Intracolleague Aggression in a Group of Dutch Prison Workers

Abstract

This study examined workplace aggression among a Dutch group of 174 prison workers at 10 penitentiaries in the Netherlands. The purpose of the study was to investigate the main and interaction effects of Type D personality and violence on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The results showed a significant interaction effect between the type of violence and Type D personality. Physically violated Type D individuals achieved the highest average score on the PTSD scale. Type D personality was found to have a strong main effect on PTSD.

Keywords

PTSD Type D personality negative affectivity violence prison workers

Aggression at work is an important issue for its frequency and pathogenic potential (Chappell & Martino, 2006; Christian, Bradley, Wallace, & Burke, 2009). A hostile work environment in which insulting or offensive remarks, persistent criticism, personal abuse, or even physical abuse and threats prevail is a reality for many employees in public and private organizations. There is little information about the relationship between personality traits, the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the risk of becoming a victim of workplace aggression. In this article, this relationship is examined among a group of prison workers in the Netherlands.

Literature Review

Workplace aggression can occur incidentally, repeatedly, and/or persistently, and can be defined as acts of aggression committed by internal (colleagues or staff members), external (strangers), or client-initiated (clients against professionals) violence that causes psychological, emotional, or physical harm (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Einarsena, 2000). Several theories suggest that individual (addiction, inadequate social skills, insufficient coping mechanisms, posttraumatic stress), familial and interpersonal (inadequate parental care, negative childhood experiences, intimate partner violence), and contextual factors (nature of the workplace, untrained employees) can increase the risk of workplace violence (Aquino & Bradfield, 2000; Bogaerts, Kunst, & Winkel, 2009; Felson & Steadman, 1983; Kaplan, Bradley, Luchman, & Haynes, 2009; Reed et al., 2009; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000; Wassell, 2009; Wong, Chen, Goggins, Tang, & Leung, 2009).

Some victim-related characteristics are significant in understanding why some people, are more susceptible than others to be violated at work (victim precipitation theory). Some individuals themselves may initiate the violent act, passively or actively, consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, that ultimately can lead to stress, injury, or even death (Aquino, Grover, Bradfield, & Allen, 1999; Dupre & Barling, 2006; Galaway & Hudson, 1981; Kennedy & Sacco, 2007; Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006; Von Hentig, 1948).

Aggression at work has repeatedly been associated with the development of PTSD (Bogaerts et al., 2009; Lambert, Hogan, & Tucker, 2009; Stadnyk, 2004). In the general population, the prevalence of PTSD seems to be approximately 8% (Bogaerts, Daalder, Van der Knaap, Kunst, & Buschman, 2008; Kessler, Sonnega, Bromet, Hughes, & Nelson, 1995; Leymann, 1990). Stadnyk (2004) found a prevalence of PTSD of 26% in a group of prison workers employed in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. Stadnyk’s research also showed that prison workers who were part of the group with PTSD symptoms were absent from work more often than their colleagues who did not suffer from PTSD.

Three sets of PTSD clusters can be distinguished (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [4th ed., text rev.]; DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000). The first symptom cluster is reexperiencing the traumatic event, the second cluster is the avoidance cluster, and the third symptom cluster is characterized by increased arousal. The development of PTSD is not coincidental but associated with personality traits. People characterized by high Negative Affectivity (NA) are more likely to exhibit behaviour consistent with prototypical victim behaviour (Aquino et al., 1999) and are more likely to develop PTSD after experiencing a traumatic experience. NA can be defined as the frequency and intensity with which an individual experiences high levels of emotions like anxiety, anger, hostility, and fear. High-NA individuals have negative views of themselves and others and are less satisfied with their lives. They focus on the negative aspects of colleagues and work and are also much less liked by colleagues and leaders. Watson and Clark (1984) found that high-NA individuals are more independent and nonconformist than low-NA individuals. High-NA individuals are more often the target of aggression because they experience others as threatening relatively quickly and therefore they often respond aggressively. Also, high levels of emotional distress may lead them to be incompetent at work-related tasks (Aquino et al., 1999).

