View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Bullied, Bystanders, and Perpetrators in the Workplace: The Role of Empathy in Teachers and School Leaders' Experiences

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Bullied, Bystanders, and Perpetrators in the Workplace: The Role of Empathy in Teachers and School Leaders' Experiences
Language: English
Authors: Mazzone, Angela (ORCID 0000-0002-5858-8033), Pitsia, Vasiliki (ORCID 0000-0002-8172-0397), Karakolidis, Anastasios (ORCID 0000-0002-7460-7759), O'Higgins Norman, James (ORCID 0000-0003-0997-6942)
Source: Psychology in the Schools. Mar 2022 59(3):515-534.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education
Descriptors: Empathy, Administrator Attitudes, Work Environment, Bullying, Elementary Secondary Education, School Administration, Foreign Countries, Victims, Perspective Taking, Correlation, Intervention, Behavior Patterns, Teacher Attitudes, Faculty Development
Geographic Terms: Ireland
DOI: 10.1002/pits.22628
ISSN: 0033-3085
Abstract: This study investigated the experiences of workplace bullying among primary and postprimary school staff in Ireland. A sample of 630 teachers and members of the Senior Management Team (SMT) completed an online survey inquiring about their own experiences of bullying in the workplace, as targets, bystanders, and perpetrators. Information about respondents' perspective taking, empathic concern, personal distress, and demographic background was also collected. Results of the ordinal regression analysis showed a negative association of perspective taking with victimisation and bystander behaviour. In addition, respondents belonging to an SMT reported experiencing victimisation more frequently than teachers, while victimisation experiences and witnessing bullying were more common in postprimary than primary schools. Findings are discussed in terms of the importance of providing awareness and training programmes to school staff.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1325757
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGGyGma0hhT3orv59wcNw5CAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFqmACIOoR6UNZgRDAIBEICBm6kyVjVF4_dWQP1Xzg4tdVPcajAbfKXxR9EB_wnQFNHxWKotwQMVnWqd6Qqcma_Y_hhfbX9RVo7Qty0YnS_MM68s7NlArIuXc4j0b4stMD-gCKLvYM3zpQA0LFvZS8IPVU60K3faiL8mIYHuB9Aeg_at6NhEazu9x08z3cPujQwy1DhREXAGPHDBOvjjHSWkA0nSqTPLP3YtsD-n
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0155059541;pis01mar.22;2022Feb07.04:58;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0155059541-1">Bullied, bystanders, and perpetrators in the workplace: The role of empathy in teachers and school leaders' experiences </title> <p>This study investigated the experiences of workplace bullying among primary and postprimary school staff in Ireland. A sample of 630 teachers and members of the Senior Management Team (SMT) completed an online survey inquiring about their own experiences of bullying in the workplace, as targets, bystanders, and perpetrators. Information about respondents' perspective taking, empathic concern, personal distress, and demographic background was also collected. Results of the ordinal regression analysis showed a negative association of perspective taking with victimisation and bystander behaviour. In addition, respondents belonging to an SMT reported experiencing victimisation more frequently than teachers, while victimisation experiences and witnessing bullying were more common in postprimary than primary schools. Findings are discussed in terms of the importance of providing awareness and training programmes to school staff.</p> <p>Keywords: bullying perpetration; bystander behaviour; empathy; latent class analysis; victimisation; workplace bullying</p> <p>Workplace bullying is a systematic and repeated exposure to negative treatment at work, primarily of a psychological nature (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2010). A key feature of workplace bullying is the power imbalance between perpetrators and targets, in that the employees who are targeted by bullying find it difficult to defend themselves against the abusive behaviours (Baillien et al., 2017). Power imbalance involves both formal and informal power (i.e., the former is associated with the hierarchy within an organisation; the latter is based on interpersonal relationships, competence, and experience; Branch et al., 2013). For instance, team members may group together or use their knowledge, experience, and social relationships with powerful others at the expense of a targeted employee (Baillien et al., 2009). Bullying in the workplace produces the effect of intimidating and humiliating the target, and it has negative individual and organisational outcomes in terms of employee wellbeing (Boudrias et al., 2021), as well as productivity and financial loss (Nielsen et al., 2020).</p> <p>International data show that up to 29% of employees in financial sectors characterised by high levels of intensity and stress, including the education sector, experience bullying victimisation at work (Eurofound, 2017). Findings from a national study carried out in Ireland, where the present study was conducted, showed that education was the sector reporting the highest rates of workplace bullying victimisation (13.8%) as compared to all other business sectors (O'Connell et al., 2007). Despite these data, our knowledge of school staff members' experiences of bullying at work is limited (Ariza‐Montes et al., 2016).</p> <p>Investigating workplace bullying among school staff is important primarily for two reasons. First, the victimisation experiences endured by the school staff have a negative impact on their mental health, stress levels, and turnover intentions (Kakoulakis et al., 2015). Second, the negative relationships among the school staff may reflect negatively on the relationships between teachers and students as well as the relationships among students. This, in turn, could have a negative effect on teaching, acting as a barrier to student learning (De Vos & Kirsten, 2015). Based on these considerations, it is paramount to investigate workplace bullying within the education sector in an effort to develop and implement adequate prevention and intervention strategies.</p> <hd id="AN0155059541-2">BULLYING VICTIMISATION AND BULLYING PERPETRATION: ASSOCIATIONS WITH SCHOOL STAFF PROFESSIONAL...</hd> <p>Bullying perpetration is expression of an abuse of power, which is facilitated by formal and informal social structures within organisations (Mannix McNamara, 2021). Downward bullying perpetration, whereby principals or others who have a leading role, such as members of the senior management team (SMT, including deputy principals, teaching principals, assistant principals/year heads), bully their subordinates is frequent within school contexts (Mannix McNamara et al., 2018). Examples of downward bullying acts include principals denying resources and opportunities for professional development, taking credit for teachers' achievements, withdrawing support for teachers' programmes and initiatives (Blase & Blase, 2006; de Wet, 2010; Sam, 2021). The bullying of teachers has been described as an escalating process, involving discreet and subtle behaviours in the initial stages (e.g., micro‐managing) and openly aggressive behaviours in the subsequent stages (e.g., verbal threats and abuse; de Wet, 2010).</p> <p>Although downward bullying perpetration is more frequent within school contexts, upward bullying perpetration, whereby principals, deputy principals or other members of the SMT are bullied has also been reported in previous research studies (Fahie & Devine, 2014). The existing literature indicated that such forms of bullying perpetration lead the bullied staff members to choose resignation as their last possible resort (Mannix McNamara et al., 2018). Besides downward and upward bullying perpetration, cases of bullying among co‐workers have also been reported across existing research (Mannix McNamara et al., 2018).</p> <hd id="AN0155059541-3">BYSTANDER BEHAVIOUR</hd> <p>According to international study findings, up to 30% of employees across different organisational sectors have witnessed bullying in the workplace (Ólafsson & Jóhannsdóttir, 2004). These employees are referred to as bystanders. Bystanders' actions are thought to affect the dynamics and the potential (de)‐escalation of bullying situations (Pouwelse et al., 2018). Although some bystanders may be aware of bullying, they remain passive and unsupportive (Paull et al., 2012), while others switch their position according to situational factors (e.g., supporting the target vs. joining the bullying; Pouwelse et al., 2018). Simultaneously, witnessing bullying has been shown to be a distressing experience. For instance, teachers showing high levels of psychological distress (i.e., feelings of strain; anxiety; inability to cope; lack of self‐confidence) are more likely to have witnessed bullying as compared to teachers who do not show any signs of psychological distress (Bernotaite & Malinauskiene, 2017).</p> <p>Bystanders' reaction to bullying also depends upon the interpretation of the bullying situations. For instance, bystanders may not be aware that certain behaviours constitute bullying or they may not feel morally responsible for helping the target (Paull et al., 2012). According to existing research, teachers who witness the bullying of their co‐workers are unwilling to become involved in the target's plight, which in turn has a negative impact on the bullied staff members (de Wet, 2010). Indeed, targets of bullying may express frustration for not being supported by their co‐workers who witnessed the bullying and who were aware of the negative workplace dynamics (Fahie, 2019). In some other instances, bystanders may be willing to help (e.g., by raising an anonymous complaint to the Teacher Union), though targets themselves could be reluctant to report the bullying for fear of losing their job (Mannix McNamara et al., 2018).</p> <hd id="AN0155059541-4">WORKPLACE BULLYING AND EMPATHY</hd> <p>Empathy is the ability to understand another person's experience, perspective, mental states, and feelings (Davis, 1983). Empathy involves multiple processes, i.e., cognitive and affective, that could occur simultaneously or in isolation (Cuff et al., 2016). The affective component involves the feelings of concern for another person's emotional state or condition (i.e., empathic concern), whereas the cognitive component involves the ability to understand the other person's point of view and take their own perspective (i.e., perspective taking; Cuff et al., 2016).</p> <p>Although empathy could generate negative emotions on behalf of another person, it is sufficiently modulated not to cause discomfort. However, in some instances, individuals might be distressed by witnessing other people's suffering (Pfeifer & Dapretto, 2009). Personal distress expresses a tendency to experience anxiety and a lack of control in front of other people's discomfort, which could make it harder to provide help to others in emergency situations (Pfeifer & Dapretto, 2009).</p> <p>Empathy is critical in relation to being able to work congenially with others and create a cooperative work environment (Clark et al., 2019). Employees who feel that others understand their point of view and feelings, report higher levels of positive affect and relationship quality with their co‐workers (Daniels et al., 2014). Perspective taking facilitates constructive problem‐solving in the context of conflict resolution (Rizkalla et al., 2008), whereas employees who lack the ability to understand other people's perspective are less likely to productively resolve conflicts (Zapf & Einarsen, 2011).</p> <p>Research has shown that both teachers and principals acknowledge the importance of empathy in their own work (Singh & Dali, 2014; Warren, 2015), though it is unclear whether they actually tend to be empathic towards their co‐workers and superiors. Principals who perpetrate bullying are unwilling to take any criticism and tend to be authoritarian (de Wet, 2010), which may suggest that they lack empathy (de Wet, 2011). However, contrasting research showed that, in the context of frustrating situations, principals tend to manifest empathy (e.g., listening; caring; compassion) towards teachers and parents (Oplatka, 2017).