This article was downloaded by: [ULPGC.

Biblioteca] On: 19 August 2011, At: 10:24 Publisher: Psychology Press Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

The DemandControl model and target's reports of bullying at work: A test within Spanish and Belgian blue-collar workers
Elfi Baillien , Alfredo Rodrguez-Muoz
a d a a b c

, Hans de
b

Witte , Guy Notelaers & Bernardo Moreno-Jimnez Research Group Work, Organizational and Personnel Psychology (WOPP), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
b

Faculty of Psychology, Autonoma University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

c d

School of Psychology, IE University, Spain

Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway Available online: 29 Mar 2010

To cite this article: Elfi Baillien, Alfredo Rodrguez-Muoz, Hans de Witte, Guy Notelaers & Bernardo Moreno-Jimnez (2011): The DemandControl model and target's reports of bullying at work: A test within Spanish and Belgian blue-collar workers, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20:2, 157-177 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320903271929

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 2011, 20 (2), 157177

The DemandControl model and targets reports of bullying at work: A test within Spanish and Belgian blue-collar workers
El Baillien
Research Group Work, Organizational and Personnel Psychology (WOPP), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

Alfredo Rodr guez-Munoz

Faculty of Psychology, Autonoma University of Madrid, Madrid, and School of Psychology, IE University, Spain

Hans de Witte
Research Group Work, Organizational and Personnel Psychology (WOPP), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Guy Notelaers
Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Bernardo Moreno-Jimenez
Faculty of Psychology, Autonoma University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

The present study explores whether Karaseks Job DemandControl (JDC) models strain hypothesis can be applied to targets reports of bullying at work in matched samples of Spanish and Belgian blue-collar workers. In the Spanish sample, results reveal a positive main eect of workload and a negative main eect of autonomy. The relationship between workload and bullying is particularly strong under the condition of low autonomy (i.e., interaction), in line with Karaseks strain hypothesis. In the Belgian sample, results show a positive main eect of workload and a signicant workloadautonomy interaction eect in accordance with the strain hypothesis. In sum, high strain
Correspondence should be addressed to E. Baillien, Research Group Work, Organisational and Personnel Psychology, Department of Psychology, Tiensestraat 102, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: El.Baillien@psy.kuleuven.be EB is supported by a grant of the Research Foundation Flanders (G.0321.08). 2010 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business http://www.psypress.com/ejwop DOI: 10.1080/13594320903271929

158

BAILLIEN ET AL.

jobs associate with targets reports of bullying in both the Spanish and Belgian sample. Karaseks JDC model may accordingly be extended to targets reports of bullying as a form of social behavioural strain. These ndings furthermore enhance research in the realm of bullying at work by introducing a wellestablished theoretical framework to account for the relationship between workload, autonomy, and targets reports of bullying. Keywords: Autonomy; Bullying at work; Job DemandControl model; Job strain; Workload.

The Job DemandControl (JDC) model (Karasek, 1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990) is perhaps one of the most inuential and dominant theories in work stress research (de Jonge & Kompier, 1997; de Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers, 2003; van der Doef & Maes, 1998, 1999). Its strain hypothesis has been tested for numerous outcome variables, such as job satisfaction, burnout, psychological well-being, psychosomatic symptoms, and cardiovascular diseases (e.g., De Witte, Verhofstadt, & Omey, 2007; Dwyer & Ganster, 1991; Johnson & Hall, 1988; Lundberg et al., 1999). So far, however, only a limited scope of behavioural strain has been investigated in view of the JDC model. Even though numerous scholars have highlighted the JDC models added value in explaining bullying at work as a form of social behavioural strain (e.g., Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994; Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2002; Hubert, Furda, & Steensma, 2001), the paucity of research addressing this issue is striking. The present article therefore explores whether the JDC models strain hypothesis can be applied to targets reports of bullying at work as a new outcome variable. Our aim of introducing the JDC model into research in the realm of bullying at work is twofold. First, we apply the JDC model to bullying to further investigate its predictive power in view of social behavioural strain. Second, we aim to advance research on bullying at work by introducing a sound theoretical framework. We rst briey summarize the content and assumptions of the JDC model. Then, we elaborate upon the concept of bullying at work as well as its relationship with work-related stress and Karaseks model. Hypotheses are tested in matched samples of Spanish and Belgian employees, which may provide a strong basis for the signicance of the JDC model in predicting targets reports of bullying in dierent national contexts. Finally, implications for theory, practice, and future results are discussed.

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

THE JOB DEMANDCONTROL MODEL

The JDC model (Karasek, 1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990) distinguishes between two crucial job aspects in the work situation, namely psychological job demands and job control. Psychological job demands refer to

JOB DEMANDCONTROL AND BULLYING AT WORK

159

a combination of stress sources (stressors) such as work load, unexpected tasks, and job-related interpersonal conict (Karasek, 1979, p. 291) and have mainly been operationalized in terms of work amount combined with time pressure (Karasek, 1985). According to the JDC model, high levels of job demands promote learning as well as work-related stress. Job control or job decision latitude on the other hand refers to the employees ability to control his or her work activities and includes autonomy and skill discretion. In earlier research, these components were usually combined into one measure. Since the mid-1990s, however, there has been a shift towards a more specic measurement of the control dimension, which focuses on job control as such and omits skill utilization (e.g., De Witte et al., 2007; Wall, Jackson, Mullarkey, & Parker, 1996). High levels of job control are assumed to reduce stress and to encourage learning. The JDC model contains two central hypotheses. First, the strain hypothesis predicts the impact of psychological job demands and job control on health and well-being and draws on two subhypotheses. First, employees working in a high strain job, which combines high demands with low control, experience poor health and well-being. In other words, in view of work-related stress, the JDC model postulates two main eects: A high level of job demands and, independently, a low level of control increase workrelated stress and decrease health and well-being. The second subhypothesis, on the other hand, states that control buers the negative eects of job demands. More specically, job demands and job control interact so that the combination of high demands and low control additionally aects health or well-being in a way that exceeds the summation of both main eects of demands and control. Empirical research gives considerable support for both main eects (for an overview, see van der Doef & Maes, 1999). Support for the moderating inuence of job control, however, is less consistent (de Lange et al., 2003; van der Doef & Maes, 1998, 1999). Karasek stated that the existence of a multiplicative interaction term is not the primary focus of the model (Karasek, 1989). In view of the buer hypothesis, testing the interaction remains important when applying the JDC model to stressrelated outcome variables (e.g., Ganster, 1989). Second, the learning hypothesis assumes that high demands in combination with high control (i.e., active jobs) increase learning, motivation and development of new behaviour and skills. Passive jobs, which combine low demands with low job control, induce a decrease in overall activity and general problem-solving capacity and stimulates learned helplessness. However, as the current research investigates bullying at work as a form of behavioural strain (see, e.g., Baillien, Neyens, De Witte, & De Cuyper, 2009; Bowling & Beehr, 2006), testing the learning dimension is beyond the scope of this article. So far, the JDC models strain hypothesis has generated an impressive body of research, most of which has focused on physical health outcomes

