This article was downloaded by: [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen]On: 15 December 2011, At: 02:28Publisher: Psychology PressInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

European Journal of Work andOrganizational PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Prevalence of workplacebullying in Norway: Comparisonsacross time and estimationmethodsMorten Birkeland Nielsen a , Anders Skogstad a , StigBerge Matthiesen a , Lars Glasø a , Merethe SchankeAasland a , Guy Notelaers a & Ståle Einarsen aa Department of Psychosocial Science, University ofBergen, Bergen, Norway

Available online: 25 Feb 2009

To cite this article: Morten Birkeland Nielsen, Anders Skogstad, Stig Berge Matthiesen,Lars Glasø, Merethe Schanke Aasland, Guy Notelaers & Ståle Einarsen (2009): Prevalenceof workplace bullying in Norway: Comparisons across time and estimation methods,European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18:1, 81-101

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320801969707

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to

date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Prevalence of workplace bullying in Norway:

Comparisons across time and estimation methods

Morten Birkeland Nielsen, Anders Skogstad,Stig Berge Matthiesen, Lars Glasø, Merethe Schanke Aasland,

Guy Notelaers, and Stale EinarsenDepartment of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

This study investigates the prevalence of exposure to workplace bullying in arepresentative sample of 2539 Norwegian employees utilizing differentmeasurement and estimation methods. The prevalence of workplace bullyingvaried from 2 to 14.3% depending on method of measurement and estimation.Latent class cluster analysis is concluded to give the most reliable estimate(6.8%). Compared to a similar Norwegian study published in 1996, theprevalence of self-reported victimization from bullying is considerablyreduced; from 8.6% in the early 1990s to 4.6% in 2005. In the 1996 study,4.6% labelled themselves as victims of severe bullying, the correspondingnumber being 2% in 2005.

Keywords: Workplace bullying; Prevalence; Measurement methods;Representative sample.

Workplace bullying implies that an employee frequently and repeatedly isexposed to negative behaviours at work (Saunders, Huynh, & Goodman-Delahunty, 2007), and that the person feels threatened or humiliated by therepeated negative incidents (cf. Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003).

Correspondence should be addressed to Morten Birkeland Nielsen, Department of

Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Christies gate 12, N-5015, Bergen, Norway.

E-mail: morten.nielsen@psysp.uib.no

The present study was based on data from a collaborative project between the University of

Bergen and Statistics Norway (Statistisk Sentralbyra), where the latter institution drew the

sample and collected the data. The project was made possible by joint grants from two

Norwegian employers’ associations (Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon and Kommunenes

Sentralforbund) and the Norwegian government (NAV Farve). Thanks to Bengt Oscar

Lagerstrøm and Maria Høstmark in Statistics Norway for their contribution.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND

ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

2009, 18 (1), 81 – 101

� 2008 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

http://www.psypress.com/ejwop DOI: 10.1080/13594320801969707

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Studies on prevalence of workplace bullying have shown extensive variationin prevalence rates both within and between countries (see Table 1). While aprevalence of 2–5% has been found in the Scandinavian countries (Einarsen& Skogstad, 1996; Høgh & Dofradottir, 2001; Leymann, 1993), a frequencyof 55% has been found in Turkey (Bilgel, Aytac, & Bayram, 2006).Explanations that may account for this variation can be divided into eithersocietal or methodological explanations (Agervold, 2007). As for societalexplanations, cultural differences between countries have been emphasized

TABLE 1Selection of international studies reporting prevalence of workplace bullying

Country Prevalence N Period Year Study

Austria 8–26%2 368 12 months 1995 Niedl (1996)

Belgium 3–20%3 6175 6 months 2002–04 Notelaers, De Witte,

Vermunt, &

Einarsen (2006)

Denmark 2%1 1857 12 months 2001 Høgh & Dofradottir

(2001)

11–26.9%2 3024 6 months Unknown Agervold (2007)

Finland 5%1 5655 Lifetime 1998 Kivimaki, Elovainio, &

Vathera (2000)

8.8%1/24.1%2 381 12 months 2000 Salin (2001)

France 10%/7.5%1,2 7694 12 months/

point

prevalence

2004 Niedhammer, David, &

Degioanni (2006)

Ireland 23.1%1 1057 12 months 1999 O’Moore, Lynch, &

Niamh (2003)

Norway 8.6% occasionally/

4.6% severe17986 6 months 1990–94 Einarsen & Skogstad

(1996)

Lithuania 23%1 (teachers) 475 6 months 2004 Malinauskiene,

Obelenis, &

Dopagiene (2005)

South

Africa

20.4%1 (Health

sector)

1014 12 months 2001 Steinman (2003)

Sweden 3.5%2 2438 6 months 1990 Leymann (1993)

Turkey 55%2 944 12 months 2005 Bilgel, Aytac, &

Bayram (2006)

UK 10.6%1 5288 6 months Unknown Hoel, Cooper, &

Faragher (2001)

USA 41.4%2 2829 12 months 2002–03 Schat, Frone, &

Kelloway (2006)

9.41/25%2 469 6 months Unknown Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy,

& Alberts (2007)

1Self-labelling.2Operational criterion based on list of bullying behaviours.3Latent class cluster modelling.

82 NIELSEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

(e.g., Agervold, 2007; Einarsen, 2000). It has, for instance, been proposedthat because countries systematically differ on characteristics such as powerdistance, egalitarism, and masculine/feminine values (cf. Hofstede, 2001),such characteristics may influence the prevalence of bullying (Einarsen,2000). Moreover, the time span between the different studies may alsoexplain the observed prevalence rates. As major changes have taken place incontemporary working life, it is reasonable to believe that studies carried outin the early 1990s may not be representative for today’s prevalence.

