1 Correlation amongst the study variables. http://sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/downloadSuppFile/879/568
Primary analysis Direct model: Job demands and job resources predicting workplace bullying We started with the computation of the direct model in which job demands, job resources and job demands–job resources were related to both perpetrators’ and targets’ reports of workplace bullying. This model yielded a good fit to the data: SBS-c² (182) = 1045.64 p < 0.001RSMEA = 0.05 SRMR = 0.06 CFI = 0.97. Contrary to Hypothesis 1a, job demands did not relate to perpetrators’ reports of workplace bullying; g = 0.11, not significant. They related positively to targets’ reports of workplace bullying; g = 0.24, p < 0.001, thereby confirming Hypothesis 1b. Job resources showed no significant relationship with perpetrators’ reports of workplace bullying; g = -0.04, not significant. Hypothesis 2a was therefore not corroborated. In line with Hypothesis 2b, however, job resources related negatively with targets’ reports of workplace bullying; g = -0.25, p < 0.001. The job demands–job resources interaction was significant for perpetrators’ reports of bullying; g = 0.15, p < 0.05. 23Hypothesis 3a suggests that the impact of job demands on workplace bullying would be buffered by job resources. This hypothesis was not supported. Simple slope analyses for low (i.e. 1 SD below the mean) and high (i.e. 1 SD above the mean) job demands revealed that job demands associated positively with being an perpetrator of workplace bullying particularly under conditions of high (i.e. 1 SD above the mean; b = 0.07, SE = 0.02, t = 3.54, p < 0.001) job resources,. Moreover, job demands were unrelated to being a bully when job resources were low (i.e. 1 SD below the mean; b = -0.01, SE = 0.01, t = -0.56, not significant). This interaction is depicted in Figure 1. Contrary to Hypothesis 3b, job resources did not moderate the association between job demands and targets’ reports of workplace bullying; y = 0.02, not significant. Full and partial mediation model To test Hypotheses 4, 5 and 6, we subsequently conducted a full mediation model in which emotional exhaustion was expected to fully mediate the relationships from job demands, job resources and job demands–job resources to perpetrators’ and target’s reports of bullying. This model showed good fit to the data; SBS-c² (293) = 1288.58, p < 0.001; RSMEA = 0.05; SRMR = 0.06, and CFI = 0.97. In line with the JD-R model, job demands related positively to emotional exhaustion; g = 0.37, p < 0.001, whereas job resources related negatively; g = -0.12, p < 0.01. Contrary to expectations, the interaction between job demands and job resources was not significantly related to emotional exhaustion; g = 0.00, not significant. Emotional exhaustion related positively to both perpetrators’ and targets’ reports of workplace bullying; g = 0.28 and g= 0.34, respectively, p-values < 0.001. We then continued by computing a series of partial mediation models in which we completed the full mediation model with direct relationships between the independent and dependent variables that were significant in the direct model. The following direct relationships resulted in improved model fit: from job demands to targets’ reports of workplace bullying; DSBS-c² (1) = 13.72; p < 0.001 from job resources to targets’ reports; DSBS-χ² (1) = 39.33; p < 0.001 from the job demands–job resources interaction to perpetrators’ reports of workplace bullying; DSBS-c² (1) = 21.42; p < 0.001. We therefore calculated a final model that included these direct relationships. This model fitted the data well: SBS-c² (291) = 1226.93 p < 0.001 RSMEA = 0.05 SRMR = 0.04 CFI = 0.97. As depicted in Figure 2, in this final model, job demands related positively to emotional exhaustion. Job demands also yielded a direct positive association with targets’ reports of workplace bullying. Job resources related negatively to emotional exhaustion, but were also negatively related to targets’ reports of workplace bullying. The job demands–job resources interaction was only related to perpetrators’ reports of workplace bullying. Emotional exhaustion was related to both perpetrators’ and targets’ reports of workplace bullying. Perpetrators’ and targets’ reports of workplace bullying were positively related. Finally, we examined more formally the mediational role of emotional exhaustion in the associations of job demands and job resources with workplace bullying through a series of Sobel tests. Sobel tests indicated that emotional exhaustion partially mediated the positive relation of job demands with targets’ reports of bullying; z = 0.08, p < 0.01, thereby