1

WORKPLACE BULLYING AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH

EMPLOYEES’ JOB STRAINS: THE ROLE OF INDIVIDUAL AND

AFFECTIVE FACTORS

PhD Thesis Proposal

Researcher:

Saima Naseer 24-FMS/PHD-MGT/F10

Supervisor:

Dr. Mohammad Bashir Khan

Faculty of Management Sciences

INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY,

ISLAMABAD

2

WORKPLACE BULLYING AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH

EMPLOYEES’ JOB STRAINS: THE ROLE OF INDIVIDUAL AND

AFFECTIVE FACTORS

(A Doctoral Dissertation Proposal PhD-Management)

Saima Naseer

Reg # 24-FMS/PHDMGT/F10

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

PhD Degree with the specialization in Management

at the Faculty of Management Sciences,

International Islamic University,

Islamabad.

3

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

In the current era of globalization, the most pervasive problem faced by nearly every

organization is the emerging, prevalent yet uncontrolled phenomenon of workplace bullying

(Hutchinson, Vickers, Jackson & Wilkes, 2010). Workplace bullying in the past decade has been

recognized as one of the important characteristic of the workplace which has generated rising

interest and attention from not only researchers but practitioners as well (Einarsen, Raknes, &

Matthiesen, 1994; Hutchinson et. al., 2010; Leymann, 1990a; Samnani & Singh, 2012). The

persistent nature of bullying is acknowledged to such an extent that researchers admit the fact

that this phenomenon is an inescapable and harsh reality of today’s workplace which is shifting

from the schools to the offices and boardrooms of the workplace (Harvey, Heames, Richey, &

Leonard, 2006).

The concept of workplace bullying has been examined by researchers through different labels for

instance Workplace Harassment (Bjorkqvist, Osterman & Hjelt-Back, 1994), Emotional abuse

(Keashly, 1998), workplace victimization (Einarsen & Raknes, 1997), Mobbing (Leyman 1996),

psychological terror (Leymann, 1990a) and bullying at the workplace (Hoel, Cooper & Faragher,

2001).

Although a number of terminologies exist, however presently there is agreement over researchers

on what behaviors constitute bullying at the workplace. Workplace bullying refers to irritating,

4

intimidating, socially boycotting and creating obstacles in one’s work related tasks (Einarsen,

2000; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Copper, 2011). For bullying to occur there is an agreement among

researchers that bullying behaviors are those that occur frequently and continuously and they

range in duration (Einarsen et al., 2011). Moreover, bullying is an aggravating process which

tends to make the victim end up in a situation where he/she is unable to defend himself/herself

and become the subject of continuous harmful behaviors (Salin, 2003; Zapf, Einarsen, Hoel &

Vartia, 2003). A disagreement or clash is not considered bullying if the event is a one time event

or if the individuals involved in the clash hold equal power and authority (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf,

& Cooper, 2003).

The rising attention in the workplace bullying area has resulted in a substantial literature that has

investigated the types of workplace bullying behaviors (Einarsen et.al., 2003); the occurrence of

such abusive behaviors at the workplace (Zapf et.al., 2003); the harmful consequences of

bullying on the targets and workplace (Giradi, Monaco, Prestigiacomo, Talamo, Ruberto, &

Tatarelli, 2007); and avoidance and handling processes pertaining to workplace bullying

behaviors (Saam, in press; Schat & Kelloway, 2003). While past studies on bullying have

devoted a substantial consideration in investigating occurrence, determinants and outcomes

(Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Hershcovis, Turner, Barling, Inness, et.al., 2007; Zapf & Einarsen,

2005), research underlying the various individual mechanisms through which bullying shows its

deleterious effects is still lacking (Cassidy, McLaughlin & McDowell, 2014; Nielsen &

Einarsen, 2012; Samnani & Singh, 2012; Tuckey & Neall, 2014).

According to the stressor-strain model, workplace bullying has been regarded as an important

stressor which causes strain within organizations and is one of the most distressing issues in

5

today’s workplace as in comparison to other organizational stressors (Einarsen & Mikkelsen,

2003; Zapf, Knorz & Khulla, 1996b).

However, researchers contend that conceptualizing bullying simply as a stressor-strain model is

too simplistic and there might be important mediators (Coyne, Clough, Alexander, & Clemment,

2006; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002) existing in the workplace bullying and outcomes

relationship which might further our understanding the process of workplace bullying.

In this context, a few studies in the past have suggested how, why and under what conditions a

stressor may predict strain over time (Zapf, Dormann, & Frese, 1996a). These theorists suggest

that the impact of stressor with the passage of time and through certain mechanisms have the

capacity to increase strain over time.

Empirically this argument has been tested in the bullying context where high levels of exposure

to workplace bullying may decrease an individual’s sense of vigor and dedication which might

lead to increase strain with the passage of time (Munoz, Baillien, Witte, Jimenez & Pastor,

2009). In other words, work engagement has been found as a mediator between workplace

bullying incidences and strain. Moreover, lower social support has been found as a partial

mediator between workplace bullying and anxiety reactions (Hansen, Hogh, Persson, Karlson,

Garde & Orbeak, 2006). Giorgi (2012) in a survey of 300 Italian academic staff employed in a

large sized Italian university reported that bullying at the workplace resulted in harmful health

outcomes through its effects on workplace climate. Their findings lend credence to the fact that

workplace bullying causes negative organizational climate which ultimately hampers one’s

health (Giorgi, 2012).

6

Recently, Tuckey & Neall (2014) in a between and within person examination using multisource

data and two study longitudinal research study found that emotional exhaustion partially

mediated the workplace bullying and optimism and bullying-self efficacy relationship. These

authors call for future researchers to further explore and study additional affective, cognitive and

personal resources as mechanisms through which workplace bullying shows its negative effects

on outcomes.

Thus, there is a rising outcry by researchers that the workplace bullying is a complex process

(Monks, Smith, Naylor, Barter, Ireland & Coyne, 2009) instead of viewing it simply as a

stressor-strain model, researchers need to explain and interpret bullying by taking into account a

number of intervening processes between the bullying and outcomes relationship. In addition,

various theoretical models need to be incorporated in this area to effectively understand the

mechanisms through which work related bullying emerges (Hoel et.al., 2003).

The appraisal theory of stress has been acknowledged as an authority in psychology (Lazarus &

Folkman, 1984). This theory considers cognitions and emotions as mediators between stressor-

strain relationships. Moreover, conservation of resource theory (Hobfoll, 1998; 2001) an

extension of the works of Lazarus is another important framework which acknowledges the role

of resource loss and gains between the stressor-strain models. This theory also accepts that

stressor causes psychological resource depletion which affects strain. Moreover, this theory

posits that in order to prevent the resource loss caused by the stressor individuals’ builds

resource prevention strategies such as emotional self regulation in order to lessen the effects of

stressor on strain (Hobfoll, 1998; 2001; Schwarzer, 2001). Thus, both these theories highlight the

important role of both cognitions and emotions as parallel mechanisms through which stressor

causes strain in individuals.

7

The present study extends the literature on workplace bullying, stress and emotions by utilizing

the conservation of resources theory and appraisal theory of stress and coping as the overarching

theories to justify and interpret how and why workplace bullying as a stressor leads to negative

consequences i.e. strain. The current thesis attempts to bridge a significant gap in the workplace

bullying area by proposing two important mechanisms i.e. Perceived Support (Perceived

Organizational Support, Co-worker support and Supervisor Support) and Emotional dissonance

as mediators between workplace bullying and outcomes relationship. Moreover, the present

study aims to highlight an important individual difference variable i.e. Core Self evaluations as

an important moderator in the relationship between workplace bullying and emotional

dissonance and between workplace bullying and Perceived Support Types (POS, PSS and PCS).

1.2 Justification of the Study (Gap Analysis)

Although research examining workplace bullying has existed for the past many decades, before

the 1980’s bullying research was more subjective and descriptive in nature however, the ground-

breaking research initiated by Leymann (1990a) organized workplace bullying as a scientific and

methodically studied phenomenon (Zapf & Einarsen, 2005). From that time, interest and

attention in the area of bullying at the workplace has grown significantly.

Quantative research conducted in a number of countries such as USA, UK, Spain, France,

Germany, Canada, Nordic countries, Australia, India, Argentina, Hong Kong and Singapore etc

have provided support for the presence of bullying (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Keashly &

Jagatic, 2000; Power, Brotheridge, Blenkinsopp, et.al., 2013), harmful effects on victims of

bullying (Hoel, Faragher, & Cooper, 2004; Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996; Mikkelsen &

Einarsen, 2002) work related (Salin, 2003a; Tepper, 2000; Vartia & Hyyti, 2002), and

8

personality variables (Aquino & Bradfield, 2000; Zapf, 1999) which may promote workplace

bullying. Although several studies have been conducted in the past on workplace bullying, there

are a lot of gaps which need to be investigated and filled to further clarify our understanding on

the complex phenomenon of workplace bullying.

Research studies have highlighted the significance of studying mediational processes in research.

For instance, it has been corroborated by researchers in the past that the findings of studies which

do not take into consideration the basic mechanisms causing such outcomes may be temporary

and short-lived (Mishra & Bhatnagar, 2010; Matheieu, DeShon, & Bergh, 2008). Nielsen &

Einarsen, (2012) in their recent meta-analysis on workplace bullying highlight that there is a

dearth of research in the literature on workplace bullying which has identified and explained the

mediating mechanisms as to how workplace bullying shows its harmful effects on outcomes.

Moreover, these authors argue that bullying might have secondary and indirect consequences on

employee's work related outcomes through the potential intervening mechanisms of various

variables which might further enhance this body of knowledge and increase the potency of

research on workplace bullying area. This study explores the mediational effects of emotional

dissonance and perceptions of support types on the relationship between workplace bullying and

job strains.

A recent meta-analysis has highlighted that work related bullying is inherently a psychological

experience and depends on the target’s subjective evaluation of being a victim or not (Vie,

Glaso, & Einarsen, 2011), therefore there is a need by future researchers to explore the

theoretical foundations of how victims’s experiences of bullying on well-being outcomes might

be explained through the cognitive mechanisms (Cassidy, McLaughlin & McDowell, 2014;

Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012; Samnani & Singh, 2012; Tuckey & Neall, 2014).

9

The present study employs two of the useful theoretical frameworks in the areas of stress namely

the appraisal theory of stress and coping and the conservation of resource theory as useful

underpinnings of how and through what mechanisms a stressor such as workplace bullying might

translate into negative consequences for the victim (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 1991;

Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus & Charash, 2001). Thus, the present study aims to extend these two

theoretical frameworks by examining the mediating mechanisms of emotional dissonance and

perceived support types between workplace bullying and job strains relationship.

This thesis also aims to extend the stressor-strain area by examining the role of cognitions and

emotions as parallel as well as the sequential mechanisms between workplace bullying and

strains. The literature on cognitions and emotions highlight many influential paradigms however

three dominant schools of thought stand out regarding the independence or interdependence of

cognitions and emotions. The first school of thought argues that one’s cognitions precede

emotions (Charland, 1997; Izard, 1992; Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus and Folkman, 1980, 1982).

The other school of thought considers emotions and cognitions as independent of one another i.e.

the rationalists view cognitions as part of the conscious mind where logic, information and

interpretation are formed of events vs. evolutionary psychologists view emotions as part of

subconscious mind. The evolutionary psychologist argues that emotions are involuntary and

reflexive particularly when individuals are faced with stressful events. These theorists give the

terminology of “Affective primacy” which refers to that emotional reactions are separate from

logical or cognitive assessments we do of other things, ideas or people (Tomkins, 1981, 1982;

Zajonc, 1980).

Lastly, the third school of path which is an extension of the above school of thought has given

the terminology of “twin path-way” model of emotions, cognitive-experiential model who

10

incorporate both the views i.e independence of cognitions and emotions as well as the causal

effect of cognitions on emotions that is cognitive evaluation of stressful events can determine

emotions and simultaneously when individuals are exposed to stimuli they might experience

affective states independent of cognitions (Lazarus, 1999; Ohman, 1999; LeDoux, 1996).

Therefore, this study builds on the previous research on stressor-strain and considers the parallel

as well as the causal role of individual’s cognitions i.e in the form of perceptions of support types

and emotions i.e. emotional dissonance between workplace bullying and job strains.

This study bridges the literatures on workplace bullying and emotional dissonance area by

highlighting workplace bullying as an important antecedent of emotional dissonance. Employees

in all kinds of organizations are subjected to the threat of negative behaviors at the workplace.

Past research on emotional labor or dissonance has mostly studied the outcomes of emotionally

dissonant employees (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Grandey, 2000; Glomb & Tews, 2004).

However, a few studies have addressed what individual and organizational factors promote

emotional dissonance in employees (Mishra & Bhatnagar, 2010; Ma, Chen &Tang, 2010). One

recent study has suggested that employees who experience abusive supervision have higher

chances of performing surface acting which further creates work family conflict (Carlson,

Ferguson, Hunter &Whitten, 2012). So this study extends the research on emotional dissonance

by suggesting workplace bullying as a major factor generating emotional dissonance in

employees.

This study is unique in the sense that it contributes in the areas of workplace bullying and

emotional dissonance by applying the concept of emotional dissonance beyond service context to

organizational context and suggests that emotional dissonance emerges from workplace bullying

11

in employees. The research on emotional dissonance and emotional labor have been researched

with how employees indulge in emotional regulation while dealing with external customers (Ma,

Chen & Tang, 2010); it is argued by researchers that this line of investigation should also be

extended while interacting with other organizational members such as bosses, co-workers and

subordinates as well (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). Thus, the current research adds to the body

of knowledge on Emotional dissonance by proposing workplace bullying as an important factor

predicting employee’s emotional dissonance within organizational context.

The present thesis intends to extend the perceived organizational support literature by proposing

workplace bullying as an important stressor negatively affecting perceived organizational

support. Previous studies have suggested that bullying has the capacity to influence the

organizational climate rather being influenced by it (Skogstad, Torsheim & Einarsen, 2011).

Giorgi & Majer (2009) highlighted that bullying at the workplace is a kind of work related

endemic that might create a negative perceptions of organizational climate. Recently, Giorgi

(2012) found support for the argument that rather than organizational climate promoting

conducive environments for bullying to flourish, workplace bullying creates a negative and

stressful organizational climate for its employees.

A recent study on abusive supervision has established that workers who receive abusive

treatment from the supervisors are more likely to hold the organization responsible for such

behaviors and develop negative perceptions of organization support (Shoss, Eisenberger,

Restubog & Zagenczyk, 2013). The authors in a study of 3 samples reported that abusive

supervision was significantly negatively related to perceptions of organizational support which

further predicted employees’ retaliatory behaviors directed towards the organization, reduced job

12

performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (Shoss, Eisenberger, Restubog &

Zagenczyk, 2013).

Cassidy, McLaughlin & McDowell (2014) recently in an investigation of 2068 individuals

working in organizations in UK found support for the mediating roles of psychological capital

and social support as parallel mediators between experiences of workplace bullying and ill-

health. The authors contended that victims of bullying when exposed to maltreatment have

insufficient resources thus decreasing psychological capital and perceived social support (family,

friends and colleagues) which ultimately depletes their health and well-being. Extending this

limited line of inquiry on workplace bullying, this study answers the recent calls by researchers

to link workplace and perceived support and aims to consider workplace bullying as an important

predictor of perceived support types (POS, PCS and PSS).

This study adds important insights into the role of dispositional variable in the workplace

bullying process. It has been contended that an individual’s personality traits may contribute as a

significant factor in affecting a person's appraisal of the potential stressors as well as the

individual’s perceived coping capacity which either increases or decreases stress reactions

(Cohen & Edwards, 1989; Cox & Ferguson, 1991; Spector, Zapf, Chen & Frese, 2000).

Moreover, it has been asserted by researchers in the past that future researchers should examine

personality characteristics that moderate the association between bullying and the various kinds

of individual processes and reactions (Vartia, 2001). The present study contributes to the

literature examining the dispositional variables in the workplace bullying area by taking core self

evaluations as an important moderator between workplace bulling and perceived support types

and between workplace bullying and emotional dissonance.

13

1.3 Significance of the Research (Theoretical Contribution)

The present study contributes to the literatures on workplace bullying, emotional dissonance and

perceived support by employing two well known theoretical frameworks which include

Cognitive appraisal theory of stress and coping and Conservation of Resource theory as broader

theories to justify the proposed links. According to the appraisal theory of stress and coping,

stress occurs depending on how a stressor is evaluated by an individual and how an individual

assess his or her resources to deal with the stressor. Therefore, individual’s cognitive appraisals

and subjective evaluations of the stressor and their emotional coping reactions play an important

role in determining the outcomes of stressful interactions at the workplace (Vie, Glaso, &

Einarsen, 2011).

The present investigation adds to the cognitive appraisal theory of stress and coping by

proposing two important mediators in the workplace bullying and outcomes relationship. In line

with this theory, it is the contention of the present study that workplace bullying leads to strains

through the mechanisms of perceived support types. Moreover, this study extends this theory by

proposing an important mediator of emotional dissonance between workplace bullying and job

strains (Job stress, Job burnout, Psychological strain and Intensions to quit).

This study adds to the literatures on workplace bullying, perceived support and emotional

dissonance in the perspective of the conservation of resource theory. This theory asserts that

stress emerges because of three conditions i.e. when individual’s important resources are

susceptible to resource loss, when resources are actually lost because of stressful circumstances

and when individuals are unable to increase resources after major resource investment. Job

burnout and stress are two outcomes of the stressful circumstances that normally evolve from a

14

slow depletion of resources without increasing resources or a replacement of resource loss. By

employing this theoretical framework, this study sheds light on how a stressor such as workplace

bullying creates resource loss and translates into strain through the mechanisms of lower

perceptions of support and emotional dissonance.

Einarsen et. al. (2003) advanced an explanatory model to conceptualize the phenomenon of

workplace bullying which intends to offer assistance for further research and interventions in this

area. Their theoretical framework proposes individual and organizational factors as predictors of

bullying, personality traits and situational factors as moderators and individual's

cognitions/interpretations and responses as potential mediators and employee/organizational

consequences as outcomes in the bullying model. Although the predictors and consequences of

workplace bullying have been widely researched, however future research is vital to scrutinize

why and through what processes bullying creates harmful consequences on an individual’s

psychological and emotional well-being (Sandvik, Tracy & Alberts, 2007; Nielsen & Einarsen,

2012). Thus, this study attempts to highlight and explain how and why workplace bullying

manifests itself into higher stress, burnout, psychological strain and intensions to quit.

