The Relationship between Organizational Environment and Perpetrators’ Physical and Psychological State: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Foundations and Hypothesis Development
2.1. Organizational Environment
2.2. Physical and Psychological Health
3. Methods
3.1. Procedure
3.2. Sample
3.3. Measures
3.4. Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2. Statistical Analysis
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Einarsen, S. Harassment and bullying at work. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2000, 5, 379–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Einarsen, S.; Hoel, H.; Zapf, D.; Cooper, C.L. The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. In Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3rd ed.; Einarsen, S.V., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., Cooper, C.L., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; pp. 3–53. [Google Scholar]
- Einarsen, S.; Hoel, H.; Notelaers, G. Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work Stress 2009, 23, 24–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escartín, J.; Vranjes, I.; Baillien, E.; Notelaers, G. Workplace Bullying and Cyberbullying Scales: An overview. In Concepts, Approaches and Methods. Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment; D’Cruz, P., Noronha, E., Notelaers, G., Rayner, C., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; Volume 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- León-Pérez, J.M.; Escartín, J.; Giorgi, G. The Presence of Workplace Bullying and Harassment Worldwide. In Concepts, Approaches and Methods. Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment; D’Cruz, P., Noronha, E., Notelaers, G., Rayner, C., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; Volume 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sumner, E.M.; Scarduzio, J.A.; Daggett, J.R. Drama at Dunder Mifflin. J. Interpers. Violence 2016, 35, 127–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salin, D.; Cowan, R.; Adewumi, O.; Apospori, E.; Bochantin, J.; D’Cruz, P.; Djurkovic, N.; Durniat, K.; Escartín, J.; Guo, J.; et al. Prevention of and Interventions in Workplace Bullying: A Global Study of Human Resource Professionals’ Reflections on Preferred Action. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 31, 2622–2644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salin, D.; Cowan, R.; Adewumi, O.; Apospori, E.; Bochantin, J.; D’Cruz, P.; Djurkovic, N.; Durniat, K.; Escartín, J.; Guo, J.; et al. Workplace Bullying Across the Globe: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Pers. Rev. 2019, 48, 204–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neall, A.M.; Li, Y.; Tuckey, M.R. Organizational Justice and Workplace Bullying: Lessons Learned from Externally Referred Complaints and Investigations. Societies 2021, 11, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobfoll, S.E. The Influence of Culture, Community, and the Nested-Self in the Stress Process: Advancing Conservation of Resources Theory. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 50, 337–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobfoll, S.E.; Stevens, N.R.; Zalta, A.K. Expanding the Science of Resilience: Conserving Resources in the Aid of Adaptation. Psychol. Inq. 2015, 26, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hobfoll, S.E.; Halbesleben, J.; Neveu, J.P.; Westman, M. Conservation of Resources in the Organizational Context: The Reality of Resources and Their Consequences. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018, 5, 103–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Griep, Y.; Vantilborgh, T.; Baillien, E.; Pepermans, R. The mitigating role of leader-member exchange when perceiving psychological contract violation: A diary survey study among volunteers. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2015, 25, 254–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conway, P.M.; Clausen, T.; Hansen, Å.M.; Hogh, A. Workplace bullying and sickness presenteeism: Cross-sectional and prospective associations in a 2-year follow-up study. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2015, 89, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, J.P.; Hoobler, J.M.; Scheuer, M.L. Supervisor workplace stress and abusive supervision: The buffering effect of stress. J. Bus. Psychol. 2012, 27, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crain, T.L.; Hammer, L.B.; Bodner, T.; Kossek, E.E.; Moen, P.; Lilienthal, R.; Buxton, O.M. Work–family conflict, family-supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB), and sleep outcomes. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2014, 19, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, R.T.; Brotheridge, C.M. When prey turns predatory: Workplace bullying as a predictor of counter aggression/bullying, coping, and well-being. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2006, 15, 352–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baillien, E.; Camps, J.; Van den Broeck, A.; Stouten, J.; Godderis, L.; Sercu, M.; De Witte, H. An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind: Conflict Escalation into Workplace Bullying and the Role of Distributive Conflict Behavior. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 137, 415–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jenkins, M.F.; Zapf, D.; Winefield, H.; Sarris, A. Bullying Allegations from the Accused Bully’s Perspective. Br. J. Manag. 2011, 23, 489–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leymann, H. The content and development of mobbing at work. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 1996, 5, 165–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baillien, E.; Neyens, I.; De Witte, H.; De Cuyper, N. A qualitative study on the development of workplace bullying: Towards a three way model. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 19, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceja, L.; Escartín, J.; Rodríguez-Carballeira, Á. Organisational contexts that foster positive behaviour and well-being: A comparison between family-owned firms and non-family businesses. Rev. Psicol. Soc. 2012, 27, 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escartín, J.; Ceja, L.; Navarro, J.; Zapf, D. Modeling workplace bullying behaviors using catastrophe theory. Nonlinear Dyn. Psychol. Life Sci. 2013, 17, 493–515. [Google Scholar]
- Escartín, J.; Dollard, M.; Zapf, D.; Kozlowski, S.W.J. Multilevel emotional exhaustion: Psychosocial safety climate and workplace bullying as higher level contextual and individual explanatory factors. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2021, 30, 742–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baillien, E.; Griep, Y.; Vander Elst, T.; De Witte, H. The relationship between Organizational change and being a perpetrator of workplace bullying: A three-wave longitudinal study. Work. Stress 2018, 33, 211–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, J.S. Towards an understanding of inequity. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1963, 67, 422–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salin, D.; Notelaers, G. The effect of exposure to bullying on turnover intentions: The role of perceived psychological contract violation and benevolent behaviour. Work Stress 2017, 31, 355–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Samnani, A.-K.; Singh, P. Performance-enhancing compensation practices and employee productivity: The role of workplace bullying. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2014, 24, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samnani, A.-K.; Singh, P. When leaders victimize: The role of charismatic leaders in facilitating group pressures. Leadersh. Q. 2013, 24, 189–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, J.S. Inequity in Social Exchange. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1965, 2, 267–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leventhal, G.S. What should be done with equity theory? In Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research; Gergen, K.J., Greenberg, M.S., Willis, R.H., Eds.; Plenum: New York, NY, USA, 1980; pp. 27–55. [Google Scholar]
- Bies, R.J.; Moag, J.F. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In Research on Negotiations in Organizations; Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H., Bazerman, M.H., Eds.; JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1986; Volume 1, pp. 43–55. [Google Scholar]
- Hackney, K.J.; Perrewé, P. A review of abusive behaviors at work. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 2018, 8, 70–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ambrose, M.L.; Schminke, M. The role of overall justice judgments in Organizational Justice research: A test of mediation. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 491–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Colquitt, J.A.; Conlon, D.E.; Wesson, M.J.; Porter, C.O.L.H.; Ng, K.Y. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 425–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahmad, S. Can ethical leadership inhibit workplace bullying across East and West: Exploring cross-cultural interactional justice as a mediating mechanism. Eur. Manag. J. 2018, 36, 223–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kivimäki, M.; Ferrie, J.E.; Brunner, E.; Head, J.; Shipley, M.J.; Vahtera, J.; Marmot, M.G. Justice at Work and Reduced Risk of Coronary Heart Disease among Employees. Arch. Intern. Med. 2005, 165, 2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutinen, R.; Kivimäki, M.; Elovainio, M.; Virtanen, M. Organizational fairness and psychological distress in hospital physicians. Scand. J. Public Health 2002, 30, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matta, F.K.; Scott, B.A.; Colquitt, J.A.; Koopman, J.; Passantino, L.G. Is Consistently Unfair Better than Sporadically Fair? An Investigation of Justice Variability and Stress. Acad. Manag. J. 2017, 60, 743–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Herr, R.M.; Bosch, J.A.; Loerbroks, A.; Genser, B.; Almer, C.; van Vianen, A.E.M.; Fischer, J.E. Organizational justice, justice climate, and somatic complaints: A multilevel investigation. J. Psychosom. Res. 2018, 111, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hershcovis, M.S.; Barling, J. Towards a relational model of workplace aggression. In Research Companion to the Dysfunctional Workplace; Langan-Fox, J., Cooper, C.L., Klimoski, R.J., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.: Cheltenham, UK, 2007; pp. 268–284. [Google Scholar]
