Is this bullying” Understandingtarget and witness reaction.docx

“Is this bullying?” Understanding
target and witness reactions
Al-Karim Samnani
School of Human Resource Management, York University,
Toronto, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to theorize the interpretations and
reactions of targets and witnesses to
subtle forms of bullying.
Design/methodology/approach – A theoretical approach was
used to understand target and
witness interpretations and reactions. Learned helplessness
theory and social influence theory are
drawn upon.
Findings – This paper revealed that subtle forms of bullying
behaviors will be more likely to induce
confusion from both targets and witnesses. Targets will tend to
be more confused in response to subtle
bullying and attribute environmental factors for the behaviors.
This will decrease their likelihood to
react against the bullying. Witnesses will also experience
greater confusion and will tend to side with
the perpetrator, particularly when the perpetrator is an
important organizational member
(e.g. supervisor). Witnesses may internalize the behaviors,
leading to greater permeability of the
bullying through the organization.

Originality/value – This paper sheds light on two important and
under-researched aspects of
workplace bullying, i.e. subtle bullying behaviors and witnesses
of bullying. This paper
counter-intuitively suggests that subtle bullying behaviors may
in fact be more harmful to targets
than explicit bullying behaviors. Also, witnesses may represent
a “dark side” of bullying in which they
enable the bullying to be increasingly difficult to defend
against. This contributes to our
understanding of the intensification of bullying.
Keywords Workplace bullying, Subtle bullying, Witness
reactions, Witnesses, Behaviour
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Over the past 20 years, research on workplace bullying has
increased considerably.
Prevalence studies revealing the widespread nature of bullying
in the workplace has
played a critical role in fueling this research. For instance, a
study in the USA reported
a prevalence rate of workplace bullying at approximately 47
percent of employees
(Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). In addition, Fox and Stallworth
(2005) found that over 95
percent of employees have experienced some form of general
bullying at work over the
past five years. In contrast, studies in Europe have generally
reported lower prevalence
rates (5-10 percent) (Einarsen et al., 2011), which may be
partially accounted for by the
use of varying definitions and estimation methods, as well as

national culture
(Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Loh et al., 2010). Nonetheless,
these studies reveal that
bullying is a significant problem in the workplace.
While researchers often conceptualize workplace bullying as
explicit behaviors
(Einarsen et al., 2011), when closely examining the survey data
in research on bullying
(e.g. Bulutlar and Unler Oz, 2009; Fox and Stallworth, 2005)
the findings reveal that the
vast majority of bullying behaviors are relatively subtle (Lee
and Brotheridge, 2006).
This has important implications for target and witness/bystander
(used
interchangeably) interpretations and reactions. Indeed, with
legislation having been
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
JMP
28,3
290
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 28 No. 3, 2013
pp. 290-305
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683941311321196

passed in three Canadian provinces (Power et al., 2011) and
proposed in over 15 states
in the USA (Levitt, 2009) to protect employees from bullying,
subtle forms may become
even more prevalent as they replace explicit acts. In fact,
similar developments
transpired in relation to racial discrimination in the workplace.
As laws were passed to
protect workers from racial discrimination, explicit forms of
racism transformed into
more subtle forms, labeled “modern racism” (Brief et al., 2000).
As a result of these developments and the existing prevalence of
subtle bullying, I
focus specifically on these forms and the implications for
targets and witnesses. In
doing so, this paper fills an important research void. The focus
on targets and
witnesses sheds light on a critical group who are often
indirectly affected by bullying.
Indeed, witnesses outnumber targets while also experiencing
similar outcomes, albeit
to a lesser degree (Einarsen et al., 1994; Lutgen-Sandvik et al.,
2007). Importantly,
D’Cruz and Noronha (2011, p. 269) contend, “Bystanders, while
being important
constituents of the bullying scenario, have received very little
research attention”.
Therefore, this paper makes two important contributions to the
field while making the
case for greater attention to these two under-researched aspects
(subtle forms of
bullying and witnesses of bullying).
In this paper, I first provide an overview of the workplace

bullying literature while
discussing the consequences of bullying for targets and
witnesses. Second, I focus on
subtle bullying behaviors and theorize targets’ interpretations
and reactions. Third, I
theorize the potential consequences of subtle bullying on
witnesses. Finally, I discuss
the theoretical and practical contributions of this paper and
offer areas for future
research.
Workplace bullying: an overview
Conceptualizing workplace bullying
Definition. Einarsen et al. (2011, p. 22) provide a definition of
workplace bullying that
has been commonly used in the literature:
Bullying at work means harassing, offending, socially excluding
someone or negatively
affecting someone’s work tasks. In order for the label bullying
(or mobbing) to be applied to a
particular activity, interaction or process it has to occur
repeatedly and regularly (e.g. weekly)
and over a period of time (e.g. about six months). Bullying is an
escalated process in the
course of which the person confronted ends up in an inferior
position and becomes the target
of systematic negative social acts.
Four broad features of workplace bullying can be derived from
this definition. First,
these negative acts must occur on a regular basis, generally
once a week. Second, these
negative acts must occur over a certain period of time, generally
at least six months.
Third, a power imbalance must exist between the perpetrator

and the target whereby
the target finds it increasingly difficult to defend him or herself.
Fourth, these negative
acts must be systematic and planned, suggesting the presence of
negative intent of the
perpetrator. If the negative acts meet these four criteria,
researchers generally agree
that such behaviors would constitute bullying (Hoel et al.,
1999).
Furthermore, two other important factors can be cited that have
been strongly
associated with bullying. First, workplace bullying has been
associated with detrimental
effects on targets’ health (e.g. Djurkovic et al., 2006; Giorgi,
2010; Hoel et al., 2004; Lee and
Brotheridge, 2006). More specifically, health-related
consequences for targets include
stress, anxiety, insomnia, a lower self-image, and poorer mental
ill health (Vega and
Target and
witness reactions
291
Comer, 2005). Second, the environment can often play a critical
role in stimulating and
facilitating bullying (Hoel et al., 1999). Bullying has been
found to be more prevalent in
certain industries (e.g. manufacturing; hospitality) (Einarsen et
al., 1994), work
environments (e.g. call centers) (D’Cruz and Noronha, 2010,
2011), work cultures

(Collinson, 1988), and when laissez-faire leadership is present
(Skogstad et al., 2007).
The estimation methods used to measure workplace bullying
have been subjected to
criticism (Einarsen et al., 2011). In particular, while the
Negative Acts Questionnaire
measures frequency, its ability to capture other important
features of workplace
bullying such as persistency, power imbalance, and negative
intent is debatable (see
Hershcovis, 2011). Furthermore, the emergence of cross-
cultural issues in bullying
(e.g. Giorgi, 2010; Loh et al., 2010) raises further questions.
For instance, employees
from high power distance countries may view bullying
behaviors from supervisors as
acceptable and normal (Loh et al., 2010). Therefore, the
definition of bullying and the
wide variances found in prevalence studies should be viewed
with some caution.
Subtle bullying behaviors can include, but are not limited to:
. withholding important information;
. excessive monitoring;
. persistent criticism;
. excessively high workloads;
. social ostracism;
. gossip;
. shouting and yelling;
. personal jokes and insults; and
. taking credit for an employee’s work (Fox and Stallworth,
2005).
When using the term “subtle bullying”, this paper refers to
bullying acts that are not

immediately obvious and can be interpreted in various ways.
Acts of incivility in the
workplace (Andersson and Pearson, 1999) when repeated and
prolonged also constitute
bullying. Indeed, a number of researchers have contended that
bullying can be difficult
to detect (e.g. Hoel et al., 2010), misinterpreted (e.g. Hoel and
Beale, 2006), and
implicit/hidden (e.g. Leymann, 1996). Consistent with this,
Hoel and Beale (2006, p. 242)
suggested that “the presence of bullying behavior may exist
independently of how these
behaviors are being interpreted and construed”. Subtle bullying
behaviors also have
important implications for targets’ and witnesses’ sense-making
processes (Weick, 1995).
For instance, some employees may re-enact their environments
by cognitively
re-structuring events, such as subtle bullying, to be construed as
normal (Weick, 1995).
When conceptualizing subtle bullying, a number of key
distinctions can be identified.
Interpersonal versus depersonalized bullying. One important
distinction is between
interpersonal and depersonalized bullying. While interpersonal
bullying has received
far more attention in the literature, depersonalized bullying
refers to the contextual and
structural elements of organizational design, which in effect
bully the employee
(D’Cruz and Noronha, 2009). This can be differentiated from
interpersonal bullying,
whereby the latter entails malicious personal intentions (D’Cruz
and Noronha, 2009). A
few studies have similarly examined the way in which work

conditions itself can
represent bullying (e.g. Liefooghe and Davey, 2001; D’Cruz and
Noronha, 2010).
JMP
28,3
292
In this paper, both forms are described. To explain, some
employees may perceive
the work environment as a bully, while other employees
subjected to these same
behaviors may ascribe a supervisor or co-worker as the
perpetrator. This could be
interpreted based on the findings presented by D’Cruz and
Noronha (2010) wherein
certain employees attributed the oppressive work environment
as the bully, while other
employees attributed their team leader as the bully. This raises
an important question
about the role of subjective assessments by the target.
Objective versus subjective assessments of the bullying. There
is debate in the
literature on the distinction between objective versus subjective
assessments of
bullying (Einarsen et al., 2011). While much of the European-
based research on
workplace bullying has emphasized the importance of subjective
assessments by the
target (Einarsen et al., 2011), North American research has
focused more heavily on
perpetrator intentionality and objective behaviors (Keashly and

Neuman, 2005). The
perspective taken in this paper, particularly since the focus is
on subtle bullying, is that
bullying may occur without the target necessarily recognizing
the behaviors as
bullying. In other words, bullying can occur beyond the
subjective assessments by the
target. Nevertheless, we deem it important to also understand
how employees attribute
these behaviors.
This perspective is adopted based on findings from various
qualitative studies
(e.g. Baillien et al., 2009; D’Cruz and Noronha, 2010) that have
revealed instances in
which targets were bullied but did not initially realize it.
Because perpetrators may be
driven by a number of possible motives to mask their bullying
behaviors (e.g. to hide it
from management because of possible repercussions), they often
engage in subtle
bullying whereby the behaviors may not be overtly apparent to
the target.
Nevertheless, both overt and subtle forms of bullying have been
associated with
several consequences.
Consequences of workplace bullying
The consequences that workplace bullying can have on targets
are numerous. In
relation to work-related consequences, researchers have found
that targets have a
higher intent to leave (Djurkovic et al., 2008), lower levels of
commitment (McCormack
et al., 2006), and higher levels of absenteeism (Hoel et al.,
2003). Moreover,

