Swiss Journal online und o ine of Psychology - VDU · 2017. 7. 12. · ality theory (Astrauskaite & Kern, 2011). To provide additional insight into the personality attributes of the

Volume 75 / Number 2 / 2016

Swiss Journalof Psychology

Editor-in-ChiefGrégoire Zimmermann

Associate EditorsThierry LecerfNicolas RothenChristian Staerklé

Swis

s Jou

rnal

of P

sych

olog

yVo

lum

e 75

/ N

umbe

r 2

/ 20

16

Die Balance zwischen online und o� ine

Isabel Willemse

OnlinesuchtEin Ratgeber für Eltern, Betroffene und ihr Umfeld

2016. 160 S., 11 Abb., 7 Tab., Kt€ 19.95 / CHF 26.90ISBN 978-3-456-85542-4AUCH ALS E-BOOK

Smartphones, Tablets und Laptops sind

zu unseren ständigen Begleitern ge-

worden, wir verbringen unsere Freizeit

in Sozialen Netzwerken wie Instagram

oder Facebook, mit dem Verschicken von

Bildern oder Textnachrichten und mit

Videogames. Ein Großteil der Jugendli-

chen und Erwachsenen beweist einen

kompetenten und vernünftigen Umgang

mit diesen Gadgets und kann sich prob-

lemlos zwischen digitaler und analoger

Welt hin und her bewegen. Aber es gibt

auch einen kleinen Teil, dem das nicht

gelingt.

Wenn die exzessive Mediennutzung ne-

gative Auswirkungen hat auf das Sozial-

leben und Hobbys, den Beruf oder die

Ausbildung und allenfalls auch die Ge-

sundheit, dann könnte es sich um eine

Onlinesucht handeln. Hierbei handelt

es sich um eine sehr neue Diagnose, die

noch nicht in den offi ziellen Diagnose-

instrumenten vorhanden ist. Nichts-

destotrotz wird sie von Eltern, Betrof-

fenen und ihrem Umfeld erkannt und in

der Beratungspraxis regelmäßig ange-

troffen.

Der Ratgeber wird in einem theoreti-

schen Teil eine allgemeine Einführung

in die Mediennutzung geben, aber vor

allem das Störungsbild genau beschrei-

ben. Hierzu gehören die Diagnosekrite-

rien, Verbreitung, Ursachen und auch

Begleiterkrankungen. Der praktische

Teil enthält viele konkrete Vorschläge

für Bezugspersonen und Betroffene im

Umgang mit Onlinesucht.

www.hogrefe.com

Willemse_210x277.indd 1 14.01.16 16:27

Swiss Journal of Psychology (2016), 75 (2) © 2016 Hogrefe

Contents

Original Communications Lifestyle, Conflict-Solving Styles, and Exposure to Workplace Bullying: A Modelof MediationMilda Perminiene, Roy M. Kern, and Aidas Perminas 57

Associations Between Interpersonal Relationships and Negative Affect inAdolescents: An Experience Sampling Study on the Role of Trait CopingHannah K. Lennarz, Eeske van Roekel, Emmanuel Kuntsche, AnnaLichtwarck-Aschoff, Tom Hollenstein, Rutger C. M. E. Engels, and Isabela Granic 71

Without Conscious Effort: The Ability of Nontonal Language Speakers toDiscriminate Lexical and Nonlexical TonesLap-Yan Lo 81

Short Research Note The Impact of Regulatory Focus on Challenge and ThreatClaudia Sassenrath, Kai Sassenberg, and Daan Scheepers 91

Original Communication Controlled Motivational Orientation and Prejudice: The Mediating Role ofDehumanizationKyriaki Fousiani, Panayiota Dimitropoulou, and Michalis Michaelides 97

Swiss Journal of Psychology (2016), 75 (2)

Swiss Journal of Psychology

Official Publicationof the Swiss Psychological Society

Ihr Artikel wurde in einer Zeitschrift der Hogrefe AG veröffentlicht.

Dieser e-Sonderdruck wird ausschließlich für den persönlichen Gebrauch

der Autoren zur Verfügung gestellt. Eine Hinterlegung auf einer persönlichen

oder institutionellen Webseite oder einem sog. «Dokumentenserver»

bzw. institutionellen oder disziplinären Repositorium ist nicht gestattet.

Falls Sie den Artikel auf einer persönlichen oder institutionellen Webseite

oder einem sog. Dokumentenserver bzw. institutionellen oder disziplinären

Repositorium hinterlegen wollen, verwenden Sie bitte dazu ein «pre-print»

oder ein «post-print» der Manuskriptfassung nach den Richtlinien

der Publikationsfreigabe für Ihren Artikel bzw. den «Online-Rechte

für Zeitschriftenbeiträge» (http://www.hogrefe.ch/informationen).

M. Perminiene et al.: Lifestyle, Conflict Solving, Workplace Bu llyingSwissJournal of Psychology (2016), 75 (2), 57–69© 2016 Hogrefe

Original Communication

Lifestyle, Conflict-Solving Styles,

and Exposure to Workplace Bullying

A Model of Mediation

Milda Perminiene1, Roy M. Kern2, and Aidas Perminas2

1Department of Philosophy and Psychology, Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania2Department of Theoretic Psychology, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania

DOI 10.1024/1422-4917/a000173

Abstract. The present study identified direct and indirect relationships between lifestyle attributes and exposure to workplace bullying (viathe conflict-solving styles of problem solving, compromising, yielding, and forcing). Our results demonstrated that being cautious, going along,and taking charge were positively directly related to exposure to workplace bullying. In addition, higher belonging/social interest was relatedto less exposure to bullying via more frequent use of problem solving and less frequent use of forcing. Higher being cautious was related togreater exposure to bullying via less frequent use of problem solving. Higher going along was related to greater bullying via more frequent useof forcing. On the one hand, higher taking charge and wanting recognition were related to greater exposure to bullying via more frequent useof forcing. On the other hand, they were also related to less bullying via more frequent use of problem solving. The results prompt the inclusionof situational moderators that would help us to identify when conflict-solving styles are used. The conflict-solving styles of compromising andyielding did not explain the indirect effects, so the findings highlighted the two key conflict-solving dimensions of problem solving and forcingwhich partially explained the mechanisms that underlie the relationship between lifestyle attributes and workplace bullying.

Keywords: lifestyle, personality, conflict-solving styles, workplace bullying, individual psychology theory

The term “workplace bullying” refers to situations in which oneor more individuals have been exposed to repeated and persis-tent negative behaviors over the past 6 months from col-league(s), supervisor(s) or subordinate(s). These behaviorsmay be person-related, work-related, and/or physically intimi-dating behavior (Einarsen, 2000, 2005; Notelaers, 2011). Pre-vious research demonstrated that workplace bullying may beconsidered one of the most severe workplace stressors (Fox &Stallworth, 2010; Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2010), andthat it is linked to anxiety (Leymann, 1990, 1996), depression(Björkqvist, Österman, & Hjelt-Bäck, 1994; Hansen et al.,2006), posttraumatic stress disorder (Leymann & Gustafson,1996), fatigue, loss of self-confidence (Pranjic, Males-Bilic, Be-ganlic, & Mustajbegovic, 2006; Vartia, 2001), aggression, in-

somnia, apathy (Björkqvist et al., 1994), muscle pains, head-aches, stomach problems, and hand tremors (Celep & Konakli,2013). These negative consequences encouraged researchersto explore potential causes that may trigger or deter bullying inthe workplace (Astrauskaite, 2013; Notelaers, 2011).

Previous research indicates that workplace bullying may berelated to individual attributes such as the personality of thetarget or the instigator (Balducci, Alfano, & Fraccaroli, 2009;Brodsky, 1976; Gandolfo, 1995; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001,2007; Vartia, 1996), coping styles (Baillien, Neyens, De Witte,& De Cuyper, 2009; Zapf & Gross, 2001), or work-relatedfactors such as job design and leadership style (Agervold &Mikkelsen, 2004; Hoel & Salin, 2003; Notelaers, De Witte, &Einarsen, 2010).

Figure 1. Hypothesized model.