confirming Hypothesis 4b. The negative relationship between job resources and targets’ reports was also partially mediated by exhaustion; z = -0.02, p < 0.05. This supports Hypothesis 5b. In sum, no direct associations were found of job demands and job resources with perpetrators’ reports of workplace bullying; rejecting Hypotheses 1a and 2a. Hypotheses 1b and 2b that the presence of job demands and the lack of job resources associated with targets’ reports of workplace bullying were confirmed. The job demands–job resources interaction was significant when predicting perpetrators’ reports of bullying. However, whilst we expected that high job resources would buffer the positive association between job demands and bullying perpetration in Hypothesis 3a, results showed that particularly the combination of high job demands and high job resources was indicative of perpetrators’ reports of bullying. Regarding the explanatory process linking job demands, job resources and workplace bullying (i.e. mediation by emotional exhaustion), results revealed that only the relationships between job demands and targets’ reports of bullying and between job resources and targets’ reports of bullying were partially mediated by emotional exhaustion. Hypotheses 4b and 5b were thereby confirmed. As neither job demands nor job resources yielded a direct relation with perpetrators’ reports of workplace bullying, no mediation could take place in these relationships. Hypotheses 4a and 5a were therefore rejected. The job demands–job resources interaction was unrelated to emotional exhaustion, thereby excluding emotional exhaustion as a potential mediator in its relationship with workplace bullying. Hypothesis 6 was therefore not corroborated. DiscussionThe current study aimed to expand the JD-R model to perpetrators’ and targets’ reports of workplace bullying. Such an approach may firstly add to the JD-R model literature. A plethora of studies attested to the JD-R model’s predictive validity regarding workers’ health and functioning (for an overview; see Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). However, research on the JD-R model’s validity to understand social stress is fairly lacking. As interdependence amongst employees is growing, smoothing the social relationships in the work context may be amongst the most important challenges for organisations to deal with in order to remain effective (Grant & Parker, 2009). Therefore, the current research aimed to examine whether the JD-R model may be a fruitful approach to understand these phenomena. Secondly, the current study may advance insights in workplace bullying by introducing the JD-R model as a sound and well-established theoretical model. This study follows the work environment hypothesis (Einarsen et al., 2009; Notelaers et al., 2010), further detailed in the Three Way Model (Baillien et al., 2009). Herein both perpetrators’ and targets’ reports of bullying are ascribed to job characteristics and psychological strain. These frameworks have generally been tested by exploring the impact of various job characteristics and aspects of work related strain on workplace bullying. The JD-R model may provide a comprehensive framework to group the job characteristics studied this far and allows to define clear hypotheses on how these job characteristics may lead to various aspects of workers’ functioning through strain, that is, emotional exhaustion or burnout. Firstly, the current results largely confirmed the assumptions of the JD-R model and the energetic process in particular: job demands were positively and job resources were negatively related to emotional exhaustion. However, no evidence was found for the association between the job demands–job resources interaction term and emotional exhaustion. Previous research attesting to this interaction, however, largely focused upon the interplay of particular job demands and job resources rather than the general categories (e.g. Hakanen, Bakker, & Demerouti, 2005). These studies established that specific job resources were a stronger buffer for particular job demands than others were. However, to date, it remains unclear which combinations of job demands and job resources may particularly interact. Therefore, we would like to encourage future research to unravel the conditions under which such interactions are most likely to be found to predict emotional exhaustion. Most important for the current study were, however, the associations of job demands, job resources, and their interaction with workplace bullying (partially through emotional exhaustion). Regarding the perpetrators’ perspective, results revealed no relationships between the general