Work 42 (2012) 93–105 93DOI 10.3233/WOR-2012-1332IOS Press

Workplace hostility: Defining and measuringthe occurrence of hostility in the workforce

Meridith Pease Seldena,! and Ronald G. Downeyb

aWilkes University, Wilkes-Barre, PA, USAbKansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA

Received 24 February 2010

Accepted 26 October 2010

Abstract. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to define a comprehensive construct, workplace hostility, encompassingsub-areas of harmful workplace behaviors. Key characteristics include: perception of the target, persistence, intentionality,nonphysical nature, and organizational affiliation.Participants: Pilot study participants (N = 42, students and N = 35, workers) were small convenience samples. Main studyparticipants (N = 393, 70% female) were working individuals and almost 50% reported 1 to 5 years in their current jobs.Methods: The two pilot studies collected were surveys face-to-face. The main study used on-line surveys.Results: Based on the pilot studies, items from the Workplace Hostility Inventory (WHI) were judged as a reasonable set. Resultsfrom the main study suggested three subscales related to perceptions of being subjected to hostility: interference with work,denigration, and exclusion. Supervisors produced greater distress on all factors, but only exclusion predicted a desire to leave theorganization. Distress was greater when the perpetrator was a woman or a group. After controlling for feelings toward coworkersand supervisors, WHI was not related to job satisfaction.Conclusions: The WHI was found to be an inclusive construct, representing numerous concepts. The WHI is comprehensive andglobal, encompassing the previous overlap in existing research.

Keywords: Abuse, job satisfaction, job violence, toxic behavior

1. Introduction

In recent years, there has been an increased focus onthe examination of harmful workplace behaviors [1–3]. Harmful workplace behavior is a broad field thatincludes numerous sub-areas (see Table 1). Researchhas “found duplication of effort both conceptually andempirically” (p. 32) for these sub-areas that can beattributed to the simultaneous development of similarperspectives [4]. The contextual features used to mea-sure each construct, serve to differentiate between sim-ilar behaviors limiting the utility of each. This has been

!Address for correspondence: Meridith Pease Selden, Wilkes Uni-versity, 84 W South St., Wilkes-Barre, PA 18766, USA. Tel.: +1 570408 4568; Fax: +1 570 408 7871; E-mail: meridith.selden@wilkes.edu.

acknowledged as a shortcoming by researchers [3,4].Although a fragmented field, four common contextualfeatures have been identified in the literature as: abili-ty to cause harm, the target’s desire to avoid the treat-ment, intent of the perpetrator to cause harm, and thepersistent nature of the treatment [3].

The purpose of this study is to define a constructthat encompasses the majority of the behaviors withinthe harmful workplace behavior field and to develop acomprehensive scale. The new construct will encom-pass the four common contextual features of harmfulworkplace behaviors [3]. As with all of the constructsin this field, workplace hostility includes behaviors thatcan cause harm to the target and thereby the target ismotivated to avoid. However, workplace hostility onlyincludes unambiguous episodes of hostility that occurrepeatedly at the hands of the same person or group of

1051-9815/12/$27.50 � 2012 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved

94 M.P. Selden and R.G. Downey / Workplace hostility

Table 1Major constructs in the field of harmful workplace behaviors

ConstructWorkplace aggression

Neuman and Baron, 1997 [28]; Schat and Kelloway, 2005 [8]Deviant workplace behaviors/interpersonal deviance

Robinson and Bennet, 1995 [14]; Berry, Ones, and Sackett, 2007 [29]Abusive supervision

Zellars, Tepper, and Duffy, 2002 [6]; Tepper, 2000 [5]Social undermining

Duffy, Ganster, and Pagon, 2002 [13]Interpersonal conflict

Price Spratlen, 1995 [30]Mobbing

Leymann, 1990 [31]Workplace violence

Glomb, Steel, and Arvey, 2003 [32]; Barling, 1996 [33]Incivility

Cortina, Magley, Williams, and Langhout, 2001 [16]; Pearson, Andersson, and Wegner, 2001 [17]Bullying

Einarsen, Hoel, Keashley, Zapf, and Cooper, 2003 [1], Namie and Namie, 2003 [20]Antisocial work behavior

O’Leary, Duffy, and Griffin, 2000 [34]Workplace ostracism

Ferris, Brown, Berry, and Lian, 2008 [35]Counterproductive work behavior

Fox and Spector, 2004; Dalal, 2005.

people. The key characteristics of workplace hostilitymeriting further examination are as follows: percep-tion of the target, persistence, free will, nonphysicalnature, and organizational affiliation. These are brieflyexplored below.

Perception of the target – The perceived intent ofthe perpetrator is more important than the actual intent,thus individuals must perceive that they were targetsof mistreatment. If this condition is not met, thenregardless of the intent of the perpetrator, workplacehostility has not occurred. This characteristic is similarto the requirements of abusive supervision [5,6], whichis based entirely on the subordinates’ perceptions. Thissubjective assessment is also present in the EEOC [7]definition of sexual harassment.

Persistence – It is necessary to have repeated poortreatment at the hands of the same perpetrator and/orsame groupof perpetrators, although the behaviorsmaydiffer. More specifically, the behaviors must be persis-tent enough to create a pattern of mistreatment.

Free will – Behaviors must be a purposeful act vol-untarily undertaken by the perpetrator. If a behavior isexplicitly mandated by an organization and carried outby a person acting as representative of an organization(e.g., a supervisor) then it is not workplace hostility.An example would be restrictions on breaks. Also, if abehavior occurs as a result of an obvious accident (e.g.,printer malfunction) then it is not workplace hostility,regardless of the impact the behavior has on the target.

Non-physical nature – Only behaviors that do notinvolve physical violence are classified as workplacehostility. The decision to exclude physical behaviorslimits the workplace hostility construct but does so con-structively. Physical violence happens relatively rarelybut receives a large amount of press and research cov-erage [8]. More specifically, physical assault has beenfound to occur in one out of every 25 acts of bullyingwhile verbal abuse occurred in one out of every 4 actsof bullying (United States Postal Serv. as cited in [9]).Additionally, there are precedents to exclude physicalbehaviors [5,6].

