Articles Review

angelavjdv

Week14.Towardsamulti-fociapproachtoworkplaceaggressionAmeta-analytic.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Articles Review

Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators

M. SANDY HERSHCOVIS 1* AND JULIAN BARLING

1 I. H. Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

2 Queen’s School of Business, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Summary Using meta-analysis, we compare three attitudinal outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, affective commitment, and turnover intent), three behavioral outcomes (i.e., interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and work performance), and four health-related outcomes (i.e., general health, depression, emotional exhaustion, and physical well being) of workplace aggression from three different sources: Supervisors, co-workers, and outsiders. Results from 66 samples show that supervisor aggression has the strongest adverse effects across the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Co-worker aggression had stronger effects than outsider aggression on the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, whereas there was no significant difference between supervisor, co-worker, and outsider aggression for the majority of the health-related outcomes. These results have implications for how workplace aggression is conceptualized and measured, and we propose new research questions that emphasize a multi- foci approach. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

I admit that, before I was bullied, I couldn’t understand why employees would shy-away from doing

anything about it. When it happened to me, I felt trapped. I felt like either no one believed me or no

one cared. This bully was my direct boss and went out of his way to make me look and feel

incompetent. . . I dreaded going to work and cried myself to sleep every night. I was afraid of losing my job because I started to question my abilities and didn’t think I’d find work elsewhere.

(HR professional as posted on a New York Times blog, 2008).

Introduction

Growing awareness of psychological forms of workplace aggression has stimulated research interest in

the consequences of these negative behaviors. Workplace aggression is defined as negative acts that are

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 24–44 (2010)

Published online 22 May 2009 in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.621

* Correspondence to: M. Sandy Hershcovis, I. H. Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] y An earlier version of this study was presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu, HI.

Received 28 April 2008 Revised 17 March 2009 Accepted 4 April 2009

perpetrated against an organization or its members and that victims are motivated to avoid (Neuman &

Baron, 2005; Raver & Barling, 2007). Much of this research (e.g., Barling, 1996; LeBlanc & Kelloway,

2002; Zapf & Einarsen, 2005) has drawn on a stressor–strain model to argue that workplace aggression

is a stressor that negatively relates to a range of outcomes, such as job satisfaction, performance,

commitment, and psychological and physical well being (see Bowling & Beehr, 2006). The present

study takes a multi-foci perspective similar to that adopted in the justice literature (e.g., Rupp &

Cropanzano, 2002; Rupp & Spencer, 2006) by comparing meta-analytically the outcomes of

aggression from three different perpetrators: Supervisors, co-workers, and outsiders (i.e., non-

organizational members).

There are important methodological, theoretical, and practical reasons for comparing aggression

from different perpetrators. From a methodological perspective, many studies examine workplace

aggression without identifying the perpetrator (Frone, 2000), which assumes that aggression does not

differ by perpetrator. This may result in under- or over-estimates of the true effects of workplace

aggression (Hershcovis et al., 2007) because the magnitude of effects from different sources may not be

the same. From a theoretical perspective, this approach is problematic because it could lead researchers

to overlook mediators and outcomes that are specific to a particular perpetrator. For example, as

demonstrated in the opening quote, aggression from a supervisor may result in job insecurity, leading to

job search behaviors and perhaps lower levels of self-efficacy and organizational identification. In

contrast, aggression from outsiders, such as a patient against a nurse, is not likely to elicit fears about

one’s job security. Instead, this form of aggression may lead to personal safety concerns. From a

practical perspective, aggression from a supervisor versus aggression from an outsider requires

different response strategies from the victim and different prevention strategies from the organization.

For example, in the case of aggression from supervisors, organizations might need to develop policies

and programs around leadership selection and training to ensure managers interact appropriately with

employees. In the case of patient aggression, organizations might need to develop safety policies for

dealing with potentially aggressive patients or customers. To assess the need for differential policies

and the ultimate effectiveness of different strategies, one would therefore need to adopt a multi-foci

approach.

To understand whether a multi-foci approach is an appropriate direction for studying workplace

aggression, we conduct a systematic investigation of aggression from different perpetrators to

determine whether outcomes differ in magnitude. We first provide a brief overview of a process model

of work stress, and describe the outcome variables of interest in this study. We then draw on theories of

power and justice to explain why we expect the magnitude of outcomes to differ depending on the

perpetrator. Finally, we compare meta-analytically the outcomes of aggression from three perpetrators

(supervisors, co-workers, outsiders) and discuss the implications of our findings. The advantage of

meta-analysis is that it allows a comparison across studies that have separately examined aggression

from different perpetrators.

Theoretical Background

Researchers have proposed several theoretical frameworks for understanding the effects of workplace

aggression (e.g., Barling, 1996; Keashly & Harvey, 2005; Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008; Zapf &

Einarsen, 2005). The common theme linking these frameworks is the emphasis on stressors, stress,

and strains. Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964) defined a stressor as a characteristic of

the environment that imposes upon the perceptual and cognitive processes of individuals. Stress

DOI: 10.1002/job

AGGRESSION META-ANALYSIS 25

reflects properties of the environment as they are experienced by individuals and represented in their

consciousness, while strain is defined as an individual’s physiological and psychological response to

stress (Eden, 1982). Barling (1996) applied this stressor model to the experience of workplace

aggression, suggesting that exposure to aggression is a workplace stressor that leads to direct

outcomes (stress) such as fear, and subsequently to psychological, physical, and behavioral outcomes

(strain). Keashly and Harvey (2005) later proposed a similar model of emotional abuse in which

abusive behaviors lead to stress experiences, and ultimately to psychological, behavioral, and

physical strains.

The current study draws on this stressor/strain framework to predict the relationship between

workplace aggression and several outcomes: Job satisfaction, affective commitment, intent to turnover,

psychological and physical well being, deviance, and performance. We chose these outcomes for two

reasons. First, prior research (e.g., Bowling & Beehr, 2006) has demonstrated that workplace

aggression is associated with these outcomes. However, that research did not investigate whether the

magnitude of the outcomes varies by perpetrator. Our current aim is to use some of the same outcomes

to investigate whether source of aggression will yield different conclusions than those drawn in prior

research. Second, we chose outcomes that have been examined with sufficient frequency from each

perpetrator to enable a fair comparison. We then investigate whether the magnitude of these outcomes

differs depending on source of aggression. We first outline the key outcome variables of interest in the

present study.

Attitudinal outcomes

Research in the area of work stress has consistently suggested that organizational stressors lead to

adverse job attitudes (e.g., Aquino & Thau, 2009; Barling, Kelloway, & Frone, 2005; Beehr &

Newman, 1978; Bowling & Beehr, 2006; McGrath, 1976; Spector, 1997). In this study, we examine

three attitudinal outcomes: Job satisfaction, affective commitment, and intent to turnover. Job

satisfaction reflects a positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job (Locke, 1976);

affective commitment is a positive feeling of identification with, attachment to, and involvement in the

workplace (Meyer & Allen, 1984); while intent to turnover refers to employees’ plans to leave the

organization. Aggression in any form is likely to affect adversely employees’ feelings about their job:

By definition, the experience of workplace aggression is negative, and may lead employees to

negatively evaluate their position and perceived value within the organization.

Employee well being

As posited by the stressor model, workplace aggression is an event that can cause people to fear for

their well being (Barling, 1996; Barling, Rogers & Kelloway, 2001; LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002).

Employee well being consists of several different components (see Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith,

1999) including affective responses, domain-specific satisfaction, and life satisfaction, all of which

correlate highly (Diener et al., 1999). We separately examine the three most common forms of

psychological well being in the workplace aggression literature: Psychological distress, depression,

and emotional exhaustion. We exclude the broader category of domain satisfaction described by

Diener et al. (1999), and instead focus on one specific facet of domain satisfaction (i.e., job

satisfaction) as a separate outcome variable.