Lutgen-Sandvik et al. (2007) found that both targets and
witnesses of bullying had
lower levels of job satisfaction, job rating, and higher levels of
stress. In addition,
Einarsen et al. (1994) also found detrimental consequences for
both targets and
witnesses when revealing that both types reported a lower
quality work environment.
In relation to physiological and psychological consequences,
targets suffer lower
physical and mental health (Giorgi, 2010; Hoel et al., 2004),
while experiencing higher
levels of depression (Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2002), negative
affect (Djurkovic et al.,
2006), alcohol abuse (Rospenda, 2002), and even suicide
(Rayner et al., 2002). Finally,
D’Cruz and Noronha (2011) found that witnesses also reported
deterioration in their
own physical and mental health including guilt and fear,
insomnia, headaches, and
fatigue. Subtle bullying can also have key implications for
sense-making processes. To
explain, such behaviors will tend to be more difficult to
interpret and defend against.
This will lead to diverse sense-making processes across
employees, since subtle
bullying can be interpreted in a number of ways. This
perspective will now be
described in more detail.
Target and
witness reactions
293

The implications and consequences of subtle bullying
In this section, two important factors are explored in relation to
subtle bullying
behaviors. First, the implications of subtle bullying on target
interpretations and
reactions are explored. Second, the influence of subtle bullying
on witnesses is examined.
Target interpretations and reactions
Target interpretations and work environment. Targets who were
able to halt bullying
behaviors were often those who reacted strongly towards the
perpetrator (Leck and
Galperin, 2006). Conversely, targets who fail to recognize the
bullying often find that
the bullying intensifies (Baillien et al., 2009). Subtle bullying
behaviors are more likely
to induce weaker reactions and greater misinterpretation from
targets. This is because
such behaviors are often difficult to identify.
Based on a review of qualitative studies, and particularly
studies in which the
bullying behaviors were relatively subtle, I found a number of
interesting findings.
Most importantly, employees often looked to the work
environment to explain the
negative behaviors they were experiencing. This, at first glance,
would be in line with
the social interactionist framework, which suggests that
situational and external
factors play a key role in stimulating certain behaviors from
others (Felson, 1992).
Indeed, workplace bullying researchers have used the social

interactionist perspective
to understand bullying (Hoel et al., 1999). However, researchers
should be careful when
measuring the role of the environment, because:
. employees may misattribute the environment as the key driver
of negative
behaviors; and
. employees who are bullied may be more likely to view the
environment in a
negative manner.
This review reveals that employees often failed to recognize
bullying behaviors when
experienced and even misattributed these negative acts. For
instance, D’Cruz and
Noronha (2010: 109) found that:
Participants maintained that it was only in retrospect that they
were able to identify when the
experience of bullying began. During the initial onset period,
being immersed in their work,
they did not realize that they were being bullied [. . .] When
they did become aware of the
change in the bully’s behavior towards them, they attributed it
to the oppressive work
environment.
The bullying was often perpetrated by a supervisor (team
leader) and characterized by
verbal attacks towards the employee and his/her work.
Employees, in turn, often felt
that the work environment was to blame for the bullying as a
result of working in a
busy call-center firm. This limited their ability and willingness

to react towards the
perpetrator. In an earlier study, Liefooghe and Davey (2001, p.
381) found that targets
often blamed the work environment for bullying. For instance,
one employee had
stated “For me it’s [bullying] not really an individual bullying.
I don’t ever feel bullied
on a one-to-one it’s more the environment”.
These findings are interesting, because they reveal the
possibility that employees
may not perceive bullying behaviors as bullying. If employees
do not perceive such
behaviors as bullying, they may be less likely to develop serious
health-related
consequences. While the form of bullying (i.e. subtle) provides
one explanation for why
JMP
28,3
294
targets may be less likely to recognize bullying when it occurs,
cultural and
environmental factors may also provide important insights
(Giorgi et al., 2011). For
instance, Giorgi (2010) suggests that Japanese employees, due
to their collectivistic
culture, may be less likely to perceive negative behaviors as
harmful. Moreover, these
employees may have more effective collective coping strategies
as a result of their
cultural values (Giorgi, 2010). Therefore, having certain

cultural values may in fact
represent a positive attribute in protecting against bullying
behaviors (e.g. more
adaptive group coping mechanisms).
Nevertheless, target interpretations can allow subtle bullying to
persist and
intensify over time. In these instances, employees’ sense-
making processes (Weick,
1995) enabled them to enact their environment in a way that
blamed the work
conditions or other environmental factors rather than the actual
perpetrator. In several
cases, both the interpretations and reactions towards the
bullying were influenced by
the form of bullying (i.e. subtle) and the work environment,
which had key implications
for sense-making processes due to the confusion and ambiguity
that these behaviors
elicited.
While the interpretations above may have been influenced by
intense work
environments, Baillien et al. (2009, p. 7) reported a case in
which the target initially
believed that the negative behaviors reflected increased comfort
levels from
co-workers:
Tim is pleased with the colleagues’ interest in non-work-related
issues such as his hobbies
and his family status. Tim notices that making jokes is very
important too, and he feels
accepted when he is the object of these jokes. Gradually, these
jokes become more personal
[. . .] When the colleagues soil his keyboard, Tim cannot handle

it anymore [. . .] All cases are
similar [. . .] The bullying stops as soon as they find another
victim.
In this case, Tim’s sense-making processes played an important
role in his attribution
about the bullying behaviors. In fact, Tim had made a positive
attribution about the
behaviors. To explain, he initially felt that the personal jokes
were important and felt
accepted when these jokes were made. However, when these
acts intensified over time,
Tim recognized that he was being bullied. This case also reveals
the potential for
subtle bullying to be misinterpreted, which results in targets
believing that such
behaviors represent an aspect of the climate or culture.
Subtle bullying also tends to exist in certain work environments
that are described
as “tough” (Salin, 2003), which affect targets’ sense-making
processes whereby they
may interpret and rationalize these behaviors as normal
(Collinson, 1988). Similarly,
employees who experience forms of ostracism in the workplace
(Williams, 2007) may
make sense of these experiences based on the work
environment. For instance, while
some employees may feel malicious intent from others when
experiencing ostracism,
other employees may attribute that they themselves do not fit in
with the group culture
as a rationale for why co-workers do not interact with him/her.
In these cases, targets
may find it easier to blame the culture of the workgroup rather
than actively confront

the perpetrator:
P1. Employees who experience subtle forms of bullying will be
more likely to
blame the climate or culture of the workgroup or organization.
Target interpretations and learned helplessness. While much of
the above discussion
has focused on target interpretations of subtle bullying, these
interpretations will have
Target and
witness reactions
295
implications for how targets subsequently react. Employees who
interpret the bullying
as environmentally driven will be less likely to actively react.
In fact, employees may
even make positive attributions while feeling that being
subjected to these behaviors
(e.g. personal jokes) signals that they “fit in” with their
workgroup (see Baillien et al.,
2009). Hence, there may be a range of positive and negative
reactions towards the
received bullying behaviors while the target fails to recognize
the bullying.
There are a number of important factors that will influence how
a target reacts. As
mentioned, the way that targets conceptualize the behaviors will
play an important
role. Tied with this, the conceptualization of power represents

another critical factor.
From a cultural perspective, employees with high power
distance will be more limited
in the possible ways in which they can react towards bullying
(Hofstede, 1980). For
example, high power distance employees may view bullying
behaviors from a
supervisor to be justified due to the greater degree of power
they accept as legitimate in
organizations.
Targets may also have different ways of coping with bullying.
To date, Hogh et al.
(2011) contended that “research on targets’ coping with
bullying is far from abundant”.
In one of the few studies that did examine targets’ coping
strategies, Djurkovic et al.
(2005) found that most targets cope with bullying through
avoidance-based reactions,
rather than reacting with assertiveness or seeking further help.
Furthermore, Baillien
et al. (2009) suggested four types of coping responses towards
bullying:
(1) exit (leaving the organization);
(2) voice (discussing the problems):
(3) loyalty (optimistically waiting for the bullying to stop); and
(4) neglect (passively ignoring the situation).
Because subtle bullying is characterized by behaviors that are
difficult to detect,
targets may be more likely to engage in avoidance forms of
coping (exit, loyalty, or

neglect). This is because they may be unsure of the
perpetrator’s intent. Moreover, they
would not want to create conflict situations whereby others
view the targets’ reactions
as unnecessary and inappropriate.
In many organizations, employees are not accustomed to a
bounded emotionality
framework whereby employees control and regulate their
emotions (Sheehan and
Jordan, 2003). In fact, Sheehan and Jordan (2003, p. 362) assert
that organizations often
“overlook” the development of these abilities. When this form
of personal mastery is
overlooked (Senge, 1992), targets will more likely struggle with
how to best cope with
the bullying. This will often result in targets’ inability to
recognize the impact of the
bullying on them and make less likely to identify the
appropriate steps needed to
address the situation (Sheehan and Jordan, 2003).
Finally, employees may differ in their causal attributions about
the bullying. The
locus of control (i.e. internal versus external attributions) is
important (Hershcovis and
Barling, 2010). Internal attributions refer to perceptions that
dispositional factors
played a significant role in causing an event. Conversely,
external attributions refer to
perceptions that broader environmental factors, such as
organizational culture, were
responsible for the occurrence of an event (Heider, 1958). When
employees make
external attributions, they may become less likely to react
towards the perpetrator

because of perceptions that the behaviors are beyond the
perpetrator’s control
JMP
28,3
296
(e.g. work climate). Because subtle bullying is often difficult to
detect, targets may
often ascribe the broader environment as a driver of bullying
(e.g. Liefooghe and
Davey, 2001).
Learned helplessness theory can be particularly useful to
understand the potential
consequences associated with external attributions of bullying.
Learned helplessness
theory (Seligman, 1975) suggests that when an individual
experiences a negative
situation or event that he/she perceives as uncontrollable, he/she
is likely to believe that
his/her efforts will be unrelated to subsequent outcomes (i.e.
being bullied) and will feel a
sense of helplessness. This theory is useful because targets who
believe that bullying is
driven by broader environmental factors will tend to feel more
helpless towards the
behaviors because of lower perceived control over the events
(Hershcovis and Barling,
2010). Moreover, avoidance forms of coping, which were
associated with subtle bullying,
can also increase the potential for targets to experience learned
helplessness.

