175

British Journal of Psychology (2003), 94, 175188 2003 The British Psychological Society www.bps.org.uk

Victimization in the school and the workplace: Are there any links?
Peter K. Smith1 *, Monika Singer1 , Helge Hoel2 and Cary L. Cooper2
1 2

Goldsmiths College, University of London, UK University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UK
We examine whether reported roles in school bullying, and victimization in the workplace, are connected; the in uence of victim coping strategies at school; and sex differences. A questionnaire was completed by 5,288 adults from various workplace venues in Great Britain. We analysed two questions on school experiences (participant role; coping strategies if bullied) and questions on workplace bullying (experiences of being bullied). We found a signi cant relationship between reported roles in school bullying, and experience of workplace victimization. The highest risk of workplace victimization was for those who were both bullies and victims at school (bully/victims), followed by those who were only victims. An analysis of relative risk of workplace bullying, given being a victim at school plus using various coping strategies, revealed an increased risk for the strategies tried to make fun of it, and did not really cope. Women were at slightly higher risk of getting bullied at work, but there were no interactions with roles at school, and only one interaction with coping strategies. This is the rst study to report an association between school and workplace bullying. Victims at school are more at risk of workplace victimization, but the especial risk for bully/ victims supports other indications that this particular category of school pupils should be a focus of concern. The ndings also suggest that school pupils who consistently cannot cope with bullying, or try to make fun of the bullying, are more at risk for later problems in the workplace. However, associations are modest; many victims of school bullying are not being victimized in later life, and the results also suggest important contextual or environmental effects on risks of victimization.

Over the last two decades, there has been a large expansion of research into school bullying. Accumulated evidence of the negative consequences for victims and indeed all those involved in bullying has led to actions to tackle school bullying, either at local or national level, in many countries (Smith et al., 1999). More recently, bullying in the workplace has become recognized as an important issue (Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper,
* Requests for reprints should be addressed to Peter K. Smith, Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths College, University of London, New Cross, London SE4 6NW, UK (e-mail: p.smith@gold.ac.uk).

176

Peter K. Smith et al.

1999). Workplace bullying can be a major occupational stressor, creating enormous legal and nancial problems for organizations (Earnshaw & Cooper, 1996). Are school bullying and workplace bullying related? The de nitions commonly used are comparable, emphasizing persistent and repeated negative actions which are intended to intimidate or hurt another person in a weaker position; or, a systematic abuse of power. Olweus (1999) thus characterizes bullying as a subset of aggressive behaviour, involving repetition and imbalance of power. Based on the work of Olweus, Whitney and Smith (1993) used the following de nition of school bullying:
We say a young person is being bullied, or picked on, when another child or young person, or a group of young people, say nasty and unpleasant things to him or her. It is also bullying when a young person is hit, kicked or threatened, locked inside a room, sent nasty notes, when no-one ever talks to them and things like that. These things can happen frequently and it is dif cult for the young person being bullied to defend himself or herself. It is also bullying when a young person is teased repeatedly in a nasty way. But it is not bullying when two young people of about the same strength have the odd ght or quarrel. (p. 7)

Einarsen and Skogstad (1996) provide a similar de nition of workplace bullying:

A person is de ned as bullied if he or she is repeatedly subjected to negative acts in the workplace. However, to be a victim of such bullying one must also feel inferiority in defending oneself in the actual situation. This de nition builds on research on bullying in the school playground . . . and stresses that bullying and harassment imply a difference in actual or perceived power and strength between the persecutor and the victim. Typically , a victim of harassment and bullying is teased, badgered, and insulted and perceives that he or she has little recourse to retaliation in kind . . . This de nition . . . is not limited to a prede ned set of negative acts. It covers all situations in which one or more persons over a period feel subjected to negative acts that one cannot defend oneself against. Even if a single serious episode, e.g. physical assault, may be regarded as bullying and harassment, this de nition emphasizes repeated negative acts . . . Consequently, serious con icts between parties of equal strength, or isolated episodes of con ict, are not considered as bullying. (p. 187)