According to the stressor–stress–strain model, psychological strain occurs when a stressor leads to

impaired cognition or effect (Gross, 1970). Workplace aggression could lead to both impaired

DOI: 10.1002/job

26 M. S. HERSHCOVIS AND J. BARLING

cognition and affect, as employees seek to make sense of and react to the aggressive event. Workplace

aggression elicits both fear and anxiety as employees struggle to determine whether it will continue and

how it will affect their position in the organization (Barling et al., 2001; Schat & Kelloway, 2000). As

the level of fear increases, individuals may become increasingly depressed and anxious about the likely

recurrence of aggression. Numerous studies have shown that job stressors are associated with both

psychological and physical strain (e.g., Barling et al., 2005; Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Jex & Beehr,

1991; Kahn & Byosiere, 1992), increased anxiety, hostility, and depression (e.g., LeBlanc & Kelloway,

2002; Schat & Kelloway, 2003), and physical symptoms (Schat & Kelloway, 2005).

Behavioral outcomes

As suggested by Barling (1996), stressors may also affect behavioral outcomes such as performance.

Rotundo and Sackett (2002) argued that performance consists of three broad components: Task

performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and counterproductive or deviant work behaviors.

They found that task performance and deviant work behaviors explained the largest proportion of

variation in overall performance ratings, while organizational citizenship behaviors explained the

smallest (though still significant) proportion of variation. We focus on task performance and

counterproductive work behaviors in the present study because past research on aggression from

different sources has not examined organizational citizenship behaviors with sufficient frequency to

allow its inclusion. 1

Workplace aggression is likely to reduce employee performance for at least two reasons. First, the

stressor model suggests that organizational stressors, such as workplace aggression, may directly affect

the cognitive and emotional resources of employees (Barling, 1996). The depletion of these resources

leaves employees with less emotional and cognitive energy to focus on job performance. Victims of

aggression may ruminate about the experience, or focus their energies on preventing, reducing, or

avoiding continued aggression. Such cognitive activities leave fewer resources available for

performance effectiveness. In addition, perceiving others to be angry, as is likely the case when

someone displays aggression, can also deplete the mental resources of those around the employees,

including the target (Hareli & Rafaeli, 2008; Rafaeli, Derfler, Ravid, & Rozilio, 2007). Research in the

related areas of abusive supervision and workplace injustice supports the proposition that aggression is

associated with lower levels of performance (e.g., Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001;

Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007).

In terms of interpersonal and organizational deviance, a growing body of research has argued that

aggression begets aggression (e.g., Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Conflicts tend to begin with minor

forms of aggression such as a verbal slight, and escalate into a spiral of increasingly intense forms of

aggression (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Baron & Neuman, 1996). Andersson and Pearson suggest that

a variety of factors may contribute to such escalation, including perceptions of interactional injustice by

the target, feelings of negative affect, and desires to reciprocate the aggression. Indeed, considerable

research in the areas of retaliation (e.g., Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), revenge (e.g., Kim, Shapiro,

Aquino, Lim, & Bennett, 2008), aggression (e.g., Greenberg & Barling, 1999), and injustice (e.g.,

Inness, Barling, & Turner, 2005) has shown that targets of a transgression are likely to respond

aggressively.

1 We speculate that the omission of research on organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) is because workplace aggression is a negative behavior that elicits negative responses such as counterproductive work behaviors or deviance. Researchers have not focused as much on a reduction in positive behaviors, such as OCBs.

DOI: 10.1002/job

AGGRESSION META-ANALYSIS 27

Considering a Multi-foci Perspective

Recent research on workplace aggression and deviance (e.g., Hershcovis et al., 2007; Inness, LeBlanc,

& Barling, 2008; Jones, 2009) and the related area of workplace injustice (e.g., Cropanzano, Byrne,

Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001; Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002; Rupp & Spencer, 2006) highlights a need to take a

multi-foci perspective on workplace aggression. We draw on the power and justice literatures to argue

that the adverse attitudinal, behavioral, and health outcomes of workplace aggression will be strongest

when the perpetrator is a supervisor, followed by a co-worker, with the weakest effects resulting from

outsider aggression.

Power

Power is broadly defined as the ability to exert influence over others (Bacharach & Lawler, 1981) and

occurs due to mutual dependence (Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2004). French and Raven (1959)

identified five bases of power that derive from an individual’s formal position (legitimate, coercive, or

reward power), social position (referent power), or expertise (expert power). A growing body of

research (see Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003 for a review) suggests that the interests and actions

of high power individuals are more likely to shape the social environment than the actions and interests

of low power individuals. For instance, Keltner, Van Kleef, Chen, and Kraus (2008) argue that

‘‘[Power] is readily and accurately perceived by group members, and serves as a prioritization device in

dyadic interaction, giving priority to the emotions, goals, and actions of high-power individuals in

shaping interdependent action (p. 186).’’

Due to their formal positions, supervisors have the capacity toinfluenceemployees’attitudesaboutand

behaviors toward the organization (Frone, 2000). Individuals are more likely to attend to the actions of

their more powerful counterparts because those in positions of power can influence their outcomes

(Chartrand & Bargh, 1996). Supervisors’ legitimate positions allow them to control important

organizational resources, including pay allocation, promotions, and work assignment (Rupp &

Cropanzano, 2002). In turn, subordinates expect supervisors, as formal agents of the organization, to treat

them ina respectfulmanner (Rousseau,1990).Further,Keltner etal. (2003) positthat relativelypowerless

individuals have an increased sensitivity to threat or punishment. Therefore, when supervisors mistreat

them, employees’ expectation that they will not come to harm at the hands of the organization or its

representatives isbreached(Rousseau, 1996). Aggressionfrom someonewith formalpowermaysignal to

thevictims that they matter less, and that their position within the company is in jeopardy (Kivimäki et al.,

2005), which may strongly and adversely affect employee attitudes and behaviors. As such, we posit that

aggression from supervisors will have the most detrimental effect on employees.

Co-workers may possess social power to the extent that they are able to affect the presence and

quality of social relationships within the group. A large literature demonstrates that a critical part of an

individual’s sense of self is their need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Social exclusion is

associated with anxiety and depression (Baumeister & Tice, 1990), as well as aggressive tendencies

(Twenge, Baumeister, Tice, & Stucke, 2001). Employees who seek a level of belongingness greater

than what they feel they currently have engage in more interpersonally harmful behaviors (Thau,

Aquino, & Poortvliet, 2007). Social science has long recognized that employees care about their status

(Kivimäki et al., 2005; Lind & Tyler, 1988), and that the manner in which they are treated by their co-

workers is an indication of their status within the group (Aquino, Douglas, & Martinko, 2004; Bies,

1999; Steele, 1988). Experiencing aggression from co-workers may send a signal to victims that they

do not belong to the work group.

DOI: 10.1002/job

28 M. S. HERSHCOVIS AND J. BARLING

Justice

Whileco-workershave the capacitytoinfluenceemployee feelingsofbelongingness,the justice literature

demonstrates that supervisors also have the ability to significantly affect employees’ feelings of

belongingness to their work group. The group value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988) suggests that people

gather socially relevant information from how they are treated by authority figures. For example, if

supervisorsberate orundermineemployees,victimsnotonlyfeelbadaboutthisexperience,theymayalso

interpret it to mean that they are notvalued membersof thework group.Research oninterpersonal justice,

definedasthedegreetowhichemployeesaretreatedwithdignityandrespectbyauthorities(Bies&Moag,

1988), has shown that such injustice is associated with a range of negative outcomes (e.g., Ambrose,

Seabright, & Schminke, 2002; Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999; Colquitt et al., 2001; Skarlicki and

Folger, 1997).Indeed, Hershcovis et al. (2007)foundthat interpersonal mistreatment by supervisors(e.g.,

abusivesupervision,interpersonalinjustice)wasthestrongestcorrelateofsupervisor-targetedaggression.