Organizational affiliation – If a behavior occursbetween two individuals from different organizations(e.g., verbal abuse by a customer), it is not consideredworkplace hostility. This limitation is necessary so asto exclude hostility that is not work related. Addi-tionally, the nature of the relationship between the twoemployees of the same organization is inconsequentialin defining workplace hostility, with employees at anylevel being susceptible to experiencing it. There areprecedents for including onlywork related hostility [10,11] and for not limiting the susceptibility of hostility toonly one level within the organization [11].

The above criteria establish the basic conditions thatneed to be met for workplace hostility (WH). The goalnow is to develop, define, and measure harmful work-place behaviors that meet the criteria. The measure-

M.P. Selden and R.G. Downey / Workplace hostility 95

ment instrument being developed and used in the cur-rent study is called the Workplace Hostility Inventory(WHI). To combat the fragmentation within the fieldand to test if the existing measures truly are differentmeasures, the WHI was developed from a combinationof existing concepts and items. Seven measures wereselected due to their prominence in the literature andrelevance to Workplace Hostility. See Table 1 for a listof current constructs within the field. All of the mea-sures were modified to fit into the WHI. The behaviors(i.e., “Gave me the silent treatment”) were largely unal-tered but the questions asked about the behaviors werechanged, all identifiable characters (i.e., “My boss”)were removed, more than one perpetrator was allowed,a clear target was indicated, and a new response scalewas used. Permission was obtained from all but oneauthor of these scales1 to use and modify their items.Each of the measures will be explored below. Due toconstruct overlap, some items were attributed to morethan one scale.

Workplace aggression [12] – The WAR-Q is a com-mon and large item assessment of workplace aggres-sion. However, it does not differentiate between actsexperienced at the hands of the same person or of manydifferent people. Of the 39 items in the WHI, 20 canbe attributed to the WAR-Q, although they were modi-fied to allow more than one perpetrator and to indicatethe target. Because the WAR-Q is a commonly usedand large scale, items were selected from the WAR-Qthat can also be attributed to other scales. For exam-ple “Gave the silent treatment” can be attributed to theWAR-Q, Social Undermining [13], and Abusive Su-pervision [5,6]. Therefore although 20 items can beattributed to the WAR-Q most of these items can alsobe attributed to another source.

Abusive supervision [5,6] – Abusive supervision in-volves subjective judgment and sustained activity, notincluding physical contact. Six of the items from theAbusive Supervision scale are included in the WHI.

Workplace deviance [14,15] – Workplace Deviancedefines employee deviance as voluntary behaviors thatviolate organizational norms. After significant revisionto shift the perspective, three items were included inthe WHI.

Social undermining [13] – Social undermining is aseries of work related behaviors designed to hinder the

1One of the scale authors failed to respond to any of the numerousattempts to contact him or identify alternative addresses. Fewer thanfive items were adapted from this scale and they were significantlyrevised.

target’s ability to maintain a positive standing withinhis/her work environment. Four items from the SocialUndermining Scale were included in the WHI.

Workplace incivility [16] – Incivility is a low inten-sity behavior with ambiguous intent. However, it is of-ten viewed as somewhat immoral, connoting breachesof both personal and professional etiquette [17]. Twoitems were included in the WHI.

Perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment, PFIT[18] – The PFIT is a broad scale assessing supervisortreatment and coworker treatment. After modificationto reflect the focus, four items were included.

Negative social exchange, TENSE [19] – TheTENSE was designed to assess potential negative in-terpersonal interactions. After modification for per-spective, three items from TENSE were included in theWHI.

Thus, thirty-nine items were incorporated into thepreliminary WHI survey. The preliminary survey wasevaluated to determine the adequacy of developed itemsto effectively gather information related to the key char-acteristics that make it a unique construct. Further, theWHI examined how each characteristic relates to areaspreviously proven to have an effect on an employee’sperceptions and beliefs regarding themselves or theircompany after experiencing harmful workplace behav-iors.

Since workplace hostility was created to encompassbehaviors within the harmful workplace behavior, it isnecessary to first test if the items on the WHI representone factor (i.e., harmful behaviors). If the WHI isnot one factor and therefore has an underlying factorstructure of two or more factors, an exploratory factoranalysis to identify subscales will be conducted. Thefirst hypothesis is as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Workplace hostility represents onefactor.

Research has shown that abuse by supervisors oc-curredmore frequently than abuse by coworkers and thenegative effect of the abuse was worse when enacted bysupervisors versus coworkers [5,6,13,12]. Therefore,it is expected that the workplace hostility will occurmore often from people in positions of power and thispower dynamic will result in greater levels of upset.The following hypotheses were formulated:

Hypothesis 2: Workplace hostility occurs frompeo-ple in positions of power (i.e., supervisors) morefrequently when compared to those with less power(i.e., coworkers or subordinates).

96 M.P. Selden and R.G. Downey / Workplace hostility

Hypothesis 2a: When the perpetrator is in a posi-tion of power (i.e., supervisor) over the target, thetarget will express more distress than when the per-petrator is not in a position of power (i.e., coworkeror subordinate) over the target.

Previous research has found the effects of aggres-sion to be cumulative, with participants reporting high-er stress levels when bullied by multiple actors, andnumerous people bullying a target is viewed as worsethan a lone bully [11]. Thus the following hypothesiswas generated:

Hypothesis 3: Workplace hostility that occurs atthe hands of multiple individuals (i.e., a group) willbe perceived as more upsetting than workplace hos-tility that occurs at the hands of a lone perpetrator.

Finally, a preliminary exploratory model will be ex-amined. This model will be created using the work-place hostility subscales while controlling for other sit-uational variables, including job clarity, measures re-lated to the participants’ feelings about their cowork-ers and supervisors, and the number of perpetrators, topredict the criterion variable of job satisfaction. Un-derstanding the ramifications of workplace hostility ishypothesized to be an important component in predict-ing work related outcomes. It is important to ensurethat the workplace hostility subscales contribute to theprediction thereby extendingour understandingbeyondvariables that are already known to be predictors ofwork outcomes. The final hypothesis is as follows:

Hypothesis 4: Subscales of the WHI will predictjob satisfaction above and beyond control factors.