See Hoel, Rayner, and Cooper (1999) for a further discussion of de nitions. Developmental psychologists have distinguished different forms of bullying, notably physical (hitting, pushing), verbal (insults, threats) and indirect or relational (rumour spreading, social exclusion) (Bjo rkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Indirect forms of bullying increase through the adolescent years; and in the workplace, even more sophisticated, diverse and subtle forms occur, such as persistent criticism, setting of impossible or unreasonable deadlines and withholding information which affects someones work, referred to as rational sterman, and Lagerspetz appearing aggression and social manipulation by Bjo rkqvist, O (1994). Both in the school and in the workplace, factors of organizational climate and working arrangements can contribute to the incidence of bullying; for example, the existence and effectiveness of an anti-bullying policy in schools (Eslea & Smith, 1998; Smith & Shu, 2000), and quality of working environment in the workplace (Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994; Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996). However, individual factors are also likely to be important; Vartia (1996) found that psychological work environment and organizational climate factors explained 24%of the variance in bullying in a Finnish workplace sample, leaving considerable variance to be explained in other ways. It is still an open question whether such personality characteristics identi ed with victims of bullying should be considered risk factors increasing the likelihood of becoming a target

Victimization in the school and workplace

177

of bullying, or as resulting from the bullying process itself (Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Leymann, 1996). In school bullying, various individual and social risk factors have been identi ed for victimization. These include low self-esteem, disability, physical weakness, shyness and unassertive personality, maternal overprotection, lack of friends at school (especially reliable and/or high-status friends), and social rejection in the peer group (Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Monks & Smith, 2000). In the workplace too, it has been reported that victims of bullying are more likely to be submissive, low in independence, introverted and highly conscientious, anxious, and neurotic (Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000). In so far as environmental/organizational climate factors are one major source of variance in victimization rates, we should not expect continuity at the individual level, between school and workplace. Some continuity would be predicted, however, on the basis of some of the individual characteristics implicated in previous research. For example, temperamental factors such as shyness may have some biological component and contribute as a risk factor (Olweus, 1993). Also, victimization at school might contribute to lower self-esteem, anxiety, and depression, which might continue into the adult years and also act as risk factors for victimization (Hawker & Boulton, 2000). However, so far, no study has investigated possible links between individuals experiences of workplace victimization and previous victimization at school. In considering such possible links, we believed it to be important to take account of role differences in bully/victim status; sex differences; and coping strategies for dealing with victimization. Traditionally, schoolchildren have been categorized as bullies, victims or those not involved, who are neither bullies nor victims. These roles show some appreciable stability over periods of at least 1 to 2 years (Boulton & Smith, 1994; Salmivalli, Lappalainen, & Lagerspetz, 1998). Although about one-half of school-aged victims report bullying as being transient (lasting a week or so), about one-quarter report it as being of long duration, in some cases many years (Smith & Shu, 2000). In addition, there is a natural category of bully/victims, that is children who both bully others and are bullied themselves. There is probably some overlap between bully/victims and children described as provocative victims (Olweus, 1993; Pikas, 1989), aggressive victims (Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1997) or as reactive/proactive aggressors (Vitaro, Gendreau, Tremblay, & Oligny, 1998). This bully/victim group may include pupils particularly at risk in terms of background circumstances and later social and personal problems (Monks & Smith, 2000; Schwartz et al., 1997). The not involved category may also be divided. OConnell, Pepler, and Craig (1999) observed many pupils who were bystanders at a bullying incident but did nothing to intervene; they regarded this as passively reinforcing the bullying. Such pupils were more often boys. However, some pupils would not have been involved, even as bystanders. A few studies have reported on the coping strategies used by victims of bullying (usually on the basis of self- or peer report). Kochenderfer and Ladd (1997) looked at the success of different strategies in a longitudinal study of 5- to 6-year-olds. They found that telling a teacher, and having a friend help, were used more by pupils whose victimization scores decreased over time. Fighting back, and walking away, were used more by pupils whose victimization scores increased over time. Smith, Shu, and Madsen (2001) found evidence that crying was a less successful strategy, and ignoring a more successful one, in a sample of English 10- to 14-year-olds; and Salmivalli, Karhunen, and Lagerspetz (1996) found that 12- to 13-year-old Finnish pupils rated nonchalance as being a more constructive response to bullying than either counter-aggression or helplessness. There are sex differences in roles as regards bullying situations at school. Boys tend

178

Peter K. Smith et al.