© 2016 Hogrefe Swiss Journal of Psychology (2016), 75 (2), 57–69

Author's personal copy (e-offprint)

One of the most recent approaches to the various anteced-ents of workplace bullying is the three-way model presented byBaillien et al. (2009). The authors argued that workplace bul-lying may develop as a result of three pathways, namely, frus-tration and strain, conflicts and conflict solving, and aspects ofthe team and organization (Baillien et al., 2009). They alsosuggested that individual characteristics and work-related ante-cedents may influence these three pathways and be indirectlyrelated to workplace bullying (Baillien et al., 2009). In the pre-sent study, we investigated one of the pathways proposed tolead to bullying by analyzing how one’s personality/lifestyle at-tributes are related to exposure to workplace bullying via con-flict-solving styles. The proposed research model is presentedin Figure 1.

Lifestyle and Workplace Bullying

Since the first theoretical work on work harassment (Brod-sky, 1976), a number of studies have examined the personal-ity of the target as a potential antecedent of workplace bully-ing. Brodsky (1976) was the first to argue that individual vul-nerability is the most dominant antecedent and claimed thategocentric, self-absorbed people may see hostility in others,expect to be attacked and, thus, become targets of harass-ment. In a recent longitudinal study, Bowling, Beehr, Ben-nett, and Watson (2010) showed that the target’s personalitywas indeed related to victimization and not vice versa. Otherstudies demonstrated that greater exposure to workplace bul-lying was linked to Type A personality (Pranjic et al., 2006),neuroticism, sensitivity, suspicious attitude, anger (Balducciet al., 2009; Gandolfo, 1995; Vartia, 1996), narcissism, psy-choticism (Linton & Power, 2013), impulsiveness (Persson etal., 2009), low self-esteem (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007),lower independence, and higher introversion (Coyne, Seig-ne, & Randall, 2000). In addition, Matthiesen and Einarsen(2007) identified the provocative target group, who dis-played a higher level of aggression and unstable self-esteem.Hence, it seems that individuals may participate in their ownvictimization by behaving passively or exhibiting aggressive,irritating behaviors (Aquino, 2000).

Despite numerous studies conducted on the personalitycharacteristics of the potential target, it is surprising that fewstudies have linked research findings to an organized person-ality theory (Astrauskaite & Kern, 2011). To provide additionalinsight into the personality attributes of the potential target, thepresent study is presented from an individual psychology per-spective, which is an organized personality theory that aims toexplain the individual’s present behavior and reactions by an-alyzing early childhood experiences (Del Corso, Rehfuss, &Galvin, 2011; Dreikurs, 1971).

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1

In the theory of individual psychology, “personality” is referredto as “lifestyle” (Ferguson, 2003). According to Adler (1964),“lifestyle” is a more efficient concept than “personality” be-cause it refers to the ways an individual operates within thesocial system (Griffith & Powers, 2007). “Lifestyle” may be con-ceptualized as an organized set of biased perceptions, beliefs,and values that the individual creates before the age of 10 with-in the confines of the family and employs throughout life tosolve problems related to social relationships, work, and inti-macy issues (Adler, 1964; Carlson, Watts, & Maniacci, 2006;Jonyniene & Kern, 2012).

Five main lifestyle attributes are described in the literature:belonging/social interest, going along, taking charge, wanting rec-ognition, and being cautious (Wheeler, Kern, & Curlette, 1993).Belonging/social interest represents the extent to which an indi-vidual felt having belonged in the family of origin (Curlette &Kern, 2010). Individuals who score higher on the belonging/so-cial interest scale tend to view the world more positively and op-timistically (Kern, Wheeler, & Curlette, 1993); they are less proneto being exposed to workplace bullying because optimism is adeterrent to workplace bullying (Baillien et al., 2009). They alsohave better social competencies (more effective in solving con-flicts, capable of empathizing with others, effective listeners; Pe-luso, Peluso, Buckner, Curlette, & Kern, 2004; Kern et al., 1993),which has been linked to less exposure to bullying (Matthiesen& Einarsen, 2007). Moreover, they are more confident and dis-play higher self-worth (Kern et al., 1993), which was found to benegatively related to the target’s status (Matthiesen & Einarsen,2007). In addition, belonging/social interest was found to be pos-itively related to three of the Big Five personality dimensions,namely, Extraversion, Emotional stability, and Agreeableness(Gaube, Kern, & Stoltz, 2015). Because previous research find-ings demonstrated that individuals who are less emotionally sta-ble, less agreeable, and less extraverted may be more prone tobecoming targets of bullying (Glasø, Matthiesen, Nielsen, & Ein-arsen, 2007) or incivility (Milam, Spitzmueller, & Penney, 2009),the idea arose that belonging/social interest may be negativelyrelated to exposure to workplace bullying.

Individuals with low scores on belonging/social interest aremore introverted, sad, less self-confident, and may feel a senseof alienation (Kern et al., 1993). According to Kern et al.(1993), these lower-scoring individuals “could have difficultiescommunicating with people and feeling like they belong andare worthwhile” (p. 25). This could be linked to the role of thesubmissive target (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007). Hence, ourfirst hypothesis was: Belonging/social interest is negatively re-lated to exposure to workplace bullying: Individuals who scorehigher on belonging/social interest will report less exposure toworkplace bullying.

58 M. Perminiene et al.: Lifestyle, Conflict Solving, Workplace Bullying

Swiss Journal of Psychology (2016), 75 (2), 57–69 © 2016 Hogrefe


Hypothesis 2

The second lifestyle theme is going along. Individuals who scorehigher on going along learned that, in order for them to belong,they need to follow the rules, be respectful, polite, and forgiving(Kern et al., 1993). These characteristics seem to deter expo-sure to workplace bullying. Individuals with low scores on thegoing along scale learned to be defensive and even offensivebased on their understanding of the world as a dangerous andhostile place (Kern et al., 1993). These individuals may be ag-gressive, which makes them more prone to being exposed toworkplace bullying (Balducci et al., 2009; Gandolfo, 1995; Var-tia, 1996). Being rebellious, challenging rules, decisions, andopinions may be related to the provocative target status(Aquino, 2000; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007). Previous em-pirical studies demonstrated that low-scoring individuals tendto display less acceptable and rule-focused behavior. For exam-ple, Peluso and Kern (2002) found that males who did not com-plete their domestic violence treatment program were signifi-cantly lower on the going along scale. Lewis and Wachter(2006) found that a lower score on the going along scale wasrelated to a higher likelihood for heavy drinking. This led tothe proposition that individuals with lower scores on the goingalong scale are exposed to a higher level of bullying due to theirmore aggressive and more provocative behavior. Based on thetheoretical framework of individual psychology, our second hy-pothesis is - Going along is negatively related to exposure toworkplace bullying: Individuals who score higher on goingalong will report less exposure to workplace bullying.

Hypothesis 3

Taking charge represents how much an individual wants to bein charge and tell others what to do (Kern et al., 1993). Highscorers may be considered bossy and directive (Peluso et al.,2004). They may be pushy, strive to get their way, and be com-petitive (Kern et al., 1993). Competition increases the potentialfor workplace bullying (Björkqvist et al., 1994); they may there-fore be more prone to becoming the target of bullying.

In addition, an elevated score on the taking charge scale wasfound to be related to antisocial behavior (Kemp & Center,2000) and an inmate personality profile (Slaton, Kern, & Cur-lette, 2000). Research on workplace bullying has demonstratedthat, because of aggressive behavior, some individuals may be-come either targets or perpetrators or both at the same time(Zapf & Einarsen, 2011). This led to our proposition that indi-viduals displaying a higher level of taking charge are more likelyto display aggressive behavior and become provocative targets(Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007). Based on theoretical and em-pirical arguments, our third hypothesis is: taking charge is posi-tively related to exposure to workplace bullying: Individualswho score higher on taking charge will report greater exposureto workplace bullying.

Hypothesis 4

Wanting recognition represents how much an individual is con-cerned with positive recognition and praise from others (Kernet al., 1993). High scorers are more sensitive to negative feed-back (Kern et al., 1993). If they do not receive recognition, theymay be highly discouraged (Kern et al., 1993). Striving for con-stant approval from others may demonstrate unstable self-es-teem, which was previously related to the target’s status (Mat-thiesen & Einarsen, 2007). In addition, unstable self-esteemmay create challenges in defending oneself, which create theright circumstances for victimization (Niedl, 1995, as cited inZapf & Einarsen, 2011). Finally, individuals with higher scoreson wanting recognition are achievement-focused, strive for suc-cess (Kern et al., 1993), are thus productive and potentiallybetter liked by supervisors and clients, may instigate jealousy,competition, and have greater exposure to workplace bullying(Astrauskaite & Kern, 2011; Björkqvist et al., 1994). Our fourthhypothesis was: wanting recognition is positively related to ex-posure to workplace bullying: Individuals who score higher onwanting recognition will report greater exposure to workplacebullying.