It has been argued by researchers that due to a lack of longitudinal research designs and

inconsistent relationships between workplace bullying and outcomes, most models explaining

bullying have given support to organizational culture and employee’s perceptions of

organizational climate as antecedents promoting bullying at the workplace rather than a

consequence of bullying (Kivimaki, Vahtera, Pentti & Ferri, 2000; Pfeffer, 2007; Vardi & Weitz,

2004). However, recent studies have suggested that it is highly appropriate that instances of

reverse causality and interdependency case might exist which means that instead of

organizational climate promoting bullying; casual effects of bullying promoting negative

15

perceptions about organizational climate and support which needs to be investigated by future

researchers (Giorgi and Majer 2009; Giorgi, 2012). The present research study adds to the

workplace bullying literature by viewing workplace bullying as an important stressor negatively

influencing perceived organizational support.

The present investigation attempts to link the workplace bullying and emotional dissonance

literatures by introducing workplace bullying as a key determinant of emotional dissonance and

by applying the concept of emotional dissonance beyond service context to organization context.

It has been asserted by researchers in the emotional labor area that future investigations should

highlight the degree to which the concept of emotional dissonance can be applied beyond service

roles to other organizational roles such as while dealing with supervisors, colleagues and

subordinates (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989). Such organizational roles

also require a set of social and organizational expectations to be fulfilled by employees and

emotions are also experienced when executing such organizational roles it is difficult to

conceptualize an organizational role to which display rules would not apply. Thus, the present

study extends the emotional dissonance area by identifying workplace bullying as an important

predictor of emotional dissonance thereby applying it in a variety of settings and in interaction

with a variety of organizational roles.

1.4 Research Problem

Although the past literature in the area of workplace bullying shows that workplace bullying is a

severe stressor which creates strain however the underlying mechanisms through which

workplace bullying shows its deleterious effects on job strains are still unclear and unexplained

(Monks, Smith, Naylor, Barter, Ireland & Coyne, 2009). As mentioned, although quantitative

16

studies have been conducted in a number of countries to investigate the various antecedents,

moderators and consequences however, studies in the area of workplace bullying in the context

of Pakistan are scarce particularly there is a need to understand and explain the how's and why

through which workplace bullying manifests into job strains in employees (Cassidy, McLaughlin

& McDowell, 2014; Einarsen et. al., 2003; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012; Samnani & Singh, 2012;

Tuckey & Neall, 2014).

Particularly, there is a need to answer the recent calls by researchers to explain how workplace

bullying as a stressor might affect perceived support and emotional dissonance which translates

into job strains (job stress, job burnout, psychological strain and intensions to quit). Moreover, as

explained previously there is a need to highlight personality characteristics in the relationship of

work related bullying and various kinds of individual processes and reactions (Vartia, 2001;

Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012; Samnani & Singh, 2012; Tuckey & Neall, 2014). Thus, this study

takes into account to what extent personality traits (i.e. Core self evaluation) moderates the

relationship between workplace bullying and emotional dissonance on one hand and workplace

bullying and perceived support types on the other.

1.5 Research Questions

The current study's research questions are:

1. How does workplace bullying influences employee’s outcomes (Job stress, Job burnout,

Psychological Strain and Intensions to Quit)?

2. How does workplace bullying impacts emotional dissonance in employees?

17

3. What is the effect of workplace bullying on employee’s Perceived support types

(Perceived Organization support, Perceived Supervisor support and Perceived Coworker

support)?

4. What is the impact of emotional dissonance on employee’s outcomes (Job stress, Job

burnout, Psychological Strain and Intensions to Quit)? What is the impact of perceived

support types on employee’s outcomes?

5. How does employee’s emotional dissonance and perceived support types mediates the

relationship between bullying and employees’ job strains?

6. How does core self evaluation acts as a moderator in the relationship between workplace

bullying and Emotional dissonance and between workplace bullying and perceived

support types?

1.6 Research Objectives

The current study's research objectives are:

1. To investigate the impact of bullying on employee’s job strains (Job stress, Job burnout,

Psychological Strain and Intensions to Quit).

2. To examine the impact of workplace bullying in creating emotional dissonance in

employees.

3. To investigate the influence of workplace bullying on employee’s perceived support

types (Organization support, Supervisor support and Coworker support).

18

4. To analyze the influence of Emotional dissonance in creating employee’s strains (Job

stress, Job burnout, Psychological Strain and Intensions to Quit). To examine the

relationship between perceived support types on employee’s outcomes.

5. To explore the mediating effects of emotional dissonance between the workplace

bullying and job strains relationship and investigate the mediating role of support types

between the workplace bullying and job strains relationship.

6. To study core self evaluation (CSE) trait as a moderator in the relationship between

workplace bullying and emotional dissonance. To analyze the moderating role of CSE as

a personality trait between workplace bullying and perceived support types.

1.7 Research Model

The following figure below shows the research model which is deduced on the basis of the

above research gap.

19

Independent Variable Mediating Variables Dependent Variables

Moderating Variable

H7

H3

H10

H5

H9 (a, b,c)

H8 H1

H6 (a, b, c)

H2(a, b,c)

H4 (a, b, c)

Figure 1. Research Model

Figure depicting (a) the direct effects of workplace bullying on job strains (Job stress, Job burnout, Psychological

strain and intensions to quit); (b) the (simple, parallel and sequential) mediating effects of Emotional dissonance and

Perceived support types between workplace bullying and Job strains and (c) CSE personality trait as moderator

between workplace bullying and emotional dissonance on one hand and workplace bullying and perceived support

types on the other.

Emotional

Dissonance

Perceived Support

Perceived Supervisor

Support

Perceived Co-worker

support

Perceived Organization

Support

Job Stress

Core Self Evaluations

Workplace Bullying

Job Burnout

Psychological Strain

Intensions to Quit

20

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Workplace Bullying

Bullying at the workplace has been examined and studied under a variety of labels. For example,

in UK, the label bullying is commonly used. Some researchers believe that the term bullying

invoke interpretations of physical hostility which is uncommonly indicated in bullying at the

workplace (Leymann, 1996). In a few European countries and Germany (Zapf & Einarsen, 2011)

the term mobbing is used to describe such aggressive behaviors whereas in the US similar

concepts have been labeled as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), Harassment at the workplace

(Brodsky, 1976) and emotional abuse (Keashly & Harvey, 2005). Even though many different

terminologies have been employed to define the concept of workplace bullying but normally

there is agreement among researchers on a common operationalization of bullying.

Workplace bullying is defined as an escalating process which occurs when an individual is

repeatedly and continuously exposed to negative acts from one or more individuals, which range

over duration (i.e. about six months), in which there is a power imbalance and where the victim

due to a numbers of reasons feels helpless against such behaviors and is unable to protect

himself/herself (Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen et al., 2011; Salin, 2003; Zapf, Einarsen, Hoel, Vartia,

2003).

21

Einarsen and Hoel (2001) conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the NAQ

(Negative Acts Questionnaire) which resulted in a two factor solution comprising of individually

directed bullying and work oriented bullying. Bullying behaviors directed towards one's work

includes actions such as setting unrealistic deadlines, impossible workloads, stringent checks and

balances and hiding pertinent information from the victim. Whereas personal bullying

encompasses negative behaviors intended to create more personal attacks such as gossiping,

humiliating comments, making fun of and continuously criticizing the victim (Einarsen & Hoel,

2001; Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2000; Neuman & Baron, 1997; Nielsen et al. 2009).

2.2 Emotional Dissonance

Hochschild (1983) in his pioneer work introduced the concept of Emotional labor to explain how

individuals manage their feelings at the workplace so that they can attain their performance

goals. The concept of emotional labor has been usually been prevalent and researched in the

service sector where individual communications have a significant contribution in their work

(Ma, Chen &Tang, 2010). It is the contention of the present study that emotional labor or

dissonance is pertinent for all kinds of jobs and is required for all those jobs which require

interaction with significant others at the workplace.

Emotional labor is defined as the purposeful preparation, effort and management of work related

feelings and emotions during interpersonal interactions (Morris & Feldman, 1996). This concept

of emotional labor has been explained through the emotional regulation model which explains

how employees use emotional regulation to achieve emotional labor (Grandey, 2000). Two

processes of emotional labor have been contended in past research i.e. surface acting or

emotional dissonance and Deep acting (Hochschild, 1979; 1983). Surface acting means that

22

employees display fake emotions which are required by the organization even though they are

not genuinely feeling them. For example, employees might demonstrate a fake smile even when

they are in a bad mood or when they are dealing with problematic customers. Whereas deep

acting is the process of modifying or changing one’s inner thoughts to match with the display

rules (Brotheridge, 2002).

Emotional dissonance is a stress reaction which encompasses a discrepancy between employee’s

inner emotions and expressed emotions in accordance with organizational rules and have been

described as a person role conflict because the individual does not associate with one’s role and

job requirements and must change their response in order to meet and satisfy current job and role

expectations (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987; Abraham, 1999).

Emotional dissonance has been conceived in a number of different ways in the literature on

emotional labor. Some authors consider emotional dissonance as a consequent state which

emerges as a result of emotional labor i.e. when employees display emotions as a part of their job

requirement which do not match with their inner felt emotions (Diefendorff et al., 2005; Heuven

& Bakker, 2003). Others have viewed emotional dissonance as a cause of emotional labor where

the inconsistency between the expressed and experienced emotions affects emotional labor

(Grebner, Semmer, Faso, Gut, Kalin & Elfering, 2003; Zapf & Holz, 2006). Lastly, some studies

have considered emotional dissonance as one of the types of emotional labor (Morris &

Feldman, 1996).For the current thesis, emotional dissonance is operationalized as a condition of

conflict, tension and discomfort which happens due to the inconsistency between inner and

exhibited emotions or between genuinely experienced and portrayed emotions (Mishra &

Bhatnagar, 2010).

23

2.3 Perceived Support

2.3.1 Perceived Managerial/Supervisor Support

Perceptions of Supervisor support is defined as the extent to which individuals form overall

perceptions regarding the extent to which the managers/bosses recognize their efforts and are

concerned about their well-being (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988).

2.3.2 Perceived Co-worker Support

Perceived coworker support refers to the extent to which individual’s view that their coworkers

would be beneficial in providing help and support in case of any need such as job related matters

and will play an active role in providing emotional support to them as well (Thoits, 1985).

2.3.3 Perceptions of Organizational Support

Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison & Sowa (1986) initiated the idea of perceptions of

organizational support as a means of understanding employee’s evaluations regarding the

organization's dedication towards them. Perceived organizational support construct encompasses

individual’s overall assessments regarding the extent to which the organization supports them, is

concerned about their welfare, value their individual as well as organizational efforts and is fair

and just in identifying and rewarding extra effort and higher dedication (Eisenberger et.al., 1986;

Eisenberger, Fasolo & Davis-LaMastro, 1990; Rhodes & Eisenberger, 2002; Shore & Shore,

1995).

24

2.4 Personality

2.4.1 Core Self Evaluations

Core Self evaluations refers to an individual’s underlying assumptions about himself or herself.

These assumptions are dependent on one’s basic values, beliefs and principles which influence

the overall level of well-being and self- worth. Judge et al. (1998) in his pioneer work introduced

the variable of CSE which consists of one’s Self-efficacy, Self-esteem, Neuroticism and Locus

of control.

Self esteem is the degree to which persons like themselves and consider themselves as

competent, important, successful and worthy (Coopersmith, 1967). Generalized self efficacy is a

person's trust in one's abilities of showing higher performance across a wide variety of situations.

Locus of control is a person's confidence in one’s capacity to control one’s external factors

(Judge, Locke & Durham, 1997). Neuroticism is an individual’s deficiency in emotional

consistency and one's propensity to view events and situations in a negative light (Judge, Vianen

& De Pater, 2004).

Judge, Erez, Bono & Thoresen (2002) asserted that one should conceptualize CSE in terms of a

broader construct consisting of shared variance of its various dimensions. Moreover, past results

of confirmatory factor analysis has clearly resulted and supported for a one factor structure of

CSE (Judge et.al., 1998; 2000).

Successive research analyzing the construct validity of CSE favors this concept as all the four

dimensions are interrelated and demonstrate similar relationships with outcomes for instance job

performance, job and life satisfaction (Bono & Judge, 2003; Judge et.al., 2002).

25

2.5 Job Strains

2.5.1 Job Stress

Job Stress refers to an unfavorable physical and emotional state which occurs as a consequence

of negative incidences at the workplace, specifically events that are uncertain or complex to

handle by the individual (Beehr & Bhagat, 1985; Hart & Cooper, 2001). The work related

incidents which create stress are called stressors whereas the outcomes of stress either in terms of

individual's health or behaviors are called strains (Hart & Cooper, 2001).

2.5.2 Job Burnout

Burnout refers to one's reaction to persistent interpersonal and emotional stressors at the work

which is classified as cynicism, emotional exhaustion and diminished feelings of efficacy at

work (Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter, 2001). Emotional exhaustion is defined as when one

develops feelings of being constantly used up or fatigued as a result of work and devoid of

mental, physical and emotional resources (Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter, 2001). Cynicism refers

to a state whereby an employee distance itself from the workplace which becomes evident in the

form of an immediate, negative and indifferent attitude towards different feature’s of one’s job

qualifies the emergence (Maslach et.al., 2001). Reduced feelings of efficacy refers to involve an

individual’s assessment of one’s past, present and future accomplishments on job which

encompass feelings of an inability to perform one’s work related demands (Maslach et al., 2001).

2.5.3 Psychological Strain

Psychological strain refers to the extent to which an individual faces psychological and

emotional health complaints (Osipow, 1998). Psychological strain depicts the long term negative

26

effects on the employee due to constant experience of work related stressors and consists of such

indicators as anxiety (Billings & Moos, 1982), sadness (Tepper, 2001; Zohar, 1995) and social

dysfunctions (Banks et al., 1980).

2.5.4 Intensions to Quit

Behavioral and voluntary withdrawal behaviors are often subsumed under the heading of

turnover intensions or intensions to quit. Turnover intensions is defined as the degree to which an

employee wants to stay or leave with the organization (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986).

2.6 Theoretical Background

2.6.1 Conservation of Resource Theory

Hobfoll’s (1988, 1989, 1998a) conservation of resources theory asserts that individuals struggle

to acquire, preserve, defend, and increase valued resources and minimize any threats of resource

loss. Resources are defined as an employee’s overall capacity to meet his/her essential needs

(Hobfoll, 2002). Resources might include one’s physical resources such as bodily power,

monetary assets (earnings and possessions), societal resources (support, connections), mental

possessions (abilities, skills & Knowledge) and motivation related resources i.e. goal

involvement and self efficacy (Wang, 2007).

This conservation process consists of two equivalent mechanisms. The accumulation mechanism

is defined as a means by which employees utilize their resources to regulate their behaviors and

gain control over the environment to build up their resources to meet their needs (Hobfoll, 2002).

The protection mechanism emphasizes individual’s capacity to defend, guard and prevent

resource losses which includes primary and secondary resource loss.

27

Hobfoll (1988, 1989, 1998a) in his theory emphasizes the assumption of primacy of loss which

means that resource losses are more important than resource gains. When individuals encounter

stressful or demanding situations it may lead to loss of resources which is called primary

resource loss. Following primary resource loss, resource investment is required on the part of

individuals which mean that individuals must devote a considerable amount of resources so as to

defend against resource depletion, recoup from and increase one’s resources. If additional

resources invested tends to further exhausts individual’s resources secondary resource loss

occurs. As a result of the secondary resource loss individuals become inefficient and utilize

ineffective loss control strategies which then leads to a loss spiral in which resources needed to

regulate emotions and behavior become drained and used up even more rapidly (Bacharach &

Bamberger, 2007; Hobfoll, 2002). These two principles of primary and secondary resource loss

emphasize that resource gain and loss spirals respectively emerge in stressful or demanding

situations at the workplace or where individuals or organizations are resource deficient (Hobfoll,

2010). In other words, individuals with higher resources are less susceptible to resource

exhaustion and have increased capacity to increase resources. On the other hand, individuals who

possess limited resources are highly susceptible to resource loss and are not as much able to

increase one’s resources in the face of unfavorable or demanding situations as compared to their

counterparts who have higher resources.

2.6.2 Cognitive Appraisal theory of Stress and Coping

Lazarus and Folkman (1980) in their pioneer work introduced the cognitive appraisal theory of

stress and coping into the stress and emotions literature and more recently this theory has been

expanded as the cognitive motivational relational theory (Lazarus, 1991, 1999). This theory

28

focuses on the constant and joint nature of the interaction between the individual and the

environment. This model since its inception has not only been further developed and advanced,

but it has also been extended to a broader theoretical framework of emotional and coping

processes (Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus, 1991).

The appraisal theory of stress and coping asserts that stress emerge from an individual’s

subjective evaluations of the encountered situations and their influence on important goals

(Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1991; Roseman, Spindel & Jose, 1990). Smith & Lazarus (1993)

suggested two classification of appraisals that affect emotions i.e. primary and secondary

appraisal. In primary appraisal individual evaluate how much significance they attach to an event

(motivation significance) and the degree to which this situation is fruitful for maintaining one’s

individual goals (motivational congruence). According to Smith and Lazarus (1993) unfavorable

situations hold a high degree of motivational relevance but a low level of motivation congruence.

Secondary appraisal assess an individual’s survival or coping processes available and includes

problem focused vs. emotion focused coping. Problem focused coping deals with generating

alternatives which will influence the situation and emotional focused coping consists of one’s

capacity to affectively alter according to the circumstances. Secondary appraisal in combination

with primary appraisal determines the emotions generated (Griner & Smith, 2000).

Lazarus (1991) conceptualizes this model as a broader framework and a complex mechanism of

emotions and stress consisting of various predictors, mediating processes and outcomes.

Antecedents are individual’s resources such as money, social connections, abilities, beliefs on

one hand and quantitative burden, decisive incidents, stressful situations or contextual limitations

on the other hand. Mediating processes imply cognitive evaluation of such resources and

demands as well as the coping attempts to overcome or at least survive in such situations. The

29

outcomes or negative consequences of appraisal on one hand and coping on the other hand create

long term effects for individuals such as impaired physiological, psychological stress and

burnout and social functioning.

2.7 Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development

2.7.1 Workplace Bullying and Job Strains relationship (Job Stress, Job Burnout,

Psychological Strain and Intensions to quit)

It is commonly acknowledged by researchers in the workplace bullying area that bullying is an

important workplace stressor. Past studies of workplace bullying have examined the harmful

effects of bullying on employee’s physiological, cognitive and emotional outcomes (Zapf et.al.,

2003). A considerable amount of research has found that people who face bullying at the

workplace suffer from negative well-being (Hoel et.al., 2004; Niedl, 1996; Tepper, 2000). For

instance numerous studies have found that the victims of workplace bullying suffer from high

degree of stress, health illness and burnout (Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996; Matthiesen &

Einarsen, 2004; Tehrani, 2004).