The hypotheses were tested using data collected atthree points in time from three samples. The firsttwo data collections (“Norm Study” and “InstrumentStudy”) were pilot studies used to refine the measure-ment instrument. The final data collection, the “MainStudy” occurred after changes were made to the instru-ment based on the results of the pilot studies. Eachstudy will be reported separately.

2. Norm pilot study

Implicit in the definition of workplace hostility is theidea that the hostile behaviors violate organizational orsocial norms. The purpose of the norm pilot study wasto ensure that all of the WHI behaviors violated eitheran organizational or a social norm.

2.1. Method

Forty-two participants from three different locations(a community college, a state school, and a non-profitorganization) participated in the norm pilot study. Themean age of the participants in the three locations was26.55 (SD = 11.91) with a range of 18 to 60. Test-ing was conducted to determine if the three sampleswere similar enough to combine into one larger sample.Namely, two one-way ANOVAs treating the locationsas independent variables (i.e., 1, 2, or 3) and composite“violation” scores (i.e., social and organizational) ofthe 39 behaviors as the dependent variable were con-ducted. For both types of norms, the group compositeratings were similar, F (2,39) = 0.118, p = 0.89 for so-cial and F (2,39) = 0.478, p = 0.62 for organizational.Thus, the groups were combined.

All forty-two participants were asked to complete asurvey indicating whether they believed each of the 39WHI behaviors was a violation of a social norm and/oran organizational norm. Participants were also askedbasic demographic questions.

2.2. Results and discussion

It had been decided that a behavior would be viewedas a violation of a social and/or organizational normif at least half of the respondents indicated it was aviolation. Since norms are by definition decided bythe expectations of the majority, 50% was selected as areasonable representation of what the majority expects.Thirty-four of the thirty-nine behaviors were found tobe violations of both norms, thirty-eight behaviors vi-olated organizational norms and thirty-five behaviorsviolated social norms. All thirty-nine behaviors vio-lated at least one norm and most violated both. Thus,all of the behaviors were deemed appropriate for theinstrument pilot study.

3. Instrument pilot study

The purpose of the instrument pilot survey wastwofold. Since very little attention has been paid towhether participants felt the behaviors were damag-ing, the survey first assessed whether respondents feltas if they were victims of an intentionally damagingact. Second, if a behavior was reported as occurringinfrequently in the instrument pilot survey it would beexcluded from the main survey.

M.P. Selden and R.G. Downey / Workplace hostility 97

3.1. Method

The instrument pilot study was conducted at a smallnon-profit organization in the Eastern United Statesand data were collected at an all-hands meeting/retreat(N = 35). Every employee in the organization partic-ipated in the pilot study. The participants ranged fromthe Executive Director to staff electricians and cooks.Employees were told that participation was voluntaryand were offered chances to win gift certificates. Be-cause the responses might contain incriminating data,participantswere ensured anonymityand told that noth-ing would be reported to company leaders. The sur-vey contained the thirty-nine hostile behaviors. Partic-ipants were asked if they had been victims for each ofthe thirty-nine behaviors. If they said yes to any item,they were then asked to answer two additional ques-tions about the behaviors: How upset were you whenthe event occurred? and Was there intent to harm?

3.2. Results and discussion

To make decisions regarding whether people wereexperiencing the behaviors included on the survey,wereupset at experiencing the behaviors, and the perceivedintent descriptive statistics were used. The first issueexamined in the instrument study was whether peoplewere experiencing the behaviors included on the sur-vey. While more than 90% (N = 32) indicated theyhad experienced workplace hostility, it was importantto determine if people experienced the specific WHIbehaviors. The frequency of “yeses” for each behaviorranged from only 3 (9%) to 29 (91%). Nineteen ofthe 39 behaviors were experienced by more than halfof the respondents. Not only did people experiencegeneral hostility but they also experienced the specificbehaviors.

Participants were also asked to indicate how upsettheywerewhen the behavior occurred and the perceivedintent of the behavior. Only participants experiencing abehavior were asked to respond to these two questions.All of the behaviors were viewed as at least somewhatupsetting by those who experienced them with the low-est average upset level being 2.71 on a 1 (Not at allUpset) to 5 (Very Upset) Likert-type item. Twenty-one(54%) of the behaviors received an average score of 4or higher. With regards to the perceived intent, ratingsranged from 13% to 94% of respondents perceiving thebehavior as harmful, M = 53% (SD = 18.0%). Allbehaviors were perceived as harmful by at least one

person with, on average, more than half of the peoplereported the intent to cause harm.

The instrument pilot study included an open-endedquestion asking the participants to list any behaviorsthat he/she thought might be missing from the WHI.The few participants completing this section all listedphysical aggressive behaviors, which were specificallyexcluded.

Based on the examination of the issues discussedabove, all 39 items were included in the main study.Furthermore, when given the opportunity to list anybehaviors that should have been included, participantsfailed to provide any useful contributions.

4. Main study

Based on the results from the first two studies, theWHI was judged to be a reasonable and comprehensivemeasure of workplace hostility. All thirty-nine behav-iors included in the main study: 1) violated either socialor organizational norms; 2) were experienced by mostpeople; 3) were perceived as harmful by most people;and 4) were reported as having a harmful intent.

4.1. Method

The Internet based sample data collection proceduresused here are an established method within the field ofworkplace bullying [20–23]. The research conductedby Namie and his colleagues as well as research outsideofworkplace bullying found that an Internet based sam-ple compared favorably to a conventional sample [24].Further, it has been found that the survey administra-tion method has little practical impact on workplacedata [25].

The data for the main study was collected from ananonymous and confidential online survey posted atworkplacehostility.org. Participants were not soughtthrough any official channels, instead website and sur-vey informationwas spread byword ofmouth and couldbe located through a variety of search engines. The firstpage of the website contained the information aboutthe survey and asked people to participate if they werea victim of non-physical hostility at work. Confiden-tiality was promised and provided. The main surveywas identical to the survey used in the instrument pilotstudy with the exception of the outcome measures.