to be overrepresented in both the bully and bully/victim categories, but not in the victim category. Victimization rates do not usually show marked sex differences, either at school (Olweus, 1999; Smith & Shu, 2000) or in the workplace (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996). There are also sex differences in coping strategies at school; for example, ghting back has been found to be a more common response in boys, and telling a friend or an adult, or crying, more common in girls; other strategies such as ignoring the bully did not show a strong sex difference (Smith & Shu, 2000). The present study aims to examine links between school and workplace bullying, using data from a large sample of adults, and taking account of the factors reviewed above. The following research questions are addressed: (1) What is the distribution of recollected roles in school bullying, and are there any sex differences in these roles? (2) For those bullied at school, what coping strategies are recalled, and can any sex differences be identi ed? (3) Is there a relationship between being bullied at school and being bullied in the workplace? Are victims at school, and bully/victims especially , more at risk of workplace victimization? (4) Are there certain coping strategies at school that reduce the likelihood of becoming a victim in the workplace? (5) Are any of the links found between school and workplace bullying different for male and female respondents?

Method
Sample The participants were 5,288 adults in various workplace settings; 2,764 males, 2,508 females (16 missing information on gender). (Not everyone answered all questions, so some analyses are based on smaller numbers.) Their mean age was 40.2 years ( SD = 9.8 years). Respondents came from a wide range of sectors and occupations including the National Health Service, post/telecommunications, higher education, school teaching, local authority, manufacturing/IT, pharmaceutical industry, brewing industry, hotel industry, retailing, banking, police, re, and prison services, voluntary organizations, and dance. Organizations were all from Great Britain, covering England, Wales, and Scotland (Northern Ireland was not included, to avoid additional possible issues of sectarian harassment). The selection of study participants was the responsibility of the individual participating organizations. Hence, in order to ensure an optimal degree of randomness and representativeness, a set of sampling guidelines was developed. Each organization was asked to identify a target population of a particular number, dependent upon the size of the organization and the total number of participating organizations within that sector. Speci c guidance was then given to each individual organization with regard to how randomness and an acceptable degree of representativeness could be achieved. Procedure Respondents were identi ed by the above procedure and asked to ll in a questionnaire mailed to their home address. This questionnaire was primarily on conditions and

Victimization in the school and workplace

179

relationships in their workplace. It included questions on bullying, which was de ned as:
A situation where one or several individuals persistently over a period of time perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of negative actions from one or several persons, in a situation where the target of bullying has dif culty in defending him or herself against these actions. We will not refer to a one-off incident as bullying.

The questionnaires were returned anonymously, by mail, directly to the researchers. We report here results from two questions in which respondents were asked to think back to their school days. In the rst question, they were asked which category best described their own experience at school, in relation to bullying: I was not involved at all, either as a bully, a victim or a bystander (coded Neutral); I saw it happen sometimes but did not take part directly (Bystander); I would sometimes join in bullying others (Bully); I would sometimes get bullied by others (Victim); At various times, I was both a bully and a victim (bully/victim). A second question asked, if they ever were a victim of bullying at school, which were the main ways they used to cope with the bullying. Respondents could tick one or more from 10 options (as in Table 2). Responses to these questions were related to two questions concerning bullying in the workplace, asked immediately after presenting the respondents with the de nition outlined above. The rst was on whether the respondent had been bullied at work over the last 6 months; this could be scored on a 6-point scale, from no (1) to yes, almost daily (6). The second asked whether the respondent had ever been bullied at work over the last 5 years, and was answered on a yes/no basis.

Results
Roles in school bullying and sex differences The overall ndings for recollection of roles in school bullying are summarized in Table 1. About one third of respondents recollected that they had been a victim of bullying at school (no sex difference); in addition, some recalled both being a victim, and taking part in bullying others, that is being a bully/victim (more males than females). Relatively few (but more males) reported being primarily a bully. Nearly half the sample reported having only seen it happen (bystander) or not having been involved at all (neutral) (more females in this latter category).
Table 1. Means scores for roles in school bullying, by sex of respondent, and chi-square tests Sex Male % 14.7 26.4 4.4 32.0 22.6 Female % 31.2 22.4 1.7 33.8 10.9 Total % 22.5 24.5 3.1 32.9 17.0

Roles of school bullying Neutral Bystander Bully Victim Bully/victim Note. N = 5217.

x2 202.9 11.0 30.9 1.9 124.3

p ( 1) .000 .001 .000 .170 .000

180

Peter K. Smith et al.