</p> <p>The potential link between empathy, victimisation, and bystander behaviour among school staff has not been explored in previous literature. Some scholars have theorised that targets of bullying present low social competence skills and low empathy, which could be associated with their interpersonal problems (Zapf & Einarsen, 2011). However, these assumptions express a tendency to blame the target of bullying, while not being corroborated by existing literature. In terms of bystander behaviour, employees who manifest feelings of empathy and sympathy for the target are more likely to comfort the targeted employee in private (Paull et al., 2012). On the contrary, a lack of empathy has been related to the unawareness that certain behaviours are harmful and, as such, constitute bullying (Coyne et al., 2019). Although previous research theorised that employees with higher levels of both perspective taking and empathic concern are willing to stand by their targeted co‐workers (Miner et al., 2018), the empirical evidence for these assumptions is lacking, and more research is needed to clarify the associations between empathy and bystander behaviour.</p> <hd id="AN0155059541-5">INDIVIDUAL AND SCHOOL FACTORS</hd> <p>Some research studies have pointed to gender as one of the factors that may be related to bullying in the workplace, with female employees being more likely to be the target of bullying than male employees, who more often, act as perpetrators (Salin & Hoel, 2013). In terms of the education sector, a distinction should be made between school personnel's perception of their risk of being bullied (in relation to their gender) and their actual experiences of bullying. In terms of perception of risk, female teachers believe that their gender exposes them at risk of being victimised (De Vos & Kirsten, 2015). This has been confirmed in quantitative investigations showing that a consistent proportion of teachers who are bullied believe that they are devalued of their rights and opinions in reference to their gender (de Wet & Jacobs, 2013). Interestingly, teachers belonging to vulnerable categories (e.g., young, female) may not promptly realise that they are subjected to bullying (Ariza‐Montes et al., 2016), which could be ascribed to a scarce awareness of the behaviours that constitute bullying and/or to a tendency to normalise negative acts at work (Hutchinson & Jackson, 2015). In terms of actual experiences of bullying victimisation, no gender differences were reported in a number of quantitative studies, which could be linked to the oversampling of female teachers (Cemaloglu, 2007; Lange et al., 2019; Ortega et al., 2009; Powell et al., 2015). In contrast, some other research findings showed that male teachers are more likely to be bullied than their female counterparts (O'Moore et al., 2003; Yadav et al., 2020), which is coherent with research claiming that employees who represent the minority sex in every profession are at an increased risk of being bullied (Favaro et al., 2021).</p> <p>In relation to age, both younger and older employees report higher levels of bullying victimisation than middle‐aged employees (Eurofound, 2017). In terms of perception of risk, teachers were found to believe that their age (being older) exposed them at a greater risk of being bullied (Orange, 2018). However, when looking at the actual experiences of bullying, on the one hand, qualitative studies found that teachers believed that they were bullied because of being either young (Matsela & Kirsten, 2014) or old (Orange, 2018). On the other hand, quantitative investigations either indicated no age differences (Cemaloglu, 2007; Kakoulakis et al., 2015), or suggested that younger teachers endure higher levels of bullying victimisation compared to older teachers (Djurkovic et al., 2008; Yadav et al., 2020).</p> <p>Bullying perpetration has been less studied compared to victimisation. Research conducted in various organisational sectors shows that both male and female employees are likely to be involved in bullying as perpetrators (Namie et al., 2014). The limited evidence available within the education sector indicates that perpetrators of bullying within school settings are likely to be males (De Vos & Kirsten, 2015), which resonates with previous research conducted in different organisational sectors (Hauge et al., 2009), while contradicting the abovementioned assumption that the minority sex within a specific profession is more likely to be bullied (Favaro et al., 2021). However, when looking at qualitative study findings, it appears that both male and female school personnel perpetrate bullying acts, though these findings are not generalisable and do not suggest the existence of any significant differences in terms of the perpetrators' gender (de Wet, 2010).</p> <p>The extant research literature has not examined the perpetrator's profile in terms of age within the education sector. However, when looking at other organisational settings, again, the available research shows mixed results, with some studies reporting that workplace bullying perpetration decreases with age (De Cuyper et al., 2009; Inness et al., 2005), whereas no age differences were found in other research studies (Hauge et al., 2009). Taken together, the existing research literature on gender and age differences in relation to bullying victimisation and perpetration is scarce and contradictory, which calls for more research to shed light on these issues.</p> <p>Finally, little is known in terms of school level (i.e., primary vs. postprimary school) and its association with various bullying behaviours. Available data show that both primary and postprimary teachers and principals are equally affected by bullying (Mannix McNamara et al., 2018); however, due to the paucity of research, this association needs to be further explored.</p> <hd id="AN0155059541-6">PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT STUDY</hd> <p>The present study investigated the prevalence of bullying perpetration, victimisation, and bystander behaviour as reported by a sample of teachers and members of the SMT in Irish primary and postprimary schools. The study aimed to address the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> RQ1: Which negative acts involving bullying are reported more frequently by targets, perpetrators, and bystanders?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ2: To what extent are gender, primary role at the school (i.e., teacher vs. SMT), age, teacher education level, and school level (i.e., primary vs. postprimary) associated with the reported experiences of bullying perpetration, bullying victimisation, and bystander behaviour?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ3: Are the distinct empathy components (i.e., empathic concern, perspective taking, personal distress) differently associated with the reported experiences of bullying perpetration, bullying victimisation, and bystander behaviour?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0155059541-7">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155059541-8">Sample</hd> <p>Data were collected through an anonymous online survey concerning work‐related experiences among school staff. A total of 722 respondents engaged with the online survey. However, respondents who did not belong to the population of interest (e.g., administrative staff members and teachers working in countries other than Ireland) were excluded from the sample. Thus, the final sample consisted of 630 teachers and members of SMTs in primary and postprimary schools across Ireland. Teachers were recruited through the newsletter and social media channels of the authors' institution (DCU Anti‐Bullying Centre). Primary and postprimary teachers' trade unions were asked to advertise the survey through their social media channels, while principals of 3872 primary and postprimary schools nationwide were also contacted by email and were asked to advertise the survey.</p> <hd id="AN0155059541-9">Ethics</hd> <p>The study was approved by Dublin City University Ethical Committee. The research goals of the study were explained at the beginning of the anonymous survey; participants were asked to complete a consent form if they were willing to take part in the study. Respondents were informed that their participation in the study was voluntary, that all information provided would be treated confidentially, and that they could withdraw from the study at any time.</p> <p>Table 1 presents information about the respondents' background. The majority of the respondents (69%) had primarily a teaching role in their schools, whereas the remaining (31%) belonged to SMTs.</p> <p>1 TableRespondent characteristics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="left"><italic>n</italic> (%)</th><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="left"><italic>n</italic> (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Gender</td><td /><td align="left">Primary role at school</td><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Female</td><td align="char" char="(">487 (77.3)</td><td align="left">SMT (principals, deputy/assistant/teaching principals, year heads)</td><td align="char" char="(">196 (31.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Male</td><td align="char" char="(">143 (22.7)</td><td align="left">Other (teaching)</td><td align="char" char="(">434 (68.9)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">School level</td><td /><td align="left">Years of experience</td><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Primary</td><td align="char" char="(">326 (57.0)</td><td align="left">Less than 1 year</td><td align="char" char="(">73 (11.5)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Postprimary</td><td align="char" char="(">246 (43.0)</td><td align="left">1–5 years</td><td align="char" char="(">184 (29.2)</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td align="left">6–10 years</td><td align="char" char="(">110 (17.5)</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td align="left">11–15 years</td><td align="char" char="(">110 (1)</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td align="left">16 years or more</td><td align="char" char="(">153 (24.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td /><td align="left">Ethnicity</td><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">18–23</td><td align="char" char="(">14 (2.2)</td><td align="left">White Irish</td><td align="char" char="(">606 (96.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">24–29</td><td align="char" char="(">86 (13.6)</td><td align="left">Any other White background</td><td align="char" char="(">13 (2.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">30–35</td><td align="char" char="(">90 (14.3)</td><td align="left">Irish traveller</td><td align="char" char="(">1 (0.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">36–41</td><td align="char" char="(">131 (20.8)</td><td align="left">African</td><td align="char" char="(">1 (0.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">42–47</td><td align="char" char="(">102 (16.2)</td><td align="left">Asian Irish</td><td align="char" char="(">1 (0.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">48–53</td><td align="char" char="(">117 (18.6)</td><td align="left">Any other Asian background</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0.0)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">54–59</td><td align="char" char="(">75 (11.9)</td><td align="left">Black Irish</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0.0)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">60–65</td><td align="char" char="(">15 (2.4)</td><td align="left">Any other Black background</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0.0)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">65–70</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0.0)</td><td align="left">Other including mixed background</td><td align="char" char="(">2 (0.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">70+</td><td align="char" char="(">0 (0.0)</td><td align="left">I prefer not to answer</td><td align="char" char="(">6 (1.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Highest education level</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Undergraduate degree</td><td align="char" char="(">160 (25.5)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Postgraduate degree (diploma, Master's, or doctorate)</td><td align="char" char="(">467 (74.5)</td><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0155059541-10">Instruments</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155059541-11">Demographic information</hd> <p>Respondents were asked to indicate some demographic information (i.e., gender, age, ethnicity, years of experience) as well as the school where they worked (i.e., primary vs. postprimary) (see Table 1).