There were 401 volunteer respondents, of these 393participants provided complete and consistent informa-tion. The surveywas online for approximately3weeks.

98 M.P. Selden and R.G. Downey / Workplace hostility

The sample was not a random sample. As discussedabove, there is a precedent within the workplace ag-gression field for this type of data collection [20–23].In order to have reliable correlation coefficients and tobe able to interpret factors with relatively low loadings(e.g., 0.3), a sample size of at least 300 participants isrequired [26,27]. As such, the decision to stop the datacollection was driven by the adequacy of the samplesize and a sharp decline in the number eligible partici-pants who visited the website.

To examine the hypotheses, the following analyseswill be conducted. For hypothesis 1, a ConfirmatoryFactor Analysis will be conducted to assess the validityof one factor. If there is more than one factor in the un-derlying structure, an Exploratory Factor Analysis willbe conducted. Hypothesis 2 will be examined using agoodness offit chi-square. While hypothesis 2a and hy-pothesis 3 will be examined using a MANOVA whereinterference with work, exclusion, and denigration willbe the dependent variables. Hypothesis 4 will be eval-uated by conducting hierarchical regressions with thescales as predictors.

4.2. Main study results

Thirty percent (118) of the respondents were menand 70% (or 275) women. Since the survey was opento anyone and was not designed to specifically attractfemales, the discrepancy between the number of wom-en and men respondents is interesting. Such a large dif-ference in the number of women and men lends validityto the idea that gender differences in workplace experi-ences needs further exploration. However, the discrep-ancy is inline with previous research that indicates thatwomen make up 80% of those who are bullied [9].

The sample was composed of a relatively experi-enced group of working individuals, with almost 30%of the sample (N = 114) reported being in the work-force for more than 20 years, while less than 2% (N =7) reported being in the workforce for less than 1 year.When participants were asked to report their tenure intheir current job, almost 50% (N = 187) reported 1 to5 years.

One hundred and forty (36%) respondents indicatedthey felt mistreated in their current job. Of those re-porting current mistreatment, 40% (N = 56) indicatedalso being mistreated at previous jobs. For the entiresample, more than 50% (N = 198) indicated beingmistreated at a previous job. When asked if they had ev-er experienced workplace hostility, 309 of the 393 par-ticipants responded affirmatively. When looking only

at those who reported experiencing hostile behaviors,34 (11% of the 309 above) reported that they had notbeen mistreated at a previous or current job. Thus, it ispossible that some people feel hostile behavior is sucha normal part of their workday that they no longer con-sider it mistreatment or do not view hostile behaviorsand mistreatment as the same. Despite a large numberof respondents indicating that they had been mistreatedat work, 266 or 68% of the entire sample said “Yes”when asked if they liked their current job. The seemingdisconnect between mistreatment and feelings aboutjobs will be further explored later.

To examine the validity of using one factor model,a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conductedon the basis of the upset score (“How upset were youwhen the event occurred?”) for each behavior. Priorto running the analysis, behaviors were excluded inwhich fewer than 30% of sample reported experiencingthe behavior. Using this criterion, ten questions wereexcluded. Additionally, any participant who did notexperience the behavior was assigned a value of oneindicating that there was no level of upset associatedwith a particular behavior. Answers to the upset scoreswere adjusted upward to reflect this coding (1 = Not atall Upset to 6 = Very upset).

The CFA indicated poor model fit, !2 (435) =10687.99, RMSEA = 0.11, CFI = 0.89 and suggestingthat there was more than one factor involved. There-fore, an Exploratory Factor Analysis was conductedusing Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with Promax(oblique) rotation because it was expected that the fac-tors identified would be correlated. The pattern matrixindicated that there were three clear factors. This wasreinforced by eigenvalues greater than one on the threefactors and by examining the scree plot, which indicat-ed a clear drop off and a gradual leveling after the thirdfactor. An item needed a loading of 0.3 or better to beincluded in a subscale. If an item was cross-loaded itwas included only in the scale with the highest load-ing. Six items were cross-loaded. See Table 2 for thepattern matrix.

The first subscale, interference with work, includeda variety of behaviors ranging from active betrayal (i.e.,lying) to more passive actions (i.e., did not defend youwhen others spoke poorly of you) and the coefficientalpha reliability was 0.86. All the individual behav-iors encompassed activities perceived to substantiallyreduce the abilities of individuals to effectively performor be seen as performing their jobs.

The second subscale, exclusion, included two typesof behaviors, ostracism and belittling, both of which

M.P. Selden and R.G. Downey / Workplace hostility 99

Table 2Main study – Pattern matrix for the promax PAF

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3Perpetrator(s) spread rumors or gossiped about you 0.78!

Perpetrator(s) attempted to turn other employees against you 0.69Perpetrator(s) lied to you 0.63Perpetrator(s) did not defend you when people spoke poorly of you 0.56Perpetrator(s) unnecessarily transmitted damaging information to higher levels in the organization 0.55Perpetrator(s) held or attended meetings about your work without your presence 0.46Perpetrator(s) showed favoritism to other employees 0.45Perpetrator(s) interfered with your work activities 0.45Perpetrator(s) refused your requests for assistance 0.42Perpetrator(s) excluded you from professional camraderie 0.40Perpetrator(s) took advantage of you 0.37Perpetrator(s) broke promises he/she/they made to you 0.37Perpetrator(s) deliberately invaded your privacy 0.35Perpetrator(s) gave you the silent treatment 0.35Perpetrator(s) reprimanded you in front of others 0.70Perpetrator(s) subjected you to excessively harsh criticism about your work 0.66Perpetrator(s) talked down to you 0.64Perpetrator(s) belittled you or your ideas 0.63Perpetrator(s) doubted your judgment on a matter over which you have responsibility 0.62Perpetrator(s) subjected you to negative comments about your intelligence or competence 0.52Perpetrator(s) yelled or shouted at you 0.47!

Perpetrator(s) ignored your contributions 0.46!