Wethereforesuggestthatsupervisoraggressionproduceshigherlevelsofstressthanco-workeraggression

because it affects both a target’s potential access to organizational resources and perceptions of

belongingness, whereas aggression from co-workers affects only feelings of belongingness.

In contrast to supervisors and co-workers, organizational outsiders such as clients and members of the

public generally have relatively less influence over an employee’s work experience. Such individuals are

neither agents nor members of the organization; therefore, they do not directly reflect the company’s

treatment of employees, and employees may be less likely to blame the organization for outsider

aggression (LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002). Further, while any negative act is likely to create some level of

stress in victims, aggression from organizational outsiders may produce lower levels of stress because of

the response options available to victims. When employees experience aggression from an outsider, they

may have more latitude to confront the perpetrator (e.g., ask them to lower their voice), or to exit the

relationship (e.g., direct their concerns to a manager, summonsecurity).At worst, the employee need only

endure the negative interaction for the duration of the business transaction, after which the outsider exits

the organization and no longer presents a psychological threat to the employee. Research on emotional

labor has examined employee endurance of customer aggression and injustice (e.g., Grandey, Kern, &

Frone, 2007; Rupp & Spencer, 2006). This literature suggests that employees in many organizations are

required to adhere to ‘‘display rules’’ in which they present a friendly or positive face even in adverse

circumstances. These emotional requirements produce strain in employees resulting in burnout and

emotional exhaustion. However, employees must also engage in emotional labor with respect to

organizational insiders. For example, Grandey et al. (2007) found that aggression from both insiders and

outsiders is associated with emotional labor and subsequent strain. Therefore, we expect aggression from

outsiders to produce strain; however, for the power and justice reasons suggested previously, we

hypothesize that supervisor aggression will have the strongest effect on employees attitudes, behaviors,

and well being, followed by co-worker aggression, and finally outsider aggression.

Nonetheless, we need to elaborate on our prediction that aggression from supervisors will be

associated with higher levels of deviance because the evidence and theory for this prediction is

conflicting. O’Leary-Kelly et al. (1996) argued that workplace aggression would be targeted towards

someone when that individual is identifiable as the source of a transgression. However, there are

potentially significant repercussions for aggressing against a supervisor (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007).

Aquino, Tripp, and Bies (2001) found that victims were less likely to seek revenge against higher status

aggressors, arguing that victims feared counter-retaliation. Further, Hoobler and Brass (2006) found

that employees who experienced abusive supervision displaced their aggression towards family

members.

Despite these findings, meta-analytic evidence shows a strong relationship between supervisor

mistreatment and deviance directed at a supervisor (Hershcovis et al., 2007). One possible explanation

DOI: 10.1002/job

AGGRESSION META-ANALYSIS 29

for these conflicting findings is that higher intensity forms of aggression make the desire for retaliation

harder to suppress. Marcus-Newhall, Pedersen, Carlson, and Miller (2000) found that the higher the

intensity of the initial provocation, the more likely employees were to target aggression towards the

transgressor. Taken together with aforementioned evidence that employees target deviance towards

supervisors, this research suggests that because (1) a supervisor is an identifiable transgressor, and

(2) the transgression is of high intensity, the desire for revenge (Jones, 2009) may overpower the fear of

retaliation.

Further, it is possible to enact aggression in a covert or indirect manner, such that supervisors are

unable to identify the perpetrator or are unable to infer intent on the part of the perpetrator. For instance,

employees may spread rumors or make fun of supervisors without the supervisor knowing.

Alternatively, employees may ‘‘forget’’ to give a supervisor a message or may ‘‘misplace’’ information

needed by the supervisor in an effort to thwart performance, or damage a supervisor’s reputation. To a

supervisor, these activities may not be visible, or identifiable as workplace deviance.

As a result of the mixed theory and findings, our investigation is somewhat exploratory. Given the

aforementioned arguments combined with prior empirical evidence, we make the tentative hypothesis

that victims of aggression from supervisors will engage in stronger interpersonal deviance than victims

of co-worker and outsider aggression. Similarly, we expect victims of aggression from supervisors to

engage in stronger organizational deviance than victims of aggression from co-workers and outsiders,

since the supervisor is a salient agent of the organization. For the same arguments leveled throughout

this paper, we expect the weakest relationship to be between outsider aggression and interpersonal and

organizational deviance.

Method

Prior meta-analyses (e.g., Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007; Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Hershcovis et al.,

2007) have examined comprehensively the predictors and outcomes of workplace aggression.

Therefore, we focus here only on the subset of studies that explicitly measure and separate workplace

aggression from a supervisor, co-worker, or outsider.

Literature search

We used several methods to search for both published and unpublished studies on workplace

aggression. First, we performed an electronic literature search of the PsychINFO and ProQuest

databases up to and including 1 February 2008. Our keyword search terms included variations on:

Aggression, bullying, abusive supervision, incivility, workplace deviance, mobbing, mistreatment,

tyranny, abusive supervision, undermining, interpersonal conflict, and victimization. Second, we

conducted a manual search of the reference list of recent workplace aggression studies to identify any

studies that did not appear in our database search. Third, we examined the conference programs of the

largest English-speaking management (i.e., Academy of Management) conference for 2006 and 2007,

and the largest industrial/organizational psychology (i.e., Society for Industrial and Organizational

Psychology) conference in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Fourth, we contacted published researchers in the

field of workplace aggression to inquire about any unpublished datasets or manuscripts on workplace

aggression. Finally, we sent an email to the Academy of Management’s Organizational Behavior

Division electronic list server asking for details of unpublished papers or unpublished data.

DOI: 10.1002/job

30 M. S. HERSHCOVIS AND J. BARLING

Inclusion criteria

We used the following criteria for including studies in the meta-analysis. First, the data had to focus

on experienced workplace aggression. After eliminating articles that were not related to workplace

aggression (e.g., domestic and child abuse, animal aggression, legal issues), we were left with

207 studies. Second, the articles had to include correlations at the individual level of analysis, or

statistics that could be transformed into such correlations (e.g., ANOVA with two levels). In cases

where the study met the other criteria for inclusion, and this information was not in the published

paper, we contacted the corresponding author to try to obtain the correlation matrix. Studies were

eliminated that did not include appropriate data (e.g., descriptive data, no measure of aggression,

higher level of analysis, inappropriate variables, theory paper, or qualitative data), or for which we

were unable to obtain, after repeated attempts, a correlation matrix from the corresponding author.

Third, to avoid double-counting data, the sample could not have been used in a previous study

unless different variables were measured. In addition to these exclusions, certain studies had

samples that were used in multiple studies but included one or two new variables (e.g., Hoobler &

Tepper, 2001 Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, & Ensley, 2004). Great care was taken to avoid double-

counting and only variables that were not already measured in another study were included. Finally,

we only included studies that explicitly identified the perpetrator within the study design or measure

(see detailed explanation below). The remaining sample consisted of 55 independent studies and

66 samples with a total of 39 supervisor aggression samples, 22 co-worker samples, and 32 samples

of aggression from outsiders. This adds up to more than 66 because several studies measured more

than one source of aggression within the same study (e.g., Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Frone, 2000;

Schat, Desmarais, & Kelloway, 2005). Studies included in the present meta-analysis are represented

by an asterisk in the reference section.

