Non-Sexual Harassment

Abstract

Non-sexual harassment is a type of social behavior: a pattern of repeated, hostile, or demeaning acts directed at a person at work or in a group that are not sexual in nature, together with the social cognition that surrounds them. This article treats it as a problem in social cognition, not bad manners. It develops the main threads: how minor incivility spirals into aggression (Andersson & Pearson; Cortina et al.); when persistent mistreatment becomes bullying or mobbing once it crosses thresholds of frequency and duration (Leymann; Einarsen; Olweus); how hostile intent is inferred from ambiguous acts (Crick & Dodge); the work-environment antecedents that enable and motivate it (Salin; Neuman & Baron; Samnani & Singh); and the measured toll on health (Nielsen & Einarsen; Bowling & Beehr; Hershcovis). A worked example and three interactive demonstrations make each mechanism manipulable.

Keywords: non-sexual harassment, workplace bullying, social behavior

Harassment that is not sexual rarely announces itself. It accumulates: a slight ignored, a contribution dismissed, a task sabotaged, a person steadily excluded. Any one act may look trivial or deniable, which is precisely why the pattern is hard to name and harder to stop. What makes non-sexual harassment a subject for cognitive and social science is that its damage lies not in any single act but in the repetition, the imbalance of power it exploits, and the layer of inference that surrounds it—how a target reads an ambiguous slight, how a perpetrator justifies escalating it, and how bystanders and organizations interpret the whole.

The scientific study of non-sexual harassment has therefore been less about cataloguing rude acts than about the minds and systems that produce and sustain them. Several questions organize the field: how low-level incivility escalates into something worse; when repeated mistreatment becomes bullying or mobbing; how people infer hostile intent from acts that are often ambiguous; what in a workplace enables harassment to take root; and what it costs those exposed to it. The sections below take these in turn, after first placing non-sexual harassment within the broader category of social behavior under which it is classified, and setting out its recognized forms.

What Non-Sexual Harassment Is

Non-sexual harassment, in the sense the behavioral sciences study it, is a pattern of repeated, unwanted, hostile, or demeaning behavior directed at a person—most often at work—that is not sexual in nature, together with the cognitive and social processes by which the acts are intended, perceived, interpreted, and escalated. Two features fix the concept. The first is that it is constituted by repetition and pattern rather than by any single act: an isolated harsh remark is a conflict, but a sustained campaign of criticism, exclusion, or undermining is harassment, and the harm lies in the accumulation. The second is that it typically exploits an imbalance of power: the target is in a position—by rank, numbers, or circumstance—from which they cannot easily defend themselves or escape, which is what distinguishes harassment from a dispute between equals.

Because non-sexual harassment is defined by a pattern of conduct within a relationship and a setting rather than by the content of one act, the field's central tasks have been to specify when ordinary friction becomes mistreatment, to read how hostile intent is inferred from acts that are often deniable, and to explain what conditions let harassment persist. Some of this is overt, as when a supervisor openly belittles a subordinate; much is subtle, carried in exclusion, gossip, the withholding of information, or the assignment of impossible tasks (Leymann, 1996; Einarsen, 2000). The sections below follow that structure: first the forms it takes and the continuum of escalation, then its social-cognitive mechanism, then its antecedents in the work environment, and finally its consequences and the problem of measuring it.

In the Medical Subject Headings vocabulary, Harassment, Non-Sexual (D000071277) is a descriptor filed as a kind of Social Behavior (D012919). The placement encodes a substantive claim: harassment is not primarily an individual pathology but a form of behavior directed at and structured by others, sustained in the interaction between perpetrator, target, and the group or organization around them. The remainder of this article takes its mechanisms and measures in turn, connecting each to the social cognition it requires.

Types of Non-Sexual Harassment

Within the MeSH classification, Harassment, Non-Sexual (D000071277), filed under Social Behavior, has one narrower descriptor, shown in Table 1. The subtype is not a mutually exclusive bin: bullying overlaps heavily with the broader notions of mobbing, incivility, and workplace aggression discussed throughout this article, and a single episode can be indexed under more than one heading. MeSH is an indexing classification—a controlled vocabulary for retrieving the literature—not a theory of how mistreatment carves into natural kinds, so the table reports how the field is catalogued rather than a claim that these are the only, or the cleanest, divisions.