As for methodological explanations, several issues related to measure-ment and research design must be taken into consideration when accountingfor the variations in prevalence of workplace bullying. First, studieshave used different definitions when investigating workplace bullying(Niedhammer et al., 2006; Schat et al., 2006; Zapf, Einarsen, Hoel, &Vartia, 2003). Hence, different aspects of the phenomenon have mostprobably been measured in the various studies. Second, a variety ofoperationalizations and measurement methods have been used (cf. Hoel,Rayner, & Cooper, 1999; Schat et al., 2006; Zapf et al., 2003). Nevertheless,although the actual measurement instruments vary, most studies havesurveyed exposure to bullying by one of two methods: assessing perceivedvictimization from bullying and/or perceived exposure to specific bullyingbehaviours (Einarsen et al., 2003). Perceived victimization is assessed byeither a one-item question about whether one has been bullied or not (e.g.,Rayner, 1997), or by presenting the respondents with a definition ofbullying, followed by a question regarding the frequency of the experiencedbullying (e.g., Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; O’Moore et al., 2003). In studiesassessing perceived exposure to bullying behaviours, often referred to as theoperational approach (Notelaers, Einarsen, De Witte, & Vermunt, 2006),the respondents are presented with an inventory including various negativeacts reflecting bullying behaviours. Exposure to bullying is then operatio-nalized by defining a criterion for whether a person is regarded as bullied ornot, for instance exposure to at least one (Leymann, 1996) or two(Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001) negative acts per week during the last 6months. Some studies have also used latent class cluster modelling (LCC; seeMagidson & Vermunt, 2002, 2004) to estimate prevalence of bullying byempirically testing whether different groups of respondents exist based ontheir probability for exposure to the specified negative behaviours in theutilized inventory (Notelaers, De Witte, et al., 2006; Notelaers, Einarsen,et al., 2006). Third, most studies have based their findings on prevalence bytargets reports of bullying (Zapf & Einarsen, 2003). Hence, little is knownabout the prevalence of bullying seen from the perspective of observers andperpetrators. Fourth, reporting periods vary across studies (Schat et al.,2006). While most studies report the prevalence for the last 6 months (e.g.,Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Leymann, 1996), some studies investigate the

PREVALENCE OF BULLYING IN NORWAY 83

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

prevalence of bullying over the last year (e.g., Niedhammer et al., 2006;O’Moore et al., 2003) or for even longer periods of time (Rayner, 1997).A study that uses a longer reporting period will probably yield a higherprevalence rate than an otherwise equivalent study using a shorter reportingperiod (Schat et al., 2006). Finally, few studies are based on representativesamples (cf. Schat et al., 2006; Zapf et al., 2003). Hence, most studies are notgeneralizable beyond the sample at hand and their utility for providinginformation concerning the actual prevalence of exposure to workplacebullying in a national populations is limited (Schat et al., 2006).

AIM OF THE STUDY

The main objective of the present study is to investigate the prevalence ofexposure to workplace bullying in a representative sample of Norwegianemployees by utilizing different measurement and estimation methods.Prevalence will be estimated for targets, observers, and perpetrators. A fur-ther objective is to investigate changes in prevalence of bullying in Norwaysince the early 1990s with reference to a similar study by Einarsen andSkogstad (1996). In the present study we also aim at avoiding themethodological pitfalls found in most previous epidemiological researchon bullying by employing a representative sample of Norwegian employeeswith a validated tool for measuring workplace bullying, and by reportingestimates of the prevalence of bullying using the three main estimationmethods in bullying research described earlier, i.e., perceived victimization,the operational approach, and latent class cluster analysis. The study willtherefore contribute to the research field by (1) presenting reliable estimatesof the prevalence of bullying, (2) providing information on the correspon-dence between different methods for estimating the prevalence of bullying,and (3) providing information on potential changes in prevalence rates.

METHOD

Design and procedure

The present study is based on data from a representative sample of theNorwegian working force. A random sample of 4500 employees was drawnfrom The Norwegian Central Employee Register by Statistics Norway (SSB;the governmental agency for public statistics in Norway). The NorwegianCentral Employee Register is the official register of all Norwegianemployees, as reported by employers. The sampling criteria were adultsbetween 18 and 67 years of age who were registered in the Central EmployeeRegister as employed during the last 6 months in a Norwegian enterprisewith a staff of five or more, and with a mean working time of more than

84 NIELSEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

15 hours per week. Questionnaires were distributed through the NorwegianPostal Service during the spring and summer of 2005, with a response rate of57%. A total of 2539 questionnaires were satisfactory completed andincluded in this study. The survey was approved by the Regional Committeefor Medical Research Ethics for Western Norway.

Sample

Mean age in the sample was 43.79 (SD ¼ 11.52) years with a range from 19to 66. The sample consisted of slightly more women (52%) than men (48%).Six per cent had less than 11 years of education, 51% had between 11 and 13years, 34% had between 14 and 17 years, and 9.5% had 18 years or more.Hence, this result reflects the high level of education in the Norwegianworkforce. A major part of the sample reported to be in a full time (71.6%)or part time (18.5%) employment. About 5% were on a sick leave oroccupational rehabilitation, 1% was on leave of absence with pay, whileabout 3% turned out to be disabled pensioners, unemployed, or retired.Mean working hours per week was 37.5 (SD ¼ 10.36), which is also theofficial working hours per week in Norway. Almost 80% of the respondentswere on daily working time arrangement. About 13% had a rotaarrangement, while the remaining had alternative work arrangements. Mostfrequent occupations were professions requiring shorter university or collegeeducation, academic professions, sales and service, and health and careoccupations (see Høstmark & Lagerstrøm, 2006). The mean number ofemployees in enterprise was 279 (SD ¼ 835.92). Fifty-nine per centwere employed in departments with less than 20 employees, 24.3% wereemployed in departments with 20 to 49 employees, and 17.3% wereemployed in departments with 50 employees or more. Altogether 20% had aleadership position with personnel responsibilities, while 13.5% were unionrepresentatives or elected health and safety representatives. With theexception of women being slightly overrepresented, the demographicfindings can be considered as representative for the Norwegian workingforce (Høstmark & Lagerstrøm, 2006).

Instruments

Data were collected by means of an anonymous self-report questionnairemeasuring demographic variables, exposure to bullying, subjective healthcomplaints, leadership behaviour of the immediate superior, and differentaspects of the psychosocial work environment. Only questions related tobullying are included in the present study.

