Spillover of Workplace Bullying Into Family Incivility: Testing a Mediated Moderation Model in a Time-Lagged Study

Abstract

Utilizing temporally segregated field data from a sample of nurses (n = 251), the present study examined the relationship between workplace bullying and family incivility. We drew on spillover theory and the emotions literature to answer our research questions. We hypothesized that emotions would serve as an explanatory mechanism for the relationship between workplace bullying and family incivility. We further tested the moderating role of neuroticism on the relationship between emotions and family incivility. Our results indicated that workplace bullying triggered negative emotions, which in turn caused family incivility. Moreover, neuroticism moderated the positive relationship between emotions and family incivility.

Keywords

workplace bullying negative emotions family incivility spillover theory

Introduction

Bullying in the workplace is a severe psychosocial hazard. Workplace bullying includes acts such as obstruction, physical violence, verbal aggression, veiled job sabotage, and social exclusion (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011). Workplace bullying is associated with high turnover and low organizational commitment (Naseer, Raja, & Donia, 2016). According to recent statistics, 9% to 15% of employees experience occasional workplace bullying (Zapf, Escartín, Einarsen, Hoel, & Vartia, 2011). The widespread prevalence of bullying and the negative outcomes associated with it present a significant challenge for organizations (Hoel, Sheehan, Cooper, & Einarsen, 2011).

Workplace bullying does not just affect workplace outcomes; its effects also go beyond the workplace. Specifically, researchers have reported spillover effects of workplace bullying to the family domain (Lim & Lee, 2011; Lim & Tai, 2014). They argue that stressors resulting from mistreatment at work are not left at work but rather spillover to the family domain in the form of family incivility (Ferguson, 2012; Lim & Tai, 2014). Nevertheless, despite the well-known negative emotional and psychological effects of workplace bullying on the family domain, little is known about how this spillover takes place. It is also unknown why some individuals transfer more workplace stress to the family domain than others. We addressed these two important questions in the current research. Hence, our aim was to examine the relationship between workplace bullying and family incivility as well as the underlying processes and boundary conditions associated with the workplace bullying–family incivility relationship.

We argue that workplace bullying results in negative emotions in victims (Glasø & Notelaers, 2012). These negative emotions act as an underlying mechanism for transferring the effect of workplace bullying to the family domain in the form of family incivility. To answer our second research question, we chose one of the Big Five personality traits, neuroticism, as a potential mediator of the bullying–family incivility relationship. Our choice of neuroticism as a mediator was guided by the thought processes associated with neuroticism, which make neurotic individuals highly sensitive to perceived mistreatment (Nielsen, Glasø, & Einarsen, 2017; Samnani & Singh, 2016). Specifically, neuroticism comprises characteristics such as being tense, hostile, and susceptible to negative emotions. Furthermore, the extant literature suggests that trait neuroticism influences the consequences of stressful experiences at work (Bolger & Schilling, 1991; Nasurdin, Ramayah, & Kumaresan, 2005). We thus argue that neuroticism influences the relationship between negative emotions and family incivility (Figure 1 shows the hypothesized model).

Figure 1.

Model whereby negative emotions as a mediator of the relation between workplace bullying and family incivility; neuroticism as a moderator of the relation between negative emotion and family incivility.

Our study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, the literature predominantly focuses on the spillover of family stressors to work outcomes; the reverse type of spillover has received little scholarly attention. We address this notable shortcoming in the current study. Second, we conducted our study among nurses in Pakistani health care organizations. Nurses constitute a stressed group in a developing country like Pakistan due to the nature of their work and their long working hours. However, researchers have seldom attempted to address the mental health and personal lives of members of this profession, even though workplace bullying has implications for mental health among nurses. Third, we drew on spillover theory, the emotions framework and the Big Five traits to answer our research question. This interdisciplinary approach allows us to explore our research question in a more nuanced way. We also add to the literature by examining an individual difference factor that may exacerbate the negative outcomes of workplace bullying.

Literature Review

The main theoretical underpinning of the current study is spillover theory, which focuses on the spillover of workplace experiences from the work to the family domain and vice versa (e.g., see Ilies, Wilson, & Wagner, 2009; Judge & Ilies, 2004; Sonnentag & Binnewies, 2013; Staines, 1980). Other studies suggest that negative spillover is more prevalent than positive spillover (Barling & Macewen, 1992; Sonnentag & Binnewies, 2013). Thus, there is discussion in the literature of how the effects of workplace bullying spillover to the family domain.

Bullying in organizations refers to variety of repetitive and persistent negative acts directed toward targets who are usually not able to defend themselves against them (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011). These acts can be on a personal level, such as insults or criticism, or can also be work-related, such as withholding information from a coworker or isolating them socially. Workplace bullying is commonly described as unwanted behavior toward a less powerful person who is unable to defend himself or herself (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007). Workplace bullying is repetitive abusive behavior in which the victim is undermined, ridiculed, and subjected to derogatory actions and words. Workplace bullying can take the form of verbal abuse as well as nonverbal actions such as exclusion, obstruction, isolation, and aggression (Vessey, DeMarco, & DiFazio, 2011). Workplace bullying results in emotional abuse and mental and physical health problems for the victim (Trépanier, Fernet, & Austin, 2013). Victims of workplace bullying think of themselves as vulnerable in various life domains. For example, they view themselves as slaves and prisoners (Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, & Alberts, 2006).

Moreover, exposure to bullying in organizations has harmful outcomes. A study by Tuckey and Neall (2014) concluded that bullying negatively affects optimism and self-efficacy, with emotional exhaustion playing a mediating role. The literature also shows that bullying in organizations causes problems among employees related to health and well-being (e.g., Hogh, Mikkelsen, & Hansen, 2011). Furthermore, many studies have found support for negative organizational outcomes, including conflict, increased turnover, effective functioning, and absence due to illness (Leymann, 1996). The literature also reveals negative effects on psychological detachment, which refers to a feeling of disconnect with issues related to work (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007).

Over time, a great deal of research has been conducted on the negative outcomes of bullying (for a review, see Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). Many cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have found associations between bullying and many indicators of strain (e.g., Hogh et al., 2011). However, little attention has been paid by researchers to the short-term effects of bullying and to how bullying behavior spills over into an employee’s home life. This represents a current gap in field of bullying research.