Table 1

Direct subtypes of Non-Sexual Harassment in the MeSH classification (tree F01.145.813.213)

Perspectives on Non-Sexual Harassment

The study of non-sexual harassment is organized less by one grand theory than by a set of perspectives, each tied to a distinct question. The first asks where ordinary friction ends and harassment begins and answers with the continuum from incivility through bullying to mobbing. A second asks how hostile intent is read into ambiguous acts and answers with the social-information-processing account of attribution. A third asks what lets harassment take root and answers with the work-environment antecedents that enable and motivate it. A fourth asks what harassment costs and how it is measured and answers with the health outcomes and the thorny problem of overlapping constructs. These perspectives are complementary rather than rival: a sarcastic email, a six-month campaign of exclusion, a target who misreads a neutral act as an attack, a badly run department, and an employee signed off sick with anxiety each involve non-sexual harassment, but as escalation, definition, perception, antecedent, and consequence respectively. Table 2 summarizes them, and the sections that follow develop each in turn.

Figure 1

Non-Sexual Harassment as an Escalating Social Process

Table 2

Perspectives on Non-Sexual Harassment

The incivility–bullying continuum

The most useful starting point is that harassment is not a category sharply separate from ordinary rudeness but the far end of a continuum. Lynne Andersson and Christine Pearson introduced the idea of workplace incivility—low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm, such as curt dismissals, condescension, or ignoring a colleague—and argued that incivility tends to spiral: a slight provokes a slightly sharper response, which provokes a sharper one still, so that what began as rudeness escalates tit-for-tat into coercive, openly aggressive behavior (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Lilia Cortina and colleagues gave the phenomenon an empirical base, showing that incivility is common, that it disproportionately targets those with less power, and that even these low-level experiences predict diminished well-being and withdrawal from work (Cortina et al., 2001). Incivility, on this account, is both harmful in itself and the seedbed from which worse harassment grows. Demo 1 lets the reader set an initial slight and a reciprocation rate and watch how quickly an exchange escalates.

Where the spiral persists and the power balance tips, incivility becomes bullying or mobbing. Heinz Leymann, who introduced the term mobbing to working life, defined it as hostile and unethical communication directed systematically at one person who is pushed into a helpless position—and, crucially, operationalized it: the negative acts must occur with some frequency (as a rule of thumb, at least weekly) and over a long period (about six months or more) before the label applies (Leymann, 1996). Ståle Einarsen's review of the Scandinavian research traditions drew the forms together, distinguishing dispute-related bullying, which grows out of an escalated conflict, from predatory bullying, in which a target is picked on for reasons unconnected to any dispute (Einarsen, 2000). The frequency-and-duration criterion is what separates bullying from a one-off row, and it is the measurement rule the field has largely adopted.

Perception and the attribution of hostile intent

Because so many harassing acts are ambiguous—a terse message, an uninvited exclusion, a task left unassigned—whether an exchange escalates often depends less on the act than on how it is read. The most influential cognitive account comes from developmental research on aggression. Nicki Crick and Kenneth Dodge's social-information-processing model describes the steps by which a person responds to a social cue: encoding the available information, interpreting it (including inferring the other's intent), clarifying goals, generating and selecting a response, and enacting it (Crick & Dodge, 1994). The model's signature finding is a hostile attribution bias: individuals prone to aggression tend to infer hostile intent from cues that are objectively ambiguous, and having read hostility into a neutral act, they respond aggressively—which invites a hostile response in turn, closing the loop that Andersson and Pearson described. Dan Olweus, whose school-based research established the modern study of bullying, likewise stressed that a bully/victim dynamic is sustained by stable patterns of perception and response on both sides, not by a single provocation (Olweus, 1994). The attribution step is therefore a leverage point: the same ambiguous act can defuse or ignite depending on the intent inferred. Demo 2 lets the reader vary an act's ambiguity and a perceiver's attribution bias and read off how likely a hostile interpretation becomes.