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

160

BAILLIEN ET AL.

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

such as coronary heart disease (CHD), blood pressure, and muscle tension (for an overview, see Kristensen, 1995; Schnall, Landsbergis, & Baker, 1994). The model has also been extended to outcomes reecting employees psychological well-being (for an overview, see van der Doef & Maes, 1999). In this context, research focused upon general measures of psychosocial well-being, such as anxiety (e.g., Landbergis, Schnall, Deitz, Friedman, & Pickering, 1992; Wall et al., 1996) and depression (e.g., Baker, Israel, & Schurman, 1996; Karasek, 1979; Landsbergis, 1988), and upon job-related psychological well-being, such as job satisfaction (e.g., Humphris & Peacock, 1992; Moyle, 1995), sickness absence (e.g., Dwyer & Ganster, 1991), and burnout (e.g., Nijhuis & Smulders, 1996). Seemingly neglected in this broad range of studies are behavioural outcomes (for a discussion, see Cooper, Dewe, & ODriscoll, 2001), which so far have been addressed in terms of work performance (e.g., Sargent & Terry, 2000) and health-related behaviour (e.g., smoking; Fletcher & Jones, 1993). Accordingly, the current study wants to broaden this limited scope of behavioural strain in the realm of the JDC model by testing the strain hypothesis for targets reports of bullying at work, a social behavioural outcome that has been associated with work-related stressors throughout the literature.

BULLYING AT WORK, WORK-RELATED STRESS, JOB DEMANDS, AND JOB CONTROL

Bullying at work refers to persistent (e.g., minimum 6 months) negative acts at work. These acts are mainly psychological in nature, and may concern work-related issues (e.g., withholding documentation) as well as nonwork-related issues (e.g., insulting and humiliating acts), and social isolation (Cowie, Naylor, Smith, Rivers, & Pereira, 2002). They often cause humiliation, oence, and distress, and may interfere with job performance and/or cause an unpleasant working environment (Einarsen & Raknes, 1997; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007). The target of bullying is gradually forced into an inferior position and experiences diculties in defending him or herself (Einarsen et al., 1994; Hubert et al., 2001; Leymann, 1996). Accordingly, bullying at work can be dened as: Harassing, oending, socially excluding someone or negatively aecting someones work tasks. In order for the label bullying (or mobbing) to be applied to a particular activity, interaction or process, it has to occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g., weekly) and over a period of time (e.g., 6 months). Bullying is an escalating process in the course of which the person confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic negative social acts. A conict cannot

JOB DEMANDCONTROL AND BULLYING AT WORK

161

be called bullying if the incident is an isolated event or if two parties of approximately equal strength are in conict. (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003, p. 15) To further understanding of the origins of bullying at work, numerous researchers explored bullying antecedents. As thresholds to admit that one enacts bullying at work are rather high, research has particularly focused on targets reports of bullying (see Einarsen, 2000), a line we follow in our current study. So far, attention has been paid to triggering characteristics of the targets or perpetrators personality, societal changes, and social norms regarding bullying (Einarsen, 2000). The work environment hypothesis (Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2007; Leymann, 1996; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007), which attributes bullying to work environmental stressors, predominantly inspired this line of research and directed its focus at task, team, and organizational antecedents (e.g., Einarsen et al., 1994; Vartia, 1996; Zapf, 1999). Unfortunately, however, these studies remained rather explorative or descriptive in nature and produced an extensive list of potential antecedents (e.g., Notelaers, De Witte, & Einarsen, 2009), such as job ambiguity (e.g., Einarsen et al., 1994), job insecurity (e.g., De Cuyper, Baillien, & De Witte, 2009; Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Mullen, 1997; Neyens, Baillien, Notelaers, & De Witte, 2007; Sheehan, 1999), social support (e.g., Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996), organizational climate (e.g., Archer, 1999), and leadership (e.g., Agervold & Mikkelsen, 2004; Einarsen et al., 1994). Their results moreover inspired the development of various new and specic bullying models, which, due to an exhaustive list of included antecedents (e.g., Anderson, Anderson, & Deuser, 1996; Baillien et al., 2009) or a lack of clearcut denitions of the antecedents (e.g., Zapf & Einarsen, 2003), are either too complex or too general to allow a sound statistical test. Investigating the relationship between targets reports of bullying at work and well-established models such as the JDC model may therefore serve as a fruitful avenue to enhance understanding of the bullying phenomenon. Empirical as well as theoretical arguments favour the integration of the JDC model into research on bullying at work. As respects empirical arguments, there is a positive association between work-related stress and workplace bullying, which led some scholars to dene bullying as an extreme form of social stress at work (e.g., Zapf, 1999). Similarly, bullying has been associated with psychological strain (Hubert & van Veldhoven, 2001; Zapf et al., 1996) leading to fear, anxiety, helplessness, depression, sleep diculties, burnout, and even to the posttraumatic stress syndrome (Ashforth, 1994; Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996; Mathiessen & Einarsen, 2004; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002; Zapf, 1999). In other words, workplace bullying may be an indicator of strain in much the same way as more

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

162

BAILLIEN ET AL.