</p> <hd id="AN0155059541-12">Victimisation experiences</hd> <p>The Short Negative Acts Questionnaire‐Revised (SNAQ; Notelaers et al., 2019) was administered to collect information about respondents' experiences of victimisation in the workplace. The SNAQ includes nine items measuring the exposure to three distinct forms of negative acts in the workplace in the last 6 months, i.e., person‐oriented (e.g., "Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your person, attitudes or your private life"), work‐related (e.g., "Someone withholding information which affects your performance"), and social exclusion (e.g., "Being ignored or excluded"). Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency with which they were exposed to the nine negative acts on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from <emph>never</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) to <emph>daily</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref2">5</reflink>).</p> <hd id="AN0155059541-13">Bullying perpetration</hd> <p>Three items adjusted from the SNAQ (Notelaers et al., 2019) were administered to assess a range of workplace bullying behaviours, which were inappropriate, repeated, and had a negative impact on the target in the past 6 months (e.g., "How often have you humiliated or ridiculed someone in connection with their work?"). Response options ranged from <emph>never</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>) to <emph>daily</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref4">5</reflink>). Before answering the above, respondents were prompted to read the following definition of bullying taken from the Irish Health and Safety Authority (HSA) that has been adopted in previous studies conducted with samples of teachers in Ireland (see Fahie & Devine, 2014): <emph>Workplace bullying is repeated inappropriate behaviour, direct or indirect, whether verbal, physical or otherwise, conducted by one or more persons against another or others, at the place of work and/or in the course of employment, which could reasonably be regarded as undermining the individual's right to dignity at work. An isolated incident of the behaviour described in this definition may be an affront to dignity at work but as a once off incident is not considered to be bullying. A key characteristic of bullying is that it usually takes place over a period of time. It is regular and persistent inappropriate behaviour, which is specifically targeted at one employee or a group of employees. It may be perpetrated by someone in a position of authority, by employees against a manager or by employees in the same grade as the recipient</emph> (HSA, 2007).</p> <hd id="AN0155059541-14">Bystander behavior</hd> <p>Four items adjusted from the SNAQ (Notelaers et al., 2019) were administered to assess how often respondents witnessed bullying in the workplace in the past 6 months (e.g., "How often have you witnessed someone at work being threatened, insulted or offended?"). Response options ranged from <emph>never</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>) to <emph>daily</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref6">5</reflink>). Before responding, participants were prompted to read the above bullying definition.</p> <hd id="AN0155059541-15">Empathy</hd> <p>Three subscales of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983) were used to measure empathic concern, perspective taking, and personal distress. Each of the three subscales includes seven items; participants were asked to indicate how well these items described them on a 5‐point Likert scale, ranging from <emph>does not describe me well</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>) to <emph>describes me very well</emph> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref8">5</reflink>). Sample items are as follows: "I am often quite touched by things that I see happen" (i.e., empathic concern), "I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a decision" (i.e., perspective taking), and "When I see someone getting hurt, I tend to remain calm" (i.e., personal distress). Participants who filled out the entire survey were able to visualise their own empathy score on screen. The score was calculated automatically by the system, based on participants' responses. Some information about empathy along with an empathy booklet were also available for them to download. Principal axis factoring was conducted to create the three empathy indices. The scores for each subscale were computed for each respondent, by averaging their responses across the items corresponding to each index. Cronbach's alphas (<emph>α</emph>) for the three indices, along with number of items, means (<emph>M</emph>), and <emph>SDs</emph> are reported in Table 2.</p> <p>2 TableNumber of items, means, SDs, and Cronbach's alphas for empathy indices</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left">Index</th><th align="left">Number of items</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>α</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Empathic concern</td><td align="left">4</td><td align="left">4.00</td><td align="left">0.70</td><td align="left">0.68</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perspective taking</td><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">3.71</td><td align="left">0.75</td><td align="left">0.78</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Personal distress</td><td align="left">6</td><td align="left">2.12</td><td align="left">0.72</td><td align="left">0.78</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0155059541-16">Data analysis</hd> <p>Latent class analysis (LCA) was conducted for the construction of the groups for each of the outcome variables used in this study (i.e., bullying victimisation, bullying perpetration, bystander behaviour). Previous research has recommended the use of LCA in the treatment of bullying‐related variables. This is because LCA can handle measures of bullying, such as the ones used in this study, that often produce highly skewed results with response options usually being at an ordinal rather than an interval level (Eid et al., 2003). LCA classifies respondents into mutually exclusive classes (i.e., groups) with respect to a latent construct, starting with the assumption that there is only one class, subsequently estimating more classes of respondents until an LCA model statistically fits the data (Magidson & Vermunt, 2001, 2004).</p> <p>In this study, LCA was used for three constructs: Bullying victimisation, bullying perpetration, and bystander behaviour. In LCA, several criteria are used to determine the number of classes that best fit the data. The ones that were used in this study were the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and the Vuong‐Lo‐Mendell‐Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test (VLMR‐LRT; Nylund et al., 2007; Nylund‐Gibson & Choi, 2018). In each case, the model with the lowest BIC and the one with a statistically significant VLMR‐LRT <emph>p</emph> value was selected. The 3‐class solution was the best fit for the bullying victimisation and bystander behaviour variables and the 2‐class solution was the best fit for the bullying perpetration variable. Table 3 presents the percentages of respondents falling into each class for each construct and Table 4 presents the mean conditional probabilities for each response option as a function of the latent classes (for a more detailed breakdown of the proportions of responses falling under each category of the original questions for bullying victimisation, bullying perpetration, and bystander behaviour, see Table 5). The naming of the classes was based on the conditional probabilities found in the analysis and was also informed by Galanaki and Papalexandris (2013) naming recommendations. For instance, the respondents in the 'no bullying victimisation' class had 84.4% probability of answering <emph>never</emph> to any of the NAQ questions, which explains the name given to the class, while respondents in the 'frequent bullying victimisation' class had a much lower probability (18.4%) of answering <emph>never</emph> but a relatively high probability (13.8%) of answering <emph>daily</emph> to any of the NAQ questions.</p> <p>3 TableNumbers and percentages of respondents in each bullying victimisation, bullying perpetration, and bystander behaviour class</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left">Class</th><th align="left"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="left">%</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Bullying victimisation</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">No bullying victimisation</td><td align="char" char=".">328</td><td align="char" char=".">52.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Occasional bullying victimisation</td><td align="char" char=".">232</td><td align="char" char=".">36.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Frequent bullying victimisation</td><td align="char" char=".">70</td><td align="char" char=".">11.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bullying perpetration</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">No bullying perpetration</td><td align="char" char=".">578</td><td align="char" char=".">97.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Occasional bullying perpetration</td><td align="char" char=".">17</td><td align="char" char=".">2.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bystander behaviour</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">No bystander behaviour</td><td align="char" char=".">191</td><td align="char" char=".">31.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Occasional bystander behaviour</td><td align="char" char=".">282</td><td align="char" char=".">46.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Frequent bystander behaviour</td><td align="left">137</td><td align="left">22.4</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 TableMean conditional probabilities for each response category in bullying victimisation, bullying perpetration, and bystander behaviour as a function of latent class</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Class</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left">Bullying victimisation</th><th align="left">No bullying victimisation</th><th align="left">Occasional bullying victimisation</th><th align="left">Frequent bullying victimisation</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Never</td><td align="char" char=".">84.4</td><td align="char" char=".">43.5</td><td align="left">18.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Now and then</td><td align="char" char=".">14.6</td><td align="char" char=".">46.1</td><td align="left">27.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Monthly</td><td align="char" char=".">0.4</td><td align="char" char=".">6.0</td><td align="left">15.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Weekly</td><td align="char" char=".">0.2</td><td align="char" char=".">3.9</td><td align="left">24.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Daily</td><td align="char" char=".">0.4</td><td align="char" char=".">0.5</td><td align="left">13.8</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 TableMean conditional probabilities for each response category in bullying victimisation, bullying perpetration, and bystander behaviour as a function of latent class</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Bullying perpetration</th><th align="char" char=".">No bullying perpetration</th><th align="char" char=".">Occasional bullying perpetration</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Never</td><td align="char" char=".">90.3</td><td align="char" char=".">23.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Now and then</td><td align="char" char=".">9.5</td><td align="char" char=".">47.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Monthly</td><td align="char" char=".">0.1</td><td align="char" char=".">16.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Weekly</td><td align="char" char=".">0.0</td><td align="char" char=".">4.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Daily</td><td align="char" char=".">0.0</td><td align="char" char=".">8.3</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 TableMean conditional probabilities for each response category in bullying victimisation, bullying perpetration, and bystander behaviour as a function of latent class</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Bystander behaviour</th><th align="char" char=".">No bystander behaviour</th><th align="char" char=".">Occasional bystander behaviour</th><th align="left">Frequent bystander behaviour</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Never</td><td align="char" char=".">81.3</td><td align="char" char=".">29.4</td><td align="char" char=".">9.