categories of job demands, job resources and perpetrators’ reports of bullying. Hypotheses 1a and 2a were thus rejected, thereby also rejecting Hypotheses 4a and 5a, in terms of the mediational role of emotional exhaustion in these relationships. The correlation analysis may perhaps shed further light on the lack of direct relationships of job demands and job resources and perpetrators’ reports of workplace bullying. In terms of job resources, the correlation analysis indicated that only autonomy yielded a significant relation with perpetrators’ reports of workplace bullying. Contrary to expectations, this relationship was positive. Regarding job demands, the correlation analysis seems to indicate that particular job demands may yield opposite relationships with perpetrators’ reports of bullying: whereas role demands and emotional demands displayed the expected positive relationship, cognitive demands were negatively related to perpetrators’ reports of workplace bullying. These results seem to align with the recent differentiation of job demands into ‘job hindrances’ and ‘job challenges’. Whereas job hindrances unambiguously lead to negative consequences, job challenges may have additional beneficial effects (Podsakoff, Lepine, & Lepine, 2007; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Cuyper, & De Witte, 2010). Previous research indicated that encountering job hindrances elicit counterproductive behaviour such as arriving late and neglecting instructions on a daily basis. Job challenges relate negatively to such behaviour (Rodell & Judge, 2009). The current results may suggest that similar associations can be found in view of perpetrators’ reports of workplace bullying. Future research is, however, necessary to test further this assumption, for example, by using a larger set of job demands. Perhaps most importantly in view of the current focus on the JD-R model, the results indicate that job demands and job resources particularly associate with perpetrators’ reports of bullying when ‘joining forces’. Contrary to the predictions based on the JD-R model (Hypothesis 3a); however, job resources did not buffer the associations of job demands with perpetrators’ reports of bullying. To the contrary, job resources appeared to boost the relation of (high) job demands with bullying: whilst job demands were unrelated to workplace bullying when job resources were absent, they related positively to perpetrators’ reports of bullying, when job resources were high. One possible explanation for this result could be that job demands may provide the necessity for bullying perpetrators to act out. The presence of job resources may then provide perpetrators’ with the possibility to deal with job demands by involving in bullying enactment. This may hint at yet other processes through which employees may become a perpetrator of bullying. One process suggested in the literature on bullying may then be the emergence and the procession of interpersonal conflicts (Leymann, 1996). Specifically, as elaborated in the second process of the Three Way model (Baillien et al., 2009), poor job characteristics may pave the way for conflicts. Escalated conflicts may, in turn, encourage workplace bullying. The more (formally or informally) powerful employee may then become perpetrator; the powerless employee may become the target. In terms of job demands and job resources, it may be reasonable to assume that job demands may agitate employees, which then serves as a breeding ground for conflicts amongst workers. The availability of high job resources may then grant particular workers with high power, which makes them susceptible to enactment of workplace bullying. The positive association between task autonomy and perpetrators’ reports of bullying seems to align with this view. Indeed, employees who can act autonomously in their job might have more freedom to involve in bullying perpetration. De Cuyper and colleagues (2009) also prompted the reasoning that resources may provide the opportunity for bullying in demanding circumstances. These researchers established that employability, as a personal resource, may foster workplace bullying behaviour amongst job insecure employees. In terms of targets’ reports of bullying, job demands displayed the expected positive association, confirming Hypothesis 1b. Job resources demonstrated the expected positive relation, in line with Hypothesis 2b. Thus, demanding work contexts as well as the lack of job resources may make workers vulnerable to becoming a target of workplace bullying. These findings expand previous research in the realm of the JD-R model by indicating that job demands and job resources may not only