Workplace Bullying and Negative Emotions

Workplace bullying can be linked to emotions in the form of relationships with stress outcomes, as emotions are triggered in reaction to stressful events at work (e.g., Lazarus, 1999). There is substantial evidence that similarly stressful workplace events such as harassment cause severe emotional reactions, including fear, anxiety, and shock (Rospenda, Fujishiro, Shannon, & Richman, 2008). Similarly, other studies suggest that anxiety and depression are natural outcomes of bullying (Glasø & Notelaers, 2012; Leymann, 1996).

A study of bullying victims in psychiatric clinics found widespread reports of anger, depression, and anxiety regardless of age, position, and gender (Tracy et al., 2006). Targets’ anger, fear, and anxiety increase with greater exposure to workplace bullying (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). Similarly, Lee (2010) observed a decline in happiness among targets of bullying compared with individuals who were not victimized. These findings provide clear evidence that bullying results in negative emotions, which in turn spillover to the family.

Workplace Bullying and Family Incivility

Family incivility refers to unusual behaviors with ambiguous intentions that interrupt standards of shared respect in the family (Lim & Tai, 2014). As a functioning institution, families follow rules differentiating acceptable from unacceptable behavior. Behaviors that defy these sets of rules violate the principle of mutual respect and create tension within the family. Unlike more formal rules in the workplace, rules within the family are unwritten and implied. Nevertheless, they are necessary for the functioning of the family as an institution. Family incivility does not include physical abuse; it refers, instead, to disrespectful behavior that may be as subtle as ignoring others or sarcasm. Family incivility is different from social undermining, which refers to intending to hinder the victim’s achievement of his or her goals and undermine his or her self-worth (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Hoobler & Brass, 2006).

Researchers have started to examine the process of transferring aggressive experiences from the work to the nonwork domain. The literature provides evidence for the spillover of harassment in the workplace in various forms. For example, employees suffering under abusive supervision exhibit violence toward members of their family (Hoobler & Brass, 2006). Likewise, Restubog et al. (2011) argued that employees who face abusive supervision experience psychological distress and take their frustration out on people away from its specific source; thus, they undermine their family. Researchers claim that such aggression toward members of the family helps the person vent their distress. Hence, researchers have found clear indications of spillover effects of conflicts in the workplace (Sanz-Vergel, Rodríguez-Muñoz, & Nielsen, 2015). However, there is a dearth of studies in the literature about bullying.

The relationship between bullying and outcomes was described in the conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001). The basic principle of COR is that people try to attain, hold, and guard their resources. Resources are entities valued in and of themselves, such as health, self-esteem, and energy, or that serve as a means to achieve valued outcomes, such as money and social support. COR says that psychological distress occurs when an individual’s resources are threatened, when they lose their resources, or when they fail to regain them. The loss of resources leads to negative emotions, which in turn impairs physical and mental health (Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, & Westman, 2014).

The literature proves that bullying in the workplace reduces employees’ self-efficacy as well as optimism (Tuckey & Neall, 2014). Therefore, bullying can put a drain on resources. Moreover, employees who experience greater bullying are required to invest more resources in dealing with taxing situations (Rodríguez-Muñoz, Moreno-Jiménez, & Sanz-Vergel, 2015) to lessen resource loss (Hobfoll, 1989). As resources are limited, this means that fewer resources remain to fulfill family needs (e.g., Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Thus, such employees may experience high tension in the family domain. Put more simply, we may say that bullying can spillover to the family domain and interfere with family life.

Early research established a positive relation between stress at work and tense interactions within the family (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995). Family incivility is not always intentional, but the uncivil family member may even accidentally cause damage through insensitivity, mistakes, and ignorance (Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001). In the previous decade, many researchers have started to investigate the spillover effects rising from workplace bullying. Carlson, Ferguson, Perrewé, and Whitten (2011) studied the effect of having an abusive supervisor at work on satisfaction with relationships within the family. Stress at work contributed to more tense interactions with the family (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995).

Neuroticism and Family Incivility

Neuroticism is one of the Big Five personality traits. People who are neurotic are tense, prone to worrying, high-strung, and nervous, whereas more emotionally stable people are content and calm. Neuroticism refers to one’s tendency to experience negative and distressing emotions (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; Suls, Green, & Hillis, 1998).

The interactionist perspective suggests that the effects of situational factors on individuals’ outcomes are moderated by their personality traits. Based on these arguments, we propose that a neurotic personality makes individuals more reactive to workplace bullying. Neuroticism is a personality trait characterized by depression, anxiety, and nervousness (Naseer et al., 2016). One of the most important ways to control negative emotions and stress is through emotional regulation (Gross, 2014).

Hypotheses

The work–family interface model argues that negative experiences and stressors in the workplace spillover into employees’ family lives (Carlson, Ferguson, Hunter, & Whitten, 2012; Carlson et al., 2011; Hoobler & Brass, 2006; Tepper, 2000). Moreover, the work–family interface model (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1987; Grzywacz & Marks, 2000) proposes that employees facing negative experiences in the workplace experience spillover effects into the nonwork domain, which hinders their family activities and affects their general well-being in the long run. Emotional work, as well as strain-based demands in the workplace, threatens employees’ psychological resources such as the need for competence, relatedness, and autonomy and thus hinders their ability to fulfill their family roles (Trépanier et al., 2013). Moreover, Liu, Kwan, Lee, and Hui (2013) and Jones and Fletcher (1993) argue that employees may transfer their negative emotions to their family, thus creating conflicts with other members of the family and ultimately negatively affecting their relations, family time, and roles.

Hypothesis 1: Workplace bullying is positively related to family incivility.

One of the main characteristics of workplace bullying is emotional abuse (Lovell & Lee, 2009), so one may conclude that workplace bullying leads to negative emotions among victims. Carnelley and Janoff-Bulman (1992) concluded that workplace bullying causes emotional reactions such as shock, anxiety, low positive feelings, and fear. Similarly, Ayoko, Callan, and Härtel (2003) report that a number of negative emotions, such as fear, helplessness, irritability, and anger, result from workplace bullying. Moreover, a study reporting the results of interviews with 30 victims of workplace bullying concluded that experiencing bullying contributed to depression, tension, and anxiety (O’Moore, Seigne, McGuire, & Smith, 1998). Bullying victims at a British university also exhibited a high level of shame due to bullying (Lewis, 2004).