Perpetrator(s) prevented you from expressing yourself 0.40Perpetrator(s) took credit for your work or ideas 0.40!

Perpetrator(s) blamed you for other peoples’ mistakes 0.37Perpetrator(s) subjected you to derogatory name calling 0.71Perpetrator(s) swore at you in a hostile manner 0.61Perpetrator(s) ridiculed you 0.51!

Perpetrator(s) laughed in your face 0.48Perpetrator(s) put you down in front of others 0.43!

!Cross loading occurred.

resulted in exclusion. The exclusion subscale had acoefficient alpha reliability of 0.85. When looked at to-gether, all of the acts included in the exclusion scale hadthe same goal of exclusion, either by purposely failingto include or by belittling to the point of exclusion fromnormal work or social activities.

The third subscale, denigration, included five clearlydenigrating behaviors. The subscale included itemssuch as ridicule, derogatory name calling, laughed inyour face, and swore at you. The denigration subscalehad a coefficient alpha reliability of 0.76. When lookedat together, the behaviors definitely had the commongoal of denigration.

The three factors identified in the EFA did not maponto the various scales used to develop the WHI. Onepossible outcome could have been that the analysiswould create subscales that closely align with the origi-nal scales, this was not the case. Instead, the EFA iden-tified three scales that have not previously been identi-fied and are a significant new finding in the field. It wasfurther hypothesized that the three subscales would berelated. The correlations between the subscales ranged

from 0.59 to 0.75. The averaged items scores for threefactors will be used in following analyses.

To further explore hypothesis 1, regression analyseswere conducted where interference with work, exclu-sion, and denigration were the predictors and “Haveyou been subject to hostile behaviors at work?” (1 =Yes, 2 = No, and 3 = NA) was the criterion. Theoverall model significantly predicted the occurrence ofhostility in the workplace, R2 = 0.43, F (3, 387) =97.97, p = 0.00. An examination of the regression co-efficients indicates that two of the factors, interferencewith work and exclusion, significantly contributed tothe model, " = 0.21, t(387) = 3.61, p = 0.00 and " =0.45, t(387) = 6.94, p = 0.00 respectively. While den-igration did not contribute to the overall prediction, ithad a significant zero order correlation with workplacehostility.

Thus hypothesis 1 was not supported. The underly-ing factor structure consisted of more than one factor.However, examining the three subscales identified inthe EFA at the zero order level and in the regressionanalysis indicates that all three scales were positive-

100 M.P. Selden and R.G. Downey / Workplace hostility

ly related to workplace hostility with both interferencewith work and exclusion providing independent pre-diction of workplace hostility. The more upset peo-ple were with behaviors related to exclusion and, to asomewhat lesser extent, the more people were upset atbehaviors related to work interference, the more likelythey were to indicate they were victims of workplacehostility.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that workplace hostility islikely to occur from people in positions of power (i.e.,supervisors) and hypothesis 2a predicted that this powerdifferential between the targets and perpetrators wouldlead to high levels of distress. These hypotheses wereexamined using a goodness of fit chi-square and aMANOVA where interference with work, exclusion,and denigration were the dependent variables and theperpetrator’s position relative to the target’s positionwithin the organization was the independent variable.Only 16 participants (5%) reported that the perpetratorwas a subordinate, so the independent variable was re-coded to look at three groups, non-supervisory (N =123), supervisory (N = 133), and mixed perpetrators(N = 53). A significant chi-square indicated the differ-ence in perpetrators could not be attributed to chance,!2(2) = 36.89, p = 0.00. The results of the MANOVA(see Table 3) indicated that the perpetrator’s level with-in the organization significantly affected the combineddependent variable of the WHI subscales. All threesubscales were found to be significant in differentiat-ing between the levels of the perpetrators. A discrimi-nant function analysis (DFA) was performed to clarifythe results of the MANOVA and yielded one signifi-cant function (see Table 4) containing all three perpe-trator levels, with 10.39% of the function variabilityexplained. Standardized function coefficients and cor-relation coefficients (see Table 4) revealed that inter-ference was the scale most associated with the func-tion. The average amount of distress (interference andto some degree exclusion and denigration) experiencedby a person abused by a supervisor was greater thanthe average amount of distress experienced by a personabused by either a coworker or by a mixed group. BothHypothesis 2 and hypothesis 2a were fully support-ed. Previous research found that social underminingand aggression had a more pronounced negative effectwhen they occurred at the hands of a supervisor thanwhen it occurred at the hands of a coworker [12,13].The current study supported this finding.

To examine hypothesis 3 the effects of multipleperpetrators when compared to a lone perpetrator, aMANOVA was conducted where the number of perpe-

trators (one versus more than one) was the independentvariable and the WHI subscale scores were the depen-dent variable. The results of the MANOVA (see Ta-ble 3) indicated that the number of perpetrators signifi-cantly affected the combined dependent variable of theWHI subscales. A DFA was performed to clarify theresults of the MANOVA. This analysis generated onesignificant function (see Table 4) containing both per-petrator levels, with 14.29% of the variance explained.Standardized function coefficients and correlation co-efficients (see Table 4) revealed that interference wasthe scale most associated with the function. The av-erage amount of distress experienced by a person whowas abused at the hands of a group of people was morethan the average amount of distress experienced by aperson who was abused by only one person.

Hypothesis 3 was supported. The results of the anal-yses related to this hypothesis indicated that for all threesubscales the actions of a group of perpetrators weremore upsetting than the actions of a single perpetrator.This issue merits closer examination in future studies.Currently, there is not a lot of research pertaining to thedifference between experiencing negative workplacebehaviors at the hands of an individual as opposed to atthe hands of a group.

To test hypothesis 4, workplace hostility will pre-dict job satisfaction above and beyond control factors,hierarchical regression was used with job satisfactionas the criterion measure. This study defined job satis-faction as a combination of independent outcome mea-sures related to a participant’s intent to leave (i.e., “Iprobablywill be in this job for some time to come,” and“I expect to leave for another company within the nextyear”), and desire to continue employment (i.e., “If Ihave my own way, I will be working for my currentorganization 5 years from now”). The job satisfactionscale was coded so that higher scores indicated less jobsatisfaction than lower scores. The coefficient alpha ofthe job satisfaction measure was 0.84.