successfully explain workers’ well-being, attitudes and behaviour, but may also explain systematic interpersonal maltreatment. From a bullying perspective, these results replicate earlier research exploring job characteristics as antecedents of targets’ reports of bullying, but also advance the literature on bullying as they meaningfully group the cluttered list of job characteristics into job demands and job resources. In line with the expectations of both the JD-R model and the Three Way Model, emotional exhaustion may partially account for the associations of both categories of job characteristics and targets’ reports of workplace bullying (Hypotheses 4b and 5b). These findings further sustain the much cited work environment hypothesis, which links bullying to a stressful work environment (e.g. Einarsen et al., 1999; Notelaers et al., 2010). They also confirm the Three Way model (Baillien et al., 2009) arguing that poor job characteristics lead to targets’ reports of bullying through the development of strain. Contrary to our expectations (Hypothesis 3b), job demands and job resources did not interact when predicting targets’ reports of bullying. Job resources did thus not buffer the negative impact of job demands with regard to targets of bullying. In other words, in contrast to perpetrators’ reports of bullying in which job demands and job resources joined forces, both categories of job characteristics are independently associated with targets’ reports of bullying in an either-or manner: either the presence of high job demands or the presence of low job resources suffices in view of being a target. Limitations and practical recommendations Some limitations need to be taken into account when interpreting the current results. Firstly, this study relies on self-reports, which might increase the risk of common method variance. As indicated, however, our analyses indicated that such method effects did not significantly influence our results (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This suggests that the precautions to prevent common method variance were effective. Indeed, during data-collection, we underlined that there were no right or wrong answers and guaranteed confidentiality. All these measures are assumed to reduce the risk of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). A related methodological problem could be social desirability, particularly in view of perpetrators’ reports of workplace bullying. Our findings may therefore bear on a sub-group of respondents who are willing to admit their negative acts. Social desirability, however, generally results in an underestimation of effects due to a lack of variance. This implies that relationships may become even stronger when accounting for social desirability. Using measures of different sources could have been an effective way to reduce further common method variance and social desirability. Although this might be feasible for job demands and job resources (see for example, Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001), the reliance on employees’ perceptions allowed us to capture fully nuances in the degree one experiences workplace bullying, which may be considered as a strength of this study. Secondly, as the current study relied on cross-sectional data, no conclusions regarding causality can be drawn. However, we relied on theoretical as well as empirical reasons to present job demands and job resources as antecedents of emotional exhaustion and workplace bullying. From a theoretical point of view, the JD-R model conceptualises job demands and job resources as antecedents of work related well-being through which other outcomes emerge (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). This causal order has received large empirical support (Hakanen et al., 2008), although some evidence is also found for the reversed causation (e.g. Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). Similarly, the literature on bullying in general and the Three Way model in particular assume that the work environment leads to workplace bullying via strain, rather than the other way around. Some scholars, however, suggest that workplace bullying may also result in psychological strain (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002; Rodriguez-Munoz, Baillien, De Witte, Moreno-Jiménez & Pastor, 2009), whilst still others advocate reciprocal relationships (Hoel et al., 2002). Empirically, unreported analyses from the current study, however, indicated that targets’ reports of bullying did not mediate the association from job demands and job resources to emotional exhaustion; these results are available upon request. Yet, workplace bullying