Meta-analytic procedures and analysis

Aggression measures

Given that this study aimed to compare non-violent aggression from supervisors, co-workers, and

outsiders, it was necessary to distinguish among these three sources of aggression. Therefore, only

studies that examined these sources distinctly were included in this study (see Bowling & Beehr,

2006 for a comprehensive meta-analysis of overall aggression). We therefore excluded studies that

combined sources within the measure. For instance, the incivility measure (e.g., Cortina, Magley,

Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Penney & Spector, 2005) asks whether a supervisor or co-worker

engaged in a given act; therefore, it was excluded from the analyses except where the authors

explicitly identified the source (e.g., Perez & Riley, 2006). Similarly, the Negative Acts

Questionnaire (Einarsen & Raknes, 1997) measures aggression from multiple perpetrators. In some

cases, the aggression measure was ambiguous. For example, the Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale

(Spector & Jex, 1998) measures interpersonal arguments and yelling. Given that the respondent may

think of either a supervisor or a co-worker as a referent, these studies were excluded except when the

study authors identified a particular source (e.g., Frone, 2000). In addition to examining the

measures, we also examined the samples to determine whether aggression was coming from an

insider or an outsider. In cases where the perpetrator was ambiguous, the study was excluded. For

example, Keashly, Hunter, and Harvey (1997) measured aggression against individuals employed as

student residence assistants from both residents and their guests; however, they did not separate

aggression from these two perpetrators. While guests may be considered outsiders, employees

serving as resident assistants could be considered insiders due to the ongoing proximity among

residents and resident assistants.

DOI: 10.1002/job

AGGRESSION META-ANALYSIS 31

Correlation analysis

We used the computer program MetaExcel (Steel, 2003), which follows Hunter and Schmidt’s (1990)

meta-analytic procedures, to calculate all meta-analytic results. To correct for attenuation, we coded for

the reliability of both the dependent and independent measure in each study. When the reliability

coefficient (a) was not provided, we followed Hunter and Schmidt’s recommendation to compute a

weighted average reliability from the other studies measuring the variable in question. Second, we

corrected for artificial dichotomization of the independent or dependent variable, as artificial

dichotomization of continuous variables limits the variance in the relationship, thereby understating the

correlation (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). After correcting for these errors, we weighted the corrected

correlation by the population sample size (also corrected for reliability) to compute the weighted

average effect size.

Finally, we also followed Hunter and Schmidt’s (1990) approach for correcting for sampling error,

thereby incorporating a correction for sampling error into the estimation of the population standard error.

The weighted average standard error used to compute all results involves a parceling of the population

standard error between the variance of the observed correlations and the sampling error variance. To

compute the population error variance, the sampling error is subtracted from the observed error.

Comparisons

To test for the differences between aggression from co-workers and outsiders, we conducted Z-tests.

This test was appropriate because the correlations for aggression from outsiders and aggression from

co-workers came primarily from different studies 2 . In contrast, to compare co-worker and supervisor

aggression, we conducted t-tests for dependent correlations recommended by Williams (1959). This

type of t-test was used because it acknowledges the dependent nature of the co-worker and supervisor

aggression samples, which were frequently measured within the same study therefore requiring that

dependence be taken into account.

Sub-analyses

Various scales have been used to measure workplace aggression. This may pose a threat to the findings

of this meta-analysis because of the comparative nature of the hypotheses. For example, we argued that

supervisor aggression will have stronger outcomes than co-worker aggression, and co-worker and

supervisor aggression will have stronger outcomes than outsider aggression. If supervisor aggression

does have stronger outcomes than co-worker aggression, this could be due either to the theoretical

explanation provided—that supervisors have influence over employees’ feelings of belongingness and

work outcomes—or to the difference in measures used to examine these two types of aggression. To

begin to address this issue, we conducted an additional sub-analysis comparing co-worker and

supervisor aggression using only those studies that measure both co-worker and supervisor aggression

within the same study using the same measure.

A similar concern exists when comparing supervisor and co-worker aggression with outsider

aggression. However, very few studies measured insider and outsider aggression within the same study,

or used the same measure for outsider aggression as insider aggression between studies. Therefore, we

are unable to conduct the same sub-analysis here. We address this concern in more detail below.

2 Depending on the relationship, up to three studies within the comparison between outsider aggression and coworker aggression overlapped. For example, in the comparison relating job satisfaction to outsider versus coworker aggression, three of the studies measured both outsider and coworker aggression. Therefore, the correlations were partially dependent. To address the possible concern of dependent correlations, we conducted a separate analysis using a t-test of dependent measures for all the coworker/ outsider comparisons. This separate analysis did not result in any changes to the significance of the comparisons between coworker and outsider aggression.

DOI: 10.1002/job

32 M. S. HERSHCOVIS AND J. BARLING

Results

Table 1 presents the weighted average corrected and uncorrected correlations, as well as the confidence

intervals and Q-statistics for supervisor, co-worker, and outsider aggression and all the outcomes

variables. Except where indicated, all correlations are statistically significant.

Table 1. Relationships between types and sources of aggression and outcome variables

Aggression variable K n r rc Sdev CI Q

Job satisfaction Supervisor aggression 18 7242 �.32 �.38 .07 �.42 to �.34 35.33�� Co-worker aggression 14 8421 �.20 �.25 .09 �.29 to �.20 46.67�� Outsider aggression 7 1927 �.12 �.14 .08 �.20 to �.07 10.93

Affective commitment Supervisor aggression 15 5845 �.24 �.28 .08 �.32 to �.24 30.88�� Co-worker aggression 10 4843 �.17 �.20 .10 �.27 to �.14 37.07�� Outsider aggression 6 1287 �.07 �.08 .06 �.13 to �.03 3.85

Intent to turnover Supervisor aggression 16 7474 .26 .30 .09 .26 to .35 59.95

��

Co-worker aggression 12 6361 .20 .23 .08 .19 to .28 30.66 ��

Outsider aggression 6 1268 .15 .17 .10 .10 to .25 9.63

Psychological distress Supervisor aggression 5 3406 �.25 �.28 .15 �.42 to �.14 85.05�� Co-worker aggression 5 3406 �.19 �.21 .05 �.25 to �.17 7.36 Outsider aggression 12 4603 �.19 �.22 .07 �.26 to �.18 17.24

Emotional exhaustion Supervisor aggression 5 1482 .30 .35 .12 .25 to .44 18.52

��

Co-worker aggression 3 425 .25 .31 .03 .26 to .35 .36

Outsider aggression 13 3066 .31 .36 .07 .33 to .40 12.04

Depression Supervisor aggression 8 2752 .24 .26 .07 .21 to .32 13.88

Co-worker aggression 8 4748 .18 .24 .09 .16 to .31 29.70 ��

Outsider aggression 3 407 .38 .36 .10 .25 to .47 3.89

Physical well being Supervisor aggression 12 5455 �.15 �.20 .13 �.28 to �.12 60.36�� Co-worker aggression 11 3131 �.20 �.24 .08 �.29 to �.19 15.14 Outsider aggression 14 4657 �.17 �.19 .11 �.25 to �.13 50.50��

Interpersonal deviance Supervisor aggression 11 3692 .29 .34 .08 .29 to .38 18.89

�

(Supervisor-directed deviance) (3) (2295) (.56) (.62) (.09) (.50 to .73) (27.19 ��

)

Co-worker aggression 10 5230 .38 .47 .11 .40 to .53 62.51 ��

Outsider aggression 4 995 .24 .28 .08 .20 to .37 5.99

Organizational deviance Supervisor aggression 11 4908 .34 .39 .13 .30 to .47 79.80

��

Co-worker aggression 7 2439 .25 .29 .08 .23 to .35 15.20 �

Outsider aggression 3 560 .18 .20 .12 .08 to .33 6.72 �

Performance Supervisor aggression 6 3503 �.15 �.17 .04 �.19 to �.14 3.55 Co-worker aggression 2 4745 �.07 �.09 .02 �.09 to �.09 1.09 Outsider aggression — — — — — —

Note: K ¼ number of studies; n ¼ total sample size; r ¼ uncorrected correlation; rc ¼ corrected correlation; Sdev ¼ standard deviation; CI ¼ confidence interval; Q ¼ Q-statistic. � p < .05;

�� p < .001.

