paper

1. The three articles are similar in that they identify bullying in the workplace and what triggers
enhance bullying and how can bullying be reduced. Therefore, if you enhance the comparison between
these articles you will find that they build upon each other like a literature review describing the
beginning, middle and the end of the review on the topic of bullying. The articles complement each other
in that they examine workplace bullying and include employees from various positions, however, they
mainly focus on teachers and children. Bullying presents itself in all forms of harassment, such as:
discrimination, prejudice, abuse, persecution, conflict and violence. When the bullying is observed in
these forms of injustice and the bully is aware of the Sex Discrimination Act or the Race Relations Act,
it is identified as bullying this behavior is noted to be understood as underlying almost all reprehensible
behavior (Catalyst, July, 2014). I believe bullying is the single most important social issue of today.
The sample population used in the first article was 2,539 Norwegian workers. (48.5% male,
51.5% female) in that 19.8% were supervisors. The mean age in this study was 43.7 (M=43.7) Hauge,
(Skogstad and Einarsen, 2009). In the second article the sample population used was a total of 466
respondents who completed the questionnaires, giving an overall response rate of 55.8%. From the
respondent population, 57.5% were leaders and 42.5% were followers (Vie & Einarsen, 2010).
Therefore, in total 86.3% (n = 383) of the respondents were males. The females in the second study
averaged a total 13.7% of the sample (n = 61). The mean age of the sample population were 45 years (
SD = 11. 77), their age ranged from 17 to 66 years. In the last article the sample population was of
students in grades 3–5, ages 9 –11 years and then students in grades 4 – 6, ages 10 –12 years
(Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Huitsing, G., Sainio, M., & Salmivalli, C., 2014, February 24).
.

2. The articles gathered information from both sexes male and female and two of the articles were
similar in that the articles were based on data from anonymous self­report
questionnaires. In comparing
the limitations of the articles, when using self­reports
(questionnaires), how can you truly identify how
well they know themselves, and how accurately can someone report their own behaviors. In the articles
self reports are described as showing the lack of consensus between the behavioural assessment and
self­labelling
reports. Another comparable limitation of each article is that when using self­reports
you
really do not know which factors actually predict self­labelling
as a victim of workplace bullying, and are
there personal or situational variables that make some individuals more or less likely to label themselves
as “bullied” when facing bullying behaviour at work. Two aspects or traits of personality were only
considered in the study. Personality, is very complex meaning to further explore and future research
would benefit from including other personality factors such as the concepts of Extraversion,
Conscientiousness. In addition, other situational factors can be considered such as social support, even
though trait anger and trait anxiety in theory can be an asset to influence when an employee or student
considers negative acts of bullying.
The themes of the literature review are similar in that all three studies define and give examples
of workplace bullying as either being labeled as either mobbing, workplace abuse or workplace
harassment. In each study bullying is measured by one of two methods, the “operational method” and
the “self ­labelling
or subjective method”. In the operational method, bullying is measured by criteria
based on reported exposure and duration of exposure to bullying behaviours (negative acts) without any
reference to the phrase “bullying”. Being exposed to negative acts seemed to be the main predictor of
labelling workplace bullying. However, the assessments in each study were not always consistent with
self ­labelling
reports.

3. The authors that are in common in the first two literature reviews, Individual and Situational
Predictors of Workplace Bullying: Why Do Perpetrators Engage in Bullying of Others?
and Does Trait Anger, Trait Anxiety or Organizational Position Moderate the Relationship Between
Exposure to Negative Acts and Self ­Labeling
as a Victim of Workplace Bullying? are Einarsen and
Stale. Questions that I would ask the authors are, would you have conducted your research differently,
if you changed the population type, do you think your results would be the same or different, and how
can you present or have you presented your research into the field and what success level do you think
you might receive or what has been your success rate of implementing your review.
In the study of Individual and Situational Predictors of Workplace Bullying: Why Do
Perpetrators Engage in Bullying of Others? reported that 2.9% of the sample reported that they had
been a bully in the workplace (perpetrators) while 1.9% reported being bullied themselves (target).
Most of the variables showed moderate to weak relationships with being a perpetrator. There was a
significant relationship between being a perpetrator and a target of bullying. Role conflict and
interpersonal conflicts showed weak, but significant correlations with bullying (perpetrator). Target
status (being a victim of bullying) was the best predictor of being a perpetrator of bullying. Males were
also more likely than females to bully in the workplace. Stress experienced at work predicts bullying
behavior. Role conflict and interpersonal conflict can cause frustration in the workplace which may be
projected onto co workers and lead to
bullying behavior. Therefore, this study did answer the research question by identify important factors
related to engaging in the bullying of others in the workplace. In addition, the third study, The Role of
Teachers in Bullying: The Relation Between Anti­bullying
Attitudes, Efficacy, and Efforts to Reduce
Bullying showed that in an ideal class the teacher is perceived by the students as having a

4. high degree of efficacy in battling bullying and bullying incidents are less experienced by the students and
teacher. Therefore, low levels of bullying were identified in the ideal classes of the students who are
against bullying and in favor of bullying.
In conclusion, the articles portray that successful workplace environments promote
professionalism, address disruptive behaviors quickly, and adopt a framework for understanding and
approaches for taking action. Therefore, when resources are provided and used appropriately then
workplace environments are able to develop strong policies that clearly define issues and provide
guidelines for action to address disruptive behaviors amongst students, providers and employees. These
articles were very similar in identifying the purpose of the research, the sample population used, and the
limitations of each study. This comparison identifies the importance of researching bullying in the
workplace and assists in closing the gap in research. Success is measured by achieving high levels of
safety and quality for all employees in the workplace and student and teachers in the classroom.
Reference
Schat, A. C. H., Frone, M. R., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Prevalence of workplace aggression in
the U.S. workforce: Findings from a national study. Handbook of workplace violence. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Catalyst. Quick Take: Sex Discrimination and Sexual Harassment. New York: Catalyst retrieved on
July 22, 2014 from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/sex­discrimination­and­sexual­harassment­0.
Hauge, LJ., Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S. (2009), Individual and Situational Predictors of Workplace
Bullying: Why Do Perpetrators Engage in Bullying of Others? Work and Stress, 4 (23), 349­358.
Venstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Huitsing, G., Sainio, M., & Salmivalli, C., (2014). The Role of Teachers
in Bullying: The Relation Between Antibullying Attitudes, Efficacy, and Efforts to Reduce Bullying.
Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication.

5. Vie, T., Glaso, L., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Does Trait Anger, Trait Anxiety or Organizational Position
Moderate the Relationship Between Exposure to Negative Acts and Self­Labeling
as a Victim of
Workplace Bullying? Nordic Psychology, 62(3), 67­79.