Moreover, it has also been substantiated by researchers that even the non-bullied employees who

observe other individual’s being bullied report high levels of general stress, burnout and

psychological reactions than do employees who exist in organizations without bullying (Vartia,

2001). Therefore, workplace bullying is not only a serious concern for the victims of bullying but

also a pervasive issue which severely impairs the health and welfare of all the individuals

working in the organization. Thus, it is hypothesized:

30

Hypothesis 1: Workplace Bullying is positively related to Job Stress, Job Burnout, Psychological

Strain and Intensions to quit.

2.7.2 Relationship of Perceived Support types and Job Strains (Job Stress, Job Burnout,

Psychological Strain and Intensions to quit)

The literature on organization support clearly depict that perceived supervisor support is related

to a number of outcomes both individual and work related. For instance, it has been corroborated

in a number of studies that workers who view lower supervisor support have higher chances to

experience psychological strain and job stress (Bratt et al. 2000; Carlson and Perrewe, 1999;

Dormann & Zapf, 1999).

In addition, Perceived Coworker support has received considerable attention from researchers for

the past many decades and is significantly associated with employee’s well-being such as lower

stress, burnout and psychological strain (Fisher, 1985; Van Emmerik, Euwema & Bakker, 2007).

Past studies examining the effects of perceptions of organizational support on employee's

outcomes suggest that employees who develop lower perceptions of organizational support have

greater incidences to develop strain outcomes such as fatigue (Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey &

Toth, 1997), job burnout (Cropanzano et.al., 1997), nervousness and depression and higher

intensions to quit (Robblee, 1998; Venkatachalam, 1995). It has also been substantiated in past

research that negative perceptions of organizational support increase one’s stress level as well

(Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999). Thus, it is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2a: Perceived Organization Support is negatively related to Job Strains (Job Stress,

Job Burnout, Psychological Strain and Intensions to quit.

31

Hypothesis 2b: Perceived Coworker Support is negatively related to Job Strains (Job Stress, Job

Burnout, Psychological Strain and Intensions to quit.

Hypothesis 2c: Perceived Supervisor Support is negatively related to Job Strains (Job Stress, Job

Burnout, Psychological Strain and Intensions to quit.

2.7.3 Relationship of Emotional Dissonance and Job Strains (Job Stress, Job Burnout,

Psychological Strain and Intensions to quit)

Past research suggests that organizations might benefit from employees’ emotional dissonance

however emotional dissonance has negative consequences for employees’ well-being

(Hochschild, 1983; Grandey, 2000; Zapf et.al., 1999). Research has identified that employees

who experience emotional dissonance are more likely to encounter negative outcomes such stress

and burnout (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Hochschild, 1983; Morris & Feldman, 1997). A

meta-analysis examining the consequences of emotional labor have identified that employees’

emotional dissonance is associated with a number of job related and well-being consequences

such as strain and higher intensions to quit (Mishra & Bhatnagar, 2010;

Particularly, Job burnout is one of the frequently experienced and examined outcomes of

emotional dissonance in past research that has been tested and supported in a broad range of

service oriented jobs (Abraham, 1998; Brotheridge & Lee, 1998; Heuven & Bakker, 2003; Zapf

et.al., 1999). Moreover, emotional dissonance has also been found to be strongly associated with

all three types of job burnout i.e. emotionally dissonant employees because of incompatible

displayed and true emotions might suffer from high levels of cynicism (Brotheridge & Lee,

2002; 2003; Naring, Briet & Brouwers, 2006), emotional exhaustion (Brotheridge & Lee, 2003;

32

Golderberg & Grandey, 2007; Martinez-Inigo et.al., 2007; Naring et.al., 2006; Totterdell &

Holman, 2003) and diminished self efficacy (Brotheridge & Lee, 2003). Thus, it is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 3: Emotional Dissonance is positively related to Job Stress, Job Burnout,

Psychological Strain and Intensions to quit.

2.7.4 Relationship of Workplace Bullying with Perceived support types (POS, PSS & PCS)

Although majority of studies have examined how negative work climates might foster

circumstance for workplace bullying to emerge (Agervold, 2009; Agervold & Mikkelsen, 2004;

Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Vartia, 1996; Zapf et.al., 1996) only one recent study has implicitly

addressed how being subjected to bullying might lead to the development of negative

organizational climate (Giorgi, 2012). Therefore, research focusing on the association between

work environmental factors and bullying have not analyzed the critical concern in today’s

workplace of whether perceptions of work environment might generate conducive environments

for bullying to take place or whether employees who are bullied are more likely to develop

negative perceptions about the organizational climate particularly about perceptions of

organizational support (Skogstad, Torsheim & Einarsen, 2011).

According to the recent literature, the concept of workplace bullying as an antecedent to

organizational culture and climate perceptions seems more rational (Giorgi & Majer 2009;

Hauge et al., 2011). Secondly, more theoretical and empirical research is needed that can

substantiate the impact of workplace bullying on employee’s perceptions of organizational

climate and culture (Giorgi, 2012; Hauge et al., 2011). The present study takes up the recent calls

made by researchers in this regard and argues that workplace bullying is an important predictor

33

of perceived organizational support. By employing evidences from past research and by

employing the two theoretical pillars of this study namely cognitive appraisal theory of stress and

conservation of resource it is suggested that workplace bullying leads to the development of

lower perceptions of organizational support.

Research examining the antecedents of perceived organizational support highlight that different

forms of justice particularly procedural and interactional justice have the capacity to increase

one’s perception’s of organizational support. This line of inquiry argues that when employees are

given information regarding how their rewards are established and when they are dealt with

politeness and esteem they are greater chances that these individuals develop higher perceptions

of organizational support (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Although past research has established a positive association between fair treatment and

perceived organizational support (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) less is known about how

unfavorable and negative treatment received by relevant others has an impact on perceptions of

organization support (Shoss, Eisenberger, Restubog & Zagenczyk, 2013).

Recent research has highlighted that victims of abusive supervision hold the organization

responsible for the actions of the supervisor and bosses (Shoss, Eisenberger, Restubog &

Zagenczyk, 2013). Levinson (1965) asserted that since the organization is ethically and officially

accountable for the behavior of its managers/coworkers in their position of guiding and assessing

the subordinates, therefore employees mostly place the blame for abusive treatment to the

organization. Moreover, Cassidy, McLaughlin & McDowell (2014) recent research also suggests

that employees who experience a stressful and demanding situation such as bullying also are

34

more likely to perceive less social support (i.e. from family, friends and co-workers) which

might translate into poorer health and well-being outcomes for its victims.

From the perspective of employees, managers/bosses as well as coworkers are operating in the

organization environment which has empowered them with various positions to fulfill their

responsibilities. If these individuals operating under the boundaries of the organization engage in

harassing and disgracing behaviors towards the employees, the victims would feel that the

organization has intentionally and deliberately allowed these individuals to continue such

behaviors resulting in the development of lower perceptions of organization support. Moreover,

this might also suggest to the targets of such abusive behaviors that the organization is unable to

take remedial measures to reduce or stop the abuse from continuing thus creating lower

perceptions of organization support.

Moreover, since managers/bosses work as organizational representatives therefore when

employees receive positive treatment from a boss they have increased chances to develop higher

interpretations regarding organizational support towards them of organizational support whereas

unfair and humiliating treatment might signal to them that they are not valued by the

organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski &

Rhoades, in press). It is contended that when employees are bullied and subjected to negative

treatment they feel that organization is least bothered about their welfare and these negative

events are consciously or intentionally performed to harm them leading to lower perceptions of

organizational support. In addition, these victims subjected to emotional abuse feel that co-

workers are not supporting and defending them whereas supervisors are turning a deaf ear

towards them thus generating lower perceptions of supervisor and co-worker support.

35

The workplace bullying and perceived organizational support relationship can also be explained

through the lens of cognitive appraisal theory of stress. Cognitive appraisal theory of stress and

coping highlights two critical factors i.e. an individual’s cognitive evaluations and coping

mechanisms as mediators between stressor-strain relationships (Folkman, Lazarus, Schetter,

DeLongis & Gruen, 1986).

According to this theory, cognitive evaluation is a mechanism through which the individual

assess whether a specific encounter with the environment is important to his or her well-being

and if yes then in what ways. In primary appraisal, an individual assess whether he or she has

anything to lose as a result of the stressful encounter. In the context of workplace bullying it is

asserted that primary appraisal occurs when an individual who experiences hostile and

aggressive treatment in the form of bullying start to cognitively evaluates the situation and

perceive lower organizational support since these individuals believe that bullying is harmful in

the achievement of goals and their self esteem is also at a threat.

This cognitive assessment of a demanding event such as bullying creates lower perceptions of

organizational support as when employees are intimidated and abused these employee feel that

the organization is not taking any action and organization does not value them as an integral part

of the organization.

The agent system model also sheds light on how workplace bullying might lead to the

development of lower perceptions of supervisor/coworker support. This model asserts that based

on the fair/unfair treatment received from the supervisor/coworkers individuals reciprocate and

direct their behaviors towards the source (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). In this

context, I believe that when employees experience workplace bullying they might blame the

36

target of these negative actions and hold the supervisors/coworkers accountable for such

mistreatment thus creating negative perceptions of supervisor/coworker support.

The agent system model contends that interactional injustice is a potent predictor of employees

reciprocating actions (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). In the perspective of workplace bullying this

model would assert that when employees face workplace bullying they hold the individuals

responsible for deliberately defying the standards for suitable behavior thus developing lower

perceptions of supervisor and coworker support.

Moreover, when employees are exposed to workplace bullying they might attribute the blame for

such an abusive treatment towards the supervisor/coworkers and feel that these individuals do

not care about their well-being thus promoting lower perceptions of supervisor/coworker

support. Therefore from the above empirical evidences and theoretical justification, it is

suggested that workplace bullying would create lower perceptions of support as individuals

would view the environment as destructive where the organization is not doing much to curtail

the harmful acts of bullying and simultaneously feel that the supervisors/coworkers are also not

supportive towards the employee. Thus, it is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 4a: Workplace Bullying is negatively related to Perceived Organization Support.

Hypothesis 4b: Workplace Bullying is negatively related to Perceived Coworker Support.

Hypothesis 4c: Workplace Bullying is negatively related to Perceived Supervisor Support.

37

2.7.5 Relationship of Workplace Bullying and Emotional Dissonance

The impact of workplace bullying on emotional dissonance is suggested by utilizing the

evidences made from past research and in the light of appraisal theory of stress and coping,

conservation of resources theory and theory of façade creation.

Emotions are a sign of one’s essential, important and valued identity. Emotions are often

involuntary and are influenced by work related stressors, mood, fatigue apart from expected

work demands (Thoits, 1990). It has been established in the research on emotional dissonance

that customer service employees in particular and employees in general are required to comply to

organizational display rules (Ekman & Friesen, 1969) which specify either directly or indirectly

that they should express positive and suppress negative emotions (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002;

Hochschild, 1983; VanMaanen & Kunda, 1989). However, employees throughout their

workdays naturally experience a number of positive and negative emotions depending on their

exposure to organizational and work stressors. These employees are expected to comply with

organizational rules while displaying emotions of any kind and when performing their work

duties and responsibilities (Scott & Barnes, 2011). However, it might happen that emotions

which are internally felt are not the same as the ones which are displayed while interacting with

others depicting emotional dissonance.

Past research linking the workplace bullying and emotional dissonance concepts have analyzed it

through the lens of customer aggression creating emotional dissonance in employees (Grandey et

al., 2004). This line of research contends that employees who evaluate aggressive customers as

highly traumatic reported high levels of emotional dissonance than those who found them mildly

stressful (Bedi & Schat, 2007).

38

Applying this argument to workplace bullying, I contend that employees who encounter bullying

at the work might deliberately and consciously attempt to change their emotions creating

emotional dissonance. This faking and suppressing of emotions when dealing with abusive

others may make them feel false and insincere. It is the assertion of the present study that this

emotional dissonance or masking of one’s genuinely felt emotions is more likely to occur as a

result of stressful and demanding work environment where bullying is prevalent.

It has also been substantiated in the research on emotional labor that managing emotional

demands at work could be made possible and emotional dissonance is lessened by supportive

colleagues and social harmony at workplace (Luchman & Gonzalez-Morales, 2010; Van

Dierendonck, Schaufeli & Buunk, 1998). Extending this argument for workplace bullying, it is

believed that a workplace rife with bullying creates an environment where employees feel

emotionally abused and battered which results in employees suppressing their true emotions and

unable to genuinely feel what they display resulting in higher levels of emotional dissonance.

The COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989; 2002) also adds important insights into how workplace bullying

might lead to emotional dissonance in employees. As explained previously, this theory highlights

that individuals who have deficient resources are the most susceptible to resource loss. It is

believed that when employees face bullying and hostile behaviors at the workplace resource loss

occurs which leaves them with little emotional and psychological resources to deal with such

incidents. Bullying and aggressive treatment creates emotional dissonance in them as in order to

survive in the workplace they indulge in emotional regulation strategies by suppressing true

emotions and portraying acceptable emotions which makes them vulnerable to further resource

loss. Thus, bullying incidences promote resource loss in employees who then with poorly

39

available and deficient resources indulge in self coping strategies leading to high levels of

emotional dissonance in them.

The cognitive appraisal theory of stress and coping is another relevant theory which supports my

assertion of workplace bullying promoting high levels of emotional dissonance in employees.

According to this theory, primary appraisal occurs when individuals who face stressful situations

start developing perceptions and cognitions regarding how much harmful that event is for the

individual. Once individuals have cognitively established that certain situations are harmful for

them, secondary appraisal process commences. In secondary appraisal process, individuals

assess what if anything can be done to stop or avert back the damage done because of the

stressful event. Primary and secondary evaluation in combination determine whether the

encounter with the stressful event and individual’s subsequent cognitive evaluation and resulting

coping mechanisms are important for one’s well-being and if so then whether it is perceived to

be threatening i-e those situations which include the likelihood of creating harm or challenging i-

e situations which are likely to be viewed as an opportunity or as a benefit (Folkman, Lazarus,

Schetter, DeLongis & Gruen, 1986).

It is contended that secondary appraisal occurs when employees who face workplace bullying

think about the various coping options available to deal with such a stressful situation as

bullying. Several coping options are available to survive in a stressful situation such as changing

the situation, adapting to the situation, searching for more information or controlling one self

emotionally from reacting in an impulsive or retaliatory manner. It is argued that employees who

are constantly subjected to workplace bullying incidences are more likely to indulge in emotional

regulation by self coping which involves displaying fake emotions and hiding their genuinely felt

emotions producing high levels of emotional dissonance

40

Another theory which can shed light on how workplace bullying might create emotional

dissonance in employees is the theory of Façade creation which is one of the leading theoretical

pillars in the area of Person-organization fit and organization socialization literature. This theory

assumes that employees create fake images to appear more acceptable in the eyes of others and

give a signal that they have internalized the organizational values (Hewlin, 2003).

According to this theory when individual face inconsistency between their individual and

organizational values some employees may feel the need to hold back their own values and

pretend as if they have accepted organizational values (Hewlin, 2003). In the context of

workplace bullying this would mean that when employees are exposed to an intimidating

situation of workplace bullying their felt emotions of anger and retribution might come into

direct conflict with the required emotional displays and victims due to feeling in a helpless

situation might demonstrate fake emotions while dealing with the perpetrator of bullying creating

high levels of emotional dissonance in them. Thus, it is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 5: Workplace Bullying is positively related to Emotional Dissonance.

2.8 Mediation (Simple/Parallel)

2.8.1 Perceived Support types as mediators in the relationship of Workplace Bullying and Job

Strains (Job stress, Job Burnout, Psychological Strain and Intensions to quit).

Recent research has started to investigate perceived organizational support's role as mediating

mechanism between positive treatment and individual outcomes. It is asserted that even though

previous studies on perceived organizational support have identified the determinants and

outcomes, there is a strong need by future studies to focus on the pathway running from POS to

outcomes and the underline theories which support such arguments (Rhoades & Eisenberger,

41

2002). It is the contention of the present study that perceived organizational support is an

important intervening process through which the effect of workplace bullying might be revealed

on employee’s outcomes.

Past research examining the organizational climate and bullying relationship indicate that

although role stress did not account for substantial variations in workplace bullying whereas

exposure to bullying at work was a significant predictor of employee’s perceptions of role stress

(Giorgi & Majer 2009; Hauge, Skogstad & Einarsen, 2011). Hauge et.al. (2011) found

significant negative relationships between exposure to bullying and organizational climate. In

line with this research it is contended that individuals who are exposed to bullying develop

negative cognitive evaluations about the work environment particularly these tortured individuals

feel that the organization does not value them, consider them as a part of the organization and

does not care for their well-being. Their negative assessments about organization’s support might

then translate into higher levels of stress and burnout. Since victims of bullying behaviors might

develop negative interpretations about organization’s support, if these negative actions are not

lessened they may lead to long-term harmful effects for the victims such as higher stress

complaints and burnout.

The conservation of resource model (Hobfoll, 2010) postulates that resource loss is taxing for an

individual, the individuals who have lost their resources as a result of encountering stressor may

invest other resources to compensate for the net loss (Pearlin et al., 1981). Replenishment is the

most explicit means by which resources are gained. However, when individuals face threatening

situations such as workplace bullying they might lose resources which might lead to lower

perceptions of organizational support.

42

In the long term, exposure to repetitive and persistent stressful incidences such as workplace

bullying might leave individuals with fewer resources as they develop negative perceptions and

cognitive interpretations about the organization. These individuals with lower perceptions of

organization support might become incapable to endure more threats to resource loss creating

high levels of stress and burnout. According to Hobfoll (2010), resource loss spirals are more

important and go about more rapidly than resource gains. Therefore, it is contended that bullying

might lead to higher levels of stress and burnout through a vicious and contagious effect of

continuous resource loss through lower perceptions of organizational support. Thus, it is

hypothesized:

Hypothesis 6a: Perceived Organization Support mediates the relationship of workplace bullying

with job strains (Job stress, Job burnout, Psychological Strain and Intensions to quit).

Hypothesis 6b: Perceived Coworker Support mediates the relationship of workplace bullying

with job strains (Job stress, Job burnout, Psychological Strain and Intensions to quit).