Antecedents in the work environment

If harassment were only a matter of individual character, it would be scattered at random across workplaces; it is not. Denise Salin argued that workplace bullying is best explained by features of the work environment, sorting them into enabling structures that make harassment possible (power imbalances, low perceived costs to the perpetrator, dissatisfaction with the social climate), motivating structures that make it rewarding (internal competition, reward systems, politics), and precipitating processes that trigger it (restructuring, changes in the workgroup) (Salin, 2003). Joel Neuman and Robert Baron brought the broader framework of human aggression to bear on work, showing that situational factors—frustration, perceived injustice, and norms—shape the specific forms workplace aggression takes and the targets it selects (Neuman & Baron, 1998). Al-Karim Samnani and Parbudyal Singh, reviewing two decades of research, organized the antecedents across levels—individual, group, organizational, and societal—and stressed that bullying is multiply determined, so that no single cause suffices and interventions aimed at one level alone tend to fall short (Samnani & Singh, 2012). The common lesson is that harassment is as much a property of situations as of persons.

Consequences and measurement

Whatever its causes, exposure to non-sexual harassment exacts a measurable toll, and quantifying it has been a central task. Morten Birkeland Nielsen and Ståle Einarsen's meta-analysis of the outcomes of workplace bullying found that exposure is associated with worse mental health, lower job satisfaction and commitment, and greater intention to leave, with the associations holding in longitudinal as well as cross-sectional data (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). Nathan Bowling and Terry Beehr's meta-analysis, taking the target's perspective, linked harassment to strain, reduced well-being, and negative attitudes toward work and the organization, and related these effects to perceived injustice (Bowling & Beehr, 2006). Measuring how common harassment is proved harder still: Nielsen, Matthiesen, and Einarsen showed that reported prevalence rates vary enormously with method—whether exposure is measured by a self-labeling question or by a checklist of specific acts, and what cutoff is applied—so that headline figures must be read against how they were obtained (Nielsen, Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2010). Demo 3 lets the reader apply Leymann's frequency-and-duration criterion and see how a case is classified.

Part of the measurement difficulty is conceptual. Sandy Hershcovis argued that workplace aggression research had splintered into near-synonymous constructs—bullying, mobbing, incivility, social undermining, abusive supervision, victimization—each with its own literature and measure, and called for reconciling them, since they overlap heavily and their separate study obscures what is in fact one family of mistreatment (Hershcovis, 2011). The proliferation of labels is not merely untidy: it inflates apparent novelty, complicates meta-analysis, and makes it harder to tell whether two studies are measuring the same thing.

Worked Example

The mechanisms become concrete in three small exercises, each matching one of the demonstrations. The indices below are illustrative—they capture the qualitative shape of the published findings rather than reproducing any single reported statistic.

The incivility spiral (escalation over exchanges). Rate an initial slight I₀ on a 0–10 scale and a reciprocation rate r between 0 and 1, and model each exchange as returning the slight with a bit more: Iₙ = I₀ × (1 + r)ⁿ, capped at 10, with a value of 8 marking the shift from incivility to open aggression. Starting from I₀ = 2 with r = 0.5 gives the sequence 2, 3, 4.5, 6.75, then 10 at exchange 4: the tipping point is crossed by the fourth round. The same slight with a milder r = 0.2 gives 2, 2.4, 2.88, 3.46, 4.15, 4.98, 5.97—never reaching 8 within six exchanges. A sharper start, I₀ = 4 with r = 0.3, reaches 8.79 by exchange 3. The point is that small differences in how readily each party escalates decide whether an exchange fizzles out or boils over. Demo 1 lets the reader move both and watch the curve.

Hostile attribution (ambiguity versus bias). Rate an act's ambiguity a and a perceiver's hostile attribution bias h, each 0–10, and model the probability that the act is read as hostile as P = (h / 10) × (0.4 + 0.6 × a / 10), bounded at 1. A biased perceiver facing a genuinely ambiguous act, h = 8, a = 10, reads hostility with probability 0.8 × (0.4 + 0.6) = 0.80. The same perceiver facing an unambiguous, plainly benign act, h = 8, a = 0, still reads hostility with probability 0.8 × 0.4 = 0.32—the residual that bias contributes on its own. A low-bias perceiver facing the same ambiguous act, h = 2, a = 10, reads hostility with probability just 0.20. The point is that ambiguity and bias compound: harassment escalates fastest when deniable acts meet a perceiver primed to see hostility. Demo 2 lets the reader set both.