Abramson et al. (1978) suggest that three deficits will be
encountered when one
perceives that an event is beyond his/her control. First,
individuals will experience
motivational deficits through their resulting expectation that
outcomes will also be
uncontrollable in the future. Second, individuals will experience
cognitive deficits by
learning that events are uncontrollable and encounter challenges
in learning appropriate
responses to future events. Third, an individual will experience
emotional deficits such
as depressed affect through their perception that outcomes are
beyond control. Thus,
this illustrates how employees’ helplessness during bullying
situations can generate
cognitive and emotional deficits, which further makes the target
unlikely to retaliate:
P2a. Employees who blame bullying on the broader environment
(i.e. making an
external attribution) will be less likely to react to bullying
situations.
P2b. Employees who fail to react to bullying situations in its
early stages
experience increased cognitive and emotional deficits.
Witness interpretations and reactions
With the exception of a few studies (e.g. D’Cruz and Noronha,
2011; Einarsen et al.,
1994; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007), limited attention has been
devoted to witnesses of
bullying. Witnesses can play a number of important roles in a
bullying situation. Three

types of witness roles are explored in this analysis. First,
witnesses may support the
target. Researchers have reported instances in which witnesses
overtly supported the
target (Leck and Galperin, 2006; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006). When
this occurred, the
perpetrator was more likely to stop his/her bullying behaviors.
Second, witnesses may
support the perpetrator. Third, witnesses may become silent
spectators. With respect
to the latter two witness roles, D’Cruz and Noronha (2011)
found that witnesses who
fear becoming the next target tend to either support the
perpetrator or maintain a more
neutral position (i.e. silent spectator).
Social influence theory can help explain witness interpretations
and reactions to
bullying situations. Social influence theory suggests that as a
result of direct or indirect
pressures to conform, individuals may often learn aggressive
behaviors “either by
reinforcement histories or modeling” (Tedeschi, 1983, p. 142).
Tedeschi (1983) focuses
primarily on coercive and aggressive behaviors as a form of
social influence; however,
this conceptualization can have key implications for witnesses.
In addition to learning
processes, Tedeschi (1983) also discusses the importance of
fear. Extending this
Target and
witness reactions
297

theoretical framework, I posit that such social influence
processes will cause witnesses
to fear punishment if they do not engage in or support certain
behaviors that other
members, who are perceived as influential, exhibit.
Consequently, these pressures will
tend to shape subsequent behaviors of the witness. Social
influence theory will be used
as a basis for theorizing witness behaviors.
Witness appraisals and support. When employees experience
bullying, the closest
individuals to whom they may turn to are their co-workers
(Coyne et al., 2004).
Furthermore, when the bullying behaviors are subtle, this may
provoke targets to turn
towards their social context (e.g. team members) to understand
whether they are
interpreting the behaviors correctly. Indeed, D’Cruz and
Noronha (2011, p. 276) asserted:
“It was to participants [team members] that targets first turned
to when the latter
realized that there was something amiss”. However, researchers
have found that
witnesses do not often realize the severity of the issue (Tracy et
al., 2006). Moreover,
common responses to a target’s experience of bullying may
often be: “She’s just a
disgruntled employee” (Tracy et al., 2006, p. 149). In the
qualitative literature, researchers
have found that bullying behaviors are often disregarded by co-
workers, while targets
felt they received little support (e.g. Baillien et al., 2009;
Strandmark and Hallberg, 2007).

While researchers have suggested that bullying can be difficult
to detect for targets
(Hoel and Beale, 2006), one may expect that subtle bullying
would be even more difficult
to detect for witnesses. Researchers have suggested that
perpetrators, in an attempt to
mask their true intentions, may engage in more subtle forms of
bullying that make such
behaviors difficult to identify for others (Parzefall and Salin,
2010). Moreover, Parzefall
and Salin (2010) argue that when perpetrators blend subtle
bullying behaviors with
demands for work efficiency and work goals, these behaviors
can evoke strong levels of
confusion for the target. Witnesses may be even more likely to
convey disbelief that such
behaviors represent bullying. As a result, witnesses who do not
believe that an employee
is experiencing bullying will be less likely to lend support to
him/her.
D’Cruz and Noronha (2011) found that witnesses who were
friends of the target were
fearful that their support may lead to negative consequences for
themselves. This often
led them to maintain a distance from the target and not overtly
show support. As
described, social influence theory can provide a potent
explanation for these pressures
on the witness to withhold support for the target (Tedeschi,
1983). Because the bullying
was subtle, HRM often took the perpetrator’s side, which made
witnesses even more
fearful to demonstrate support. Furthermore, subtle bullying is
more likely to create

doubts in observers’ minds about whether the target is actually
being bullied.
Therefore, subtle bullying is more likely to result in witnesses
becoming silent
spectators or supporters of the perpetrator than supporters of the
target.
Leck and Galperin (2006) found that targets who were able to
halt the bullying
successfully were those who reacted strongly against the
behaviors and who received
support from co-workers. Some witnesses had indeed defended
the target and stood up
against the perpetrator. Similar findings were reported in a
study by Lutgen-Sandvik
(2006). Several employees collectively supporting each other
will tend to represent a
stronger form of resistance than resistance from a single
employee, and especially
stronger than a single non-retaliating employee. Nevertheless,
subtle bullying will
more likely invoke disbelief amongst witnesses that bullying is
occurring; thus,
making them less likely to support the target. This lack of
support will be particularly
likely when the perpetrator is a manager or supervisor.
JMP
28,3
298
Social influence theory suggests that employees often fear
punishment when they

do not adhere to the influence exerted (Tedeschi, 1983).
Interestingly, D’Cruz and
Noronha (2011) found that witnesses often kept a distance from
both the target and
supporters of the target in order to remain in the perpetrator’s
favor. Through
sense-making processes, witnesses may rationalize that the
target is unnecessarily
complaining and risking team cohesion. Consequently, the
blame may be placed on the
target. In this scenario, the target may feel that his/her co-
workers, by siding with the
perpetrator, are in fact participating in the bullying.
Heames and Harvey (2006) argued that bullying behaviors can
come to be viewed and
rationalized as normal in an organization. This would make
witnesses resistant towards
those who complain, which also represents a social influence
force. Hence, when the
perpetrator is an important organizational member (i.e.
supervisor or manager), this will
increase the likelihood that a witness sides with the perpetrator.
Witnesses may take the
perpetrator’s side based on their own sense-making processes.
For instance, witnesses
may have political reasons for supporting the perpetrator (Salin,
2003), which can include
the expectation of future reciprocity in the form of advancement
or favors in the
organization. Furthermore, witnesses may believe that
supporting the target will be a
losing battle, since the perpetrator’s hierarchical status will
attract the favor of senior
management. Thus, supporting the perpetrator may be seen as a
“safe” strategy.

Alternatively, witnesses may feel that the perpetrator, because
of his/her
hierarchical status in relation to the target, is more likely to be
justified in his/her
actions. Culture can play a particularly telling role. Employees
from high power
distance countries will often feel obligated to support their
manager because of the
latter’s authority (Hofstede, 1980). Moreover, employees from
high power distance
countries may be less likely to view bullying behaviors as
bullying when perpetrated
by a manager (Hoel et al., 1999). Because employees from high
power distance cultures
ascribe greater levels of power and authority to their managers,
they will view a wider
variety of behaviors from their manager as normal and justified.
Therefore, power
distance can moderate the role between subtle bullying and
perpetrator status:
P3a. Perpetrator status will moderate the relationship between
subtle bullying and
witness type, whereby witnesses of subtle forms of bullying will
more likely
become supporters of the perpetrator, rather than supporters of
the target,
when the perpetrator is a supervisor or manager of the target.
P3b. Power distance will moderate the relationship between
subtle bullying and
perpetrator status, whereby witnesses from high power distance
cultures will
more likely support perpetrators who are managers or
supervisors of the

target.
Witnesses’ internalization of bullying behaviors. Workplace
bullying has the potential to
penetrate across employees, workgroups, and departments in an
organization (Salin,
2003). Social influence theory can help explain this
permeability of bullying. According
to this theory, witnesses may fear that if they do not engage in
similar behaviors they
may also be targeted (D’Cruz and Noronha, 2011). Empirical
research has supported
this notion of imitating negative behaviors and the resulting
spiraling effects of
negative acts (Cortina et al., 2001). Moreover, Robinson and
O’Leary-Kelly (1998) found
that employees who engaged in antisocial behaviors were more
likely to have
coworkers who also engaged in antisocial behaviors.
Target and
witness reactions
299
In seminal social influence research, Kelman (1958) found that
employees may
respond to social influence with internalization. This process of
internalization may be
particularly prevalent in workgroups (Robinson and O’Leary-
Kelly, 1998). For
instance, employees who regularly bully other team members
may come to accept
these behaviors as a normal aspect of the workday (Collinson,