Hypothesis 6c: Perceived Supervisor Support mediates the relationship of workplace bullying

with job strains (Job stress, Job burnout, Psychological Strain and Intensions to quit).

2.8.2 Mediation Effects of Emotional Dissonance in Relationship of Workplace Bullying and

Job Strains (Job Stress, Job Burnout, Psychological Strain and Intensions to quit)

The COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989; 1998) adds important insights into how workplace bullying

incidences leads to stress and job burnout through the mechanism of emotional dissonance. The

COR theory argues that individuals seek to obtain and sustain their resources. Hobfoll (1989,

2002) pointed out different kinds of resources (things, situations, individual traits and energies).

43

Stress occurs in conditions where there is a risk of decrease of resources or inability to increase

one's resources. Moreover, stress emerges from persistent and demanding situations of the work

that necessitate individuals to invest energies so as to survive in them and specifically from the

kinds of constant work burdens and resource discrepancies (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993; Hobfoll,

1989, 2002).

It is argued that workplace bullying is an acute stressor faced by employees which results in

emotional and psychological resource loss. In order to cope with such an emotionally demanding

situation of workplace bullying employees expend more emotional energies by altering the

emotions according to the organizational requirements so that they can meet their work demands

and keep their professional relationships intact which creates emotional dissonance as the

emotions which they are displaying do not truly reveal their inner felt natural emotions which

result in losing more emotional resources. Further, this resource loss of an emotionally dissonant

employee would further become evident in the form of burnout and stress as emotionally

dissonant employees shows inconsistent portrayed and felt emotions which exasperates the

vicious cycle of resource loss creating high levels of stress and burnout.

It has been corroborated in the past research on workplace bullying that negative behaviors at the

workplace creates feelings of isolation, estrangement and impaired identity in employees.

Moreover, it has also been viewed in the literature on emotional dissonance that weak

identification with the organization leads to emotional dissonance as these employees do not

internalize the organizational roles genuinely and consider the performance of these roles as a

threat to their identity and express fake emotions promoting emotional dissonance (Ashforth &

Humphrey, 1993; Elsbach & Bhattacharya, 2001; Mishra & Bhatnagar, 2010).

44

Bridging the literatures on bullying and emotional dissonance, it is contended that when

employees are subjected to negative treatment at work they feel emotionally dismembered and

hurt which creates emotional dissonance in them as these employees feel betrayed and do not

truly reveal the inner negative emotions felt by them and display emotions only which are

required by the organizational norms thus creating emotional dissonance which further creates

stress and burnout.

Another useful theory which can explain the mediational mechanisms of emotional dissonance

between workplace bullying and outcomes is the cognitive theory of stress and coping. This

theory contends that stress is created as a consequence of the combined effects of both the person

and situation which is evaluated by the individual as a demanding or a situation which goes

beyond one’s resources and threaten well-being (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984b). If the individual

evaluates a demanding situation as stressful primary appraisal occurs. After the cognitive

assessment of one’s demanding situation one tries to establish coping strategies to avert or at

least survive in the situation.

Moreover, existing research on the relationship between stressful and demanding situations and

individual outcomes such as psychological health complaints are mediated by coping

mechanisms. This line of inquiry stresses how an individual manages single or many stressful

situations (Billings & Moos, 1984; Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen & DeLongis, 1986).

It has been established in the literature on coping that individuals who are constantly exposed to

uncontrollable situations are more vulnerable to negative treatment, become highly passive in

their coping strategies and eventually suffer from health complaints such as stress, anxiety and

depression (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen & DeLongis, 1986). The literature on coping depict that

45

single or isolated events are not likely to affect an individual’s health and well-being whereas

situations which are repeatedly threatening or intimidating for individuals have long term

consequences for individuals and these people might use maladaptive and poor coping strategies

(Krohne & Laux, 1982; Schultz & Moore, 1984; Solano, Batten & Parish, 1982). Applying this

argument in the context of workplace bullying, it is believed that when individuals face

workplace bullying leads to stress and burnout through its effects on emotional dissonance.

When employees encounter workplace bullying they engage in emotional regulation strategies

such as portraying fake emotions and suppressing true emotions to cope with such a stressful and

demanding situation on the job creating emotional dissonance in them. These emotionally

dissonant employees as a result of experiencing discrepant felt and expressed emotions generate

high levels of stress, burnout, psychological strain and intensions to quit. Thus, it is

hypothesized:

Hypothesis 7: Emotional Dissonance mediates the relationship of workplace bullying with Job

Strains (Job Stress, Job Burnout, Psychological Strain and Intensions to quit).

2.9 Sequential Mediation

2.9.1 Perceived Support types and Emotional dissonance as sequential mediators between

workplace bullying and job strains relationship

The Cognitive appraisal theory of stress considers two important mechanisms i.e cognitions and

coping as mediators between the stressors and strains relationship (Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus,

1991). According to this theory, a stressful event in the workplace leads to the activation of

cognitions called the primary appraisal process. Utilizing the above theory, it is asserted that

primary appraisal process occurs when employees are exposed to an intimidating situation such

as workplace bullying, these employees as a result of the abusive treatment subjectively and

46

cognitively develop lower perceptions of support of the supervisors/coworkers and of the

organization. The victims of bullying might cognitively interpret the workplace bullying as an

indication of lower support provided to them as they believe that the organization is not playing

its role to stop the bullying, supervisors are abusively using their authority to take advantage of

them and coworkers are ridiculing them or indulging in other kinds of humiliating treatment thus

generating lower perceptions of support.

The theory further assumes that once an individual who faces a stressful situation has cognitively

evaluated the situation as threatening to them the secondary appraisal process commences. The

Secondary appraisal process asserts that individuals decide what if anything can be done to stop

the harm (Smith & Lazarus, 1993). In this process, individuals determine their existing coping

options to deal with the stressor. Applying, the second assumption of this theory in the context of

workplace bullying, it is contended that secondary appraisal process begins when individuals

who interpret lower perceptions of support in response to workplace bullying indulge in

emotional self regulation creating higher levels of emotional dissonance. This means that the

targets as a result of viewing lower perceptions of support engage in faking their displayed

emotions to cope with a hostile and aggressive situation of bullying thus producing inconsistency

between their felt and displayed emotions resulting in emotional dissonance.

The Hobfoll’s conservation of resource theory is also a useful mechanism by which the

sequential role of Perceived support and emotional dissonance can be explained between the

workplace bullying and strains relationship (Hobfoll’s, 1988, 1989, 1998a). This theory asserts

that individuals struggle to obtain, increase and protect their values resources. Resources are

categorized as physical, psychological, social, emotional and work related aspects of one’s work.

This theory asserts that resource losses are more important than resource gains and highlights

47

two important principles of primary resource loss and secondary resource loss. Primary resource

loss means that whenever individuals face stressors at the workplace resource loss occurs which

creates strain.

In secondary resource loss, individuals try to regain their lost resources by investing additional

resources to offset the previous resources lost. However, the secondary resource loss assumption

views that if individual’s investment of additional resources further depletes one’s resources then

a resource spiral occurs creating strain and negative well-being for the individual (Hobfoll, 1988,

2002; 2010). Applying the theoretical foundations of this theory in this context, it is believed that

primary resource loss occurs when individuals who experience a stressor such as workplace

bullying creates psychological resource loss in the form of lower perceptions of support.

Past research has provided support that perceived organizational support is an important resource

(Hobfoll, 1989) which helps employees to deal with stressors. I believe that workplace bullying

as a stressor might result in the depletion of one’s psychological resources in the form of lower

perceived support as employees when faced with a hostile situation might lose psychological

resources and perceive that the organization, its representatives and the peers do not care about

them and do not value their well-being as well. Further, secondary resource loss occurs when

employees as a result of losing resources in the form of lower perceptions of support then put in

additional resources by faking their emotions and becoming more acceptable in front of

supervisors/coworker and subordinates which creates an inconsistency between their inner and

exhibited emotions resulting in higher levels of emotional dissonance. Since secondary resource

loss assumes that if investing additional resources further exhausts one’s resources then a vicious

cycle of resource depletion occurs producing higher levels of strain in the form of higher stress,

burnout, psychological strain and intensions to quit. Thus, it is hypothesized:

48

Hypothesis 8: Perceived support types (a) Perceptions of organization support (b) Perceptions of

supervisor support; and (c) Perceptions of coworker support and Emotional Dissonance

mediates the relationship of workplace bullying with Job Strains (Job Stress, Job Burnout,

Psychological Strain and Intensions to quit).

2.10 Moderation

2.10.1 The moderating role of CSE between workplace bullying and perceived support types

(POS, PSS and PCS).

As discussed previously CSE is a latent construct comprising of 4 key types which are self

efficacy, locus of control, self esteem and neuroticism. It is the assertion of the present study that

individuals who posses negative core self evaluation will strengthen the relationship between

workplace bullying and perceived organizational support.

Past research highlights that person who exhibit high neuroticism are highly negative and they

have a predisposition to interpret themselves, other people and the world in a negative manner

(Spector, Zapf, Chen & Frese, 2000). Spector et.al. (2000) propose that people who are more

neurotic may react more strongly to work related stressors than do individuals who are low on

neuroticism under the same situational circumstances. It is believed that since individuals with

negative core self evaluations view themselves and others negatively in the face of a stressor

such as workplace bullying might develop lower perceptions of organizational support.

Generalized self efficacy refers to a person's confidence in his/her capabilities to successfully

plan and implement a specific strategy to achieve goals (Bandura, 1996). Individuals low in self

49

efficacy perceive emotionally charged situations as more demanding than their high self efficacy

counterparts as the former types are hindered rather than challenged by novel, hard and changing

work and circumstances (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Low self efficacious and low self esteem

individuals dislike themselves, do not believe in their capacity to achieve goals, give up in the

face of difficult situations and feel demotivated in case of negative feedback and failures than are

their high self efficacious counterparts (Bandura, 1996). It is asserted that when individuals with

negative core self evaluations encounter an unfavourable situation such as bullying might

develop lower perceptions of organizational support since these individuals might feel highly

demoralized and feel that the organization does not care about them and does not value them.

Past research analyzing the trait of locus of control highlights that individuals who posses an

internal locus of control since hold themselves accountable for their lives, these individuals will

be able to respond to stressful and intimidating situations in a calm and relaxed manner (Glass &

Singer, 1972). In contrast, individuals possessing an external locus of control feel a lack of

control in their lives in case of unfavorable work situations (Schonpflug, 1983). It is argued that

since individuals with a negative core self evaluation have an external locus of control, they will

blame external factors and luck when they will be faced with an intimidating situation such as

workplace bullying which might lead to lower perceptions of organization support. In the face of

bullying, individuals with negative core self evaluation will not make any effort to control the

instances of bullying and let the bullying to occur unfettered which might ultimately create lower

perceptions of organizational support in them.

Dodgson & Wood (1998) asserted that individuals who counter setbacks with flexibility may do

so because they emphasize on more favorable thoughts about themselves. People with negative

CSE may be less likely to recover from setbacks as they are more likely to highlight their

50

negatives and underscore their positives (Bono & Colbert, 2005). Therefore, in the light of above

arguments, it is the assertion of the present study that since individuals who possess negative

core self evaluations consider themselves worthless, incompetent and lack control in the face of

an intimidating situation such as workplace bullying might develop lower perceptions of

organizational support because these individuals do not work harder to lessen instances of

bullying, interpret the organization as highly unsupportive, become extremely demoralized and

view the organization favoring the bully which will lead to lower perceptions of organizational

support. Thus, it is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 9a: Core Self Evaluations act as a moderator between Workplace Bullying and

Perceived Organization Support such that this negative relationship is stronger in case of

negative core self evaluations.

Hypothesis 9b: Core Self Evaluations act as a moderator between Workplace Bullying and

Perceived Coworker Support such that this negative relationship is stronger in case of negative

core self evaluations.

Hypothesis 9c: Core Self Evaluations act as a moderator between Workplace Bullying and

Perceived Supervisor Support such that this negative relationship is stronger in case of negative

core self evaluations.

2.10.2 Core Self Evaluation as a moderator between workplace bullying and emotional

dissonance

Individuals who posses negative core self evaluation tend to evaluate themselves and others in a

constantly negative manner across different situations. These individuals view themselves as

worthless, incompetent, lack control of their lives and are emotionally unstable (Judge et al.,

51

2004; Judge 2007). It is the assertion of the present study that individuals with negative CSE

might strengthen the workplace bullying and emotional dissonance relationship whereas people

with positive CSE might weaken this relationship.

It has been contended in past research that people who have higher self efficacy are less likely to

face emotional dissonance (Heuven, Bakker, Schaufeli, Huisman, 2006). Higher self efficacy

persons are reported to be less nervous and aggravated and suffer less from anxiety prone

circumstances (Bandura, 1977; 1986). Moreover, highly self efficacious individuals are more

likely to employ diverse range of useful survival tactics than people having lower self efficacy

(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). On the other hand, individuals low in self efficacy might feel more

anxious and tense and employ maladaptive coping strategies in the face of stressful situations.

It has also been established in past research that employees who have low self esteem, have a

negative evaluation about themselves and who dislike themselves are more likely to resist

organizational display rules requiring them to show positive emotions (Abraham, 1999).

Moreover, it is also contended that employees who have negative core self evaluations are more

likely to form opinion based on what others think about them, are always looking for outside

approval and since they do not believe in themselves they are always trying to make others

happy. It is the believed that since such people with negative CSE are unable to handle tense and

stressful work situations, dislike themselves and do not have confidence in their abilities when

faced with such bullying experiences are more likely to pretend, show fake emotions and hide

their real emotions in front of the bully resulting in high levels of emotional dissonance.

Previous research on emotional regulation highlights that employee’s lower self efficacy

strengthened the emotional job requirements and emotional dissonance relationship (Heuven,

52

Bakker, Schaufeli & Huisman, 2006). Therefore, it is asserted that in the face of a stressful

situation such as bullying and negative behaviors at work, employees with negative core self

evaluations may not invest more resources to regulate negative emotions and thus face higher

emotional dissonance. Since individuals with negative core self evaluations might feel more

anxious and insecure in the face of stressful and intimidating situation such as workplace

bullying; these individuals might feel difficulty in adjusting themselves to portray organizational

desired emotions thus there might be higher discrepancy for these individuals expressed and felt

emotions creating emotional dissonance.

It has been established in the literature on personality that individual who have positive core self

evaluations are highly effective when dealing with negative feedback as these individuals might

not show strong negative emotional responses in case of a setback. Whereas individuals with

negative core self evaluations might use ineffective or maladaptive coping strategies when

dealing with unfavorable situations as these individuals might elicit strong negative emotions in

response to setbacks (Brown & Dutton, 1995; Kernis, Brockner & Frankel, 1989).

Extending this argument to workplace bullying, it is asserted that people with negative CSE are

unable to cope in the face of workplace bullying as they will elicit emotions of anger, frustration

and anxiety and might feel the incapability to undo the harmful effects of bullying which might

create higher levels of emotional dissonance. Individuals who posses negative core self

evaluations since exhibit low self esteem and efficacy might feel highly pessimistic and anxious

and lack of control when dealing with a highly unfavorable situation such as bullying which

might create a higher incompatibility between their inner and expressed emotions depicting

emotional dissonance. Thus, it is hypothesized:

53

Hypothesis 10: Core Self Evaluations act as a moderator between Workplace Bullying and

Emotional Dissonance such that this positive relationship is stronger in case of negative core

self evaluations.

54

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Chapter Overview

The present chapter gives information regarding the research methods used to conduct the

current thesis. This chapter informs the reader of the design of the research, sampling techniques

data collection procedures, study measures, Data Analytical techniques, Sample characteristics

and findings pertaining to confirmatory factor analysis of the measured items that capture the

underlying study constructs.

3.1 Research Design

A study's research design provides a broader layout of how research will be conducted.

According to the research objectives and research model this study examines how workplace

bullying as a stressor affects job strains through the parallel and sequential mechanisms of

Perceived Support Types (POS, PSS and PCS) and Emotional dissonance. It also examines the

moderating role of CSE personality trait between workplace bullying and Emotional Dissonance

and Perceived Support Types. Therefore, this is a quantitative research study (Hypothesis

testing) in which the above proposed relationships are tested through the survey method.

Longitudinal research design with temporally separated data at three different time periods was

used to collect data on the proposed model variables. This research was done in pure longitudinal

55

design (West, Aiken & Todd, 2002). In a recent meta-analysis on the outcomes of workplace

bullying, it was corroborated by researchers that quantitative studies conducted on workplace

bullying shows that majority of the quantitative studies employed cross-sectional designs and

fewer than 15 studies have been conducted that have employed longitudinal research designs

(Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). Moreover, due to inconsistent and weak relationships between

workplace bullying and outcomes, greater longitudinal designs are required which can highlight

the long-term consequences of how workplace bullying shows its effects on outcomes (Vie,

Glaso & Einarsen, 2011). In addition, since casual relationships take time to unfold therefore

future researches can increase value in the workplace bullying research by employing

longitudinal research designs (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). Therefore, following the

recommendations of the recent quantitative meta-analysis on workplace bullying (Nielsen &

Einarsen, 2012), longitudinal research design was adopted to test the proposed research model.

The researchers studying methodological issues in mediational models in behavioral research

also highlight that cross-sectional research designs are inadequate and depict an imperfect picture

of the reality (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010; Selig & Preacher, 2009). Cross-sectional research

designs where data on the constructs is collected at a single time period poses serious problems

of causality of correlated variables. Thus, temporally separating variables at different

measurement points addresses the reverse causality issues arising because of single shot

collection of data.

Therefore in order to fully identify and explain the cause and effect relationships particularly the

underlying mechanisms of a phenomenon, it has been suggested that future research on

workplace bullying should employ longitudinal research designs with appropriate time lag

between different measurement points (Ployhart &Vandenberg, 2010; Nielsen & Einarsen,

56

2012). Therefore, in order to measure the proposed mediating (both parallel and sequential)

mechanisms of workplace bullying on job strains through Emotional dissonance and Perceived

Support types the present study employed longitudinal research design with 3 wave temporally

separated data.

Another concern regarding the longitudinal research designs is the appropriate time lag between

the different survey points as it has been established in previous research on workplace bullying

that both short time gaps as well as long time gaps can be useful in providing insights about the

causal mechanisms of the consequences of workplace bullying (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012).

