Nikola Djurkovic and Darcy McCormack

73 Nikola Djurkovic and Darcy McCormack

School of Business, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia, and

Received June 2005

Gian Casimir

Revised October 2005 Accepted October 2005

Newcastle Graduate School of Business, University of Newcastle,

Callaghan, Australia

Abstract Purpose – To examine the role of neuroticism in the psychosomatic model of workplace bullying. Design/methodology/approach – A survey approach was used in this research. Partial Least

Squares analyses on data from 127 participants were used to determine whether the effects of bullying on negative affect are independent of, or are moderated by, neuroticism.

Findings – Revealed that neuroticism does not moderate the relationship between bullying and negative affect. Bullying and neuroticism were found to act independently on negative affect. The results supported the psychosomatic model of bullying.

Research limitations/implications – Limitations are the nature of the sample, the use of self-report and cross-sectional data. Future research could use a larger sample, include multi-rater data, and a longitudinal research design.

Practical implications – Dealing effectively with bullying is a concern for individuals and organizations. The findings highlight the need for anti-bullying policies. Management need to be trained in the prevention of bullying and in how to deal effectively with bullying. Victims should not

be held accountable for the psychosomatic effects of bullying, the onus remains on managers and employers to prevent bullying from occurring.

Originality/value – This paper extends the psychosomatic model of workplace bullying by examining the role of neuroticism. The findings have both theoretical implications for researchers in increasing understanding of the psychosomatic model of bullying, and practical implications for managers in organizations in terms of developing strategies for countering workplace bullying and its effects.

Keywords Bullying, Workplace, Employee behaviour, Stress Paper type Research paper

Introduction The psychosomatic model of bullying states that bullying leads to negative affect which, in turn, leads to physical symptoms. Although some characteristics of victims have been examined with respect to the psychosomatic model of bullying (e.g. self-efficacy: Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2002), the role that neuroticism plays has not been examined. This is surprising because neurotic victims would arguably suffer more from bullying than would emotionally stable victims. The notion that Journal of Managerial Psychology Vol. 21 No. 1, 2006 neuroticism should be included in the psychosomatic model is supported by research

pp. 73-88

showing neuroticism has strong positive correlations with anxiety, depression, and q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0268-3946 medically unexplained physical symptoms (e.g. De Gucht et al., 2004; Hendryx et al.,

DOI 10.1108/02683940610643224

JMP

1991). The central research question of this paper is therefore whether the effects of

bullying on negative affect are independent of, or are moderated by, neuroticism. There have been several definitions of workplace bullying provided in the literature. Einarsen et al. (2003) defined workplace bullying as behaviors that adversely affect the work of the victim. These behaviors include harassing, offending, or socially excluding the victim. In order for such behaviors to be classified as bullying, they need to occur

74 continually (e.g. daily or weekly) and over an extended period of time (e.g. six months).

Although it is difficult to provide an exhaustive list of bullying behaviors (Rayner and Hoel, 1997), there are several taxonomies of direct and indirect behaviors that can

be regarded as bullying (e.g. Einarsen and Raknes, 1997; Leymann, 1990; Rayner and Hoel, 1997; Zapf et al., 1996). Rayner and Hoel (1997) developed a five-category taxonomy of workplace bullying behaviors that incorporated the major themes of the other taxonomies. The five categories, based predominantly on a review of the English-language bullying literature, are:

(1) destabilization (e.g. assigning meaningless tasks or repeatedly reminding the

victim of his/her mistakes); (2) isolation (e.g. preventing access to training or deliberately withholding

important work-related information); (3) overwork (e.g. setting impossible deadlines or disrupting the victim

unnecessarily); (4) threat to personal standing (e.g. insulting or teasing the victim); and (5) threat to professional status (e.g. publicly humiliating or accusing the victim of

lack of effort). Various factors render a workplace conducive to the occurrence of bullying. For

instance, competition and economic rationalism increase workplace pressures and encourage the use of a hard management style that can inadvertently lead to the use of intimidation and undue criticism of employees (McAvoy and Murtagh, 2003; McCarthy, 1996; Sheehan, 1996). The victim’s perspective is critical, however, in determining whether a behavior is inappropriate (Hoel et al., 1999; Liefooghe and Mackenzie Davey, 2003). Furthermore, contextual factors influence perceptions of behaviors in that in some contexts a specific behavior may be acceptable whereas in another context it would be unacceptable. For example, shouting orders at a subordinate is more likely to be considered acceptable within a paramilitary environment than in an office environment (Archer, 1999).

