Skip to main content
Log in

Interpersonal Targets and Types of Workplace Aggression as a Function of Perpetrator Sex

  • Published:
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We investigated the relationship between biological sex of the perpetrator and enactment of two forms of psychological workplace aggression (i.e., overt and covert) against two different interpersonal targets (i.e., supervisors and co-workers). Based on theories of power, we tested hypotheses using two samples (n 1  = 155, 57% females; n 2  = 152, 54% females). In comparison to women, results showed that men enacted greater levels of overt aggression against both supervisors and co-workers. Men and women reported enacting equal levels of covert aggression against both supervisors and co-workers. Taken together, these findings suggest that although biological sex of the perpetrator distinguishes levels of enacted overt aggression in the workplace, there are no differences between the sexes on levels of enacted covert aggression in the workplace.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aquino, K., Douglas, S., & Martinko, M. J. (2004). Overt expressions of anger in response to perceived victimization: The moderating effects of attributional style and organizational norms. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 152–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 212–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barling, J., Dupré, K. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting workplace aggression and violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 671–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1998). Workplace aggression—the iceberg beneath the tip of workplace violence: Evidence on its forms, frequency, and potential causes. Public Administration Quarterly, 21, 446–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. A., Neuman, J. H., & Geddes, D. (1999). Social and personal determinants of workplace aggression: Evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and the Type A behavior pattern. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 281–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32, 641–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30, 177–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark H (2010) The female factor: Getting women into boardrooms, by law. The New York Times, January 28.

  • Cooper, W. H., & Richardson, A. J. (1986). Unfair comparisons. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 179–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33, 55–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1998). Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, G. L. (2009). Status and the gender stereotyped personality traits: Toward an integration. Sex Roles, 61, 297–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2006). Preventing workplace violence. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence, (pp. 607–632). Sage Publications.

  • Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 24–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. The American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korabik, K., & Ayman, R. (2007). Gender and leadership in the corporate world: A multiperspective model. In J. L. Chin, B. Lott, J. K. Rice, & J. Sanchez-Hucles (Eds.), Women and leadership: Transforming visions and diverse voices (pp. 106–124). Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, J. F., Blander, B., & McArthur, D. L. (1995). Incidence, risk factors, and prevention strategies for work related assault injuries: A review of what is known, what needs to be known, and countermeasures for intervention. Annual Review of Public Health, 16, 355–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18, 50–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, B. D. (2007). Gender and human resource management in the Middle East. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 54–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 391–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (2005). Aggression in the workplace: A social psychological perspective. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 13–40). Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. N., & Graves, L. M. (2003). Women and men in management. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson, S. B., & Taylor, C. A. (2005). Female aggression toward male intimate partners: An examination of social norms in a community-based sample. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 78–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, M. K. (2003). Social aggression among girls. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of this study were presented at the 2006 meeting of the International Congress of Applied Psychology, Athens, Greece, and the 2009 New Directions in Health Research: Sex & Gender Conference, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada. Authors are listed in alphabetical order by surname, and all acknowledge the financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nick Turner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Arnold, K.A., Dupré, K.E., Hershcovis, M.S. et al. Interpersonal Targets and Types of Workplace Aggression as a Function of Perpetrator Sex. Employ Respons Rights J 23, 163–170 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-010-9155-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-010-9155-x

Key words

Navigation