivity, such as ignoring the problem. It must be clear in the wording of those items
whether the ignoring is accompanied by emotional distress or whether the ‘victim’ is
genuinely unaffected by the bullying-type incidents.
This study also gives an indication of the amount of bullying experienced in the
workplace in Iceland. A new measure was developed, based on bullying-type
experiences, and the results of this approach compared with the traditional single
item bullying measure. The factor analysis of the bullying items confirms the
possibility of distinguishing between general bullying and work-related bullying,
although the experience of one is closely correlated with the experience of the other.
While there is an overall agreement between the work-related and general
bullying measures presented here on the number of victims of bullying (18% and
17%, respectively), these figures are much higher than those produced by the single
item measure (less than 3%). The latter is more readily comparable to assessments in
other countries and would indicate that bullying is relatively rare in the workplaces
studied here. The advantage of the classification method presented here is that it is
based on a radical shift (increase) in the distribution of victimisation mean scores
indicating that while most people suffer some but limited bullying-type experiences,
there is a subset of participants were these experiences are concentrated and intense.
The steep increase in the curve, which shows the average bullying scores in order of
increased severity, is an argument for considering the experiences of these people as
quantitatively and qualitatively different from those participants who are located
where the curve is more flat. This criterion for the classification of victims is an
alternative to other more arbitrary ways of distinguishing between victims and non-
victims of bullying, where a cut-off point such as (‘sometimes’ or more and ‘two to
332 Ragnar F. Ólafsson & Hanna L. Jóhannsdóttir

three times per month’ or more) determines the number of victims, without
consideration of the shape of the distribution.
Of interest is the finding that males report more bullying-type experiences (as
measured by the general bullying and work-related scales), but no gender differences
appear when participants are asked directly whether they have been bullied or not.
This may indicate that males construe their negative experiences differently, and/or
feel better able to deal with them, as reflected in their greater use (or claimed use) of
assertive strategies.

References
BIJTTEBIER, P. & VERTOMMEN, H. (1998). Coping with peer arguments in school-age children with
bully/victim problems. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68 , 387 /394.
CAUSEY, D.L. & DUBOW, E.F. (1992). Development of a self-report coping measure for elementary
school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21 , 47 /59.
COMPAS, B.E., CANNON-SMITH, J.K., SALTZMAN, H., HARDING THOMSEN, A. & WADSWORTH, M.E.
(2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: problems, progress and potential in
theory and research. Psychological Bulletin , 127 (1), 87 /127.
COWIE, H. (2000). Bystanding or standing by: gender issues in coping with bullying in English schools.
Aggressive Behavior , 26 , 85 /97.
COX, H. (1987). Verbal abuse in nursing: report of a study. Nursing Management , 18 , 47 /50.
DISE-LEWIS, J.E. (1988). The Life Events and Coping Inventory: an assessment of stress in children.
Psychosomatic Medicine , 50 , 484 /499.
EINARSEN, S. & MIKKELSEN, E.G. (2003). Individual effects of exposure to bullying at work. In:
EINARSEN, S., HOEL, H., ZAPF, D. & COOPER, C.L. (Eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the
Workplace. International Perspectives in Research and Practice . London & New York: Taylor & Francis.
HOGH, A. & DOFRADÓTTIR, A. (2001). Coping with bullying in the workplace. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 10 , 485 /495.
KEASHLY, L., TROTT, V. & MACLEAN, L.M. (1994). Abusive behavior in the work-place: a preliminary
investigation. Violence and Victims , 9 , 341 /357.
KRISTENSEN, S.M. & SMITH, P.K. (2003). The use of coping strategies by Danish children classed as
bullies, victims, bully/victims, and not involved, in response to different (hypothetical) types of
bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44 (5), 479 /488.
ÓLAFSSON, R.F. (2003). Coping with bullying in schools: age and gender differences and the
relationship between coping strategies and the type and amount of victimisation and perpetration.
Measures to Reduce Bullying in Schools . Seminar Program and Abstracts , 21 /25 May, Kobe Institute,
Kobe, Japan.
ÓLAFSSON, R.F., ÓLAFSSON, R.P. & BJÖRNSSON, J.K. (1999). Umfang og eðli eineltis ı́ ı́slenskum skólum .
Reykjavı́k: Rannóknarstofnun uppeldis-og menntamála. Reykjavı́k.
OLAFSEN, R.N. & VIEMERÖ, V. (2000). Bully/victim problems and coping with stress in school among
10- to 12-year-old pupils in Aland, Finland. Aggressive Behavior , 26 , 57 /65.
RAHIM, M.A. & MAGNER, N.R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of handling
interpersonal conflict: first-order factor model and its invariance across groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80 , 122 /132.
RAYNER, C. (1998). Workplace bullying: do something! The Journal of Occupational Health and Safety */
Australia and New Zealand , 14 (6), 581 /585.
RAYNER, C. (1999). From research to implementation: finding leverage for prevention. International
Journal of Manpower , 20 , 28 /38.
SMITH, P.K., SHU, S. & MADSEN, K. (2001). Characteristics of victims of school bullying: developmental
changes in coping strategies and skills. In: JUVONEN, J. & GRAHAM, S. (Eds), Peer Harassment at
School: the Plight of the Vulnerable and Victimised (pp. 332 /352). New York: Guildford.
 Coping with workplace bullying 333

WHITNEY, M. & COOPER, W. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty and neglect. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 34 , 521 /539.
ZAPF, D. & GROSS, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: a replication and
extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10 (4), 497 /522.
ZEIDNER, M. & ENDLER, N.S. (Eds) (1996). Handbook of Coping: Theory, Research , Applications . New
York: John Wiley.

Appendix

FIG. 2. General bullying score in order of increased severity.

FIG. 3. Work-related bullying score in order of increased severity.

(Accepted 9 April 2004)