Exposure to bullying was measured using two different methods. First, byusing the Negative Acts Questionnaire–Revised (NAQ-R; Einarsen & Hoel,

PREVALENCE OF BULLYING IN NORWAY 85

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

2001; Einarsen & Raknes, 1997; Hoel et al., 2001), the perception of beingexposed to specific negative acts was measured. NAQ-R consists of 22 itemsand describes different kinds of behaviour that could be perceived asbullying if they occur on a regular basis. All items are formulated inbehavioural terms, with no reference to the term bullying. The NAQ-Rcontains items referring to both direct (e.g., openly attacking the victim) andindirect (social isolation, slander) behaviour. It also contains items referringto personal as well as work related forms of bullying. For each item therespondents were asked how often they had been exposed to the behaviourat their present place of work during the last 6 months. Response categorieswere coded from 1 to 5 with the alternatives ‘‘never’’, ‘‘now and then’’,‘‘monthly’’, ‘‘weekly’’, and ‘‘daily’’. The NAQ-R had high internalconsistency in the present study (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .90).

The NAQ-R deals with the frequencies and duration of bullying, but notto any perceived differences in power between perpetrator and target.Therefore, a formal definition of bullying at work was introduced, and therespondents were asked to indicate whether they considered themselves tohave been exposed to bullying at work during the last 6 months according tothe following definition (see also Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996): ‘‘Bullyingtakes place when one or more persons systematically and over time feel thatthey have been subjected to negative treatment on the part of one or morepersons, in a situation in which the person(s) exposed to the treatment havedifficulty in defending themselves against them. It is not bullying when twoequally strong opponents are in conflict with each other’’ (Einarsen, Raknes,Matthiesen, & Hellesøy, 1994, p. 20). The response categories were ‘‘no’’,‘‘rarely’’, ‘‘now and then’’, ‘‘once a week’’, and ‘‘several times a week’’. Bythe use of this method, perceived victimization from bullying is measured.Characteristics of these bullying episodes were measured by the BergenBullying Inventory (BBI; Einarsen & Raknes, 1991). This part of thequestionnaire consists of questions related to previous episodes of bullying,and whether one has witnessed bullying of other at the workplace. Allrespondents were also asked if they had acted as perpetrator of workplacebullying during the last 6 months.

RESULTS

As the sample size is large, the level for significance was set to p 5 .01 in thepresent study (cf. Cozby, 2001).

Prevalence of perceived victimization from bullying

Of the 2369 respondents who answered the question about whether they hadbeen exposed to bullying during the last 6 months, 2261 (95.5%) stated that

86 NIELSEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

they had not been bullied, while altogether 108 respondents (4.6%) reportedbeing bullied during this period. Of the total sample 2.5% reported beingbullied only ‘‘rarely’’, 1.4% said they were bullied ‘‘now and then’’, whileonly 0.6%, representing 15 respondents in the sample, claimed to be bullied‘‘once a week’’ or more frequently. Following the criterion developed byOlweus (1989) on bullying in the schoolyard, and also used by Einarsen andSkogstad (1996), a total of 2% were categorized as targets of severe bullying(‘‘now and then’’ or more often).

Based on the given definition of bullying, altogether 5.2% of therespondents claimed to have been exposed to bullying on an earlier occasionthan the last 6 months. When asked about whether one had observedothers in the workplace being exposed to bullying during the last 6 months,87% had not witnessed bullying. About 8% had witnessed bullying in one’sown department, 3.5% had witnessed bullying in another department, and2% reported witnessing bullying both in one’s own and anotherdepartment.

Sixty-eight respondents (2.8%) reported to have acted as perpetrators ofbullying during the last 6 months. Of these, only three persons reported tohave bullied others frequently. When combining the questions about self-perceived victimization and self-labelled perpetrators, 93.7% of therespondents had neither been bullied nor bullied others. A total of 3.5%reported solely to be bullied, while 1.8% reported solely to be perpetrators.One per cent reported to be bullies as well as victims. Hence, 22.6% of theself-labelled victims had also acted as perpetrators.

Prevalence of bullying based on exposure to bullyingbehaviours

By using the bullying criterion suggested by Leymann (1996), that is, beingexposed to at least one negative act per week with a duration of at least6 months, 14.3% of the sample was classified as targets of bullying. Usingthe more strict criterion suggested by Mikkelsen and Einarsen (2001) ofbeing exposed to at least two negative acts per week during a period of 6months, 6.2% of the respondents was classified as targets.

The three most prevalent negative acts reported were ‘‘Being ordered todo work below your level of competence’’ (49%), ‘‘Someone withholdingnecessary information affecting your performance’’ (45.3%), and ‘‘Neglectof your opinions or views’’ (33%). ‘‘Being exposed to physical abuse orthreats of physical abuse’’ was the least prevalent act (2.6%). Whenremoving the three most prevalent negative acts from the analysis, theprevalence of bullying decreased to 3.8% when applying the Mikkelsen andEinarsen (2001) criterion, and 9.3% when applying the Leymann (196)criterion.

PREVALENCE OF BULLYING IN NORWAY 87

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Cluster analysis

Latent class cluster modelling (LCC) is a statistical method that classifiesrespondents into mutually exclusive groups with respect to a not directlyobserved (latent) trait (e.g., being a target of bullying). The LCC analysisstarts with the assumption that there is only one group, and subsequentlyestimates two (e.g., not bullied/bullied), three, four, . . . and finally n differentclasses, until a LCC model is found that statistically fits the data (Magidson& Vermunt, 2004). An important difference from traditional cluster methods(like K-means clustering) is that LCC analysis is based on a statistical modelthat can be tested (Magidson & Vermunt, 2002). As a consequence,determining the number of latent classes is less arbitrary than when usingtraditional cluster methods. Hence, this method allows for empiricallytesting whether different kinds of target groups exist, based on the responsesto an inventory measuring exposure to different kinds of bullyingbehaviours.