Coping strategies in school bullying and sex differences The ndings for coping strategies reported are summarized in Table 2. These data are for those who reported being victimized at school (a victim or a bully/victim), in the question on roles (N = 2603, or about one half of all respondents) and percentages refer to these. A wide range of coping strategies was reported, but the main strategies were tried to avoid the situation, tried to ignore it and fought back. Got help from teachers was only reported by 6% . Most categories showed sex differences, the only exceptions being stayed away from school and other. Males who were victimized at school more often reported that they tried to avoid the situation, fought back, or tried to make fun of it. Females who were victimized at school more often reported that they tried to ignore it, got help (from friends, teachers, or family), or did not really cope.
Table 2. Means scores for coping strategies, by sex of respondent, and chi-square tests Sex Male % 15.4 54.3 6.0 34.8 41.6 13.1 5.4 10.4 9.8 1.7 Female % 11.7 49.7 7.8 46.4 25.1 16.8 7.6 21.2 15.3 2.3 Total % 13.8 52.4 6.7 39.8 34.6 14.7 6.3 15.0 12.1 2.0

Coping strategies Tried to make fun of it Tried to avoid situation Stayed away from school Tried to ignore it Fought back Got help from friends Got help from teachers Got help from family Did not really cope Other Note. N = 2603.

x2 6.8 5.2 3.0 34.9 76.0 6.6 4.7 57.9 17.5 2.2

p (1) .009 .023 .081 .000 .000 .009 .025 .000 .000 .326

Being bullied at work The proportion of respondents who reported being bullied at work over the last 6 months was 10.6%(males 9.9% , females 11.4% ). On the 6-point scale, the mean score was 1.24. The proportion of respondents who reported being bullied at work over the last 5 years was 24.7%(males 22.0% , females 27.7% ). Is there a relationship between being bullied at school and being bullied in the workplace? Taking each role in school bullying, the numbers and proportion of all respondents in that role who were bullied in the workplace (in the last 6 months, and last 5 years) are shown in Table 3. To assess the relationship between being bullied at school and being bullied in the workplace in the last 6 months, a two-factor ANOVAwas used with frequency of being bullied in the workplace over the last 6 months as the dependent variable. One independent group factor was gender. For the other factor, we rst compared all those victimized at school (victim + bully/victim) with all those not victimized

Victimization in the school and workplace

181

Table 3. Numbers of respondents bullied in the workplace, and percentages, by primary role recollected at school Proportion bullied at workplace in last 6 monthsa 100 8.6% 123 9.7% 14 8.6% 191 11.2% 118 13.4% Proportion bullied at workplace in last 5 yearsb 235 20.1% 253 20.0% 41 25.2% 482 28.3% 271 30.8%

Role at school Neutral Bystander Bully Victim Bully/victim

a b

M = 10.6%. M = 24.7%.

(neutral + bystander + bully); second, we compared those who were bully/victims, with the other four roles. Comparing all those who had been victimized at school (victim + bully/victim) with those not victimized, there was a main effect of school victimization in relation to being a victim at work in the last 6 months, F(1, 5168) = 11.61, p = .001; means were 1.27 for those victimized at school, and 1.20 for those not victimized at school. There was also a main effect for sex, F(1, 5168) = 5.77, p = .016; means were 1.26 for females and 1.22 for males. No signi cant interaction was found, F(1, 5168) = 1.46, p = .227. Comparing just those who were bully/victims versus all other roles at school, there was a main effect in relation to being bullied at work in the last 6 months, F(1, 5168) = 9.74, p < .01; means were 1.29 for those who had been a bully/victim at school and 1.22 for those who had not. There was a main effect for sex F(1, 5168) = 7.39, p < .01, but no signi cant interaction, F(1, 5168) = 1.83, p = .176. To assess the relationship between being bullied at school and being bullied in the workplace in the last 5 years, chi-square analyses were performed. Again, we rst compared all those victimized (victim + bully/victim) with all those not victimized. A signi cant result was found: N = 5184; x2 = 53.15, p < .001. Those who had been a victim at school (29.1% ) were more likely to have been bullied at work in the last 5 years than those who had not (20.4% ). For those who had been victimized at school, females (34.4% ) were more likely to have been bullied at work in the last 5 years than males (25.4% ), N= 2574; x2 (1 ) = 24 .21, p < .001. Comparing those who had been a bully/victim at school, with the other four roles, there was also a signi cant result, N = 5184; x2 (1 ) = 20.56, p < .001; those who had been a bully/victim at school (30.8% ) were more likely to have been bullied at work in the last 5 years than people who had not been a bully/victim at school (23.5% ). For those who were bully/victims at school, females (41.3% ) were signi cantly more likelyto have been bullied at work in the last 5 years than males (26.3% ), N = 879; x2 (1 ) = 18.66, p < .001.