and psychological strain may nonetheless be closely intertwined. Therefore, we encourage future studies to apply longitudinal or cross-lagged designs to gain further understanding in targets’ reports of bullying and to explore the possibility of reversed causation or reciprocal relationships. Another promising route for future research could be to examine further the processes through which workplace bullying may develop from job characteristics. Previous literature suggested that strain might be amongst the most important processes linking job demands and job resources with both perpetrators’ and targets’ reports of workplace bullying. Our findings, however, underline that workplace bullying may develop from a complex and multi-causal process (Salin, 2003). Indeed exhaustion did not fully account for the association between job demands, job resources, their interaction and both perspectives on workplace bullying. Future research might therefore examine whether, for example, work engagement may also play a role, as outlined in the motivational process of the JD-R model. In such cases, the lack of job resources might harm workers’ enthusiasm. Less enthusiastic workers may then show less commitment to their work (Hakanen et al., 2008) and invest less in extra role behaviour (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004). Such behaviour might, in turn, isolate the particular workers from their more enthusiastic colleagues, resulting in neglect and, eventually, in becoming a target of bullying. Despite these limitations, from a practical point of view, the current results may assist practitioners in facilitating the good social relationships amongst workers. Specifically, the results suggest that, in general, workplace bullying may be reduced by limiting job demands and increasing job resources. Particular attention may be paid to employees who feel exhausted, as they either run increased risk to become perpetrators’ or targets of workplace bullying. ConclusionThe current study demonstrates that the JD-R model may be a fruitful approach to understand the growing interdependence amongst workers in general (Grant & Parker, 2009) and perpetrators’ and targets’ reports of workplace bullying in particular. The JD-R model furthermore closes the gap between the theoretical assumptions and empirical findings in the bullying domain suggesting that job characteristics may elicit workplace bullying trough job strain. The results largely support this assumption. Yet, at the same time, the current study’s findings underline that workplace bullying is a multi-causal phenomenon, which deserves further research attention. 1.AgervoldM. MikkelsenE.G.2004Relationships between bullying, psychosocial work environment and individual stress reactions1833635110.1080/02678370412331319794 2.AquinoK.ThauS.2009Workplace victimization: Aggression from the targets’ perspective6071774110.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163703; PMid:19035831. 3.BaillienE.De CuyperN.De WitteH. Job autonomy and workload as antecedents of workplace bullying: A two-wave test of Karasek’s Job Demand Control Model for targets and Perpetrators4.BaillienE.Neyens I.De WitteH.De CuyperN.2009 Towards a three way model of workplace bullying: a qualitative study1911610.1002/casp.9775.BaillienE.Rodriguez-MuñozA.De WitteH.NotelaersG.Moreno-JiménezB. The Demand-Control Model and targets’ reports of bullying at work: A test within Spanish and Belgian blue-collar workers6.BakkerA.B.DemeroutiE.,2007The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art2230932810.1108/026839407107331157.BakkerA.B.DemeroutiE.De BoerE.SchaufeliW.2003Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency6234135610.1016/S0001-8791(02)00030-18.BakkerA.B.Demerouti E.SchaufeliW.B.2003Dual processes at work in a call centre: An application of the Job Demands – Resources model1239341710.1080/13594320344000165 9.BakkerA.B.DemeroutiE. SchaufeliW.B.2005The crossover of burnout and work engagement among working couplesHuman Relations 5866168910.1177/0018726705055967 10Bakker A.B.DemeroutiE.TarisT.SchaufeliW.SchreursP.2003A multigroup analysis of the Job Demands-Resources Model in four home care organizationsnternational Journal of Stress Management10163810.1037/1072-5245.10.1.1611.BakkerA.B.DemeroutiE.VerbekeW.2004Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performanceHuman Resource Management438310410.1002/hrm.20004 12.BakkerA.B.HakanenJ.J.DemeroutiE.XanthopoulouD.2007Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are highJournal of Educational Psychology9927428410.1037/0022-0663.99.2.27413.BakkerA.B.Van EmmerikH.Van RietP.2008How job demands, resources, and burnout predict objective performance: A constructive replicationAnxiety, Stress, & Coping2111610.1080/1061580080195863714.BentlerP.M.1990Comparative fit indexes in structural modelsPsychological Bulletin10723824610.