The regression included three steps and five predic-tor variables. In the first step, the three WHI subscaleswere entered. In the second step, two measures relat-ed to the participants’ feelings about their coworkersand supervisors were entered. The feelings about su-pervisors scale was a combination of items about howparticipants felt about their supervisors (i.e., “I havea helpful supervisor”) and how they perceived theirsupervisor to feel about them (i.e., “My supervisor isconcerned about me”). The coefficient alpha of thefeelings about supervisor scale was 0.85. The feelingsabout coworkers scale combined questions about how

M.P. Selden and R.G. Downey / Workplace hostility 101

Table 3Main study – MANOVA results

Predictor variable Wilks’ ! F DF p !2p

WH by type of perpetrator 0.88 6.19 (6, 608) 0.00 0.06WH by individual VS groups of perpetrator(s) 0.86 17.74 (3, 306) 0.00 0.14

Table 4Main study – Discriminant function analyses results

Predictor variable Correlation Standardized ! "2 DF pcoefficients with Sig. functiondiscriminant functions coefficients

WH by type of perpetrator 0.89 36.17 6 0.00Exclsuion 0.99 0.10Interference 0.63 1.00Denigration 0.47 "0.12

WH by individual VS groups of perpetrator(s) 0.94 17.61 6 0.10Exclsuion 0.49 "0.09Interference 0.99 1.08Denigration 0.31 "0.10

they felt about their coworkers (i.e., “My coworkersare competent” and “My coworkers are helpful”) andhow they perceived their coworkers to feel about them(i.e., “My workers are interested in me” and “I havehostile coworkers”) and had coefficient alpha reliabil-ity of 0.84. As with the job satisfaction scale, the su-pervisor and coworker scales were coded so that higherscores indicated less satisfaction with their supervisorand coworkers than lower scores.

The final step of the regression entered job clarity.Job clarity used items related to participants’ feelingabout their goals and objectives, what people expect ofthem, and their level of certainty about their authori-ty (i.e., “Are you unsure about what people expect ofyou?” and “Do clear, planned goals and objectives ex-ist for your job?”). The coefficient alpha for the jobclarity scale was 0.85.

The results of this regression indicated that in the firststep exclusion significantly predicted workplace hos-tility. However, in the second step this changed. Whenthe feelings about coworkers and supervisor were en-tered, the exclusion scale changed to non-significantand both feelings about supervisor and feelings aboutcoworkers were significant. In the final step job clar-ity significantly enhanced the model, the WHI sub-scales remained non-significant, and the feelings aboutcoworkers and supervisor remained significant (see Ta-ble 5).

This finding is important because it indicates thatfeelings about other people in the workplace have aneffect on an individual’s satisfaction. In fact, accordingto this model, feelings about others are the core factorsin predicting job satisfaction. What this model cannotmeasure and therefore merits closer examination is the

relationship between feelings about others and the ex-perience of workplace hostility. With this current data,it is not possible to assess if participants who are in-dicating that they have negative feelings about othershave those feelings due to being mistreated or if theyare mistreated due to the negative feelings they have. Itis possible that individuals who report having negativefeelings about others display those negative feelingsin the workplace eliciting poor treatment in response.While conversely, the negative feelings may be devel-oped as a result of perceived or real mistreatment at thehands of others. The issue of cause and effect betweenhostility and feelings about others is critical to a morecomplete understanding of the dynamics of workplaceaggression.

5. General discussion

The first two studies discussed, the norm pilot studyand instrument pilot study, provided the necessarygroundwork for the development of the WHI. Prior tothe norm pilot study, no other study had empiricallyverified that the behaviors being examined were con-sidered to be norm violations. This is an importantcomponent of the harmful workplace behavior field be-cause if the behaviors are generally socially accepted,or even worse expected, then it is difficult to argue thatthey are deviant behaviors, an implicit component ofalmost every measure of harmful workplace behaviors.

The instrument study verified that the WHI was com-prehensive and did not leave out major harmful behav-iors that people report experiencing. When given the

102 M.P. Selden and R.G. Downey / Workplace hostility

Table 5Main study – Hierarchical regression coefficients for denigration, exclusion, andinterference predicting job satistfaction

Step R2 "R2 # t p

1.00 0.07 0.08 0.000Interference – – 0.12 1.73 0.084Exclusion – – 0.24 3.11 0.002Denigration – – "0.08 "1.12 0.265

2.00 0.30 0.22 0.000Interference – – 0.03 0.41 0.680Exclusion – – 0.13 1.94 0.054Denigration – – "0.02 "0.37 0.714Feelings about supervisors – – 0.36 6.71 0.000Feelings about coworkers – – 0.22 4.19 0.000

3.00 0.32 0.02 0.003Interference – – 0.04 0.73 0.469Exclusion – – 0.11 1.66 0.099Denigration – – "0.02 "0.39 0.701Feelings about supervisors – – 0.31 5.37 0.000Feelings about coworkers – – 0.20 3.70 0.000Job Clarity – – 0.16 2.97 0.003

chance to provide behaviors other than those includedon WHI, participants either indicated that there wereno missing behaviors or provided behaviors that werephysical in nature, a subset of behaviors intentionallyexcluded from the WHI. Examined together, the normpilot study and the instrument pilot study provided sup-port for the development and use of the WHI.

The construct of workplace hostility was developedto fill an existing gap in the literature and to integrateoverlapping constructs previously treated as complete-ly distinct. This was examined in the main study. TheWHI contained three related subscales. The fact thatthere were three subscales (as opposed to only one)and they did not align with the scales from which theywere originally derived indicates that although work-place hostility is comprehensive it represents more thanmerely a combination of other constructs.

The relative importance of the exclusion subscalemerits closer examination. This subscale was found tobe the best predictor of workplace hostility such thatthe more upset people were with behaviors related toexclusion the more likely they were to indicate theywere victims of workplace hostility. Additionally, ex-clusion was, at least initially, a significant predictor ofjob satisfaction.