When applying the LCC modelling approach to the responses on theitems of the NAQ-R, a six-cluster model showed the best fit to the data. Theconditional probabilities for each cluster portraying the relationshipbetween given responses to items and membership of a latent class aresummarized in Table 2. For each group, Table 2 contains the meanconditional probability (CP) to respond ‘‘never’’, ‘‘now and then’’, ‘‘once amonth’’, or ‘‘once a week or more’’ to the specific negative acts included inthe NAQ-R. These mean conditional probabilities reflect the averageprobability that respondents in a given cluster or group will choose one ofthe four response alternatives. The cluster labels, given by us, appear in the

TABLE 2Latent class clusters based on exposure to bullying behaviours as measured by the

NAQ-R (N ¼ 2539)

Latent clusters

Not

bullied

A few

work-related

negative

behaviours

Some

negative

encounters

Work-related

negative

encounters

Occasionally

bullied Victims

Size: 37% 35.3% 15.2% 5.7% 5.7% 1.1%

Response categories

Never .97 .85 .68 .67 .34 .18

Now and then .03 .14 .31 .23 .53 .33

Monthly .00 .01 .01 .04 .08 .12

Weekly or daily1 .00 .00 .00 .06 .05 .37

1The response categories ‘‘weekly’’ and ‘‘daily’’ have been combined to avoid small groups for

analysis.

88 NIELSEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

heading of Table 2. The first row represents the size of the clusters (i.e., thepercentage of respondents in each cluster).

Respondents in the first cluster are characterized by a mean conditionalprobability (CP) of 97% that they were ‘‘never’’ subjected to any negativeact during the last 6 months. Because of this high mean CP of answering‘‘never’’, the respondents in this cluster are labelled as ‘‘not bullied’’ andconstitute 37% of the total sample.

The respondents in the second cluster are also characterized by a highmean CP to answer ‘‘never’’. This time, however, the mean CP is 85%. Yet,some negative acts are reported more often as their CP to answer ‘‘never’’ onthese items is lower compared to the first cluster: ‘‘Ordered to work belowlevel of competence’’ (37%), ‘‘Withholding information which affects workperformance’’ (45%), ‘‘Given tasks with impossible targets or deadlines’’(62%), and ‘‘Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced withmore trivial or unpleasant tasks’’ (76%). The nature of these most frequentacts shows that the respondents in this second cluster experience ‘‘a fewwork-related negative behaviours’’. This cluster is the second largest clusterand covers about 35% of the Norwegian employees.

The respondents in the third cluster are characterized by two CPs. Theyhave a 68% probability of ‘‘never’’ being exposed to negative acts during thelast 6 months, while their probability of being exposed to such acts ‘‘nowand then’’ is 31%. In addition to having experienced the acts described inthe ‘‘a few work-related negative behaviours’’ cluster, the third cluster is alsocharacterized by a somewhat higher probability of experiencing acts such as:‘‘Being humiliated or ridiculed’’ (68% ‘‘never’’; 30% ‘‘now and then’’),‘‘Spreading of gossip and rumours about you’’ (49% ‘‘never’’; 49% ‘‘nowand then’’), ‘‘Having insulting or offensive remarks made about yourperson’’ (46% ‘‘never; 52% ‘‘now and then’’), ‘‘Shouted at or being target ofspontaneous anger’’ (56% ‘‘never’’; 41% ‘‘now and then’’), ‘‘Being ignoredor excluded’’ (66% ‘‘never’’; 32% ‘‘now and then’’), ‘‘Repeated remindersconcerning your errors and mistakes’’ (61% ‘‘never’’; 36% ‘‘now and then’’),and ‘‘Having opinions and views ignored’’ (37% ‘‘never’’; 61% ‘‘now andthen’’). Hence, Cluster 3 experience both work-related and person-orientedacts, as well as minor attempts of social exclusion. With a moderatefrequency of reporting exposure to negative behaviours this cluster can belabelled the ‘‘some negative encounters’’ cluster, and constitutes 15% of thetotal sample.

The mean CPs of the fourth cluster are quite similar to those of the ‘‘somenegative encounters’’ cluster except that a higher mean CP is associated withthe response categories ‘‘monthly’’ (4%) and ‘‘weekly or daily’’ (6%). Thelatter mean CPs are explained by a relative high reporting of several work-related negative acts: ‘‘Withholding information which affects workperformance’’ (15% ‘‘once a month’’; 15% ‘‘once a week or more’’),

PREVALENCE OF BULLYING IN NORWAY 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

‘‘Ordered to work below level of competence’’ (9% ‘‘once a month’’; 31%‘‘once a week or more’’), ‘‘Given tasks with impossible targets or deadlines’’(15% ‘‘once a month’’; 15% ‘‘once a week or more’’), and ‘‘Exposed tounmanageable workload’’ (12% ‘‘once a month’’; 28% ‘‘once a week ormore’’). The characteristics of these acts show that this cluster is frequentlyexposed to work-related negative acts. Hence, this cluster is labelled as the‘‘work-related negative encounters’’ cluster. About 6% of the samplebelongs to this group.

The respondents in the fifth cluster are characterized by a mean CP ofalmost 53% of being subjected to negative acts ‘‘now and then’’ within thelast 6 months. Some acts are however reported somewhat less frequent:‘‘Exposed to intimidating behaviour’’ (27% ‘‘now and then’’), ‘‘Hints orsignals that you should quit your job’’ (40% ‘‘now and then’’), ‘‘Being thesubject of excessive teasing and sarcasm’’ (33% ‘‘now and then’’), and‘‘Pressure not to claim which by right you are entitled to’’ (42% ‘‘now andthen’’). Since all types of negative acts are being reported, but most likelyonly ‘‘now and then’’, this cluster is labelled the ‘‘occasionally bullied’’cluster. About 6% of the sample comprised this group.

The last cluster is characterized by a high mean CP that the respondentshave been subjected at least ‘‘once a week’’ to bullying behaviours at work.This mean CP is 37%, meaning that one-third of all the negative acts areexperienced each week. Hence, this cluster contains the ‘‘victims’’ of themost severe workplace bullying. About 1% of the sample belongs to thisgroup of victims of workplace bullying.

In sum, the findings from the cluster analysis show that at least 6.8% ofthe Norwegian working population is exposed to some degree of systematicbullying behaviours (i.e., ‘‘occasionally bullied’’ and ‘‘victim’’ clusters),while about 21% experience negative encounters regularly (’’some negativeencounters’’ and ‘‘work-related negative encounters’’ clusters). About 35%experience a few negative behaviours, while only 37% do not experiencesuch behaviours at all.