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238; PMid:232070315.Berkowitz L.1989The frustration-aggression hypothesis: An examination and reformulation Psychological Bulletin106597310.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59; PMid:266700916.Bowling N.A. BeehrT.A.2006Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysisJournal of Applied Psychology91998101210.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998; PMid:16953764. 17.BrodskyC.M.1976 The harassed worker.Toronto: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Co. 18.Byrne B.M. 2001Structural Equation Modelling with AmosBasic Concepts Application and Programming, Erlbaum, Mahwah, London19.CortinaJ.M.ChenG.DunlapW.P.2001Testing interaction effects in LISREL: Examination and illustration of available proceduresOrganisational Research Methods432436010.1177/10944281014400220.CowieH.NaylorP.SmithP.K.Rivers I. PereiraB. 2002Measuring workplace bullyingAggression and Violent Behaviour7 355110.1016/S1359-1789(00)00034-321.De CuyperN.BaillienE.De WitteH.2009Job insecurity and workplace bullying among targets and perpetrators: moderation by employabilityWork and Stress2320622410.1080/0267837090325757822.DemeroutiE.BakkerA.B.NachreinerF.SchaufeliW. 2001The job demands-resources model of burnoutJournal of Applied Psychology8649951210.1037/0021-9010.86.3.49923.EinarsenS.2000Harassment and bullying at work: a review of the Scandinavian approachAgression and Violent Behaviour537940110.1016/S1359-1789(98)00043-324.EinarsenS.MatthiesenS.B.HaugeL.J. 2009Bullying and harassment at work. In SCartwright & C.L. Cooper (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Personnel Psychology. (pp. 464 –495). London: Sage publications. 25.EinarsenS.RaknesB.I.MatthiesenS.B.1994Bullying and harassment at work and their relationships to work environment quality: an exploratory studyEuropean Work and Organisational Psychologist438140110.1080/1359432940841049726.Einarsen S. SkogstadA.1996Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and private organisationsEuropean Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology518520110.1080/13594329608414854 27.FelsonR.BTedeschiJ.T. 1993Aggression and violence: Social interactionists’ perspectivesWashington, DC: American Psychological Association10.1037/10123-000 28.González-RomáV.SchaufeliW.B.BakkerA.B.Lloret S.2006Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite polesJournal of Vocational Behaviour68165174.10.1016/j.jvb.2005.01.00329.GrantA.M.ParkerS.K. 2009Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectivesAcademy of Management Annals, 3. 30.Hakanen J.BakkerA.B.DemeroutiE.2005How dentists cope with their job demands and stay engaged: the moderating role of job resourcesEuropean journal of Oral Sciences11347948710.1111/j.1600-0722.2005.00250.x; PMid:1632413731.HakanenJ.BakkerA.B.Schaufeli W.B.2006Burnout and work engagement among teachersJournal of School Psychology4349551310.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001 32.HakanenJ.J.SchaufeliW.B.AholaK.2008The Job Demands-Resources model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagementWork & Stress2222424110.1080/0267837080237943233.HalbeslebenJ.R.B.BuckleyM. R.2004Burnout in organisational lifeJournal of Management3085987910.1016/j.jm.2004.06.00434.HaugeL.J.SkogstadA.EinarsenS.2007Relationships between stressful work environments and bullying: Results of a large representative studyWork & Stress2122024210.1080/02678370701705810 35.Hinduja S. 2007Workplace violence and negative affective responses: A test of Agnew’s general strain theoryJournal of Criminal Justice3565766610.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.09.002 36.HobfollS.E.2002 Social and psychological resources and adaptationReview of General Psychology, 6307324.10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.30737.HoelH.Salin D.2003Organisational antecedents of bullying at workIn S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf & C.L. Cooper (Eds.). Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice (pp. 145−162). London: Taylor & Francis. 38.HoelH.ZapfD.CooperC.L.2002 Bullying at work and stressIn P.L. Perrewe & D.C. Ganster (Eds.). Historical and Current Perspectives on Stress and Health2 29333310.1016/S1479-3555(02)02008-539.HolmbeckG.N.1997Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literaturesJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology6559961010.1037/0022-006X.65.4.599; PMid:9256561. 