Hypothesis 5

Being cautious represents a lack of belonging in the family oforigin (Curlette & Kern, 2010). This experience creates a sus-picious, hypervigilant approach to life in an individual. Matthie-sen and Einarsen (2007) demonstrated that targets of bullyingare anxious, tense, and suspicious of others, tend to experiencedifficulties coping with personal criticism, may be easily upset,and view the world as threatening. Several other researchershave presented similar descriptions of potential targets (Balduc-ci et al., 2009; Brodsky, 1976; Glasø et al., 2007; Persson etal., 2009). Hence, the sensitivity and hypervigilance of individ-uals scoring higher on being cautious seem to increase the like-lihood of exposure to workplace bullying.

In addition, these individuals may have lower self-esteemand lack stress management skills (Kern et al., 1993). Lowerself-esteem was found to be related to target status (Matthiesen& Einarsen, 2007). Stress and coping with stress were suggest-ed as being among the most important antecedents of bullying(Baillien et al., 2009). Thus, high scorers on the being cautiousscale may be more prone to being exposed to workplace bully-ing. Finally, being cautious was found to be positively relatedto neuroticism (Gaube, Kern, & Stoltz, 2015), which has beenlinked to greater exposure to workplace bullying in previousstudies (Glasø et al., 2007; Milam et al., 2009; Zapf & Einar-sen, 2011). Based on theoretical arguments and empirical find-ings, our fifth hypothesis was: being cautious is positively re-lated to exposure to workplace bullying: Individuals who scorehigher on being cautious will report greater exposure to work-place bullying.

M. Perminiene et al.: Lifestyle, Conflict Solving, Workplace Bullying 59



In summary, we assume that individuals who score lower onbelonging/social interest and going along, and higher on takingcharge, wanting recognition, and being cautious, report greaterexposure to workplace bullying.

Lifestyle, Conflict-Solving Styles, and

Workplace Bullying

In 2009, Baillien et al. introduced the three-way model, inwhich they suggested that individual characteristics may direct-ly stimulate exposure to workplace bullying or affect conflictmanagement and in turn increase or decrease bullying. Einar-sen, Hoel, Zapf, and Cooper (2011) agreed that individual fac-tors may contribute to the lack of the target’s coping strategiesand trigger bullying. However, no empirical evidence was pro-vided to support such claims.

Previous research demonstrated that conflict managementand ineffectively managed conflicts are among the most impor-tant antecedents of workplace bullying (Baillien et al., 2009;Leymann, 1996; Zapf, 1999). In the three-way model, Baillienet al. (2009) argued that an employee may adopt either escala-tive or deescalative conflict-solving styles. While the escalativeconflict-solving style may result in the individual becoming thetarget of workplace bullying, the deescalative style may preventit (Baillien et al., 2009).

Conflict-solving styles are usually characterized by a five-parttypology (Blake & Mouton, 1964) that includes the avoiding(withdrawal), yielding (giving into the wishes of the opponent),compromising (middle-of-the-road solution), problem-solving(identifying both parties’ needs and reconciling), and forcing(striving for one’s own benefits) conflict-solving styles (Van deVliert, 2004).

Hypothesis 6

According to individual psychology theory, conflict-solvingstyles are closely entwined with one’s lifestyle (Morris-Conley& Kern, 2003; Smith, Kern, Curlette, & Mullis, 2001). Adler-ians argue that an individual has different means of reacting toconflict situations from which to choose, and that these deci-sions are based on the private logic inherent in one’s lifestyle(Leggett, Roberts-Pittman, Byczek, & Morse, 2012; Peluso &Kern, 2002). Individuals with an elevated score on the belong-ing/social interest lifestyle theme are more likely to employproblem solving and compromising and less likely to employforcing, yielding, and avoiding, which should in turn deter ex-posure to workplace bullying.

For example, individuals who have developed belonging andsocial feeling as part of their lifestyle are concerned with con-tributing to the well-being of others, while at the same timecaring for their own needs (Adler, 1964; Dreikurs, 1971).

Therefore, they would be more likely to select problem solvingand compromising to solve a conflict (Kern, Gormley, & Cur-lette, 2008; Kern et al., 1993; Peluso et al., 2004). Barclay andWolff (2011) argued that individuals with higher scores on be-longing/social interest tend to reconcile differences and coop-erate, which appears to reflect problem solving and compro-mising. In an empirical study conducted by Kazakevidixt›,Ramanauskait›, and Venskut› (2013), belonging/social interestwas observed to be positively related to compromising. More-over, individuals who displayed higher conscientiousness (re-lated to belonging/social interest in Gaube, Kern, & Stoltz,2015) appeared to be more likely to engage in relationship-fo-cused coping and to report using compromise and problemsolving (Lee-Baggley, Preece, & DeLongis, 2005). In addition,individuals who displayed a higher level of belonging/social in-terest were found to not withdraw from a conflict (Barclay &Wolff, 2011) and to use active conflict-solving techniques (Kernet al., 1993). Hence, avoiding and yielding seem to be used lessfrequently. Finally, individuals who displayed a higher level ofbelonging/social interest appeared to use forcing less frequent-ly (Kazakevidixt› et al., 2013; see above Figure 1, Path a).

Problem solving and compromising as nonaggressive andnonsubmissive conflict-solving styles should in turn prevent anindividual from becoming victimized (Aquino, 2000). In previ-ous empirical studies, low exposure to workplace bullying waslinked to a high tendency to apply problem solving (Baillien &De Witte, 2009) and compromising (Baillien et al., 2009). Inaddition, some of the previous studies demonstrated that morefrequent use of avoiding and yielding (Baillien & De Witte,2009; Baillien et al., 2009; Zapf, 1999) and of forcing (Aquino,2000; Baillien, Bollen, & De Witte, 2011; Baillien et al., 2009;Òlafsson & Jóhannsdóttir, 2004; Zapf, 1999) were related togreater exposure to workplace bullying (see above Figure 1,Path b). Our sixth hypothesis was: individuals who score higheron belonging/social interest will report less exposure to work-place bullying via more frequent use of problem solving andcompromising and less frequent use of forcing, avoiding, andyielding.

Hypothesis 7

According to Kern et al. (1993), individuals with high scoreson the going along scale are less individualistic, rebellious, andaggressive. Hence, they seem to be less likely to use forcing andmore likely to use problem solving and compromising. Empir-ical studies have found that individuals with higher scores onthe going along scale are more likely to use compromising andless likely to use forcing (Kazakevidixt› et al., 2013). In addi-tion, they avoid hurting people, and they may give in to thewishes of the other party at their own expense (##Kern et al.,1993). Hence, they seem to use avoiding and yielding moreoften (see Figure 1, Path b).

Less frequent use of forcing does not intensify the conflict




(Keashly & Nowell, 2011) and decrease the likelihood of be-coming a provocative target (Aquino, 2000). More frequentuse of problem solving and compromising encourages function-al conflict solving and is related to less exposure to workplacebullying (Baillien & De Witte, 2009; Baillien et al., 2009). Al-though several authors have argued that yielding and avoidingmay be related to the role of a submissive target (Aquino, 2000;Baillien et al., 2011; Òlafsson & Jóhannsdóttir, 2004; Zapf,1999), we hypothesize that yielding and avoiding may have aprotective benefit for individuals with high scores on the goingalong scale. We base our proposition on Connor-Smith andFlachsbart’s (2007) proposal that certain personality traits mayinfluence the effectiveness of coping strategies. In other words,certain conflict-solving styles may be functional for individualswho have higher scores on certain personality attributes (Con-nor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007). Among individuals who havehigher scores on going along, avoiding and yielding seem to befunctional strategies for dealing with interpersonal conflict(Kern et al., 1993) because they allow them to retain the imageof a good individual and they do not increase strain (Kern etal., 1993). According to Felson (1992), increased strain maycause people to behave in ways that consequently lead to vic-timization. Hence, for individuals who score higher on the go-ing along scale, avoiding and yielding should help them to bal-ance the strain and therefore be related to less exposure toworkplace bullying (Figure 1, Path b). Our seventh hypothesiswas: individuals who score higher on going along report lessexposure to workplace bullying via more frequent use of pro-blem solving, compromising, avoiding, and yielding and lessfrequent use of forcing.

