Report / Paper metadata
Not all workplace bullying perpetrators are alike: health, personality, and occupational profiles of perpetrator-only and target-perpetrator employees
A workplace survey found different profiles among employees reporting only bullying behaviour and those reporting both bullying and being targeted. The snapshot cannot show that distress causes bullying or identify an individual employee as a perpetrator.
How were groups defined?
The analysis used first-wave survey data from 2,359 employees. Behavioural reports placed 51 in a perpetrator-only group, 149 in a target-perpetrator group, 576 in a target-only group and 1,583 in a group reporting neither role. These are study classifications based on reported negative acts, not independently adjudicated workplace findings.
What association was reported?
Psychological distress was associated with membership in the dual-role group rather than the perpetrator-only group in the main adjusted analysis. A personality association involving neuroticism did not remain significant in an adjusted bootstrap check. The paper does not establish a single personality profile that identifies people who bully.
Which checks change the interpretation?
Using a stricter weekly-frequency definition made the two perpetration-related groups much smaller. The distress association remained positive but was no longer statistically significant, and the personality pattern was not reproduced. The full paper also notes missing-data concerns and low reliability for some brief personality measures.
Where do the limits lie?
The study used a convenience sample, mainly from Türkiye and Spain, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Self-report and a small perpetrator-only group limit precision and generalisability. Cross-sectional data cannot establish the direction of causation or predict a person's behaviour. These findings are research context, not a basis for diagnosing, labelling or disciplining an employee.
- Kind
- Paper metadata
- Identifier
- PMC13642183