USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Use attached article
|
Assignment Journal Review |
Locate and read one of the two articles provided on violence in the workplace. You will need to use the reference and the University Library system to find the articles.
Write a 500- to 750-word paper on violence in the workplace. Include the following in your paper:
· Summarize the article. · Identify forms of bullying that may lead to violence in the workplace. · What strategies may be implemented to manage the impact of violence in the workplace?
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines. |
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Cyberbullying: The New Face of Workplace Bullying?
Carmel Privitera, MPsych and Marilyn Anne Campbell, Ph.D.
Abstract
While the subject of cyberbullying of children and adolescents has begun to be addressed, less attention and
research have focused on cyberbullying in the workplace. Male-dominated workplaces such as manufacturing
settings are found to have an increased risk of workplace bullying, but the prevalence of cyberbullying in this
sector is not known. This exploratory study investigated the prevalence and methods of face-to-face bullying and
cyberbullying of males at work. One hundred three surveys (a modified version of the revised Negative Acts
Questionnaire [NAQ-R]) were returned from randomly selected members of the Australian Manufacturing
Workers’ Union (AMWU). The results showed that 34% of respondents were bullied face-to-face, and 10.7%
were cyberbullied. All victims of cyberbullying also experienced face-to-face bullying. The implications for
organizations’ ‘‘duty of care’’ in regard to this new form of bullying are indicated.
Introduction
The information and communication technology(ICT) revolution over the last decade has heralded a rapid
growth in the number of people interacting using modern
technologies such as the Internet and mobile phones. In 2005,
there were over 1 billion Internet users and 2 billion mobile
phone users worldwide.2 This widespread access to modern
communication devices has provided an alternative medium
for bullies to target their victims.3 Various terms are used to
describe this new phenomenon, including cyberbullying, elec-
tronic bullying, e-bullying, SMS bullying, mobile bullying, online
bullying, digital bullying, and Internet bullying.4 As in the case of
face-to-face bullying, this relatively new field of study has
initially focused on children and adolescents, with investiga-
tions of cyberbullying in the workplace slow to commence.
Definitions
Workplace bullying is repeated behavior that offends,
humiliates, sabotages, intimidates, or negatively affects some-
one’s work when there is an imbalance of power.5,6 Both face-
to-face bullying and cyberbullying are about relationships,
power, and control.7 Workplace bullying is considered to
occur when one or more individuals perceive themselves to
be the target of repeated and systematic negative acts on at
least a weekly basis8 over a period of 6 months or longer.8,9
There is also an imbalance of power between the perpetra-
tor and the target of bullying in addition to the victim’s at-
tribution of the perpetrator’s intent to cause harm.10 Because
of this imbalance of power, victims’ ability to cope with the
exposure to systematic negative acts becomes severely im-
paired11 because they may not perceive themselves to be in a
position to effectively protect themselves or to be able to re-
move themselves from the negative situation.11
Prevalence
Research in Scandinavian countries has reported work-
place bullying prevalence rates from 3.5% to 16%.9,12 How-
ever, studies conducted in the United Kingdom have found
higher prevalence rates. Incidence rates have been estimated
from international studies13 to be between 400,000 and 2 mil-
lion employees.
Large organizations with a higher ratio of male-to-female
employees in the manufacturing sector have also been shown
to have an increased risk of exposure to workplace bully-
ing.9,12 Furthermore, male workers and supervisors have
been found to be exposed to higher frequencies of negative
behavior14 due to the often hostile and authoritarian culture
of male-dominated work environments.
Consequences
The experience of workplace bullying can have negative
consequences on victims physical health and emotional well-
being.15–18 The impact of workplace bullying can also extend
into the victim’s social and family relationships.16,19–22 In
addition, future career advancements such as job promotion
can be threatened or damaged21 because of victims taking
long-term or recurring sick leave as a result of ill health from
being bullied at work.22
The psychological well-being of employees who witness
bullying in the workplace can also be compromised,16,23–26
School of Learning and Professional Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
CYBERPSYCHOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
Volume 12, Number 4, 2009
ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089=cpb.2009.0025
395
producing low staff morale,21,27 reduced commitment,21,27,29
lowered job satisfaction,21,28 and the breakdown of work re-
lationships and teams.25
The impact at the organizational level is an increased rate
of absenteeism,16,21,30,31 which in turn negatively impacts ef-
ficiency, productivity, and profitability.21,27,32 High staff
turnover due to low workplace morale and the resignation of
staff is costly and time consuming, requiring recruitment
and the retraining of new staff.16,21,27 The reputation of the
organization may also suffer because of a poor public image
as a difficult place to work.16 These consequences could
be exacerbated even more by the new form of workplace
cyberbullying.