Hypothesis 8

Individuals who score higher on taking charge may be seen asmore aggressive, pushy, and even hurtful (Kern et al., 1993). Theyare not afraid to disagree (Kern et al., 1993) and thus appear touse forcing more often. In an empirical study, Kazakevidixt› et al.(2013) demonstrated that a higher level of taking charge was re-lated to more frequent use of forcing. The need to control others(Kern et al., 1993) contravenes problem solving, compromising,avoiding, and yielding. Hence, individuals who score higher onthe taking charge scale appear to be less likely to use the afore-mentioned conflict-solving strategies (Figure 1, Path a).

Some studies have demonstrated that more frequent use offorcing (Baillien & De Witte, 2009; Baillien et al., 2009) andless frequent use of problem solving (Baillien & De Witte,2009), compromising (Baillien et al., 2009), avoiding, andyielding (Zapf & Gross, 2001) are linked to an increased like-lihood of exposure to workplace bullying (Figure 1, Path b).Our eighth hypothesis was: individuals who score higher ontaking charge report greater exposure to workplace bullying vialess frequent use of problem solving, compromising, avoiding,and yielding and more frequent use of forcing.

Hypothesis 9

Individuals who have a higher score on the wanting recognitionscale are concerned with positive recognition and praise fromothers (Kern et al., 1993). Since early childhood they have ac-tively engaged in various strategies in order to win adult ap-proval (Kern et al., 1993). We propose that these individualsmay use various conflict-solving styles, for example, yielding,avoiding, problem solving, compromising, or even forcing inorder to achieve this recognition. In addition, these individuals,being success- and achievement-oriented (Peluso et al., 2004),may use various conflict-solving strategies to attain their goals(Kern et al., 1993). Hence, in the present study, we hypothesizethat an elevated score on the wanting recognition scale is onlydirectly related to exposure to workplace bullying because in-dividuals with elevated scores do not appear to have a particu-lar pattern of preferred conflict-solving styles. Certain conflict-solving styles seem to depend on the given situation and on theexpectation of reaching a desirable outcome, for example,praise, positive feedback, or validation of one’s success (Kernet al., 1993). Our ninth hypothesis was: a higher score on thewanting recognition scale is only directly related to exposureto workplace bullying.

Hypothesis 10

Individuals who score higher on the being cautious scale havebeen found to have felt a lack of belonging in the family oforigin, which then led to feelings of inferiority in adulthood(Kern et al., 1993). This experience may prevent them fromusing collaborative conflict-solving styles (Kern et al., 1993) aswell as encourage striving for self-gain (Stone & Drescher,2004) and avoiding confrontation by withdrawing (Adler,1964). Because of the challenging childhood experience, theymay be more sensitive to being hurt by others and may take ona protective role, downplaying their own needs (Kern et al.,1993) and using yielding. The idea that individuals who scorehigher on being cautious tend to use both active (i.e., forcing)and passive (i.e., yielding and avoiding) styles is supported byprevious studies that demonstrated that neuroticism (which isrelated to the being cautious attribute in the study by Gaube etal., 2015) was related to active/aggressive (Zapf & Einarsen,2011) and passive (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007; Lee-Baggley et al., 2005) forms of coping. In an empirical researchstudy, Morris-Conley and Kern (2003) found that individualswith higher scores on being cautious were less likely to employa collaborative conflict-solving style and more likely to employavoiding. In research by Kazakevidixt› et al. (2013), higher be-ing cautious was related to lower compromising and lowerproblem solving (see Figure 1, Path a).

More frequent use of forcing (Baillien & De Witte, 2009;Baillien et al., 2009; Zapf, 1999), avoiding, and yielding(Aquino, 2000; Zapf, 1999) and less frequent use of problem




solving (Baillien & De Witte, 2009) and compromising (Bail-lien et al., 2009) may be linked to greater exposure to work-place bullying (see Figure 1, Path b). Our tenth hypothesis was:individuals who score higher on being cautious will reportgreater exposure to workplace bullying via less frequent use ofproblem solving and compromising and more frequent use offorcing, avoiding, and yielding.

Method

Participants

The data of 807 employees (14.2% males and 84.1% females)from three Lithuanian organizations and a group of workingstudents were used in the present study. Two organizationswere from the service sector (Organization 1, n = 95; Organi-zation 2, n = 521), one from the manufacturing sector (Organ-ization 3, n = 171), and the group of working students werefrom various types of organizations (n = 20). In Organization1, the data were collected online, so the return rate was notcalculated. In Organization 2, questionnaires were sent to thesupervisors in unsealed envelopes. The supervisors were in-structed to hand out the questionnaires to the employees, in-form them about the goals of the research and anonymity, andreturn the completed questionnaires in sealed and undamagedenvelopes. The questionnaires in the sealed envelopes were re-turned within one week and left in boxes (70.21% return rate).In Organization 3, some of the questionnaires were handed outto the employees directly, who then filled out the question-naires immediately. Other employees received their question-naire in an unsealed envelope from a company representativewho was not their direct supervisor. The questionnaires werefilled out within one week and returned in sealed envelopes(80.8% return rate). The working students received a question-naire before the lecture and filled it out immediately (with a100% return rate). The average age of the respondents was37.09 years (SD = 10.45). The average number of years of work-ing experience in a current position was 6.6 years (SD = 6.9).Most employees (647; 80.2%) were subordinates; 89 (11%) hada supervisory position. The average workload (hours per week)was 41.9 (SD = 9.7).

Instruments

The Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised was used to measureexposure to workplace bullying (Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaers,2009). It is a self-report questionnaire consisting of 22 items indi-cating how often employees have been exposed to negative be-haviors at work during the last six months. The respondents ratedeach item on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5(daily). The present data yielded Cronbach’s α = .87.

The Dutch Test of Conflict Handling (De Dreu, Evers, Beers-ma, Kluwer, & Nauta, 2001) consists of 20 items and integratesfive scales of four items each. The scales measure five conflict-solving styles: yielding (Cronbach’s α = .64), compromising(Cronbach’s α = .63), forcing (Cronbach’s α = .68), problemsolving (Cronbach’s α = .79), and avoiding (Cronbach’s α =.51). The internal consistencies were similar to those found inthe validation study (see De Dreu et al., 2001), except for thatof the avoiding scale, which was not used in the subsequentdata analysis due to low reliability.

The Basic Adlerian Scales for Interpersonal Success – AdultForm was used to assess the lifestyle themes (Wheeler et al.,1993). The inventory consists of 65 items and includes fiveprimary scales: belonging/social interest (BSI; Cronbach’s α =.75), going along (GA; Cronbach’s α = .77), taking charge (TC;Cronbach’s α = .86), wanting recognition (WR; Cronbach’s α= .76), and being cautious (BC; Cronbach’s α = .77). Themeans, standard deviations, and correlations are presented inTable 1.

To test Hypotheses 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, we used structuralequation modeling with Mplus 7. The variable exposure toworkplace bullying was skewed (kurtosis = 4.78, skewness =1.93) so we used maximum likelihood estimation with robuststandard errors (MLR estimator), which is appropriate for non-normally distributed data. The variables belonging/social inter-est, going along, taking charge, wanting recognition, and beingcautious were simultaneously included in the model as inde-pendent variables and yielding, problem solving, compromis-ing, and forcing were simultaneously included in the model asmediators.

Results

The correlations presented in Table 1 demonstrated that alllifestyle themes and conflict-solving styles were significantlyrelated to exposure to workplace bullying (however, the cor-relations among the variables were weak, viz., r < .5). Belong-ing/social interest was negatively related to workplace bully-ing and going along, taking charge, wanting recognition, andbeing cautious were positively related to workplace bullying,supporting Hypotheses 1, 3, 4, and 5, but rejecting Hypoth-esis 2.

In order to identify the best fitting mediation model, fourdifferent models were tested. The fit indices of the primary andfinal models are presented in Table 2.

