Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the role of gender in the process of workplace bullying. In particular, we examined how gender affects reported prevalence rates and health consequences of bullying. In addition, we pay particular attention to if the measurement method – self-labelling or behavioural experience methods – affects potential gender differences. A longitudinal study, with two measurement points 18 months apart, was conducted in Sweden (n = 1854 at T1; n = 1096 at T2). It was a probability sample out of a population of all 3.3 million people in Sweden working at workplaces with ten or more employees. The results showed a slightly higher tendency for women to self-label as bullied (8% vs. 6%), while a higher proportion of men than women could be labelled as bullied based on the negative acts they had been exposed to (21% vs. 14%). Exposure to negative acts was associated with more subsequent mental health problems for both men and women, whereas self-labelling was associated with mental health problems for men only. Mental health problems at baseline also increased the risk of bullying for both men and women; however, the measurement method affected if the effect was stronger for men or women. Overall, the study advances our understanding of the role of gender in bullying, in particular highlighting the importance of the measurement method for understanding such gender differences.
Highlights
There is a wide agreement that workplace bullying is a serious work environment problem that has severe consequences for the exposed (Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012, 2018; Arenas et al, 2015; Nauman et al, 2019; Nielsen et al, 2019; Reknes et al, 2019)
We studied inconsistences between two ways of reporting exposure, as well as how gender and measurement method affected the relationship between workplace bullying and mental health
We have investigated gender differences in workplace bullying longitudinally
Summary
There is a wide agreement that workplace bullying is a serious work environment problem that has severe consequences for the exposed (Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012, 2018; Arenas et al, 2015; Nauman et al, 2019; Nielsen et al, 2019; Reknes et al, 2019). There is less agreement about the causality, the process, and possible moderators and mediators (Nielsen and Einarsen, 2018) When it comes to gender and gender differences in regard to causality and process results are mixed and inconclusive (Salin et al, 2013; Salin, 2018), calling for further research to understand the significance of gender in the bullying process. The current study contributes with new knowledge on gendered aspects of both exposure and the consequences of workplace bullying. We investigate and contrast the two most commonly used methods of measurement of workplace bullying (Nielsen et al, 2020b) as the choice of measurement method may affect gender differences found. As for the prevalence of bullying, many studies report no gender differences at all (e.g., Giorgi et al, 2014; Tsuno et al, 2015), while others find differences
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