Cyberbullying
Cyberbullying techniques use modern communication
technology to send derogatory or threatening messages di-
rectly to the victim or indirectly to others, to forward personal
and confidential communication or images of the victim for
others to see, and to publicly post denigrating messages.7,33,34
The two main electronic devices through which bullying from
a distance occurs are online computers, providing access to
e-mail and Web sites, and mobile phones, including calls and
Short Message Service (SMS).
The emerging literature on research with children and
adolescents indicates that cyberbullying is a serious and es-
calating concern at a global level.10,33–36 Cases have also
emerged of bullying at work via e-mail.16,37 While cyberbul-
lying in school and at work has become a recent topic in the
media,39 research into workplace cyberbullying is still in
progress.
Research aims
The primary aim of this exploratory study was to ascertain
the prevalence of face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying in
the manufacturing workplace. In addition, organizational
size (small, medium, large), type of organization (private or
public sector), and hierarchical job status (worker or super-
visor) were investigated to ascertain whether there were any
differences in types of negative acts used to bully. Both a
behavioral inventory and a self-report measure of workplace
bullying were used.
Methodology
Participants
Participants were male employees belonging to the Aus-
tralian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), Queens-
land, Australia. A total of 145 questionnaires were returned,
of which 84 (57.9%) were from the mail-out and 61 (42.1%)
were from the online survey, an overall response rate of 7.3%.
However, 42 (29%) of these respondents were excluded from
the analysis on the basis of missing data. The total sample for
analysis consisted of 103 individuals, of whom 63.1% were
recruited via mail-out and 36.9% via e-mail.
The average age for the sample was 43.2 (SD¼9.81),
ranging from 20 to 60 years. All respondents were employed
on a full-time basis. Two respondents did not indicate the
type of organization for which they worked. Table 1 presents
the main characteristics of the respondents included in the
sample.
Although there was a significant difference in age between
the sample obtained from mail-out and the online survey
(t¼2.55, df¼101, p¼0.012), with the Internet responders
being younger, on average, than the mail responders, there
were no significant differences in regard to size of orga-
nization (w2¼1.03, df¼2, p¼0.599), employment sector
(w2¼0.43, df¼1, p¼0.510), or hierarchical status at work
(w2¼0.07, df¼1, p¼0.797). It was therefore decided to com-
bine the data of the two groups.
Procedure
Participants were randomly selected by computer from the
AMWU Queensland members’ register comprising of ap-
proximately 13,000 individuals from within four divisions
( Metal & Engineering; Technical, Supervisory and Adminis-
trative (TSA); Printing; and Vehicle). Initially, a paper version
of the questionnaire was posted to the home address of 1,000
participants. Included with the questionnaire was a letter
from the Union endorsing the research, an information sheet
informing voluntary participation and confidentiality of re-
sponses, and a self-addressed stamped envelope to facilitate
the return of the questionnaire. Due to a low response rate,
another 1000 members, selected on the basis of having an
e-mail address on the AMWU Queensland member’s register,
were e-mailed. The e-mail contained the hyperlink to an on-
line version of the survey, an electronic version of the Union-
endorsed letter, and the information sheet.
Measure of workplace bullying
The Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R)1 com-
prises 22 items referring to particular behaviors in the
workplace that may be perceived as bullying as well as a self-
report item on victimization. The behaviors or negative acts
are descriptive without labeling the actions as bullying. The
behaviors include being shouted at, being humiliated, having
opinions ignored, being excluded, repeated reminders of er-
rors, intimidating behavior, excessive monitoring of work,
and persistent criticism of work and effort. The researchers
modified the NAQ-R to also incorporate cyberbullying mo-
dalities of e-mail, SMS, and mobile or landline telephone calls
in addition to the original face-to-face modality.