Hypothesis 2: Workplace bullying is positively related to negative emotions.

The roles individuals perform in various domains may interfere with the demands of their role(s) in other domain(s) due to constraints and spillover across domains (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Many studies have concluded that if stress causes conflict in the workplace, it hinders the employee’s ability to perform his or her family and work roles effectively. Employees may get irritated in the workplace, making them unable to engage in family activities (Carlson, Kacmar, & Williams, 2000). These findings explain how conflict at work or in the family due to stress and negative emotions affects individuals’ performance in other roles as well (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Moreover, many researchers argue that the work and home domains are related to one another (Bulger, Matthews, & Hoffman, 2007; Desrochers, Hilton, & Larwood, 2005; Matthews & Barnes-Farrell, 2010; Nippert-Eng, 1996), as the strain and negative emotions employees experience in the workplace may affect their relationships with their families. Workplace tasks that are too demanding create negative emotions such as sorrow, distress, and grief, which span both an employee’s work and home lives (Ilies et al., 2007; Williams & Alliger, 1994). Furthermore, prior studies have focused on the negative work-to-family spillover of employees’ social ostracism, abusive supervision, and emotional labor in organizations (Carlson et al., 2012; Carlson et al., 2011; Frye & Breaugh, 2004; Hoobler & Brass, 2006; Liu et al., 2013; Tepper, 2000; Thomas & Ganster, 1995; Wagner, Barnes, & Scott, 2014). But there is a dearth of literature examining the work-to-family spillover that stems from bullying in the workplace. This study will fill this gap by examining negative emotions as a mediator in the relationship between workplace bullying and family incivility. Moreover, the literature on workplace bullying is based on samples taken from West; thus, studies reflecting the culture of non-Western countries are missing (Liu et al., 2013; Rai & Agarwal, 2016; Zhu & Li, 2015).

The spillover process is linked to conflict between work and family models (Eby, Maher, & Butts, 2010; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Negative emotions related to work act as a mediator between work–family conflict and work demands on emotions at home (Ilies et al., 2007). Thus, negative emotions arising from stressful workplace events and experiences are difficult for employees to cast off when they leave for home. Consequently, employers and societies cannot afford to ignore one sphere of life, that is, work, without creating a possible hazard to the other, that is, family. Workplace bullying can thus have detrimental effects beyond the workplace. Based on the aforementioned arguments, we formulated the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: Negative emotions mediate the relationship between workplace bullying and family incivility.

Employees with a neurotic personality should ultimately experience increased negative effects, including greater family incivility. Conversely, individuals who are less neurotic are emotionally stable, so they ought to be better able to recover from their negative emotions (Harms & Credé, 2010; Wong & Law, 2002).

Hypothesis 4: Neuroticism moderates the relationship between negative emotions and family incivility such that the relationship is stronger among individuals high on trait neuroticism.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Data were collected by conducting a temporally segregated field survey of nurses at different hospitals in Pakistan across three different time points. The study employed a multistage sampling technique (Boafo, Hancock, & Gringart, 2016). In the first stage, we selected three regions where the study would be carried out: Islamabad, Multan, and Faisalabad. These regions were purposively selected to be representative of the whole country with regard to various economic, social, demographic, and cultural characteristics. The second stage involved selecting hospitals within each region via purposive and simple random sampling techniques. Specifically, time-lagged data were collected from 20 different hospitals located in Islamabad, Faisalabad, and Multan. Afterward, nurses from the selected hospitals were randomly selected and data were collected at three measurement points. Workplace bullying was measured at Time 1, negative emotions and neuroticism were measured at Time 2 after a time lag of 1 month, and family incivility was measured at Time 3. The reason why nurses were selected as our sample is that health care workers are frequently victims of violence, with nurses at particularly high risk. Nursing is considered the most hazardous occupation due to workplace violence (Elston, Gabe, & O’Beirne, 2006).

We attached a cover letter to each survey explaining the purpose of our research and emphasizing that participation is voluntary. We ensured the anonymity and confidentiality of participants’ responses. At Time 1, we circulated 500 questionnaires on workplace bullying and received 410 complete and usable responses back, a response rate of 82%. After a 1-month interval, respondents who completed the Time 1 survey were again contacted and were requested to rate items on neuroticism and emotions. We received 288 complete surveys, a response rate of 57%. At Time 3, we distributed questionnaires about family incivility and received 251 filled-in surveys back, for a final response rate of 50.2%.

In terms of demographics, 94% of all participants were female. All were nurses holding a degree in nursing that they had acquired after completing their secondary school education. The majority of the nurses were married (69%), belonged to the 21- to 25-year-old age bracket (48.2%), had worked in their current hospital for less than 5 years (80.9%), and were part of the Gynecology Department (32.3%).

Ethical Protocol

Approval from the appropriate institutional review board was obtained on May 24, 2017, prior to implementation of the study procedure. A certificate of confidentiality was obtained. Participants were ensured of the following before data collection:

Participation is completely voluntary.

There may be questions that might make you feel uncomfortable. You are allowed to skip any portion of the survey or specific questions you are not comfortable answering.

Responses will remain completely confidential.

Nobody at your place of employment will have access to your data.

The results of this research may be published, but neither your name, company, nor any other type of identifiable information will ever be used.

The data collected will be kept in a secure location. Only authorized people will have access to the research records, and the passwords for office computers and networks will be protected.

You are allowed to withdraw consent and discontinue participation at any time.