DOI: 10.1002/job

AGGRESSION META-ANALYSIS 33

Supervisor, co-worker, and outsider aggression

We predicted that supervisor aggression would have the strongest adverse outcomes, followed by co-

worker, and then outsider aggression. Results from Table 1 indicate that supervisor, co-worker, and

outsider aggression, respectively, are significantly related to job satisfaction (rc ¼ �.38, �.25, and �.14), affective commitment (rc ¼ �.28, �.20, and �.08), intent to turnover (rc ¼ .30, .23, and .17), general health, (rc ¼ �.28, �.21, and �.22), emotional exhaustion (rc ¼ .35, .31, and .36), depression (rc ¼ .26, .24, and .36), physical well being (�.20, �.24, and �.19), interpersonal deviance (rc ¼ .34, .47, and .28), organizational deviance (rc ¼ .39, .29, and .20), and performance (rc ¼ �.17, �.09, and not applicable)

3 . The relationship between supervisor aggression and interpersonal deviance targeted at

the supervisor was .62.

Table 2 presents the t-test comparisons for dependent measures between co-worker and supervisor

aggression. The comparison includes two different t-tests: (1) All co-worker and supervisor samples

(all samples), and (2) only the studies (matched samples) that measured both co-worker and supervisor

aggression within the same study, using the same measure (except with a different source as the

referent). To clarify, the ‘‘all samples’’ t-test compared all studies that measured aggression from a

supervisor towards a victim and all studies that measured aggression from a co-worker towards a

victim. It did not matter which measures were used as long as they identified the perpetrator within the

measure. In contrast, the ‘‘matched sample’’ t-test only compared co-worker and supervisor aggression

from within the same study, therefore controlling for the measure used to ensure that the findings are

not a function of the measure rather than the referent.

Results show that supervisor aggression has stronger adverse relationships than co-worker

aggression with job satisfaction (t ¼ 12.29, p < .001), affective commitment (t ¼ 6.03, p < .001), turnover intent (t ¼ 6.05, p < .001), general health (t ¼ 4.21, p < .01), organizational deviance (t ¼ 6.53, p < .001), and performance (t ¼ 5.26, p < .001). In contrast, co-worker aggression had a

Table 2. Dependent t-test comparing co-worker and supervisor aggression

All samples Matched Samples

Co-worker Supervisor t K Co-worker Supervisor t

Job satisfaction �.25 �.38 12.29�� 13 �.28 �.37 7.50�� Affective commitment �.20 �.28 6.03�� 9 �.20 �.27 4.98�� Intent to turnover .23 .30 6.05

�� 12 .23 .32 7.50

��

Psychological distress �.21 �.28 4.21�� 5 �.21 �.28 4.21�� Emotional exhaustion .31 .35 1.30 5 .31 .35 1.30 Depression .24 .26 1.26 7 .29 .26 1.36 Physical well being �.24 �.19 �2.68�� 12 �.19 �.19 0.00 Interpersonal deviance 1

a .47 .62 11.06

�� — — — —

Interpersonal deviance 2 b

.47 .34 � 9.75 9 .43 .35 4.75�� Organizational deviance .29 .39 6.53

�� 6 .29 .31 1.35

Performance �.09 �.17 5.26�� — — — — ��

p < .01; ��p < .001. a Interpersonal deviance 1 represents deviance targeted at supervisors only for the supervisor sample. For the co-worker sample, the specific referent is not identified as not enough studies have examined deviance targeted specifically at co-workers. b Interpersonal deviance 2 represents the comparison between interpersonal deviance without identifying the referent in the supervisor measure.

3 We are unable to examine whether outsider aggression affects performance because past studies have not examined this relationship.

DOI: 10.1002/job

34 M. S. HERSHCOVIS AND J. BARLING

stronger adverse relationship than supervisor aggression with physical well being (t ¼ �2.68, p < .01), and there was no significant difference between these perpetrators in relation to emotional exhaustion

(t ¼ 1.30, ns) and depression (t ¼ 1.26, ns). Further, supervisor aggression was related to a significantly stronger level of deviance targeted at the supervisor, as compared to the relationship between co-

worker aggression and interpersonal deviance (with no referent target named in the measure)

(t ¼ �9.75, p < .001). The matched sample t-tests show the same overall pattern of findings; however, in the matched

sample, the t-test differences became non-significant for two outcome variables: Physical well being

and organizational deviance.

With respect to the comparison between co-worker aggression and outsider aggression, z-scores are

presented in Table 3. Results show that co-worker aggression had a stronger adverse relationship than

outsider aggression in relation to job satisfaction (z ¼ 4.36, p < .001), affective commitment, (z ¼ 3.83, p < .001), intent to turnover (z ¼ 1.96, p ¼ .05), interpersonal deviance (z ¼ 5.49, p < .001), and physical well being (z ¼ 2.16, p < .05). There was no significant differences between co-worker aggression and outsider aggression in relation to general health (z ¼ .44, ns), emotional exhaustion (z ¼ .97, ns), depression (z ¼ 1.12, ns), and organizational deviance (z ¼ 1.92, p > .05).

The pattern of results comparing supervisor versus co-worker and co-worker versus outsider

aggression render a direct comparison of supervisor versus outsider aggression redundant for most of

the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. However, the comparison was appropriate for the well-being

outcomes. Supervisor aggression has a stronger adverse relationship with general health than outsider

aggression (z ¼ 2.65, p < .01); however, there was no significant difference between supervisor aggression and outsider aggression on emotional exhaustion (z ¼ .32, ns), depression (z ¼ �1.88, ns), or physical health (z ¼ .50, ns).

Discussion

Summary of findings and implications

Consistent with prior research, this study found that workplace aggression has adverse effects on

employees. However, this study provides some insights into how attitudinal, behavioral, and health

outcomes differ in magnitude by source of aggression. The findings show that supervisor aggression

has the strongest negative relationships with workplace attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction, affective

commitment, intentions to quit) and behaviors (i.e., organizational deviance), followed by co-worker

Table 3. Z-test differences between the outcomes of co-worker aggression and outsider aggression

rc – co-worker rc – Outsider Z

Job satisfaction �.25 �.14 4.36�� Affective commitment �.20 �.08 3.83�� Intent to turnover .23 .17 1.96

�

Psychological distress �.21 �.22 .44 Emotional exhaustion .31 .36 .97 Depression .24 .36 1.12 Physical well being �.24 �.19 2.16�� Interpersonal deviance .47 .28 5.49

��

Organizational deviance .29 .20 1.92

�� p < .05;

�� p < .001.

DOI: 10.1002/job

AGGRESSION META-ANALYSIS 35

aggression, with the weakest relationships being with outsider aggression. We also found that

supervisor aggression is related to lower levels of performance than is co-worker aggression.