These findings support and extend many previousfindings in the field of workplace mistreatment. Forexample, it has been found that employees who experi-enced persistent workplace aggressionwere more both-ered by the general work environment, had lower levelsof job satisfaction and organizational satisfaction, andhigher intent to leave the organization when comparedto employees who had experienced no aggression or far

less frequent aggression [12]. However, this researchalso did not explore the cause and effect relationship be-tween the work environment and a variety of outcomevariables [12]. The direction of causality was assumed.The current study highlights the need to explore thisfurther as it is possible that the people are experienc-ing hostility due to the negative work environment theyhave created for themselves (and others) as opposed tothe other way around or, even that the two interact toproduce the outcome and mutually cause each other.

Another important subscale is interference. Inter-ference was found be especially upsetting when it wasexperienced by a person and done by a supervisor. Thisis especially important when considering previous re-search into power differentials between the target andthe perpetrator. It has been indicated that poor treat-ment by a supervisor can negatively affect many differ-ent personal and organizational variables [13,18]. Thisfinding was supported by this research, however, it wasalso found that there was a relationship between an in-dividual’s feeling about his supervisor and his level ofworkplace hostility. This is a significant extension onthe existing beliefs. It indicates that treatment by a su-pervisor may be even more important than was previ-ously believed. It also implies that feelings about man-agement may be at the root of many judgments madein regard to the workplace. Thus, the key to reducinghostility in the workplace may be in the determininghow to mitigate feelings about others in the workplace.

There are numerous practical implications to the cur-rent study. The first and most obvious is the potentialto use the scale and the subscales to further explore therole that managers/supervisors play in their employee’s

M.P. Selden and R.G. Downey / Workplace hostility 103

satisfaction with work. The link between feelings aboutsupervisors and job satisfaction still needs to be fullyexplored but the potential ramifications of the findingscan be applied to numerous workplace settings.

Second, the identification of exclusion as the con-struct that accounts for the most variance in predict-ing the occurrence of workplace hostility is an indica-tion that people are particularly upset by others takingactions that makes them feel ostracized and belittled.Knowing this allows managers/supervisors to take pre-ventative steps to ensure that people do not feel ex-cluded. This could presumably be accomplished manydifferent ways, but perhaps the easiest would be one-to-one attention from the manager to the subordinate,assuming the supervisor is not the one doing the ex-cluding.

Finally, the practical implications of having a glob-al scale that can be easily administered and measureswhether the work environment is hostile or not is in-valuable. The WHI removes the “gray” area in defininga hostile workplace and, if administered to an entirecompany, could be used to objectively assess whethera specific workplace is hostile or not.

As with every study, there were some limitationswith this study. These limitations do not invalidatethe results but are important to mention and address insubsequent studies. First, the data collection method isa potential limitation. However, Internet based sampledata collection procedures have compared favorably toconventional samples [24] and within the workplacesurvey administration method has be found to havelittle practical impact on the data [25]. With the abovein mind, it is still not known exactly what differencesexist between a person who would seek out a websiteabout workplace hostility as opposed to someone whopassively experiences it. Likewise, it is not known if thegender gap in the respondents is due to an actual genderdifference in the experience of workplace hostility or ifit can be attributed to some other factor. In subsequentstudies, the difference between the current sample andother samples collected in a workplace setting shouldbe compared.

Second, the results of this study are preliminary.The measurement instrument was developed and test-ed in the same sample. Subsequent studies should beconducted to ensure that the measurement instrumentstructure and reliability can be replicated.

Third, the current study took into account the percep-tions of the target about the perpetrator’s intent but didnot actually measure the perpetrator’s intent. There-fore, targets may have been the victims of unintention-

al hostility that was perceived as intentional hostility.Although it would be difficult, it would be beneficialto conduct a 360-degree assessment where the target’sperceptions of intent are measured and compared tothe perpetrator’s expressed intent and the intent per-ceived by others in the workplace. A 360-degree ap-proach would highlight discrepancies between what isperceived and what is intended. It is possible that theyare not the same thing.

Finally, the model needs further exploration. Morespecifically, the model needs to be fit to additional sam-ples to ensure reliability. Additionally, the cause and ef-fect relationship between workplace hostility and feel-ings about others needs to be measured in subsequentstudies. The relationship appears to be at the root of anindividual’s job satisfaction but could not be assessedwith the current sample.

6. Conclusions and implications

The results of the current study are important andrepresent a significant advancement in the field of neg-ative workplace behaviors. This is true for several rea-sons. First, the current study replicated many previousfindings, lending overall validity to the field. This isespecially noteworthy considering the non-traditionalmethod of data collection. The fact that many of thesame issues are present in a self-selected sample as arepresent in a “normal” workplace sample indicates that,at least for studies of negative workplace behaviors,looking at a self-selected sample yields important andrelevant results. Second, the current study discovered apreviously overlooked link between feelings about theworkplace and the experience of workplace hostility.Further research into this finding will indicate how im-portant this relationship actually is, but have the em-pirical evidence showing that the causality between thevariables needs to be examined is a large step in theright direction. Finally, the development of the WHIrepresents a collaboration of ideas from many respect-ed constructs that had previously been treated as sepa-rate constructs [5,12–16,18,19]. A previously narrowfocus on empirical research within the field has lead toa surplus of broadly defined concepts that cover numer-ous negative workplace behaviors. These concepts arenominally similar, tending to only differ slightly. TheWHI is an inclusive scale, representing concepts fromnumerous negative workplace behaviors thereby creat-ing a global term that includes many of the previousunique and narrowly defined terms. Previously there

104 M.P. Selden and R.G. Downey / Workplace hostility

was an overlap in ideas but not an overlap in terminol-ogy. Now, with the WHI, there is a comprehensive andglobal measure that encompasses the overlap in ideasin previous research.

References

[1] Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (2003). Bul-lying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: InternationalPerspectives in Research and Practice. London: Taylor andFrancis.

