SummaryResearch in the field of workplace aggression has rapidly developed in the last two decades, and with this growth has come an abundance of overlapping constructs that fall under the broad rubric of workplace aggression. While researchers have conceptually distinguished these constructs, it is unclear whether this proliferation of constructs is adding appreciably to our knowledge, or whether it is constraining the questions we ask. In this paper, I consider five example constructs (i.e., abusive supervision, bullying, incivility, social undermining, and interpersonal conflict) and argue that the manner in which we have differentiated these (and other) aggression constructs does not add appreciably to our knowledge of workplace aggression. I then provide supplementary meta-analytic evidence to show that there is not a predictable pattern of outcomes from these constructs, and propose a restructuring of the manner in which we conceptualize workplace aggression.

The authors conducted a meta-analysis of 57 empirical studies (59 samples) concerning enacted workplace aggression to answer 3 research questions. First, what are the individual and situational predictors of interpersonal and organizational aggression? Second, within interpersonal aggression, are there different predictors of supervisor- and coworker-targeted aggression? Third, what are the relative contributions of individual (i.e., trait anger, negative affectivity, and biological sex) and situational (i.e., injustice, job dissatisfaction, interpersonal conflict, situational constraints, and poor leadership) factors in explaining interpersonal and organizational aggression? Results show that both individual and situational factors predict aggression and that the pattern of predictors is target specific. Implications for future research are discussed.

SummaryUsing meta-analysis, we compare three attitudinal outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, affective commitment, and turnover intent), three behavioral outcomes (i.e., interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and work performance), and four health-related outcomes (i.e., general health, depression, emotional exhaustion, and physical well being) of workplace aggression from three different sources: Supervisors, co-workers, and outsiders. Results from 66 samples show that supervisor aggression has the strongest adverse effects across the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Co-worker aggression had stronger effects than outsider aggression on the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, whereas there was no significant difference between supervisor, co-worker, and outsider aggression for the majority of the health-related outcomes. These results have implications for how workplace aggression is conceptualized and measured, and we propose new research questions that emphasize a multifoci approach.

In the present study, we modeled 2 sources of safety support (perceived organizational support for safety and perceived coworker support for safety) as predictors of employee safety voice, that is, speaking out in an attempt to change unsafe working conditions. Drawing on social exchange and social impact theories, we hypothesized and tested a mediated model predicting employee safety voice using a cross-sectional survey of urban bus drivers (n = 213) in the United Kingdom. Hierarchical regression analysis showed that perceived coworker support for safety fully mediated the relationship between perceived organizational support for safety and employee safety voice. This study adds to the employee voice literature by evaluating the important role that coworkers can play in encouraging others to speak out about safety issues. Implications for research and practice related to change-oriented safety communication are discussed.

Interpersonal mistreatment at work often occurs in the presence of others; however, these "others" are rarely examined in empirical research despite their importance to the context of the negative interaction. We conducted 2 experiments to examine how witnessing incivility affects observer reactions toward instigators and targets. In Study 1, participants (N ϭ 60) worked virtually with an ostensible instigator and target. In Study 2, participants (N ϭ 48) worked in vivo with confederates (hired actors) on a job task. Across these 2 studies, we found that observers of incivility tend to punish instigators while their reactions to targets were generally unaffected. Further, the effect of witnessing incivility was mediated by observers' negative emotional reaction toward the instigator.

SummaryThe present article takes an integrative perspective on the field of workplace aggression to highlight areas of ambiguity and opportunities for future research. First, by simultaneously examining the perpetrator-and target-focused literatures, we identify a great deal of overlap between predictors and outcomes in the two literatures, giving rise to the question of whether key constructs are predictors, outcomes, or both. Second, we determine that the question of "who is the perpetrator?" and "who is the target?" is considerably more ambiguous than implied within each of these independent literatures. Third, our examination suggests that a greater focus on the relational aspect of workplace aggression is particularly important to enable a more comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon. We examine and critique current methods and measurement and propose different approaches to explore workplace aggression in a more dynamic and contextualized way.

In 2 studies, we investigated victim attributions (Study 1) and outcomes (Study 2) for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Drawing on social categorization theory, we argue that victims of workplace aggression and sexual harassment may make different attributions about their mistreatment. In Study 1, we investigated victim attributions in an experimental study. We hypothesized that victims of sexual harassment are more likely than victims of workplace aggression to depersonalize their mistreatment and attribute blame to the perpetrator or the perpetrator's attitudes toward their gender. In contrast, victims of workplace aggression are more likely than victims of sexual harassment to personalize the mistreatment and make internal attributions. Results supported our hypotheses. On the basis of differential attributions for these 2 types of mistreatment, we argue that victims of workplace aggression may experience stronger adverse outcomes than victims of sexual harassment. In Study 2, we compared meta-analytically the attitudinal, behavioral, and health outcomes of workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Negative outcomes of workplace aggression were stronger in magnitude than those of sexual harassment for 6 of the 8 outcome variables. Implications and future directions are discussed.

In 3 experiments, we examined how customers react after witnessing a fellow customer mistreat an employee. Drawing on the deontic model of justice, we argue that customer mistreatment of employees leads witnesses (i.e., other customers) to leave larger tips, engage in supportive employee-directed behaviors, and evaluate employees more positively (Studies 1 and 2). We also theorize that witnesses develop less positive treatment intentions and more negative retaliatory intentions toward perpetrators, with anger and empathy acting as parallel mediators of our perpetrator- and target-directed outcomes, respectively. In Study 1, we conducted a field experiment that examined real customers' target-directed reactions to witnessed mistreatment in the context of a fast-food restaurant. In Study 2, we replicated Study 1 findings in an online vignette experiment, and extended it by examining more severe mistreatment and perpetrator-directed responses. In Study 3, we demonstrated that employees who respond to mistreatment uncivilly are significantly less likely to receive the positive outcomes found in Studies 1 and 2 than those who respond neutrally. We discuss the implications of our findings for theory and practice. (PsycINFO Database Record