There was one interesting exception to the pattern of our findings. Specifically, the pattern did not

hold for the health-related outcomes. Whereas psychological distress was significantly worse when

supervisors perpetrated the aggression, for most of the health outcomes, the difference in effects

between the three perpetrators were not significant. We argued that power and justice differences may

explain the differential effects expected in this study. However, it appears that the pattern of outcomes

may also depend on the dependent variable. To understand this finding, it might be informative to

conceptualize the outcome variables in this study in two broad categories: Organizational-related

strains (i.e., job satisfaction, commitment, deviance, and performance), and personal strains (i.e.,

health). When employees experience aggression from an organizational insider, such as co-workers

and supervisors, victims are likely to attribute their negative experience to the organization. Employees

have a basic psychological contract with their organization that they will be safe and well treated by

their colleagues (Rousseau, 1990). When such contracts are violated (i.e., by experiencing aggression

from insiders), employees are likely to hold the organization responsible because employees may

expect that organizations can and should prevent aggression from insiders (LeBlanc & Kelloway,

2002). Therefore, organizational-related outcomes are likely to be particularly affected by aggression

from insiders.

In contrast, source (i.e., supervisor, co-worker, or outsider) may be a less salient moderator of

aggression on non-organizational strains such as well being, because such outcomes are not

organizationally focused. Regardless of who commits the aggressive act, victims still experience

aggression as a stressor, and a large body of research has suggested and found that stressors result in a

range of personal strains. Further, research in the area of emotional labor (Grandey, Dickter, & Sin,

2004; Grandey et al., 2007) has shown that the positive display rules employees are required to exhibit

when dealing with aggressive outsiders results in burnout for victims. Together, these explanations

suggest potentially different mediators between aggression and outcomes depending on source, with

emotional labor mediating the relationship between aggression from outsiders and health effects, and

blame attribution mediating the relationship between aggression from insiders and health effects. This

again highlights the importance of taking a multi-foci approach.

The present findings have theoretical and methodological implications for the way in which future

research on workplace aggression is conducted. Specifically, researchers must be explicitly cognizant

of the source of any workplace aggression, as not doing so may result in findings of limited practical

value.

Research and practical implications

Towards a multi-foci approach

From a theoretical perspective, a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression suggests new research

questions that focus on the relationship within which aggression occurs. It is likely that outcomes of

aggression from different sources not only differ in magnitude (as demonstrated in the present study),

but also in type. The literature on power suggests that victims react differently towards perpetrators

depending on their relative level of power. For instance, Keltner et al. (2003) proposed that individuals

with lower levels of power are more likely to express negative affect while individuals with higher

levels of power are more likely to express positive affect. These differences suggest the possibility that

supervisor-on-supervisor aggression yields different victim response strategies than supervisor-on-

subordinate aggression. For example, victims of aggression with formal or informal power may feel

more confident in their ability to cope, resulting in more reparative response strategies. In contrast, due

DOI: 10.1002/job

36 M. S. HERSHCOVIS AND J. BARLING

to increased sensitivity to threats (Keltner et al., 2003) and greater expression of negative affect, lower

power victims may respond more spontaneously and more negatively, increasing the chance of an

incivility spiral (Andersson & Pearson, 1999).

Further, while there has been some focus on the outcomes of abusive supervision, there has been very

little research that specifically examines peers as perpetrators. It is likely that aggression from peers

differs in form from aggression from supervisors. Given that the expectation of mutual respect may be

lower in a peer-to-peer relationship than in supervisor-to-subordinate relationship, aggression from

peers may be more overt; therefore, responses to aggression from peers may be more confrontational.

While the present study showed that victims of aggression engage in deviant acts towards both co-

workers and supervisors, given the power and counter-retaliation concerns discussed previously, it is

possible that victims use different (i.e., more covert) forms of deviance when retaliating towards a

supervisor.

Finally, aggression from customers may lead to outcomes that have not been considered. While

researchers have examined emotional labor as a mediating mechanism between customer injustice

(Rupp & Spencer, 2006) or aggression (Grandey et al., 2007) and employee well being, a range of other

types of outcomes may result from customer aggression. Future research questions may include: To

what extent do employees engage in customer deviance or retaliation and to what extent does such

counter-aggression affect work group performance or repeat business? What coping strategies do

employees find most effective in dealing with customer aggression? Are they more likely to report,

confront, or ignore aggressive customers?

Towards a relational approach

While we focused on power and justice as key explanations for the differential magnitude of effects, a

focus on these factors alone is likely too simplistic. A second and perhaps more important theoretical

implication from the present study is that research to date has largely examined the act of aggression

without considering the relationship in which it occurs. The findings that aggression outcomes differ in

magnitude (and likely in form) by source suggest that the nature of the perpetrator/victim relationship

may have an effect on the enactment and on the experience of workplace aggression. Power is only one

aspect of this relationship. Other factors might include task interdependence, the extent to which

employees work within physical proximity to each other, or the expected longevity of the working

relationship (Hershcovis & Barling, 2007). Moving forward, we propose that researchers investigate

workplace aggression within the social relationship in which it occurs. Aggression is a social

experience, and therefore an understanding of the perpetrator/victim relationship has implications for

the victim’s experience and coping strategies.

Limitations and Future Directions

Limitations

First, as with all meta-analyses, judgment calls were required. We had to determine which studies to

include based on the scales used to measure the aggression and outcomes variables. With both the

independent and dependent variables, different scales were often combined into one meta-analysis

following Hunter and Schmidt’s (1990) recommendation; and this may account for some of the

variance that led to larger confidence intervals in some instances. Second, while models of work stress

(e.g., Barling, 1996; Bowling & Beehr, 2006) suggest that cognitive and emotional factors, such as fear,

DOI: 10.1002/job

AGGRESSION META-ANALYSIS 37

cognitive distraction, or attributions mediate the relationship between aggression and different

outcomes, the current study was unable to examine mediating relationships because sufficient data

from prior studies were not available. Stress may help explain some of the perpetrator-specific

outcomes. For instance, Schat et al. (2005) found that fear mediated the relationship between

aggression from outsiders and supervisors, but not co-workers on outcomes. Third, this study compared

supervisor, co-worker, and outsider aggression. Conducting a fair analysis is critical (Cooper &

Richardson, 1986), and the fairness of any comparison is maximized when the measures used to

examine the three types of aggression are identical. While we were able to examine the same measures

for the comparison between co-worker and supervisor aggression, there were not enough overlapping

studies that examined insider and outsider aggression to enable a similar matched comparison, leaving

open the possibility that findings relating to outsider aggression might be a function of measurement

differences. Future research needs to examine this possibility directly.

Finally, we were unable to conduct a comparison between supervisor, co-worker, and outsider

aggression on the one hand, and supervisor-targeted, co-worker-targeted, and outsider-targeted

deviance on the other. While evidence suggests that deviance is target-specific (e.g., Hershcovis et al.,

2007; Jones, 2009; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007), few studies have specified the target within the

measure of interpersonal deviance. The present study demonstrates that the relationship between

aggression from supervisors and employee interpersonal deviance is different when the source is not

identified within the measure of deviance, and when it is identified to be the supervisor. This finding

replicates prior research and echoes prior calls (e.g., Hershcovis et al., 2007, Jones, 2009; Mitchell &

Ambrose, 2007) to specify the target within the measure. Not doing so is likely to lead to an under-or

over-estimate of the true effect size between any predictor variable and deviance.

Future directions

A move towards a multi-foci or relational approach to aggression would have important

methodological implications. With few exceptions, most existing research on workplace aggression

operationalizes aggression in one of two ways. First, researchers ask about aggression from ‘‘someone

at work,’’ which leaves open the possibility that the participant’s referent may be a supervisor, co-

worker, member of the public, or any combination of the above (e.g., Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002).

