BACKGROUND: A recent study by Emdad and colleagues published in International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health concluded that being a bystander to workplace bullying is related to future symptoms of depression. In this response to the authors, we argue, through the use of empirical evidence, that this relationship can be explained by the observers own exposure to bullying. Furthermore, by also investigating the reversed association between the variables, we show that observations of workplace bullying can be influenced by symptoms of psychological distress. METHOD: A reanalysis of prospective questionnaire survey data with a two-year time lag based on a representative sample of Norwegian employees was used to determine long-term relationships between observed bullying, self-reported exposure to bullying, and psychological distress. RESULTS: Bivariate, baseline observations of others being bullied were significantly associated with subsequent symptoms of psychological distress. Yet, this association disappeared when controlling for the observers own exposure to bullying. Analyzing reversed relationship between the variables, baseline symptoms of distress predicted being a bystander at follow-up. CONCLUSION: By showing that the relationship between being a bystander to bullying and distress can be fully explained by the observers own exposure to bullying, our results question the conclusion by Emdad et al. (Int Arch Occup Environ Health. doi: 10.1007/s00420-012-0813-1 , 2012) that observed bullying in itself is related to subsequent distress. Together with the finding that psychological distress predicts subsequent observations of bullying, it is concluded that future research on observers should always take the observers' own exposure to bullying, as well as negative perceptions biases, into account.
BACKGROUND: A recent study by Emdad and colleagues published in International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health concluded that being a bystander to workplace bullying is related to future symptoms of depression. In this response to the authors, we argue, through the use of empirical evidence, that this relationship can be explained by the observers own exposure to bullying. Furthermore, by also investigating the reversed association between the variables, we show that observations of workplace bullying can be influenced by symptoms of psychological distress. METHOD: A reanalysis of prospective questionnaire survey data with a two-year time lag based on a representative sample of Norwegian employees was used to determine long-term relationships between observed bullying, self-reported exposure to bullying, and psychological distress. RESULTS: Bivariate, baseline observations of others being bullied were significantly associated with subsequent symptoms of psychological distress. Yet, this association disappeared when controlling for the observers own exposure to bullying. Analyzing reversed relationship between the variables, baseline symptoms of distress predicted being a bystander at follow-up. CONCLUSION: By showing that the relationship between being a bystander to bullying and distress can be fully explained by the observers own exposure to bullying, our results question the conclusion by Emdad et al. (Int Arch Occup Environ Health. doi: 10.1007/s00420-012-0813-1 , 2012) that observed bullying in itself is related to subsequent distress. Together with the finding that psychological distress predicts subsequent observations of bullying, it is concluded that future research on observers should always take the observers' own exposure to bullying, as well as negative perceptions biases, into account.
Authors: Annet H de Lange; Toon W Taris; Michiel A J Kompier; Irene L D Houtman; Paulien M Bongers Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: M Kivimäki; M Virtanen; M Vartia; M Elovainio; J Vahtera; L Keltikangas-Järvinen Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: P Nettelbladt; L Hansson; C G Stefansson; L Borgquist; G Nordström Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 1993-07 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Guy Notelaers; Beatrice Van der Heijden; Hannes Guenter; Morten Birkeland Nielsen; Ståle Valvetne Einarsen Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2018-10-09