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

traditional interpretations of strain. Moreover, researchers have made valuable suggestions regarding job-related antecedents, which very well t the JDC strain hypothesis. Some scholars observed that targets reports of bullying relate to high workload and to low job autonomy (Einarsen et al., 1994; Neyens et al., 2007; Zapf et al., 1996). Still others argued that especially the combination of high job demands and low job control triggers targetization, which aligns with the JDC models high strain job (Hoel et al., 2002). These suggestions, however, have not been tested thus far. A theoretical argument relates to the suggestions of various authors regarding the process that explains why work stress is related to bullying (e.g., Baillien et al., 2009; Einarsen et al., 1994). They state that work-related stressors (e.g., high demands and low control) increase work-related stress. This, in turn, may hamper adaptive coping mechanisms, and may result in the violation of norms, habits, expectations, or even values that are crucial in the workplace. Colleagues and co-workers may oppose their violating co-worker (i.e., social interactionism; Felson & Tedeschi, 1993), which could fuel personal conicts and could eventually result in targetization of the strained employee. In similar vein, work-related stressors have been argued to wear out the employees resources, which could imply that such employees become easy targets who oer little resistance against workplace bullying (Hoel & Salin, 2003). Based on these arguments, we investigate whether targets reports of bullying may function as an outcome variable within Karaseks (1979) JDC model, and, more specically, its strain hypothesis. Accordingly, we hypothesize two main eects as well as an interaction eect of workload and autonomy on bullying at work: Hypothesis 1: Workload relates positively to targets reports of bullying at work. Hypothesis 2: Autonomy relates negatively to targets reports of bullying at work. Hypothesis 3: Workload and autonomy interact, so that the relationship between workload and targets reports of bullying is particularly strong under the condition of low autonomy. The JDC models strain hypothesis is supported when results reveal main eects of workload and autonomy, and/or when there is a multiplicative interaction eect (de Lange et al., 2003). To investigate whether the extension of the JDC model to targets reports of bullying at work holds for dierent national contexts, we test these hypotheses in matched samples of Spanish and Belgian employees.

JOB DEMANDCONTROL AND BULLYING AT WORK

163

METHOD Data
Data were collected by means of paper and pencil questionnaires among participants from two European countries: Spain and Belgium. Table 1 shows more detailed information of as well as a comparison between the Spanish and Belgian respondents. Specically, as respects the Spanish sample, data were collected during AprilJune 2005 in 11 organizations belonging to the industry sector, located in seven dierent regions in Spain. In each organization, access to the employees was facilitated by the Occupational Health representative. Participation was voluntary and condential, and written informed consent was obtained from all respondents. To encourage participation and honesty, respondents were instructed to mail their questionnaires under sealed envelopes directly to the authors research department. A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed and 352 were returned, of which 319 could be used for this study (response rate of 80%). The majority of the respondents were men (86.5%, N 276), which is typical for industry. Mean age of the respondents was 36.2 years (SD 10.4). Their work experience ranged between 1 and 46 years (M 11.8). Most participants received middle (45.4%) or low (44.8%)
TABLE 1 The Spanish sample (Sample 1) as compared to the Belgian sample (Sample 2): N (%) Spanish sample (N 319) Male Female M (SD) M (SD) Low (i.e., secondary school or lower) Middle (i.e., high school) High (i.e., higher education or university) Permanent Temporary Yes No M (SD) 276 (86.5) 43 36.2 11.8 143 (13.5) (10.4) (10.9) (44.8) Belgian sample (N 319) 276 (86.5) 43 37.02 12.61 140 (13.5) (10.18) (12.51) (43.9)

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

Characteristics Gender

Dierence w2(1, N 319) 0, p1 t(309) 1.41, p .16 t(312) 1.14, p .25 w2(2, N 319) 0.13, p .93

Age Tenure Educational level

145 (45.4) 31 (9.7)

148 (46.4) 31 (9.7)

Contract type

251 (78.7) 68 (21.3) 40 (12.5) 279 (87.4) 41.7 (4.23)

258 (81) 61 (19) 43 (13.5) 276 (86.5) 38 (5.47)

w2(1, N 319) 0.99, p .35 w2(1, N 319) 0.34, p .55 t(175) 8.95, p 5 .001

Supervision

Working hours

164

BAILLIEN ET AL.

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

education. A large majority (78.7%) had a permanent contract and occupied a nonsupervisory position (87.4%). On average, the Spanish participants worked 41 hours a week. As respects the Belgian respondents, data were collected between 2003 and 2006 in 30 Belgian organizations (N 8440). In each organization the study was initiated by the social partners and executed by the Occupational Health and Prevention organization in view of investigating the employees perception of psychosocial hazards and well-being at work. Participation was voluntary and condential. To encourage participation and honesty, respondents were instructed to mail their questionnaires under sealed envelopes to the Occupational Health organization or to post them under a blank envelope in a box at the organizations Human Resource department. Response rates in all participating organizations yielded 70% and higher. From these observations, we selected a matched subsample based on branch, gender, age, and educational level. The subsample consisted of 319 industry workers, employed at ve organizations located in four regions of Belgium. In line with the Spanish sample, the subsample contained 276 (86.5%) male employees. The average age of the respondents was 37.02 years (SD 10.18) and their tenure ranged between 1 and 47 years (M 12.61). As in the Spanish sample, most participants received middle (46.4%) or low (43.9%) education. The Belgian sample consisted out of 81% permanent employees and occupied a nonsupervisory position (86.5%), which corresponds with the Spanish respondents. The Belgian participants, however, worked slightly fewer hours a week compared to the Spanish employees (M 38). The Belgian subsamples respondents participated between April and October 2005.