Second, some researchers ask specifically about a supervisor, co-worker, or member of the public (e.g.,

Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Frone, 2000; Tepper, 2000). This latter method is likely to result in

more accurate predictions because it narrows the aggression to one broad source. However, we propose

that even within one source, there may be differential experiences. For example, employees who

experience workplace aggression from co-workers with whom they are highly interdependent (e.g., one

is an internal supplier to another) are likely to experience stronger outcomes and engage in different

coping strategies than employees who experience workplace aggression from co-workers with whom

they are not interdependent (e.g., they work on different sides of the factory). Within interdependent

relationships, victims may be more likely to engage in relationship repair strategies because their own

work performance is at stake. Within non-interdependent relationships, victims may be more likely to

retaliate, or to simply avoid the aggressor. Similarly, aggression from members of the public with

whom employees have an ongoing business relationship (e.g., a lawyer/client relationship) is likely to

be experienced differently than aggression from a member of the public with whom one is involved in

only a single transaction relationship (e.g., a retail worker/customer). Not accounting for the

moderating effects of these explanatory factors (e.g., task interdependence, relationship importance,

power) might well result in truncated models of the effects of workplace aggression (Hershcovis &

Barling, 2007).

DOI: 10.1002/job

38 M. S. HERSHCOVIS AND J. BARLING

We propose three possible methods to investigate workplace aggression within the context of its

relationship. First, the critical incident technique is a useful way to understand workplace aggression

within its relationship (e.g., Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2006). The critical incident technique asks the

participants to focus on one meaningful negative relationship or experience of aggression, and enables

the researcher to explore moderators such as power, task interdependence, and other aspects of the

perpetrator victim relationship. Second, daily diary studies would enable researchers to record any

salient experiences of workplace aggression, and then ask about the perpetrator/victim relationship

related to that experience. Third, social network analysis could improve our understanding of the

dyadic relationship between a perpetrator and victim. Most employees are likely mistreated in ongoing

work relationships (Lamertz & Aquino, 2004); therefore, it is important to understand how the

dynamics of these dyads and their broader social networks affect victims’ experiences and responses to

aggression (Aquino & Thau, 2009).

In conclusion, workplace aggression is fundamentally about a relationship between two (or more)

people. To date, research has focused on workplace aggression as a stressor, without considering the

relationship embedded in the experience of workplace aggression. The findings from this study suggest

that a more complete understanding of the consequences of workplace aggression must account for the

nature of the relationship between perpetrator and victim. The present study opens up new directions

for workplace aggression research that brings relational issues back into the experience of workplace

aggression.

Acknowledgements

We express our appreciation to Mike Frone, Laurent Lapierre, and Paul Spector for their technical

assistance with our research. We also express our gratitude to Jennifer Bozeman, Patrick Bruning, Amy

Christie, Lilia Cortina, Kate Dupré, Colette Hoption, Jana Raver, Tara Reich, Sean Tucker, and Nick

Turner for their feedback at various stages in the project. We also gratefully acknowledge the

developmental feedback provided by the three anonymous reviewers and the financial support of

the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. This study was part of M. Sandy

Hershcovis’ dissertation, under the supervision of Julian Barling.

Author biographies

M. Sandy Hershcovis is an assistant professor of Organizational Behavior at the I. H. Asper School of

Business, University of Manitoba. Her primary research area is workplace aggression (e.g., incivility,

bullying, social undermining, abusive supervision, counterproductive work behaviors, workplace

deviance). She is currently investigating how the relationship between the perpetrator and target of

workplace aggression affects victim experiences and outcomes. She has published her research in

journals such as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, and

Journal of Business Ethics.

Julian Barling is the Queen’s Research Chair and the Associate Dean of Graduate Studies and

Research at the Queen’s School of Business, Queen’s University. His research interests include

transformational leadership, unethical leadership, workplace aggression, and employees’ physical and

DOI: 10.1002/job

AGGRESSION META-ANALYSIS 39

psychological well being. In addition to writing Employment, stress, and family functioning) and co-

editing several books (e.g., Handbook of Organizational Behavior), Dr Barling has published his work

in journals such as the Annual Review of Psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, Leadership Quarterly, and Work & Stress

References

Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 947–965.

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. The Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.

Aquino, K., Douglas, S., & Martinko, M. J. (2004). Overt anger in response to victimization: Attributional style and organizational norms as moderators. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 152–164.

Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1073–1091.

Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717–741.

Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 52–59.

Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 653–668.

� Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191–201.

� Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and con- sequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14, 126–140.

Bacharach, S., & Lawler, E. (1981). Bargaining: Power, tactics, and outcomes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Barling, J. (1996). The prediction, experience, and consequences of workplace violence. In G. R. VandenBos, & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 29–49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & Frone, M. R. (2005). Handbook of work stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

� Barling, J., Rogers, A. G., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Behind closed doors: In-home workers’ experience of sexual harassment and workplace violence. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 255–269.

Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence of their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161–173.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 165–195.

� Beaver, H. W. (1999). Client violence against professional social workers: Frequency, worker characteristics, and impact on worker job satisfaction, burnout, and health. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31, 665–699.

� Ben-Zur, H., & Yagil, D. (2005). The relationship between empowerment, aggressive behaviors of customers, coping, and burnout. European Journal of Work Psychology, 14, 81–99.

Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 409–423.

Bies, R. J. (1999). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational behavior (pp. 89–188). San Francisco: New Lexington Press.

DOI: 10.1002/job

40 M. S. HERSHCOVIS AND J. BARLING

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1988). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 998–1012.

� Brough, P. (2005). Workplace violence experienced by paramedics: Relationships with social support, job satisfaction, and psychological strain. Australian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 2, 1–12.

� Bussing, A., & Höge, T. (2004). Aggression against home care workers. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 9, 206–219. Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1996). Automatic activation of impression formation and memorization goals: Nonconscious goal priming reproduces effects of explicit task instruction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 464–478.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.

Cooper, W. H., & Richardson, A. J. (1986). Unfair comparisons. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 179–184. Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incident and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64–80.

� Crabbe, J., Alexander, D. A., Klein, S., Walker, S., & Sinclair, J. (2002). Dealing with violent and aggressive patients: At what cost to nurses? Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, 19, 121–124.

� Crocker, M., Harris, S. G., & Stetz, P. E. (2005). Employee perceptions of managerial incivility: Development of a

measurement scale. (Manuscript in prepration). Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209.

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.

� Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2004). Customer-related social stressors and burnout. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 9, 61–82. � Duffy, M. K., & Ferrier, W. J. (2003). Birds of a feather . . .? How supervisor-subordinate dissimilarity moderates the influence of supervisor behaviors on workplace attitudes. Group & Organization Management, 28, 217–248.

� Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management

Journal, 45, 331–351. � Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Pagon, M. (2006). The social context of undermining behavior at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 105–126.

Eden, D. (1982). Critical job events, acute stress, and strain: A multiple interrupted time series. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 312–329.

Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. I. (1997). Harassment in the workplace and victimization of men. Violence and Victims, 12, 247–263.

� Evers, W., Tomic, W., & Brouwers, A. (2001). Effects of aggressive behavior and perceived self-efficacy on burnout among staff or homes for the elderly. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 22, 439–454.

French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power (pp. 150– 167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

� Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2005). Racial/ethnic bullying: Exploring links between bullying and racism in the U. S. workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior 66, 438–456.

� Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a model among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5, 246–255.

� Frone, M. R. (2004). National survey of workplace health and safety. Unpublished raw data, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.

� Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D. N., & Sin, H. P. (2004). The customer is not always right: Customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 397–418.

� Grandey, A. A., Kern, J., & Frone, M. R. (2007). Verbal abuse from outsiders versus insiders: Comparing frequency, impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 63–79.

Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against co-workers, subordinates, and supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 897–913.