Nielsen & Einarsen (2012) in their meta-analysis highlight that studies of workplace bullying

which have employed longitudinal research designs have used 2 or multiple measurement points

for tapping the model variables. The minimum recommended time lag between different time

periods according to these studies on workplace bullying is approx 1 to 3 months. In the present

study, longitudinal design with temporally separated data was followed by which data was

collected at 3 different time intervals, i.e. time 1, time 2 and time 3 with a time interval of approx

3 months. Bullying was tapped at time 1 and Core Self Evaluation was tapped at time and time 2.

The current thesis mediators (i.e. Emotional Dissonance, Perceived Organization Support,

Perceived supervisor support and perceived co-worker support) were tapped at time 2 and time 3

and outcomes of Job Stress, Job Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions were

tapped at time 3.

3.2 Population

57

To capture maximum variation in the research model variables, data was collected from diverse

occupational groups and organizational settings. The identified population for the current study

were employees working in the service sector specifically three major industry/sectors i.e.

Telecom, banking and educational sector were the target population. Past studies on workplace

bullying highlight that this topic has more relevance in the service sector (Hutchinson et. al.,

2010; Monks, Smith, Naylor et al., 2009; Matthiesen & Einarsen., 2004).

The sample respondents from these target sectors belonged to different managerial levels in the

organization. Data was collected from 15 organizations out of which they were 3 telecom

organizations, 6 organizations belonged to the banking sector and 6 were from educational

Sector. The surveys were distributed to employees in 6 banks which comprised of 5 local banks

and 1 was a multinational bank. The 3 telecom sector organizations consisted of two

multinational telecom companies and 1 was a semi-government telecom company. The data

collected from educational sector comprised of 6 different organizations out of which 3 were

leading universities in Islamabad and 3 were colleges.

3.3 Sampling Technique and Sample Size

Sample size depends on the type of research design. Bartlett, Kotrlik & Higgins (2001) suggested

that minimum size should be 200 and for moderately complex research models should be around

400 (Boomsma, 1983). Since the present study employs longitudinal design with temporally

separated data at three different time periods therefore the researcher was able to achieve a

sample of above 300 (details explained the next section) for the current study which can be

considered large enough sample size when using a longitudinal research design with multiple

58

time periods (Boomsma, 1983). The sampling strategy used to collect data and manage the

questionnaire was non-probability convenient sampling.

3.4 Data Collection Procedures and Sample

Data was collected through questionnaires that were personally administered at three different

time periods i.e. time 1, time 2 and time 3 from the same respondent. The surveys were

circulated to employees working in the offices of the 15 organizations belonging to banking,

telecom and educational sector situated in the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad in

Pakistan. A cover letter explaining the scope and objective of the current research study was

provided to assure respondents of confidentiality. Participation in the study was voluntary.

After the cover letter, the first page of the questionnaire highlighted a Questionnaire ID and the

time-1 date and respondent name/identifying information such as employee no or any unique ID

which was used to track the same respondent at time-2 and time-3 after gaps of approx 3 months.

The time-2 and time-3 questionnaire also had QID and time interval date to appropriately

measure the time gap and follow up on the same respondent successfully. The time-1

questionnaire consisted of the independent variable of workplace bullying measures. The

moderator variable of core self evaluation was measured at time-2 only and the mediator

variables of the study i.e. Emotional Dissonance, Perceived Organization Support, Perceived

supervisor support and perceived co-worker support were measured at time 2 and time 3. Finally,

the study's mediators and the outcomes i.e. Job stress, burnout, psychological strain and turnover

intensions were tapped at time-3.

At time-1, I distributed approx 700 questionnaires out of which 570 were completely usable

generating a response rate of 81% at this stage. After a time interval of three months I established

59

communication with time 1 respondents and asked them to fill the time 2 questionnaire. At this

stage the complete useable time-1 and time-2 questionnaire for the same respondent were 455

resulting in a response rate of 65%. After time lag of 3 months from the date on which the time-2

questionnaire was distributed, I approached the same respondents of time-1 and time-2 and

requested them to fill out the third wave questionnaire comprising the mediator and outcome

variables of the study. At the third time period the complete matched time 1, time 2 and time 3

questionnaire for the same respondent resulted in a final sample size of 334, thus making the

final response rate for all three time periods of 48%.

The sample characterized employees belonging to a number of different occupations including

administrative staff, accountants, bankers, junior managers, supervisors, marketing and HR

specialists, academicians and top managerial employees. Participants in the survey had a diverse

background and belonged to different management levels ranging from lower management levels

to top management. Males constituted 61% and females were 39% of the total population. Most

of the participants belonged to the Human resource management division (37.5%), had Masters

degree as their qualification (78.7%) and were on the junior management levels (52.7%). In

addition, the frequencies revealed that bulk of the sample consisted of employees who had

accounting and finance as their field of specialization (37.4%). The sample statistics revealed

that the employee's average working experience in the current organization was 3.42 (SD=4.41)

and total working experience was 6.54 (SD=7.13) years. The average respondent age was 30.1

years (SD=8.58).

3.5 Measures

60

English is the official language of communication used at work and is also used as a medium of

instruction at college and university level. Majority of the respondents were Masters degree

holders indicating their ability to understand and interpret statements in English language. The

study's sample respondents comprised of mostly entry level managers which also highlights that

language might not have posed a serious threat in understanding the questionnaire. Moreover, for

entry level management positions, even for front desk positions, the hiring and selection

procedures particularly from the sectors I collected data i.e. banks, telecom and educational

sector requires the candidates to exhibit adequate proficiency in the speaking and reading of

English language therefore language was not a barrier in understanding the questionnaire.

Furthermore, I employed well-established and well-validated scales for measuring variables

which have been tested in a number of countries across the globe which are simple to

understand. In addition, past studies published in mainstream journals (Abbas, Raja, Darr &

Bouckenooghe, 2012; Butt, Choi & Jaeger, 2005; Raja, Johns & Ntalianis, 2004) have utilized

English questionnaires in Pakistan. Lastly, the researcher personally administered the

questionnaires to the respondents. Moreover, due to time lagged data the procedures were

explained on how to fill the questionnaire and brief discussion with the respondent indicated that

they were equipped to use and apply English as medium of communication. Therefore, on the

basis of the above justifications, I did not translate my questionnaires into Urdu.

3.5.1 Workplace Bullying

61

The most commonly used method to tap bullying at the workplace is through the survey

technique where members highlight how often and repeatedly they are subjected to bullying

behaviors at the workplace or unfavorable actions that do not directly ask them to identify the

concept as well as accept workplace bullying behaviors. The Negative acts questionnaire revised

(NAQ-R) is the most widely employed scale to measure workplace bullying whose psychometric

strength and superiority has been methodically examined and established (Einarsen, Hoel &

Notelaers, 2009).

Workplace bullying was measured at time-1 by the Negative acts questionnaire (NAQ)

formulated by Einarsen and his associates (Einarsen & Hoel, 2001; Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf &

Cooper, 2003). The NAQ questionnaire consists of eight items (NAQ; Einarsen & Raknes,

1997).The NAQ scale which measures bullying behaviors at the workplace has been translated

into different languages and well-validated and tested across a number of countries across the

globe (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Hoel, Cooper & Faragher, 2001; Keashly & Jagatic, 2000;

Power et. al., 2013). Participants who filled up the surveys were asked to highlight how

regularly they had been subjected to such negative behaviors at the workplace for the past six

months time period. Sample items are “I have been exposed to an impossible workload to carry

out.”; “I have been ridiculed in relation to my work”; and "I have been controlled so much that I

feel extremely insecure". The sample respondent reported their answers on a 7 point likert scale

where 1=Never, 2=Once in a while, 3=Once in six months, 4= Once in a month, 5= After every

two weeks, 6=Every week and 7=Daily. Past studies have also demonstrated high construct

validity and reliability for this scale (Einarsen & Raknes, 1997). Higher scores reflected higher

frequencies of perceptions of workplace bullying.

62

In my study, alpha reliability for this measure was α= 0.88. In order to test validity for this

measure CFA was run as full measurement model in SEM. The full measurement model was run

as a first step of Structural Equation Modeling which showed that workplace bullying measure

demonstrated adequate discriminant validity with other constructs as well as convergent validity

with its own construct. Moreover, all workplace bullying items demonstrated acceptable factor

loading above 0.4 (see Figure 2 for details of factor loadings). The convergent validity tests also

indicate that workplace bullying had composite reliability (CR) of 0.87 which is above the

minimum required of 0.6 and the Average variance extracted score (AVE) of 0.50 demonstrating

adequate convergent validity (see Full measurement model section in SEM).

3.5.2 Core Self Evaluations (CSE)

Core self evaluations items were tapped at time 2 utilizing a twelve-item scale (Judge, Erez,

Bono & Thoresen, 2002). Sample items are “I am confident 1 get the success I deserve in life”,

"I determine what will happen in my life"; and "I am capable of coping with most of my

problems". The respondents answered on a 7 point scale which were 1=Strongly Disagree,

2=Disagree, 3=Moderately Disagree, 4=Neutral, 5=Moderately Agree, 6=Agree and 7=Strongly

Agree. Higher scores on the scale indicated individuals possessing positive CSE whereas lower

scores depicted individuals having a negative CSE predisposition.

Core self evaluation was measured at time -2 along with the mediators. Tests of reliability and

validity were conducted to determine acceptability of core self evaluation measure in this study.

This scale in the present study had Cronbach alpha reliability of α= 0.81. The findings of the full

measurement model depict that core self evaluations items had acceptable factor loadings,

demonstrated adequate discriminant validity and convergent validity (see Full measurement

model section in SEM) (see figure 2 for details of these validity tests).

63

3.5.3 Perceived Organizational Support

In the present study, perceptions of organizational support was tapped at time 2 and time 3 by a

shortened version of POS devised and developed by Eisenberger et.al., (1986). Examples of the

items were “My organization cares about my opinions’’; ‘‘Help is available from my

organization when I have a problem” and "My organization would forgive an honest mistake on

my part." The respondents reported their answers on a likert scale which had anchors ranging

from 1=Strongly disagree to 7=Strongly agree. Higher scores reflected higher perceived

organizational support.

Tests of reliability revealed that deleting two items from the measures of Perceived Organization

support improved the scale reliability from .82 to .89. The findings of the Confirmatory factor

analysis (Full CFA/Measurement model) also highlighted that these two items had low factor

loadings i.e. below the 0.4 acceptable limit. Thus, I decided to remove these two items from the

scale of Perceived Organization Support. The removed items were "If given the opportunity, my

organization would take advantage of me" (reverse coded) and " My organization shows little

concern for me (reverse coded)."

Since Perceived Organization Support was measured at two different time periods along with

other mediators, it was necessary to conduct a series of Confirmatory Factor Analysis for

Perceived Organization Support scale both at time-2 and time-3 to establish the discriminant

validity of this scale. Different models of CFA consisting of alternate pairing of perceived

organization support scale with other variables were run i.e 4 factor models, 3 factor and 2 factor

64

paired CFA comparisons established Perceived Organization support's discriminant validity (see

Table 2 and 3 for CFA results model fit statistics).

The tests of validity (discriminant and convergent) clearly showed that Perceived Organization

Support scale had adequate acceptability in this study. The rest of the Perceived Organization

scale items after deleting the two reverse coded items also displayed adequate factor loadings as

well. The Composite reliability (CR) of 0.89 and the Average variance extracted (AVE) of 0.58

showed that this scale displayed convergent validity as well. Since, Perceived Organization

Support was also measured both at time-2 and time-3 in this study, a test-retest analysis of

reliability was conducted to establish the consistency in the reliability of Perceived Organization

Support at both time periods. The Cronbach alpha, for Perceived Organization Support measures

at time-2 was α= 0.89 and at time-3 was α= 0.90 (refer to Table-1).

3.5.4 Perceived Supervisor Support

Perceptions of supervisor support was measured at time-2 and time-3 by a seven item scale

devised by Tsui, Pearce, Porter & Tripoli (1997). Sample items were “My supervisor seems

willing to listen to my problems”, " My supervisor is considerate of subordinate’s feelings" and "

My supervisor is friendly". Respondents rated on a seven point scale i.e. ranging from Strongly

disagree=1 to Strongly disagree=7. Higher responses on this scale indicated increased levels of

perceptions of supervisory support.

The reliability test indicated that deleting two items from the measures of Perceived Supervisor

support improved the reliability of the scale from .83 to .89. The results of CFA model (Full

measurement model) also highlighted that these two items had weak factor loadings i.e. less than

65

the acceptable limit of 0.4. As a result I in turn removed these two items from the scale of

Perceived Supervisor Support. The removed items were " I don’t really feel that my supervisor

and I are working towards shared or team objectives (reverse coded)" and "My supervisor seems

to be rather distant and unapproachable (reverse coded)."

A number of Confirmatory Factor Analysis were performed for perceptions of supervisor support

at both time 2 and time 3 to establish the discriminant validity of this scale with other variables

measured from the same source and within the same time period. Different models of CFA

consisting of alternate pairing of perceived supervisor support scale with other variables were

run i.e. 4 factor models, 3 factor and 2 factor paired CFA comparisons established Perceived

Supervisor support's discriminant validity (see Table 2 and 3 for CFA results model fit statistics).

The tests of convergent validity clearly showed that Perceived Supervisor Support scale had

adequate acceptability in this study. The rest of the Perceived Supervisor Support scale items

after deleting the two reverse coded items also displayed adequate factor loadings as well (see

figure 2). The results of CR of 0.89 and the AVE of 0.62 showed that this scale displayed

acceptable convergent validity as well. Perceived Supervisor Support along with the other

mediators was also measured both at time 2 and time 3 in the current study, thus the results of the

test-retest reliability indicated higher and consistent reliability of Perceived Supervisor Support

at both time periods. The cronbach alpha, for Perceived Supervisor Support measures at time-2

was α= 0.89 and at time-3 was α= 0.90 (see Table 1).

3.5.5 Perceived Coworker Support

66

Perceived Coworker support was also measured along with the other mediators at time-2 and

time-3 as well. Perceived Co-worker scale was tapped by a 3 item scale developed by Staw,

Sutton & Pelled (1994) perceived co-worker support scale. Items of this scale are “My

coworkers give me the help I need to do my job”; " I and my coworkers share news about

important things that happen at the organization" and " I and my coworkers stick together".

Responses to the scale were tapped through a seven point scale ranging from 1= strongly

disagree to 7= strongly agree. Higher scores reflected higher perceived co-worker support. In the

current study, the alpha reliability for this scale is α= 0.84.

A number of Confirmatory factor Analysis were run for Perceived Co-worker scale both at time-

2 and time-3 to establish the discriminant validity of this scale. Different models consisting of

alternate pairing of perceived co-worker support scale with other variables were run i.e. 4 factor

models, 3 factor and 2 factor paired CFA comparisons corroborated Perceived Co-worker

support's discriminant validity at both time-2 and time-3 (see Table 2 and 3 for results of model

fit statistics). The results of the full measurement CFA also showed adequate factor loadings of

the items of this scale. The composite reliability (CR) of 0.81 and the average variance extracted

(AVE) of 0.60 showed that this scale displayed convergent validity as well. The results of the

test-retest reliability depicted that Perceived co-worker support demonstrated higher and

consistent reliability for both time periods i.e. the reliability for PCS at time-2 was α= 0.84 and at

time-3 was α= 0.85 (see Table 1).

3.5.6 Emotional Dissonance

67

Emotional dissonance Items were also measured at time-2 and time-3 using a five item scale

devised by Zapf, Mertini, Seifert, Vogt, Isic & Fischbach (2000). Respondents were asked to

consider their job and indicate how often did they feel this way in their job. Sample items were

“During your work, how often do you have to suppress your own feelings (e.g., irritation) to give

a ‘neutral’ impression?”, "During your work, how often are you unable to show your

spontaneous feelings?" and " During your work, how often do you have to express positive

feelings towards others while you actually feel indifferent?." Responses were measured with a

seven point scale with anchor points of 1=Never, 2=once in a while, 3= rarely, 4=sometimes,

5=often, 6=usually and 7=always. Higher scores reflected higher reported Emotional

Dissonance. The Cronbach alpha for Emotional Dissonance at time-2 in this study was α= 0.84.

A number of Confirmatory Factor Analysis were run for Emotional Dissonance scale both at

time-2 and time-3 to establish the discriminant validity of this scale. Different models consisting

of alternate pairing of Emotional Dissonance scale with other variables were run i.e 4 factor

models, 3 factor and 2 factor paired CFA comparisons corroborated Emotional Dissonance's

discriminant validity at both time-2 and time-3 (see Table 2 and 3 for results of model fit

statistics). The results of the full measurement CFA also showed adequate factor loadings of the

items of this scale. The CR (Composite reliability) of 0.83 and the AVE (Average variance

extracted) equivalent to 0.5 showed that this scale displayed convergent validity as well. The

results of the test-retest reliability depicted that Emotional dissonance demonstrated higher and

consistent reliability for both time periods i.e. the reliability for Emotional Dissonance at time-2

was α= 0.84 and at time-3 was α= 0.86 (see Table 1).

3.5.7 Job Stress

68

Job stress items were measured at time-3 using a 13 item scale (Parker & Decotiis, 1983).

Sample items included “My job gets to me more than it should”; “There are lots of times when

my job drives me right up the wall” and " I have felt fidgety or nervous as a result of my job".

Responses were measured with a seven point scale with anchors ranging from Strongly disagree

(1) to Strongly agree (7). The mean of the scale was calculated so that higher responses signaled

higher reported job stress. The cronbach alpha reliability for this scale in this study was α= 0.92.

Since Job Stress was measured at time-3 with other outcomes of this study, therefore it was

essential to perform Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Job Stress scale at time-3 to establish the

discriminant validity of this scale. Different models of CFA consisting of alternate pairing of job

stress scale with other variables were run i.e. 4 factor models, 3 factor and 2 factor paired CFA

comparisons established Perceived Organization support's discriminant validity (see Table 2 and

3 for CFA results model fit statistics). The tests of validity (discriminant and convergent) clearly

showed that Job stress scale had adequate acceptability in this study. The job stress scale items

displayed adequate factor loadings as well. The CR of 0.92 and the AVE of 0.50 showed that

this scale displayed convergent validity as well.

3.5.8 Job Burnout

Job burnout was measured at time 3 by a seven item scale formulated by Pines & Aronson,

(1988). Sample items for this scale were “I feel emotionally exhausted ”; "I feel depressed", "I

feel troubled." Respondents reported their answers on a seven point scale ranging from 1=Never,

2=once in a while, 3=rarely, 4=sometimes, 5=often, 6=usually and 7=always. Higher responses

on this scale reflected higher job burnout. The Cronbach alpha for this measure was α= 0.92.