Measures
The following measures were included in the questionnaire. Independent variables. In the Spanish sample, a measure adapted from Karasek and Theorell (1990), and Siegrist and Peter (1996) was used to measure workload (a .78, M 2.66, SD 0.66) and autonomy (a .69, M 3.59, SD 0.82). Both scales contained four items such as I have to work fast (workload) and I have autonomy to decide what I do in my job (autonomy). Participants assessed each statement along a scale ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 4 strongly agree for workload, and along a scale ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree for autonomy. In the Belgian sample, items of van Veldhoven and Meijman (1994) were used to assess workload (a .84, M 2.55, SD 0.73) and autonomy (a .76, M 2.12, SD 0.74). Each scale contained four items. On a scale

JOB DEMANDCONTROL AND BULLYING AT WORK

165

from 1 never to 4 always, respondents answered to questions as: Do you have to work fast? (workload) and Can you interrupt your work when you think it is necessary? (autonomy). The content of the measures of workload and autonomy in Belgium was highly similar to the content of the measures in the Spanish sample, even though the wording was slightly dierent.1 As compared to the Spanish sample, the Belgian sample scored lower on both workload, t(309) 2.67, p 5 .01, and autonomy2, t(309) 19.97, p 5 .001. Dependent variable. In both samples, targets reports of bullying at work was measured using a reduced seven-item version of the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ; Einarsen & Raknes, 1997; Notelaers, Einarsen, De Witte, & Vermunt, 2006). The items described various negative acts which may be perceived as bullying when occurring on a regular basis. They refer to personal (e.g., gossiping) as well as work-related bullying (e.g., withholding information) and examine how often the respondent was exposed to a specic act during the last 6 months. Response categories were 1 never, 2 now and then, 3 monthly, 4 weekly, and 5 daily. Internal consistency (a) yielded .78 in the Spanish sample as well as in the Belgian sample. The Belgian sample (M 1.60, SD 0.55) reported slightly more bullying than the Spanish sample (M 1.42, SD 0.60), t(294) 6.04, p 5 .001. Conrmatory factor analyses distinguishing three factors (i.e., workload, autonomy, and targets reports of bullying at work) revealed a satisfactory t of the factor measurement model in both the Spanish, w2(80) 163.52, GFI .90, RMSEA .05, and Belgian sample, w2(80) 147.38, GFI .94, RMSEA .05. Control variables. The following controls were measured in both samples and were included in all analyses: age (years), gender (0 female; 1 male), and supervisory position (0 no; 1 yes).

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

Analyses
Hypotheses were tested by means of hierarchical regression analyses (listwise deletion) with a two-way interaction term (SPSS 15.0). In order to rule out alternative explanations, age, gender, and supervisory position
Full set of items is available from the rst author upon request. To compare the means for autonomy between both samples, the Belgian autonomy scale was recalculated to range between 1 and 5 (M 2.50, SD 0.96). Although both measurements dier regarding a neutral midpoint category (i.e., do not agree to do not disagree), this comparison gives at least some indication regarding a higher versus lower score within both samples. Note, however, that this test should be interpreted with care.
2 1

166

BAILLIEN ET AL.

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

have been controlled for in all analyses (Step 1). Next, the main eects of both workload and autonomy were introduced (Step 2). Finally, Step 3 contained the interactions between both workload and autonomy. In line with Aiken and West (1991) and van Breukelen, Konst, and van der Vlist (2004), all predictors were centred. The interaction terms were calculated by multiplying the centred workload and autonomy scales (Aiken & West, 1991; van Breukelen et al., 2004). Moreover, we used the Durbin-Watson statistic as a diagnostic check for bias resulting from correlated errors terms. We found these values to be in the recommended range (1.52.5) for all reported equations and within both samples (Durbin & Watson, 1971; Ryan, 1997). Finally, the signicant interaction terms were studied by means of simple slopes analyses (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003).

RESULTS
Preliminary analyses revealed a positive association between workload and bullying and a negative association between autonomy and bullying on both the Spanish and Belgian sample, in line with the Job DemandControl model (Table 2). Moreover, autonomy correlated moderately and positively with supervisory position in both samples, indicating that supervisors experience higher levels of autonomy. The Belgian sample showed signicant correlations between workload/autonomy and age (i.e., older employees report higher workload/autonomy) and gender (i.e., male employees experience lower levels of autonomy) as well as targets reports of bullying and age (i.e., younger employees perceive more bullying), underlining their importance as controls in testing the strain hypothesis for targets reports of bullying at work. Table 3 gives a more detailed overview of the results in view of the hierarchical regression analyses. Regarding the Spanish sample, the controls explained only 2% of variance in targets reports of bullying at work (Step
TABLE 2 Correlation matrix (Belgian sample above the diagonal) 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Age Male Supervision Workload Autonomy Bullying at work **p 5 .01, *p 5 .001. 7.07 .03 .09 .08 .08 2 7.05 .08 .05 .04 7.10 3 .05 .04 .01 .20** .04 4 7.11* 7.17* 7.01 7.35** .41** 5 .14* .01 .12* 7.31** 7.47** 6 7.12* .04 7.01 .35** 7.19**

JOB DEMANDCONTROL AND BULLYING AT WORK

167

TABLE 3 Controls, workload, autonomy, and the interaction between workload and autonomy as predictors of bullying at work (Beta weights) Spain (N 319) Predictors Male Age Supervisor Workload Autonomy Workload 6 Autonomy R2 DR2 F *p 5 .05, ***p 5 .001. Step 1 7.10 .07 7.05 .02 .02 2.12 Step 2 7.10* .07 7.03 .28*** 7.39*** .33*** .31*** 29.7*** Step 3 7.09* .07 7.01 .28*** 7.34*** 7.12* .34*** .01* 26.1*** Belgium (N 319) Step 1 .01 7.09 7.01 .01 .01 .86 Step 2 .08 7.05 7.01 .37*** 7.06 .16*** .15*** 10.22*** Step 3 .10 7.04 7.01 .36*** 7.07 7.12* .17*** .01* 9.29***