Combining methods for assessing prevalence of bullying

To investigate overlaps and discrepancies between the self-labellingapproach and the estimation methods based on bullying behaviours (i.e.,operational criterion and latent class clusters), the methods were combined(see Table 3). With regards to the Leymann (1996) criterion, only 2.5% ofthose defined as note bullied by this criteria self-labelled as targets.Altogether 17.2% of those who fulfilled this criterion of being exposed toone or more bullying behaviours self-labelled as targets of bullying. Usingthe stricter Mikkelsen and Einarsen (2001) criterion, only 3.1% of thoseexposed to less than two bullying behaviours self-labelled as targets, while

90 NIELSEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

TA

BL

E3

Ov

erl

ap

be

twe

en

self

-la

be

llin

ga

sta

rge

tso

fm

eth

od

an

de

stim

ati

on

me

tho

ds

ba

sed

on

ex

po

sure

tob

ully

ing

be

ha

vio

urs

(i.e

.,o

pe

rati

on

al

crit

eri

aa

nd

late

nt

cla

sscl

ust

er

me

tho

d),

pe

rce

nta

ge

s(N¼

22

27

)

Latentclusters

Leymann

criterion

Einarsen

&

Mikkelsen

criterion

Not

Afew

work-related

negative

Some

negative

Work-related

negative

Occasionally

Self-labelling

No

Yes

No

Yes

bullied

behaviours

encounters

encounters

bullied

Victims

Targets

2.5

17.2

3.1

27.3

0.1

0.8

8.3

2.4

29.7

62.5

Nontargets

97.5

82.8

96.9

72.7

99.9

99.2

91.7

97.6

70.3

37.5

91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

27.3% of those who fulfilled the criterion of exposure to at least twobehaviours also claimed to be targets of bullying.

When combining the self-labelling approach with the latent classclusters (see Table 3), the majority (58.3%) of the self-labelled targets werefound in the two bullied clusters (i.e., ‘‘occasionally bullied’’ and‘‘victims’’), while about 31% belonged to the ‘‘some negative encounters’’cluster. Altogether 62.5% of the respondents in the ‘‘victims’’ cluster self-labelled as targets of bullying. The comparative number in the‘‘occasionally bullied’’ clusters was about 30%. Of those who reportedto be nonvictims, about 75% was placed in either the ‘‘not bullied’’ or the‘‘occasional work-related negative behaviours’’ clusters. Only 4.6% ofthose who themselves claimed to be nonbullied, were found in the twobullied clusters (‘‘victims’’ and ‘‘occasional bullied’’). Because most of theself-labelled victims are placed in the two bullied clusters, and the majorityin the other four clusters do not self-label as targets, there seems to begood consistency between the self-labelling approach and the latent classcluster method.

The self-labelling approach and the Mikkelsen and Einarsen criterion(2001) were also combined to make mutually exclusive groups ofrespondents based on their classification as self-labelled targets and theiroperationally classified status (Figure 1). Of the total sample, 91.1% hadneither been exposed to two or more negative acts, nor labelled themselvesas victims of bullying (Category 1). A total of 1.6% (39 respondents) hadbeen exposed to at least two negative acts per week with duration of6 months, while simultaneously reporting that they felt bullied at work(Category 4). Thus, altogether 69 (64%) of the respondents who claimedto be a victim of bullying (Category 3), based on the measure of self-reported victimization, had not experienced two specific negative act perweek during the last 6 months and did therefore not fulfil the strictcriterion of Mikkelsen and Einarsen (2001). Of the 2261 respondents whodid not report to be victimized by bullying, 104 persons (4.4%) had beenexposed to two or more negative acts on a weekly basis during the last6 months (Category 2). Hence, 73% of the 143 person that hadexperienced two or more negative acts did not perceive themselves as atarget of bullying.

A closer inspection of the self-labelled victims that did not fulfil theMikkelsen and Einarsen (2001) criterion of exposure to two negative actsper week, i.e., Category 3 respondents, showed that 53% had experienced atleast 10 negative acts ‘‘now and then’’ or more often. For seven negative actsat least ‘‘now and then’’ the number increased to 75%. None of the self-labelling respondents had been exposed to less than two negative acts ‘‘nowand then’’. Thus, no one felt bullied without being exposed to a range ofnegative acts.

92 NIELSEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

DISCUSSION

The results of the present study show that the utilized methods forestimating prevalence of workplace bullying yielded different estimates(see Table 4). For instance, while the self-labelling methods show prevalencefrom 2–4.6%, the operational classification method gives estimates from6.2–14.3% depending on the criterion. Finally, the LCC model gives anestimate that at least 6.8% of Norwegian employees are exposed to somelevel and some kind of systematic bullying behaviours, while only 37%experience no such behaviours at their workplace. Moreover, the findingsshow that there is high correspondence between the self-labelling approachand the LCC model, while there is a larger discrepancy between the

Figure 1. Cross fitting the measure of self-perceived victimization and the Mikkelsen and

Einarsen (2001) criterion of being exposed to at least two negative acts in the NAQ-R per week

with a duration of least 6 months (N ¼ 2369).

PREVALENCE OF BULLYING IN NORWAY 93

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

self-labelling approach and the method utilizing a given criterion ofexposure to negative acts. Nevertheless, when combining the self-labellingmethod with the Mikkelsen and Einarsen (2001) criterion, 8.9% reportsexposure to some sort of systematic bullying.

The finding that the self-labelling approach gives a more conservativeestimate of bullying than the estimates based on the operational approach,i.e., operational criterion or cluster analysis, is in line with previous research(Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001; Notelaers, Einarsen, et al., 2006). However, asthese two methods capture somewhat different aspects of the bullyingphenomenon (see, for further discussions, Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001;Notelaers, Einarsen, et al., 2006) it can be argued that both measuresprovide valid, but supplementary, information on workplace bullying.Furthermore, as no single measurement of work stressors can be perfect,and a measurement always contains some methodological flaws, more thanone operationalization of a given concept should be used in studies on workstressors (Frese & Zapf, 1988). Consequently, our conclusion is that theoptimal measurement of prevalence of workplace bullying combines boththe presented methods because the measurement of negative acts bringsinformation on both the nature and the intensity of the perceivedbehaviours, while the self-labelling method gives information as regardsthe subjective perception of being victimized (see also Mikkelsen &Einarsen, 2001; Salin, 2001).