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Now and then</td><td align="char" char=".">17.8</td><td align="char" char=".">62.7</td><td align="char" char=".">23.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Monthly</td><td align="char" char=".">0.2</td><td align="char" char=".">5.3</td><td align="char" char=".">19.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Weekly</td><td align="char" char=".">0.4</td><td align="char" char=".">1.3</td><td align="char" char=".">30.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Daily</td><td align="char" char=".">0.3</td><td align="char" char=".">1.4</td><td align="char" char=".">17.0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 TableFrequency of bullying victimisation, bystander, and bullying perpetration behaviours</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Never (%)</th><th align="left">Now and then (%)</th><th align="left">Monthly (%)</th><th align="left">Weekly (%)</th><th align="left">Daily (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">How often did the following things happen to you in the last six months?</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Being ignored or excluded</td><td align="left">45.4</td><td align="char" char=".">36.5</td><td align="left">4.9</td><td align="char" char=".">7.3</td><td align="left">5.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when you approach</td><td align="left">51.6</td><td align="char" char=".">33.2</td><td align="left">5.2</td><td align="char" char=".">5.9</td><td align="left">4.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Someone withholding information which affects your performance</td><td align="left">40.0</td><td align="char" char=".">39.8</td><td align="left">8.3</td><td align="char" char=".">10.0</td><td align="left">1.9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Persistent criticism of your work and effort</td><td align="left">70.5</td><td align="char" char=".">21.6</td><td align="left">3.3</td><td align="char" char=".">2.9</td><td align="left">1.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Spreading gossip and rumours about you</td><td align="left">54.0</td><td align="char" char=".">35.4</td><td align="left">3.7</td><td align="char" char=".">5.7</td><td align="left">1.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous rage</td><td align="left">65.6</td><td align="char" char=".">27.0</td><td align="left">4.3</td><td align="char" char=".">2.2</td><td align="left">1.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes</td><td align="left">62.2</td><td align="char" char=".">30.2</td><td align="left">4.3</td><td align="char" char=".">2.5</td><td align="left">0.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your person, attitudes or your private life</td><td align="left">68.1</td><td align="char" char=".">25.2</td><td align="left">3.5</td><td align="char" char=".">2.7</td><td align="left">0.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Practical jokes carried out by people you don′t get along with</td><td align="left">93.2</td><td align="char" char=".">5.9</td><td align="left">0.8</td><td align="char" char=".">0.2</td><td align="left">0.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">During the last six months, how often have you...</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">excluded or ignored someone at work?</td><td align="left">78.7</td><td align="char" char=".">19.5</td><td align="left">0.7</td><td align="char" char=".">0.2</td><td align="left">1.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">threatened, insulted or offended someone at work?</td><td align="left">90.1</td><td align="char" char=".">8.6</td><td align="left">1.0</td><td align="char" char=".">0.3</td><td align="left">0.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">humiliated or ridiculed someone in connection with their work?</td><td align="left">94.1</td><td align="char" char=".">5.2</td><td align="left">0.7</td><td align="char" char=".">0.0</td><td align="left">0.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">During the last six months have you witnessed...</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">someone at work being excluded or ignored?</td><td align="left">33.1</td><td align="char" char=".">41.6</td><td align="left">7.4</td><td align="char" char=".">9.5</td><td align="left">8.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">gossip and rumours being spread about someone at work?</td><td align="left">29.0</td><td align="char" char=".">45.7</td><td align="left">8.5</td><td align="char" char=".">11.1</td><td align="left">5.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">someone at work being threatened, insulted or offended?</td><td align="left">50.7</td><td align="char" char=".">33.8</td><td align="left">6.2</td><td align="char" char=".">6.4</td><td align="left">3.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">someone at work being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous rage?</td><td align="left">61.2</td><td align="char" char=".">28.9</td><td align="left">5.3</td><td align="char" char=".">3.3</td><td align="left">1.3</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: Statements in descending order of frequency of "Daily" responses.</p> <p>Principal axis factoring was conducted for the construction of the three empathy indices used in this study. The Kaiser‐Meyer‐Olkin measure indicated adequate sampling, with values greater than 0.70 for all three indices. Bartlett's test of sphericity reached statistical significance for all three indices. All items included in the three indices had loadings higher than 0.50.</p> <p>A comprehensive picture of the demographic characteristics of the sample as well as information about all the variables of interest in this study was provided through descriptive statistics, while a series of bivariate analyses provided information about the relationships between these variables. Finally, ordinal logistic regression models were built to examine the variables predicting respondents' involvement in distinct bullying behaviours (i.e., empathy components; primary role covered at school; school level), after controlling for other variables (i.e., age, gender, education level). SPSS 27 and Mplus 8 software were used for the statistical analyses and for checking the underlying assumptions of the ordinal logistic regression models.</p> <hd id="AN0155059541-17">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0155059541-18">Descriptive statistics</hd> <p>Table 5 presents frequencies of bullying victimisation, bullying perpetration, and bystander behaviours as reported by the respondents. The bullying victimisation behaviours taking place more frequently in the respondents' schools involved people being ignored, excluded, or facing a hostile reaction when approaching, withholding of information that affected people's performance, persistent criticism of people's work and effort and spread of gossip and rumours about people. Most respondents reported that they had never bullied their colleagues, with very few respondents indicating that they engaged in bullying perpetration behaviours monthly, weekly or daily. Also, as can be seen in Table 5, the two most frequent bystander behaviours involved people being excluded or ignored as well as gossip and rumours being spread about someone at work.</p> <hd id="AN0155059541-19">Bivariate statistics</hd> <p>Table 6 presents the proportions of respondents in each bullying victimisation, bullying perpetration, and bystander behaviour class by their gender, primary role at school, age, highest education level, and school level. The statistical significance of these bivariate relationships was checked through a series of statistical tests. Respondents in postprimary schools were more likely than those in primary schools to report victimisation experiences (<emph>U</emph> = 36058, <emph>p</emph> = 0.022, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.01), while no statistically significant differences were detected in bullying victimisation frequency based on respondents' gender, role, age, or education level. No statistically significant differences were detected in bullying perpetration frequency based on the examined respondents and respondents' school characteristics. Respondents belonging to SMTs were significantly less likely than teaching staff to witness bullying incidents (<emph>U</emph> = 34174, <emph>p</emph> = 0.004, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.02), whereas respondents in postprimary schools were more likely to witness bullying behaviours among staff members than respondents working in primary schools (<emph>U</emph> = 30618.5, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.02). The rest of the differences for bystander behaviour were not statistically significant.</p> <p>6 TablePercentages of respondents in each bullying victimisation, bullying perpetration, and bystander behaviour class, by gender, primary role at school, age, highest education level, and school level (%)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Gender</th><th align="left">Primary role at school</th><th align="left">Age</th><th align="left">Highest education level</th><th align="left">School level</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">Male</th><th align="left">Female</th><th align="left">SMT</th><th align="left">Other (teaching)</th><th align="left">18–23</th><th align="left">24–29</th><th align="left">30–35</th><th align="left">36–41</th><th align="left">42–47</th><th align="left">48–53</th><th align="left">54–59</th><th align="left">60–65</th><th align="left">Undergraduate degree</th><th align="left">Postgraduate degree</th><th align="left">Primary school</th><th align="left">Postprimary school</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Bullying victimisation</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">No bullying victimisation</td><td align="char" char=".">53.1</td><td align="char" char=".">51.7</td><td align="char" char=".">46.9</td><td align="char" char=".">54.4</td><td align="char" char=".">71.4</td><td align="char" char=".">51.2</td><td align="char" char=".">52.2</td><td align="char" char=".">51.9</td><td align="char" char=".">39.2</td><td align="char" char=".">57.3</td><td align="char" char=".">57.3</td><td align="char" char=".">60.0</td><td align="char" char=".">56.9</td><td align="char" char=".">50.3</td><td align="char" char=".">57.1</td><td align="char" char=".">45.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Occasional bullying victimisation</td><td align="char" char=".">37.8</td><td align="char" char=".">36.6</td><td align="char" char=".">40.3</td><td align="char" char=".">35.3</td><td align="char" char=".">28.6</td><td align="char" char=".">39.5</td><td align="char" char=".">40.0</td><td align="char" char=".">38.9</td><td align="char" char=".">41.2</td><td align="char" char=".">34.2</td><td align="char" char=".">28.0</td><td align="char" char=".">26.7</td><td align="char" char=".">33.1</td><td align="char" char=".">38.1</td><td align="char" char=".">31.3</td><td align="char" char=".">44.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bullying victimisation</td><td align="char" char=".">9.1</td><td align="char" char=".">11.7</td><td align="char" char=".">12.8</td><td align="char" char=".">10.4</td><td align="char" char=".">0.0</td><td align="char" char=".">9.3</td><td align="char" char=".">7.8</td><td align="char" char=".">9.2</td><td align="char" char=".">19.6</td><td align="char" char=".">8.5</td><td align="char" char=".">14.7</td><td align="char" char=".">13.3</td><td align="char" char=".">10.0</td><td align="char" char=".">11.6</td><td align="char" char=".">11.7</td><td align="char" char=".">10.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bullying perpetration</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">No bullying perpetration</td><td align="char" char=".">94.9</td><td align="char" char=".">97.8</td><td align="char" char=".">98.3</td><td align="char" char=".">96.6</td><td align="char" char=".">100.0</td><td align="char" char=".">98.7</td><td align="char" char=".">98.9</td><td align="char" char=".">95.9</td><td align="char" char=".">95.8</td><td align="char" char=".">95.4</td><td align="char" char=".">100.0</td><td align="char" char=".">93.3</td><td align="char" char=".">98.0</td><td align="char" char=".">96.8</td><td align="char" char=".">97.7</td><td align="char" char=".">96.