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

1). Introducing the main eects of workload and autonomy resulted in 31% explained variance in targets reports of bullying. Taking into account the controls, both autonomy, b 7.39, p 5 .001, and workload, b .28, p 5 .001, signicantly predicted targets reports of bullying at work. In line with Hypothesis 1, workload was positively related to bullying. Moreover and as assumed in Hypothesis 2, autonomy related negatively to bullying. These main eects remained signicant when introducing the workload autonomy interaction term in Step 3. Results moreover revealed a signicant interaction eect of workload and autonomy, b 7.12, p 5 .05. The controls, workload, autonomy, and their interaction together accounted for 34% explained variance of targets reports of bullying. Regarding the Belgian sample, the control variables explained only 1% of variance in targets reports of bullying at work (Step 1). The introduction of workload and autonomy (Step 2) increased this proportion of explained variance to 16%, R2 change .15. Taking into account the control variables, workload showed a signicant main eect, b .37, p 5 .001. In line with our expectations, workload associated positively with bullying. Hypothesis 1 is thus conrmed. The analyses showed no main eect of autonomy when taking into account the controls. Hypothesis 2 is rejected. In line with our expectations, we nd a signicant interaction eect of workload and autonomy, b 7.12, p 5 .05 (Step 3). Moreover, after the introduction of the interaction term, workload remains signicant, b 7.36, p 5 .001. R2, when explaining targets reports of bullying at work by means of the controls, workload, autonomy, and their interaction, reached .17. To further test Hypothesis 3, we subsequently analysed the direction of the signicant interactions eect by means of simple slope analyses for low

168

BAILLIEN ET AL.

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

(i.e., 1 SD below the mean) and high (i.e., 1 SD above the mean) autonomy in conditions of low (i.e., 1 SD below the mean) and high (i.e., 1 SD above the mean) workload with respect to targets reports of bullying. In the Spanish sample, simple slope analysis indicated that there was a positive relationship between workload and workplace bullying for those who scored low on autonomy, b .38, t(316) 8.5, p 5 .001, as well as for those who scored high on autonomy, b .16, t(316) 2.8, p 5 .05 (Figure 1). The condence intervals (95%) did not overlap, revealing both slopes to dier signicantly. More specically, (high) autonomy appeared to buer the eect of (high) workload on targets reports of bullying at work. Hypothesis 3 was conrmed in Spain. High strain jobs associated with more targets reports of bullying. With regards to the Belgian sample, the simple slope analysis revealed a positive relationship between workload and workplace bullying for participants who scored low on autonomy, b .36, t(316) 8.56, p 5 .001, as well as for participants who scored high on autonomy, b .22, t(316) 8.56, p 5 .01 (Figure 2). The condence intervals (95%) did not overlap, indicating both slopes to dier signicantly. Again, (high) autonomy appeared to buer the eect of (high) workload on targets reports of bullying at work. In line with Hypothesis 3, high strain jobs were related to more bullying.

DISCUSSION
The present study aimed to explore whether the JDC models strain hypothesis can be generalized to targets reports of bullying at work in two

Figure 1. Interaction of workload and autonomy in predicting bullying at work in the Spanish sample.

JOB DEMANDCONTROL AND BULLYING AT WORK

169

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

Figure 2. sample.

Interaction of workload and autonomy in predicting bullying at work in the Belgian

dierent countries. Over the past 20 years, numerous studies have applied the model to a broad array of outcomes (for an overview, see van der Doef & Maes, 1999). Our study represented a rst attempt to extend the JDC model into the area of bullying at work. This study bridged a twofold gap: First, it provided further extension of the JCD model to a new social behavioural strain and broadened the scope of behavioural outcomes linked to the model. Second, it enhanced our knowledge regarding antecedents of bullying at work by introducing a well-established theoretical framework. Thus, one of the major contributions of this study lies in the application of a leading model of occupational stress to the prediction of targets reports of bullying. The results of the Spanish sample revealed a positive association between workload and targets reports of bullying at work, and a negative association between autonomy and bullying at work. Moreover, the interaction between workload and autonomy signicantly predicted targets reports of bullying at work, so that the association between workload and targets reports of bullying was the strongest under the condition of low autonomy. In the Belgian sample, workload and the interaction between workload and autonomy added to the prediction of targets reports of bullying at work, whereas no main eect of autonomy was found. In line with our expectations, workload associated positively with targets reports of bullying. Again, the relationship between workload and targets reports of bullying at work was stronger for employees with low levels of autonomy (i.e., signicant interaction). Following de Lange et al. (2003), Karaseks strain hypothesis was thus conrmed for both Spanish and Belgian bluecollar workers, underlining the signicance of targets reports of bullying as

170

BAILLIEN ET AL.

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

a social behavioural outcome in Karaseks JDC model. From a bullying perspective in particular, our ndings aligned with earlier theorizing and observations in view of targets reports of bullying. In this context, Baillien and colleagues (2009), in their Three Way model, argued that work-related stressors increase the likelihood of becoming a target of bullying by violating existing social, organizational and work-related norms. This, in turn, may tempt them to make mistakes, causing co-workers to adopt a negative attitude towards the stressed employee and to resort to acts of bullying as a form of social control or retaliation (Felson & Tedeschi, 1993; Hoel et al., 2002). Similarly, work-related stressors may wear out the employees resources to oer resistance against bullying, which could imply that they become easy targets (Hoel & Salin, 2003). In this context, scholars have associated being a target of bullying at work with indicators of weakness (Vartia, 1996) and a lack of resources (Zapf & Einarsen, 2005).