Measures

We administered all the measures in English because English is the mode of communication in Pakistani hospitals and thus was understood by the nurses in our sample. The majority of the data were collected from private hospitals (51%), which charge higher fees to patients who can afford them and do not wish to wait in long queues in public hospitals. Patients in these hospitals are mostly people who have jobs in the daytime and go to these private hospitals, which have high-quality, quick processes, after work. Prior to collecting data, we had a discussion with the HR manager/coordinator to ask them about the nature of nurses’ jobs of nurses so that we could collect the data properly. We were told that nurses’ communication skills are considered during the hiring process and the job interview is conducted in both English and Urdu to make sure the nurses can deal with patients in both languages. These hospitals also have some international patients. Moreover, some hospitals serve on the panel of some multinational organizations. Such organizations have diverse staff from different countries. Because the international employees of such organizations go to those hospitals for check-ups, the hospital management makes sure to hire and train staff who can communicate in English. We thus believed that the nurses typically interacted with well-off patients who were used to communicating in English as well as foreigners. Previous studies conducted in Pakistan have not identified any major concerns with administering surveys in English (Abbas et al., 2014; Naseer et al., 2016).

Workplace bullying

Workplace bullying was the independent variable in this study. It was self-reported by nurses at Time 1 using the 22-item Negative Acts Questionnaire developed by Einarsen, Hoel, and Notelaers (2009). Nurses were provided with a series of questions such as “I have been ordered to do work below my level of competence” and “I have been exposed to an unmanageable workload.” They were asked to respond with respect to their supervisors. The scale’s alpha reliability in this study was .90. The mean and standard deviation for this variable were 3.69 and 0.595, respectively. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed that the loadings were statistically and substantially significant. The item factor loadings ranged from 0.49 to 0.8.

Negative emotions

Negative emotions acted as a mediator in this study and were measured at Time 2. They were derived from self-report responses to a 5-item scale adopted from Tamir and Robinson (2004; see also, Watson & Clark, 1984). Specifically, nurses were provided a series of statements such as “You felt worthless.” The scale’s alpha reliability in this study was .81. The mean and standard deviation for this variable were 3.61 and 0.784, respectively. CFA revealed that the loadings were statistically and substantially significant. The item factor loadings ranged from 0.51 to 0.78.

Family incivility

A 5-point Likert-type scale of workplace incivility by Cortina et al. (2001) was adapted to measure nurses incivility toward family (dependent variable). Words such as coworkers or supervisors were replaced with the words “family members.” One item was removed as it was only applicable to the work context (“Addressed you in unwelcome nonprofessional terms, either publicly or privately”). Respondents were asked to rate six items on a response scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = most of the time. The same scale was used by Lim and Tai (2014) to measure family incivility. Sample items for this measure included “Ignored or excluded them (family) from social activities.” The scale’s alpha reliability in this study was .75. The mean and standard deviation for this variable were 3.73 and 0.625, respectively. CFA revealed that the loadings are statistically and substantially significant. The item factor loadings ranged from 0.56 to 0.79.

Neuroticism

Neuroticism, the moderator for this study, was measured using Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1975) scale, which has four items on a scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = most of the time. Sample items included “Worries too long after an embarrassing experience.” The scale’s alpha reliability in this study was .70. The mean and standard deviation for this variable were 3.61 and 0.829, respectively. CFA showed that the loadings were statistically and substantially significant and ranged from 0.62 to 0.88.

Analytic Plan

We conducted the analysis in different stages. First, the validity of our measurement scales was confirmed via CFA. We used the comparative fit index (CFI), CMIN, and the root mean square error of approximation ([RMSEA]) to measure the fit of our CFA models (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and t tests were performed to check the relationship between demographic variables and the variables under study. No significant effects were found; hence, we did not include demographic controls in further analyses. We checked for mediation using a method proposed by Preacher and Hayes (2004). Moreover, the results were further confirmed using the Sobel test. Assuming that the data were normal, a two-tailed test was performed, and the resultant indirect effects were positive and significant (Sobel effect = 0.20, z = 4.98, p < .01). The results were further confirmed by the Sobel test (see Table 3), as a 99% bootstrapped confidence interval (CI) of the indirect effect did not contain zero (CI = [0.09, 0.21]). We tested for moderation by performing a hierarchical moderated regression analysis.

Results

Factor Analysis

Although the present study utilized a temporally segregated research design in which data were collected from the same respondents (nurses) at different time intervals, we ran a number of confirmatory factor analyses, reported in Table 1, to establish the discriminant validity of the study variables. We conducted CFAs on existing scales because our context was new and it is always good to take extra care when constructs are administered for the first time in a new context. Levine, Hullett, Turner, and Lapinski (2006) argued that it is good to conduct a CFA when seeking to confirm the factor structure of a published scale with new data. Moreover, they noted that replicating a scale’s factor structure in the new context provides additional confidence, making the additional effort required to conduct a CFA in such situations worthwhile due to the additional information gained through replication. They emphasized that potential problems will not be detected if CFAs are not conducted after the publication of the original validation study, ultimately causing knowledge to suffer. Thus, in line with Gerbing and Anderson’s (1984) recommendations, we conducted CFAs for all possible pairs of variables measured using the same source at the same time. In each case, we compared a two-factor or multiple-factor model with a one-factor model. The results indicated that the nonrestrictive two-factor model for each pair demonstrated superior model fit in comparison with the restrictive one-factor model.

Table 1.

Descriptive Table.

	M	SD
1. Workplace bullying	3.69	.595
2. Negative emotions	3.61	.784
3. Neuroticism	3.61	.829
4. Family incivility	3.73	.625
5. Marital status	1.68	.466
6. Age	2.58	.617
7. Tenure	1.19	.394

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics. All study variables were positively correlated. Workplace bullying was positively correlated with negative emotions (r = .793, p < .01) and family incivility (r = .738, p < .01). Negative emotions were positively correlated with family incivility (r = .632, p < .01).

Table 2 shows the results of the regression analysis. Workplace bullying was positively associated with family incivility (β = .737, ΔR² = .533, p < .001) and predicted negative emotions (β = .559, ΔR² = .313, p < .001). Hence, Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 were supported.

Table 2.

Regression Results for Simple Mediation: NE as Mediator Between WB and FI (n = 251).