182

Peter K. Smith et al.

Contingency tables illustrate the relative risk of being victimized in the workplace, if one is victimized in school; these are shown in Table 4a, b. It is clear that while being a victim (and especially a bully/victim) at school carries an increased risk of being victimized in the workplace, the effect is modest; many of those bullied at work were not bullied at school.
Table 4. Contingency tables to illustrate risk of being bullied in the workplace in the last 6 months, and 5 years, for (a) those victimized at school and (b) bully/victims at school (a) Victimized at school (victims + bully/victims) Bullied at work in last 6 months Victimized at school Yes No Yes 309 237 No 2285 2357 Bullied at work in last 5 years Yes 753 529 No 1832 2070

(b) Bully/victims at school Bullied at work in last 6 months Victimized at school Yes No Yes 118 765 No 426 3877 Bullied at work in last 5 years Yes 271 609 No 1011 3293

Are there certain coping strategies at school that reduce the chances of being a victim in the workplace? For each coping strategy reported at school, by those who had been victimized (victims and bully/victims), the numbers and proportions of those bullied in the workplace (in the last 6 months, and last 5 years) are shown in Table 5. To assess the relationship between the use of certain coping strategies at school and victimization at work over the last 6 months, two-factor ANOVAs were carried out on respondents who reported they had been a victimized at school, with frequency of being bullied in the workplace over the last 6 months as the dependent variable. The two factors were use or not of a particular coping strategy at school, and gender. The analysis was repeated for each coping strategy. There were signi cant main effects, indicating greater risks of workplace bullying over the last 6 months, for the school coping strategies tried to make fun of it, F(1, 2579) = 3.92, p = .048, did not really cope, F(1, 2579) = 13.42, p < .01, and other F(1, 2579) = 3.36, p = .035. Mean values were 1.33 for those who tried to make fun of the bullying at school, 1.26 for those who did not; 1.44 for those who did not really cope with the bullying at school, 1.25 for those who did not check this response; and 1.57 for those who used other coping strategies at school, 1.26 for those who did not.

Victimization in the school and workplace

183

Table 5. For those victimized at school (N = 2585), the proportion bullied in the workplace, by coping strategy at school (numbers and percentages) Coping strategy at school if a victim or bully/victim Tried to make fun of it Tried to avoid situation Stayed away from school Tried to ignore it Fought back Got help from friends Got help from teachers Got help from family Did not really cope Other Proportion bullied at workplace in last 6 months 49 13.7% 164 12% 19 10.9% 123 11.9% 115 12.8% 52 13.7% 27 16.4% 42 10.9% 52 16.5% 9 17.3% Proportion bullied at workplace in last 5 years 98 27.5% 402 29.6% 47 26.9% 301 29.3% 276 30.7% 115 30.6% 55 33.7% 114 29.7% 108 34.4% 23 44.2%

A signi cant main effect for sex was found for almost all categories. Of those victimized at school, females (M = 1.31) scored higher than males (M = 1.24) on the question about being bullied at work over the last 6 months. However, most interactions with sex were nonsigni cant. Only for the category did not really cope did a signi cant interaction emerge, F(1, 2579) = 4.81, p < .01; females (M = 1.56) who did not really cope with the bullying at school are more at risk of being bullied at work over the last 6 months than men ( M = 1.30) in comparison with females ( M = 1.27) and males ( M = 1.23) who did cope. To examine the risks of different coping strategies at school, in relation to being bullied in the workplace in the last 5 years, chi-square analyses were performed for the use or not of each coping strategy. There were two signi cant results, indicating a greater risk of being bullied in the workplace over the last 5 years, for the category did not really cope, 34.4%versus 28.4% , N = 2585; x2 (1 ) = 4 .51, p = .034, and for other coping strategies, 44.2%versus 28.8% , N = 2585; x2 (1 ) = 5 .14, p = .023.