TABLE 4Findings of prevalence of bullying based on different assessment and estimation

methods

Estimation method Prevalence (%)

Self-labelling as targets (weekly or more often)1 0.6

Self-labelling as targets (now and then or more often)1 2.0

Self-labelling as targets (rarely or more often)1 4.6

Targets based on exposure to bullying behaviours (Leymann,

1996, criterion)1,214.3

Targets based on exposure to bullying behaviours (Mikkelsen &

Einarsen, 2001, criterion)1,36.2

Combination of self-labelling (rarely) and Mikkelsen &

Einarsen (2001) criterion18.9

Latent class cluster method1 6.8

Lifetime prevalence (self-labelling) 5.2

Witnesses of bullying1 13.0

Perpetrators of bullying (rarely or more often)1 2.8

1Within the last 6 months.2Exposed to at least one negative act per week with a duration of at least 6 months.3Exposed to at least two negative acts per week with a duration of at least 6 months.

94 NIELSEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

As for how to estimate prevalence of bullying based on the operationalapproach, the findings show that the operational criterion method and thelatent class cluster modelling method gives different estimates, with theMikkelsen & Einarsen (2001) criterion as the most conservative. However,one argument that favours the LCC approach is that it is theoreticallyassumed that there are different and distinct groups of employees concerningexposure to bullying at work (Bjorkqvist, 1992; Einarsen, 1999). Hence, theuse of a cutoff score can be considered as an arbitrary choice that reducesthe complex phenomenon of workplace bullying to a strict either/orphenomenon that does not take the severity of the various behaviours intoconsideration (cf. Giang & Graham, 2008). Consequently, while theoperational criterion method implicitly assumes that there exist only twogroups of respondents (bullied and not bullied), the advantage of the LCCmethod is that several different groups may be identified (Notelaers,Einarsen, et al., 2006). Moreover, previous research has shown that the LCCmethod has better construct and predictive validity than the operationalcriterion method (see Notelaers, Einarsen, et al., 2006). Thus, the LCCmethod seems to give a more convincing and comprehensive estimate ofprevalence of bullying.

Compared to findings in other countries, the prevalence of workplacebullying in Norway is at about the same level as the other Scandinaviancountries, but noticeably lower than in most other European countries, e.g.,UK, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Lithuania, as well as in theUnited States (see Table 1 for comparisons). Compared to the findings froma comparable Norwegian study published in 1996 (Einarsen & Skogstad,1996) with data collected in the early 1990s, the prevalence of self-labelledvictimization from bullying among Norwegian employees is considerablyreduced. While the findings from the 1996 study showed a prevalence of self-labelled bullying of 8.6% (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996), the equivalentprevalence in 2005 is 4.6%.

As a framework for interpreting the low prevalence of bullying inScandinavian countries, compared to other countries, cultural differencesmay be a fruitful starting point (cf. Hofstede, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan,Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Smith, Bond, & Ka�gitcibasi, 2006). Hofstede(1980, 2001), for instance, claims that the Scandinavian countries arecharacterized by having cultures with relatively small differences in powerand status between individuals in different formal and informal positions.Because distance in power between offender and target by definition is anessential characteristic of workplace bullying (Einarsen et al., 2003; Niedl,1995), this might explain why Norway has a low frequency of bullying ascompared to other European countries with a larger power distance, such asFrance and the United Kingdom (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). The United Statesalso have a somewhat larger power distance than the Scandinavian countries

PREVALENCE OF BULLYING IN NORWAY 95

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

(Hofstede, 1980, 2001), and may thus be expected to have a relatively higherfrequency of work aggression, as reported by Schat and colleagues (2006).Furthermore, the Scandinavian countries are also more feminine than theUnited States (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). Feminine cultures prescribe itsmembers not to be aggressive, dominating, and assertive in social relation-ships. Moreover they value unisexual and fluid sex-roles as well as equalitybetween the sexes. This, further, substantiates less acceptance for aggressivebehaviour and power abuse, and thus indicates a low level for workplacebullying and harassment in Norway.

As an extension of the cultural framework, van de Vliert and colleagueshave found that a country’s economic wealth, in combination with climate(i.e., weather and temperature), are systematically related to factors such ashappiness, altruism, and competitiveness (van de Vliert, Huang, & Parker,2004; van de Vliert, Kluwer, & Lynn, 2000; van de Vliert & Smith, 2004).Findings show that people in richer societies in harsh climates are happierand more altruistically oriented, while people in poorer societies in harshclimates are unhappier compared to people in both poor and rich temperateclimate countries (van de Vliert, 2006; van de Vliert et al., 2004). Theirfindings also make a strong case for the conclusion that inhabitants ofwarmer countries in general are more competitive than inhabitants of coldand rich countries (van de Vliert et al., 2000). Hence, the relatively coldclimate in Norway, together with the country’s long-lasting flourishingeconomy (Statistics Norway, 2006), could explain the low prevalence ofworkplace bullying because bullying and other kinds of aggression hardlycorrespond with happiness, altruism, and low degree of competitiveness.Moreover, as Norway’s welfare and financial situation have improvedsubstantially over the last 10–15 years (cf. Benedictow, 2005; Osberg &Sharpe, 2002; Statistics Norway, 2006), the theory of van de Vliert andcolleagues may also contribute to explain the notable decrease in theprevalence of bullying in Norway during the last 10–15 years. The flourishingNorwegian economy may also have another side-effect on the prevalence ofbullying as this increase the possibility for mobility in the labour market.With a very favourable employment situation (Statistics Norway, 2006), it isreasonable to assume that employees may easily move to another job whenexperiencing difficult working conditions. Thus, employees can avoidescalating conflicts and bullying by changing employment.