S. No.	Variable	R ²	ΔR²	B	SE	T
	Step 1
	Demographics	.02	.02
	Step 2
	Direct effects of WB on FI	.55	.53	0.73	0.49	17.1
	Step 3
	Direct effect of WB on NE			0.55	0.54	4.77
	Direct effect of NE on FI			0.50	0.05	9.40
	Step4	.36	.36
	Mediation of NE			0.64	0.07	9.2
Indirect Effect and Significance Using Normal Distribution
				Effect	SE	Z
	Sobel			0.20	0.04	4.98
Bootstrap Results for Indirect Effects
				M	SE	LL [95% CI]	UL [95% CI]
Effect	NE			0.15	0.02	0.09	0.21

Note. Standardized regression coefficients. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. NE = negative emotions; WB = workplace bullying; FI = family incivility; LL = lower limit; CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit.

We checked for mediation using a method proposed by Preacher and Hayes (2004). We tested for moderation by performing a hierarchical moderated regression analysis. Centring was performed in all moderation analyses to circumvent the issue of multicollinearity (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Moreover, significant interactions were plotted above and below the mean (+SD and –SD) in a slope analysis (Aiken, West & Reno, 1991). Table 2 shows the results of the mediation analysis. The results support the hypothesis that workplace bullying has an indirect effect on family incivility through negative emotions (β = .64, t = 11.5, p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was also accepted.

Table 3 shows the results of the moderation analysis. Centered or standardized scores were used to reduce any multicollinearity issues in the moderation analyses involving an interaction term.

Table 3.

Moderated Regressions of Workplace Bullying and Neuroticism on Family Incivility.

Family Incivility
Predictors	Step 1 (β)	Step 2 (β)
Negative emotions	.602*	.296*
Neuroticism	.010**	−.561**
N × WB		.802**
R ²	.362**	212**

Note. WB = workplace bullying.

p < .05. **p < .01.

The interaction term for Negative Emotions × Neuroticism was significantly associated with family incivility (b = .802, p < .05). This significant interaction term was plotted using the simple slope method to test the two-way interaction (Figure 2). The slope of the relation between negative emotions and family incivility was larger for individuals high on neuroticism (simple slope = .69, t = 7.02., p < .01), but had a smaller effect among individuals low on neurotic tendencies (simple slope = .54, t = 7.3, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported. Figure 2 shows the moderation graph.

Figure 2.

Interaction of negative emotions by neuroticism on family incivility.

Discussion

The objective of this research was to investigate the spillover effect of bullying in the workplace on family incivility, with negative emotions as a mediator. Therefore, one strength of this study is the evidence it provides that workplace bullying causes spillover from the workplace to an employee’s home life, as predicted in Hypothesis 1. Employees facing more workplace bullying tend to exhibit greater family incivility. According to Staines (1980), emotions in the workplace affect an employee’s emotions and behaviors in the family. This study’s results are consistent with Staines’s (1980) proposition as well as with spillover theory; Hypothesis 1 could be confirmed. While a previous study (Lim & Lee, 2011) explored the link between peer group incivility and the victim’s family relations, this study examined how the victim feels about incivility in the family, whether he or she faces such incivility in the family, and the process through which this incivility is transferred to the family. The results showed that the negative emotions an employee develops as a result of workplace bullying by his or her supervisor do mediate the impact of supervisor bullying on family incivility.

This study found a significant positive relation between workplace bullying and negative emotions in the workplace (r = .793, p < .01). The reason for conducting our study in the nursing sector was the high prevalence of bullying among nurses. Our findings clearly demonstrated that nurses in hospitals experience high workplace bullying and feelings of emotional abuse. This confirmed the results of the study by Suzy Fox and Lamont Stallworth (2005), who proved that extensive bullying in the workplace is positively related to negative emotional feelings and responses in the workplace. Bullying is connected to supervisors, and it is believed that if supervisors are the bullies, victims will experience negative emotions and develop negative attitudes in return. Hypothesis 2 was also confirmed as the bullying victims did carry over the negative emotions resulting from bullying from the work domain to the family domain. The results also showed that negative emotions and feelings of emotional abuse cause family incivility (Hypothesis 3). This confirms the previous finding by Leiter and Durup (1996) that negative emotions and the stress of workplace incivility affect other domains beyond the workplace. Negative emotions also served as the mechanism for the spillover effect of workplace bullying on family incivility (Hypothesis 3). Neuroticism played the role of moderator in the relation between negative emotions and family incivility (Hypothesis 4), in line with Hershcovis and Reich’s (2013) view that employees with a neurotic personality may be more reactive toward certain environments.

Our results suggest that workplace bullying can strain employees’ resources and negatively affect their emotions, ultimately causing them to behave inappropriately in the family. They are consistent with the self-regulation perspective, which highlights that resources are an important element of restraining impulses and regulating emotions that ultimately affects subsequent behavior (Baumeister & Vohs, 2003). Changes in employees’ emotions lead them to behave with incivility not only in the workplace but also toward their family members. Moreover, Hershcovis et al. (2007) recommends that employees’ aggression be let loose on targets from different life domains besides the workplace.

Alghamdi, Topp, and AlYami (2018) concluded from the results of a study they conducted that nurses with male managers were more satisfied with their jobs than nurses with female managers. The literature also describes that in male-dominant societies, males are usually perceived as more effective leaders, and thus nurses are more satisfied with their jobs when they have male supervisors (AbuAlrub & Alghamdi, 2012; Clow & Ricciardelli, 2011). In contrast, males and females have the same perceptions about their leaders in gender-neutral societies (Martin, 2015; Paustian-Underdahl, Walker, & Woehr, 2014). Therefore, the impact of supervisor’s gender on bullying among nurses could be a good avenue for future research.

This study reveals a model of the relationship between workplace bullying and family incivility. Moreover, it also sheds light on potentially interesting avenues for future research. As we cannot generalize the results of this study to other workplaces, future research should consider examining these relationships in other sectors, because the detrimental effects of workplace bullying may spillover in other sectors as well, especially in the public sector.

Limitations and Future Research Suggestions

This study examined the spillover of experienced abuse to perceived family incivility. The study had a few limitations, which could be addressed in future studies. For example, we did not examine the role of demographics with respect to the outcome variables. We believe that considering demographics could lead to different results.