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Occasional bullying perpetration</td><td align="char" char=".">5.1</td><td align="char" char=".">2.2</td><td align="char" char=".">1.7</td><td align="char" char=".">3.4</td><td align="char" char=".">0.0</td><td align="char" char=".">1.3</td><td align="char" char=".">1.1</td><td align="char" char=".">4.1</td><td align="char" char=".">4.2</td><td align="char" char=".">4.6</td><td align="char" char=".">0.0</td><td align="char" char=".">6.7</td><td align="char" char=".">2.0</td><td align="char" char=".">3.2</td><td align="char" char=".">2.3</td><td align="char" char=".">3.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bystander behaviour</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">No bystander behaviour</td><td align="char" char=".">30.4</td><td align="char" char=".">31.6</td><td align="char" char=".">36.4</td><td align="char" char=".">29.1</td><td align="char" char=".">50.0</td><td align="char" char=".">26.8</td><td align="char" char=".">36.0</td><td align="char" char=".">31.5</td><td align="char" char=".">22.0</td><td align="char" char=".">36.0</td><td align="char" char=".">30.6</td><td align="char" char=".">40.0</td><td align="char" char=".">38.3</td><td align="char" char=".">28.7</td><td align="char" char=".">40.3</td><td align="char" char=".">23.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Occasional bystander behaviour</td><td align="char" char=".">48.6</td><td align="char" char=".">44.1</td><td align="char" char=".">49.2</td><td align="char" char=".">44.9</td><td align="char" char=".">35.7</td><td align="char" char=".">43.9</td><td align="char" char=".">38.2</td><td align="char" char=".">48.0</td><td align="char" char=".">50.0</td><td align="char" char=".">46.0</td><td align="char" char=".">51.4</td><td align="char" char=".">53.3</td><td align="char" char=".">38.3</td><td align="char" char=".">49.0</td><td align="char" char=".">40.9</td><td align="char" char=".">50.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bystander behaviour</td><td align="char" char=".">21.0</td><td align="char" char=".">22.9</td><td align="char" char=".">14.4</td><td align="char" char=".">26.0</td><td align="char" char=".">14.3</td><td align="char" char=".">29.3</td><td align="char" char=".">25.8</td><td align="char" char=".">20.5</td><td align="char" char=".">28.0</td><td align="char" char=".">18.0</td><td align="char" char=".">18.0</td><td align="char" char=".">6.7</td><td align="char" char=".">23.4</td><td align="char" char=".">22.3</td><td align="char" char=".">18.8</td><td align="char" char=".">26.4</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The associations of bullying victimisation, bullying perpetration, and bystander behaviours with each other as well as with respondents' empathic tendencies were also examined. Respondents who were more frequently victimised reported witnessing bullying behaviours more frequently (<emph>r</emph><subs><emph>s</emph></subs>(<reflink idref="bib610" id="ref9">610</reflink>) = 0.52, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and bullying others more frequently (<emph>U</emph> = 2768.0, <emph>p</emph> = 0.001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.02). Respondents who witnessed bullying behaviours more frequently reported bullying others more frequently (<emph>U</emph> = 2672.0, <emph>p</emph> = 0.001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.02). The effect sizes of these relationships suggest that these variables were weakly or moderately correlated. The relationships of bullying victimisation and bystander behaviours with empathy were not found to be statistically significant at the bivariate level (Table 7).</p> <p>7 TableCorrelation coefficients for bullying victimisation, bystander behaviour, empathic concern, perspective taking, and personal distress</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th><th align="left">5</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">(1) Bullying victimisation</td><td align="left">–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">(2) Bystander behaviour</td><td align="char" char=".">0.520001</td><td align="left">–</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">(3) Empathic concern</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01</td><td align="left">–</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">(4) Perspective taking</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">0.430001</td><td align="left">–</td><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">(5) Personal distress</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.140001</td><td align="left">–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 a Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.</p> <p>As for the relationships between bullying perpetration and each empathy component, respondents with higher reported empathic concern, perspective taking, and personal distress tended to belong to the "no bullying perpetration" group. Of these differences, only the one noted for empathic concern was statistically significant with a moderate effect size (no bullying perpetration group: <emph>M</emph> = 4.02, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.69; occasional bullying perpetration group: <emph>M</emph> = 3.63, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.88, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib593" id="ref10">593</reflink>) = 2.27, <emph>p</emph> = 0.023, <emph>g</emph> = 0.56).</p> <hd id="AN0155059541-20">Ordinal logistic regression models</hd> <p>Ordinal logistic regression analysis was conducted to investigate which variables significantly predict bullying victimisation and bystander behaviour after controlling for other factors. Ordinal logistic regression analysis was not conducted for the bullying perpetration variable due to the very low proportion, i.e., 2.9% of respondents belonging to one of the two classes of the variable. Tables 8 and 9 present the results for bullying victimisation and bystander behaviour, respectively (the assumption of proportional odds was violated in the case of the bullying victimisation model, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref11">8</reflink>) = 16.851, <emph>p</emph> = 0.032). The rest of the assumptions required for ordinal regression i.e., ordinal outcome variable, independence, absence of multicollinearity, and proportional odds were met. Both models include empathic concern, perspective taking, personal distress, gender, primary role at school, age, highest education level, and school level, as explanatory variables. Odds ratios (<emph>Exp</emph>(<emph>B</emph>)) were computed for each explanatory variable, based on their estimated coefficients (<emph>B</emph>).</p> <p>8 TableOrdinal regression model for bullying victimisation</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="left">Wald</th><th align="left">Exp(B)</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Empathic concern</td><td align="char" char=".">0.145</td><td align="char" char=".">0.138</td><td align="char" char=".">1.106</td><td align="char" char=".">1.156</td><td align="char" char=".">0.293</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perspective taking</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.257</td><td align="char" char=".">0.128</td><td align="char" char=".">4.022</td><td align="char" char=".">0.773</td><td align="char" char=".">0.045</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Personal distress</td><td align="char" char=".">0.009</td><td align="char" char=".">0.122</td><td align="char" char=".">0.005</td><td align="char" char=".">1.009</td><td align="char" char=".">0.943</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender (male)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.275</td><td align="char" char=".">0.205</td><td align="char" char=".">1.790</td><td align="char" char=".">1.317</td><td align="char" char=".">0.181</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Primary role at school (other [teaching])</td><td align="char" char=".">0.496</td><td align="char" char=".">0.192</td><td align="char" char=".">6.654</td><td align="char" char=".">1.642</td><td align="char" char=".">0.010</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.054</td><td align="char" char=".">0.052</td><td align="char" char=".">1.094</td><td align="char" char=".">0.947</td><td align="char" char=".">0.296</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Highest education level (undergraduate)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.107</td><td align="char" char=".">0.195</td><td align="char" char=".">0.302</td><td align="char" char=".">1.113</td><td align="char" char=".">0.583</td></tr><tr><td align="left">School level (primary)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.520</td><td align="char" char=".">0.176</td><td align="char" char=".">8.750</td><td align="char" char=".">1.682</td><td align="char" char=".">0.003</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 <emph>Note</emph>: Reference category of categorical variables in parentheses.</item> <item>9 TableOrdinal regression model for bystander behaviour</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th align="left"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="left">Wald</th><th align="left">Exp(<italic>B</italic>)</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Empathic concern</td><td align="char" char=".">0.148</td><td align="char" char=".">0.135</td><td align="char" char=".">1.204</td><td align="char" char=".">1.160</td><td align="char" char=".">0.273</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Perspective taking</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.262</td><td align="char" char=".">0.126</td><td align="char" char=".">4.318</td><td align="char" char=".">0.770</td><td align="char" char=".">0.038</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Personal distress</td><td align="char" char=".">0.092</td><td align="char" char=".">0.119</td><td align="char" char=".">0.599</td><td align="char" char=".">1.096</td><td align="char" char=".">0.439</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender (male)</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.037</td><td align="char" char=".">0.199</td><td align="char" char=".">0.034</td><td align="char" char=".">0.964</td><td align="char" char=".">0.854</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Primary role at school (other [teaching])</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.285</td><td align="char" char=".">0.189</td><td align="char" char=".">2.268</td><td align="char" char=".">0.752</td><td align="char" char=".">0.132</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.015</td><td align="char" char=".">0.051</td><td align="char" char=".">0.084</td><td align="char" char=".">0.985</td><td align="char" char=".">0.771</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Highest education level (undergraduate)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.183</td><td align="char" char=".">0.190</td><td align="char" char=".">0.925</td><td align="char" char=".">1.201</td><td align="char" char=".">0.336</td></tr><tr><td align="left">School level (Primary)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.634</td><td align="char" char=".">0.172</td><td align="char" char=".">13.505</td><td align="char" char=".">1.885</td><td align="char" char=".">0.001</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note</emph>: Reference category of categorical variables in parentheses.</p> <p>As can be seen in Table 8, perspective taking, primary role at school, and school level were statistically significantly related to bullying victimisation, after controlling for other variables in the model. With every extra unit in the perspective taking index, respondents were 33% less likely to report being victimised. Respondents with a senior role in their school were 1.64 times more likely to be victimised compared to their colleagues having a nonsenior role. Also, respondents in postprimary schools were 1.68 times more likely to report being victimised than respondents in primary schools. The final model explained 3.7% of the total variance in the outcome variable (this is a pseudo R‐Square estimate, i.e., Nagelkerke and should be interpreted with caution).