1988). Moreover, when
employees do not internalize such behaviors, they may fear that
others will view them
as an outsider (Kelman, 1958). Finally, subtle bullying will
more likely be internalized,
since these behaviors can be more easily rationalized to one’s
own self and others. For
instance, personal jokes may be rationalized as part of the
group’s culture; thus, not
actually harmful to anyone.
Earlier discussion had proposed contexts in which employees
are more likely to
support the perpetrator. That is, subtle bullying perpetrated by a
supervisor or
manager was posited to less likely result in witnesses
supporting the target. Witnesses
who support the perpetrator, as opposed to silent spectators or
supporters of the target,
will be more likely to internalize the perpetrator’s bullying
behaviors. This is because
such supporters will want to demonstrate their support for the
perpetrator, which may
often be driven by political reasons (Salin, 2003). This support
can be easily
demonstrated through joining the perpetrator in exhibiting such
behaviors towards the
target:
P4. Witnesses who support the perpetrator will be more likely
than silent
spectators to internalize bullying behaviors in the workplace.
Discussion
In this paper, I explored the potential interpretations and
reactions of targets and

witnesses towards subtle forms of bullying. Moreover, I
proposed that targets will
often attribute bullying to broader aspects of the environment
such as the intense work
environment or the culture of the workgroup. When targets fail
to recognize that they
are experiencing bullying, they are less likely to retaliate. The
longer targets stay idle
without resisting, the more difficult it will become for them to
halt the bullying. While
subtle bullying can be difficult for targets to identify, witnesses
will often be even less
likely to recognize that such behaviors constitute bullying.
Perpetrators may often
behave very differently in front of others and hide their bullying
(Tracy et al., 2006).
Social influence theory was used to explain witness
interpretations and reactions. The
hierarchical position of the perpetrator can shape witnesses’
likelihood to support the
target. When the perpetrator is a supervisor or manager,
witnesses will be less inclined
to support the target overtly. According to social influence
theory, witnesses may be
more likely to side with the perpetrator to avoid their own
possible victimization.
Finally, witnesses may potentially internalize bullying
behaviors and assume that
such behaviors are acceptable. Theoretical contributions,
directions for future research,
and implications for practice are offered.
Theoretical contributions and directions for future research
This paper makes a number of theoretical contributions. First, it
advances an
important perspective on subtle bullying. The subtlety of

bullying may help explain
why targets often fail to recognize that they are being bullied.
In addition, targets may
be less likely to gain support from co-workers, who often
experience disbelief that the
behaviors represent bullying. Future research should further
investigate the
JMP
28,3
300
differential consequences associated with subtle bullying and its
duration. It is quite
possible that subtle bullying is found to be more detrimental for
targets than overt
bullying. Future research should trace the effects of subtle
bullying in the same work
site on both targets and witnesses over time to investigate the
relationship between
behavioral responses and health outcomes (e.g. Lovell and Lee,
2011).
This paper has shed light on the vital role of witnesses in the
bullying process. This
paper theorizes the potential for witnesses to internalize such
behaviors, particularly
when subtle. This analysis contributes a potential “dark side” of
witnesses to bullying.
This may help explain why bullying tends to become
increasingly difficult for the
target to defend against. Future research should further explore
the decisions made by

witnesses and the rationale underlying such decisions.
Finally, this paper theorizes how subtle bullying behaviors can
be misinterpreted,
which represents a theoretical perspective that has received
little attention.
Interpretations and reactions towards bullying may indeed be
influenced by
subtlety, which implies adverse consequences. These
relationships should be tested in
future research to understand target reactions to subtle forms of
bullying and how
their reactions affect their physical and psychological well-
being. Moreover, the role of
cultural and environmental factors on target perceptions should
also be further
explored in future research. Cultural factors may play a
significant role in influencing
employees’ interpretations of bullying and may lead to various
collective coping
strategies (Giorgi, 2010). While I focused predominantly on
power distance, other
cultural dimensions should also be investigated in future
research.
Implications for policy and practice
There are two important practical contributions that emerge
from this analysis. First,
employees should receive training that provides them with
greater awareness about
bullying. As bullying may become increasingly subtle with
further legislation, these
behaviors will be difficult to identify. Targets should be made
aware of such types of
behaviors and encouraged to report them when experienced.
Second, potential

witnesses should also be sensitized towards bullying.
Importantly, witnesses should
understand that they can play an important role in the bullying
process and that such
behaviors should be reported when observed. Witnesses should
not feel political
pressures to partake in bullying or fear that they may be
victimized if they do not
partake. Training and socialization processes can be critical.
Conclusion
This paper investigated subtle forms of bullying and the
influence these forms can have
on target and witness interpretations and reactions. Subtle
bullying can have many
effects on these two types of employees. Specifically, targets
experience greater
confusion and become less likely to react, while witnesses
(particularly those who
support the perpetrator) may find internalizing such behaviors
easier to rationalize. This
paper advocates further inclusion of witnesses into the study of
workplace bullying
while suggesting that subtle bullying may have differential
consequences for targets.
References
Abramson, L., Seligman, M. and Teasdale, J. (1978), “Learned
helplessness in humans:
critique and reformulation”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 49-74.
Target and
witness reactions

301
Andersson, L. and Pearson, C. (1999), “Tit for tat? The
spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 452-71.
Baillien, E., Neyens, I., Witte, H.D. and Cuyper, N.D. (2009),
“A qualitative study on the
development of workplace bullying: towards a three way
model”, Journal of Community
and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Brief, A.P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R.R., Pugh, S.D. and Vaslow, J.B.
(2000), “Just doing business:
modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for
employment
discrimination”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 81 No. 1,
pp. 72-97.
Bulutlar, F. and Unler Oz, E. (2009), “The effects of ethical
climates on bullying behavior in the
workplace”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 273-
95.
Collinson, D.L. (1988), “‘Engineering humour’: masculinity,
joking and conflict in shop-floor
relations”, Organization Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 181-99.
Cortina, L.M., Magley, V.J., Williams, J.H. and Langhout, R.D.
(2001), “Incivility in the workplace:
incidence and impact”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 64-80.

Coyne, I., Craig, J. and Chong, P.S.L. (2004), “Workplace
bullying in a group context”, British
Journal of Guidance Counselling, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 301-17.
D’Cruz, P. and Noronha, E. (2009), “Experiencing
depersonalized bullying: a study of Indian call
centre agents”, Work Organization, Labour and Globalization,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 26-46.
D’Cruz, P. and Noronha, E. (2010), “The exit coping response
to workplace bullying:
the contribution of inclusivist and exclusivist HRM strategies”,
Employee Relations, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 102-20.
D’Cruz, P. and Noronha, E. (2011), “The limits to workplace
friendship: managerialist HRM and
bystander behaviour in the context of workplace bullying”,
Employee Relations, Vol. 33
No. 3, pp. 269-88.
Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D. and Casimir, G. (2005), “The
behavioral reactions of victims to
different types of workplace bullying”, International Journal of
Organization Theory and
Behavior, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 439-60.
Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D. and Casimir, G. (2006),
“Neuroticism and the psychosomatic model
of workplace bullying”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol.
21 No. 1, pp. 73-88.
Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D. and Casimir, G. (2008),
“Workplace bullying and intention to leave:
the moderating effect of perceived organizational support”,

Human Resource Management
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 405-22.
Einarsen, S., Raknes, B.I. and Matthiesen, S.B. (1994),
“Bullying and harassment at work and
their relationships to work environment quality: an exploratory
study”, European Work
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 381-401.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (2011), “The
concept of bullying and harassment
at work: the European tradition”, in Einarsen, S., Hoel, H.,
Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds),
Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in
Theory, Research, and
Practice, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 3-40.
Felson, R.B. (1992), “‘Kick ’em when they’re down’:
explanations of the relationship between
stress and interpersonal aggression and violence”, Sociologist
Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 1-16.
Fox, S. and Stallworth, L.E. (2005), “Racial/ethnic bullying:
exploring links between bullying and
racism in the US workplace”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 438-56.
Giorgi, G. (2010), “Workplace bullying partially mediates the
climate-health relationship”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 727-40.
JMP
28,3
302

Giorgi, G., Arenas, A. and Leon-Perez, J.M. (2011), “An
operative measure of workplace bullying:
the negative acts questionnaire across Italian companies”,
Industrial Health, Vol. 49 No. 6,
pp. 686-95.
Heames, J.T. and Harvey, M. (2006), “Workplace bullying: a
cross-level assessment”,
Management Decision, Vol. 44 No. 9, pp. 1214-30.
Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Hershcovis, M.S. (2011), “Incivility, social undermining,
bullying . . . oh my! A call to reconcile
constructs within workplace aggression research”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 499-519.
Hershcovis, M.S. and Barling, J. (2010), “Comparing victim
attributions and outcomes for
workplace aggression and sexual harassment”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 5,
pp. 874-8.
Hoel, H. and Beale, D. (2006), “Workplace bullying,
psychological perspectives and industrial
relations: towards a contextualized and interdisciplinary
approach”, British Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 239-62.
Hoel, H., Einarsen, S. and Cooper, C.L. (2003), “Organisational
effects of bullying”, in Einarsen, S.,

Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Bullying and
Emotional Abuse in the Workplace:
International Perspectives in Research and Practice, Taylor &
Francis, London, pp. 399-411.
Hoel, H., Faragher, B. and Cooper, C.L. (2004), “Bullying is
detrimental to health, but all bullying
behavior is not necessarily equally damaging”, British Journal
of Guidance and
Counselling, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 367-87.
Hoel, H., Rayner, C. and Cooper, C.L. (1999), “Workplace
bullying”, International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp.
195-230.
Hoel, H., Glaso, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C.L. and Einarsen, S.
(2010), “Leadership styles as
predictors of self-reported and observed workplace bullying”,
British Journal of
Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 453-68.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International
Differences in Work-related Values,
Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Hogh, A., Mikkelsen, E.G. and Hansen, A.M. (2011),
“Individual consequences of workplace
bullying/mobbing”, in Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and
Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Bullying and
Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory,
Research, and Practice, Taylor
& Francis, London, pp. 107-28.
Keashly, L. and Neuman, J.H. (2005), “Bullying in the
workplace: its impact and management”,

Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 335-73.
Kelman, H.C. (1958), “Compliance, identification, and
internalization: three processes of attitude
change”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 51-
60.
Leck, J.D. and Galperin, B.L. (2006), “Worker responses to
bully bosses”, Canadian Public
Policy/Analyse de Politiques, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 85-97.
Lee, R. and Brotheridge, C. (2006), “When prey turns
predatory: workplace bullying as a
predictor of counter aggression/bullying, coping and well-
being”, European Journal of
Work and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 352-
77.
Levitt, H. (2009), “When does a robust leader become a bully?”,
Financial Post, May 13, available
at: www.financialpost.com/careers/story.html?id¼1590364
Leymann, H. (1996), “The content and development of mobbing
at work”, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 165-84.
Target and
witness reactions
303
Liefooghe, A.P.D. and Davey, K.M. (2001), “Accounts of
workplace bullying: the role of the

organization”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 375-92.
Loh, J., Restubog, S.L.D. and Zagenczyk, T.J. (2010),
“Consequences of workplace bullying on
employee identification and satisfaction among Australians and
Singaporeans”, Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 236-52.
Lovell, B.L. and Lee, R.T. (2011), “Impact of workplace
bullying on emotional and physical
well-being: a longitudinal collective case study”, Journal of
Aggression, Maltreatment and
Trauma, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 344-57.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2006), “Take this job and . . .: quitting and
other forms of resistance to
workplace bullying”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 73 No.
4, pp. 406-33.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S.J. and Alberts, J.K. (2007),
“Burned by bullying in the American
workplace: prevalence, perception, degree, and impact”, Journal
of Management Studies,
Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 837-62.
McCormack, D., Casimir, G., Djurkovic, N. and Yang, L.
(2006), “The concurrent effects of
workplace bullying, satisfaction with supervisor, and
satisfaction with co-workers on
affective commitment among schoolteachers in China”,
International Journal of Conflict
Mikkelsen, E.G. and Einarsen, S. (2002), “Basic assumptions

and post-traumatic stress among
victims of workplace bullying”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 87-111.
Parzefall, M.-R. and Salin, D.M. (2010), “Perceptions of and
reactions to workplace bullying:
a social exchange perspective”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No.
6, pp. 761-80.
Power, J., Lee, R. and Brotheridge, C. (2011), “Workplace
bullying: consequences and remedies for
employers”, HR Professional Magazine, January, pp. 29-30.
Rayner, C., Hoel, H. and Cooper, C.L. (2002), Workplace
Bullying: What We Know, Who Is to
Blame, and What Can We Do?, Taylor & Francis, London.
Robinson, S.L. and O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. (1998), “Monkey see,
monkey do: the influence of work
groups on the antisocial behavior of employees”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 41
No. 6, pp. 658-72.
Rospenda, K.M. (2002), “Workplace harassment, service
utilization, and drinking outcomes”,
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp.
141-55.
Salin, D. (2003), “Ways of explaining workplace bullying: a
review of enabling, motivating and
precipitating structures and processes in the work environment”,
Human Relations, Vol. 56
No. 10, pp. 1213-32.
Seligman, M.E.P. (1975), Helplessness: On Depression,

Development, and Death, W.H. Freeman,
San Francisco, CA.
Senge, P. (1992), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of
the Learning Organization,
Random House Australia, North Sydney.
Sheehan, M. and Jordan, P. (2003), “Bullying, emotions and the
learning organization”,
in Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds),
Bullying and Emotional Abuse in
the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and
Practice, Taylor & Francis,
London, pp. 359-69.
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M.S. and
Hetland, H. (2007),
“The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership”, Journal of
Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 80-92.
JMP
28,3
304
Strandmark, M.K. and Hallberg, L.R.M. (2007), “The origin of
workplace bullying: experiences
from the perspective of bully victims in the public service
sector”, Journal of Nursing
Tedeschi, J. (1983), “Social influence theory and aggression”,
in Geen, R.G. and Donnerstein, E.I.

(Eds), Aggression: Theoretical and Empirical Reviews,
Academic Press, New York, NY,
pp. 135-62.
Tracy, S.J., Lutgen-Sandvik, P. and Alberts, J.K. (2006),
“Nightmares, demons, and slaves:
exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying”,
Management Communication
Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 148-85.
Vega, G. and Comer, D.R. (2005), “Sticks and stones may break
your bones, but words can break
your spirit: bullying in the workplace”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 101-9.
Weick, K. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Williams, K.D. (2007), “Ostracism”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 425-52.
About the author
Al-Karim Samnani is a PhD candidate in the School of Human
Resource Management at York
University. He received his Master’s degree from the London
School of Economics. He has
published research on topics such as workplace bullying and
strategic human resource
management. Other areas of interest include abusive
supervision, cultural diversity, and the
integration of immigrants into the workplace. Al-Karim
Samnani can be contacted at:
[email protected]
Target and
witness reactions

305
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details:
www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.
194
Journal of School Violence, 9:194–211, 2010
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1538-8220 print/1538-8239 online
DOI: 10.1080/15388220903479602
WJSV1538-82201538-8239Journal of School Violence, Vol. 9,
No. 2, February 2010: pp. 0–0Journal of School Violence
The Relations Between Bullying Exposures
in Middle Childhood, Anxiety,
and Adrenocortical Activity
Bullying and Adrenocortical Activity J. V. Carney et al.
JOLYNN V. CARNEY and RICHARD J. HAZLER
Department of Counselor Education, Counseling Psychology,
and Rehabilitation Services,

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania,
USA
INSOO OH
Department of Education, Ewha Womans University, Seoul,
Korea
LEAH C. HIBEL
Child Development and Family Studies, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana, USA
DOUGLAS A. GRANGER
Behavioral Endocrinology Laboratory and Department of
Behavioral Health,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania,
USA
This exploratory study investigated how exposure to bullying at
school
in middle childhood is associated with student anxiety levels
and
adrenocortical activity at a time preceding lunch when anxiety
about
potential bullying would potentially be higher. Ninety-one
sixth-grade
students (55 female and 36 male) reported being exposed one or
more
times to repetitive peer abuse as victims and/or bystanders, and
the
Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC) provided
a mea-
sure of general anxiety levels. Students’ degree of exposure to
bullying
and their anxiety levels were compared to salivary cortisol

indicating a
stress reaction of the body via hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal
(HPA)
activity. Analysis confirmed the hypothesis that bullying
exposure had
an influence on levels of cortisol, but only through its
relationship with
general anxiety. The amount of combined bullying exposure
from vic-
timization and bystanding was related to lower cortisol levels at
a time
when the potential for bullying was about to increase.
Received September 8, 2008; accepted November 11, 2009.
This research was supported by the Child Youth and Families
Consortium and College
of Education at Pennsylvania State University.
Address correspondence to JoLynn V. Carney, Counselor
Education, Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity, 327 CEDAR Building, University Park, PA 16802,
USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Bullying and Adrenocortical Activity 195
KEYWORDS bullying exposure, anxiety, HPA axis, cortisol
Bullying has received considerable research in the past decade
since the
problem has become more clearly recognized as causing
difficulties for indi-
viduals (Dao et al., 2006; Espelage & Holt, 2007; Nansel et al.,
2001;

Swearer, Grills, Haye, & Cary, 2004), classrooms, and schools
(Marshall,
Varjas, Meyers, Graybill, & Skoczylas, 2009; Sanders & Phye,
2004). Psycho-
logical, behavioral, and sociological variables have been
emphasized, but
researchers are now advocating for the integration of biological
processes
into these studies (Hazler, Carney, & Granger, 2006). The
current exploratory
study was designed to integrate one specific biological process
into the bullying
research by focusing on how levels of exposure to bullying
could be related
to anxiety and adrenocortical activity. A normal school context
was used in
order to evaluate group reactions in a naturalistic environment.
BULLYING CONSEQUENCES
Victims of bullying have been found to experience a wide
variety of emotional
problems such as depression, low self-esteem (O’Moore &
Kirkham, 2001),
suicidal ideation (Roland, 2002), and psychosomatic complaints
(Carney, 2000).
Social consequences such as isolation, ostracism, and peer
rejection (Bierman,
2004; Brewer, 2005) along with health concerns (Wolke,
Woods, Bloomfield, &
Karstadt, 2001; Rigby 1999) create additional developmental
problems. These
various consequences can be expected to impact school and
learning
experiences (Horne & Staniszewski, 2003; Nishina, Juvonen, &
Witkow, 2005).

Developmental problems caused by bullying can also expand
into
adulthood where posttraumatic stress persisted in men and
women who
experienced frequent and prolonged bullying as children at
school (Rivers,
2004). Relations have also been found between childhood
bullying and
adult diagnoses such as social phobia, obsessive compulsive
disorder, and
panic disorder (McCabe, Antony, Summerfeldt, Liss, &
Swinson, 2003).
Bystanders to bullying share many of the same anxieties around
bullying
and feelings of isolation, hopelessness, and ineffectiveness as
direct victims
(Hazler, 1996). Physiological arousal (Janson & Hazler, 2004),
repression of
empathy (Gilligan, 1991), and desensitization to negative school
behaviors
(Safran & Safran, 1985) exemplify significant reactions to
witnessing such
events. The facts that bystanders are significantly impacted by
stress and
anxiety due to witnessing bullying and that they far outnumber
bullies and
victims emphasizes the need for research on how exposure to
bullying
influences all school students (Janson & Hazler, 2004).
The transactional-ecological developmental model, which
includes
biological makeup, is becoming an increasingly viable
framework for

196 J. V. Carney et al.
researchers to assess the contextual factors that impact
individuals. Jimerson,
Morrison, Pletcher, and Furlong (2006) suggest that the
ecological-transactional
developmental model has significant value for studying school
violence as it
takes into account the complex pathways that can lead to this
violence.
This increasingly important model that takes into account the
influences
of biological and social factors on the psychobehavioral
development
of youth supports studies on the connections between bullying
and
internalizing-externalizing behavior disorders.
Anticipatory Stress Reactions and Bullying
Anticipatory stress reaction is a concept that has been
discussed, but not
studied by bullying researchers (Beran & Violato, 2004). The
hypothesis is
that victim anxiety may have its roots in the anticipation of the
next potential
bullying situation more so than in the occurrence of the actual
bullying
event (Vaillancourt et al., 2008). Investigations of youth
reactions to natural
disasters such as earthquakes (Mercuri & Angelique, 2004) or
perceived
threat of traffic accidents, missile attacks, stressful family

environment, and
drug addicted fathers (Hardie, Moss, Vanyukov, Yao, &
Kirillovac, 2002)
support the potential for the application of this concept to
bullying experiences.
These studies found that perceived threat and a sense of
helplessness, rather
than the event itself, induced more anxiety reactions and were
important
factors in the development of psychopathology.
Anticipatory stress and resulting anxiety reactions might be
expected
with the approach of school venues where bullying is more
likely to occur.
These situations are those that are less structured (Craig,
Pepler, & Atlas,
2000) and involve less adult supervision time (Espelage,
Bosworth, & Simon,
2000). One recent study of sixth-grade students added
additional support to
this concept that bullying occurred most often in the cafeteria
(Parault,
Davis, & Pellegrini, 2007) and another (Bradshaw, Sawyer, &
O’Brennan,
2007) found this location third to recess and classroom.
Considering some form
of recess generally follows lunch period, biological reactions to
anticipatory
stress might be more likely to increase during the approach to
lunch.
MEASURING BIOLOGICAL STRESS REACTIONS IN
ADOLESCENCE
One of the major components of the psychobiology of the stress