Future research should also examine impacts on other outcome variables, for example, family functioning and communication. Moreover, in addition to spillover effects, crossover effects to one’s spouse should also be investigated. This study about spillover paves the way for further investigations of bullying victims in other social roles, for example, as spouses, coworkers, or parents. Longitudinal studies spanning longer time periods would help researchers comprehend how bullying victims function in various roles within the family over the life course. Furthermore, emotions had limited power as an explanatory mechanism for the spillover effect. Future studies should seek to identify potential mediators that provide a better understanding of bullying and its outcomes.

Implications

This study seeks to extend the literature in the domain of spillover effects and has many practical implications for managers and organizations as well. There is extensive evidence in the literature on the negative effects of workplace bullying and incivility on organizational outcomes (Cortina et al., 2001; Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001; Porath & Erez, 2009). These outcomes are diverse (Hoel et al., 2011; Hogh et al., 2011) and include anxiety and depression, negative core self-evaluations (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002), burnout (Einarsen, Matthiesen, & Skogstad, 1998), and posttraumatic stress disorder (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2004). Thus, organizations face the challenge of developing mechanisms to reduce workplace bullying. This study suggests some ways of handling the issue.

First, the mediation results suggest that employees’ emotions play an important role in engagement in uncivil behavior. Organizations can help their employees increase their positive experiences in the workplace (e.g., positive reflection interventions; Bono et al., 2013). Moreover, family supportive practices should be promoted; as Hammer et al. (2011) suggests, organizations should focus on investing their time and energy to develop supervisors who provide family support to their employees rather than bullying them. Organizations should provide training to supervisors in dealing with employees’ family-related issues to be able to proactively identify and resolve such issues.

Our results suggest that organizations need to increase their awareness of some potential serious implications of bullying and thus need to develop policies that may help prevent these social stressors from occurring in the workplace. This also means that employees should know about conflict reduction strategies (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2007), and conflict management trainings might help prevent conflicts from escalating (Leon-Perez et al., 2015). Moreover, employees who are bullied in organizations should receive counseling to handle the situation. In severe cases, counseling only will not be enough; companies will need to take legal action to help the victim (Hoel & Einarsen, 2010; Yamada, 2010). Managers also should be mindful to not confuse conflicts with workplace bullying, because a strategy for solving conflict would not be suitable to address bullying. Thus, managers also need to learn the differences between these two social stressors that require different types of interventions (Hoel & Einarsen, 2011).

Another suggestion is to help those who have been bullied to manage their negative emotions both at the workplace and in their family to reduce the chances of spillover. This can be done by providing counseling, so to help the victims buffer the effect of workplace bullying on their family life. This research emphasizes the critical need to curb workplace bullying before it has detrimental effects on the target’s family.

An organization’s leadership can play a significant role in lessening the spread of bullying in the workplace by making sure that all employees follow the standards and communicate with acceptable behaviors (Hutchinson, Vickers, & Jackson, 2010; Laschinger, Wong, & Grau, 2012; Lewis & Orford, 2005; Leymann, 1996). When leaders are not able to make others follow these rules, bullying may prevail in the organization (Hutchinson et al., 2010), which will then lead to stress and family incivility. Consequently, to make sure that nurses are well equipped to deal with stressors in the workplace, leaders must be supportive and ensure that factors related to both the job and the person himself or herself are configured in such a way as to provide employees with a supportive and safe work environment.

Discussion of Diversity

The present study was conducted to address an important issue of workplace bullying targeting female nurses at workplace. The studies on female population in developing countries have received limited attention; thus, we addressed the concern of this gender-based diverse group to examine how workplace bullying spillover to their family lives.

Footnotes

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.

ORCID iD

Sajid Bashir

Author Biographies

Aisha Sarwar is a PhD candidate at Capital University of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan. Her research interests include personality, employee emotions, and workplace incivility.

Sajid Bashir, PhD, is an associate professor and head of the department at Capital University of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan. His research interests include personality, employee attitudes, and application of Human Resource Management in various sectors such as Public Administration, Project Management, Health Care Management, and Hospitality Management. He has published in the American Review of Public Administration, Learning and Individual Differences, International Journal of Hospitality Management, and the Project Management Journal, among others.

Abdul Karim Khan, PhD, is an assistant professor at United Arab Emirates University. His research interests include organizational justice, emotion of envy, counterproductive work behaviors, and abusive supervision. His research work has appeared in Review of Public Personnel Administration, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and International Journal of HRM, among others.

References

Abbas

Raja

Darr

Bouckenooghe

(2014). Combined effects of perceived politics and psychological capital on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. Journal of Management, 40(7), 1813-1830.

AbuAlrub

Alghamdi

(2012). The impact of leadership styles on nurses’ satisfaction and intention to stay among Saudi nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 20, 668-678.

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

Reno

R. R.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York, NY: Sage.

Alghamdi

M. G.

Topp

AlYami

M. S.

(2018). The effect of gender on transformational leadership and job satisfaction among Saudi nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 74, 119-127.

Ayoko

O. B.

Callan

V. J.

Härtel

C. E.

(2003). Workplace conflict, bullying, and counterproductive behaviours. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11, 283-301.

Barling

Macewen

K. E.

(1992). Linking work experiences to facets of marital functioning. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 573-583.

Bartlett

(2011). Workplace bullying: An integrative literature review. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 69-84.

Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

(2003). Self-regulation and the executive function of the self. Handbook of Self and Identity, 1, 197-217.

Boafo

I. M.

Hancock

Gringart

(2016). Sources, incidence and effects of non-physical workplace violence against nurses in Ghana. Nursing Open, 3, 99-109. doi:10.1002/nop2.43

10.

Bolger

Schilling

E. A.

(1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role of neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of Personality, 59, 355-386.

11.

Bolger

Zuckerman

(1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890-902.

12.

Bono

J. E.

Glomb

T. M.

Shen

Kim

Koch

A. J.

(2013). Building positive resources: Effects of positive events and positive reflection on work stress and health. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1601-1627.

13.

Bulger

Matthews

Hoffman

(2007). Work and personal life boundary management: Boundary strength, work/personal life balance, and the segmentation-integration continuum. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 365-375.

14.

Carlson

D. S.

Ferguson

Hunter

Whitten

(2012). Abusive supervision and work-family conflict: The path through emotional labor and burnout. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 849-859.