NA is one of two concepts of the personality trait, “Type D personality,” introduced by Denollet (2000, 2005). The second concept, Social Inhibition (SI) is described as the avoidance of potential dangers involved in social interactions, such as disapproval or nonreward by others. Individuals scoring high on SI frequently feel inhibited, uncomfortable, and insecure in comparison with others (Elwood & Williams, 2007). Type D individuals are characterized by the joint tendency to experience negative emotions (irritability, anxiety, anger, and hostile feelings) and to suppress these emotions while avoiding social contacts with others (Pedersen & Denollet, 2004). These individuals have a negative view of self, report more somatic symptoms, and have an attention bias toward adverse stimuli. Individuals who are high in NA and SI have a distressed or Type D personality, given their vulnerability to chronic distress (Denollet, 2000, 2005; Sher, 1999). To the best of the authors’ knowledge, Type D personality has not been studied among prison workers in comparison with PTSD and workplace violence.

NA and SI have repeatedly been linked to PTSD (Bramsen, Dirkzwager, & Van der Ploeg, 2000; Cox, MacPherson, Enns, & McWilliams, 2004; Engelhardt, Van den Hout, & Kindt, 2003; Hyer et al., 2003; Watson & Clark, 1992). The combination of NA and SI involves a heightened risk for the development of PTSD after a traumatic event (Pedersen & Denollet, 2004). Distress tolerance is relevant to a person’s perception of the ability to handle negative emotional states and individuals with high NA have lower tolerance of emotional distress and thus are more likely to develop posttraumatic stress symptoms (Vujanovic, Bonn-Miller, Potter, Marshall, & Zvolensky, 2011). In a group of Dutch soldiers, NA was a significant predictor of PTSD symptoms (Rademaker, van Zuiden, Vermetten, & Geuze, 2011).

In this study, Type D personality, PTSD, and violence (harassment [hands-off] and a combination of physical violence, harassment and/or unwanted sexual attention [hands-on]) will be examined. The main and interaction effects of Type D personality and violence on PTSD and the interaction effects between Type D personality and violence will be examined. A main effect of Type D personality on PTSD is posited and we predict that more Type D individuals will suffer from PTSD than non–Type D individuals or partial Type D individuals and those combined violated individuals (whether or not related to Type D personality) will have a greater risk of developing PTSD.

Method

Sample

The study was carried out between January and April 2006 at 10 penitentiaries in the Netherlands. The research group consisted of 174 prison workers. An independent process supervisor selected at random male and female penitentiary workers who had been victims of harassment, physical violence, or a combination of physical violence, harassment, and/or unwanted sexual attention during the previous 12 months. The control group was composed by matching the characteristics of gender, age, and years of employment. All participants were explicitly informed that they were under no obligation to take part in the study and that their privacy would be guaranteed. The participants’ average age was 43 years and 11 months (SD = 8.59; range = 22-59 years of age). Of this group, 122 were men and 52 were female. The participating men were significantly older than the women (M age ♂ = 45 years and 5 months, M age ♀ = 43 years and 2 months; p = .05). In all, 62% were married, 24% were single, 3% were divorced, and 10% lived together without being married (1% was unknown). Seven percent finished primary school, 9% finished the first level of secondary school, and 67% succeeded in the second level of secondary school. Sixteen percent attended college or university. The average duration of employment was 14 years and 4 months (SD = 8.84; range = 0.5-36 years) and almost equal in both groups. The average number of years of employment was significantly higher for the men than for the women (M ♂ = 15 years and 9 months, M ♀ = 13 years and 7 months; p = .05). There were no significant differences between the research and control group for age (t = −.142, p < .88) and years of employment (t = .292, p < .771). Matching was not successful for gender (t = 2.42, p < .05), so gender differences were controlled for.

