China 
Africa 
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Victims and survivors
Published in John C. Gunn, Pamela J. Taylor, Forensic Psychiatry, 2014
Pamela J Taylor, Sharif El-Leithy, John Gunn, Felicity Hawksley, Michael Howlett, Gillian Mezey, David Reiss, Jenny Shaw, Jonathan Shepherd, Nicola Swinson, Pamela J Taylor, Jayne Zito, Felicity de Zulueta
Most acts of internal workplace aggression take the form of emotional abuse or bullying (Keashley and Harvey, 2004). Such behaviours may include abusive supervision, social undermining (include threat to the victim’s professional status or personal standing), bullying, mobbing, isolation, overwork or harassment occurring in a continuing relationship between the victim and the perpetrator (Raynor, 2005; Rayner and Hoel, 1997). Although verbal abuse and perhaps micromanagement are the stereotypical behaviours of the bullying manager and most easily identifiable, victims of bullying are actually more likely to be undermined by acts of omission, such as exclusion from regular communications or invitations to meetings (Rayner and Cooper, 2006). Perception is the key to understanding bullying (Painter, 1991). In UK surveys, 10–20% of employees have reported being bullied in the last 6 months, usually by a superior (80%), with the rest being peer bullying (e.g. Hoel et al., 2004; Lewis, 1999; Quine, 1999; Raynor, 2000; UNISON, 1997).
Workplace Aggression: Exploring Experiences of Occupational Therapy Practitioners in Healthcare Settings
Published in Occupational Therapy In Health Care, 2021
Eileen Scanlon, Catherine Verrier Piersol
The term workplace aggression is a broad term that includes repeated bullying, incivility, lateral violence (peer-to-peer), and other forms of negative social behaviors directed toward coworkers in the workplace (Nielson & Einarsen, 2018; OSHA, 2015; Schat & Frone, 2011). The aggressive acts can include but are not limited to intentional hostility, harassment, repeated gossiping, disrespect, threats, marginalization, oppression, humiliation, shaming, and intentional exclusion of coworkers (ANA, 2015; Parikh et al., 2017). Workplace aggression occurs along a continuum with some behaviors (and associated terms) occurring in the subtle, covert range while other behaviors are more apparent and fall into the overt range (ANA, 2015; Einarsen et al., 2009). Health professionals can dismiss covert aggressive acts as a type of leadership style or an organizational approach however the behaviors remain categorized under aggressive acts if they meet certain criteria (Ariza-Montes et al., 2013; Epstein & Hamric, 2009; Nemeth et al., 2017; Notelaers & Einarsen, 2012; Notelaers et al., 2019; Samnani, 2013). The ANA (2015) emphasizes that all forms of aggression on the continuum undermine professional standards and ethics and contribute to an unhealthy work environment.
An Investigation of Differential Relationships of Implicit and Explicit Aggression: Validation of an Arabic Version of the Conditional Reasoning Test for Aggression
Published in Journal of Personality Assessment, 2019
Workplace aggression is assessed using the WARS, which was developed for this study. The scale consisted of the most frequent workplace aggression behaviors (see Appendix) to include the three types of workplace aggression (i.e., overt aggression, covert aggression, and hostile expressions). The scale consists of 39 items, 13 items for each type of workplace aggression. The raters’ task was to report how often the individual they rated engaged in the listed behaviors (e.g., involved in a physical altercation) during a 3-month period using a scale ranging from 0 (never) to 5 or more. The correlation coefficients between the two raters’ scores were .67 for overt aggression, .51 for covert aggression, and .69 for hostile expressions. The scale alpha reliabilities for averaged ratings were .89 for overt aggression, .84 for covert aggression, and .91 for hostile aggression. The factor structure of the WARS has been assessed using the CFA. A model with three factors (overt aggression, covert aggression, and hostile expressions) provided a good fit to the data: RMSEA = .064, 90% CI [.060,.069]; CFI = .96, NNFI = .96, and SRMR = .07. The three-factor model also provided a significantly better fit than a model with one general Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) factor: ΔCFI = .03 and ΔNNFI = .03. Following the recommendations of Cheung and Rensvold (2000) when comparing two hierarchically constrained models, ΔCFI and ΔNNFI larger than .01 indicate a significant difference in model fit.