Table 1. Main Characteristics of the Respondents Included in the Sample (N¼103)
Job tenure (%) Organizational size (number of employees) Sector (%) Hierarchical status1 (%)*
< 5 yrs > 5 yrs Small Medium Large Private Public Worker Supervisory
43.69 56.31 < 101 101–500 > 500 58.25 39.81 62.14 37.86
*The last two categories were aggregated to form one supervisory role category for the purposes of analysis.
396 PRIVITERA AND CAMPBELL
Participants were asked to complete a 5-point Likert scale
on how often they had been subjected to these behaviors
over the last 6 months: 1, never; 2, now and then; 3, monthly;
4, weekly; and 5, daily. To estimate the frequency of exposure
to both face-to-face and cyberbullying, Leymann’s8 opera-
tional definition of workplace bullying of one incident per
week over a period of at least 6 months was employed.
In addition to indicating the frequency of any negative act
experienced in the workplace face to face, by e-mail, by SMS,
and=or by phone over the previous 6 months, respondents
were asked to report if they had been bullied, according to the
following definition of workplace bullying, modified from
the NAQ-R, to include both face-to-face bullying and cyber-
bullying:
We define bullying as: a situation where one or several indi-
viduals persistently over a period of time perceive themselves
to be on the receiving end of negative actions (whether in
person, by email, by SMS and=or by phone), from one or
several persons, in a situation where the target of bullying has
difficulty in defending him or herself against these actions. We
will not refer to a one-off incident as bullying.
Participants indicated, according to this definition, if they
had been subjected to bullying over the past 6 months. The six
possible responses were (a) no; (b) yes, very rarely; (c) yes, now
and then; (d) yes, several times per month; (e) yes, several times per
week; and (f ) yes, almost daily.
In this study, the internal consistency of the NAQ-R, as
measured by Cronbach’s a, was found to be 0.94 overall.
Results
Perceived exposure to negative behaviors
in the workplace
Of the 103 respondents, 89.3% (n¼92) reported experi-
encing at least one negative act either face-to-face or by
e-mail, SMS, or telephone on at least a ‘‘now-and-then’’ basis
over the previous 6 months. Of these respondents, 5.8%
(n¼6) reported experiencing a single type of negative act,
while 83.5% (n¼86) reported two or more types of nega-
tive acts. On average, participants reported exposure to
8.9 (SD¼6.6) different types of negative acts on an now-
and-then or more frequent basis. The incidence of negative
acts on a now-and-then basis via modern technology was
8.7% (n¼9) by e-mail, 8.7% (n¼9) by SMS, and 34% (n¼35)
by telephone.
In accordance with Leymann’s8 criterion of bullying, 34%
(n¼35) of all respondents could be classified as victims of
bullying behavior because they reported experiencing at least
one negative behavior on at least a weekly basis in the last
6 months. Furthermore, 25.2% (n¼26) of these respondents
reported weekly exposure to multiple negative acts. Of all the
respondents who experienced negatives acts via modern
technology (10.7% [n¼11]), 7 participants were from the
online survey sample and 4 were from the mail-out sample.
All respondents who perceived themselves as having been
exposed to negative behaviors via modern technology also
perceived that they were exposed to face-to-face victimiza-
tion. This consisted of 8.7% (n¼9) by e-mail, 7.8% (n¼8) by
telephone, and 5.8% (n¼6) by both e-mail and telephone. No
respondents had experienced at least one negative act on a
weekly basis by SMS.
Bullying and type of negative acts
Table 2 presents the prevalence of perceived exposure to
negative acts, bullying, and victimization for each negative
act as per Leymann’s8 operational definition.