15.

Carlson

D. S.

Ferguson

Perrewé

P. L.

Whitten

(2011). The fallout from abusive supervision: An examination of subordinates and their partners. Personnel Psychology, 64, 937-961.

16.

Carlson

D. S.

Kacmar

K. M.

Williams

L. J.

(2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249-276.

17.

Carnelley

K. B.

Janoff-Bulman

(1992). Optimism about love relationships: General vs. specific lessons from one’s personal experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 5-20.

18.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple correlation/regression analysis for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

19.

Cortina

L. M.

Magley

V. J.

Williams

J. H.

Langhout

R. D.

(2001). Incivility in the workplace: incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64.

20.

De Dreu

C. K.

Gelfand

M. J

. (2007). Dissent as a facilitator: Individual-and group-level effects on creativity and performance. In De Dreu

C. K. W

Gelfand

M. J.

(Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp. 166-194). London: Psychology Press.

21.

Desrochers

Hilton

J. M.

Larwood

(2005). Preliminary validation of the work-family integration-blurring scale. Journalof Family Issues, 26, 442-466.

22.

Duffy

Ganster

Pagon

(2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331-351.

23.

Eby

L. T.

Maher

C. P.

Butts

M. M.

(2010). The intersection of work and family life: The role of affect. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 599-622.

24.

Edwards

Rothbard

N. P.

(2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178-199.

25.

Einarsen

Hoel

Notelaers

(2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24-44.

26.

Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(2003). The concept of bullying at work: The European tradition. In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace (pp. 3-30). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

27.

Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(2011). The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3-39). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

28.

Einarsen

Matthiesen

Skogstad

(1998). Bullying, burnout and well-being among assistant nurses. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety Australia and New Zealand, 14, 563-568.

29.

Elston

M. A.

Gabe

O’Beirne

(2006). A risk of the job? Violence against nurses from patients and the public as an emerging policy issue. In Godin

(Ed.), Risk and nursing practice (pp. 130-113). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

30.

Eysenck

H. J.

Eysenck

S. B. G.

(1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (junior and adult). London: Hodder and Stoughton.

31.

Ferguson

(2012). You cannot leave it at the office: Spillover and crossover of coworker incivility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 571-588.

32.

Fox

Stallworth

L. E.

(2005). Racial/ethnic bullying: Exploring links between bullying and racism in the U.S. workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 438-456.

33.

Frye

N. K.

Breaugh

J. A.

(2004). Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, work-family conflict, family-work conflict, and satisfaction: A test of a conceptual model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 197-220.

34.

Gerbing

D. W.

Anderson

J. C.

(1984). On the meaning of within-factor correlated measurement errors. Journal of Consumer Research, 84, 572-580.

35.

Glasø

Notelaers

(2012). Workplace bullying, emotions, and outcomes. Violence and Victims, 27(3), 360-377.

36.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Beutell

(1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.

37.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Parasuraman

S. A.

(1987). Work-nonwork interactive perspective of stress and its consequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8, 37-60.

38.

Gross

J. J.

(2014). Emotion regulation: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In Gross

J. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

39.

Grzywacz

J. G.

Marks

N. F.

(2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111-126.

40.

Halbesleben

J. R.

Neveu

J. P.

Paustian-Underdahl

S. C.

Westman

(2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40, 1334-1364.

41.

Hammer

L. B.

Kossek

E. E.

Anger

W. K.

Bodner

Zimmerman

K. L.

(2011). Clarifying work–family intervention processes: The roles of work–family conflict and family-supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 134.

42.

Harms

P. D.

Credé

(2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 5-17. doi:10.1177/1548051809350894

43.

Hershcovis

M. S.

Reich

T. C.

(2013). Integrating workplace aggression research: Relational, contextual, and method considerations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S26-S42.

44.

Hershcovis

M. S.

Turner

Barling

Arnold

K. A.

Dupré

K. E.

Inness

. . . Sivanathan

(2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228.

45.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513-524.

46.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50, 337-421.

47.

Hoel

Einarsen

(2010). Shortcomings of antibullying regulations: The case of Sweden. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 30-50.

48.

Hoel

Einarsen

(2011). Investigating complaints of bullying and harassment. Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 341-357.

49.

Hoel

Sheehan

Cooper

Einarsen

(2011). Organizational effects of workplace bullying. In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice (2nd ed., pp. 129-148). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

50.

Hogh

Mikkelsen

Hansen

. (2011). Individual consequences of workplace bullying/mobbing. In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 107-128). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

51.

Hoobler

J. M.

Brass

D. J.

(2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1125-1133.

52.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

53.

Hutchinson

Vickers

Jackson

D. L. W.

(2010). Integrating individual, work group and organizational factors: Testing a multidimensional model of bullying in the nursing workplace. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 173-181.

54.

Ilies

Schwind

Wagner

Johnson

DeRue

Ilgen

(2007). When can employees have a family life? The effects of daily workload and affect on work-family conflict and social behaviors at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1368-1379.

55.

Ilies

Wilson

K. S.

Wagner

D. T.

(2009). The spill-over of daily job satisfaction onto employees’ family lives: The facilitating role of work–family integration. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 87-102.

56.

Jones

Fletcher

B. C.

(1993). An empirical study of occupational stress transmission in working couples. Human Relations, 46, 881-903.

57.

Judge

T. A.

Ilies

(2004). Affect and job satisfaction: A study of their relationship at work and at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 661-673.

58.

Laschinger

H. K. S.

Wong

C. A.

Grau

A. L.

(2012). The influence of authentic leadership on newly graduated nurses’ experiences of workplace bullying, burnout and retention outcomes: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(10), 1266-1276.

59.

Lazarus

R.S.

(1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. London: Springer.

60.

Lee

C. H.

(2010). Personal and interpersonal correlates of bullying behaviors among Korean middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(1), 152-176.

61.

Leon-Perez

J. M.

Medina

F. J.

Arenas

Munduate

(2015). The relationship between interpersonal conflict and workplace bullying. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(3), 250-263.

62.

Leiter

M. P.

Durup

(1996). Work, home, and in-between: A longitudinal study of spill-over. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 29-47.

63.