response
involves activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA)
axis. Cortisol
is the primary product of HPA axis activation and can be
accurately mea-
sured in saliva (e.g., Hellhammer, Wust, & Kudielka, 2009).
Under norma-
tive conditions and on average, HPA axis activity shows a
diurnal rhythm
with levels of salivary cortisol high at waking, peaking 30
minutes post
waking, declining as much as 50–75% by midday, and then
showing a more
shallow pattern of decline across the afternoon (Nelson, 2000).
Individual
differences in the diurnal production of cortisol are vast and
this variation
has been linked to confluence of interacting situational, state-
and trait-like
factors (Thorn, Hucklebridge, Evans, & Clow, 2009). HPA axis
activity also
increases in anticipation and in response to stress or challenges
(Stansbury
& Gunnar, 1994) and particularly to threat that involves social
evaluation
(Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004). There is consensus that the
subjective experience
of the perceived threat or event is more important than the
objective
features (i.e., intensity, duration) of the event in relation to
predicting

individual differences in HPA reactivity in anticipation of or in
response to
stress (Kudielka, Hellhammer, & Wust, 2009).
HPA axis activation in response to threat or challenge is
considered adap-
tive in the short term (Sapolsky, Romero, & Munck, 2000), but
problematic
when conditions persist (McEwen & Seeman, 1999). Sustained
HPA activation
and prolonged exposure to high levels of cortisol can have
negative
consequences for learning and memory, immune function, and
emotionality
(McEwen & Wingfield, 2003). Under conditions of perceived or
actual
chronic threat and challenge, the HPA axis is capable of
changing its set
point or threshold for reactivity and thereby downregulating its
sensitivity.
Downregulation of the HPA axis has been associated with
symptoms of
posttraumatic stress disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome,
fibromyalgia, and
chronic pelvic pain (Heim, Ehlert, & Hellhammer, 2000;
Roberts, Wessely,
Chalder, Papadopoulos, & Cleare 2004; Rohleder, Joksimovic,
Wolf, &
Kirschbaum, 2004). The threatening, social evaluative, and
chronic nature of
the anticipation of bullying raises the possibility that bullying
exposure may
be associated with individual differences in children’s cortisol
levels and
links between HPA axis activity, behavior, and health. It may
also help

elucidate observations that victims of bullying often suffer
psychological,
social, and physiological health problems that can persist into
adulthood.
Technical advances in the past two decades have enabled the
noninvasive
measurement (in saliva) of the psychobiology of stress in
children. Differences
between extreme groups such as child maltreatment and neglect
have now been
found (e.g., Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2001), while others reveal
that the quality of
social relationships are also associated with variability in
children’s HPA axis acti-
vation (Booth, Granger, & Shirtcliff, 2008). In the school
setting, Lisonbee, Mize,
Payne, and Granger (2008) showed that even after controlling
for individual
teacher, child, and classroom characteristics, teacher-child
relationship quality
was associated with children’s HPA axis activity. Cortisol
production increased
during teacher-child conflict interaction and teacher-reported
student overde-
pendence predicted cortisol increases from morning to
afternoon.
Research on potential relations between HPA activation and
bullying is very
limited. One study of 154 twelve-year-olds found that students
bullied occasion-
ally (once or a few times) had lower cortisol levels than
nonbullied peers when
sampled across time and day (Vaillancourt et al., 2008). This
research begins to

indicate that bullying and cortisol levels are related, but leaves
many questions
as to how, why, under what conditions this might occur, and to
what degree the
immediate reactive nature might be related to persistent cortisol
levels.
Hypotheses
The present study explored the pathways through which
exposures to
bullying during middle childhood might be related to individual
differences
in HPA axis activity. Consistent with the literature reviewed
above, two rival
hypotheses were anticipated. One possibility is that chronic
exposure to
bullying episodes would be associated with lower HPA axis
activity due to
downregulation of cortisol production. An alternate possibility
is that chronic
exposure to bullying episodes would be associated with
heightened HPA
axis activity because of increased victim’s arousal and vigilance
in the antic-
ipation of bullying events. If either hypothesis was viable, we
expected that
anxiety level would moderate the relationship between bullying
exposures
and salivary cortisol.

METHOD
Participants
A total of 101 sixth-grade students recruited from a rural school
located in the
midwestern United States returned permission slips from home
to take part in
this study. Participants were excluded if their saliva samples did
not meet
acceptable standards for analysis, or they reported being in poor
health, cur-
rently under a physician’s care, taking any over-the-counter or
prescription
medications (Granger, Hibel, Fortunato, & Kapelewski, 2009).
Others poten-
tial exclusions included anyone reporting symptoms of acute
illness (fever,
congestion, nasal drip), any injury, burn, or other trauma
(including dental or
orthodontic work) to their gums within the prior 48 hours, or
chronic medical
conditions (Kivlighan et al., 2004).
The 91 students who made up the final sample had a mean age
of
11.5 years with a range from ages from 11 to 14. There were 55
females
and 36 males from the following ethnic groups: Euro-American
(86%),
African American (6%), American Indian (5%) and Other (1%).
Seventy
participants indicated that they had been exposed to repetitive
bullying
in the school. Thirty-five students reported that they had been
victims

with varying levels of intensity from almost every day (n = 6),
several
times a week (n = 1), about once a week (n = 2), sometimes (n =
12), to
only once or twice (n = 14) during the academic year. Victims
of bullying
could also endorse witnessing others being bullied. Sixty-eight
students
reported witnessing bullying ranging from every day, (n = 11),
many
times (n = 14), to sometimes (n = 43).
Measures
MULTIDIMENSIONAL ANXIETY SCALE FOR CHILDREN
(MASC)
The MASC (March, Parker, Sullivan, Stallings, & Conners,
1997) is a 39-item
self-report instrument, measuring a range of anxiety symptoms
in youth
ages 8 to 19 years. Children rate each item on a 4-point scale,
ranging from
0 = never applies to me, to 3 = often applies to me, with higher
scores indi-
cating greater severity. Total scores range from 0 to 117. The
MASC consists
of an overall Anxiety Index and four subscales: Physical
Symptoms (12
items; e.g., “My heart races or skips beats”), Social Anxiety (9
items; e.g., “I
worry about what other people think of me”), Separation

Anxiety/Panic (9
items; e.g., “The idea of going away to camp scares me”), and
Harm Avoid-
ance (9 items; e.g., “I stay away from things that upset me”).
The MASC has
demonstrated good internal consistency and convergent and
discriminate
validity (e.g., Brooks & Kutcher, 2003). Three-week test-retest
reliability
differed by ethnicity of participants with stability higher for
White youth
(intraclass correlation coefficient = .91) than for African
American youth
(ICC = .76; March, Sullivan, & Parker, 1999).
EXPOSURE TO BULLYING EVENTS (EBE) VARIABLE
Exposure to bullying is more than being a victim or a bully,
which are
commonly studied. It is a concept much like exposure to
violence in a
community where many in the environment are affected beyond
victims
and perpetrators, by being exposed to the violence in their
environment
(bystander). A new variable, EBE, was designed to evaluate
individual
levels of self-reported exposure that included all aspects of
exposure to
school bullying. This variable has also been used in other
published
research (e.g., Oh & Hazler, 2009).
The level of exposure to bullying events was calculated using
two
questions from an updated self-report form of the original 28-

item paper-
and-pencil School Bullying Survey (SBS; Hazler, Hoover, &
Oliver, 1992).
Students answered the two questions about their exposure to
bullying
based on a definition of bullying that includes factors
commonly used in
research: Bullying means: (a) repeated (not just once) harm to
others by
hurting others’ feelings through words or by attacking and
physically hurting
others; (b) may be done by one person or by a group; (c)
happens on the
school grounds or on the way to and from school; and (d) is an
unfair
match like the person doing the bullying is physically stronger
or better with
words or making friends than the person being bullied (Hazler
et al., 1992).
The first EBE question related to how often a student was
personally a
victim of bullying: “How often have you been bullied at
school?” This item
had six possible answers ranging from: 1 = not been bullied at
school this
year to 6 = been bullied almost every day at school this year.
The second
EBE question related to how often a student witnessed bullying
of others:
“How often did you see other students being bullied at school?”

This item
had four possible answers ranging from 1 = not seen others
being bullied at
school this year to 4 = seen bullying every day at school this
yeear.
The new EBE variable was created from the personal
victimization and
witness questions that addressed the level of overall exposure of
a student
to bullying events. The combination resulted in 24 (6 × 4)
possible ordinal
scales where the lowest rating was no victimization (1) and no
witness (1),
and the highest was everyday victimization (6) and everyday
witness (4).
One more factor needed attention in the development of this
new variable
based on research indicating that a victim experience has
greater negative
effects than a bystander experience, even though both have
negative conse-
quences (Janson & Hazler, 2004).
This research was utilized to organize the 24 ordinal scales into
a
recoding table (Table 1) that established an individual’s level of
bullying
exposure on a scale with values ranging from 1–24, where
victimization
always received more weight than witnessing. For example, a
student who
was victimized “several times a week (5)” and witnessed a
bullying event
“sometimes (2)” (score = 18) had a higher EBE score than
another student

who was victimized “once a week (4)” and witnessed a bullying
event
TABLE 1 Creation of New Variable, Exposure to Bullying
Events (EBE), and Transformed EBE
Victim frequency Witness frequency EBE EBE frequency
1 Not been bullied this year 1 Not seen 1 21
1 2 Sometimes 2 26
1 3 Many times 3 3
1 4 Everyday 4 4
2 Once or twice 1 Not seen 5 1
2 2 Sometimes 6 9
2 3 Many times 7 6
2 4 Everyday 8 1
3 Sometimes 1 Not seen 9 1
3 2 Sometimes 10 7
3 3 Many times 11 1
3 4 Everyday 12 2
4 Once a week 1 Not seen 13 0
4 2 Sometimes 14 0
4 3 Many times 15 1
4 4 Everyday 16 1
5 Several times a week 1 Not seen 17 0
5 2 Sometimes 18 0
5 3 Many times 19 1
5 4 Everyday 20 0
6 Almost every day 1 Not seen 21 0
6 2 Sometimes 22 1
6 3 Many times 23 2
6 4 Everyday 24 3

