Measuring Exposure to Workplace Bullying

By M. B. Nielsen, G. Notelaers, Staale Einarsen. 2010

199 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/05dc5b382138588686a393c5feff5806345125c3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and General Harassment: A Review (2013, unknown): “This is a significant, ongoing dilemma for researchers and practitioners, for which an agreed resolution would be useful because of legal and policy implications (Einarsen et al. 2011; Nielsen et al. 2011).”
Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic review (2012, background): “In some studies, the respondents are offered a theoretical definition of bullying before being asked whether or not they have had experiences in the workplace that correspond to the definition presented (Nielsen et al., 2011).”
Is workplace bullying related to the personality traits of victims? A two-year prospective study (2015, methodology): “The negative perceptions mechanism suggests that certain individual dispositions are associated with a lowered threshold for interpreting behaviours as harassing and that employees with such dispositions therefore have a higher risk than others for labelling negative events at the workplace as bully”
The world turns at 33 and 45: Defining simple cutoff scores for the Negative Acts Questionnaire–Revised in a representative sample (2013, methodology): “The NAQ(-R) seems to be the most utilized measurement instrument (Nielsen et al., 2011), however, and its psychometric quality has been thoroughly investigated (Einarsen & Raknes, 1997; Einarsen et al.”
Measuring bullying at work with the short-negative acts questionnaire: identification of targets and criterion validity (2019, methodology): “As people may have different personal thresholds for labelling themselves as a victim, the self-labelling method comprises a very subjective approach in which personality, emotional factors, and cognitive factors may figure as potential biases (Felblinger, 2008; Lewis, 2004; Nielsen et al., 2011).”
Exposure to workplace harassment and the Five Factor Model of personality: A meta-analysis (2017, methodology): “…exposure to different harassing behavior was used tomeasure harassment in 72% of the studies, whereas the remaining employed a self-labeling procedure asking whether the respondent perceive him- or herself as a victim of harassment (see Nielsen et al., 2011 for description of the methods).”