The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta‐analysis

The aim of this study was to investigate how different measurement methods and sampling techniques contribute to the observed variation in prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A total of 102 prevalence estimates of bullying from 86 independent samples (N=130,973) were accumulated and compared by means of meta‐analysis. At an average, the statistically independents samples provided an estimate of 14.6%. Yet, the findings show that methodological moderators influence the estimated rates. As for measurement method, a rate of 11.3% was found for studies investigating self‐labelled victimization from bullying based on a given definition of the concept, whereas a rate of 14.8% was found for behavioural measure studies, and 18.1% for self‐labelling studies without a given definition. A difference of 8.7% points was found between randomly sampled and non‐randomly sampled studies. When controlling for geographical differences, the findings show that geographical factors also influence findings on bullying. Hence, findings from different studies on workplace bullying cannot be compared without taking moderator variables into account.     

Psychiatric distress and symptoms of PTSD among victims of bullying at work

Distress and symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) were investigated among targets of experienced bullying at work, that is, the exposure to persistent or recurrent oppressive, offensive, abusive behaviour where the aggressor may be a superior or a colleague. The participants in the present study were all recruited from two associations of bullied victims (n=102, response rate=57%). A high level of distress and symptoms of PTSD was revealed in the sample, both according to recommended cut point scores for HSCL-25, PTSS-10 and IES-R, and when comparing the sample with traumatised samples. Three out of four victims reported an HSCL-25 level higher than the recommended threshold for psychiatric disease. Sixty and 63% of the sample reported a high level of IES intrusion and IES avoidance, correspondingly. The level of bullying, operationalised as the frequency of negative acts the individual had been exposed to at work, showed a stronger interconnection with distress and PTSD than a more unspecified, subjective measure of bullying, as well as the time since the bullying took place and the duration of the bullying episode. Those still being pestered reported a higher level of distress and PTSD than victims in which the bullying episodes were terminated more than 1 year ago, but the findings were somewhat mixed. Positive affectivity (PA) and especially negative affectivity (NA) contributed significantly to the explained variance of distress and PTSD in various regression analysis models, but did not interact with measures of bullying. Nor were mediator effects found between bullying, PA/NA and traumatic stress reactions. Implications of the findings are discussed.