“every day (4)” (score = 16). The second student witnessed
bullying more
frequently than the first student, but had a lower score because
the first
student was victimized more frequently than the second student.
Procedures
SALIVA COLLECTION AND CORTISOL DETERMINATION
The day preceding collection of saliva students were given
explanations of
the collection procedures and also the procedures for the paper-
and-pencil
data collection that would take place the day following saliva
collection.
This was done in individual classrooms where student questions
were
answered.
The day the research study was conducted all teachers brought
their
students to the cafeteria at 8:00 a.m. (beginning of school day)
for collection
of cortisol 1 samples and again at 10:30 a.m. (prior to lunch) for
cortisol 2
samples and paper-pencil measures. The cafeteria was used
because school
administrators preferred this method as a convenient location
within the
school for data collection from all participants to occur.
Students were given polypropylene cryogenic vials with two
hydrocel-
lulose microsponges in them (B & D Opthalamic, Walton, MA)

following
Harmon, Hibel, Rumyantseva, and Granger’s (2007) model. The
children
placed the sponges under their tongue for 60–90 seconds, after
which they
were sealed in the vial. The sponges were then stored on ice,
until frozen at
−40 °C when procedures ended for the day. Samples were
transported fro-
zen to Salimetrics Laboratories where they were stored at −80
°C until the
day of assay. Samples were assayed for salivary cortisol using a
highly sen-
sitive enzyme immunoassay U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(510k)
cleared for use as an in vitro diagnostic measure of adrenal
function.
The total time from classroom, to cafeteria, and the end of
saliva collection
was 15 minutes. While there is no way to determine how this
disruption
might have influenced results, it would presumably be no more
than what
would occur in any study of students within a normal school
day. Since the
disruption was brief and it normally would take 20 minutes for
cortisol to
demonstrate reactivity, it would seem reasonable to assume that
reactions to
the disruption per se as opposed to the approaching lunch period
would
not be showing up in cortisol change.
SURVEY COLLECTION

Students completed the paper-and-pencil measures in the group
setting of
the cafeteria on the day following saliva collections. The MASC
and SBS
were given in a counterbalanced fashion to reduce the potential
influence
of one upon the other.
Data Analysis Plan
Correlations were first conducted to determine the relations
between
variables. A series of multiple regressions were then conducted
in order to
test the hypothesis that previous bullying exposures would be
related to
cortisol levels through student general anxiety as lunch time
approached.
This hypothesis assumes that students’ previous bullying
exposures contribute
to changes in cortisol indirectly via their anxiety levels. The
EBE is a
composite variable created by combining the victim frequency
and witness
frequency, so it is important to evaluate if the victim experience
or the
witness experience is truly driving the relation. The researchers
conducted a
supplementary hierarchical regression in order to highlight the
unique
contributions of the victim frequency from witness frequency.

RESULTS
Bivariate Analysis
Descriptive information for the MASC total score was a mean of
34.4 (SD =
18.2) and range of 1 to 75. Mean for cortisol 1 was –1.7 (SD =
0.45) and
range of –2.56 to 10.70, while mean for cortisol 2 was –2.1 (SD
= 0.40) and
range from –2.9 to –1.3. Pearson coefficients were used for
correlations
among the continuous variables of general anxiety and cortisol
levels.
Spearman coefficients were used for the correlations of the EBE
with other
variables, because the EBE is ordinal. The correlation matrix
demonstrated,
as expected, that no significant relationships were found
between early
morning (8:00 A.M.) cortisol levels (cortisol 1) and EBE (rs = –
.03) or
general anxiety (r = –.08). No significance was found in the
relationship
between lunchtime period (10:30 a.m.) cortisol levels (cortisol
2) and EBE
(rs = –.17) when bullying should be more likely to occur.
Significance was
found between cortisol 2 and general anxiety (r = –.35, p < .01).
This was a
negative relation indicating that lower cortisol levels were
related to higher
anxiety. EBE was also found to be significantly related in a
positive direction
with general anxiety (rs = .48, p < .01). Cortisol 1 and 2 were
significantly

related as expected (r = .36, p < .01).
Multiple Regressions
A series of multiple regressions were conducted to investigate
the direct and
indirect influence of EBE on the cortisol levels. Table 2
summarizes the results
of a series of regressions. The first analysis revealed that EBE
significantly
predicted general anxiety (R2 = .205, Adjusted R2 = .196, p <
.001). Greater
exposure to bullying was related to higher anxiety. The second
analysis
showed that EBE alone did not significantly predict cortisol
levels (R2 = .022,
Adjusted R2 = .002, p = .150), thereby revealing that there was
no direct EBE
effect on cortisol levels. The third analysis revealed that the
combination of
general anxiety and EBE significantly predicted cortisol levels
(R2 = .121,
Adjusted R2 = .102, p = .003). Greater exposure to bullying
combined with
general anxiety related to lower cortisol levels. The combined
results of the
first and third regressions indicate that there was an indirect
effect of EBE on
cortisol levels through general anxiety and confirms the
research hypothesis.
The amount of contribution of each variable was also estimated

(see Table 2).
Hierarchical Regression
A supplementary hierarchical regression was conducted to
determine the
contributions of victim experience, witness experience, and
their combination.
Table 3 shows that victim experience significantly contributed
to changes in
anxiety (R2 = .197, Adjusted R2 = .188, p < .001). Step 2
demonstrated that
the witness experience did not significantly predict anxiety
levels when vic-
tim experience was controlled (b = .076, p = .486), and the
contribution of
victim experience continued to be significant in Step 2 (b =
.408, p < .001).
These results indicate that the contribution of the EBE variable
to anxiety
was largely related to victimization experience.
TABLE 2 Regressions Testing EBE Direct and Indirect Effects
Through Anxiety on Cortisol
Levels
Analysis and variables b SE p R2 Adj. R2
Analysis 1:
EBE on anxiety .453 .277 .000** .205 .196
Analysis 2:
EBE on cortisol −.150 .007 .150 .022 .002
Analysis 3: .003** .121 .102
EBE & anxiety on cortisol .010 .007 .928

−.353 .002 .002**
*p < .05; **p < .01.
TABLE 3 Hierarchical Regressions Investigating Unique
Contribution of Victimization and
Witness Experience on Anxiety
Step 1 Step 2
Variables b p b p
Victim frequency .444 .000** .408 .000**
Witness frequency .076 .486
Model F and (p) 21.861 (.000**) 11.112 (.000**)
Total R2 .197 .202
Adjusted R2 .188 .283
R2 Changes .197 .005
*p < .05; **p < .01.
DISCUSSION
This study explored pathways through which exposures to
bullying events
might influence activity of the HPA axis in middle childhood.
Confirmatory
results supported existing literature by documenting strong
positive associa-
tions between bullying exposure and anxiety (Janson, Carney,
Oh, & Hazler,

2009; Janson & Hazler, 2004). More importantly, and to the
best of our
knowledge, these findings are novel in that they reveal
associations between
bullying exposure and individual differences in the activity of
the HPA axis
were not direct, rather they appeared to be moderated by
features of
children’s subjective experiences of bullying events.
Specifically, children’s
level of bullying exposure was associated with lower HPA axis
activity only
through its relation to general anxiety levels. Our findings
contribute to the
literature in several ways including theoretical implications for
social neuro-
science along with implications for research to evaluate
bullying prevention
efforts and also potential counseling applications for those
exposed to bullying.
Before discussing these contributions, study limitations are
presented.
Study Limitations
Several limitations to this exploratory study need to be
considered even as
the results do reflect reasonable connections to previous
research. The
relatively small number of sixth-grade student participants in a
rural
community does not represent a nationwide sample. Self-report
questions
related to experiences as victim, bully, or bystander to bullying
only
provides a limited sense of the participants’ personalized

experience with
no specific information on their actual social support network,
even though
these items have been used in national samples for years. While
acquiring
saliva samples has become relatively easy over the past decade,
doing so in
a naturalistic school setting in order to explore real-life
experiences does
add some interruption to the natural experience. Collecting
cortisol samples
on one day in this exploratory study is a limitation. Future
research steps
will be to collect data prior to lunch on a series of days and
evaluate how
bullying events and HPA activity covary over time. The
reported limitations
have relevancy for future research where the concerns can be
taken more
fully into consideration.
Implications
UNDERSTANDING OF BULLYING IN MIDDLE CHILDHOOD
A well established literature (i.e., social neuroscience,
Caccioppo, 2002)
reveals that features of social ecological landscapes have the
capacity to
influence the HPA component of the psychobiological stress
response in
children and adults. The majority of studies linking individual
differences in

the quality of children’s social relationships and activity of the
HPA axis
have focused on the development of early attachment between
infants and
caregivers (Ahnert, Gunnar, Lamb, & Barthel, 2004), or later in
development
on parent-child relations (Granger et al., 1998). These
differences are generally
considered risk factors for developmental trajectories and
childhood
outcomes related to atypical emotion regulation, compromised
immunity,
illness susceptibility, and problematic social behavior.
The literature clearly demonstrates that later in development,
during
middle childhood and early adolescence, the broader social
context (e.g.,
relationships with peers, siblings, teachers, coaches, and
parents) plays an
equally important role as moderator of children’s risk for, and
resilience to,
negative outcomes (Baldry & Farrington, 2005; Taylor &
Kliewer, 2006). In
contrast to the extensive work in early childhood, the parallel
HPA-links to
age-appropriate social relationships with peers remain largely
unspecified
during early adolescence. That individual difference in HPA
activity and
stress-related reactivity are associated with problem behavior
during middle
childhood and adolescence (Klimes-Dougan, Hasting, Granger,
Usher, &