[2] Fox, S. and Spector, E. (2005). Counterproductive work be-havior: Investigations of actors and targets. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

[3] Keashly, L. and Neuman, J.H. (2004). Bullying in the work-place: Its impact and management. Employee Rights and Em-ployment Policy Journal, 8, 335-373.

[4] Keashly, L. and Jagatic, K. (2003). By any other name: Amer-ican perspectives on workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H.Hoel, D. Zapf and C. Cooper (Eds). Bullying and Emotion-al Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Re-search and Practice. London: Taylor Francis.

[5] Tepper, B.J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision.Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178-190. doi:10.2307/1556375.

[6] Zellars, K.L., Tepper, B.J. and Duffy, M.K. (2002). Abusivesupervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship be-havior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068-1076. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1068.

[7] Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1980). Dis-crimination because of sex under Title VII of the Civil RightsAct 1964, as amended; adoption of interim interpretativeguidelines. Federal Register, 45, 25024-25025.

[8] Schat, A.C.H. and Kelloway, E.K. (2005). Workplace Ag-gression. In J. Barling, E.K. Kelloway and M.R. Frone (Eds).Handbook of Work Stress (pp. 189-218). London: Sage Pub-lications.

[9] Namie, G. and Namie, R. (2004). Workplace bullying: Howto address America’s silent epidemic. Employee Rights andEmployment Policy Journal, 8, 335-373.

[10] Neuman, J.H. and Baron, R.A. (2005). Aggression in theworkplace: A social psychological perspective. In S. Fox andP.E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Inves-tigations of actors and targets (pp. 13-40). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

[11] Hershcovis, M.S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Inness, M., LeBlanc,M.M., Arnold, K.A., Dupre, K.E. and Sivanathan, N. (2007).Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 92, 228-238.

[12] Neuman, J.H. and Keashly, L. (2004, April 4). Developmentof the workplace aggression research questionnaire (WAR-Q): Preliminary data from the workplace stress and aggres-sion project. In R.J. Bennett and C.D. Crossley (Chairs), The-oretical advancements in the study of anti-social behavior atwork. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society forIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.

[13] Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C. and Pagon, M. (2002). Social un-dermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 45, 331-351. doi:10.2307/3069350.

[14] Robinson, S.L. and Bennett. R.J., (1995). A typology of de-viant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study.

Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572. doi:10.2307/256693.

[15] Bennett, R.J. and Robinson, S.L. (2000). Development of ameasure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 85, 349-360. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349.

[16] Cortina, L.M., Magley, V.J., Williams, J.H. and Langhout,R.D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and im-pact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64-80.doi:10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64.

[17] Pearson, C.M., Anderson, L.M. and Wegner, J.W. (2001).When workers flout convention: A study of workplace inci-vility. Human Relations, 54, 1387-1419. doi:10.1177/00187267015411001.

[18] Donovan, M.A., Drasgow, F. and Munson, L.J. (1998). Theperceptions of fair interpersonal treatment scale: Develop-ment and validation of measure of interpersonal treatment inthe workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 683-692.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.683.

[19] Ruehlman, L.S. and Karoly, P. (1991). With a little flak frommy friends: Development and validation of the test of negativesocial exchange (TENSE). A Journal of Consulting and Clin-ical Psychology, 3, 97-104. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.3.1.97.

[20] Namie, R. and Namie, G. (2003) The Bully at Work. Double-Doc Press.

[21] Namie, G. (2001). U.S. Hostile Workplace Survey 2000. Re-trieved from Workplace Bullying Institute Web site: http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/res/2000wbti.pdf.

[22] Namie, G. (2003). The Workplace Bullying and Trauma Insti-tute (WBTI) 2003 Report on Abusive Workplaces. Retrievedfrom Workplace Bullying Institute Web site: http://www. bul-lyinginstitute.org/res/2003results.pdf.

[23] Namie, G. (1998). WBI 1998 Survey Results. Retrieved fromWorkplace Bullying Institute Web site: http://www. bullyin-ginstitute.org/res/niosh99.html.

[24] Buchanan, T. and Smith, J.L. (1999). Using the Internetfor psychological research: Personality testing on the WorldWide Web. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 125-144. doi:10.1348/000712699161189.

[25] Church, A.H. (2001). Is there a method to our madness?The impact of data collection methodology on organization-al survey results. Personnel Psychology, 54, 937-969. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00238.x.

[26] Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariatestatistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

[27] Stevens, J. (2001). Applied multivariate statistics for the so-cial sciences (4th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As-sociates.

[28] Neuman J.H. and Baron R.A. (1997). Aggression in the work-place. In R.A. Giacalone and J. Greenberg (Eds), Antisocialbehavior in organizations (pp. 37-67). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc.

[29] Berry, C.M., Ones, D.S. and Sackett P.R. (2007). Interper-sonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their commoncorrelates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of AppliedPsychology. 92, 410-424. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410.

[30] PriceSpratlen, L. (1995). Interpersonal conflictwhich includesmistreatment in a university workplace. Violence and Victims,10, 285-297.

[31] Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror atworkplaces. Violence and Victims, 5, 119-126.

[32] Glomb, T.M, Steel, P.D.G. and Arvey, R.D. (2003). Officesneers, snipes, and stab wounds: Antecedents, consequences,and implications of workplace violence and aggression. In R.

M.P. Selden and R.G. Downey / Workplace hostility 105

Lord, R. Klimoski and R. Kanfer (Eds). Emotions and Work.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[33] Barling, J. (1996). The prediction, psychological experienceand consequences of workplace violence. In G. VandenBosand E.G. Bulatao (Ed.) Violence on the Job: Identifying Risksand Developing Solutions (pp. 29-49) Washington, DC: Amer-ican Psychological Association.

[34] O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Duffy, M.K. and Griffin, R.W. (2000).Construct confusion in the study of antisocial work behavior.Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 18,275-303.

[35] Ferris, D.L., Brown, D.J., Berry, J. and Lian, H. (2008).The development and validation of the workplace ostracismscale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1348-1366. doi:10.1037/a0012743.

[36] Dalal, S.R. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship be-tween organizational citizenship behavior and counterproduc-tive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241-1255. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241.