Measures

Type D personality (DS14)

Type D personality (DS14; Denollet, 2005) contains the subscales Negative Affectivity and Social Inhibition. Both subscales consist of seven propositions. Each proposition of the DS14 is scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 = false to 4 = true. To be diagnosed as Type D personality, a respondent has to score high on both subscales. Respondents score high for NA or SI when they have a total score of 10 or more on both subscales (Denollet, 2005). An example of an item on the subscale NA is, “I often get excited about matters which are unimportant.” An example of an item of the subscale SI is, “I easily make contact with others.” The separate subscales have an internal consistency with Cronbach’s α values of .88 and .86 for the subscales NA and SI, respectively, and 3-months test–retest reliability r = .72 and .82 for NA and SI subscales, respectively (Denollet, 2005). In this study, the Cronbach’s α for the subscale NA was .80 and for the subscale SI was .77. The seven items of the subscale NA had a loading ranging between .56 and .89 on the corresponding trait. Factor loading ranging for SI was between .53 and .86. The total explained variance for both subscales was 45.32%; 31.15% for NA and 14.15% for SI. In this study, to obtain more detailed analysis, we introduce the term partial Type D personality when a combination of low NA and high SI or high NA and low SI is present.

The Self-Rating Inventory for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (SRIP)

The SRIP (Hovens, 2001; Hovens et al., 1994) is a self-report questionnaire with 22 items based on the DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) relating to symptoms of PTSD. The SRIP does not refer to a specific traumatic experience (Hovens, 2001; Hovens, Bramsen, & Van der Ploeg, 2000). Because of its independence of trauma, the SRIP is very suitable as a screening instrument to map out PTSD symptoms within the normal and clinical population. The propositions of the SRIP are scored on a 4-point scale, a score of 1 representing “not at all,” and a score of 4 representing “very much.” For each question, the respondent has to indicate whether he has been suffering from that particular symptom for more or less than a month. A clinical cutoff value of 39, previously identified in a community sample, was used to indicate probable PTSD caseness (range = 22-88; van Zelst et al., 2003). The symptoms of the SRIP can be distinguished into three symptom clusters: symptoms of reexperiencing, of avoidance, and of hyperarousal. The psychometric qualities of the SRIP have been reported for various groups of Dutch citizens, such as traumatised psychiatric patients, veterans, medical students, and elderly people. The three scales in different research studies have good consistencies, with Cronbach’s α values between .77 and .89 for the subscale Reexperiencing, between .80 and .89 for the subscale Avoidance, and between .76 and .89 for the subscale Hyperarousal. In this study, Cronbach’s α values of .79, .85, and .87 were found for Reexperience, Avoidance, and Hyperarousal, respectively. Furthermore, the questionnaire was found to have an acceptable test–retest reliability over a 7-day period (r = .92; Hovens, 2001). When for at least 1 item of the subscale Renewed Experiencing a score of 3 or higher, for at least 3 items of the subscale Avoidance a score of 3, and for at least 2 items of the subscale Hyperarousal a score of 3 is reported, this will be an indication that a PTSD diagnosis answers to the DSM criteria.

Two types of violence

At the beginning of 2007, Dutch prison workers were asked to report workplace aggression in the previous 12 months. In this study, we concentrate on two types of violence committed by a coworker or supervisor: harassment (hands-off) and a combination of physical violence with harassment and/or unwanted sexual attention (combined violence/hands-on). Data collection was done face to face by two interviewers. Information was asked about, successively, the prevalence of the violence involved and absence due to the violence.

Statistical Analysis

Frequencies were calculated to describe the significant variables in the research (e.g., Type D personality, PTSD, type of violence). An independent-samples t test was used to compare whether Type D personality and PTSD differ between the research and the control group. Univariate General Linear Model (GLM; two-way ANOVA) was tested to examine the main effect and interactions of Type D personality and the type of violence on PTSD (Bhandary & Dai, 2009; Sayago & Asuero, 2004). We used SPSS 17.0.