69

Different models of CFA consisting of alternate pairing of job burnout scale with other variables

were run i.e. 4 factor models, 3 factor and 2 factor paired CFA comparisons established Job

burnout's discriminant validity (see Table 2 and 3 for CFA results model fit statistics). The tests

of validity (discriminant and convergent) clearly showed that Job burnout scale had adequate

acceptability in this study. The job burnout scale items displayed adequate factor loadings as

well (see Figure 2). The CR of 0.92 and the AVE of 0.63 showed that this scale displayed

convergent validity as well.

3.5.9 Psychological Strain

Psychological Strain was measured at time-3 adopted from the twelve item scale of General

Health questionnaire (GHQ) (Bank, Clegg, Jackson, Kemp, Stafford & Wall, 1980). The survey

participants were asked to highlight the degree to which they have been experiencing a number

of emotional and psychological symptoms over the past few weeks. Sample items are “I have

lost much sleep over worry”; " I have not been able to concentrate on whatever I’m doing"; and "

I feel constantly under a strain". Answers were tapped on a 7 point scale ranging from 1=Never

to 7=Always. Higher rates on this scale indicated higher psychological strain. The alpha

reliability for this scale was α= 0.94.

Different models of CFA consisting of alternate pairing of psychological strain scale with other

variables were run i.e. 4 factor models, 3 factor and 2 factor paired CFA comparisons established

Job burnout's discriminant validity (see Table 2 and 3 for CFA results model fit statistics). The

tests of validity (discriminant and convergent) clearly showed that psychological strain scale had

adequate acceptability in this study. The psychological strain items displayed adequate factor

loadings as well. The composite reliability of 0.95 and the average variance extracted of 0.59

showed that this scale displayed convergent validity as well.

70

3.5.10 Intensions to quit

Intensions to quit was tapped at time 3 utilizing a three item scale adopted from Cammanan,

Fichman, Jenkins & Klesh (1982). Examples of the items are “It is highly likely that I will look

for a new job in the next year"; and " I often think about quitting/ I often think about leaving the

organization". Respondents reported their answers on a 7 point scale which ranged from Strongly

disagree (1) to Strongly agree (7). Higher values on the scale indicated higher intensions to quit.

The results of the reliability analysis revealed that removing one item from the intensions to quit

scale improved the scale reliability from 0.66 to 0.82. The confirmatory factor analysis results

(refer to the full measurement model) indicated that this item had low factor loadings which were

less than the standard limit. Thus, I decided to remove this item from the intensions to quit scale.

The deleted item was " If I may choose again, I will choose to work for the current organization

(reverse coded)." The alpha reliability for this scale after eliminating one item was α= 0.82.

Different models of CFA consisting of alternate pairing of psychological strain scale with other

variables were run i.e. 4 factor models, 3 factor and 2 factor paired CFA comparisons established

turnover intensions discriminant validity (see Table 2 and 3 for CFA results model fit statistics).

The tests of validity (discriminant and convergent) clearly showed that Turnover Intensions scale

had adequate acceptability in this study. The Turnover Intensions items displayed adequate

factor loadings as well (see Figure 2). The composite reliability (CR) of 0.85 and the average

variance extracted (AVE) of 0.75 showed that this scale displayed convergent validity as well.

71

Table 1- Test-Retest Reliability of variables measured at Time-2 and Time-3

Sr

No.

Variables Time-2 Time-3

Cronbach Alpha α

1. Emotional Dissonance .84 .86

2. Perceived Organizational Support .89 .90

3. Perceived Supervisor Support .89 .90

4. Perceived Co-worker Support .84 .85

3.6 Control Variables

Research in behavioral sciences depict that demographic factors like respondent's age, gender,

tenure, organization type, area of specialization are related to commonly studied dependant

variables in OB (Xie & Johns, 1995). These demographic variables were included in the

questionnaire at all three time periods and information on these variables were collected through

self-reports by the same respondent for time 1, time 2 and time 3. A one way Analysis of

variance revealed that only age and gender were significant for the study's outcome variables i.e.

job stress, turnover intensions, burnout and psychological strain. Thus, age and gender were

controlled for in all subsequent analysis.

72

3.7 Data Analysis Techniques

Data received at three different time periods i.e. at time 1, time 2 and time 3 from the same

responded was coded and entered into SPSS 20 software. Apart from the matched responses of

all three time periods another consideration while considering a complete response for all three

time periods was that there should be minimum missing values and those response cases where

there were large number of missing cases where omitted from the study. After data entry

frequencies were run to check for missing data and any errors. Missing values were treated and

errors were removed.

Reverse coded items were transformed back to be used in reliability analysis. Reliability analysis

for all study variables were conducted. Test-retest reliability was done of the variables which

were tapped more than a single time period. Means of the study variables were calculated i.e.

Workplace bullying tapped at time 1, Core Self Evaluation at time 2, Emotional Dissonance,

Perceived Organization support, perceived co-worker support and perceived supervisor support

tapped at time-2 and outcomes of Job Stress, Burnout, Psychological strain and turnover

intensions tapped at time-3. A number of confirmatory factor analysis (CFAs) were conducted

for the variables which were measured at a single point in time and reported from the same

source to ensure construct as well as discriminant validity among study variables at time 2 and

time 3. Descriptive statistics analysis were also performed. Corelational analysis was conducted

for the current study's variables and paired comparison correlations were run for the variables

tapped at time-2 and time-3 (see Table 4 and 5).

Hypothesis were tested and verified through two of the most recent, vigorous and highly

pertinent statistical techniques namely Structural Equation Modeling analysis (SEM) in AMOS

73

and Regression analysis conducted through the Process approach employing bootstrapping

technique using SPSS software. Firstly, Structural Equation Modeling analysis was applied to

run a full CFA model (called Full measurement model). On the basis of the credence in the CFA

model, structural models were run to confirm hypothesis. These structural path models were

performed to verify direct effects hypothesis. Then, parallel or simple mediation analysis were

performed by running structural paths for testing parallel mediation paths and verifying these

hypothesis and structural models for sequential mediation analysis was conducted to confirm the

sequential mediation hypothesis.

After verification of hypothesis through SEM technique, the present study also utilized Process

approach to test and confirm the hypotheses. Preacher and Hayes (2004) have provided model

templates which enables researchers and scholars to test their proposed research models

employing bootstrapping technique. Thus, I used model 4 (see Preacher & Hayes, 2004

templates) for testing simple mediation hypotheses. Then, according to these templates, Model

No. 6 was used to test and verify parallel and sequential mediation concurrently. Finally, I

utilized Model No.1 for testing the moderation hypotheses. On the basis of the significant

interaction terms for the outcomes, interaction plots are made to confirm the strength,

significance and direction of moderator at high and low values. Slope tests were also performed

and reported to reflect whether the moderator variable enhances/strengthens or buffers the

independent and dependant variable relationship at high or low values.

3.8 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

This study employed three wave longitudinal data for measuring the research model variables.

The variables were temporally separated at three different time periods to avoid reverse causality

74

issues and to ensure the effect of predictor on mediating and outcome variables was not plagued

by problems of single shot research designs. Therefore, even though collecting data at three time

period forms the unique strength of the study, I investigated the discriminant validity of the

variables by conducting a number of confirmatory factor analyses. According to the suggestions

offered by Anderson and Gerbing (1988; 1992), the current study compared a two factor model

with a one factor model for each of the probable combinations of variables which were tapped at

the same time period and from the same source.

Confirmatory factor analysis at time 2 comprised of 4 factor model which consisted of all four

mediators i.e. Emotional Dissonance, Perceived Organization Support, Perceived supervisory

support and perceived co-worker support vs. 1 factor, then 3 factor model indicating the

discriminant validity of the three Perceived Support types over a single factor model and then

finally 2 factor paired comparison model of each of the mediators with a single factor model.

The variables tapped at time 3 included the mediators and outcomes so CFAs were conducted at

time 3 for these variables as well. Firstly, Confirmatory factor analysis at time 3 comprised of 4

factor model comprising the study's mediator variables measured at time 3 i.e. Emotional

Dissonance, Perceived Organization Support, Perceived supervisor support and perceived co-

worker support vs. 1 factor, then 3 factor model indicating the discriminant validity of the three

Perceived Support types over a single factor model and then finally 2 factor paired comparison

model of each of the mediators with a single factor model. Moreover, the CFAs were run for all

the four outcome variables measured at time 3. These CFAs included 4 factor model of outcomes

i.e. Job Stress, Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions vs. 1 factor, then a 3

factor model comprising job strains were compared against a single factor and finally 2 factor

pairing of each of the outcome variables was done with a single factor model. The results of

75

these CFAs are presented in table 2 for time 2 variables and in Table 3 for time 3 variables which

show that in every case the unconstrained multiple factor desired model demonstrated superior

fit than the one factor constrained model.

3.8.1 Emotional Dissonance

Time 2 Analysis

A four factor model -factor model comprising Emotional Dissonance, Perceived Organization

Support, perceptions of supervisory and coworker support at time 2 (χ² =397.74, df=145, p≤

.001; CFI =.93 , GFI =.88 , NFI = .89 , RMSEA = .07) exhibited enhanced model fit than the one

factor model (χ² =1830.77, df=152, p<0.001; CFI = .59, GFI = .68, NFI= .53, RMSEA= .18)(see

Table 2).

The 2 factor paired comparison of Emotional dissonance with each of the other mediator

variables measured at time 2 revealed the superiority of each of the 2 factor models over the

single factor model establishing discriminant validity. The 2 factor model comprising Emotional

dissonance and Perceived Supervisor Support (χ² =82.89, df=31, p≤ .001; CFI =.97 , GFI =.95,

NFI = .95 , RMSEA = .07) demonstrated higher model fit than the one factor model (χ² = 213.82,

df=26, p<0.001; CFI= .89, GFI= .88, NFI= .88, RMSEA= .15)(see Table 2).

The 2 factor model comprising Emotional dissonance and Perceived Organization Support (χ²

=72.88, df=39, p≤ .001; CFI =.98 , GFI =.96, NFI = .96 , RMSEA = .05) displayed superior

model fit than the one factor model (χ² =324.86, df=34, p<0.001; CFI= .84, GFI= .84, NFI= .83,

RMSEA= .16). Lastly, the 2 factor model of Emotional dissonance and perceptions of co-worker

support (χ² =37.45, df=16, p<0.001; CFI=.98 , GFI =.97, NFI= .97 , RMSEA= .06) also

76

exhibited higher model fit than the one factor model (χ² =56.78, df=16, p<0.001; CFI= .96, GFI=

.96, NFI= .95, RMSEA= .09)(see Table 2).

Time 3 Analysis

For time 3 since mediators including emotional dissonance was tapped at time 3 as well therefore

similar CFA comparisons of emotional dissonance with other mediators were conducted at time

3 as well to establish discriminant validity. A four factor model -factor model comprising

Emotional Dissonance, Perceived Organization Support, supervisor perceptions of support and

perceptions of coworker support at time-3 (χ² =304.82, df=139, p≤ .001; CFI =.96 , GFI =.91 ,

NFI = .93 , RMSEA = .06) demonstrated enhanced model fit than the one factor model (χ²

=1892.65, df=152, p<0.001; CFI= .57, GFI= .55, NFI= .55, RMSEA= .19)(see Table 3).

The 2 factor paired comparison of Emotional dissonance with each of the other mediator

variables measured at time 3 revealed the superiority of each of the 2 factor models over the

single factor model establishing discriminant validity. The 2 factor model comprising Emotional

dissonance and Perceived Supervisor Support at time 3 (χ² =55.24, df= 30, p≤ .001; CFI =.99,

GFI =.97, NFI = .97 , RMSEA= .05) demonstrated higher model fit than the one factor model (χ²

= 1189.75, df=35, p<0.001; CFI= .38, GFI= .53, NFI= .38, RMSEA= .32)(see Table 3).

The 2 factor model comprising Emotional dissonance and Perceived Organization Support (χ²

=86.67, df=38, p≤ .001; CFI =.98 , GFI =.95, NFI = .96 , RMSEA = .06) displayed superior

model fit than the one factor model (χ² =839.81, df=44, p<0.001; CFI= .60, GFI= .62, NFI= .59,

RMSEA= .06). Lastly, the 2 factor model of Emotional dissonance and perceptions of supervisor

77

and coworker support (χ² =47.53, df=16, p<0.001; CFI=.98 , GFI=.97, NFI= .96 , RMSEA= .08)

also demonstrated enhanced model fit than the one factor model (χ² =595.91, df=20, p<0.001;

CFI= .55, GFI= .71, NFI= .55, RMSEA= .29)(see Table 3).

3.8.2 Perceived Support Types

3.8.2.1 Perceived Organizational Support

Time 2 Analysis

A three factor model factor model comprising Perceived Organization Support, perceptions of

supervisory and coworker support at time 2 (χ² =196.50, df=70, p<0.001; CFI=.96 , GFI=.93 ,

NFI= .94 , RMSEA= .07) demonstrated higher model fit than the one factor model (χ² =428.32,

df=61, p<0.001; CFI= .88, GFI= .82, NFI= .86, RMSEA= .13)(see Table 2).

The 2 factor paired comparison of Perceived Organization Support with each of the other

mediator variables measured at time 2 revealed the superiority of each of the 2 factor models

over the single factor model establishing discriminant validity. The 2 factor model comprising

Perceived Organization Support and Perceived Supervisor Support (χ² =102.62, df=39, p≤ .001;

CFI =.97 , GFI =.95, NFI = .96 , RMSEA = .07) demonstrated higher model fit than the one

factor model (χ² = 96.96, df=24, p<0.001; CFI= .97, GFI= .95, NFI= .96, RMSEA= .10)(see

Table 2).

The 2 factor model comprising Perceived Organization Support and Perceived Co-worker

Support (χ² =51.93, df=23, p<0.001; CFI=.98 , GFI=.97, NFI= .97 , RMSEA= .06) displayed

superior model fit than the one factor model (χ² =107.59, df=24, p<0.001; CFI= .95, GFI= .93,

NFI= .93, RMSEA= .10) (see Table 2).

78

Time 3 Analysis

A three factor model factor model comprising Perceived Organization Support, supervisor and

coworker perceptions of support at time 3 (χ² =142.69, df=66, p<0.001; CFI=.98 , GFI=.94 , NFI

= .96 , RMSEA= .06) demonstrated higher model fit than the one factor model (χ² =972.29,

df=77, p<0.001; CFI= .72, GFI= .64, NFI= .71, RMSEA= .19)(see Table 3).

The 2 factor paired comparison of Perceived Organization Support with each of the other

mediator variables measured at time 3 highlighted the superiority of each of the 2 factor models

over the single factor model establishing discriminant validity. The 2 factor model comprising

Perceived Organization Support and Perceived Supervisor Support at time 3 (χ² =89.77, df=39,

p<0.001; CFI=.97 , GFI=.95, NFI= .97 , RMSEA= .06) demonstrated increased model fit than

the one factor model (χ² =580.32, df=44, p<0.001; CFI= .78, GFI= .68, NFI= .77, RMSEA=

.19)(see Table 3).

The 2 factor model comprising Perceived Organization Support and Perceived Co-worker

Support (χ² =46.82, df=23, p≤ .001; CFI =.99 , GFI =.97, NFI = .98 , RMSEA = .06)

demonstrated improved model fit than the one factor model (χ² =348.92, df=20, p<0.001; CFI=

.81, GFI= .79, NFI= .80, RMSEA= .22) (see Table 3).

3.8.2.2 Perceptions of coworker and supervisor support

Time 2 Analysis

The 2 factor model comprising supervisor and coworker perceptions of support at time 2 (χ²

=40.29, df=15, p≤ .001; CFI =.98 , GFI =.97, NFI = .98 , RMSEA = .07) demonstrated improved

79

model fit than the one factor model (χ² =41.40, df=15, p<0.001; CFI= .98, GFI= .97, NFI= .97,

RMSEA= .07) (see Table 2).

Time 3 Analysis

The 2 factor model comprising perceptions of coworker and supervisor support at time 3 (χ²

=52.65, df=16, p≤ .001; CFI =.98 , GFI =.96, NFI = .97 , RMSEA = .08) demonstrated enhanced

model fit than the one factor model (χ² =348.92, df=20, p<0.001; CFI= .81, GFI= .79, NFI= .80,

RMSEA= .22) (see Table 3).

3.8.3 Job Stress

Time 3 Analysis

The outcome variables in the present study were tapped at time 3 only therefore CFA

comparisons of 4 factor, 3 factor and then 2 factor pairing for each of the outcome variables was

done at time 3 to ascertain discriminant validity. A four factor model -factor model comprising

Job stress, burnout, Turnover intensions and Psychological strain at time-3 (χ² =1165.97, df=502,

p≤ .001; CFI =.92 , GFI =.83 , NFI = .87 , RMSEA = .06) demonstrated improved model fit than

the one factor model (χ² =3606.43, df=527, p<0.001; CFI= .62, GFI= .47, NFI= .59, RMSEA=

.13)(see Table 3).

A 3 factor model comprising of Job stress, Burnout and Psychological strain at time 3 (χ²

=1011.68, df= 439, p≤ .001; CFI =.93, GFI =.85, NFI = .88 , RMSEA = .06) demonstrated

80

enhanced model fit than the one factor model (χ² = 3283.39, df=464, p<0.001; CFI= .64, GFI=

.48, NFI= .60, RMSEA= .14)(see Table 3).

The 2 factor model comprising Job Stress and Burnout (χ² =370.77, df=157, p≤ .001; CFI =.95,

GFI =.90, NFI = .92 , RMSEA = .06) displayed superior model fit than the one factor model (χ²

=1611.55, df=170, p<0.001; CFI= .66, GFI= .55, NFI= .64, RMSEA= .16). The 2 factor model

of Job stress and Turnover Intensions (χ² =188.71, df=77, p≤ .001; CFI =.96 , GFI =.93, NFI =

.93, RMSEA = .06) also demonstrated higher model fit than the one factor model (χ² =577.77,

df=90, p<0.001; CFI= .82, GFI= .81, NFI= .79, RMSEA= .13)(see Table 3). The 2 factor model

of Job stress and Psychological Strain (χ² =653.74, df=255, p<0.001; CFI=.93 , GFI=.87, NFI=

.89, RMSEA= .07) also exhibited higher model fit than the one factor model (χ² =2371.72,

df=275, p<0.001; CFI= .63, GFI= .46, NFI= .60, RMSEA= .15)(see Table 3).

3.8.4 Burnout

Time 3

The 2 factor model of Job burnout and Turnover Intensions (χ² =43.94, df=18, p≤ .001; CFI =.99,

GFI =.97, NFI = .98, RMSEA = .07) also demonstrated higher model fit than the one factor

model (χ² =455.02, df=27, p<0.001; CFI= .80, GFI= .78, NFI= .79, RMSEA= .22)(see Table 3).