The results demonstrated that the first model with the fiveindependent variables belonging/social interest, going along,taking charge, wanting recognition, and being cautious andthe four mediators yielding, forcing, compromising, andproblem solving demonstrated very poor fit to the data.Hence, our second step was to remove the superfluous, in-significant relationships that decreased the Tucker-Lewis co-




efficient (TLI). This led us to the second model, in whichyielding and compromising were excluded due to the nonsig-nificant relationship with workplace bullying (i.e., β = .04, p

= .26 and β = –.025, p = .57 respectively). In addition, weremoved the regression of problem solving on going along,(i.e., β = .03, p = .42). The second model demonstrated abetter fit to the data, but the TLI value was still too low andthe root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) wasrather high. Hence, we tested a third model in which we al-lowed forcing not to be regressed on being cautious becauseof the nonsignificant relationship between these two vari-ables (i.e., β = .01, p = .79). In addition, we allowed beingcautious not to be correlated with wanting recognition (i.e.,r = –.012, p = .73). The fourth and final model demonstratedthe best TLI, RMSEA, and comparative fit (CFI) indices. Inthe last model, due to nonsignificant relationships, we al-lowed workplace bullying not to be regressed on belong-ing/social interest (β = –.07, p = .09) and wanting recognition

(β = .06, p = .12). In addition, as suggested by the modelmodification indices, we included the correlation betweenproblem solving and forcing. The results of the final modelare depicted in Figure 2.

The results demonstrated that higher belonging/social in-terest was only indirectly related to less exposure to work-place bullying (via more frequent use of problem solving andless frequent use of forcing), which partially supports Hy-pothesis 6. The total indirect effect of belonging/social inter-est on exposure to workplace bullying was –.047 (with –.036,p < .0001, for problem solving and –.011, p = .05, for forc-ing). Going along was positively directly related to exposureto workplace bullying and via more frequent use of forcing(the indirect effect was .012, p = .037), rejecting Hypothesis7. Taking charge was directly and indirectly (via more fre-quent use of problem solving and more frequent use of forc-ing) positively related to exposure to workplace bullying, par-tially supporting Hypothesis 8. However, because the specificindirect effects were of opposite signs (i.e., indirect effect viaproblem solving was –.018, p = .019; indirect effect via forc-ing was = .022, p = .005), the total indirect effect was non-significant (.004, p = .69). Similarly, wanting recognition wasrelated to exposure to workplace bullying via more frequentuse of problem solving and more frequent use of forcing (par-tially supporting Hypothesis 9). The specific indirect effectswere significant (i.e., indirect effect via problem solving was–.025, p = .002; indirect effect via forcing was = .014, p =.026), but the total indirect effect was nonsignificant (–.011,p = .294). Hence, the mediating variables seem to explain therelationship between taking charge and wanting recognitionand exposure to workplace bullying, respectively, but it is notpossible to assess their combined influence. Being cautiouswas positively directly as well as indirectly, namely, via lessfrequent use of problem solving (indirect effect .026, p =.001) related to exposure to workplace bullying, partially sup-porting Hypothesis 10.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations

Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Workplace bullying 26.78 5.70

2. Belonging/social interest 36.89 4.40 –.13**

3. Going along 16.79 4.50 .2** –.12**

4. Taking charge 20.84 6.23 .14** .23** .47**

5. Wanting recognition 40.13 5.87 .09** .32** .14** .33**

6. Being cautious 12.79 4.53 .2** –.36** .39** .05 –.02

7. Yielding 9.69 2.38 .08* <.0001 .07 .08* .09** .06

8. Problem solving 15.2 2.88 –.16** .33** .006 .17** .24** –.24** <.0001

9. Compromising 15.02 2.45 –.08* .25** –.03 .17** .22** –.2** .06 .63**

10. Forcing 9.24 2.99 .19** –.04 .26** .25** .16** .09* .29** .07* .11**

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01.

Table 2. Fit indices for the primary and final mediation models

Models χ² df CFI TLI RMSEA Scaling correction

factor for MLR

Model 1 350.73 6 .53 –1.73 .267 1.31

Model 2 285.84 18 .98 .80 .060 1.03

Model 3 285.84 18 .98 .89 .045 1.03

Model 4 285.84 18 .99 .98 .017 1.09

Note. df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lew-is index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; MLR = maxi-mum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors; Model 1 = all inde-pendent variables, all mediators; Model 2 = excluding yielding and compro-mising, problem solving not regressed on going along; Model 3 = forcing notregressed on being cautious, being cautious not correlated with wanting rec-ognition; Model 4 = workplace bullying not regressed on belonging/socialinterest and wanting recognition, problem solving correlated with forcing.




Discussion

The main aim of the present study was to identify the directand indirect relationships (via conflict-solving styles) betweenlifestyle attributes and exposure to workplace bullying. Overall,the findings of the present study supported the proposed three-way model, suggesting that individual characteristics may di-rectly as well as indirectly (i.e., via conflict-solving styles) stim-ulate workplace bullying (Baillien et al., 2009).

The results demonstrated that a higher level of belonging/so-cial interest was related to more frequent use of problem solv-ing, less frequent use of forcing and, in turn, to less exposureto workplace bullying. This supports the notion from individualpsychology theory that individuals who experienced belongingin the family of origin and consequently developed social feel-ing as a part of their lifestyle (Kern et al., 1993) are concernedwith contributing to mutual well-being and cooperation (Adler,1964; Dreikurs, 1971), which is further linked to healthier in-terpersonal relationships and less exposure to workplace bul-lying (Baillien & De Witte, 2009). At work, these individualsare able to empathize with others, talk straight with others, andare solution-oriented (Kern et al., 1993). This encourages prob-

lem solving and discourages self-centered forcing, which assistin preventing exposure to workplace bullying.

Contrary to our expectations, going along was positively re-lated to exposure to workplace bullying. Hence, individualswho are rule-focused seem to report greater exposure to work-place bullying. A possible explanation may be found in Coyneet al. (2000), who proposed that moralistic, rule-concerned,organized individuals may annoy colleagues by their traditionaland often perfectionist view, which then leads to workplacebullying. Similarly, Lind, Glasø, Pallesen, and Einarsen (2009)demonstrated that some targets may be characterized as organ-ized, self-disciplined, hardworking, moralistic, and rule-boundindividuals. In Zapf’s (1999) study, some targets admitted thatthey were overly accurate and pedantic, which may have causedthe negative attitudes toward them and led to bullying.

In addition, individuals who displayed higher levels of goingalong were more likely to use forcing, which resulted in greaterexposure to workplace bullying. This demonstrates that indi-viduals who are concerned about rules and regulations may bestrict about others following the rules or defend rules rigorously(Kern et al., 1993). Consequently, this may be linked to forcing,which put them into the role of provocative targets (Matthiesen& Einarsen, 2007).

As hypothesized, taking charge was positively related to

Figure 2. Results of the final model of media-tion. All depicted relationships are significant.




workplace bullying, indicating that control, bossiness, or evenaggressiveness (Kern et al., 1993) may annoy fellow workers(Coyne et al., 2000) and put an individual in a provocativetarget position (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007). Moreover, bytelling others what to do, being critical, and having the last word(Kern et al., 1993), they may threaten colleagues’ self-esteemand instigate retaliatory responses that lead to bullying (Zapf& Einarsen, 2011). The findings of the present study are in linewith previous research that found that aggressive (Zapf, 1999),rude, less agreeable individuals (Lind et al., 2009) are morelikely to be exposed to workplace bullying.

The taking charge scale was also indirectly related to work-place bullying. Interestingly, on the one hand, it was related toless exposure to workplace bullying via more frequent use ofproblem solving. On the other hand, it was related to greaterexposure to workplace bullying via more frequent use of forc-ing. The findings may indicate that individuals who displayhigher levels of taking charge may be exposed to higher or low-er levels of workplace bullying depending on the conflict-solv-ing style they use. Similarly, wanting recognition also had twoopposing effects. On the one hand, it was positively related toexposure to workplace bullying via more frequent use of forc-ing. On the other hand, it was negatively related to exposureto workplace bullying via more frequent use of problem solving.