Results

Descriptive Analysis

Based on independent-samples t tests, no significant differences on Type D personality (NA/SI), PTSD, and types of violence were found between the violated (research) and the nonviolated (control) group.Table 1 shows data on violence characteristics, Type D personality, and PTSD. In the research group, 36 respondents reported hands-off (harassment) and 44 respondents reported hands-on (combined) violence in the previous 12 months. No significant differences were found on the DS14 (Type D) and the SRIP (PTSD) between the violated and nonviolated samples. The prevalence of Type D personality was higher in the violated (20%) than in the nonviolated group (12%). No differences were found for NA/SI low and NA/SI high. To further analyze the results, the combination of low NA/high SI and high NA/low SI were reduced to one group (named partial Type D). Regarding the SRIP, the average on the total score was higher in the violent group than in the nonviolent group (31.1/29.4, respectively). Ten respondents in the research group and 4 in the control group reached a clinical cutoff score of ≥ 39 ≤ 52, previously identified in a community sample as partial PTSD, and 5 respondents in the research group and 3 in the control group achieved a score of 52 and more, identified in a clinical population as clinical PTSD. Although not mentioned in the table, it is noted that work incapacity did not differ between the violent and nonviolent group (Table 2). Finally, the association between NA and the three PTSD symptom clusters were examined (NA and Reexperiencing: r = .39, p < .0001; NA and Avoidance: r = .48, p < .0001; NA and Hyperarousal: r = .50, p < .001).

Table 1.

Type of violence, Type D levels, and PTSD symptom levels.

	Total sample (N = 174)	Research group (violence, n = 80)	Controls (nonviolence, n = 94)
Type of violence
No violence	94		94
Harassment (hands-off)	36	36
Combined (hands-on)	44	44
Type D personality
No Type D (NA/SI low)	83	38	45
NA high/SI low	24	12	12
NA low/SI high	26	12	14
Type D (NA/SI high)	27	16	11
Missing	14	2	12
Self-Rating Inventory for PTSD
Total scores M (SD)	30.2 (10.2)	31.1 (11.5)	29.4 (8.7)
Partial PTSD (≥39)	16	10	6
Clinical PTSD (≥52)	8	5	3
Missing	15	2	13

Note: NA = negative affectivity; SI = social inhibition; PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics Regarding Type of Violence, Type D on Estimated Means of PTSD.

Type of violence	M	SD	n
No violence
0	1.22	.33	44
1	1.38	.27	26
2	1.74	.62	10
Total	1.34	.40	80
Harassment (hands-off)
0	1.27	.27	15
1	1.35	.33	11
2	1.46	.28	8
Total	1.34	.30	34
Combined (hands-on)
0	1.22	.32	23
1	1.38	.41	13
2	2.32	.94	8
Total	1.46	.64	44
Total
0	1.23	.32	82
1	1.37	.32	50
2	1.83	.73	26
Total	1.38	.46	158 (missing = 16)

Note: PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder. Dependent Variable = means of PTSD. 0 = no Type D; 1 = partial Type D; 2 = Type D.

Main and Interaction Effect Between PTSD, Type D, and Type of Violence

Univariate GLM two-way ANOVA was used to test main and interaction effects of Type D personality and violence on PTSD. Table 3 (see also Figure 1) presents between-subjects effect. We examined violence–Type D personality interaction before looking at any main effect. There is a significant interaction effect between violence and Type D personality (F = 4.20, p < .003). The type of violence among respondents who reported no Type D personality does not vary on the dependent variable PTSD. No Type D personality, regardless of the type of violence, results in the lowest score on PTSD compared with respondents with partial or Type D personality. Partial Type D individuals, irrespective of the type of violence, only results in a marginal effect on the average PTSD score.

Table 3.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects.

Source	Type III Sum of squares	df	M ²	F	Significance	Partial η²
Corrected model	10,354^a	8	1,294	8,293	000	308
Intercept	258,520	1	258,520	1656,647	000	917
Type of violence	1,474	2	737	4,724	010	060
Degree of Type D	6,830	2	3,415	21,883	000	227
Type of Violence × Degree of Type D	2,628	4	657	4,209	003	102
Error	23,251	149	156
Total	332,636	158
Corrected total	33,605	157

Note: PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder. Dependent Variable = means of PTSD.