DOI: 10.1002/job

AGGRESSION META-ANALYSIS 41

Gross, E. (1970). Work, organization, and stress. In S. Levine, & N. A. Scotch (Eds.), Social stress (54–110). Chicago: Aldine.

Hareli, S., & Rafaeli, A. (2008). Emotion cycles: On the social influence of emotion in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 35–59.

� Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 252– 263.

� Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. (2007). Coping with abusive supervision: The neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 264–280.

Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2007). Towards a relational model of workplace aggression. In J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace (pp. 268–284). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228–238.

� Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1125–1133. � Hoobler, J. M., & Tepper, B. J. (2001, August). An examination of the causal relationships between abusive

supervision and subordinates’ attitudes, distress, and performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington DC.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. California: Sage Publications. Inness, M., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2005). Understanding supervisor-targeted aggression: A within-person, between-jobs design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 731–739.

Inness, M., LeBlanc, M., & Barling, J. (2008). Psychosocial predictors of supervisor-, peer-, subordinate-, and service provider-targeted aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1401–1411.

Jex, S. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the study of work-related stress. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 9, 311–365.

� Jex, S. M., Burnfield, J., & Yugo, J. E. (2006, March). Moderators of the effects of customer-based incivility on

psychological health. Paper presented at the Work, Stress, & Health Conference, Miami, Florida. Jones, D. A. (2009). Getting even with one’s organization: Relationships among types of injustice, desire for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 525–542.

Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 571–650). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychol- ogists Press.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Oxford, UK: John Wiley.

Keashly, L., & Harvey, S. (2005). Emotional abuse in the workplace. In P. Spector, & S. Fox (Eds.), Counter- productive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 201–235). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

� Keashly, L., Hunter, S., & Harvey, S. (1997). Abusive interaction and role state stressors: Relative impact on student residence assistant stress and work attitudes. Work & Stress, 11, 175–185.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.

Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. (2008). A reciprocal influence model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 151–192.

Kim, T. Y., Shapiro, D. L., Aquino, K., Lim, V. K., & Bennett, R. J. (2008). Workplace offense and victims’ reactions: The effects of victim-offender (dis)similarity, offense-type, and cultural differences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 415–433.

Kivimäki, M., Ferrie, J., Brunner, E., Head, J., Shipley, M., Vahtera, J., et al. (2005). Justice at work and reduced risk of coronary heart disease among employees. Archives of Internal Medicine, 165, 2245–2251.

Lamertz, K., & Aquino, K. (2004). Social power, social status and perceptual similarity in workplace victimiza- tion: A social network analysis of stratification. Human Relations, 57, 795–822.

� Lawoko, S., Soares, J. F., & Nolan, P. (2004). Violence towards psychiatric staff: A comparison of gender, job and environmental characteristics in England and Sweden. Work & Stress, 18, 39–55.

� LeBlanc, M. L., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Predictors and outcomes of workplace violence and aggression.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 444–453. Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95–107.

DOI: 10.1002/job

42 M. S. HERSHCOVIS AND J. BARLING

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum. � Liu, C. (2003). A comparison of job stressors and job strains among employees holding comparable jobs in Western and Eastern societies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1343). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Marcus-Newhall, A., Pederson, W. C., Carlson, M., & Miller, N. (2000). Displaced aggression is alive and well: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 670–689.

� Marrs, M. E. (1999). Antecedents and outcomes of verbal aggression in the workplace. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.

McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1351–1395). Chicago: Rand McNally College.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. (1984). Testing the ‘‘side-bet theory’’ of organizational commitment: Some methodo- logical considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372–378.

Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Relationships between exposure to bullying at work and psychological and psychosomatic health complaints: The role of state negative affectivity and generalized self-efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 397–405.

Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159–1168.

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (2005). Aggression in the workplace: A social-psychological perspective. In S. Fox, & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 13–40). American Psychological Association. Washington, DC.

� Nicol, J., & Willness, C. R. (2008). Source effects in the experience of workplace bullying. Paper presented at the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.

O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21, 225–253.

Penny, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777–796.

� Perez, L. M., & Riley, R. P. (2006, March). Coping with workplace incivility: Effects on psychological distress and

counterproductivity. Paper presented at the Work, Stress, and Health Conference, Miami, Florida. Rafaeli, A., Derfler, R., Ravid, S., & Rozilio, R. (2007). The costs of encountering others’ anger: Emotional

exhaustion, cognitive resources and work performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.

� Raver, J. L. (2004). Interpersonal aggression at work: A model of behavioral outcomes, psychological

mediators, and contextual moderators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

� Raver, J. L. (2007). Sexual harassment vs. generalized workplace aggression: Construct differentiation and

contextual antecedents. Paper presented at the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology annual conference, Stockholm, Sweden.

� Raver, J. L. (2008, March). Workplace aggression from supervisors and co-workers. Paper presented the Work, Stress and Health Conference, Washington, DC.

Raver, J. L., & Barling, J. (2007). Workplace aggression and conflict: Constructs, commonalities, and challenges for future inquiry. In C. K. W. De Dreu, & M. J. Gelfand (Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp. 211–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66–80.

Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer’s obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 389–400.

Rousseau, D. M. (1996). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. E. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925–946.

Rupp, D. E., & Spencer, S. (2006). When customers lash out: The effect of customer interactional injustice on emotional labor and the mediating role of discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 971– 978.

DOI: 10.1002/job

AGGRESSION META-ANALYSIS 43

� Schat, A. C. H., Desmarais, S., & Kelloway, E. K. (2005). Effects of organizational tolerance on the incidence and

consequences of workplace aggression. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Schat, A. C. H., & Kelloway, E. K. (2005). Workplace aggression. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 189–218). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

� Schat, A. C. H., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Effects of perceived control on the outcomes of workplace aggression and violence. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 386–402.

� Schat, A. C. H., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003). Reducing the adverse consequences of workplace aggression and violence: The buffering effects of organizations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 110–122.

� Schonfeld, I. S. (1990). Coping with job-related stress: The case of teachers. Journal of Occupational Psychology,

63, 141–149. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443.

Spector, P. E. (1997). The role of frustration in antisocial behavior at work. In R. A. Giacalone, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356–367.

� Sprigg, C. A., Armitage, C. J., & Hollis, K. (2007). Verbal abuse in the National Health Service: Impressions of the prevalence, perceived reasons for and relationships with psychological wellbeing. Emergency Medicine Journal, 24, 281–282.

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261–302). New York: Academic Press.

Steel, P. (2003). MetaExcel (Version 8.0) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.ucalgary.ca/steel/ procrastinus/meta/meta.html.

� Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.

� Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators between the relationships between co-workers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 89, 455–465.

� Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 974–983.

Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Poortvliet, P. M. (2007). Self-defeating behaviors in organizations: The relationship between thwarted belonging and interpersonal work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 340–847.

� Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 79–92.

Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stuck, T. S. (2001). If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1058–1069.

� Van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2001). Stress and strain in teaching: A structural equation approach. British Journal

of Educational Psychology, 71, 243–259. � Van Dierendonck, D., & Mevissen, N. (2002). Aggressive behavior of passengers, conflict management behavior, and burnout among trolley car drivers. International Journal of Stress Management, 9, 345–355.

Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 57–76.

Williams, E. J. (1959). The comparison of regression variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B), 21, 396–399.

� Winstanley, S., & Whittington, R. (2002). Anxiety, burnout and coping styles in general hospital staff exposed to workplace aggression: A cyclical model of burnout and vulnerability to aggression. Work & Stress, 16, 302–315.

Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2005). Mobbing at work: Escalated conflicts in organizations. In S. Fox, & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 237–270). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

� Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068–1076.

DOI: 10.1002/job

44 M. S. HERSHCOVIS AND J. BARLING

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.