We propose that, among the individuals with higher scoreson the taking charge and wanting recognition scales, the use ofa particular conflict-solving style may depend on the particularsituation. Hence, situational moderators should be taken intoaccount in future studies. For example, Baillien et al. (2009)proposed that work-related characteristics may affect the wayemployees cope with conflicts. According to Baillien, Neyens,and De Witte (2008), low workload and high autonomy mayencourage constructive conflict management while task-orient-ed leadership, hierarchy, and lack of social support may encour-age dysfunctional conflict solving (Baillien et al., 2008). In ad-dition, Astrauskaite, Kern, and Notelaers (2014) argued that,especially under the stressful circumstances, some individualsmay be more likely to use active self-defense strategies and lesslikely to use collaboration or problem solving. Thus, understressful circumstances, individuals who display higher levelsof taking charge and wanting recognition may be more likelyto use forcing, which is consequently linked to greater exposureto workplace bullying. Under conditions of no or low stress,they are more likely to use problem solving, which rescues themfrom bullying. For individuals who display higher levels of tak-ing charge, stressful circumstances may appear in situations inwhich control, use of power, or being in charge is not available(Kern et al., 1993). For individuals who score higher on thewanting recognition scale, stressful circumstances may be cre-ated when they do not receive positive recognition and feed-back from others (Kern et al., 1993).

As hypothesized, our findings indicate that employees whodisplayed a higher level of being cautious reported greater ex-posure to workplace bullying. This seems to suggest that a lack

of feeling of belonging in the family of origin (Curlette & Kern,2010), lower self-esteem (Carter-Sowell et al., 2010), and view-ing the world as a hostile place (Adler, 1964) may contributeto exposure to workplace bullying. The significant positive re-lationship between being cautious and workplace bullying echoprevious findings. For example, Brodsky (1976) claimed thatseeing hostility in others and expecting to be attacked resultsin actual exposure to workplace bullying. Astrauskaite andKern (2011) found that greater exposure to work harassmentwas linked to a higher level of cautiousness. Matthiesen andEinarsen (2001) identified a cluster of targets that were de-scribed as being suspicious toward the outside world. Perssonet al. (2009) demonstrated that bullied people were more im-pulsive, mistrusting, and irritable.

Our results also demonstrated that individuals who displaya higher level of being cautious are less likely to use problemsolving, which in turn was related to greater exposure to work-place bullying. This finding suggests that, because of a lack ofbelonging in the family of origin and underdeveloped socialinterest, these individuals are more likely to strive for their ownneeds (Stone & Drescher, 2004) and less likely to use problemsolving, which in turn is linked to greater exposure to work-place bullying. In addition, these individuals seem to have alack of trust and be more suspicious (Kern et al., 1993), whichdiscourages them from using problem solving (Karakus &Savas, 2012; Lee, Stajkovic, & Cho, 2011). The present find-ings partially mirror Morris-Conley and Kern’s (2003) andKazakevidixt› et al.’s (2013) results, which demonstrated thata higher level of being cautious was significantly related to lessfrequent use of the collaborative conflict-solving style. Howev-er, the present findings extend this knowledge by demonstrat-ing that individuals who displayed an elevated score on the be-ing cautious scale not only used the collaborative conflict-solv-ing style less often, but that the being cautious scale was relatedto greater exposure to workplace bullying.

It is important to highlight the finding that only two out offour conflict-solving styles significantly explained the indirectrelationship between lifestyle and exposure to workplace bul-lying. The two conflict-solving styles of problem solving andforcing are both related to the availability of power, both in-clude high concern for one’s own needs and, hence, are con-sidered to be assertive conflict solving styles (Baillien, Bollen,Euwema, & De Witte, 2014). According to some researchers,forcing, as a way of not giving in and fighting, should be relatedto a perpetrator’s role, whereas problem solving, being a de-escalative conflict-solving style, should prevent an individualfrom being either a target or a perpetrator (Baillien et al., 2014).The findings of the present study demonstrated that forcingcould also be related to target status, or perhaps to the role ofthe provocative target (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007). Thenonsignificant mediating effect of yielding and compromisinghighlights the need to consider situational and cultural moder-ators (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart, 2007; Kaushal & Kwantes,2006), which may help us to understand the conditions under




which these conflict-solving styles prevail and are related to ex-posure to workplace bullying.

The present study contributes to the field of workplace bul-lying in at least two ways. First, previous studies focused on thedirect effects of personality on exposure to workplace bullying(Balducci et al., 2009; Gandolfo, 1995; Matthiesen & Einarsen,2001, 2007; Vartia, 1996) and the relationships between per-sonality and conflict-solving styles (Connor-Smith & Flachsbart,2007; Ejaz, Iqbal, & Ara, 2012; Kaushal & Kwantes, 2006;Wood & Bell, 2008). There was little knowledge about themechanisms that underlie the relationship between personalityand workplace bullying. The present study shows that certainconflict-solving styles may partially explain the relationship be-tween lifestyle and workplace bullying and supports one of thepathways in Baillien et al.’s (2009) three-way model.

Second, previous studies on workplace bullying have rarelyaddressed protective personality traits that may deter bullying(Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2008). The findings of thepresent study show that belonging/social interest, an adaptivelifestyle attribute, may have a protective role in terms of expo-sure to workplace bullying.

Practical Implications

The results of the present study have several possible practicalapplications. First, the findings pinpoint lifestyle attributes thatmay make an individual more likely to become the target ofworkplace bullying. In the present study, we found that beingless sociable and lacking social skills (as represented by a lowerlevel of belonging/social interest), being rule-focused (as repre-sented by a higher level of going along), being more controllingand directive (as represented by a higher level of taking charge),being very concerned about positive recognition and praise (asrepresented by a higher level of wanting recognition), and beingsuspicious, mistrusting, anxious as well as having a more neg-ative attitude (as represented by a higher level of being cau-tious) may be related to greater exposure to workplace bullying.This knowledge can be used to teach people to be more awareof their lifestyle attributes and train them to demonstrate moresocial interest, balance cautiousness, recognize rigidity regard-ing rules, the need for positive evaluation, and the need to con-trol. People could also be taught to be aware and tolerant ofothers’ lifestyle attributes. For example, knowing that bossinessor rigidity regarding rules may provoke one’s aggression, a per-son could learn to control his/her reactions and, instead, be-have more appropriately.

Organizations may wish to create circumstances that en-courage functional conflict solving and balance stress. For ex-ample, using encouragement instead of punishment may in-crease social interest and collaboration among members of anorganization (Ferguson, 2006). In addition, Ansbacher andAnsbacher (1964) found that, in stressful situations, people are

more likely to demonstrate the dysfunctional sides of their life-style/personality. Hence, by balancing strenuous working con-ditions, organizations may prevent the nonadaptive and non-productive behaviors, encourage problem solving, discourageforcing, and prevent bullying.

Prevention in organizations could be directed toward mak-ing individuals more aware of their use of conflict-solving stylesand teaching them new skills (Leka & Houdmont, 2010). Foxand Stallworth (2009) promoted dispute resolution as one ofthe main preventative strategies for workplace bullying. Hence,organizations may wish to consider an employee training fo-cused on collaborative conflict solving.

Limitations

The present research has several limitations. First of all, thecross-sectional nature of the study does not allow us to makecausal assumptions about the identified relationships. Hence,additional studies using longitudinal, diary, or an experimentalstudy design should be conducted (Roe, 2012).

A diary study may also be useful to avoid errors related toretrospective reporting. Connor-Smith and Flachsbart (2007)commented that retrospective reports may be inaccurate dueto memory errors, difficulty aggregating across events, andpoor insight. Hence, daily and immediate coping reports maybe helpful in identifying a more accurate pattern of the relation-ship between personality and conflict-solving styles.

In addition, previous studies with schoolchildren (Òlafsson,Òlafsson, Bjornsson, 1999, as cited in Òlafsson & Jóhannsdót-tir, 2004) and adults (Zapf & Gross, 2001) showed that theuse of coping strategies changes as the bullying experience in-creases in severity. The cross-sectional nature of the presentstudy did not allow us to identify whether conflict managementstrategies change over time, how they relate to bullying at dif-ferent stages of the phenomenon, and whether an individualsticks to the preferred conflict-solving style over time, despitethe increased severity of bullying.

In the present study, we measured the frequency of negativebehaviors, but we did not take self-reported bullying into ac-count. Including this measure in future studies would providea better understanding of the lifestyle attributes and conflict-solving styles that make an individual more sensitive to behav-ior by colleagues that is interpreted as bullying.

Individual characteristics explained only a small proportionof the variance in workplace bullying, lending support for Ley-mann’s (1996) idea that individual factors are of relatively littleimportance in explaining workplace bullying. On the otherhand, the present findings are in line with those of previousstudies, which found that individual characteristics have ratherlow explanatory power (Lind et al., 2009; Milam et al., 2009).