R² = .308 (Adjusted R² = .271)

Figure 1.

The averages chart (profile plot): PTSD, Type D, and workplace violence.

Type D individuals who have been victims of hands-on violence in the past 12 months compared with the no Type D and partial Type D individuals and the nonviolent and hands-off group achieved a very high average score on PTSD. Furthermore, the main effect of type of violence and Type D personality on the dependent variable PTSD was tested. Table 3 shows that Type D personality—taking into account the interaction effect—has a strong main effect on PTSD (F = 21.9, p < .0001). This means that the null hypothesis must be rejected. Type D personality (NA/SI high) does have influence on the development of PTSD.

A post hoc test was conducted to find which means are significantly different from one another. The Tukey method was chosen because of its conservative analysis when there are unequal sample sizes (Jaccard, Becker, & Wood, 1984). Mean difference (–.60) were found at the .05 level between Type D personality and no Type D personality on PTSD.

The partial eta squared (PES) is a measure of relevance used for ANOVA and is .102, which means that the interaction effect (between violence and Type D personality) explains 10% of the variance in PTSD. The main effects of Type D personality and type of violence on PTSD achieve a PES of .227 and .06, respectively, and explain together more than 27% of the variance in PTSD (Table 3).

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to examine the interactions of Type D personality (NA and SI) and violence on PTSD among a sample of prison workers in the Netherlands. Interactions and mean effects between Type D personality and the type of violence on the level of PTSD symptoms were examined because many studies have demonstrated a strong relationship between NA and PTSD (Bramsen et al., 2000; Cox et al., 2004; Watson & Clark, 1992). The results confirmed a significant interaction effect between the type of violence and Type D personality. The type of violence among “no Type D personalities” did not vary on the PTSD scale and obtained the lowest score on PTSD compared with the partial or Type D personalities (NA/SI high).

Hands-on violated Type D individuals achieved the highest average score on the PTSD scale. Type D was found to have a strong main effect on PTSD. These findings confirmed the results of Aquino et al. (1999) that high-NA persons focus more on the negative aspects of themselves and colleagues and were more often the target of aggression because others were often experienced as threatening and because higher levels of emotional distress could cause incompetence on work-related tasks. This could increase their chance to become a victim of workplace aggression.

More than 20% of the respondents in our study achieved a (partial) PTSD diagnosis that corresponds with the results of Stadnyk (2004), who found a PTSD diagnosis of 26% among a group of Canadian prison workers. An overlap of the concepts NA and PTSD and the assumption that PTSD often reflects in negative thoughts must be considered.

The findings corresponded with the results of Pedersen and Denollet (2004) who found that Type D personality increases the level of prediction of PTSD. In this study, NA and SI were not examined as two distinct traits because we were only interested in interactions between (partial) Type D, violence, and PTSD. Notwithstanding there is very little empirical evidence concerning Type D personality as a sensitive factor in workplace aggression and PTSD, Type D personality was associated with a greater risk for PTSD. These findings are important and in line with the study of Vujanovic et al. (2011) that high-NA individuals had a lower tolerance degree of emotional distress because of the negative feelings like fear and anger and therefore were more prone to develop PTSD.

The current study has some limitations. Because of the cross-sectional research design, interactions could not be translated in causes. A longitudinal design is preferable because causal relationships and posttraumatic growth can be examined across multiple measurements over time. Also, the present results can only be related to the investigated prison workers and cannot be extrapolated to all prison workers in the Netherlands and abroad.

