190 likes | 283 Views
The role of bullying at work in explaining stress and well-being at work. Guy Notelaers 1,2 Hans De Witte 1 Stale Einarsen 3. 1: Leuven University, Department of Psychology, Research Group on Stress, Health and Well-being, Belgium
E N D
The role of bullying at work in explaining stress and well-being at work Guy Notelaers1,2 Hans De Witte1 Stale Einarsen3 1: Leuven University, Department of Psychology, Research Group on Stress, Health and Well-being, Belgium 2: DIOVA-DIRACT Federal Government, Labour Department , Belgium 3: Bergen University, Department of Psychology, Norway European Congress Work and Organisational Psychology, Istanbul, 2005
0. Outline • Review of current research • Data & measurement instruments • Methodology : how to address this issue • Results • Bivariate analysis of consequences of bullying • Multivariate analysis within SEM • Discussion
1. Review of current research • Strains : • Emotional reactions (Bjorkvist et al., 1994; Rayner, 1999; Zapf, 1999b), • Psychosomatic complaints (Zapf, Knorz & Kulla, 1996, Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002b ; Halama & Mökkel, Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996), • Anxiety (Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Bjorkvist et al., 1994; Asforth, 1994; Zapf, 199b, O’Moore, 1998, Mackensen von Astfeld, 2000, Niedl 1996), • Recovery need (Hubert, 2001) • Quality of sleep (Bjorkvist et al., 1994; Zapf, Knorz & Kulla, 1996, Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996) • Disorders • General Anxiety Disorder (Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996) • Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996; Romanov, et al., 1996; Bjorkvist, et al., 1994; Einarsen, et al., 1998) • Prolonged Stress Disorder (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001:2002) Aim: to investigate the relationship between bullying at work and strains.
2. Data • During 2003-2004, 4505 questionnaires were collected from 13 companies • Average age of respondents: 40 years (std deviation = 12,5). • Average tenure is eleven years (std deviation = 10,3). • 65% private sector / 35% government or government institutions.
3. Measurement instruments • Stressors and strains: the VBBA, a 26 dimensional, validated questionnaire (van Veldhoven & Meijman, 1994) • Bullying at work: the NAQ, (only 17 items), validated for French and Dutch speaking respondents (Notelaers, et. al, 2004)
4. Methodology • Bivariate analysis with total scales from the VBBA and the total item list of the NAQ • Items of the NAQ were not dichomized. Following Mikkelsen & Einarsen (2001;2002) we summed the items … assuming a uni-dimensional measurement (the same holds for the VBBA scales) • Multivariate analysis within SEM (Lisrel 8.54) • For modelling purposes the number of items of the NAQ and the VBBA-scales were reduced in LISREL in order to obtain unique factors
Multivariate analysis : research strategy • Split half design • One part to explore a model (exploratory phase) • One part to test a model (confirmatory phase) • Exploratory analysis • Start is the regression model (Notelaers et al., 2003, 2004) • Interaction between modification indices and stress theories to decide on new paths • Model evaluation by Δ² with Δdf (nested models) and AIC / CAIC (non nested models) • Confirmatory analysis : see whether model from exploratory analysis fits the data • Exact fit evaluation by ² with a certain number of df • Approximate fit evaluation by RMSEA
5. Results 5.1. Bivariate analysis - correlation analysis - t-test 5.2. Multivariate analysis - full model - antecedents of bullying - consequences of bullying - antecedents and consequences of bullying and stress 5.3 Conclusion
5.1.2 Bivariate results t-test SYMP-TOMS OF STRESS ANTE- CE-DENTS OF STRESSAND BULLY-ING
Conclusion bivariate analysis • Moderate strength of the relationship between bullying and its antecedents and consequences • Victims of bullying (operational criterion) report a negative work environment and also an elevated level of strains (LCA approaches show -1 STD)
5.2 Multivariate analysis • Full model • Fragmentation of the model • Antecedents • Consequences • Conclusion
workload role conflict .22 .4 .36 worrying .44 .64 -.14 RMSEA=0.030 Independ. CAIC=122762 Model CAIC = 2466 Saturated CAIC=5483.46 NFI=0.93 CFI=0.93 GFI=0.83 -.35 .32 .3 -. 3 .07 role ambiguity bullying at work . 39 recovery need -.12 .32 .2 problems change -.11 -.08 -.23 -.12 -.44 -.47 sleep quality participation level .1 5.2.0 Multivariate analysis of full model (confirmatory step)
workload role conflict .22 .4 .44 .64 .07 role ambiguity bullying at work . 39 -.12 .2 problems change -.11 -.23 -.47 participation level 5.2.1 Antecedents of bullying
worrying .32 .30 -. 3 bullying at work recovery need .32 -.08 -.44 sleep quality 5.2.2 Consequences of bullying
workload .36 worrying -.14 .35 .32 .30 -. 3 bullying at work recovery need .32 -.11 -.08 -.12 -.44 sleep quality participation level .10 5.2.3 Antecedents and consequences of bullying at work (partial picture)
5.3 Conclusion • Bullying at work is explained by ‘role’ problems and by JDC • Role conflict is a dominant explanatory variable for bullying • Bullying moderates the relationships between role problems and strains • Bullying and JD have equal strenght while explaining worrying and recovery need • Recovery need and worrying moderates the relationship between bullying and sleep quality
Is bullying an extreme stressor? • Being a victim of bullying causes extreme stress • The process of bullying modelled as a latent variable is has the same importance in explaining strains as the other work characteristics