Levine

Hullett

C. R.

Turner

M. M.

Lapinski

M. K.

(2006). The desirability of using confirmatory factor analysis on published scales. Communication Research Reports, 23, 309-314.

64.

Lewis

(2004). Bullying at work: The impact of shame among university and college lecturers. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32, 281-299.

65.

Lewis

S. E.

Orford

(2005). Women’s experiences of workplace bullying: Changes in social relationships. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15(1), 29-47.

66.

Leymann

(1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165-184.

67.

Lim

Lee

(2011). Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility: Does family support help? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 95-111.

68.

Lim

Tai

(2014). Family incivility and job performance: A moderated mediation model of psychological distress and core self-evaluation by Sandy Lim. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 351-359. doi:10.1037/a0034486

69.

Liu

Kwan

H. K.

Lee

Hui

(2013). Work-to-family spillover effects of workplace ostracism: The role of work-home segmentation preferences. Human Resource Management, 52, 75-93.

70.

Lovell

Lee

(2009). Impact of workplace bullying on emotional and physical well-being: A longitudinal collective case study. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20, 344-357.

71.

Martin

(2015). Transformational and transactional leadership: An exploration of gender, experience, and institution type. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 15, 331-351.

72.

Matthews

R. A.

Barnes-Farrell

J. L.

(2010). Development and initial evaluation of an enhanced measure of boundary flexibility for the work and family domains. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 330-346.

73.

Matthiesen

S. B.

Einarsen

(2004). Psychiatric distress and symptoms of PTSD among victims of bullying at work. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32(3), 335-356.

74.

Matthiesen

Einarsen

(2007). Do targets of workplace bullying portray a general victim personality profile? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48, 313-319.

75.

Mikkelsen

E. G. E.

Einarsen

(2002). Basic assumptions and symptoms of post-traumatic stress among victims of bullying at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(1), 87-111.

76.

Naseer

Raja

Donia

M. B.

(2016). Effect of perceived politics and perceived support on bullying and emotional exhaustion: The moderating role of type a personality. The Journal of Psychology, 150, 606-624.

77.

Nasurdin

A. M.

Ramayah

Kumaresan

(2005). Organizational stressors and job stress among managers: The moderating role of neuroticism. Singapore Management Review, 27, 63-79.

78.

Nielsen

M. B.

Einarsen

(2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic review. Work & Stress, 26, 309-332.

79.

Nielsen

M. B.

Glasø

Einarsen

(2017). Exposure to workplace harassment and the five factor model of personality: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 195-206.

80.

O’Moore

Seigne

McGuire

Smith

(1998). Victims of workplace bullying in Ireland. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 19, 345-357.

81.

Paustian-Underdahl

S. C.

Walker

L. S.

Woehr

(2014). Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1129-1145.

82.

Pearson

C. M.

Andersson

L. A.

Wegner

J. A.

(2001). When workers Xout convention: A preliminary study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54, 1387-1420.

83.

Porath

C. L.

Erez

(2009). Overlooked but not untouched: How rudeness reduces onlookers’ performance on routine and creative tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 29-44.

84.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731.

85.

Rai

Agarwal

(2016). Workplace bullying: A review and future research directions. South Asian Journal of Management, 23, 27-56.

86.

Restubog

S. L. D.

Scott

K. L.

Zagenczyk

T. J.

(2011). When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 713-729.

87.

Rodríguez-Muñoz

Moreno-Jiménez

Sanz-Vergel

A. I.

(2015). Reciprocal relations between workplace bullying, anxiety, and vigor: A two-wave longitudinal study. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 28, 514-530.

88.

Rospenda

K. M.

Fujishiro

Shannon

C. A.

Richman

J. A.

(2008). Workplace harassment, stress, and drinking behavior over time: Gender differences in a national sample. Addictive Behaviors, 33, 964-967.

89.

Samnani

A. K.

Singh

(2016). Workplace bullying: Considering the interaction between individual and work environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 139, 537-549.

90.

Sanz-Vergel

A. I.

Rodríguez-Muñoz

Nielsen

(2015). The thin line between work and home: The spillover and crossover of daily conflicts. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88, 1-18.

91.

Sonnentag

Binnewies

(2013). Daily affect spillover from work to home: Detachment from work and sleep as moderators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 198-208.

92.

Tamir

Robinson

M. D.

(2004). Knowing good from bad: The paradox of neuroticism, negative affect, and evaluative processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 913-925.

93.

Tepper

B. J.

(2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178-190.

94.

Thomas

L. T.

Ganster

D. C.

(1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6-15.

95.

Tracy

S. J.

Lutgen-Sandvik

Alberts

J. K.

(2006). Nightmares, demons, and slaves: Exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 148-185.

96.

Trépanier

S. G.

Fernet

Austin

(2013). Workplace bullying and psychological health at work: The mediating role of satisfaction of needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Work & Stress, 27, 123-140.

97.

Tuckey

M. R.

Neall

A. M.

(2014). Workplace bullying erodes job and personal resources: Between- and within-person perspectives. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 413-424.

98.

Vessey

J. A.

DeMarco

DiFazio

(2011). Bullying, harassment, and horizontal violence in the nursing workforce: The state of the science. Annual Review of Nursing Research, 28, 133-157.

99.

Wagner

D. T.

Barnes

C. M.

Scott

B. A.

(2014). Driving it home: How workplace emotional labor harms employee home life. Personnel Psychology, 67, 487-516.

100.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

(1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 465-490.

101.

Williams

Alliger

(1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work-family conflict in employed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 837-868.

102.

Wong

C. S.

Law

K. S.

(2002). The effect of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243-274. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00099-1

103.

Yamada

D. C.

(2010). Workplace bullying and American employment law: A ten-year progress report and assessment. Comparative Labor Law Journal & Policy Journal, 32, 251.

104.

Zapf

Escartín

Einarsen

Hoel

Vartia

(2011). Empirical findings on prevalence and risk groups of bullying in the workplace. In Einarsen

Hoel

Zapf

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 75-105). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

105.

Zhu

(2015). Negative spillover impact of perceptions of organizational politics on work-family conflict in China. Social Behavior and Personality, 43, 705-714.