Using Leymann’s8 operational definition of workplace
bullying of one negative behavior on at least a weekly
basis in the last 6 months, all 22 acts were reported by one
or more respondents, who could identify then as victims of
Table 2. Prevalence of Perceived Exposure to Negative Acts, Bullying, and Victimization
for Each Negative Act as per Leymann’s (1996) Operational Definition
Negative act Face-to-face (N¼35) Via modern technology (N¼11)
Ordered to do work below your level of competence. 17 (48.6%) 4 (36.4%)
Information withheld affecting your performance. 14 (40.0%) 6 (54.5%)
Opinions and views ignored. 14 (40.0%) 2 (18.2%)
Being ignored, excluded, or being ‘‘sent to Coventry.’’ 11 (31.4%) 2 (18.2%)
Key areas of responsibility removed. 10 (28.6%) 2 (18.2%)
Excessive monitoring of your work. 10 (28.6%) 2 (18.2%)
Insulting=offensive remarks. 10 (28.6%) 1 (9.1%)
Exposed to an unmanageable workload. 9 (25.7%) 3 (27.3%)
Given tasks with unreasonable targets=deadlines. 9 (25.7%) 1 (9.1%)
Spreading of gossip and rumors about you. 8 (22.9%) 3 (27.3%)
Humiliated=ridiculed in connection with your work. 6 (17.1%) 1 (9.1%)
Being shouted at=the target of anger or rage. 6 (17.1%) 1 (9.1%)
Ignored=facing a hostile reaction when you approach. 6 (17.1%) 0
Persistent criticism of your work and effort. 6 (17.1%) 0
Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes. 5 (14.3%) 1 (9.1%)
Pressure not to claim your entitlements. 5 (14.3%) 1 (9.1%)
Intimidating behavior. 5 (14.3%) 0
Allegations made against you. 4 (11.4%) 3 (27.3%)
Hints=signals from others to quit your job. 3 (8.6%) 1 (9.1%)
Practical jokes from people you don’t get on with. 3 (8.6%) 0
Threats of violence or physical abuse. 2 (5.7%) 0
Excessive teasing and sarcasm. 1 (2.9%) 0
CYBERBULLYING IN THE WORKPLACE 397
face-to-face bullying. However, only 16 of the 22 items
presented in the NAQ-R were reported by victims of cyber-
bullying.
The most frequently reported negative act via modern
technology was ‘‘someone withholding information’’ by
e-mail 55.6% (n¼5) and=or by telephone 37.5% (n¼3) (this
included 2 respondents reporting both methods). The
spreading of gossip by telephone was reported by 37.5%
(n¼3) of respondents cyberbullied. Being subjected to alle-
gations made against them by e-mail and being exposed to an
unmanageable workload by e-mail were each reported by an
equal number of cyberbullied respondents, 37.5% (n¼3). As
mentioned earlier, no respondents indicated experiencing
cyberbullying by SMS as per Leymann’s criteria.
Bullying and organizational demographics
To analyze whether the size (small, medium, or large), type
of organization (public or private), and hierarchical status of
the employee (worker or supervisory role) impacted bullying
(bullied or not bullied), Chi-square tests were applied. There
were no significant relationships found between the size or
type of organization and being a victim of workplace bully-
ing: w2¼0.688, df¼2, p¼0.709 and w2¼1.413, df¼1, p¼0.234
respectively. This suggests that there exists an equal chance of
being bullied regardless of whether respondents were em-
ployed in small, medium, or large organizations or within the
private or public sectors. Similarly, there were no statistically
significant relationships found between the employees’ hier-
archical status in the organization and the reporting of face-
to-face bullying (w2¼1.946, df¼1, p¼0.163). Therefore, those
in supervisory roles as general workers were as likely to re-
port perceived exposure to face-to-face bullying.
Due to the small sample size, it was not possible to sta-
tistically test whether an association existed for the same
variables and cyberbullying.
Comparing reported perceived negative acts
and self-reported bullying
After indicating the frequency of negative acts experienced
in the workplace on the behavior inventory section of the
NAQ-R, respondents were asked to report, according to the
given definition, if they considered themselves to have been
subjected to face-to-face bullying and=or cyberbullying. The
frequency of respondents reporting experiencing victimiza-
tion in the workplace in the total sample is shown in Table 3.
By combining the frequencies in the ‘‘Yes, several times per
week’’ with the ‘‘Yes, almost daily’’ categories, 18.7% (6) re-
spondents could be classified as victims of workplace bully-
ing according to Leymann’s8 criteria.
Of the 35 respondents who reported being subjected to
negative acts on a daily or weekly basis on the behavior
inventory section of the NAQ-R, only 17.1% (n¼6) self-
reported being subjected to victimization according to the
given definition. However, all of the respondents who self-
reported experiencing victimization also indicated via the
NAQ-R that they had experienced bullying. Therefore, all
respondents who identified themselves as being victimized fit
Leymann’s8 criteria used in the operational definition.