The 2 factor model of Job burnout and Psychological Strain (χ² =435.18, df=138, p≤ .001; CFI

=.94, GFI =.88, NFI = .92, RMSEA = .08) also exhibited improved model fit than the one factor

model (χ² =1335.40, df=152, p<0.001; CFI= .77, GFI= .65, NFI= .75, RMSEA= .15)(see Table

3).

81

3.8.5 Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions

Time 3

The 2 factor model of Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions (χ² =237.27, df=65, p≤ .001;

CFI =.95, GFI =.91, NFI = .93, RMSEA = .09) also higher model fit than the one factor model

(χ² =737.27, df=77, p<0.001; CFI= .80, GFI= .76, NFI= .79, RMSEA= .16)(see Table 3).

Apart from the above possible paired comparison of CFAs tested of variables measured within

the same time period and same source I also ran a full CFA model (measurement model) of all

the study variables (i.e. 9 factor model which is conducted as an initial step in the Structural

Equation Modeling).

Table 2. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses for Time-2 Variables

Measurement Models χ² Df CFI GFI NFI RMSEA

ED - POS -PSS - PCS (4 Factor Model)

ED - POS - PSS - PCS (1 Factor Model)

397.74 145 .93 .88 .89 0.07

1830.77 152 .55 .55 .53 0.18

POS -PSS -PCS (3 Factor Model)

POS -PSS -PCS (1 Factor Model)

196.50 70 .96 .93 .94 0.07

428.32 61 .88 .82 .86 0.13

POS -PSS (2 Factor Model)

POS -PSS (1 Factor Model)

102.62 39 .97 .95 .96 0.07

96.96 24 .97 .95 .96 0.10

POS- PCS (2 Factor Model)

POS- PCS (1 Factor Model)

51.93 23 .98 .97 .97 0.06

107.59 24 .95 .93 .93 0.10

PSS- PCS (2 Factor Model) 40.29 15 .98 .97 .98 0.07

82

PSS- PCS (1 Factor Model) 41.40 15 .98 .97 .97 0.07

ED -PSS (2 Factor Model)

ED -PSS (1 Factor Model)

82.89 31 .97 .95 .95 0.07

213.82 26 .89 .89 .88 0.15

ED - POS (2 Factor Model)

ED - POS (1 Factor Model)

72.88 39 .98 .96 .96 0.05

324.86 34 .84 .84 .83 0.16

ED - PCS (2 Factor Model)

ED - PCS (1 Factor Model)

37.45 16 .98 .97 .97 0.06

56.78 16 .96 .96 .95 0.09

Table 3. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses for Time-3 Variables

Measurement Models χ² Df CFI GFI NFI RMSEA

ED - POS -PSS - PCS (4 Factor Model)

ED - POS - PSS - PCS (1 Factor Model)

304.82 139 .96 .91 .93 0.06

1892.65 152 .57 .55 .55 0.19

POS -PSS -PCS (3 Factor Model)

POS -PSS -PCS (1 Factor Model)

142.69 66 .98 .94 .96 0.06

972.29 77 .72 .64 .71 0.19

POS -PSS (2 Factor Model)

POS -PSS (1 Factor Model)

89.77 39 .98 .95 .97 0.06

580.32 44 .78 .68 .77 0.19

POS- PCS (2 Factor Model)

POS- PCS (1 Factor Model)

46.82 23 .99 .97 .98 0.06

429.67 27 .78 .78 .77 0.21

PSS- PCS (2 Factor Model)

PSS- PCS (1 Factor Model)

52.65 16 .98 .96 .97 0.08

348.92 20 .81 .79 .80 0.22

ED -PSS (2 Factor Model)

ED -PSS (1 Factor Model)

55.24 30 .99 .97 .97 .05

1189.75 35 .38 .53 .38 .32

83

ED - POS (2 Factor Model)

ED - POS (1 Factor Model)

86.67 38 .98 .95 .96 .06

839.81 44 .60 .62 .59 .23

ED - PCS (2 Factor Model)

ED - PCS (1 Factor Model)

47.53 16 .98 .97 .96 .08

595.91 20 .55 .71 .55 .29

Stress- BO- TOI - Strain (4 Factor Model)

Stress- BO- TOI - Strain (1 Factor Model)

1165.97 502 .92 .83 .87 0.06

3606.43 527 .62 .47 .59 0.13

Stress- BO - Strain (3 Factor Model)

Stress- BO - Strain (1 Factor Model)

1011.68 439 .93 .85 .88 0.06

3283.39 464 .64 .48 .60 0.14

Stress- BO (2 Factor Model)

Stress- BO (1 Factor Model)

370.77 157 .95 .90 .92 0.06

1611.55 170 .66 .55 .64 0.16

Stress - Strain (2 Factor Model)

Stress -Strain (1 Factor Model)

653.74 255 .93 .87 .89 0.07

2371.72 275 .63 .46 .60 0.15

Stress- TOI (2 Factor Model)

Stress- TOI (1 Factor Model)

188.71 77 .96 .93 .93 0.06

577.77 90 .82 .81 .79 0.13

BO - Strain (2 Factor Model)

BO - Strain (1 Factor Model)

435.18 138 .94 .88 .92 0.08

1335.40 152 .77 .65 .75 0.15

BO- TOI (2 Factor Model)

BO- TOI (1 Factor Model)

43.94 18 .99 .97 .98 0.07

455.02 27 .80 .78 .79 0.22

TOI - Strain (2 Factor Model)

TOI - Strain (1 Factor Model)

237.27 65 .95 .91 .93 0.09

737.27 77 .80 .76 .79 0.16

Chapter Summary

84

This chapter provided the reader with the details of the research methods employed in the present

thesis for testing the proposed research model. The chapter provided in-depth information

regarding the research design, target population, sample size planned and attained, sampling

technique used to collect data, data collection procedures used as it was time lagged study,

sample characteristics. The details of how and which of the research model variables were

measured at three time periods i-e time 1, time 2 and time 3 and the appropriate time lag were

provided. Moreover, details regarding the testing of these scales are also given including tests of

reliability and validity. Reliability analysis and test-retest reliability was carried out for variables

measured at two different time periods. The results of confirmatory factor analysis for alternate

models of variables measured from the same source and within one time period were run to

establish discriminant validity which provided superior model fit statistics for the possible

pairing of variables tested in the study.

85

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Chapter Overview

This chapter provides the results of data analytical techniques applied in three sections. The first

section gives the results of descriptive statistics and correlation analysis (Pearson bivariate

correlation and paired correlation comparisons) for the model variables. The second section

provides details of Structural Equation Modeling which is done in recommended two major

steps. SEM is conducted by testing Full measurement model (CFA of all the model variables)

and then the confirmation of CFA leads to running of structural paths. The structural paths for

testing direct effects, simple mediation, parallel mediation and sequential mediation are run to

test proposed hypothesis. The last section provides details of proposed hypothesis tested through

the Regression method using Process technique (Preacher & Hayes, 2004) with bootstrapping.

4.1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis

Table 4 provides the results of descriptive statistics and co-relation analysis for all the study

variables. All correlations which were above the 0.10 value were significant at p<0.5 and p<0.01

(2 tailed). The means for Workplace Bullying were (M=2.56, SD=1.24), Emotional Dissonance

(M=3.84, SD=1.16), Perceived Organization Support (M=5.00, SD=1.21), Perceived Co-worker

Support (M=5.09, SD=1.39), Perceived Supervisor Support (M=5.19, SD=1.16), Core Self

Evaluations (M=4.68, SD=0.94), Job Stress (M=3.82, SD=1.22), Burnout (M=3.08, SD=1.37),

Psychological Strain (M=2.93, SD=1.36) and Turnover Intensions (M=3.74, SD=1.56).

86

Regarding the correlations between workplace bullying and outcome variables, workplace

bullying had significant positive associations with job stress (r=.33), job burnout (r=.43),

Psychological Strain (r=.54) and Turnover Intensions (r=.21). With respect to the associations

between bullying and mediator variables in the study, Workplace Bullying had significant

positive association with Emotional Dissonance (r=.30). Workplace Bullying had significant

negative correlations with the three support types i.e. with Perceived Organization Support (r=-

.26), Perceived Co-worker Support (r=-.32) and Perceived Supervisor Support (r=-.37).

Concerning the relationship of Workplace bullying with the study's moderator variable,

workplace bullying displayed significant negative correlations with core self evaluations (r=-.33)

(see Table 4).

Regarding the associations of mediator variables with outcomes, emotional dissonance was

positively and significantly associated with job stress (r=.47), job burnout (r=.37), psychological

strain (r=.38) and Turnover Intensions (r=.33). Perceived Organization Support was negatively

and significantly associated with job stress (r= -.17), job burnout (r= -.37), psychological strain

(r= -.30) and Turnover Intensions (r= -.22). Perceptions of supervisor support was negatively

and significantly related to job stress (r= -.11), job burnout (r= -.35), psychological strain (r= -

.35) and Turnover Intensions (r= -.14). Perceived Co-worker Support was negatively and

significantly associated with job stress (r= -.11), job burnout (r= -.26) and psychological strain

(r= -.31), whereas unrelated to turnover intensions (r= -.01) (see Table 4).

With regard to the association of study's moderator variable with mediator variables, Core self

evaluation had significant negative associations with Emotional Dissonance (r= -.25), whereas

Core self evaluations demonstrated significant positive associations with Perceived Organization

Support (r= .47), Perceived Co-worker Support (r= .30) and Perceived Supervisor Support (r=

87

.37). Core Self Evaluations also displayed significant negative correlations with job stress (r= -

.31), job burnout (r= -.46), psychological strain (r= -.49) and Turnover Intensions (r= -.16) (see

Table 4).

Concerning the associations among the mediator variables Emotional Dissonance was

significantly negatively related to Perceived Organization Support (r= -.46) only whereas it was

unrelated to the other two support types i.e. perceptions of supervisor support (r= -.01) and

perceptions of co-worker support (r= .06). Regarding the correlations among the outcome

variables Job Stress was significantly positively related to burnout (r=.57), psychological strain

(r= .52) and turnover intensions (r= .45). Job Burnout demonstrated significant associations with

turnover intensions (r= .46) and psychological strain (r= .75) and Psychological strain had

significant positive associations with Turnover Intensions (r= .33) (see Table 4).

4.1.1 Paired Co-relation Comparisons of Time-2 and Time 3 variables

I also conducted paired correlation comparisons of mediator variables measured at time 2 and

time 3. Table 5 depicts the associations among each pairs of the mediator variables at time 2 and

time 3. With respect to the associations of each similar pairs, Emotional dissonance at time-2 had

significantly positive correlations with Emotional dissonance at time-3 (r= .73). Perceived

Organization Support at time-2 depicted strong positive associations with Perceived

Organization Support at time-3 (r= .74). Similarly, Perceived Supervisor Support at time-2 had

significant positive correlations with Perceived Supervisor Support at time -3 (r= .80). Lastly,

Perceived Co-worker support at time-2 displayed significant positive correlations with Perceived

Co-worker support at time-3 (r= .75).

88

Table 4. Means, Standard deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities for main variables of interest in the study

Note. N=334; Control variables are age and gender; for Gender 0= ‘Male’ and 1= ‘Female’; WPB=Workplace Bullying;

ED=Emotional Dissonance; POS= Perceived Organizational Support; PSS= Perceived Supervisor Support; PCS= Perceived Co-

worker Support; CSE= Core Self Evaluations, Alpha reliabilities presented in parenthesis. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Age 30.13 8.58

2. Gender .40 .49 -.29

3. WPB (Time-1) 2.56 1.24 .18** .03 (.88)

4. ED (Time-2) 3.84 1.16 .07 .06 .30** (.84)

5. POS (Time-2) 5.00 1.21 -.05 .04 -.26** -.13* (.90)

6. PSS (Time-2) 5.19 1.16 -.05 .00 -.37** -.01 .57** (.89)

7. PCS (Time-2) 5.09 1.39 -.07 -.00 -.32** .06 .44** .65** (.84)

8. CSE (Time-2) 4.68 .94 -.08 -.07 -.33** -.25** .47** .37** .30** (.81)

9. Job Stress (Time-3) 3.82 1.22 .04 .02 .33** .47** -.17** -.11* -.11* -.31** (.92)

10. Burnout (Time-3) 3.08 1.37 .05 .10 .43** .37** -.37** -.35** -.26** -.46** .57** (.92)

11. TOI (Time-3) 3.74

1.56 -.01 .04 .21** .33** -.22** -.14* .01 -.16** .45** .46** (.82)

12. Psychological Strain (Time-3) 2.93

1.36 .15** .05 .54** .38** -.30** -.35** -.31** -.49** .52** .75** .33** (.94)

89

Regarding the correlations of variables at time-2 Emotional dissonance was significantly and

negatively correlated with Perceived Organization Support (r= -.13) whereas was unrelated with

perceived supervisory support (r= -.01) and perceived coworker support (r= .06) at time-2. With

regard to the association of mediator variables at time-2 with each pairs at time-3, Emotional

Dissonance at time-2 was negatively and significantly associated with perceived Organization

support (r= -.14) whereas was unrelated with perceptions of supervisor support (r= .02) and

perceptions of co-worker support (r= .10) at time-3. Concerning the associations of these

variables at time 3 showed that Emotional Dissonance at time-3 was negatively and significantly

associated with perceptions of organization support (r= -.16) whereas was unrelated with

Perceived Supervisor Support (r= -.07) and Perceived Co-worker Support (r= .03) at time-3.

Table 5. Paired Co-relation Comparisons of Variables measured at Time-2 and Time-3

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. ED (Time-2) -

2. ED (Time-3) .73** -

3. POS (Time-2) -.13* -.19** -

4. POS (Time-3) -.14** -.16** .74** -

5. PSS (Time-2) -.01 -.06 .57** .58** -

90

6. PSS (Time-3) .02 -.07 .50** .64** .80** -

7. PCS (Time-2) .06 -.02 .44** .44** .65** .53** -

8. PCS (Time-3) .10 .03 .35** .50** .56** .62** .75** -

ED=Emotional Dissonance; PSS=Perceived Supervisory Support; POS=Perceived Organization

Support and PCS= Perceived Co-worker Support

*p<0.05

**p<0.01

***p<0.001

4.2 Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

In the present thesis, I employed Structural Equation Modeling technique using Analysis of

Moment Structures (AMOS) software version 18 to test each of my hypotheses stating direct,

simple mediation, parallel and sequential mediation paths. SEM or Structural Equation Modeling

is a statistical procedure which helps the researcher to test and affirm a sequence of structural

paths i.e. regression equations. The structural models are conceived on the basis of theory/ies and

are then pictorially drawn in the software to help the researcher build up a clearer thought of the

primary casual mechanisms under investigation (Byrne, 2013). The hypothesized structural paths

can then be statistically verified through examination of the one to one paths and at the same

time of the complete variables in the model to confirm the extent to which these structural

models adequately matches the data. Based on the goodness of fit statistics it is established if the

91

hypothesized relationships among the model variables are confirmed or disapproved. In addition,

the label of parameter estimates section depicts the beta values or standardized regression

weights of the individual structural paths along with their level of significance (p values) which

provides additional credibility for the substantiation of hypothesis.

SEM is considered to be extremely dependable and is more advanced than other multivariate

approaches to data analysis. To begin with, SEM adopts a confirmatory rather than exploratory

approach for performing data analysis. Another distinguishing feature of Structural equation

modeling is that it permits to check a series of structural paths separately and concurrently thus

making hypothesis testing simpler yet complete. Further, the calculation of individual parameter

estimates (beta values) of paths and complete range of model fit statistics values enhances the

worth of this approach. Lastly, by employing the SEM technique, full measurement models or

CFAs can be tested and verified which reduces errors thus making hypothesized relations among

unobserved or latent variables less influenced by the presence of measurement errors.

The fundamental Structural equation modeling is bifurcated into two parts e.g. full measurement

model and the structural model. Hence, the process which I pursued was a two stage procedure in

which first a full CFA model (measurement model) was run and substantiated. The confirmation

of full CFA model led towards analyzing and running of the structural paths so as to verify the

hypothesis (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand & Magley, 1997; Little, Cunningham, Shahar

& Widaman, 2002; Kline, 2005).

92

The full CFA model also called measurement model is defined as a model which includes the

relationships among the unobserved or latent variables alongside the manifest or observed

variables. Therefore, a full CFA model determines the relationship between scale items of a

measured instrument called the manifest or observed variables along with the proposed

constructs which they are tapping called as latent or unobserved variables. Following the

substantiation of the measurement model, then the structural models are run to confirm

hypothesis. The structural models also called as the path models determines the association

between the latent variables. The structural path models highlights the manner in which

particular unobserved variables alongside their manifest or observed variables either directly or

indirectly affects or brings about alterations in the values of other unobserved variables in the

model. In other words, the structural model sequentially illustrates the paths as characterized by

the independent also called exogenous variables causing change in the intervening and dependant

variables labeled as endogenous variables (Byrne, 2013).

4.2.1 Full Measurement Model (Full CFA model)

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to check and authenticate the full

measurement model consisting of the 9 constructs (i-e Workplace Bullying, Emotional

dissonance, perceived co-worker support, perceived organization support, perceived supervisory

support, Job stress, Psychological strain, Burnout and turnover intensions) under investigation.

The Full CFA model consisting of all the present thesis variables was run to ascertain the

discriminant and convergent validity of the measures. The full measurement model fit with the

93

data was assessed through the goodness of fit, chi-square and the model fit statistics. The model

goodness of fit i.e. chi-square should be significant (p<0.05) which signals adequate fit.

The Fit indexes were checked through the Confirmatory fit index (CFI), Normed Fit index (NFI)

and Goodness of fit index (GFI) values greater than 0.9 signifies adequate model fit. Then the

root mean square error of appropriation (RMSEA) and root mean square residual value (SRMR)

is also used to authenticate appropriate model fit and a value less than 0.08 is considered

acceptable and indicates appropriate model fit (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Bollen, 1989; Joreskog

& Sorbom, 1999). The model fit statistics showed that the measurement model (Full CFA model)

adequate fits the data χ² = 3262.89, df=1701, p<0.001; CFI= 0.90 , GFI= 0.78, NFI= 0.80,

RMSEA= 0.05 demonstrating suitable model fit and hence supporting the full factor analytical

model.