However, Golembiewski, Billingsley, and Yeager (1976) argue that onemust be cautious when interpreting changes over time, classifying changeinto three types: alpha, beta, and gamma changes. An alpha change refers tochanges in absolute levels given a constant conceptual domain and aconstant measuring instrument (Chan, 2002); hence, the reduction inbullying observed in our study may then reflect a true reduction in theprevalence of bullying as discussed previously. A beta change occurs when

96 NIELSEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

the respondent alters his or her subjective metric or scale; hence, theobserved change in prevalence of bullying may not be a result of any actualchange in the phenomenon, but rather result from a change in therespondents’ evaluative rating scale for the given phenomenon (Millsap &Hartog, 1988). A gamma change, however, implies that people alter theirvery conceptualization of a phenomenon (Golembiewski et al., 1976), forinstance as a result of organizational and societal development. Thequestion is then if, for example, the increased and sustained attention to thebullying problem among researchers, media, and the public in general,together with extensive public campaigns against bullying in Norway takingplace during the last decade (Einarsen, Hoel, & Nielsen, 2005), mightexplain the reduced prevalence of bullying through such a gamma change? Ifso, Norwegians have become far more strict as regards what they perceiveand label as bullying as a consequences of this sustained public attention.However, a study by Lewis (2001) among 415 Welsh teachers in further andhigher education showed that the perception of being a target of bullyingwas not related to any particular knowledge of the public debate of bullyingat work, indicating that the conceptualization of bullying is not susceptibleto influence from such sources of information. Therefore, the changes inprevalence of bullying found in the present study should most likely be aresult of a true reduction in the prevalence of bullying or of a possibly, butless likely, change in the respondents’ evaluative rating scale of bullying.

Almost 3% of the participants in the present study reported to have actedas a perpetrator of workplace bullying during the last 6 months. About aquarter of these respondents had also been subjected to bullying within thesame time span. Thus, compared to findings in the 1990s (Einarsen et al.,1994), the number of perpetrators is also reduced with about 50% inNorwegian working life, supporting the reduced prevalence rate seen intarget reports. It can, of course, be discussed whether a direct questionabout one’s status as a potential bully is an adequate method for assessingperpetrators, as this method is very likely to underestimate the actualprevalence. For instance, some may find it difficult to admit that they mayhave bullied others, and some may not even perceive that their behaviourshave been experienced as bullying as this was never their intention.Nevertheless, as long as intention is not a part of the definition of workplacebullying (Einarsen et al., 2003), they can still be regarded as bullies. We will,therefore, propose that future research on perpetrators of bullying, inaddition to the self-report question, also include a measure of concretenegative behaviours similar to the NAQ, asking whether the respondent hasperformed the behaviours described in the questionnaire (cf. Parkins,Fishbein, & Ritchey, 2006). The prevalence of perpetrators can then beestimated by using the combination of the methods described earlier inthis study.

PREVALENCE OF BULLYING IN NORWAY 97

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

CONCLUSION

Previous research on workplace bullying has mainly been carried out onsmall and nonrepresentative samples, giving grounds for a high degree ofuncertainty about the generalizability of the results (Schat et al., 2006; Zapfet al., 2003). The present sample is representative of the Norwegian workingforce. Thus, one may generalize the findings to the total workingpopulation. Moreover, in previous research, a variety of indicators ofbullying have been used. Hence, it has been difficult to compare findingsacross studies. In the present study, the dominant measurement approachesand estimation methods have been used to assure comparability with otherstudies, and to investigate accordance between the approaches. Theapproaches and methods have also been compared to acquire a picture oftheir validity.

Although the different methods described in this study have bothstrengths and limitations, our conclusion is that the latent class clustermethod gives the most valid estimate of workplace bullying as this methoddistinguish between different groups of targets based on the nature,frequency, and severity of the behaviours reported and thus give a moredetailed representation of bullying than the self-labelling approach and thecutoff method. However, as the LCC method is a relatively new approachwithin research on interpersonal aggression (cf. Giang & Graham, 2008),more research using LCC in the field of bullying is necessary to establish thevalidity of the method.

Even if the findings show that the prevalence of workplace bullying hasbeen reduced within the last 15 years, bullying is still problem in Norwegianworking life. The different methods employed to estimate the prevalence ofworkplace bullying show that almost 5% labels themselves as victims ofbullying, while as many as 6.8% is exposed to a high degree of bullyingbehaviours, with a group of 1% being excessively exposed. Thus, developingand implementing effective preventive programmes and interventionsagainst bullying will still be an important task for Norwegian authoritiesand organizations.

REFERENCES

Agervold, M. (2007). Bullying at work: A discussion of definitions and prevalence, based on an

empirical study. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48, 161–172.

Benedictow, A. (2005). Norsk økonomi gjennom 20 ar [Norwegian economy through 20 years].

Oslo, Norway: Statistics Norway.

Bilgel, N., Aytac, S., & Bayram, N. (2006). Bullying in Turkish white-collar workers.

Occupational Medicine, 56, 226–231.

Bjorkqvist, K. (1992). Trakassering forekommer bland anstallda vid AA [Harassment among

employees at Abo Akademi]. Meddelanda fran Abo Akademi, 9, 14–17.

98 NIELSEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Chan, D. (2002). Questions about change over time in cross-cultural organizational research.

Asian Pacific Journal of Management, 19, 449–457.

Cozby, P. C. (2001). Methods in behavioral research (7th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield

Publishing Company.

Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of

Manpower, 20, 16–27.

Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach.

Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(4), 379–401.

Einarsen, S., & Hoel, H. (2001, May). The Negative Acts Questionnaire: Development, validation

and revision of a measure of bullying at work. Paper presented at the 10th European Congress

on Work and Organisational Psychology, Prague, Czech Republic.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Nielsen, M. B. (2005). Mobbing i arbeidslivet [Workplace bullying].

Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal Akademiske.

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. (1991). Mobbing i arbeidslivet. En undersøkelse av forekomst og

helsemessige konsekvenser av mobbing pa norske arbeidsplasser [Workplace bullying: A study

of the prevalence and health consequences of bullying in Norwegian work sites]. Bergen,

Sweden: Institutt for samfunnspsykologi, Universitetet i Bergen.

Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. I. (1997). Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men.

Violence and Victims, 12(3), 247–263.

Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., Matthiesen, S. B., & Hellesøy, O. H. (1994). Mobbing og harde

personkonflikter. Helsefarlig samspill pa arbeidsplassen [Bullying and severe interpersonal

conflicts: Unhealthy interaction at work]. Bergen, Sweden: Sigma Forlag.

Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and

private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 185–201.

Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1988). Methodological issues in the study work stress: Objective vs.

subjective measurements and the question of longitudinal studies. In C. L. Cooper &

R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping, and consequences of stress at work (pp. 371–411).

Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Giang, M. T., & Graham, S. (2008). Using latent class analysis to identify aggressors and

victims of peer harassment. Aggressive Behavior, 34(2), 203–213.