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to ascertain the preva-
lence of face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying in the man-
ufacturing workplace. The results suggest that negative acts
via technology are emerging alongside those enacted face-to-
face in the workplace and may represent the new form of
bullying, though to a much more limited extent.
Overall, the results revealed that one third of the respon-
dents reported being recipients of at least one negative act
weekly over the previous 6 months. Using Leymann’s8 op-
erational definition of workplace bullying, these respondents
could be considered to have experienced workplace bullying.
A quarter of these respondents reported having experienced
more than one negative act toward them weekly with the
average number of negative acts experienced weekly being
nearly nine. Furthermore, the majority of respondents re-
ported experiencing some form of negative act on a now-and-
then basis over the same period.
All 34% of victims of workplace bullying had been sub-
jected to face-to-face bullying. Nearly one third of these re-
spondents also experienced negative acts via modern
technologies, by e-mail, telephone, or both, on at least a
weekly basis. This represented 1 in 10 of all respondents,
suggesting that when applying Leymann’s8 operational def-
inition of workplace bullying, 11% of all respondents could be
considered to have experienced some form of cyberbullying.
This figure increased to over half of all respondents when the
criteria for cyberbullying were relaxed to include respondents
who were subjected to a negative act on a now-and-then
basis. Every respondent who reported negative acts by e-mail
had been subjected to cyberbullying as per Leymann’s criteria
of workplace bullying. The negative acts reported by SMS
were not experienced frequently enough to fit Leymann’s
criteria of workplace bullying. It is interesting to note that at
this time, victims who were considered to have experienced
cyberbullying were also bullied face-to-face, contrary to re-
cent preliminary findings with children who reported expe-
riencing cyberbullying without face-to-face bullying.37
There were no significant differences found when the
prevalence of face-to-face bullying was compared across
several organizational types. This demonstrated an equal risk
of exposure to face-to-face bullying regardless of the size
and type of organization and the hierarchical status held
within the workplace by the respondent. Because cyberbul-
lying could not be statistically analyzed in this sample, it was
Table 3. Frequency of Respondents’ Self-Reporting Having Experienced Bullying in the Workplace
No
Yes, very
rarely
Yes, now and
then
Yes, several
times per month
Yes, several times
per week
Yes, almost
daily Total bullied
N 71 12 10 4 5 1 32
% 68.9% 37.5 31.3% 12.5% 15.6% 3.1% 31.1%
398 PRIVITERA AND CAMPBELL
not possible to determine whether this held true for cyber-
bullying.
The self-report question on the NAQ-R asking participants
to respond to the given definition of bullying provides an
opportunity to capture respondents who identify themselves
as victims of workplace bullying even though they were
not identified as such due to the limits of the operational
definition in the behavior inventory section of the NAQ-R.
Nonetheless, all respondents who self-reported as victims of
workplace bullying were also identified in the behavioral
inventory. Of the 35 workers who reported being subjected to
negative acts on a daily or weekly basis, 29 did not self-report
as victims of bullying.
The higher prevalence rates found using the behavioral
inventory compared with the self-report of being a victim of
workplace bullying confirms the findings of previous stud-
ies.12 This disparity may be explained by factors relating to
culture. Shopfloor culture, especially in male-dominated or-
ganizations, may impact on self-reporting of workplace bul-
lying if negative behaviors are accepted as the norm.38
Awareness that negative acts may constitute bullying be-
haviors may therefore be low among respondents who were
subjected to negative acts, and=or men may be reticent to
label themselves as victims. This may be due to male ste-
reotypes within the wider culture.
This exploratory study was limited by several factors. The
sample size was small with a response rate of only 7.3%, and
it was Queensland based, which prevents the findings being
generalized to the overall experience of members of the
AMWU or extended to include all employees working in
manufacturing as a whole. Additionally, only males partici-
pated, which also limits these results. It is also possible that
individuals who had experienced negative acts in the work-
place may have been more motivated to respond and were
subsequently overrepresented.