The mobbing threshold (frequency and duration). Apply Leymann's criterion: negative acts count as mobbing when they occur at least weekly (f ≥ 1 act per week) and persist for at least six months (d ≥ 6). A case of f = 3, d = 12 meets both conditions and represents roughly 3 × 12 × 4.33 ≈ 156 acts of cumulative exposure. A case at the boundary, f = 1, d = 6, meets the criterion with about 26 acts. A frequent but brief case, f = 5, d = 3, fails the duration test despite 65 acts, and a long but rare case, f = 0.5, d = 12, fails the frequency test with the same 26 acts. The point is that the definition is deliberately conjunctive: neither intensity nor persistence alone makes mobbing, which is what keeps a single bad week and an occasional irritation outside the label. Demo 3 lets the reader set both and read the classification.

Discussion

Read across its perspectives, the science of non-sexual harassment describes a social and cognitive process rather than a catalogue of individual bad actors. Harassment lies on a continuum, so that minor incivility can spiral into open aggression and the boundary with ordinary rudeness is one of degree (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001); it is defined as bullying or mobbing once it crosses thresholds of frequency and duration against a target who cannot easily defend themselves (Leymann, 1996; Einarsen, 2000); its escalation turns on how hostile intent is inferred from ambiguous acts (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Olweus, 1994); it is enabled and motivated by the work environment rather than by character alone (Salin, 2003; Samnani & Singh, 2012); and it exacts a measurable toll on health that varied methods have struggled to quantify cleanly (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012; Bowling & Beehr, 2006). Placed under social behavior in the MeSH vocabulary, non-sexual harassment earns the classification: it is behavior constituted by and directed at others, sustained in the interaction among perpetrator, target, and organization.

The practical stakes follow directly from the psychology. Because incivility spirals, intervening early—before a slight has escalated into a campaign—is far easier than reversing an entrenched bully/victim dynamic (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Because the work environment enables harassment, the most durable remedies are organizational—clear roles, accountable leadership, and norms that raise the cost of mistreatment—rather than appeals to individuals to behave better (Salin, 2003; Neuman & Baron, 1998). And because the field's many overlapping constructs obscure a single family of mistreatment, progress depends partly on conceptual housekeeping: agreeing what is being measured before arguing about how much of it there is (Hershcovis, 2011; Nielsen, Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2010). The honest summary is that non-sexual harassment is now well mapped as an escalation, a perception, an antecedent, and a consequence, while the question of how to separate its many near-synonymous forms—and how far each is truly distinct—remains genuinely open.

Current Directions

The most active front is synthesis: pulling three decades of scattered findings into coherent accounts and testing what follows from them. Nielsen and Einarsen's overview of the field took stock of what is established, what remains unknown, and what the next decade should pursue, setting an agenda that foregrounds longitudinal design and the mechanisms linking exposure to harm (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018). A second strand probes those mechanisms directly: a systematic review by Véronique Boudrias, Sébastien Trépanier, and Denise Salin examined the longitudinal consequences of workplace bullying and the psychological processes—such as impaired need satisfaction and rumination—that carry exposure into ill health, moving the field from documenting that bullying harms toward explaining how (Boudrias, Trépanier & Salin, 2021). A third organizes the moderators and mediators that shape when harassment occurs and how badly it lands: Arpana Rai and Upasna Agarwal's review mapped the conditions under which bullying is more or less likely and more or less damaging, framing an agenda for intervention research (Rai & Agarwal, 2018). Alongside this synthesis, work on intervention has grown: Jordi Escartín's review assessed what individual, organizational, and combined programs can and cannot achieve, and how weak the evaluation evidence still is (Escartín, 2016). The common thread is a move from establishing that non-sexual harassment is real and harmful toward explaining its mechanisms and testing what actually reduces it.

Common Misconceptions

Harassment is just the odd rude remark.

No. A single harsh exchange is a conflict; harassment is defined by a pattern of repeated hostile acts, conventionally at least weekly over about six months, against a target who cannot easily defend themselves. The harm is in the accumulation, not any one act (Leymann, 1996).

Only sexual conduct counts as workplace harassment.

Not at all. Non-sexual harassment—bullying, mobbing, persistent incivility, social undermining—is a distinct and well-studied family of mistreatment, catalogued in MeSH under its own descriptor and linked to serious health and work consequences independent of any sexual content (Einarsen, 2000; Bowling & Beehr, 2006).

It is simply a matter of a few bad personalities.

Largely not. Features of the work environment—power imbalance, role conflict, internal competition, poor leadership—enable and motivate harassment, which is why it clusters in some settings and not others and why organizational remedies outperform appeals to individuals (Salin, 2003; Samnani & Singh, 2012).