- Aquino, K.; Tripp, T.M.; Bies, R.J. Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 653–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Parzefall, M.R.; Salin, D.M. Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A social exchange perspective. Hum. Relat. 2010, 63, 761–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cropanzano, R.; Prehar, C.A.; Chen, P.Y. Using Social Exchange Theory to Distinguish Procedural from Interactional Justice. Group Organ. Manag. 2002, 27, 324–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holtz, B.C.; Harold, C.M. Fair today, fair tomorrow? A longitudinal investigation of overall justice perceptions. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 1185–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Robinson, S.L. Trust and Breach of the Psychological Contract. Adm. Sci. Q. 1996, 41, 574–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chory, R.M.; Hubbell, A.P. Organizational Justice and Managerial Trust as Predictors of Antisocial Employee Responses. Commun. Q. 2008, 56, 357–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, Å.M.; Hogh, A.; Garde, A.H.; Persson, R. Workplace bullying and sleep difficulties: A 2-year follow-up study. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2013, 87, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Magee, C.; Gordon, R.; Robinson, L.; Reis, S.; Caputi, P.; Oades, L. Distinct workplace bullying experiences and sleep quality: A person-centred approach. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2015, 87, 200–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niedhammer, I.; David, S.; Degioanni, S.; Drummond, A.; Philip, P. Workplace Bullying and Sleep Disturbances: Findings from a Large Scale Cross-Sectional Survey in the French Working Population. Sleep 2009, 32, 1211–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Einarsen, S.; Nielsen, M.B. Workplace bullying as an antecedent of mental health problems: A five-year prospective and representative study. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2014, 88, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Verkuil, B.; Atasayi, S.; Molendijk, M.L. Workplace Bullying and Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis on Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0135225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Giorgi, G. Workplace bullying partially mediates the climate-health relationship. J. Manag. Psychol. 2010, 25, 727–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrne, A.; Dionisi, A.M.; Barling, J.; Akers, A.; Robertson, J.; Lys, R.; Wylie, J.; Dupré, K. The depleted leader: The influence of leaders diminished Psychological resources on leadership behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 2014, 25, 344–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnes, C.M.; Lucianetti, L.; Bhave, D.P.; Christian, M.S. “You Wouldn’t Like Me When I’m Sleepy”: Leaders’ Sleep, Daily Abusive Supervision, and Work Unit Engagement. Acad. Manag. J. 2015, 58, 1419–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Balducci, C.; Cecchin, M.; Fraccaroli, F. The impact of role stressors on workplace bullying in both victims and perpetrators, controlling for personal vulnerability factors: A longitudinal analysis. Work Stress 2012, 26, 195–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selye, H. Stress without Distress. In Psychopathology of Human Adaptation; Serban, G., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Ridner, S.H. Psychological distress: Concept analysis. J. Adv. Nurs. 2004, 45, 536–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matthiesen, S.B.; Einarsen, S. Psychiatric Distress and Symptoms of PTSD among victims of bullying at work. Br. J. Guid. Couns. 2004, 32, 335–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Ayala, A.; Rodríguez-Muñoz, A.; Moreno, Y.; Antino, M.; Ayllón, E. The role of psychological detachment and empathy in the relationship between target and perpetrator in workplace bullying situations/The role of psychological distancing and empathy in the relationship between victim and aggressor in situations of harassment at work. J. Soc. Psychol. 2014, 29, 213–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Wang, Z.; Yang, L.-Q.; Liu, S. The crossover of Psychological Distress from leaders to subordinates in teams: The role of abusive supervision, Psychological capital, and team performance. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2016, 21, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tepper, B.J. Abusive Supervision in Work Organizations: Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda. J. Manag. 2007, 33, 261–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Restubog, S.L.D.; Scott, K.L.; Zagenczyk, T.J. When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and Psychological Distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 713–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jenkins, M.; Winefield, H.; Sarris, A. Consequences of being accused of workplace bullying: An exploratory study. Int. J. Workplace Health Manag. 2011, 4, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Decent Work Indicators: Guidelines for Producers and Users of Statistical and Legal Framework Indicators. ILO Manual: Second Version. International Labour Office. 2014. Available online: Https://www.ilo.org/integration/resources/pubs/WCMS_229374/lang--ru/index.htm (accessed on 25 December 2021).