In addition, the survey did not include information about
the respondents’ levels of access to e-mail or to fixed-line or
mobile telephones. Workers in manufacturing may not have
continual access to modern technologies, which may have
impacted on the frequency of cyberbullying. Subsequently, it
could not be verified that every respondent was at equal risk
of exposure to cyberbullying or whether cyberbullying by
telephone was on a fixed-line telephone or a mobile tele-
phone. It remains for future research to undertake further
study with a different population. Another limitation could
be that some negative acts are easier to imagine happening
face-to-face than by technology.
There are significant benefits, however, in incorporating
online surveys into future research on workplace cyberbul-
lying, such as the potential to improve response rates, elimi-
nate missing data, minimize human data-input error, and
maximize cost effectiveness.
Conclusion
The present study contributes to the literature of workplace
bullying through the exploration of prevalence rates of both
face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying in the workplace,
particularly in the manufacturing sector in Queensland,
Australia. The results suggest that the ICT revolution has
the potential to change the face of bullying, which now in-
cludes victims being subjected to negative behaviors via
modern communication technologies such as e-mail and
telephones.
As many countries impose a duty of care to protect the
health, safety, and welfare of employees, organizational
management need to be aware that cyberbullying exists in the
workplace. Codes of practice need to be updated to ensure
that workplaces implement policies and procedures to ad-
dress this issue. Future research into this relatively new field
of study, cyberbullying, is essential in order to further un-
derstand the extent of the phenomenon and impact on em-
ployees, organizations, and society, as well as to establish
preventative measures for cyberbullying in the workplace.
Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References
1. Einarsen S, Hoel H. The Negative Acts Questionnaire: de-
velopment, validation and revision of a measure of bullying
at work. Paper presented at the 10th European Congress on
Work and Organizational Psychology, Prague, Czech Re-
public, May 2001.
2. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2007) The world fact
book. www.cia.gov=cia=publications=factbook=geos=as.html#
Comm (accessed April 10, 2007).
3. Keith S, Martin M. Cyberbullying: creating a culture of re-
spect in a cyberworld. Reclaiming Children & Youth 2005;
13:224–8.
4. Hinduja S, Patchin J. (2007) Cyberbullying. www.cyber
bullying.us (accessed February 16, 2007).
5. Barron O. (2003) Workplace violence and bullying: your rights,
what to do and where to go for help. Melbourne, Australia:
Jobwatch & WorkSafe Victoria.
6. Zapf D, Einarsen S. Bullying in the workplace: recent trends
in research and practice—an introduction. European Journal
of Work & Organizational Psychology 2001; 10: 369–73.
7. Belsey B. (n.d.) Cyberbullying: an emerging threat to the
‘‘always on’’ generation. www.cyberbullying.ca (accessed
March 10, 2007).
8. Leymann H. The content and development of mobbing at
work. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psy-
chology 1996; 5:165–84.
9. Einarsen S, Skogstad A. Bullying at work: epidemiologi-
cal findings in public and private organisations. European
Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology 1996; 5:185–
201.
10. Hinduja S, Patchin J. (2005) Cyberbullying: factsheet.
www.cyberbullying.us (accessed February 16, 2007).
11. Einarsen S. Harassment and bullying at work: a review of
the Scandinavian approach. Aggression & Violent Behaviour
2000; 5:379–401.
12. Mikkelsen E, Einarsen S. Bullying in Danish work-life:
prevalence and health correlates. European Journal of Work
& Organizational Psychology 2001; 10:393–43.
13. Beyond Bullying Association (BBA). (n.d.) Bullying facts &
figures. www.connectqld.org.au=asp=index.asp?pgid¼19973
(accessed June 9, 2007).
14. Hoel H, Cooper C, Faragher B. The experience of bullying in
Great Britain: the impact of organizational status. European
Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology 2001; 10:443–
65.
15. Hoel H, Faragher B, Cooper C. Bullying is detrimental to
health, but all bullying behaviours are not necessarily
CYBERBULLYING IN THE WORKPLACE 399
equally damaging. British Journal of Guidance & Counsel-
ling 2004; 32:367–87.
16. Kieseker R, Marchant T. Workplace bullying in Australia: a
review of current conceptualisations and existing research.
Australian Journal of Management & Organisational Beha-
viour 1999; 2:61–75.