Implications and future research

The present study provided support for the work environment hypothesis, which attributes bullying to a stressful work environment and has been one of the most widely used frameworks when explaining the occurrence of bullying at work (Einarsen, 2000; Hauge et al., 2007; Leymann, 1996). Moreover, our study extended previous research in this context by explicitly founding our hypotheses on a comprehensive theoretical framework. As outlined earlier, previous empirical studies have identied several job and stress-related correlates of bullying at work (for a review, see Hoel & Salin, 2003). Although these studies represent good attempts to explain bullying behaviours, their results remain rather explorative. One exception is the study of Rodr guez-Munoz, Mart nez, Moreno, and Galvez (2006), who applied the Job DemandsResources model (JD-R model; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001) to the occurrence of bullying, and found that job resources (e.g., recognition at work) mediate the eect of job demands (e.g., workload) on targets reports of bullying at work. Future research may thus further the understanding of how bullying at work may emerge by explicitly focusing on well-established theories. Another contribution lied in the simultaneous investigation of two dierent national contexts, (i.e., a Spanish and Belgian sample), something which to the best of our knowledge has rarely been conducted in the bullying at work research domain to date (for an exception, see Jennifer, Cowie, & Ananiadou, 2003). Our results suggested that Karaseks strain hypothesis can be applied to targets reports to bullying at work in dierent national contexts and underline the models strength in explaining this form of social behavioural strain. One obvious dierence between both samples, however, laid in the association between autonomy and bullying, which was

JOB DEMANDCONTROL AND BULLYING AT WORK

171

signicant and negative in the Spanish sample and nonsignicant for the Belgian blue-collar workers. Three reasons could account for this observation. First, even though our study was conducted with matched samples that share a number of relevant demographic characteristics (see Table 1), the Spanish respondents yielded longer working hours, which, in turn, could perhaps have inuenced their possibilities and perceptions of autonomy. We feel however condent that sample dierences did not substantially altered our results. As respects working hours in particular, analyses did not reveal signicant correlations between working hours and autonomy, workload, or bullying at work; and working hours did not add to the prediction of targets reports of bullying. As respects sample dierences in general, our results were replicated in a second, independent matched sample of Belgian blue-collar workers (N 319), bworkload .35, p 5 .001; bautonomy 7.06, ns; bworkload*autonomy 7.11, p 5 .05. Second, this observation may be owed to measurement dierences in terms of the scales (i.e., for autonomy and workload), item wording (i.e., statements in the Spanish sample vs. questions in the Belgian sample for both workload and autonomy), and response scales (i.e., 15 Likert scale in the Spanish sample vs. 14 Likert scale in the Belgian sample for the autonomy scale). At rst glance, both autonomy and workload scales seem to cover similar contents in the Spanish and Belgian samples. As we could not directly link the dierent items used in the Spanish versus Belgian measurements, however, this could not be validated statistically. Future research may therefore replicate our ndings by means of identical scales or measurements that allow for multigroup conrmatory factor analyses. Note, however, that separate conrmatory factor analyses revealed a satisfactory t of the factor measurement model in both the Spanish and Belgian sample. Third, these results could be due to dierences in terms of job conditions in both national contexts. Specically, Smulders, Kompier, and Paoli (1996) found that the overall quality of working life in the southern European countries (e.g., Spain among others) was signicantly below average, whereas the Middle European countries (e.g., Belgium and Luxembourg) scored above average. Similarly, the Fourth European Working Conditions Survey (Parent-Thirion, Fernandez-Mac as, Hurley, & Vermeylen, 2007) revealed a great variation between countries concerning autonomy. Belgium is located among the top 10 countries with the highest level of autonomy, and scores above the average of the European Union. In contrast, Spain is the fth European country with the lowest levels of autonomy, clearly below EU average (Parent-Thirion et al., 2007). These observations are not supported in our current study, in which the Spanish sample reported a higher mean on autonomy instead. However, various researchers have underlined (national) context as a variable that may inuence the employees

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

172

BAILLIEN ET AL.

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

evaluation of the work environment (Pfeer, 1981; Rousseau & Fried, 2001). Accordingly, as autonomy appears a rare privilege among the Spanish workforce, Spanish workers may attach greater importance to this job characteristic as compared to Belgian employees. Thus, among Spanish workers, high versus low levels of autonomy could more easily manifest itself in well-being and behavioural strain such as targets reports of bullying at work. Other observations in view of dierences between both samples may pave the way for future research, too. First, this study was among the rst to simultaneously include targets reports of bullying in samples related to dierent national contexts. Interestingly, our study revealed dierences with respect to targets reports of bullying assessed by means of the same set of items; yielding slightly higher scores for the Belgian blue-collar workers. As respects the Belgian respondents, the percentage of targets measured with the seven-item version of the NAQ in this sample was similar to those reported in other and more representative samples with Belgian or Spanish workers. To our best knowledge, however, no studies to date have looked more profoundly into the content and prevalence of bullying across various national contexts. Second, we observed that the JDC model explained more variance in targets reports of bullying in the Spanish sample, R2 .34, than in the Belgian sample, R2 .17, suggesting that job characteristics other than workload and autonomy may oer a more powerful contribution to the bullying targetization amongst Belgian employees. In this context, Belgian scholars have reported especially role conict and job insecurity as job-related aspects that associated strongly with targets reports of bullying at work (Baillien, De Witte, Notelaers, & Neyens, 2008; De Cuyper et al., 2009; Neyens et al., 2007). Against this backdrop, future studies may compare various national samples in view of the content and prevalence of bullying. Moreover, they may explore similarities and dierences between national samples with respect to a broad range of job-related stressors, for example, as outlined in the more comprehensive JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001), in their association with targets reports of bullying at work.