Golembiewski, R. T., Billingsley, K., & Yeager, S. (1976). Measuring change and persistence in

human affairs: Types of change generated by OD designs. Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, 12(2), 133–157.

Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2001). The experience of bullying in Great Britain: The

impact of organizational status. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

10, 443–465.

Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Workplace bullying. In C. L. Cooper &

I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology

(pp. 195–230). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences. New York: Sage.

Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and

organizations across nations (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004).

Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Høgh, A., & Dofradottir, A. (2001). Coping with bullying in the workplace. European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 485–495.

PREVALENCE OF BULLYING IN NORWAY 99

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Høstmark, M., & Lagerstrøm, B. O. (2006). Undersøkelse om arbeidsmiljø: Destruktiv atferd i

arbeidslivet. Dokumentasjonsrapport [A study of work environments: Destructive behaviours in

working life. Documentation report], (No. 44). Oslo, Norway: Statistisk Sentralbyra/Statistic

Norway.

Kivimaki, M., Elovainio, M., & Vathera, J. (2000). Workplace bullying and sickness absence in

hospital staff. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 57, 656–660.

Lewis, D. (2001). Perceptions of bullying in organizations. International Journal of Management

and Decision Making, 2(1), 48–63.

Leymann, H. (1993). Mobbning och utslagning i arbetslivet [Bullying and expulsion at work].

Stockholm: Arbetsmilofonden.

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165–184.

Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the American

workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree, and impact. Journal of Management Studies,

44(6), 837–862.

Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. K. (2002). Latent class modelling as a probabilistic extension of K-

means clustering. Quirk’s Marketing Research Review, 3(20), 77–80.

Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. K. (2004). Latent class models. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The

Sage handbook for quantitative methodology (pp. 175– 198). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Malinauskiene, V., Obelenis, V., & Dopagiene, D. (2005). Psychological terror at work and

cardiovascular diseases among teachers. Acta Medica Lituanica, 12(2), 20–25).

Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in Danish worklife: Prevalence and health

correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 393–414.

Millsap, R. E., & Hartog, S. B. (1988). Alpha, beta, and gamma change in evaluation research:

A structural equation approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 574–584.

Niedhammer, I., David, S., & Degioanni, S. (2006). Economic activities and occupations at high

risk for workplace bullying: Results from a large-scale cross-sectional survey in the general

working population in France. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental

Health, 80(4), 346–353.

Niedl, K. (1995). Mobbing/Bullying am arbeitsplatz. Eine empiriche Analyse zum Phanomen

sowie zu personalwirtschaftlich relevanten Effekten von systematischen Feindseligkeiten

[Mobbing/bullying at work: An empirical analysis of the phenomenon and of the effects of

systematic harassment on human resource management]. Munich, Germany: Hampp.

Niedl, K. (1996). Mobbing and well-being: Economic and personnel development implications.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 239–249.

Notelaers, G., De Witte, H., Vermunt, J., & Einarsen, S. (2006). Pesten op het werk, gewikt en

gewogen: Een latente klassen benadering op basis van de negatieve Acts-vragenlijst [How to

measure bullying at work? A latent class analysis of the Negative Acts Questionnaire].

Gedrag en Organisatie, 19(2), 149–160.

Notelaers, G., Einarsen, S., De Witte, H., & Vermunt, J. (2006). Measuring exposure to bullying

at work: The validity and advantages of the latent class cluster approach. Work and Stress,

20(4), 288–301.

Olweus, D. (1989). Prevalence and incidence in the study of antisocial behavior: Definitions and

measurements. In M. W. Klein (Ed.), Cross-national research in self reported crime and

delinquency (pp. 187–201). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

O’Moore, M., Lynch, J., & Niamh, N. D. (2003). The rates and relative risks of workplace

bullying in Ireland, a country of high economic growth. International Journal of

Management and Decision Making, 4(1), 82–95.

Osberg, L., & Sharpe, A. (2002). International comparisons of trends in economic well-being.

Social Indicators Research, 58, 349–382.

100 NIELSEN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Parkins, I. S., Fishbein, H., & Ritchey, P. N. (2006). The influence of personality on workplace

bullying and discrimination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(10), 2554–2577.

Rayner, C. (1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied

Social Psychology, 7, 199–208.

Salin, D. (2001). Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: A comparison

of two different strategies for measuring bullying. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 425–441.

Saunders, P., Huynh, A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2007). Defining workplace bullying

behaviour professional lay definitions of workplace bullying. International Journal of Law

and Psychiatry, 30(4–5), 340–354.

Schat, A. C., Frone, M. R., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Prevalence of workplace aggression

in the US workforce: Findings from a national study. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, &

J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 47–89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Smith, P. B., Bond, M. H., & Kaitcibasi, C., (2006). Understanding social psychology across

cultures: Living and working in a changing world. London: Sage.

Statistics Norway. (2006). Cyclic developments in Norway. Oslo, Norway: Author.

Steinman, S. (2003). Workplace violence in the health sector: Country case study: South Africa.

Geneva, Switzerland: ILO/ICN/WHO/PSI Joint Programme on Workplace Violence in the

Health Sector.

Van de Vliert, E. (2006). Autocratic leadership around the globe: Do climate and wealth drive

leadership culture? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(1), 42–59.

Van de Vliert, E., Huang, X., & Parker, P. M. (2004). Do colder and hotter climates make richer

societies more, but poorer societies less, happy and altruistic? Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 24, 17–30.

Van de Vliert, E., Kluwer, E. S., & Lynn, R. (2000). Citizens of warmer countries are more

competitive and poorer: Culture or chance? Journal of Economic Psychology, 21, 143–165.

Van de Vliert, E., & Smith, P. B. (2004). Leader reliance on subordinates across nations that

differ in development and climate. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 381–403.

Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2003). Individual antecedents of bullying: Victims 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. 165–184). London: Taylor

& Francis.

Zapf, D., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2003). Empirical findings on bullying in the

workplace. 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. 103–126).

London: Taylor & Francis.

Original manuscript received May 2006

Revised manuscript received January 2008

First published online April 2008

PREVALENCE OF BULLYING IN NORWAY 101

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

ket i

Ber

gen]

at 0

2:28

15

Dec

embe

r 20

11