The psychological and physiological effects of workplace bullying Prolonged stress at work is associated with psychological disorders such as anxiety and depression (Weinberg and Creed, 2000). Stress contributes to the development of disease because it disrupts the body’s equilibrium. There is strong evidence that negative psychological states are morbific. For example, there is a high degree of comorbidity between anxiety and medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) (De Gucht et al., 2004; Fink, 1995; Simon and Von Korff, 1991). Furthermore, prolonged stress leads to chronic cardiovascular overactivity, which is an aetiological factor for cardiovascular disease and hypertension (McEwen, 1998).

Workplace bullying has been shown to cause various psychological and physical

Workplace

symptoms (e.g. Fox and Stallworth, 2005; Hoel et al., 2004). The psychological

bullying

symptoms include generalized stress, anxiety, depression and difficulty concentrating (Leymann and Gustafsson, 1996; Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2002; Vartia, 2001). The physical symptoms include sleep disruption, stomach disorders, headaches, body ache, exhaustion, and rapid heart rate (O’Moore et al., 1998; Vartia, 2001). Workplace bullying is thus an aetiological factor for many mental health problems and can render

victims susceptible to serious physical conditions such as cardiovascular disease (Kivimaki et al., 2003).

The psychosomatic model of workplace bullying According to the psychosomatic hypothesis (Watson and Pennebaker, 1989), negative affect causes physical health problems. It seems plausible that victims of workplace bullying would suffer psychological distress and consequently suffer physical symptoms. For example, anxiety arising from threats made at the workplace could, over time, lead to stomach disorders. There is evidence supporting the psychosomatic hypothesis in that negative affect has been shown to predict physical health (e.g. De Gucht et al., 2004; Dua, 1994).

Negative affect primarily reflects negative emotionality such as anger, anxiety, distress, guilt, or nervousness (Watson and Clark, 1984). Trait negative affect is a mood disposition and is thus relatively stable whereas state negative affect is situationally dependent and is thus more variable than trait negative affect (Watson and Pennebaker, 1989). Individuals with high trait negative affect tend to be distressed and view themselves and others negatively (Watson et al., 1988). There is a high degree of comorbidity between negative psychological states (e.g. anxiety and depression) and the presentation of MUS (Fink, 1995; Simon and Von Korff, 1991).

The psychosomatic hypothesis has been applied recently to workplace bullying and is included in the psychosomatic model of bullying. This model is shown in Figure 1 and states that the effects of bullying lead to negative affect which then leads to physical symptoms. There is evidence supporting the psychosomatic model of bullying in that exposure to bullying correlated strongly with negative affect while negative affect partially mediated the relationship between bullying and somatic complaints (Djurkovic et al., 2004; Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2002).

According to the psychosomatic model, negative emotions render one susceptible to physical symptoms. People experience negative emotions when they encounter behaviors and/or outcomes that fail to meet their preferences or expectations. In other words, negative cognitive states cause negative emotions due to a type of cognitive dissonance between external events and personal ideals.

There is considerable evidence to support the psychosomatic model of bullying. In a sample of Danish manufacturing employees (Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2002) and in a sample of employed Australian university students (Djurkovic et al., 2004), the effects of bullying on health complaints were mediated by state negative affect.

Neuroticism Many of the consequences of bullying, such as ill health, are associated strongly with the victim’s own evaluation of the situation (Salin, 2003), which would undoubtedly be influenced by personal factors such as neuroticism. It is therefore pertinent to

JMP 21,1

Figure 1. Neuroticism and the psychosomatic model of bullying

investigate individual mediator and moderator variables when examining differences in the reported stress following exposure to workplace bullying (Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2002).

Neuroticism pertains specifically to a tendency to experience negative mood states (Bolger and Zuckerman, 1995; Suls et al., 1998) and has been defined as a tendency to experience distressing emotions (Costa and McCrae, 1980). Neuroticism has been linked to many maladaptive outcomes, including psychological distress (Suls et al., 1998) and increased susceptibility to anxiety and depression (Clark et al., 1994).