Limitations
The current study has some draw-backs that should be addressed. First, given the cross-sectional nature of our study, we cannot draw any conclusions about causality. Future longitudinal research may help to clarify the direction of these ndings. Second, since the present study exclusively relied on self-reports, results may be contaminated by common method variance. However, although main eects might have been aected by common method variance, nonlinear eects such as interactions are hardly attributable to method bias (Aiken & West, 1991). To the contrary,

JOB DEMANDCONTROL AND BULLYING AT WORK

173

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

common method variance is likely to attenuate rather than to strengthen interaction (Wall et al., 1996). Another possible concern of this design is that we did not control for the eect of personality or temperament factors (e.g., Schmitt, Allik, McCrae, & Benet-Martynez, 2007). The relationship between both dimensions of the JDC model and targets reports of bullying may be moderated by individual variables (Schaubroeck, Jones, & Xie, 2001; Xie, 1996). Finally, our sample was nonrepresentative and homogenous, consisting of blue-collar workers. It seems necessary to undertake new studies based on more representative and heterogeneous samples, which may improve the possibilities for generalizing our ndings and comparing actual countries instead of national contexts. However, de Lange et al. (2003) found no dierences between studies of the JDC model using homogenous and heterogeneous samples.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
The current study aimed to explore whether the JDC models strain hypothesis could be generalized to targets reports of bullying at work in matched samples of two European countries, namely, Spain and Belgium. By doing so, we further investigated the models predictive power. Moreover, we added to research in the realm of bullying by introducing a well-established framework to enhance understanding in the bullying phenomenon. Our results revealed that Karaseks strain hypothesis successfully explained targets reports of bullying among Spanish as well as Belgian industry workers: High strain jobs associate with more bullying. In sum, targets reports of bullying may indeed be considered as a form of behavioural strain that ts Karaseks JDC model. These ndings suggest valuable leads for organizations who wish to pursue a policy against bullying at work. Specically, our results stressed the importance of workrelated and more specically job stressors as correlates of targets reports of bullying. To prevent targetization, organizations could accordingly invest in job designs with a fair workload and high levels of autonomy.

REFERENCES
Agervold, M., & Mikkelsen, E. G. (2004). Relationships between bullying, psychosocial work environment and individual stress reactions. Work and Stress, 18, 336351. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Anderson, C. A., Anderson, K. B., & Deuser, W. E. (1996). Examining an aective aggression framework: Weapon and temperature eects on aggressive thoughts, aect, and attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 366376. Archer, D. (1999). Exploring bullying culture in the para-military organization. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 94105.

174

BAILLIEN ET AL.

Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755778. Baillien, E., De Witte, H., Notelaers, G., & Neyens, I. (2008). De ontwikkeling van de RATOG: een screeningsinstrument voor de preventie van pesterijen op het werk [Construction of a risk assessment tool to prevent workplace bullying]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 21, 254277. Baillien, E., Neyens, I., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2009). Towards a three way model of workplace bullying: A qualitative study. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 116. Baker, E., Israel, B., & Schurman, S. (1996). Role of control and support in occupational stress: An integrated model. Social Science and Medicine, 43, 11451159. Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victims perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 9981012. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & ODriscoll, P. (2001). Organizational stress: A review and critique of theory, research, and applications. London: Sage. Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Smith, P. K., Rivers, I., & Pereira, B. (2002). Measuring workplace bullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 3551. De Cuyper, N., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity and workplace bullying among targets and perpetrators: Moderation by employability. Work and Stress, 23, 206 224. de Jonge, J., & Kompier, M. (1997). A critical examination of the Demand-Control-Support model from a work psychological perspective. International Journal of Stress Management, 4, 235258. de Lange, A., Taris, T., Kompier, M., Houtman, I., & Bongers, P. (2003). The very best of the millennium: Longitudinal research and the Demand-Control-(Support) model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 282305. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demandsresources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499512. De Witte, H., Verhofstadt, E., & Omey, E. (2007). Testing Karaseks learning and strain hypotheses on young workers in their rst job. Work and Stress, 21(2), 131141. Durbin, J., & Watson, G. S. (1971). Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. Biometrika, 58, 119. Dwyer, D. J., & Ganster, D. C. (1991). The eects of job demands and control on employee attendance and satisfaction. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 12, 595608. Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 379401. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). The concept of bullying at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace:. International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 3 30). London: Taylor & Francis. Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. I. (1997). Harassment in the workplace and targetization of men. Violence and Targets, 12, 247263. Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., & Matthiesen, S. B. (1994). Bullying and harassment at work and their relationships to work environment quality: An exploratory study. The European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 4, 381401. Felson, R. B., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1993). Aggression and violence: Social interactionists perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Fletcher, B. C., & Jones, F. (1993). A refutation of Karaseks demands-discretion model of occupational stress with a range of dependent measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 319330.

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

JOB DEMANDCONTROL AND BULLYING AT WORK

175

Ganster, D. C. (1989). Worker control and well-being: A review of research in the workplace. In S. L. Sauter, J. J. Hurell, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Job control and worker health (pp. 324). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work and Stress, 21, 220242. Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Destructive conict and bullying at work. Manchester, UK: Manchester School of Management, UMIST. Hoel, H., & Salin, D. (2003). Organisational antecedents of bullying at work. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 145162). London: Taylor & Francis. Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2002). Bullying at work and stress. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Historical and current perspectives on stress and health (Vol. 2, pp. 293 333). Amsterdam: JAI Press. Hubert, A., Furda, J., & Steensma, H. (2001). Mobbing, systematisch pestgedrag in organisaties: Twee studies naar antecedenten en gevolgen voor de gezondheid [Mobbing, systematic bullying in organizations: Two studies about antecedents and health-related consequences]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 14, 378396. Hubert, A. B., & van Veldhoven, M. (2001). Risk sectors for undesirable behavior and mobbing. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 415424. Humphris, G. M., & Peacock, L. (1992). Occupational stress and job satisfaction in the community dental service of north Wales: A pilot study. Community Dental Health, 10, 7382. Jennifer, D., Cowie, H., & Ananiadou, K. (2003). Perceptions and experience of workplace bullying in ve dierent working populations. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 489496. Johnson, J. V., & Hall, E. M. (1988). Job strain, work place social support, and cardiovascular disease: A cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 13361342. Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285308. Karasek, R. (1985). Job Content Instrument: Questionnaire and users guide. Los Angeles, CA: University of South California. Karasek, R. (1989). Control in the workplace and its health-related aspects. In S. Sauter, J. Hurrel, & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Job control and worker health (pp. 129159). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books. Kristensen, T. S. (1995). The Demand-Control-Support model: Methodological challenges for future research. Stress Medicine, 11, 1726. Landsbergis, P. A. (1988). Occupational stress among health care workers: A test of the Job Demands-Control model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 155168. Landsbergis, P. A., Schnall, P. L., Deitz, D., Friedman, R., & Pickering, T. (1992). The patterning of psychological attributes and distress by job strain and social support in a sample of working men. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15, 379405. Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165184. Leymann, H., & Gustafsson, A. (1996). Mobbing at work and the development of posttraumatic stress disorders. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 251 275. Lundberg, U., Dohns, I. E., Melin, B., Sandsjoe, L., Palmerud, G., Kadefors, R., et al. (1999). Psychophysiological stress responses, muscle tension, and neck and shoulder pain among supermarket cashiers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 245255.