- Demerouti, E.; Rispens, S. Improving the image of student-recruited samples: A commentary. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2014, 87, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Lange, A.H.; Taris, T.W.; Kompier, M.A.; Houtman, I.L.; Bongers, P.M. “The very best of the millennium”: Longitudinal research and the demand-control-(support) model. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2003, 8, 282–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Duncan, S.C.; Duncan, T.E.; Strycker, L.A. Alcohol use from ages 9 to 16: A cohort sequential latent growth model. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006, 81, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Taris, W.; Kompier, M.A. Cause and effect: Optimizing the designs of longitudinal studies in occupational health psychology. Work Stress 2014, 28, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spector, P.E.; Jex, S.M. Development of Four Self-Report Measures of Job Stressors and Strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 1998, 3, 356–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Duffy, R.D.; Kim, H.J.; Gensmer, N.P.; Raque-Bogdan, T.L.; Douglass, R.P.; England, J.W.; Buyukgoze-Kavas, A. Linking decent work with Physical and mental health: A psychology of working perspective. J. Vocat. Behav. 2019, 112, 384–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escartín, J.; Monzani, L.; Leong, F.; Rodríguez-Carballeira, Á. A reduced form of the Workplace Bullying Scale—The EAPA-T-R: A useful instrument for daily diary and experience sampling studies. Work Stress 2017, 31, 42–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Notelaers, G.; Einarsen, S.; De Witte, H.; Vermunt, J.K. Measuring exposure to bullying at work: The validity and advantages of the latent class cluster approach. Work Stress 2006, 20, 289–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Burr, H.; Berthelsen, H.; Moncada, S.; Nübling, M.; Dupret, E.; Demiral, Y.; Oudyk, J.; Kristensen, T.S.; Llorens, C.; Navarro, A.; et al. The third version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Saf. Health Work 2019, 10, 482–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arbuckle, J. LAMOS User’s Guide: Version 26.0; SPSS: Chicago, IL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bentler, P.M.; Chou, C.P. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociol. Methods Res. 1987, 16, 78–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baillien, E.; Bollen, K.; Euwema, M.; De Witte, H. Conflicts and conflict management styles as precursors of workplace bullying: A two-wave longitudinal study. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2013, 23, 511–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fernández-del-Río, E.; Ramos-Villagrasa, P.J.; Escartín, J. The incremental effect of Dark personality over the Big Five in workplace bullying: Evidence from perpetrators and targets. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 168, 110291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Switzer, F.S.; Roth, P.L.; Switzer, D.M. Systematic data loss in HRM settings: A Monte Carlo analysis. J. Manag. 