Discussion
This was a retrospective study of roles in school bullying, with many respondents thinking back some 20 or 30 years. Inevitably, this time span may affect the accuracy of recall. We used a retrospective methodology, as a substitute for a 2030-year longitudinal study which might be preferable but which would take 2030 years to carry

184

Peter K. Smith et al.

out. However, we rst discuss some issues regarding the reliability and validity of retrospective reports. In a comprehensive meta-analysis, Brewin, Andrews, and Gotlib (1993) concluded that adults asked to recall salient factual details of their own childhoods are generally accurate, especially concerning experiences that ful l the criteria of having been unique, consequential, and unexpected . . . their recollections of the central features of the event are accurate and reasonably stable over time. Their agreement with independent sources is likely to vary from fair to excellent (p. 87). Berscheid (1994) also concluded that emotion-provoking events, which are often consequential to the individuals well-being and are unexpected as well, also tend to be remembered (p. 94). Less accurate are the precise times at which events occurred, or the sequence in which they happened. In addition, there is some shift in later adulthood to increased recollections of positive memories from childhood (Berscheid, 1994; Brewin et al., 1993). Memories relating to roles in bullying thus satisfy many criteria for good recall; the events are emotion-provoking, consequential for well-being, and so far as victimization is concerned may have been unexpected. In addition, errors in timing, or sequence of events, would not affect the ndings in this study; nor would any age-related shift to positive earlier memories have any general impact on links found from school memories to current workplace situation. Two studies have speci cally reported on the accuracy of memories regarding victimization. Olweus (1993) found a reasonably good accuracy of reports/memories of victimization at age 16, when recalled at age 23. Rivers (2001) found a good stability of memories of bullying with participants aged 1641 years, using questionnaires 1214 months apart, and concluded that memory stability may be a useful indicator of reliability (p. 129). While acknowledging that our own instrument lacks reliability data, we believe that this evidence regarding retrospective memories of victimization, and the evidence regarding moderate stability of roles reviewed in the introduction, suggests some con dence in the ndings. In addition, we looked for evidence of construct validity in terms of the proportions of roles recalled by our participants, and sex differences. We can compare our ndings on recollected school roles with those from pupilbased surveys (e.g. Smith & Shu, 2000; Whitney & Smith, 1993) that have used similar de nitions of bullying in English schools over the last decade. In this context, the distribution of roles reported retrospectively looks realistic. About one half of respondents recollected being a victim, and about one in ve recollected being a bully (taking account of the bully/victim category in both). These are recollections of roles throughout school; the recent pupil-based surveys nd gures of around 1020%victims and 510%bullies during one school term , so the larger gures re ecting a longer time span seem of a sensible order of magnitude. In addition, characteristic sex differences are replicated. More males than females recollect taking part in bullying at school, there is no signi cant sex difference in recollections of being a victim, and more females than males recollect not being involved in bullying at all. Parallel ndings are consistently reported for current pupil-based surveys (Whitney & Smith, 1993). This consistency leads us to have con dence in a reasonable reliabilityof these retrospective memories of school life. There is also some consistency with a more limited literature on coping strategies. Using a more limited list of seven coping strategies with 2300 10- to 14-year-old English pupils, Smith and Shu (2000) found that ignoring was reported most frequently, by 66% (cf. 40%in Table 2), ghting back by 23%(cf. 35% ) (more in males in both surveys), and

Victimization in the school and workplace

185

getting help from friends by 17%(cf. 15% ). The largest difference is in getting help from teachers, reported by 23%of pupils in Smith and Shu (2000), but by only 6%in adults recollections (Table 2). This very likely re ects the great change in English schools over the last decade, so far as dealing with bullying is concerned. All schools are now legally required to have a policy or framework for dealing with bullying; there is much greater awareness of the issue; many more resources to help teachers; and probably as a consequence, an increase in pupils readiness to tell teachers of bullying, and possibly some decrease in victimization rates over the period (Smith & Shu, 2000). It still remains the case, however, that males are less willing to tell teachers about bullying at school than females. This study has, for the rst time, obtained evidence that persons who were victimized at school are also more likely to be victimized in the workplace. This was consistently and signi cantly found, both for workplace victimization over the last 6 months and over the last 5 years. The relationship holds true equally for both males and females. Females are at marginally greater overall risk of workplace victimization, unlike in school, perhaps because of a bias towards males in more powerful positions in the workplace; but this does not impact signi cantly on the schoolworkplace links that were found. This degree of individual consistency of patterns of victimization in different environments (school and current workplace) and at substantially different ages (on average, some 2025 years apart) does point to factors of continuity in risk of victimization. These could lie in individual attributes such as temperament, selfesteem, and ability to form protective relationships. All these, in turn, might be manifested in coping strategies; whether one feels one cannot cope (perhaps because of lack of social support, and low self-esteem), or whether the person successfully gets help from friends or through recognized procedures, or in some way (ignoring, assertiveness) is able to deal with the bullying person on an individual basis. We examined whether certain coping strategies reported as primarily used at school acted as protective or risk factors in looking at the strength of the relationship with victimization at work. In fact, none of the school coping strategies appeared to be signi cant protective factors. However two were consistently signi cant risk factors, did not really cope, and other coping strategies, with small to moderate effect sizes. In addition, tried to make fun of it just reached .05 signi cance for workplace victimization in the last 6 months; given that 20 tests were made in the analyses in Table 5, and that this nding was of borderline signi cance and not replicated for workplace victimization over the last 5 years, we do not treat it as a well-substantiated nding. The remaining eight coping strategies could all be seen as possibly ways of dealing with the situation (even if some may be more successful, probably depending on age, sex, type of bullying experienced, and school context). Thus someone who checked did not really cope or (in rather few cases, Table 5) other, probably was not able to use effective coping strategies through lack of con dence, lack of social support, or other factors which have an appreciable component of individual psychological characteristics as explanatory factors. Two additional factors emerged from the limited range of analyses we were able to carry out in this study. One is the increased risk of workplace victimization for those who were both bullies and victimsbully/victimsat school. These constituted 17%of the sample; while this number may include those who, at one time or another over their school career, were either a bully or a victim, it is likely that it also includes a smaller