40.HoyleR.H.1995The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 1–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 41.HuL.BentlerP.M.1999Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternativesStructural Equation Modeling615510.1080/1070551990954011842.HubertA.Furda J.SteensmaH.2001Mobbing, systematisch pestgedrag in organisaties: Twee studies naar antecedenten en gevolgen voor de gezondheid [Mobbing, systematic bullying in organisations: Two studies about antecedents and health related consequences] Gedrag en Organisatie1437836943.JöreskogK.G.SörbomD.2004LISREL 8.71 [Computer software]Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc. 44.KarasekR.1979Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign.Administrative Science Quarterly2428530810.2307/239249845.KeashlyL.1998 Emotional abuse in the workplace: conceptual and empirical issuesJournal of Emotional Abuse18511710.1300/J135v01n01_0546.KristensenT. S.HannerzH.HoghA.Borg,V.2005The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire: A tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment ScandinavianJournal of Work Environment & Health31438449PMid:1642558547.LeymannH.1996The content and development of mobbing at work European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology516518410.1080/13594329608414853 48.Llorens S.SchaufeliW.B.BakkerA.BSchaufeliW.B. SalanovaM.2006Testing the robustness of the Job Demands-Resources Modelnternational Journal of Stress Management1337839110.1037/1072-5245.13.3.378 49.Martinussen M.Richardsen A.M.BurkeR.J.2007Job demands, job resources, and burnout among police officersJournal of Criminal Justice352392490.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.03.001 50.MaslachC.SchaufeliW.LeiterM.2001Job burnoutAnnual Review of Psychology5239742210.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397; PMid:11148311.51.MathieuJ.E.TannenbaumS.I.Salas E.1992Influences of individual and situational characteristics on measures of training effectivenessAcademy of Management Journal3582884710.2307/256317 52.MatthiesenS.B.Einarsen S.2007Perpetrators and targets of bullying at work: role stress and individual differencesViolence and Victim 2273575310.1891/088667007782793174; PMid:18225386. 53.Meier L.L.2008IRSE. Interactions in Multiple Linear Regression with SPSS and Excel(Version 1.6) [Computer software and manual]. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www.urenz.ch/irse 54.MikkelsenE.G.EinarsenS.2002Bullying in Danish work-life: Prevalence and health correlatesEuropean Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology,10439341310.1080/1359432014300081655.NeyensI.BaillienE.NotelaersG.De Witte H.2007Pesten op het werk: Risicofactoren in werk en organisatie [Workplace bullying: Risk factors in the job and the organisation]Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken2330632056.NielsenM.B.SkogstadA.MatthiesenS.B.GlasoL.AaslandM.S.NotelaersG.EinarsenS.2009Prevalence of workplace bullying in Norway: Comparisons across time and estimation methods.European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology188110110.1080/1359432080196970757.NotelaersG.EinarsenS.2008The construction and validation of the Short Negative Acts Questionnaire. Paper presented at 6th International Conference on Workplace Bullying. Montreal, Canada. 58.Notelaers G.De WitteH.EinarsenS.2010A job characteristics approach to explain workplace bullying.European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology1948750410.1080/1359432090300762059.ParkinsI.S.FishbeinH.D.RitcheyP.N.2006The influence of personality on workplace bullying and discriminationJournal of Applied Psychology362554257710.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00117.x 60.PodsakoffN.P.LePine J.A.LePine M.A.2007Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysisJournal of Applied Psychology 92 43845461.PodsakoffP.M.MacKenzieS.B.LeeJ.-YPodsakoffN.P.2003Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remediesJournal of Applied Psychology8887990310.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438 PMid:17371090 62.Rayner C.1999From research to implementation: finding leverage for preventionInternational Journal of Manpower20283810.1108/01437729910268614 63.Rigotti T.MohrG.CuyperN.De WitteH.De BernhardC.IsakssonK.Jong J de SchalkR.CaballerA.GraciaF.PeiróJ.M.Ramos,J.ClintonM.GuestD.,KrauszM StaynvartsN.2003Instruction work and blue print for methodology Unpublished research report. Leipzig: Germany64.RodellJ.B.JudgeT.A.2009Can “Good” Stressors Spark “Bad” Behaviors? The Mediating Role of Emotions in Links of Challenge and Hindrance Stressors With Citizenship and Counterproductive Behaviors.Journal of Applied Psychology941438145110.1037/a0016752; PMid:19916654. 