If the acts are ambiguous, no real harm is done.

The ambiguity is part of the mechanism, not a sign of harmlessness. Deniable slights are precisely what spiral and what a perceiver primed to see hostility escalates; even low-level incivility predicts diminished well-being and withdrawal (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001).

Glossary

Abusive supervision.

Sustained hostile verbal and non-verbal treatment by a supervisor, excluding physical contact; one of the near-synonymous constructs within the workplace-aggression family (Hershcovis).

Behavioral checklist method.

Measuring harassment by asking respondents how often they have been subjected to specific negative acts, without naming the acts as bullying; yields higher prevalence than self-labeling and is sensitive to the frequency-and-duration threshold used (Nielsen, Matthiesen & Einarsen).

Bullying.

Repeated aggressive behavior against a person who cannot readily defend themselves, marked by an imbalance of power and sustained over time; the direct MeSH subtype of non-sexual harassment (Olweus; Einarsen).

Dispute-related bullying.

Harassment that grows out of an escalated interpersonal conflict, as distinct from predatory bullying unconnected to any dispute (Einarsen).

Enabling structures.

Features of a workplace that make harassment possible—power imbalance, low cost to the perpetrator, a dissatisfied climate—in Salin's enabling/motivating/precipitating scheme (Salin).

Hostile attribution bias.

The tendency to infer hostile intent from cues that are objectively ambiguous, which disposes a perceiver to respond aggressively and so escalate conflict (Crick & Dodge).

Incivility spiral.

The tit-for-tat escalation by which a minor slight provokes a sharper response and so on, carrying an exchange from rudeness toward coercive aggression (Andersson & Pearson).

Mistreatment construct proliferation.

The splintering of workplace-aggression research into many near-synonymous labels—bullying, mobbing, incivility, undermining, abusive supervision—that overlap heavily and whose separate study obscures one family of mistreatment (Hershcovis).

Mobbing.

Leymann's term for systematic hostile communication directed at one person pushed into a helpless position, operationalized as negative acts occurring at least weekly for about six months or more (Leymann).

Predatory bullying.

Harassment in which a target is picked on for reasons unrelated to any prior conflict, such as group scapegoating or demonstration of power (Einarsen).

Self-labeling method.

Measuring harassment by asking respondents whether they consider themselves bullied, as opposed to a behavioral checklist of specific acts; the two methods yield markedly different prevalence rates (Nielsen, Matthiesen & Einarsen).

Social information processing.

The sequence of mental steps—encoding, interpretation, goal clarification, response generation and selection, and enactment—by which a person responds to a social cue; biases at the interpretation step drive aggressive responding (Crick & Dodge).

Social undermining.

Behavior intended over time to hinder a target's ability to establish and maintain positive relationships, work-related success, and favorable reputation; another of the overlapping workplace-aggression constructs (Hershcovis; Neuman & Baron).

Workplace incivility.

Low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm, violating norms of mutual respect; the mild end of the harassment continuum and a common precursor to worse mistreatment (Andersson & Pearson; Cortina et al.).

Key Researchers

Lynne M. Andersson

(Temple University). Organizational scholar who, with Christine Pearson, introduced the concept of workplace incivility and the incivility spiral, framing low-level mistreatment as the seedbed of workplace aggression. Google Scholar · Faculty page

Lilia M. Cortina

(University of Michigan). Social and organizational psychologist whose work established workplace incivility as a common, measurable, and consequential form of mistreatment that disproportionately targets the less powerful. ORCID · Google Scholar · Faculty page

Ståle Valvatne Einarsen

(University of Bergen). Leading European researcher on workplace bullying who synthesized the Scandinavian traditions, distinguished dispute-related from predatory bullying, and co-developed the field's measures and meta-analyses. ORCID · Google Scholar · Faculty page

M. Sandy Hershcovis

(University of Calgary). Organizational behavior scholar who called for reconciling the many overlapping constructs of workplace aggression—bullying, incivility, undermining, abusive supervision—into a single coherent framework. ORCID · Google Scholar

Heinz Leymann

(1932–1999; University of Stockholm). German-Swedish psychologist who introduced the term mobbing to working life and operationalized it through criteria of frequency and duration, founding the systematic study of workplace harassment. Wikipedia · Wikidata