Zahn-Waxler, 2001), suggests that social relationships may
indeed be linked
to children’s HPA activity well beyond early childhood. In the
present study,
we addressed a niche related to this knowledge gap by exploring
the nature
of the association between peer abuse and children’s HPA
activity.
During middle childhood and early adolescence peer relations
become
a developmentally salient social hurdle (Espelage, Holt, &
Henkel, 2003;
Sullivan, Farrell, & Kliewer, 2006), and not surprisingly,
bullying and peer
victimization rates increase (Nansel et al., 2001). Decades of
research document
that peer victimization represents a major psychosocial
challenge for its
victims and those that witness it as bystanders. Our findings
highlight bullying
and peer victimization as a social force with what appears to be
rather
substantial potential to influence children’s physiological
function. These
findings raise the possibility that bullying-related alterations in
children’s
HPA axis activity may be of sufficient magnitude to moderate
the often
described association between victimization and physical
complaints.
These results add an additional dimension and more questions to
the
two most recent studies of cortisol and bullying. One previous
study found

lower cortisol levels only for victims upon awakening
(Vaillancourt et al.,
2008). The current study also found lower cortisol results, but
in this case,
they were related to a specific time presumed to heighten
anxiety related to
bullying and to the general exposure to bullying events rather
than only for
victims. Results suggest that there may be an anticipatory HPA
stress reac-
tion for general exposure to bullying in addition to generally
lower levels
associated with direct victimization.
The finding that bullying exposure was indirectly associated
with lower
and not higher cortisol levels has potentially significant
implications. This
pattern is consistent with the notion that bullying functions as a
familiar and
chronic, rather than acute and novel social stressor. How could
victimization
serve as a chronic stressor when our informal observations
suggest that
bullying events are relatively rare? Some studies suggest that
bullying
victims often ruminate about bullying experiences and worry
about it
happening again (Beran & Violato, 2004; Janson & Hazler,
2004). Every day
school situations such as riding the school bus, recess, lunch,

and other less
supervised school activities are generally judged to be prime
areas of concern.
These observations suggest that peer abuse victims may carry
the experi-
ence with them on a chronic basis and periodic reoccurring
victimization
may function to reinforce and perpetuate negative thoughts and
feelings.
The chronic stressor is thus not likely the act of bullying, but
instead the
persistent subjective experience of related trauma and resulting
anxiety
from regular exposure to situations where bullying occurred.
These findings underscore the need for future studies to
implement
research designs that specifically test the nature of the interplay
between
biology and social context. General Biopsychosocial models
have been
used to frame developmental research (e.g., Sussman, 2006), but
progress
has been slow in terms of advancing theory. We speculate that
the present
study’s findings can lead to specific testable hypotheses that
could produce
steps forward in translating these types of observations into
implications for
adolescent development.
BULLYING PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION
Implications for bullying prevention and intervention begin with
findings
that the effects of social contextual forces on individual

differences in HPA
activity may be indirect through their impact on the degree of
anxiety
around those events and circumstances. This observation is of
more than
passing importance because bullying prevention efforts
generally focus on
teaching vigilance, reporting, and intolerance for such behaviors
among
students and staff. Such programs generally target whole
populations (e.g.,
classrooms, schools, school districts), in part because everyone
in the
environment, not just direct victims, can experience potentially
negative
outcomes. The nature of the indirect associations revealed here
underscores
the validity of creating environments that provide for safety,
emotional
support, and emphasize social intolerance for such behavior.
HPA activity
might also become one more assessment tool that researchers
can use in
understanding the value of such programs.
The lower HPA activity levels associated with greater bullying
exposure
suggest that increasing exposure to bullying by victimization or
witnessing
may be connected to a physical desensitization in people. Such
desensitization
would be expected to result in children becoming increasingly
tolerant of
negative behaviors that impact anyone in such an environment.
Only a
worsening school climate less supportive of personal and

academic growth
could result from such a process. The high value that research
supported
prevention programs place on the intolerance aspect (Hazler &
Carney,
2006) received biological support from this study.
The indirect nature of these findings further highlight the
potential
value of helping those particularly troubled by bullying
exposure to resolve,
restructure, or reframe their subjective perceptions of bullying
events. Based
on the findings that perceptions, thoughts, and feelings may be
moderators
of the association between bullying and children’s HPA
activation, future
studies may focus on manipulating the content of those
subjective experi-
ences during counseling and employing salivary biomarkers of
the psycho-
biology of stress as a component of treatment evaluation. This
may be of
particular value when physical complaints or health problems
are present,
since similar problems have been associated with hypocortisol
reactions
and other traumatic experiences.
The nature of this study’s design leaves us uncertain whether
lower

trait-like cortisol is a cause or consequence of peer
victimization and says
little regarding specific mechanisms involved. Nevertheless,
these findings
are noteworthy because the robust pattern observed supports an
accumulat-
ing literature suggesting that during late childhood and early
adolescence
low levels of HPA axis activation (salivary cortisol) are linked
to exposures
to bullying via general anxiety levels.
REFERENCES
Ahnert, L., Gunnar, M. R., Lamb, M. E., & Barthel, M. (2004).
Transition to child care:
Associations with infant-mother attachment, infant negative
emotion, and cortisol
elevations. Child Development, 75, 639–650.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00698.x
Baldry, A., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Protective factors as
moderators of risk
factors in adolescence bullying. Social Psychology of
Education, 8, 263–284.
doi:10.1007/s11218-005-5866-5
Beran, T. N., & Violato, C. (2004). A model of childhood
perceived peer harassment:
Analyses of the Canadian national longitudinal survey of
children and youth
data. The Journal of Psychology, 138, 129–148.
doi:10.3200/JRLP.138.2.129-148
Bierman, K. L. (2004). Peer rejection. New York, NY: Guilford.
Booth, A., Granger, D. A., & Shirtcliff, E. A. (2008). Gender-

and Age-related differ-
ences in the association between social relationship quality and
trait-levels of
salivary cortisol. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 239–
260. doi:10.1111/
j.1532-7795.2008.00559.x
Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2007).
Bullying and peer
victimization at school: Perceptual differences between students
and school
staff. School Psychology Review, 36, 361–382.
Brewer, M. B. (2005). The psychological impact of social
isolation: Discussion and
commentary. In K. D. Williams, J. P. Forgas, & W. von Hippel
(Eds.), Sydney
Symposium of Social Psychology Series: The social outcast:
Ostracism, social
exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 333–345). New York,
NY: Psychology
Press.
Brooks, S. J., & Kutcher, S. (2003). Diagnosis and measurement
of anxiety disorder in
adolescents: A review of commonly used instruments. Journal
of Child and
Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 13, 351–400.
doi:10.1089/104454603322572688

Caccioppo, J. T. (2002) Social neuroscience: Understanding the
pieces fosters
understanding the whole and vice versa. American Psychologist,
57, 819–831.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.11.819
Carney, J. V. (2000) Bullied to death: Perceptions of peer abuse
and suicidal behavior
during adolescence. School Psychology International, 21, 213–
223. doi:10.1177/
0143034300212007
Cicchetti D., & Rogosch, F. A. (2001). The impact of child
maltreatment and psycho-
pathology on neuroendocrine functioning. Development and
Psychopathology,
13, 783–804.
Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of
bullying in the
playground and in the classroom. School Psychology
International, 21, 22–36.
doi:10.1177/0143034300211002
Dao, T. K., Kerbs, J. J., Rollin, S. A., Potts, I., Gutierrez, R.,
Choi, K., et al. (2006).
The association between bullying dynamics and psychological
distress. Journal
of Adolescence Health, 39, 277–282.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.11.001
Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and
cortisol responses: A
theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research.
Psychological
Bulletin, 130, 355–391. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355

Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000).
Examining the social context
of bullying behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of
Counseling and Develop-
ment, 78, 326–323.
Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2007). Dating violence &
sexual harassment across
the bully-victim continuum among middle and high school
students. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 36, 799–811. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-
9109-7
Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003).
Examining of peer-group
contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child
Development,
74, 205–220. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00531
Gilligan, J. (1991, May 23). Shame and humiliation: The
emotions of individual and
collective violence. Paper presented at the Erickson Lectures,
Harvard Univer-
sity, Cambridge, MA.
Granger, D. A., Hibel, L. C., Fortunato, C. K., & Kapelewski,
C. H. (2009). Medica-
tion effects on salivary cortisol:Tactics and strategy to
minimize impact in
behavioral and developmental science.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34,
1437–1448. doi:10.1016/j.psyneven.2009.06.017
Granger, D. A., Serbin, L. A., Schwartzman, A. E., Lehoux, P.,
Cooperman, J., &

Ikeda, S. (1998). Children’s salivary cortisol, internalising
behaviour problems,
and family environment: Results from the Concordia
Longitudinal Risk Project.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 707–728.
doi:10.1080/
016502598384135
Hardie, T. L., Moss, H. B., Vanyukov, M. M., Yao, J. K., &
Kirillovac, G. P. (2002). Does
adverse family environment or sex matter in the salivary
cortisol responses to antici-
patory stress? Psychiatry Research, 112, 121–131.
doi:10.1016/S0165-1781(02)00182-8
Harmon, A., Hibel, L. C., Rumyantseva, O., & Granger, D. A.
(2007). Measuring sal-
ivary cortisol in studies of child development: Watch out—what
goes in may
not come out of commonly used saliva collection devices.
Developmental Psy-
chobiology, 49, 495–500. doi:10.1002/dev.20231
Hazler, R. J. (1996). Bystanders: An overlooked factor in peer
on peer abuse.
Journal for the Professional Counselor, 11, 11–21.
Hazler, R. J., & Carney, J. V. (2006). Critical characteristics of
effective bullying prevention
programs. In S. R. Jimerson & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook
of school violence and
school safety: From research to practice (pp. 273–292).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hazler, R. J., Carney, J. V., & Granger, D. A. (2006).
Integrating biological measures
into the study of bullying. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 84, 298–307.
Hazler, R. J., Hoover, J., & Oliver, R. (1992). What kids say
about bullying? The
Executive Educator, 14, 20–22.
Heim, C., Ehlert, U., & Hellhammer, D. H. (2000). The
potential role of hypocortiso-
lism in the pathophysiology of stress-related bodily disorders.
Psychoneuroen-
docrinology, 25, 1–35. doi:10.1016/S0306-4530(99)00035-9
Hellhammer, D. H., Wust, S., & Kudielka, B. M. (2009).
Salivary cortisol as a biom-
arker in stress research. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34, 163–
171. doi:10.1016/
j.psyneuen.2008.10.026
Horne, O. P., & Staniszewski, D. (2003). School bullying:
Changing the problem by
changing the school. School Psychology Review, 3, 431–434.
Janson, G. R., Carney, J. V., Oh, I., & Hazler, R. J. (2009).
Bystanders’ reactions to
witnessing repetitive abuse experiences. Journal of Counseling
and Develop-
ment, 87, 319–326.
Janson, G. R., & Hazler, R. J. (2004). Trauma reactions of
bystanders and victims to
repetitive abuse experiences. Violence and Victims, 19, 239–

Is this bullying” Understandingtarget and witness reaction.docx

Is this bullying” Understandingtarget and witness reaction.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Is this bullying” Understandingtarget and witness reaction.docx

Similar to Is this bullying” Understandingtarget and witness reaction.docx (20)

More from priestmanmable

More from priestmanmable (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Is this bullying” Understandingtarget and witness reaction.docx