186

Peter K. Smith et al.

percentage of persons who were chronically involved in both roles. Such persons would correspond to the bully/victims in school-based surveys, namely to the relatively small percentage of pupils who are both bully and victim at the same time, the so-called provocative victims or aggressive victims (Olweus, 1993; Pikas, 1989). The research of Schwartz et al. (1997) and others (see Smith & Myron-Wilson, 1998, for a review) suggests that these bully/victims are particularly at risk for psychological disorder, perhaps as a result of dysfunctional parenting; it would not be surprising if such persons had a heightened risk of workplace victimization, since they might take forward characteristics such as a distrust of others and an aggressive response to ambiguous situations, which could appear to justify or in part provoke an aggressive response. The second factor of interest here is that it was especially females who reported they did not really cope with school bullying, who were more at risk than similar males of victimization in the workplace. This is an interesting nding that deserves further exploration. Possibly, since females are usually more willing to seek help (Smith & Shu, 2000; Table 2), those females who do not seek help (and thus do not really cope) are more towards the extreme of a distribution of unsatisfactory coping than corresponding males are. These ndings suggest the importance of certain individual factors in leading to a degree of continuity of victimization experiences from school to workplace. However, it is important to point out that other factors are clearly at work. There is also a very substantial degree of discontinuity, as evidenced in the modest effect sizes from our statistical analyses (Table 3) and the contingency tables shown in Table 4a, b. For example, for those who were victims at school, the risk of being a victim of workplace bullying over the last 6 months is larger than for non-victims at school, but many victims at school do not become workplace victims. This is true even for the subgroup of bully/ victims; in fact, despite the higher risk, the majority of bully/victims at school were not workplace victims (Table 4b). This suggests that, although stable individual factors have some importance in explaining victimization risk, contextual factors (which might be immediate environment, immediate social support, or individual factors which have changed over time) are also important and, so far as our data are concerned, probably more important. A great deal of the variance in workplace bullying may thus be due to environmental factors. This study is limited in certain important ways. It relies on retrospective reports of school bullying, so there is a possibility of a halo effect in nding school/workplace relationships; and there is certainly shared method variance in the reliance on selfreports. The information on school bullying was limited to two questions, because of constraints on the length of the total questionnaire. The type of victimization, and its severity, could not be assessed. Also, a series of questions regarding involvement through school would have given more detailed information on how stable a role was through the school years. However, our survey does draw on a very large and rather representative sample from a variety of ages and workplace venues across the country. We feel it provides a good starting point for further investigation of links between school and workplace bullying. From a research viewpoint, it would be ideal to carry out a longitudinal design; although there would be signi cant ethical implications to consider in such a study. In any event, future studies could usefully assess a greater range of current variables (such as temperament, self-esteem, attachment type, social support and trust in relationships) that may be important individual factors in victimization risk. Clearly, our results suggest that individual factors (and coping strategies) do have some importance in

Victimization in the school and workplace

187

understanding workplace victimization, and future research should not neglect these. Equally, however, more research is called for into those current factors that may lead to workplace victimization, irrespective of prior factors in the individuals life history. From a practical viewpoint, our ndings support other evidence that those who are bully/victims in childhood are a particular cause for concern; not only are they at risk in terms of immediate problems and family background, but also they are more at risk for reporting later victimization in the workplace. Such persons may need particular, focused therapeutic help in relationship dif culties. However, this only characterizes a small percentage of those involved in workplace victimization and in no way detracts from the need to improve workplace environments in order to reduce the risk of bullying taking place and to ensure that cases of workplace bullying can be dealt with openly, honestly and fairly if, and when, such scenarios emerge. Such efforts may lead to a more humane, happy, and productive environment not only for victims of bullying, but for all the workforce.

Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the British Occupational Health Research Foundation (BOHRF) and also supported by the Training and Mobility of Researchers grant ERB -FMRX -CT970139, DG12, from the European Commission.

References
Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal relationships. Annua l Review of Psychology, 45 , 79129. Bjo rkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys ght? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behaviour, 18 , 117127. sterman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1994). Sex differences in covert aggression Bjo rkqvist, K., O among adults. Aggressive Behaviour, 20 , 2733. Boulton, M. J., & Smith, P . K. (1994). Bully/victim problems in middle-school children: Stability , self -perceived competence, peer perceptions and peer acceptance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12 , 315329. Brewin, C. R., Andrews, B., & Gotlib, I. H. (1993). Psychopathology and early experience: A reappraisal of retrospective reports. Psychological Bulletin , 113 , 82 98. Coyne, I., Seigne, E., & Randall, P . E. (2000). Personality traits as predictors of workplace bullyvictim status. Proceedings of the British Psychological Society Occupationa l Psychology Conference, 193198. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66 , 710722. Earnshaw, J., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). Stress and employer liability. London: IPD. Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., & Matthiesen, S. B. (1994). Bullying and harassment at work and their relationships to work environment quality: An exploratory study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 4 , 381401. Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological ndings in public and private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 , 185201. Eslea, M. J., & Smith, P . K. (1998). The long-term effectiveness of anti-bullying work in primary schools. Educational Research, 40 , 203218. Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychiatry, 41 , 441455.

188

Peter K. Smith et al.

Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Working with victims of workplace bullying. In H. Kemshall & J. Pritchard (Eds.), Good practice in working with victims of violence (pp. 101118). London: Kingsley. Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Workplace bullying. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14 , 195230. Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). Victimized childrens responses to peers aggression: Behaviors associated with reduced versus continued victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 9 , 5973. Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 , 165184. Monks, C., & Smith, P . K. (2000). Relations of children involved in bully-victim problems at school. In R. S. L. Mills & S. Duck (Eds), Developmental psychology of personal relationships (pp. 131153). Chichester: Wiley & Sons. OConnell, P ., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22 , 437452. Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 315342). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Olweus, D. (1999). Sweden. In P . K. Smith, Y . Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, &P . Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 227). London: Routledge. Pikas, A. (1989). A pure conception of mobbing gives the best for treatment. School Psychology International, 10 , 95104. Rivers, I. (2001). Retrospective reports of school bullying: Stabilityof recall and its implications for research. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19 , 129142. Salmivalli, C., Karhunen, J., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1996). How do the victims respond to bullying? Aggressive Behavior, 22 , 99109. Salmivalli, C., Lappalainen, M., & Lagerspetz, K. (1998). Stability and change of behavior in connection with bullying in schools: Atwo-year follow-up. Aggressive Behaviour, 24 , 205218. Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1997). The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 68 , 665675. Smith, P . K., Morita, Y ., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R., & Slee, P . (1999). The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. London: Routledge. Smith, P . K., & Myron-Wilson, R. (1998). Parenting and school bullying. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 3 , 405417. Smith, P . K., & Shu, S. (2000). What good schools can do about bullying: Findings from a survey in English schools after a decade of research and action. Childhood, 7 , 193212. Smith, P . K., Shu, S., & Madsen, K. (2001). Characteristics of victims of school bullying: Developmental changes in coping strategies and skills. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 332352). New York: Guilford. Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullyingpsychological work environment and organisational climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 , 203214. Vitaro, F ., Gendreau, P . L., Tremblay , R. E., & Oligny, P . (1998). Reactive and proactive aggression differentially predict later conduc t problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39 , 377385. Whitney, I., & Smith, P . K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35 , 325. Zapf, D., Knorz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationship between mobbing factors, and job content, social work environment, and health outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 , 215237. Received 3 July 2000; revised version received 14 January 2002