17. Leymann H, Gustafsson A. Mobbing at work and the de-
velopment of post-traumatic stress disorders. European
Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology 1996; 5:251–
75.
18. Sheehan M. (1998) Restructuring—rhetoric versus reality. In
McCarthy P, Sheehan M, Wilkie S, et al, eds. Bullying—
causes, costs and cures. Nathan, Australia: Beyond Bullying
Association, pp. 153–66.
19. Adams A (1992) Bullying at work: how to confront it and
overcome it. London: Virago Press.
20. Bennett E. Commentary II. Journal of Community & Ap-
plied Social Psychology 1997; 7:245–7.
21. Richards H, Freeman S. (2002) Bullying in the workplace: an
occupational hazard. Pymble, Australia: Harper Collins.
22. Thomson C. (1997) Workplace bullying project. Adelaide,
South Australia: Working Women’s Centre.
23. Hoel H, Cooper C. (2000) Destructive conflict and bullying
at work. Unpublished report. University of Manchester, Ins-
titute of Science & Technology. www.csren.gov.uk=UMIST
reporttHelgelHoel1 (accessed December 19, 2005).
24. Björkqvist K, Osterman K, Hjelt-Bäck M. Aggression
among university employees. Aggressive Behavior 1994; 20:
173–84.
25. Lewis SE, Orford J. Women’s experiences of adult workplace
bullying: a process model of changes in social relationships.
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 2005;
15:29–47.
26. Vartia M. Consequences of workplace bullying with respect
to the well-being of its targets and the observers of bullying.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 2001;
27:63–9.
27. Gandolfo R. MMPI-2 profiles of worker’s compensation
claimants who present with complaints of harassment.
Journal of Clinical Psychology 1995; 51:711–5.
28. Quine L. Workplace bullying in NHS community trust: staff
questionnaire survey. British Medical Journal 1999; 318:
228–32.
29. Niedl K. Mobbing and well-being: economic and personnel
development implications. European Journal of Work &
Organizational Psychology 1996; 5:239–50.
30. Kivimäki M, Elovainio M, Vahtera J. Workplace bullying
and sickness absence in hospital staff. Occupational & En-
vironmental Medicine 2000; 57:656–60.
31. O’Moore M, Seigne E, McGuire L, et al. Victims of bullying
at work in Ireland. Journal of Occupational Health & Safety,
Australia & New Zealand 1998; 14:569–74.
32. The State of Queensland Department of Employment,
Training & Industrial Relations (DETIR). (2004) Prevention
of workplace harassment code of practice. www.detir
.qld.gov.au=hs=legisl=whsact=d7056r03 (accessed De-
cember 19, 2005).
33. Bamford A. (2004) Cyberbullying. AHISA Pastoral Care
National Conference. Melbourne, Australia. www.coc.edu
.au=site=_documents=ahisaconferencebamfordcyberbullying
.Pdf (accessed September 22, 2005).
34. Campbell MA. Cyber bullying: an old problem in a new
guise? Australian Journal of Guidance & Counseling 2005;
15:68–76.
35. Dyrli OE. (2005) Cyberbullying: online bullying affects every
school district. The Online Edge. www.districtadministration
.com (accessed September 22, 2005).
36. Covell K. (2005) Violence against children in North America.
North American Regional Consultation for the United
Nations Secretary-General’s Study on Violence. Toronto,
Canada: UNICEF.
37. Joseph R. (1998) Electronic mail and petty tyranny. In
McCarthy P, Sheehan M, Wilkie W, et al. eds. Bullying:
causes, costs and cures. Nathan, Australia: Beyond Bullying
Association, pp. 115–31.
38. Salin D. Prevalence and forms of bullying among business
professionals: a comparison of two different strategies for
measuring bullying. European Journal of Work & Organi-
zational Psychology 2001; 10:425–41.
39. Meadows B, Bergal J, Helling S, et al. The Web: the bully’s
new playground. People 2005; 63:152.
Address correspondence to:
Dr. Marilyn Anne Campbell
School of Learning and Professional Studies
Queensland University of Technology
Kelvin Grove
Brisbane, Queensland 4059
Australia
E-mail: ma.campbell@qut.edu.au
400 PRIVITERA AND CAMPBELL