1998, 24, 763–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roth, P.L. Missing Data: A Conceptual Review for Applied Psychologists. Pers. Psychol. 1994, 47, 537–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preacher, K.J.; Rucker, D.D.; Hayes, A.F. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2007, 42, 185–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rabelo, V.C.; Holland, K.J.; Cortina, L.M. From distrust to distress: Associations among military sexual assault, organizational trust, and occupational health. Psychol. Violence 2019, 9, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tănase, S.; Manea, C.; Chraif, M.; Anţei, M.; Coblaş, V. Assertiveness and Organizational Trust as predictors of mental and Physical Health in a Romanian Oil Company. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 33, 1047–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Özgür, G.; Tektaş, P. An examination of the correlation between nurses’ organizational trust and burnout levels. Appl. Nurs. Res. 2018, 43, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, J.M.; Malhotra, D.; Murnighan, J.K. Normal Acts of Irrational Trust: Motivated Attributions and the Trust Development Process. Res. Organ. Behav. 2004, 26, 75–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trougakos, J.P.; Hideg, I.; Cheng, B.H.; Beal, D.J. Lunch breaks unpacked: The role of autonomy as a moderator of recovery during lunch. Acad. Manag. J. 2014, 57, 405–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Matthews, R.A.; Wayne, J.H.; Ford, M.T. A work-family conflict/subjective well-being process model: A test of competing theories of longitudinal effects. J. Appl. Psychol. 2014, 99, 1173–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pilch, I.; Turska, E. Relationships between Machiavellianism, Organizational Culture, and Workplace Bullying: Emotional Abuse from the Target’s and the Perpetrator’s Perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 128, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | N | Mean | SD | F | Sig. | t | df | P | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | ND | 126 | 40.02 | 10.93 | 9.23 | 0.00 | 5.22 | 2295.00 | 0.00 |
D | 2171 | 34.19 | 12.25 | ||||||
Gender | ND | 126 | 0.49 | 0.50 | 3.04 | 0.08 | 1.54 | 2297.00 | 0.12 |
D | 2173 | 0.42 | 0.49 | ||||||
Supervisor | ND | 126 | 0.43 | 0.50 | 28.58 | 0.00 | 3.96 | 2280.00 | 0.00 |
D | 2156 | 0.27 | 0.44 | ||||||
T1OrgTrust | ND | 133 | 4.69 | 1.35 | 0.81 | 0.37 | −1.33 | 2432.00 | 0.18 |
D | 2301 | 4.84 | 1.27 | ||||||
T1OrgJustice | ND | 133 | 4.56 | 1.52 | 3.65 | 0.06 | −0.89 | 2428.00 | 0.37 |
D | 2297 | 4.67 | 1.40 | ||||||
T1PsyDistress | ND | 132 | 2.56 | 1.17 | 1.84 | 0.17 | 1.80 | 2381.00 | 0.07 |
D | 2251 | 2.38 | 1.09 | ||||||
T1PhySymptoms | ND | 128 | 2.30 | 0.74 | 3.16 | 0.08 | −0.25 | 2358.00 | 0.80 |
D | 2232 | 2.32 | 0.83 | ||||||
T1Perpetration | ND | 126 | 1.19 | 0.33 | 3.50 | 0.06 | −0.68 | 2329.00 | 0.49 |
D | 2205 | 1.22 | 0.59 |