Beside experiences of negative emotions, future research should also focus on strategies individuals develop to cope with negative emotions. Such research should also consider whether (the quality of) coping operates as a mediator between NA and PTSD. A second limitation concerns the data. Observations were based on self-report questionnaires. In fact, multieffect and multicomparisons measurements require a multimethod design (e.g., self-report combined with registered data). A third limitation was the small sample size (N = 174) and the number of missing values (almost 10%). The third criticism must be nuanced; social-psychological research often makes use of small samples and no response often occurs. Because of the specificity of the research group (especially clinical indications such as PTSD and Type D personality) it was not possible to collect large samples. These findings must be seen as indicative, although we argue that specific victim characteristics (unconsciously and unintentionally) can contribute to workplace violence.

These findings may be interesting for inclusion in prevention goals. It would be desirable, for example, to screen prison workers in advance to gain insights in personality traits and the presence or risk of PTSD. In this way, the likelihood of workplace aggression could be considered.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Mr. Ron Scherf and Mr. Toon Molleman for supervising data collection at different penitentiaries in the Netherlands and for their support and expertises during the research process. We also thank the participants who gave their free time to participate in this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Aquino

Bradfield

(2000). Perceived victimization in the workplace: The role of situational factors and victim characteristics. Organization Science, 11, 525-537.

Aquino

Grover

S. L.

Bradfield

Allen

D. G.

(1999). The effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-determination on workplace victimization. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 260-272.

Aquino

Thau

(2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717-741.

Bhandary

Dai

H. Y.

(2009). An Alternative Test for the equality of variances for several populations when the underlying distributions are normal. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 38, 109-117.

Bogaerts

Daalder

Van der Knaap

L. M.

Kunst

M. J. J.

Buschman

(2008). Critical incident, adult attachment style and post traumatic stress disorders. A comparison of three groups of security workers. Social Behavior and Personality, 36, 1063-1072.

Bogaerts

Kunst

M. J. J.

Winkel

F. W.

(2009). Dismissive attachment and post-traumatic stress disorder among Belgium securely and insecurely attached security workers. Psychological Reports, 105, 889-899.

Bramsen

Dirkzwager

A. J. E.

Van der Ploeg

H. M.

(2000). Predeployment personality traits and exposure to trauma as predictors of post-traumatic stress symptoms: A prospective study of former peacekeepers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1115-1119.

Chappell

Martino

(2006). Violence at work. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labor Office.

10.

Christian

M. S.

Bradley

J. C.

Wallace

J. C.

Burke

M. J.

(2009). Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1103-1127.

11.

Cox

B. J.

MacPherson

P. S. R.

Enns

M. W.

McWilliams

L. A.

(2004). Neuroticism and self-criticism associated with post-traumatic stress disorder in a nationally representative sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 105-114.

12.

Denollet

(2000). Type D personality: A potential risk factor refined. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 49, 255-266.

13.

Denollet

(2005). DS14: Standard assessment of negative affectivity, social inhibition, and Type D personality. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 89-97.

14.

Dupre

K. E.

Barling

(2006). Predicting and preventing supervisory workplace aggression. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 13-26.

15.

Einarsena

(2000). Harassment and bullying at work. A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 379-401.

16.

Elwood

L. S.

Williams

N. L.

(2007). PTSD-related cognitions and romantic attachment style as moderators of psychological symptoms in victims of interpersonal trauma. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 26, 1189-1209.

17.

Engelhard

I. M.

Van Den Hout

M. A.

Kindt

(2003). The relationship between neuroticism, pre-traumatic stress, and post-traumatic stress: A prospective study. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 381-388.

18.

Felson

R. B.

Steadman

H. J.

(1983). Situational factors in disputes leading to criminal violence. Criminology, 21, 59-74.

19.

Galaway

Hudson

(Eds.). (1981). Perspectives on crime victims. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

20.

Hovens

J. E.

(2001). The Self-Rating Inventory for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Psychodiagnostic instruments [De Zelfinventarisatielijst Posttraumatische Stressstoornis: Psychodiagnostisch gereedschap]. De Psycholoog, 36, 61-63.

21.