</p> <p>In the ordinal logistic regression model for bystander behaviour, perspective taking, and school level were statistically significant predictors, after accounting for other variables in the model. Again, with every extra unit in the perspective taking index, respondents were 33% less likely to report witnessing bullying situations in the workplace. Also, respondents working in postprimary schools were 1.89 times more likely than respondents in primary schools to witness bullying incidents in the workplace. Respondents' role at school, which was found to be significantly associated with bystander behaviour in a bivariate context, lost its significance when other factors were included in the equation. The final model explained 5.5% of the total variance in the outcome variable (this is a pseudo R‐Square estimate, i.e., Nagelkerke and should be interpreted with caution).</p> <hd id="AN0155059541-21">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The present study investigated involvement in workplace bullying with distinct behaviours within a sample of teachers and members of SMTs in Ireland. The study also aimed to investigate the associations between distinct empathy components and bullying perpetration, bullying victimisation, and passive bystander behaviour. Overall, findings showed that over one‐third of the sample experienced different bullying victimisation behaviours at least every "now and then." Being ignored and excluded was one of the most common victimisation experiences, which may suggest that social exclusion is framed as a normative behaviour and that that school staff tend to underestimate its seriousness (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006).</p> <p>In terms of bystander behaviour, almost half of the sample reported occasionally witnessing different behaviours of bullying victimisation. Relational forms of victimisation, such as witnessing gossips and rumours were reported frequently, which is coherent with the assumption that workplace bullying has mainly a psychological nature (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2010). As it could be expected, a lower proportion of respondents admitted to perpetrate bullying against someone at work. Bullying perpetration may go unreported for several reasons, among which social desirability and unawareness that certain actions constitute bullying (Nielsen et al., 2010).</p> <p>Teachers were more likely to witness bullying victimisation as compared to members of an SMT. Bystander inaction has been explained by feelings of fear, low levels of self‐efficacy, and social influence processes, i.e., passive responses elicit inaction in the other witnesses (Ng et al., 2019). However, the association between bystander behaviour and role covered in the school needs to be further explored, as it was found to be no longer significant in a multivariate context.</p> <p>Correlational analysis showed that respondents who were more frequently victimised tended to witness bullying more frequently and to bully others more frequently. Similarly, those who witnessed bullying more frequently tended to bully others more frequently. This is a novel and interesting finding in the literature. As suggested for bullying in other contexts (e.g., Walters, 2021), bullying behaviours may shift from one situational context to another. Thus, some school staff members could act as perpetrators or bystanders in some social contexts, whereas they may be victimised in others, depending on the circumstances and social actors involved.</p> <p>Findings also showed that respondents with higher levels of perspective taking, empathic concern, and personal distress were less likely to be involved in bullying perpetration. Respondents who did not perpetrate any bullying showed higher levels of empathic concern compared to those perpetrating occasional bullying. These are important and novel findings in the workplace bullying literature and resonate with the assumption that individuals with high levels of empathy tend to show low levels of aggressive behaviours (Eisenberg et al., 2010).</p> <p>Findings of the regression analysis showed that SMT members reported increased levels of bullying victimisation compared to teachers. Although the perpetrator of workplace bullying is often a manager or an individual with more power (Mannix McNamara, 2021), the imbalance of power between the perpetrator and the target might be psychological rather than based on the hierarchy within the organisation (i.e., school) (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011). The members of an SMT may be bullied by someone with more social capital (e.g., employees holding more social power in terms of being able to influence other staff members' attitudes and behaviours) or someone with an authoritarian and narcissistic personality (Zapf & Einarsen, 2011). Workplace bullying may also be triggered by envy (Zapf & Einarsen, 2011) towards those with more decisional power (e.g., SMT) and those who are perceived to cover more important roles in the school. However, this study did not assess the perpetrator's status and role. If on one hand, subordinates (e.g., teachers) may bully their superiors (e.g., SMT) (Mannix McNamara et al., 2018), on the other hand, members of the SMT might be bullied by someone of equal status and power.</p> <p>In terms of the other predictors tested in the regression model, results showed that perspective taking negatively predicted victimisation experiences. School staff with higher levels of perspective taking could be aware of the perpetrator's negative intentions, even when these are subtle as it could be the case of workplace bullying acts. As stated above, high levels of perspective taking are associated with the ability to negotiate and successfully resolve interpersonal conflicts (Galinsky et al., 2015). This resonates with the assumption that high perspective takers may be able to prevent the escalation of bullying.</p> <p>Similar findings were yielded for bystander behaviour (i.e., perspective taking was negatively associated with bystander behaviour). School staff with high levels of perspective taking could be more aware of others' intentions and, as a result, they may be more likely to frame certain behaviours as bullying. Thus, they could be less inclined to passively witness a situation that they consider unacceptable (e.g., bullying).</p> <p>Empathic concern did not yield any significant findings in the regression models. As shown above, empathic concern may prevent individuals from acting aggressively towards others (Eisenberg et al., 2010); however, it seems not to be related to people's involvement in bullying as passive bystanders and targets. Similarly, personal distress was not associated with passive bystander behaviour. In this respect, situational factors should be investigated in relation to bystander behaviour. For instance, bystanders could be more distressed when witnessing bullying depending on their relationship with the targeted employee (Coyne et al., 2019).</p> <p>No significant differences were yielded for age and gender, which is coherent with previous studies suggesting that interpersonal aspects (e.g., supervisor support) and organisational variables (e.g., working in private vs. public organisations) could play a more crucial role in workplace bullying as compared to demographic variables (De Cieri et al., 2019).</p> <p>Finally, findings showed that respondents working in postprimary schools were more likely to report both being the target and the bystander of bullying as compared to those working in primary schools. These findings could be associated with some contextual variables which have not been investigated in this study, such as higher levels of organisational stress or a negative school climate (e.g., Paull et al., 2020).</p> <hd id="AN0155059541-22">Limitations and directions for future research</hd> <p>Despite contributing to our knowledge of workplace bullying among school staff, this study is not exempt from limitations. Overall, findings of this study should be interpreted taking the respondents' demographic background into account. A considerable proportion of the sample (40.7%) comprised of teachers or members of SMTs with five or fewer years of experience and the sample was ethnically homogeneous, including staff working in Irish primary and postprimary schools. Taken together, these factors may limit the generalisability of the findings beyond similar samples.</p> <p>The low reported prevalence of bullying perpetration could be related to the fact that participants were exposed to the bullying definition before filling out the bullying perpetration items. In fact, providing a bullying definition may trigger some defence mechanisms among respondents, while leading them to downplay their involvement in bullying (Nielsen et al., 2010). Although there is a lack of knowledge in relation to the prevalence of bullying perpetration among school personnel, research conducted in other organisational sectors showed that the rates of bullying perpetration vary largely (from 7.5% to 19.3%), (Coyne et al., 2003; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007). The prevalence of bullying perpetration in this study is comparable to a previous study by Hauge and colleagues (2009), who also provided a bullying definition and showed that 2.9% of participants engaged in bullying perpetration acts.</p> <p>Also, the ordinal scales that were used in this study may have been less able to capture the more nuanced differences among respondents compared to interval scales. Although the majority of existing studies on bullying made use of ordinal scales (due to the nature of bullying constructs), the use of interval scales may be an approach that future research may want to employ.</p> <p>The lack of significant findings for empathic concern and personal distress in the regression models may be related to the types of empathy behaviours assessed in this study. Future studies should develop measures which are specific to various professional roles within education. Participants were aware that a score regarding their empathy skills would be provided after completing the survey. Although it was hoped that providing such information would motivate respondents to fill out the entire survey, this information could have elicited socially desirable answers. Finally, as stated above, this study did not explore the perpetrator's profile (e.g., peer, subordinate; superior); this is an area that could be investigated in future studies.</p> <hd id="AN0155059541-23">Practical implications</hd> <p>Based on the findings of this study, two main practical implication messages can be drawn. Firstly, an empathy training with a focus on perspective taking may help school staff to recognise and prevent bullying at work. Previous scholars have speculated that teacher empathy contributes to a positive school climate and to the prevention of bullying situations among students (Murphy et al., 2018). It is likely that an empathy training could also help with creating better relationships among school staff.</p> <p>Second, findings of this study suggest that school leaders (SMT members) endure bullying at work. Based on previous research, workplace bullying of managers could go unreported, as bullied managers may not want to give the impression that they are unable to stand up for themselves (Bolling, 2019). Although prevention programmes should tackle bullying among different professional roles, they should also include some specific components addressed at school leaders. Raising awareness around the phenomenon of workplace bullying and educating SMTs to effectively cope with bullying could help to effectively tackle this phenomenon within schools.</p> <hd id="AN0155059541-24">CONFLICT OF INTERESTS</hd> <p>The authors declare that there are no conflict of interests.</p> <ref id="AN0155059541-25"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ariza‐Montes, A., Muniz, N. M. R., Leal‐Rodríguez, A. L., & Leal‐Millán, A. G. (2016). Workplace bullying among teachers: An analysis from the Job Demands‐Resources (JD‐R) model perspective. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 58 (8), 818 – 827. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000804</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baillien, E., Escartín, J., Gross, C., & Zapf, D. (2017). Towards a conceptual and empirical differentiation between workplace bullying and interpersonal conflict. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26 (6), 870 – 881. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1385601</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baillien, E., Neyens, I., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2009). A qualitative study on the development of workplace bullying: Towards a three way model. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 19 (1), 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.977</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). Preservice teachers' responses to bullying scenarios: Comparing physical, verbal, and relational bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (1), 219 – 231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.219</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref2" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bernotaite, L., & Malinauskiene, V. (2017). Workplace bullying and mental health among teachers in relation to psychosocial job characteristics and burnout. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 30 (4), 629 – 640. https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00943</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2006). Teachers' perspectives on principal mistreatment. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33 (4), 123 – 142. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23478875">www.jstor.org/stable/23478875</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bolling, J. A. (2019). Upward bullying in the workplace: A phenomenological study. Journal of Social and Behavioural Research in Business, 10 (1), 61 – 77.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref11" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Boudrias, V., Trépanier, S. G., & Salin, D. (2021). A systematic review of research on the longitudinal consequences of workplace bullying and the mechanisms involved. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 56, 1 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101508</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Branch, S., Ramsay, S., & Barker, M. (2013). Workplace bullying, mobbing and general harassment: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15 (3), 280 – 299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00339.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cemaloglu, N. (2007). The exposure of primary school teachers to bullying: An analysis of various variables. Social Behavior and Personality, 35 (6), 789 – 802. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2007.35.6.789</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, M. A., Robertson, M. M., & Young, S. (2019). "I feel your pain": A critical review of organizational research on empathy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40 (2), 166 – 192. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2348</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coyne, I., Chong, P. S. L., Seigne, E., & Randall, P. (2003). Self and peer nominations of bullying: An analysis of incident rates, individual differences, and perceptions of the working environment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12 (3), 209 – 228. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320344000101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coyne, I., Gopaul, A. M., Campbell, M., Pankász, A., Garland, R., & Cousans, F. (2019). Bystander responses to bullying at work: The role of mode, type and relationship to target. Journal of Business Ethics, 157 (3), 813 – 827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3692-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cuff, B. M. P., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2016). Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion Review, 8 (2), 144 – 153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914558466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels, K., Glover, J., & Mellor, N. (2014). An experience sampling study of expressing affect, daily affective well‐being, relationship quality, and perceived performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87 (4), 781 – 805. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12074</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (1), 113 – 126. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.44.1.113</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Cieri, H., Sheehan, C., Donohue, R., Shea, T., & Cooper, B. (2019). Workplace bullying: An examination of power and perpetrators. Personnel Review, 48 (2), 324 – 341. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2018-0057</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Cuyper, N., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity, perceived employability and targets' and perpetrators' experiences of workplace bullying. Work & Stress, 23 (3), 206 – 224. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370903257578</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Vos, J., & Kirsten, G. J. C. (2015). The nature of workplace bullying experienced by teachers and the biopsychosocial health effects. South African Journal of Education, 35 (3), 1 – 9. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v35n3a1138</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Wet, C. (2010). The reasons for and the impact of principal‐on‐teacher bullying on the victims' private and professional lives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (7), 1450 – 1459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.05.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Wet, C. (2011). The professional lives of teacher victims of workplace bullying: A narrative analysis. Perspectives in Education, 29 (4), 66 – 77.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Wet, C., & Jacobs, L. (2013). South African teachers' exposure to workplace bullying. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 9 (3), 446 – 464.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diefenbach, T., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2011). Formal and informal hierarchy in different types of organization. Organization Studies, 32 (11), 1515 – 1537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611421254</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D., & Casimir, G. (2008). Workplace bullying and intention to leave: The moderating effect of perceived organisational support. Human Resource Management Journal, 18 (4), 405 – 422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2008.00081.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eid, M., Langeheine, R., & Diener, E. (2003). Comparing typological structures across cultures by multigroup latent class analysis: A primer. Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, 34 (2), 195 – 210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102250427</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg, N., Eggum, N. D., & Di Giunta, L. (2010). Empathy‐related responding: Associations with prosocial behavior, aggression, and intergroup relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4 (1), 143 – 180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01020.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eurofound. (2017). 6th European working conditions survey ‐ Overview report. Publications Office of the European Union. https://<ulink href="http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2016/working-conditions/sixth-european-working-conditions-survey-overview-report">www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2016/working-conditions/sixth-european-working-conditions-survey-overview-report</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fahie, D. (2019). The lived experience of toxic leadership in Irish higher education. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 13 (3), 341 – 355. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-07-2019-0096</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fahie, D., & Devine, D. (2014). The impact of workplace bullying on primary school teachers and principals. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58 (2), 235 – 252. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2012.725099</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Favaro, A., Wong, C., & Oudshoorn, A. (2021). Relationships among sex, empowerment, workplace bullying, and job turnover intention of new graduate nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 30 (1), 1273 – 1284. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15671</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galanaki, E., & Papalexandris, N. (2013). Measuring workplace bullying in organisations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24 (11), 2107 – 2130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.725084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., & White, J. B. (2015). Why it pays to get inside the head of your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in negotiations. Psychological Science, 19 (4), 378 – 384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Individual and situational predictors of workplace bullying: Why do perpetrators engage in the bullying of others? Work & Stress, 23 (4), 349 – 358. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370903395568</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutchinson, M., & Jackson, D. (2015). The construction and legitimation of workplace bullying in the public sector: Insight into power dynamics and organisational failures in health and social care. Nursing Inquiry, 22 (1), 13 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12077</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Inness, M., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2005). Understanding supervisor‐targeted aggression: A within‐person, between‐jobs design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (4), 731 – 739. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.731</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kakoulakis, C., Galanakis, M., Bakoula‐Tzoumaka, C., Darvyri, P., Chrousos, P. G., & Darviri, C. (2015). Validation of the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) in a sample of Greek teachers. Psychology, 6 (1), 63 – 74. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2015.61007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lange, S., Burr, H., Conway, P. M., & Rose, U. (2019). Workplace bullying among employees in Germany: Prevalence estimates and the role of the perpetrator. International Archives of Occupational & Environmental Health, 92, 237 – 247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-018-1366-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. K. (2001). Latent class factor and cluster models, bi‐plots, and related graphical displays. Sociological Methodology, 31 (1), 223 – 264. https://doi.org/10.1111/0081-1750.00096</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magidson, J., & Vermunt, J. K. (2004). Latent class models. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 175 – 198). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mannix‐McNamara, P. (2021). The contested terrain of power in workplace bullying. In P. D'Cruz, E. Noronha, E. Baillien, B. Catley, K. Harlos & A. Høgh (Eds.), Pathways of Job‐related negative behaviour. Handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment. 2, 1, (pp. 49 – 72). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mannix McNamara, P., Fitzpatrick, K., MacCurtain, S., & O'Brien, M. (2018). Workplace bullying and redress procedures: Experiences of teachers in Ireland. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 13 (1), 79 – 97. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrom-10-2016-1440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matsela, M. A., & Kirsten, T. (2014). Teachers' experiences and impact of workplace bullying on their health in Lesotho. Psychology Research, 4 (6), 479 – 491.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Perpetrators and targets of bullying at work: Role stress and individual differences. Violence and Victims, 22 (6), 735 – 753. https://doi.org/10.1891/088667007782793174</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Bullying in the workplace: Definition, prevalence, antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 13 (2), 202 – 248. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijotb-13-02-2010-b004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miner, K. N., Diaz, I., Wooderson, R. L., McDonald, J. N., Smittick, A. L., & Lomeli, L. C. (2018). A workplace incivility roadmap: Identifying theoretical speedbumps and alternative routes for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23 (3), 320 – 337. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000093</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy, H., Tubritt, J., & O'Higgins Norman, J. (2018). The role of empathy in preparing teachers to tackle bullying. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 7 (1), 17 – 23. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2018.1.261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Namie, G., Christensen, D., & Phillips, D. (2014). 2014 WBI U.S. workplace bullying survey. Workplace Bullying Institute. https://icos.umich.edu/sites/default/files/lecturereadinglists/WBI-2014-US-Survey.print_.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng, K., Niven, K., & Hoel, H. (2019). 'I could help, but...': A dynamic sensemaking model of workplace bullying bystanders. Human Relations, 73 (12), 1718 – 1746. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719884617</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nielsen, M. B., Christensen, J. O., Finne, L. B., & Knardahl, S. (2020). Workplace bullying, mental distress, and sickness absence: The protective role of social support. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 93 (1), 43 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-019-01463-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta‐analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83 (4), 955 – 979. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909x481256</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Notelaers, G., Van der He, Ijden, Hoel, H., & Einarsen, S. (2019). Measuring bullying at work with the short‐negative acts questionnaire: Identification of targets and criterion validity. Work & Stress, 33 (1), 58 – 75. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1457736</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nylund‐Gibson, K., & Choi, A. Y. (2018). Ten frequently asked questions about latent class analysis. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4 (4), 440 – 461. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000176</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14 (4), 535 – 569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connell, P. J., Calvert, E., & Watson, D. (2007). Bullying in the workplace: Survey reports, 2007. Report to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Dublin. https://<ulink href="http://www.esri.ie/system/files/media/file-uploads/2015-07/BKMNEXT094.pdf">www.esri.ie/system/files/media/file-uploads/2015-07/BKMNEXT094.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ólafsson, R. F., & Jóhannsdóttir, H. L. (2004). Coping with bullying in the workplace: The effect of gender, age and type of bullying. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32 (3), 319 – 333. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069880410001723549</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Moore, M., Lynch, J., & Nic Daéid, N. (2003). The rates and relative risks of workplace bullying in Ireland, a country of high economic growth. International Journal of Management & Decision Making, 4 (1), 82 – 95. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDM.2003.002490</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oplatka, I. (2017). Empathy regulation among Israeli school principals: Expression and suppression of major emotions in educational leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 27 (1), 94 – 118. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461702700104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orange, A. (2018). Workplace bullying in schools: Teachers' perceptions of why they were mistreated. The Educational Forum, 82 (4), 390 – 405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2018.1461523</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ortega, A., Høgh, A., & Pejtersen, J. H. (2009). Prevalence of workplace bullying and risk groups: A representative population study. International Archives of Occupational & Environmental Health, 82 (3), 417 – 426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-008-0339-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paull, M., Omari, M., D'Cruz, P., & Güneri Çangarli, B. (2020). Bystanders in workplace bullying: Working university students' perspectives on action versus inaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 58 (3), 313 – 334. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12216</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paull, M., Omari, M., & Standen, P. (2012). When is a bystander not a bystander? A typology of the roles of bystanders in workplace bullying. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50 (3), 351 – 366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00027.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pfeifer, J. H., & Dapretto, M. (2009). "Mirror, mirror, in my mind": Empathy, interpersonal competence, and the mirror neuron system. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), Social neuroscience The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 183 – 197). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262012973.003.0015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pouwelse, M., Mulder, R., & Mikkelsen, E. G. (2018). The role of bystanders in workplace bullying: An overview of theories and empirical research. In P. D'Cruz & E. Noronha (Eds.), Pathways of job‐related negative behaviour (Handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment 2 : Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6173-8_14-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell, J. E., Powell, A. L., & Petrosko, J. M. (2015). School climate as a predictor of incivility and bullying among public school employees: A multilevel analysis. Journal of School Violence, 14 (2), 217 – 244. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.906917</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rizkalla, L., Wertheim, E. H., & Hodgson, L. K. (2008). The roles of emotion management and perspective taking in individuals' conflict management styles and disposition to forgive. Journal of Research in Personality, 42 (6), 1594 – 1601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.07.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salin, D., & Hoel, H. (2013). Workplace bullying as a gendered phenomenon. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28 (3), 235 – 251. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941311321187</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sam, C. H. (2021). What are the practices of unethical leaders? Exploring how teachers experience the "dark side" of administrative leadership. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 49 (2), 303 – 320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219898480</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singh, P., & Dali, C. M. (2014). The value of empathy as an instructional leadership competency for school principals. Education as Change, 17 (1), 65 – 79. https://doi.org/10.1080/16823206.2014.865991</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walters G. D. (2021). School‐Age Bullying Victimization and Perpetration: A Meta‐Analysis of Prospective Studies and Research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22 (5), 1129 – 1139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020906513</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warren, C. A. (2015). Scale of teacher empathy for African American males (S‐TEAAM): Measuring teacher conceptions and the application of empathy in multicultural classroom settings. Journal of Negro Education, 84 (2), 154 – 174. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.84.2.0154</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yadav, R. S., Dash, S. S., Sinha, S., & Palky, J. (2020). Impact of workplace bullying on turnover intention: A study among Indian school teachers. South Asian Journal of Management, 27 (4), 33 – 58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Individual antecedents of bullying: Victims and perpetrators. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice. 2nd Ed., (pp. 177 – 200). Boca Raton, FL : CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Angela Mazzone; Vasiliki Pitsia; Anastasios Karakolidis and James O'Higgins Norman</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib610" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib593" firstref="ref10"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1325757
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Bullied, Bystanders, and Perpetrators in the Workplace: The Role of Empathy in Teachers and School Leaders' Experiences
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mazzone%2C+Angela%22">Mazzone, Angela</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5858-8033">0000-0002-5858-8033</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pitsia%2C+Vasiliki%22">Pitsia, Vasiliki</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8172-0397">0000-0002-8172-0397</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Karakolidis%2C+Anastasios%22">Karakolidis, Anastasios</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7460-7759">0000-0002-7460-7759</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22O'Higgins+Norman%2C+James%22">O'Higgins Norman, James</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0997-6942">0000-0003-0997-6942</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. Mar 2022 59(3):515-534.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Empathy%22">Empathy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrator+Attitudes%22">Administrator Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Work+Environment%22">Work Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bullying%22">Bullying</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Administration%22">School Administration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Victims%22">Victims</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Perspective+Taking%22">Perspective Taking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Patterns%22">Behavior Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ireland%22">Ireland</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.22628
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study investigated the experiences of workplace bullying among primary and postprimary school staff in Ireland. A sample of 630 teachers and members of the Senior Management Team (SMT) completed an online survey inquiring about their own experiences of bullying in the workplace, as targets, bystanders, and perpetrators. Information about respondents' perspective taking, empathic concern, personal distress, and demographic background was also collected. Results of the ordinal regression analysis showed a negative association of perspective taking with victimisation and bystander behaviour. In addition, respondents belonging to an SMT reported experiencing victimisation more frequently than teachers, while victimisation experiences and witnessing bullying were more common in postprimary than primary schools. Findings are discussed in terms of the importance of providing awareness and training programmes to school staff.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1325757
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1325757
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.22628
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 515
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Empathy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administrator Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Work Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bullying
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Secondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Administration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Victims
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Perspective Taking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ireland
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Bullied, Bystanders, and Perpetrators in the Workplace: The Role of Empathy in Teachers and School Leaders' Experiences
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mazzone, Angela
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pitsia, Vasiliki
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Karakolidis, Anastasios
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: O'Higgins Norman, James
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 59
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1