Variables | N | Min | Max | Mean | SD | Skewness | SD | Kurtosis | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1OrgT | 2434 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 4.84 | 1.27 | −0.24 | 0.05 | −0.65 | 0.10 |
T2OrgT | 303 | 1.6 | 7.0 | 4.66 | 1.22 | −0.17 | 0.14 | −0.57 | 0.28 |
T3OrgT | 172 | 1.7 | 7.0 | 4.67 | 1.24 | −0.05 | 0.19 | −0.71 | 0.37 |
T1Ojus | 2430 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 4.67 | 1.41 | −0.37 | 0.05 | −0.44 | 0.10 |
T2Ojus | 298 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 4.60 | 1.37 | −0.35 | 0.14 | −0.41 | 0.28 |
T3Ojus | 169 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 4.41 | 1.44 | −0.30 | 0.19 | −0.66 | 0.37 |
T1PsyD | 2383 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 2.39 | 1.10 | 1.24 | 0.05 | 1.94 | 0.10 |
T2PsyD | 293 | 1.0 | 6.0 | 2.41 | 1.01 | 0.91 | 0.14 | 0.86 | 0.28 |
T3PsyD | 168 | 1.0 | 6.5 | 2.41 | 1.05 | 1.14 | 0.19 | 1.78 | 0.37 |
T1PhyS | 2360 | 1.0 | 7.0 | 2.32 | 0.83 | 0.94 | 0.05 | 1.60 | 0.10 |
T2PhyS | 293 | 1.0 | 4.9 | 2.24 | 0.76 | 0.94 | 0.14 | 0.61 | 0.28 |
T3PhyS | 168 | 1.2 | 5.3 | 2.28 | 0.77 | 1.05 | 0.19 | 1.01 | 0.37 |
T1Perp | 2331 | 1.0 | 6.0 | 1.22 | 0.58 | 4.56 | 0.05 | 25.60 | 0.10 |
T2Perp | 290 | 1.0 | 3.5 | 1.17 | 0.38 | 3.10 | 0.14 | 11.14 | 0.29 |
T3Perp | 168 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 1.16 | 0.36 | 3.02 | 0.19 | 9.87 | 0.37 |
T1PerpLog10 | 2331 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.06 | 0.13 | 2.72 | 0.05 | 8.40 | 0.10 |
T2PerpLog10 | 290 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 2.26 | 0.14 | 4.88 | 0.29 |
T3PerpLog10 | 168 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 2.32 | 0.19 | 5.17 | 0.37 |
Valid N (listwise) | 125 |
Variables | n | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Age | 2297 | 34.51 | 12.26 | - | ||||||||
2 | Gender | 2299 | 0.43 | 0.49 | 0.01 | - | |||||||
3 | Supervisor | 2282 | 0.28 | 0.45 | 0.21 ** | 0.17 ** | - | ||||||
4 | T1OrgTrust | 2434 | 4.84 | 1.27 | −0.05 * | 0.05 * | 0.05 * | - | |||||
5 | T2OrgTrust | 303 | 4.66 | 1.22 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.69 ** | - | ||||
6 | T3OrgTrust | 172 | 4.67 | 1.24 | 0.06 | −0.03 | 0.19 * | 0.67 ** | 0.73 ** | - | |||
7 | T1Ojustice | 2430 | 4.66 | 1.41 | 0.00 | 0.06 ** | 0.08 ** | 0.80 ** | 0.65 ** | 0.65 ** | - | ||
8 | T2Ojustice | 298 | 4.60 | 1.37 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.18 ** | 0.68 ** | 0.82 ** | 0.69 ** | 0.71 ** | - | |
9 | T3Ojustice | 169 | 4.41 | 1.44 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.27 ** | 0.62 ** | 0.70 ** | 0.80 ** | 0.71 ** | 0.77 ** | - |
10 | T1PsyDistress | 2383 | 2.39 | 1.10 | −0.15 ** | −0.12 ** | 0.00 | −0.41 ** | −0.35 ** | −0.37 ** | −0.43 ** | −0.35 ** | −0.37 ** |
11 | T2PsyDistress | 293 | 2.41 | 1.01 | −0.30 ** | −0.16 ** | −0.10 | −0.23 ** | −0.38 ** | −0.38 ** | −0.31 ** | −0.40 ** | −0.39 ** |
12 | T3PsyDistress | 168 | 2.41 | 1.05 | −0.33 ** | −0.10 | −0.09 | −0.35 ** | −0.40 ** | −0.40 ** | −0.42 ** | −0.44 ** | −0.39 ** |
13 | T1PhySymptoms | 2360 | 2.32 | 0.83 | −0.20 ** | −0.21 ** | −0.05 * | −0.27 ** | −0.30 ** | −0.38 ** | −0.28 ** | −0.28 ** | −0.36 ** |
