Workplace violence: from threat to intervention

Workplace violence against adolescent workers in the US

“…Based on the range of workplace violence definitions found in the literature, which encompass a wide scope of activity from disruptive behavior to homicide [Warshaw and Messite, 1996;LeBlanc and Kelloway, 2002;Peek-Asa and Jenkins, 2003;Rugala and Fitzgerald, 2003;Wilkinson and Peek-Asa, 2003], all three types of workplace violence measured and available in the dataset were selected for this analysis. These include: physical attacks (''While working for someone outside your household, have you ever been physically attacked, such as being hit, kicked or shoved?…”

Indirect threats as an illegal speech act

“…In my data set, there are no instances of what I shall call the 'means condition', i.e. having the technical, mechanical or other resources needed to perform the harmful act (see Rugala & Fitzgerald 2003: 783 for a threat assessment perspective on this). However, this is exactly what we saw in Trump's tweet directed at Kim Jong-Un in (4) where he refers to his nuclear button and by extension to the US nuclear arsenal.…”

Stalking

“…Further, when examining DIF patterns, it is particularly important to consider whether there is an escalation of stalking, harassing, or threatening behavior. Escalation can be defined as a qualitative and/or quantitative increase in stalking, harassing, or threatening behaviors and may include frequency of harsher language, graphic or threatening enclosures, closer modes of delivery, more modes of delivery, ancillary incidents, and increased personalization indicators (Borum et al, 1999; Burgess et al, 1997; McEwan et al, 2012; Meloy et al, 2012; Rugala & Fitzgerald, 2003). Escalation has been associated with violence (Burgess et al, 1997; Kropp, 2008; Kropp et al, 2002; Rugala & Fitzgerald, 2003; Sato Mumm & Cupach, 2010; Sheridan et al, 2001).…”

“…Escalation can be defined as a qualitative and/or quantitative increase in stalking, harassing, or threatening behaviors and may include frequency of harsher language, graphic or threatening enclosures, closer modes of delivery, more modes of delivery, ancillary incidents, and increased personalization indicators (Borum et al, 1999; Burgess et al, 1997; McEwan et al, 2012; Meloy et al, 2012; Rugala & Fitzgerald, 2003). Escalation has been associated with violence (Burgess et al, 1997; Kropp, 2008; Kropp et al, 2002; Rugala & Fitzgerald, 2003; Sato Mumm & Cupach, 2010; Sheridan et al, 2001). Higher intensity and/or greater frequency of stalking have also been associated with greater psychological distress (Blaauw et al, 2002; Botuck et al, 2009; Kamphuis et al, 2003; Mechanic, Uhlmansiek, Weaver, & Resick, 2000; Mechanic, Weaver, et al, 2000).…”

“…Also, when targets are being stalked, it is important to consider how likely and able offenders are to use of sophisticated technology (Borum et al, 1999; Fein et al, 1995; Reyns, Henson, & Fisher, 2011; Rugala & Fitzgerald, 2003). This component is necessary to establish the likelihood that offenders are capable, for example, of hacking into a cell phone, or using the computer to steal someone’s identity, or could be capable of making a bomb if that is what they are threatening.…”