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

176

BAILLIEN ET AL.

Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2004). Psychiatric distress and symptoms of PTSD among victims of bullying at work. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32, 335356. Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Perpetrators and targets of bullying at work: Role stress and individual dierences. Violence and Targets, 22, 735753. Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Relationships between exposure to bullying at work and psychological and psychosomatic health complaints: The role of state negative aectivity and generalized self-ecacy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 397405. Moyle, P. (1995). The role of negative aectivity in the stress process: Tests of alternative models. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 647668. Mullen, E. (1997). Workplace violence: Cause for concern or the construction of a new category of fear. Journal of Industrial Relations, 39, 2131. Neyens, I., Baillien, E., Notelaers, G., & De Witte, H. (2007). Pesten op het werk: Risicofactoren in werk en organisatie [Workplace bullying: Risk factors in the job and the organization]. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken, 23, 306320. Nijhuis, F. N., & Smulders, P. G. W. (1996). Die wirkung van arbeidsanforderungen in personlichen kontrollmoglichkeiten auf gezundheitsbeschwerden un fehlzeiten [True inuence of job demands and job control on health complaints and absenteism]. Zeitschrift fur Arbeits-, und Organisationspychologie, 40, 173180. Notelaers, G., De Witte, H., & Einarsen, S. (2009). A job characteristics approach to explain workplace bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/13594320903007620. Notelaers, G., Einarsen, S., De Witte, H., & Vermunt, J. K. (2006). Measuring exposure to bullying at work: The validity and advantages of the latent class cluster approach. Work and Stress, 20, 288301. Parent-Thirion, A., Fernandez-Macias, E., Hurley, J., & Vermeylen, G. (2007). Fourth European Working Conditions Survey. Luxembourg: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Work Conditions. Pfeer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 152). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Rodr guez-Munoz, A., Mart nez, M., Moreno, B., & Galvez, M. (2006). Predictores organizacionales del acoso psicologico en el trabajo: Aplicacion del modelo de demandas y recursos laborales [Organizational predictors of workplace bullying: Application of Job Demands-Resources model]. Revista de Psicologa del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 22, 333346. Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 113. Ryan, T. (1997). Modern regression methods. New York: Wiley. Sargent, L. D., & Terry, D. J. (2000). The moderating role of social support in Karaseks job strain model. Work and Stress, 14, 245261. Schaubroeck, J., Jones, J. R., & Xie, J. L. (2001). Individual dierences in utilizing control to cope with job demands: Eects on susceptibility to infectious disease. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 265278. Schmitt, D., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martynez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and proles of human self- description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 173212. Schnall, P. L., Landsbergis, P. A., & Bakker, D. (1994). Job strain and cardiovascular disease. Annual Review of Public Health, 15, 381411. Sheehan, M. (1999). Workplace bullying: Responding with some emotional intelligence. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 5769.

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

JOB DEMANDCONTROL AND BULLYING AT WORK

177

Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 10:24 19 August 2011

Siegrist, J., & Peter, R. (1996). Measuring eortreward imbalance at work: Guidelines. Dusseldorf, Germany: Heinrich Heine University. Smulders, P. G. W., Kompier, M. A. J., & Paoli, P. (1996). The work environment in the twelve EU-countries: Dierences and similarities. Human Relations, 49, 12911313. Van Breukelen, W., Konst, D., & van der Vlist, R. (2004). Reaction to comments on the eects of leader-member exchange and dierential treatment on work unit commitment: Distinguishing between neutralizing and moderating eects. Psychological Reports, 95, 879882. Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1998). The Job Demand-Control(-Support) model and physical health outcomes: A review of the strain and buer hypotheses. Psychology and Health, 13, 909936. Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1999). The Job Demand-Control(-Support) model and psychological well-being: A review of 20 years of empirical research. Work and Stress, 13, 87114. Van Veldhoven, M., & Meijman, T. F. (1994). Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting met een vragenlijst: De vragenlijst beleving en beoordeling van de arbeid (VBBA) [Measuring psychosocial demands with a questionnaire: The questionnaire on the experience and evaluation of work (VBBA)]. Amsterdam: Nederlands Instituut voor Arbeidsomstandigheden. Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying: Psychological work environment and organizational climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 203214. Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., Mullarkey, S., & Parker, S. K. (1996). The Demands-Control model of job strain: A more specic test. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 153166. Xie, J. L. (1996). Karaseks model in the peoples Republic of China: Eects of job demands, control, and individual dierences. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 15941618. Zapf, D. (1999). Organisational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 7085. Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2003). Individual antecedents of bullying: Targets and perpetrators. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 165184). London: Taylor & Francis. Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2005). Mobbing at work: Escalated conicts in organizations. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 237270). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Zapf, D., Knorz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationship between mobbing factors, and job content, social work environment, and health outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 215237. Original manuscript received December 2008 Revised manuscript received June 2009 First published online March 2010