Morten Birkeland Nielsen

(University of Bergen & STAMI). Work and organizational psychologist whose meta-analyses established the health consequences of workplace bullying and showed how measurement method drives reported prevalence. ORCID · Google Scholar · Faculty page

Dan Olweus

(1931–2020; University of Bergen). Pioneer of bullying research whose school-based studies and intervention program established the modern scientific study of bullying and victimization. ORCID · Wikipedia · Wikidata

Denise Salin

(1975–2026; Hanken School of Economics). Organizational researcher whose enabling/motivating/precipitating framework reframed workplace bullying as a product of the work environment rather than individual character alone. ORCID · Wikidata

Frequently Asked Questions

What is non-sexual harassment?

Non-sexual harassment is a pattern of repeated, unwanted, hostile, or demeaning behavior directed at a person—most often at work—that is not sexual in nature, together with the mental processes by which the acts are intended, perceived, and escalated. It includes bullying, mobbing, and persistent incivility, and is studied as a form of social cognition and social behavior. In the MeSH vocabulary it is classified as a kind of social behavior.

How is it different from sexual harassment?

The two are distinct families of mistreatment. Sexual harassment involves unwanted conduct of a sexual nature; non-sexual harassment covers hostile treatment with no sexual content—persistent criticism, exclusion, undermining, humiliation, or the withholding of information. MeSH gives non-sexual harassment its own descriptor, and the research links it to serious health and work consequences independent of any sexual dimension.

When does ordinary conflict become harassment?

When it becomes a sustained pattern against someone who cannot easily defend themselves. The conventional criterion, from Heinz Leymann, is that negative acts occur with some frequency—as a rule of thumb at least weekly—over a long period, about six months or more. A single bad exchange is a conflict; repeated, systematic mistreatment is bullying or mobbing.

What is the incivility spiral?

It is the tit-for-tat escalation by which a minor slight provokes a slightly sharper response, which provokes a sharper one still, so that what began as rudeness can escalate into open aggression. Because low-level incivility is ambiguous and easy to deny, it often passes unchecked, which is exactly what lets it spiral.

Why does the ambiguity of acts matter so much?

Because many harassing acts are objectively ambiguous, whether an exchange escalates depends on how they are interpreted. People prone to a hostile attribution bias read hostile intent into neutral or unclear cues and respond aggressively, inviting a hostile response in turn. The same act can defuse or ignite depending on the intent the perceiver infers.

Is harassment caused by individuals or by the workplace?

Both, but the workplace matters more than intuition suggests. Features of the work environment—power imbalances, role conflict, internal competition, poor leadership—enable and motivate harassment, which is why it clusters in some organizations and not others. This is why durable remedies tend to be organizational rather than appeals to individuals to behave better.

What harm does non-sexual harassment do?

Meta-analyses link exposure to worse mental and physical health, lower job satisfaction and commitment, greater intention to leave, and reduced well-being, with effects visible in longitudinal as well as cross-sectional data. The harm accumulates over time and extends beyond the target to bystanders and the wider workgroup.

Why does MeSH classify non-sexual harassment as a form of social behavior?

Because harassment is constituted by a relationship and a social setting rather than by any single act: it is directed at another person, exploits a social imbalance of power, and is sustained in the interaction among perpetrator, target, and the surrounding group or organization. That makes it a form of behavior oriented toward others, which is what the social-behavior classification marks.

References

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. https://doi.org/10.2307/259136

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 and Violent Behavior, 56, 101508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101508

Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim's perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 998–1012. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998

Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74

Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(4), 379–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00043-3

Escartín, J. (2016). Insights into workplace bullying and interventions. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 9, 157–169. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S91211

Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying…oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.689

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414853

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24(3), 391–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400305

Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic review. Work & Stress, 26(4), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.734709

Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. V. (2018). What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: An overview of the literature and agenda for future research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 42, 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.007

Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & 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

Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(7), 1171–1190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01229.x

Rai, A., & Agarwal, U. A. (2018). A review of literature on mediators and moderators of workplace bullying: Agenda for future research. Management Research Review, 41(7), 822–859. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2016-0111

Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56(10), 1213–1232. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267035610003

Samnani, A.-K., & Singh, P. (2012). 20 years of workplace bullying research: A review of the antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(6), 581–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.08.004