MMPI-2 configurations among victims of bullying at work

By S. B. Matthiesen, Staale Einarsen. 2001

297 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a1be2f605232805eb2e209c3eff7e8c958e9ea5a

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

Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (2009, methodology): “A further weakness was found in its factor structure, although a two-factor solution associated with workrelated and a personal bullying respectively was used in some studies (see Einarsen & Raknes, 1997; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001).”
Predicting bullying and victimization among early adolescents: Associations with disruptive behavior disorders (2004, background): “For instance, adults who are bullied in the workplace have been found to have distinctive MMPI–2 profiles, which indicate higher neuroticism and psychosomatic symptoms [Matthiesen and Einarsen, 2001].”
Psychiatric distress and symptoms of PTSD among victims of bullying at work (2004, result): “Some victims of bullying may be more vulnerable than others, as indicated in a previous study (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001).”
Workplace Bullying: Considering the Interaction Between Individual and Work Environment (2015, background): “Employees who have low self-esteem are more likely to be targeted than those with high self-esteem (Einarsen et al. 1994; Matthiesen and Einarsen 2001).”
Relationships Between Machiavellianism, Organizational Culture, and Workplace Bullying: Emotional Abuse from the Target’s and the Perpetrator’s Perspective (2014, background): “However, some studies have found that a general victim personality profile may not exist (Glasø et al. 2007; Matthiesen and Einarsen 2001).”
Bullying in the workplace: definition, prevalence, antecedents and consequences (2010, background): “Similarly, this study revealed that there is probably more than one target profile (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001).”
Target personality and workplace victimization: A prospective analysis (2010, background): “First, the employee might behave in an annoying manner, tempting anyone who is prone to victimize to be more likely to actually engage in victimizing behaviour towards them (Coyne et al., 2000; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001; Olweus, 1993; Zapf, 1999).”
Gender minority as a risk factor of exposure to bullying at work: The case of male assistant nurses (2004, background): “474 ERIKSEN AND EINARSEN Empirical research into the causes of bullying at work have so far focused on the personality of the victims (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001; Zapf & Einarsen, 2003), perceived reasons for bullying (for review, see Einarsen et al., 2003), and the role of psychosocial work…”
A job characteristics approach to explain workplace bullying (2010, background): “During the last decade, however, most studies focused on the perpetrator of bullying (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007; Zapf & Einarsen, 2003), the workgroup and organization (Salin, 2003), and the target (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002).”
Workplace Mobbing: Individual and Family Health Consequences (2007, background): “Studies on the targets of mobbing suggest that personality factors may play a role (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001).”