Neuroticism needs to be included in the psychosomatic model of bullying because it predisposes individuals to negative affect (Meyer and Shack, 1989; Watson and Clark, 1984). Furthermore, this contention is supported by findings that have shown the effects of neuroticism on MUS are mediated by negative affect (De Gucht et al., 2004). Given that neuroticism influences both negative affect and physical symptoms, neuroticism could provide a supplementary explanation for the psychosomatic effects of bullying. Consequently, when considering the psychosomatic model of bullying, it is important to include neuroticism.

Independence or moderation? As mentioned earlier, the major objective of this study is to examine whether the

effects of bullying on negative affect are independent of, or are moderated by, neuroticism. It is important to compare these alternative propositions on the role of neuroticism in the psychosomatic model of bullying for not only theoretical reasons but also the practical implications for countering this insidious phenomenon. The proposition that bullying and neuroticism act independently on negative affect assumes that bullying increases negative affect regardless of the victim’s level of neuroticism. In other words, although neuroticism predisposes victims to experience negative affect, being exposed to bullying increases their negative affect. That is, effects of bullying on negative affect are independent of, or are moderated by, neuroticism. It is important to compare these alternative propositions on the role of neuroticism in the psychosomatic model of bullying for not only theoretical reasons but also the practical implications for countering this insidious phenomenon. The proposition that bullying and neuroticism act independently on negative affect assumes that bullying increases negative affect regardless of the victim’s level of neuroticism. In other words, although neuroticism predisposes victims to experience negative affect, being exposed to bullying increases their negative affect. That is,

Workplace

hypothesis is therefore proposed:

bullying

H1. Neuroticism and bullying will each contribute a significant proportion of unique explained variance with respect to negative affect.

The proposition that neuroticism moderates the relationship between bullying and negative affect assumes the effects of bullying on negative affect depend on the

victim’s personality. There is evidence that the ability to tolerate negative stimuli depends on personality. For instance, neuroticism is associated negatively with stress tolerance (Dornick and Ekehammar, 1990). Furthermore, compared to individuals with low levels of neuroticism, those with high levels of neuroticism are more sensitive to experimentally induced feelings of disgust, as evidenced by their inability to return to their baseline levels of secretory immunoglobulin A (Hennig et al., 1996). Individuals with high neuroticism are less emotionally resilient than those with low neuroticism. Bullying is therefore likely to evoke more negative affect in individuals with high neuroticism than in those with low neuroticism. The following hypothesis is therefore proposed:

H2. The effects of bullying on negative affect will be moderated by neuroticism. Specifically, the relationship between bullying and negative affect will be stronger with higher levels of neuroticism.

Method Participants Data were collected from 127 (71 female, 56 male) Australian university students who on average were 22 years old (s:d: ¼ 6:3 years). To qualify as a participant for this study, a student had to be employed during the 12-months preceding this study. Participants were employed in the retail industry (57 per cent), as laborers (21 per cent), as administrative staff (17 per cent), or in the hospitality industry (5 per cent). The employment status of participants was not recorded. It is reasonable to assume, however, that the vast majority of participants were part-time employees as data were collected during day-time classes, which comprise predominantly students who are enrolled on a full-time basis. These participants are arguably particularly susceptible to being bullied because of their age and their low-ranking roles (Djurkovic et al., 2004).

Materials Workplace bullying was measured using Quine’s (1999) scale. A five-point Likert scale (0 ¼ not at all; 4 ¼ frequently, if not always) was used instead of the original dichotomous response format because the Likert format is appropriate for parametric analyses. Quine (1999) developed a workplace bullying scale, based on Rayner and Hoel’s (1997) five-category taxonomy. The reliability and validity of this scale have

been demonstrated (e.g. Quine, 1999; Quine, 2001). The items used are presented in Table I.

Respondents were asked about the psychological and physiological symptoms they had suffered as a result of being bullied at work. These symptoms were classified respectively as negative affect and physical symptoms. Quine’s (1999) questionnaire for symptoms attributed to being bullied was used as it contains both psychological and physiological symptoms. Psychological symptoms (i.e. negative affect) were