Hovens

J. E.

Bramsen

Van der Ploeg

H. M.

(2000). The Self-Rating Inventory for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: SRIP Manual [Zelfinventarisatielijst posttraumatische stressstoornis: SRIP handleiding]. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

22.

Hovens

J. E.

van der Ploeg

H. M.

Klaarenbeek

Bramsen

Schreuder

J. N.

Vladar Rivero

(1994). The assessment of post-traumatic stress disorder with the clinician administrated PTSD scale: Dutch results. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 325-340.

23.

Hyer

Braswell

Albrecht

Boyd

Boudewyns

Talbert

(2003). Relationship of NEO-PI to personality styles and severity of trauma in chronic PTSD victims. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59, 1295-1304.

24.

Jaccard

Becker

M. A.

Wood

(1984). Pairwise multiple comparison procedures: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 589-596.

25.

Kaplan

Bradley

J. C.

Luchman

J. N.

Haynes

(2009). On the role of positive and negative affectivity in job performance: A meta-analytical investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 162-176.

26.

Kennedy

L. W.

Sacco

V. F.

(2007). Crime victims in context. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

27.

Kessler

R. C.

Sonnega

Bromet

Hughes

Nelson

C. B.

(1995). Post-traumatic stress disorder in a national comorbidity survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 1048-1060.

28.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Tucker

K. A.

(2009). Problems at work: Exploring the correlates of role stress among correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 89, 460-481.

29.

Leymann

(1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5, 119-126.

30.

Pedersen

S. S.

Denollet

(2004). Validity of the Type D personality construct in Danish post-MI patients and healthy controls. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57, 265-272.

31.

Rademaker

A. R.

van Zuiden

Vermetten

Geuze

(2011). Type D personality and the development of PTSD symptoms: A prospective study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120, 299-307.

32.

Reed

Silverman

J. G.

Welles

S. L.

Santana

M. C.

Missmer

S. A.

Raj

(2009). Associations between perceptions and involvement in neighbourhood violence and intimate partner violence perpetration among Urban, African American men. Journal of Community Health, 34, 328-335.

33.

Sayago

Asuero

A. G.

(2004). Fitting straight lines with replicated observations by linear regression: Part II. Testing for homogeneity of variances. Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry, 34, 133-146.

34.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Peeters

M. C. W.

(2000). Job stress and burnout among correctional officers: A literature review. International Journal of Stress Management, 7, 19-48.

35.

Sher

(1999). Effects of psychological factors on the development of cardiovascular pathology: Role of the immune system and infection. Medical Hypotheses, 53, 112-113.

36.

Stadnyk

(2004). Post-traumatic stress disorder, violence and quality of life in Saskatchewan correction workers. Unpublished manuscript.

37.

Tepper

B. J.

Duffy

M. K.

Henle

C. A.

Lambert

L. S.

(2006). Procedural injustice, Victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101-123.

38.

van Zelst

W. H.

de Beurs

Beekman

A. T.

Deeg

D. J.

Bramsen

van Dyck

(2003). Criterion validity of the self-rating inventory for post-traumatic stress disorder (SRIP) in the community of older adults. Journal of Affective Disorders, 76, 229-235.

39.

Von Hentig

(1948). The criminal and his victim. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

40.

Vujanovic

A. A.

Bonn-Miller

M. O.

Potter

C. M.

Marshall

E. C.

Zvolensky

M. J.

(2011). An evaluation of the relation between distress tolerance and post-traumatic stress within a trauma-exposed sample. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 33, 129-135.

41.

Wassell

(2009). Workplace violence intervention effectiveness: A systematic literature review. Safety Science, 47, 1049-1055.

42.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

(1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-190.

43.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

(1992). On traits and temperament: General and specific factors of emotional experience and their relation to the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 60, 441-476.

44.

Wong

W. C. W.

Chen

W. Q.

Goggins

W. B.

Tang

C. S.

Leung

P. W.

(2009). Individual, familial and community determinants of child physical abuse among high-school students in China. Social Science & Medicine, 68, 1819-1825.