14 | T2PhySymptoms | 293 | 2.24 | 0.76 | −0.29 ** | −0.21 ** | −0.12 | -0.27 ** | −0.34 ** | −0.35 ** | −0.31 ** | −0.32 ** | −0.34 ** |
15 | T3PhySymptoms | 168 | 2.28 | 0.77 | −0.29 ** | −0.20 * | −0.11 | −0.34 ** | −0.31 ** | −0.39 ** | −0.40 ** | −0.33 ** | −0.37 ** |
16 | T1Perpetration | 2331 | 0.06 | 0.13 | −0.09 ** | 0.02 | 0.11 ** | −0.10 ** | −0.10 | 0.03 | −0.09 ** | −0.06 | 0.02 |
17 | T2Perpetration | 290 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.17 ** | −0.15 * | −0.13 * | −0.16 | −0.09 | −0.16 ** | −0.07 |
18 | T3Perpetration | 168 | 0.05 | 0.10 | −0.18 * | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.11 | −0.01 | 0.01 |
Variables | Mean | SD | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ||
10 | T1PsyDistress | 2383 | 2.39 | 1.10 | - | ||||||||
11 | T2PsyDistress | 293 | 2.41 | 1.01 | 0.57 ** | - | |||||||
12 | T3PsyDistress | 168 | 2.41 | 1.05 | 0.63 ** | 0.71 ** | - | ||||||
13 | T1PhySymptoms | 2360 | 2.32 | 0.83 | 0.54 ** | 0.47 ** | 0.51 ** | - | |||||
14 | T2PhySymptoms | 293 | 2.24 | 0.76 | 0.50 ** | 0.60 ** | 0.59 ** | 0.73 ** | - | ||||
15 | T3PhySymptoms | 168 | 2.28 | 0.77 | 0.50 ** | 0.59 ** | 0.65 ** | 0.72 ** | 0.80 ** | - | |||
16 | T1Perpetration | 2331 | 0.06 | 0.13 | 0.22 ** | 0.15 * | 0.12 | 0.21 ** | 0.17 ** | 0.12 | - | ||
17 | T2Perpetration | 290 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.15 * | 0.14 * | 0.19 * | 0.22 ** | 0.21 ** | 0.24 ** | 0.33 ** | - | |
18 | T3Perpetration | 168 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.01 | 0.22 * | 0.12 | 0.1 | 0.27 ** | 0.17 * | 0.25 ** | 0.56 ** | - |
Structural Paths | Est | CR (p) | SRW | SDE | SIE | STE | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OJ T1 | PS T2 | 0.63 | −5.13 (p < 0.001) | −0.85 | −0.85 | 0.00 | −0.85 |
PD T2 | −0.59 | −5.09 (p < 0.001) | −0.93 | −0.93 | 0.00 | −0.93 | |
Perpetration T3 | 0.02 | 1.64 (p = 0.10) | 1.04 | 1.04 | −0.67 | 0.37 | |
OT T1 | PS T2 | 0.35 | 3.30 (p < 0.001) | 0.55 | 0.55 | 0.00 | 0.55 |
PD T2 | 0.34 | 3.46 (p < 0.001) | 0.62 | 0.62 | 0.00 | 0.62 | |
Perpetration T3 | −0.01 | −1.50 (p = 0.14) | −0.72 | −0.72 | 0.44 | −0.28 | |
PS T2 | Perpetration T3 | 0.01 | 1.70 (p = 0.09) | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.00 | 0.44 |
PD T2 | Perpetration T3 | 0.01 | 1.49 (p = 0.14) | 0.32 | 0.32 | 0.00 | 0.32 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Özer, G.; Griep, Y.; Escartín, J. The Relationship between Organizational Environment and Perpetrators’ Physical and Psychological State: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3699. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063699
Özer G, Griep Y, Escartín J. The Relationship between Organizational Environment and Perpetrators’ Physical and Psychological State: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(6):3699. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063699
Chicago/Turabian StyleÖzer, Gülüm, Yannick Griep, and Jordi Escartín. 2022. "The Relationship between Organizational Environment and Perpetrators’ Physical and Psychological State: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 6: 3699. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063699