In the present study, we aimed at identifying whether certainlifestyle attributes encourage certain conflict-solving styles that




are related to greater exposure to workplace bullying. Under-standing individual personality/lifestyle characteristics is im-portant, but may provide a somewhat limited understanding(Wood & Bell, 2008). Hence, an important next step would beto analyze how different lifestyle/personality profiles are relat-ed to a preference for certain conflict-solving styles and expo-sure to workplace bullying.

Finally, situational moderators should be taken into accountin future studies. For example, Baillien et al. (2009) argued thatwork-related characteristics may affect employees’ decisions touse certain conflict-solving styles. Individual psychology theo-rists have argued that stressful circumstances may encourageactive or passive self-defensive behaviors and make people lessaware of the various choices they have for solving the conflictat hand (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956; Dreikurs, 1977). Con-nor-Smith and Flachsbart (2007) argued that coping may bemotivated by situational demands and that the relationship be-tween personality and conflict-solving styles can be partially ex-plained by the frequency, intensity, and nature of stressors.Hence, stressful working conditions along with other situation-al moderators should be controlled for in future studies.

References

Adler, A. (1964). Social interest: A challenge to mankind. New York:Capricorn Books.

Agervold, M., & Mikklesen, E. G. (2004). Relationships between bul-lying, psychosocial work environment and individual stressreactions. Work & Stress, 18, 336–351. doi 10.1080/02678370412331319794

Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (1964). The individual psychol-

ogy of Alfred Adler. New York: Harper & Row.Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (1956). The individual psychol-

ogy of Alfred Adler. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual determinants of work-

place victimization: The effects of hierarchical status and con-flict management style. Journal of Management, 26, 171–193.doi 10.1177/014920630002600201

Astrauskaite, M. (2013). Individual and situational factors as poten-

tial risks and deterrents of perceived exposure to workplace bul-

lying (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vytautas Magnus Uni-versity, Kaunas, Lithuania.

Astrauskaite, M., & Kern, R. M. (2011). A lifestyle perspective on po-tential victims of workplace harassment. Journal of Individual

Psychology, 67, 420–431.Astrauskaite, M., Kern, R. M., & Notelaers, G. (2014). An individual

psychology approach to underlying factors of workplace bully-ing. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 70, 220–244.

Baillien, E., Bollen, K., & De Witte, H. (2011). Conflicts and conflictmanagement styles as precursors of workplace bullying: A two-wave longitudinal study. Hub Research Papers 2011/39 Eco-

nomics & Management, December, 1–41.Baillien, E., Bollen, K., Euwema, M., & De Witte, H. (2014). Conflicts

and conflict management styles as precursors of workplace bul-lying: A two-wave longitudinal study. European Journal of Work

and Organizational Psychology, 23, 511–524. doi10.1080/1359432X.2012.752899]

Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Why is organizational change re-lated to workplace bullying? Role conflict and job insecurity as

mediators. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 30, 348–371.doi 10.1177/0143831X09336557

Baillien, E., Neyens, I., & De Witte, H. (2008). Organizational, teamrelated and job related risk factors for workplace bullying, vio-lence and sexual harassment in the workplace: A qualitativestudy. International Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13,132–146.

Baillien, E., Neyens, I., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2009). A qual-itative study on the development of workplace bullying: Towarda three-way model. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psy-

chology, 19, 1–16. doi 10.1002/casp.977Balducci, C., Alfano, V., & Fraccaroli, F. (2009). Relationships be-

tween mobbing at work and MMPI-2 personality profile, post-traumatic stress symptoms, and suicidal ideation and behavior.Violence and Victims, 24, 52–66. doi 10.1891/0886-6708.24.1.52

Barclay, S. R., & Wolff, L. A. (2011). When lifestyles collide: An Ad-lerian-based approach to workplace conflict. The Journal of In-

dividual Psychology, 67, 122–135.Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Hjelt-Bäck, M. (1994). Aggression

among university employees. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 173–184.doi 10.1002/1098–2337(1994)20:3<173::AID-AB2480200304>3.0.CO;2-D

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid: Key orien-

tations for achieving production through people. Houston, TX:Gulf Publishing Company.

Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., Bennett, M. M., & Watson, C. P. (2010).Target personality and workplace victimization: A prospectiveanalysis. Work & Stress, 24, 140–158. doi 10.1080/02678373.2010.489635

Brodsky, C. M. (1976). The harassed worker. Toronto, Canada: Lex-ington Books.

Carlson, J., Watts, R. E., & Maniacci, M. (2006). Adlerian therapy:

Theory and practice. Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Carter-Sowell, A. R., Wesselmann, E. D., Wirth, J. H., Law, A. T.,Chen, Z., Kosasih, M., . . . Williams, K. D. (2010). Belongingtrumps justice: Effects of being ostracized for being better orworse than the others. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 66,68–92.

Celep, C., & Konakli, T. (2013). Mobbing experiences of instructors:Causes, results, and solution suggestions. Educational Scienc-

es: Theory & Practice, 13, 193–199.Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between

personality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 93, 1080–1107. doi 10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1080

Coyne, I., Seigne, E., & Randall, P. (2000). Predicting workplace victimstatus from personality. European Journal of Work and Organiza-

tional Psychology, 9, 335–349. doi 10.1080/135943200417957Curlette, W. L., & Kern, R. M. (2010). The importance of meeting the

need to belong in lifestyle. Journal of Individual Psychology, 66,30–42.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E. S., & Nauta, A.(2001). A theory based measure of conflict management strate-gies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,645–668. doi 10.1002/job.107

Del Corso, J. J., Rehfuss, M. C., & Galvin, K. (2011). Striving to adapt:Addressing Adler’s work task in the 21st century. The Journal of

Individual Psychology, 67, 88–106.Dreikurs, R. (1971). Social equality: The challenge of today. Chicago,

IL: Henry Regnery Company.Dreikurs, R. (1977). Holistic medicine and the function of neuro-

sis. Journal of Individual Psychology, 33, 171.Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of

the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5,379–401. doi 10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00043-3

Einarsen, S. (2005). The nature, causes and consequences of bul-lying at work: The Norwegian experience. Perspectives Interdis-




ciplinaires sur le Travail et la Santé, 7, 1–14. Retrieved fromhttp://pistes.revues.org/3156

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure tobullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure andpsychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Re-vised. Work & Stress, 23, 24–44. doi 10.1080/02678370902815673

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The conceptof bullying at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H.Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in

the workplace: Developments in theory, research and practice

(2nd ed., pp. 3–39). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.Ejaz, S., Iqbal, F., & Ara, A. (2012). Relationship among personality

traits and conflict handling styles of call center representativesand appraisal of existing service model. International Journal of

Psychological Studies, 4(4), 27–36. doi 10.5539/ijps.v4n4p27Felson, R. B. (1992). “Kick ’em when they’re down”: Explanations of the

relationship between stress and interpersonal aggression and vi-olence. The Sociological Quarterly, 33, 1–16. doi 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1992.tb00360.x

Ferguson, E. D. (2003). Work relationships, lifestyle, and mutual re-spect. Journal of Individual Psychology, 59, 501–506.

Ferguson, E. D. (2006). Work relationships that enhance the well-being of organizations and individuals. Journal of Individual Psy-

chology, 62, 80–84.Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2009). Building a framework for two in-

ternal organizational approaches to resolving and preventingworkplace bullying: Alternative dispute resolution and training.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61,220–241. doi 10.1037/a0016637

Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2010). The battered apple: An applica-tion of stressor-emotion-control/support theory to teachers’ ex-perience of violence and bullying. Human Relations, 63,927–954. doi 10.1177/0018726709349518

Gandolfo, R. (1995). MMPI-2 profiles of worker’s compensationsclaimants who present with complaints of harassment. Journal

of Clinical Psychology, 51(5), 711–715. doi 10.1002/1097-4679(199509)51:5<711::AID-JCLP2270510517>3.0.CO;2-R

Gaube, J., Kern, R. M., & Stoltz, K. B. (2015). Psychometric Proper-ties of the BASIS-A Lt: Lithuanian Version. The Journal of Indi-

vidual Psychology, 71, 290–309. doi 10.1353/jip.2015.0031Glasø, L., Matthiesen, S. B., Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Do

targets of bullying portray a general victim personality pro-file? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48, 313–319. doi10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00554.x

Griffith J., & Powers R. L. (2007). The lexicon of Adlerian psychology:

106 terms associated with the individual psychology of Alfred Ad-

ler. Washington, DC: Adlerian Psychology Associates.Hansen, Å. M., Hogh, A., Persson, R., Karlson, B., Garde, A. H., & Ør-

bæk, P. (2006). Bullying at work, health outcomes, and physio-logical stress response. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60,63–72. doi 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2005.06.078

Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The relative impactof workplace bullying as a social stressor at work. Scandinavian

Journal of Psychology, 51, 426–433. doi 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00813.x

Hoel, H., & Salin, D. (2003). Organizational antecedents of bullying.In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and

emotional abuse in the workplace (2nd ed., pp. 203–218). Lon-don, United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.