65.Rodriguez-MuñosA.BaillienE.De Witte, H.Moreno-Jiménez B. PastorJ.C.2009Cross-lagged relationships between workplace bullying, job satisfaction and engagement: Two longitudinal studiesWork and Stress2322524310.1080/02678370903227357 66.Rosenthal P.GuestD.Peccei,R.1996 Gender difference in managers’ explanation for their work performance: A study in two organisationsJournal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology6914515167.Rousseau D.M.FriedY. 2001Location, location, location: contextualizing organisational research Journal of Organisational Behaviour221130.1002/job.78 68.Salanova M.AgutS.Peiró,J.2005Linking organisational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climateJournal of Applied Psychology901217122710.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217; PMid:16316275. 69.SalinD.2003Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment Human Relations561213123210.1177/0018726703561000370.SalinD.2008The prevention of workplace bullying as a question of human resource management: Measures adopted and underlying organisational factorsScandinavian Journal of Management2422123110.1016/j.scaman.2008.04.00471.SatorraA.BentlerP.M.1994Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis.In A. von Eye & C.C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 72.SchaufeliW.B.BakkerA.B.2004Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample studyJournal of Organisational Behaviour2529331510.1002/job.24873.Schaufeli W.B.Van DierendonckD. 2000Utrechtse Burnout Schaal (UBOS): TesthandleidingAmsterdam: Harcourt Test Services. 74.SiegristJ.1996Adverse health effects of high effort-low reward conditionsJournal of Occupational Health Psychology1274110.1037/1076-8998.1.1.27 PMid:9547031 75.Van den BroeckA.M. De WitteH.LensW.2008Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction.Work & Stress 2227729410.1080/02678370802393672 76.Van den Broeck A.VansteenkisteM.De CuyperN.De WitteH.2010Not all Job Demands are Created Equal: Differentiating Job Hindrances and Job Challenges in the Job Demands-Resources Model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology19,735759.10.1080/13594320903223839 77Van VeldhovenM. MeymanT.F.1994Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting met een vragenlijst: de vragenlijst beleving en beoordeling van de arbeid (VBBA) [Measuring psychosocial demands with a questionnaire: the VBBA]Amsterdam: NIA. 78.WilliamsL.J.,CoteJ.A.BuckleyM.R.1989ack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions of work: Reality or artifact?Journal of Applied Psychology 7446246810.1037/0021-9010.74.3.462 79.XanthopoulouD.BakkerA.B.DemeroutiE.SchaufeliW.B.2009Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources Journal of Organisational and Occupational Psychology82183200.10.1348/096317908X28563380.ZapfD.1999Organisational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying at workInternational Journal of Manpower20708510.1108/0143772991026866981.ZapfD.EinarsenS.2003 Individual antecedents of bullying: victims and perpetrators.In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C.L. Cooper (Eds.). Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace. International Perspectives in Research and Practice (pp.165−184). London: Taylor & Francis. 82Zapf, DGrossC.2001Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension.European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology10 49752210.1080/1359432014300083483.ZapfD.KnorzC.KullaM.1996On the relationship between mobbing factors, and job content, social work environment, and health outcomesEuropean Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology521523710.1080/13594329608414856 1.Besides two process through which job characteristics may give rise to workplace bullying, the Three Way Model also describes a third route through which bullying may emerge; a route that is not related to job characteristics. Specifically, this third process suggests that specific team and organisational aspects, such as a culture of gossip or a highly competitive climate, may encourage employees to engage in workplace bullying. 2.Controlling for the sampling method did not significantly alter the results. 3.Follow up exploratory regression analysis revealed that particularly social support interacted with the job demands. Supervisory support interacted with each of the job demands, whilst social support from colleagues interacted with workload and cognitive demands. In addition, task autonomy interacted with both role ambiguity and cognitive demands. These results are available from the corresponding authors upon request.