Jonyniene J., & Kern R. M. (2012). Individual psychology lifestylesand parenting style in Lithuanian parents of 6-to 12-year-olds.International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Ap-

proach, 11, 89–117. doi 10.7220/1941-7233.11.5Karakus, M., & Savas, A. C. (2012). The effects of parental involve-

ment, trust in parents, trust in students and pupil control ideol-ogy on conflict management strategies of early childhood teach-ers. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12, 2977–2985.

Kaushal, R., & Kwantes, C. T. (2006). The role of culture and personal-

ity in choice of conflict management strategy. International Jour-

nal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 579–603. doi 10.1016/j.ijin-trel.2006.01.001

Kazakeviciue, A., Ramanauskaite, J., & Venskute, R. (2013). Adlerianlifestyle and conflict resolution strategies in a Lithuanian organi-zation. Journal of Individual Psychology, 69, 156–167.

Keashly, L., & Nowell, B. L. (2011). Conflict, conflict resolution, andbullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in the-

ory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 423–445), London, UK:Taylor & Francis.

Kemp, D., & Center, D. (2000). Troubled children grown-up: Antiso-cial behavior in young adult criminals. Education & Treatment of

Children, 23, 223–238.Kern, R. M., Gormley, L., & Curlette, W. L. (2008). BASIS-A Inventory

empirical studies: Research findings from 2000 to 2006. Journal

of Individual Psychology, 64, 280–309.Kern, R. M., Wheeler, M., & Curlette, W. L. (1993). BASIS-A Inventory

interpretive manual: A psychological theory. Highlands, NC: TRTAssociates.

Lee, D., Stajkovic, A. D., & Cho, B. (2011). Interpersonal trust andemotion as antecedents of cooperation: Evidence from Korea.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 1603–1631. doi10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00776.x

Lee-Baggley, D., Preece, M., & DeLongis, A. (2005). Coping with in-terpersonal stress: Role of Big Five traits. Journal of Personali-

ty, 73, 1141–1180. doi 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00345.xLeggett, D. G., Roberts-Pittman, B., Byczek, S., & Morse, D. T.

(2012). Cooperation, conflict, and marital satisfaction: Bridgingtheory, research, and practice. Journal of Individual Psychology,

68, 182–199.Leka, S., & Houdmont, J. (Eds.). (2010). Occupational health psy-

chology. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Lewis, T. F., & Wachter, C. A. (2006). Adlerian profiles of college stu-

dent drinkers. Journal of Individual Psychology, 62, 285–300.Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at work-

places. Violence and Victims, 5, 119–126.Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at

work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

5, 165–184. doi 10.1080/13594329608414853Leymann, H., & Gustafson, A. (1996). Mobbing at work and the de-

velopment of posttraumatic stress disorders. European Journal

of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 251–275. doi10.1080/13594329608414858

Lind, K., Glasø, L., Pallesen, S., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Personalityprofiles among targets and nontargets of workplace bully-ing. European Psychologist, 14, 231–237. doi 10.1027/1016-9040.14.3.231

Linton, D. K., & Power, J. L. (2013). The personality traits of work-place bullies are often shared by their victims: Is there a darkside to victims? Personality and Individual Differences, 54,738–743. doi 10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.026

Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2001). MMPI-2 configurationsafter persistent bullying at work. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 10, 467–484. doi 10.1080/13594320143000753

Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Perpetrators and targets ofbullying at work: Role stress and individual differences. Violence

and Victims, 22, 735–753, doi 10.1891/088667007782793174Milam, A. C., Spitzmueller, C., & Penney, L. M. (2009). Investigating

individual differences among targets of workplace incivility.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 58–69. doi10.1037/a0012683

Morris-Conley, C. M., & Kern, R. M. (2003). The relationship be-tween lifestyle and conflict resolution strategy. Journal of Indi-

vidual Psychology, 59, 475–487.Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2008). Sense of co-

herence as a protective mechanism among targets of workplace




bullying. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13,128–136. doi 10.1037/1076-8998.13.2.128

Notelaers, G. (2011). Workplace bullying: A risk control perspective

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Bergen, Ber-gen, Norway.

Notelaers, G., De Witte, H., & Einarsen, S. (2010). A job character-istics approach to explain workplace bullying. European Journal

of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 487–504. doi10.1080/13594320903007620

Òlafsson, R. F. & Jóhannsdóttir, H. L. (2004). Coping with bullying inthe workplace: The effect of gender, age and type of bully-ing. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 32, 319–333. doi10.1080/03069880410001723549

Peluso, P. R., & Kern, R. M. (2002). An Adlerian model for assessingand treating the perpetrators of domestic violence. Journal of

Individual Psychology, 58, 87–103.Peluso, P. R., Peluso, J. P., Buckner, J. P., Curlette, W. L., & Kern,

R. M. (2004). An analysis of the reliability of the BASIS-A Inven-tory using a northeastern and southeastern US sample. Journal

of Individual Psychology, 60, 294–307.Persson, R., Hogh, A., Hansen, Å. M., Nordander, C., Ohlsson, K.,

Balogh, I., . . . Ørbæk, P. (2009). Personality trait scores amongoccupationally active bullied persons and witnesses to bully-ing. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 387–399. doi 10.1007/s11031-009-9132-6

Pranjic, N., Males-Bilic, L., Beganlic, A., & Mustajbegovic, J. (2006).Mobbing, stress, and work ability index among physicians inBosnia and Herzegovina: Survey study. Croatian Medical Jour-

nal, 47, 750–758.Roe, R. (2012). What is wrong with mediators and moderators? The

European Health Psychologist, 14, 4–10.Slaton, B. J., Kern, R. M., & Curlette, W. L. (2000). Personality pro-

files of inmates. Journal of Individual Psychology, 56, 88–109.Smith, S., Kern, R. M., Curlette, W. L., & Mullis, F. (2001). Lifestyle

profiles and interventions for aggressive adolescents. Journal of

Individual Psychology, 57, 224–245.Stone, M. H., & Drescher, K. A. (2004). Adler speaks: The lectures of

Alfred Adler. New York: iUniverse.

Van de Vliert, E. (2004). Complex interpersonal conflict behavior:

Theoretical frontiers. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying: Psychological workenvironment and organizational climate. European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 203–214. doi 10.1080/13594329608414855

Vartia, M. (2001). Consequences of workplace bullying with respectto the well-being of its targets and the observers of bullying.Scandinavian Journal of Environmental Health, 27, 63–69. doi10.5271/sjweh.588

Wheeler, M. S., Kern, R. M., & Curlette, W. M. (1993). BASIS-A Inven-

tory [Measurement instrument]. Highlands, NC: TRT.

Wood, V. F., & Bell, P. A. (2008). Predicting interpersonal conflict reso-lution styles from personality characteristics. Personality and Indi-

vidual Differences, 45, 126–131. doi 10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.010

Zapf, D. (1999). Organizational, work group related and personalcauses of mobbing/bullying at work. International Journal of

Manpower, 20(1–2), 70–85. doi 10.1108/01437729910268669

Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Individual antecedents of bullying:Victims and perpetrators. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L.Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Devel-

opments in theory, research and practice (2nd ed., pp. 177–200).London, UK: Taylor & Francis.

Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping withworkplace bullying: A replication and extension. Conflict Escala-

tion and European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychol-

ogy, 10, 497–522. doi 10.1080/13594320143000834

Milda Perminiene

Department of Philosophy and PsychologyKaunas University of TechnologyMickeviciaus Str. 37–10744244, [email protected]




Documents

Swiss Journal online und o ine of Psychology - VDU · 2017. 7. 12. · ality theory (Astrauskaite & Kern, 2011). To provide additional insight into the personality attributes of the