In order to test convergent validity of the measures, the average variance extracted (AVE) and

the composite reliabilities were calculated. All the 9 constructs had AVE above the minimum 0.5

threshold. The composite reliability (CR) scores for all the 9 constructs were above the

acceptable values of 0.6 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The AVE values of perceptions of

organization support = 0.58, perceptions of co-worker support= 0.60, perceptions of supervisory

support= 0.62, Workplace Bullying= 0.50, Emotional Dissonance= 0.49, Psychological Strain=

0.59, Stress= 0.50, Burnout=0.63, Turnover Intensions= 0.75 indicate that they fall under the

acceptable limit. Moreover, the results of the composite reliability scores Perceived

Organizational Support= 0.89, Perceived Supervisor Support= 0.89, Perceived Co-worker

support= 0.81, Workplace Bullying= 0.87, Emotional Dissonance= 0.83, Psychological Strain=

94

0.95, Stress= 0.92, Burnout=0.92, Turnover Intensions= 0.85 demonstrated excellent fit

indicating convergent validity for all these 9 constructs. The findings of the full CFA model also

demonstrated factor loadings greater than 0.5 and more (refer to Fig 2 for factor loadings of each

item of the construct) (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).

Figure 2 depicts the full measurement model comprising the factor loadings of each item drawn

to portray the full CFA and below this figure the full measurement model as given in the AMOS

output file. (This model was drawn since the values were not clear in the AMOS path diagram

builder).

95

Workplace

Bullying

Emotional

Dissonance

Perceived

Organization

Support

Perceived

Co-worker

Support

Perceived

Supervisor

Support

Psychological

Strain

Job Stress

Turnover

Intensions

Burnout

WB1T1

WB2T1

WB3T1

WB4T1

WB5T1

WB6T1

WB7T1

WB8T1

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

POS2T2 POS1T2 POS8T2 POS5T2 POS4T2 POS3T2

ED5T2

ED4T2

ED3T2

ED2T2

ED1T2

e16

e15

e17

e18

e19

e9

e10

e11

e12

e13

e14

PStrain1T3

PStrain2T3

PStrain3T3

PStrain4T3

PStrain5T3

PStrain6T3

PStrain7T3

PStrain8T3

PStrain9T3

PStrain10T3

PStrain11T3

PCS2T2

PCS3T2

PCS1T2

JS1T3

JS13T3

JS12T3

JS11T3

JS2T3

JS3T3

JS4T3

JS5T3

JS6T3

JS7T3

JS8T3

JS9T3

JS10T3

PStrain12T3

TO1T3

TO2T3

e58

e59

e57

e61

e60

BO2T3

BO1T3

BO3T3

BO5T3

BO4T3

e20

e21

e22

e23

e24

e25

e26

e27

e28

e29

e30

e31

BO6T3

BO7T3

PSS4T3 PSS7T3

PSS1T3 PSS2T3 PSS3T3

e33

e32

e36

e35

e34

e42

e41

e40

e39

e38

e37

e43

e44

e45

e46

e47

e48

e49

e50

e51

e52

e53

e54

e55

e56

.41

.51

.60

.67

.81

.86

.74

.76

.84

.86 .84 .77

.54

.68

.70

.74

.73

.68

.66

.91 .79 .60

.70 .98

.85

.86 .78

.79 .65

.68

.80

.81

.85

.85

.82

.71

.58

.77

.75

.81

.80

.84

.76 .79

.84

.76 .75

.74

.61

.72

.71

.81

.76

.70

.75

.73

.74

.46

.55

.67

.68

96

Figure 2. Full Measurement Model (AMOS Path Diagram)

97

4.2.2 Direct Structural Model

4.2.2.1 Path model of Workplace Bullying relationship to Job Stress, Burnout, Psychological

Strain and Turnover Intensions

The analysis and successive confirmation of the full CFA model (measurement model) then

resulted in the second stage whereby path models for checking direct effects, simple, parallel,

sequential mediation were run for verifying hypothesis. The structural model for testing the main

effects was run for Hypothesis 1 which postulated that workplace bullying is positively

associated with Job Stress, Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions.

The structural model diagram for H1 is demonstrated in Fig 3. The model fit statistics for

structural model testing the direct effects of workplace bullying on outcomes i.e. Chi-square, χ²

= 1705.54; Df=789; Chi-square/DF ratio= 2.16; p<0.001; CFI= 0.91; and GFI= 0.81; and NFI=

0.84; and RMSEA= 0.06 demonstrated that the direct effects model adequately fits the data.

Moreover, the results show that the structural paths from Workplace bullying to Job Stress

(β=0.47, p<0.001), Turnover Intensions (β=0.41, p<0.001), Psychological Strain (β=0.69,

p<0.001) and Burnout (β=0.66, p<0.001) were significant and positive. Workplace bullying

explained 22% variation in job stress, 17% in turnover intensions, 48% in psychological strain

and 43% in Burnout. Thus H1 was fully supported.

98

Figure 3. Path model of Workplace Bullying related to Stress, Burnout, Turnover

Intensions and Psychological Strain

99

4.2.2.2 Path model of Perceived Organization Support relationship to Job Stress, Burnout,

Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions

Hypothesis 2a predicted that Perceived Organization support is negatively associated with job

Stress, Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions.

The structural model diagram for H2a is depicted in Figure 4. The model fit statistics for

structural model testing the direct effects of Perceived Organization Support on Job strains i.e.

Chi-square, χ² =1619.45 ; df= 712; chi-square/Df ratio= 2.27; p< .001; CFI= 0.90; and GFI=

0.81; and NFI= 0.84; and RMSEA= 0.06 shows that the direct effects model adequately fits the

data.

The parameter estimate values comprising of individual paths standardized regression weights

(Beta values) and their significance (p values) further corroborate the adequacy of this

hypothesized structural model. The results show that the structural paths from Perceived

Organization Support to Job Stress (β=-0.19, p<0.05), Turnover Intensions (β=-0.28, p<0.001),

Psychological Strain (β=-0.35, p<0.001) and Burnout (β=-0.43, p<0.001) was negative and

significant. Perceived Organization Support explained 3.5% variation in job stress, 7.6% in

turnover intensions, 12% in psychological strain and 18.4% in Burnout. Thus H2a was fully

confirmed.

100

Figure 4. Path model showing Perceived Organization Support's direct relationship to

Stress, Burnout, Turnover Intensions and Psychological Strain

101

4.2.2.3 Path model of Perceived Co-worker Support relationship to Job Stress, Burnout,

Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions

Hypothesis 2b predicted that perceived coworker support is negatively associated to Job Stress,

Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions.

The structural model fit diagram for H2b is shown in Figure 5. The model fit statistics for

structural model testing the direct paths of perceptions of co-worker support on Job strains i.e.

Chi-square, χ² =130.68 ; df=593 ; chi-square/Df ratio=2.20 ; p< .001; CFI= 0.92; and GFI=

0.83; NFI= 0.86; & RMSEA= 0.06 shows that the direct effects model adequately fits the data.

The values of parameter estimates comprising of standardized regression co-efficients, and

consequent significance (p values) partially support the suitability of this hypothesized structural

model. The results show that the structural paths from Perceived Co-worker Support to Job

Stress (β=0.65, p<0.001), Turnover Intensions (β=0.51, p<0.001), Psychological Strain (β=0.85,

p<0.001) and Burnout (β=-0.43, p<0.001) was although significant but was positive. Perceived

Co-worker Support explained 43% variation in job stress, 26% in turnover intensions, 72% in

psychological strain and 88% in Burnout. Thus H2b was partially supported.

102

Figure 5. Path model showing Perceived co-worker Support's direct relationship to Stress,

Burnout, Turnover Intensions and Psychological Strain

103

4.2.2.4 Path model of Perceived Supervisor Support relationship to Job Stress, Burnout,

Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions

Hypothesis 2c predicted that Perceived Supervisor support is negatively associated with Job

Stress, Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions.

The structural model fit diagram for H2c is shown in Figure 6. The model fit statistics for

structural model testing the direct effects of Perceived Supervisor Support on Job strains i.e Chi-

square, χ² = 1477.27; df=668; chi-square/Df ratio= 2.21; p< .001; CFI= 0.91; and GFI=0.82;

and NFI= 0.85; and RMSEA=0.06 depicts that the direct effects model adequately fits the data.

The values of the parameter estimates comprising of standardized regression weights and

significance values also substantiate the adequacy of this structural model. The results show that

the structural paths from Perceived supervisor Support to Job Stress (β=-0.12, p<0.001),

Turnover Intensions (β=-0.42, p<0.001), Psychological Strain (β=-0.38, p<0.001) and Burnout

(β=-0.42, p<0.001) was significant. Perceived Supervisor Support explained 1.5% variation in

job stress, 5.4% in turnover intensions, 14% in psychological strain and 17% in Burnout. Thus

H2c was supported.

104

Figure 6. Path model showing Perceived Supervisor Support's direct relationship to Stress,

Burnout, Turnover Intensions and Psychological Strain

105

4.2.2.5 Path model of Emotional Dissonance influencing Job Stress, Burnout, Psychological

Strain and Turnover Intensions

Hypothesis 3 predicted that emotional dissonance is positively associated with Job Stress,

Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions.

The structural model fit diagram for H3 is shown in Figure 7. The model fit statistics for

structural model testing the direct effects of Emotional Dissonance on Job strains i.e. Chi-square,

χ² = 1532.96; df=660; chi-square/Df ratio= 2.32; p< .001; CFI= 0.91; and GFI= 0.81; NFI=

0.85; and RMSEA= 0.06 demonstrates that the direct effects model adequately fits the data.

The values of the parameter estimates comprising of standardized regression weights and

significance values also substantiate the adequacy of this structural model. The results show that

the structural paths from Emotional Dissonance to Job Stress (β=0.67, p<0.001), Turnover

Intensions (β=0.51, p<0.001), Psychological Strain (β=0.61, p<0.001) and Burnout (β=0.54,

p<0.001) was significant. Emotional Dissonance explained 45% variation in job stress, 26% in

turnover intensions, 38% in psychological strain and 29% in Burnout. Thus H3 was fully

supported.

106

Figure 7. Path model showing Emotional Dissonance's direct relationship to Stress,

Burnout, Turnover Intensions and Psychological Strain

107

4.2.2.6 Path model of Workplace Bullying influencing Perceived Organization Support,

Perceived Co-worker Support and Perceived Supervisor Support

Hypothesis 4 (a, b and c) predicted that Workplace Bullying is related negatively to perceived

organization support, perceived Co-worker Support and perceived Supervisor Support

respectively.

The structural model fit diagram for H4a, b and c is shown in Figure 8. The model fit statistics

for structural model testing the direct effects of Workplace Bullying on Perceived Support types

i.e. Chi-square, χ² = 622.03; df=193; chi-square/Df ratio= 3.22; p< .001; CFI= 0.90; and GFI=

0.86; NFI= 0.86; & RMSEA= 0.08 shows that the direct effects model adequately fits the data.

The values of the parameter estimates comprising of standardized regression weights and

significance values also substantiate the adequacy of this structural model. The results show that

the structural paths from Workplace Bullying to Perceived Organization Support (β=-0.15,

p<0.05) & Perceived Co-worker support (β=-0.13, p<0.05) was negative and significant. The

structural path from Workplace Bullying to Perceived Supervisor Support was positive and

insignificant (β=0.05, p= n.s.). Workplace Bullying explained 2.2% variation in Perceived

Organization Support and 1.8% in Perceived Co-worker Support. However, workplace bullying

did not show any variation in Perceived Supervisor Support. Thus H4 a and b was fully

supported, whereas H4c was rejected.

108

Figure 8. Path model of Workplace Bullying directly related to Perceived Organization

Support, Perceived Co-worker Support and Perceived Supervisor Support

109

4.2.2.7 Path model of Workplace Bullying to Emotional Dissonance

Hypothesis 5 predicted that Workplace Bullying is significantly and positively related to

emotional dissonance.

The structural model fit diagram for H5 is shown in Figure 9. The model fit statistics for

structural model testing the direct effects of Workplace Bullying on Emotional Dissonance i.e.

Chi-square, χ² = 108.76; df=54; chi-square/Df ratio= 2.14; p< .001; CFI= 0.97; and GFI= 0.95;

NFI= 0.95; & RMSEA=0.05 shows that the direct effects model adequately fits the data.

The values of the parameter estimates comprising of standardized regression weights and

significance values also substantiate the adequacy of this structural model. The results show that

the structural paths from Workplace Bullying to Emotional Dissonance (β=0.33, p<0.001) was

positive and significant. Workplace Bullying explained 10.8% variation in Emotional

Dissonance. Thus H5 was fully supported.

110

Figure 9. Path model of Workplace Bullying to Emotional Dissonance

111

4.2.3 Structural Models for Simple Mediation

4.2.3.1 Path model of Perceived Organization Support as Mediator between Workplace Bullying

and Job Strains (Stress, Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions)

Hypothesis 6a predicted that perceived organization support acts as a mediator in the relationship

between Workplace Bullying and Job strains (Stress, Burnout, Psychological Strain and

Turnover Intensions). The structural model fit diagram for H6a is shown in Figure 10. The

model fit statistics for structural model testing the mediating effects of Perceived Organization

Support between Workplace Bullying and Job strains i.e. Chi-square, χ² = 1970.16; df=1039;

chi-square/Df ratio= 1.90; p< .001; CFI= 0.92; and GFI= 0.81; NFI= 0.84; & RMSEA= 0.05

shows that the mediating path model adequately fits the data.

The values of the parameter estimates comprising of standardized regression weights and

significance values also substantiate the adequacy of this structural model. The results show that

the structural paths from Workplace Bullying to Perceived Organization Support (β=-0.34,

p<0.001) was negative and significant. Furthermore, the structural paths from Perceived

Organization Support to Job Stress was insignificant (β=-0.19, p= n.s), whereas for Turnover

Intensions (β=-0.31, p<0.001), Psychological Strain (β=-0.36, p<0.001) and Burnout (β=-0.43,

p<0.001) was significant and negatively associated. Workplace Bullying explained 12%

variation in Perceived Organization Support. Furthermore, Perceived Organization Support

explained 10% variation in turnover intensions, 13% in psychological strain and 19% in

Burnout. Thus the mediation hypothesis for Perceived Organization Support (H6a) between

Workplace Bullying and Job Strains was supported for all outcomes except Job Stress.

112

Figure 10. Path model of Perceived Organization Support as Mediator between Workplace

Bullying and Job Strains (Stress, Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions)

113

4.2.3.2 Path model of Perceived Co-worker Support as Mediator between Workplace Bullying

and Job Strains (Stress, Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions)

Hypothesis 6b predicted that Perceived Co-worker Support mediates the relationship between

Workplace Bullying and Job strains (Stress, Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover

Intensions).

The structural model fit diagram for H6b is shown in Figure 11. The model fit statistics for

structural model testing the mediating effects of Perceived Co-worker Support between

Workplace Bullying and Job strains i.e. Chi-square, χ² = 1857.03; df=911; chi-square/Df ratio=

2.04; p< .001; CFI= 0.91; and GFI= 0.80; NFI= 0.84; & RMSEA= 0.06 depicts that the

mediating path model adequately fits the data.

The values of the parameter estimates comprising of standardized regression weights and

significance values also substantiate the adequacy of this structural model. The results show that

the structural paths from Workplace Bullying to Perceived Co-worker Support (β=0.60, p<0.001)

was significant. Furthermore, the structural paths from Perceived Co-worker Support to Job

Stress (β=0.62, p=n.s.) and Turnover Intensions (β=0.48, p=n.s.) was insignificant whereas for

Psychological Strain (β=0.89, p<0.001) and Burnout (β=-0.89, p<0.001) was significant.

Workplace Bullying explained 36% variation in Perceived Co-worker Support. Furthermore,

Perceived Co-worker Support explained 23% variation in turnover intensions, 78% in

psychological strain and 80% in Burnout. Thus the mediation hypothesis of Perceived Co-

worker Support (H6b) between Workplace Bullying and Job Strains was supported for all

outcomes except Job Stress and turnover intensions.

114

Figure 11. Path model of Perceived Co-worker Support as Mediator between Workplace

Bullying and Job Strains (Stress, Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions

115

4.2.3.3 Path model of Perceived Supervisor Support as Mediator between Workplace Bullying

and Job Strains (Stress, Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions)

Hypothesis 6c predicted that perceived supervisory support mediates the relationship between

Workplace Bullying and Job strains (Stress, Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover

Intensions). The structural model fit diagram for H6c is shown in Figure 12. The model fit

statistics for structural model testing the mediating effects of Perceived supervisor Support

between Workplace Bullying and Job strains i.e. Chi-square, χ² = 1998.80; df=993; chi-

square/Df ratio= 2.01; p< .001; CFI= 0.91; and GFI= 0.80; NFI= 0.84; and RMSEA= 0.06

depicts that the mediating path model adequately fits the data.

The values of the parameter estimates comprising of standardized regression weights and

significance values also verify the suitability of this hypothesized structural model. The results

show that the structural paths from Workplace Bullying to Perceived Supervisor Support

(β=0.44, p<0.001) was significant. Furthermore, the structural paths from Perceived Supervisor

Support to Job Stress (β=0.12, p= n.s) and Turnover Intensions (β=0.24, p=n.s.), Psychological

Strain (β=0.41, p<0.001) and Burnout (β=-0.43, p<0.001) was significant. Workplace Bullying

explained 19% variation in Perceived Supervisor Support. Furthermore, Perceived Supervisor

Support explained 6% variation in turnover intensions, 17% in psychological strain and 18% in

Burnout. Thus the mediation hypothesis of Perceived Supervisor Support (H6c) between

Workplace Bullying and Job Strains was supported for all outcomes except Job Stress and

turnover intensions.

116

Figure 12. Path model of Perceived Supervisor Support as Mediator between Workplace

Bullying and Job Strains (Stress, Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions)

117

4.2.3.4 Path model of Emotional Dissonance as Mediator between Workplace Bullying and Job

Strains (Stress, Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions)

Hypothesis 7 hypothesized that emotional dissonance as a mediator in the relationship between

Workplace Bullying and Job strains (Stress, Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover

Intensions).

The structural model fit diagram for H7 is shown in Figure 13. The model fit statistics for

structural model testing the mediating effects of Emotional Dissonance between Workplace

Bullying and Job strains i.e. Chi-square, χ² = 2052.26; df=987; chi-square/Df ratio= 2.07; p<

.001; CFI= 0.90; and GFI= 0.80; and NFI= 0.83; and RMSEA= 0.06 demonstrates that the

mediating path model adequately fits the data.

The values of the parameter estimates comprising of standardized regression weights and

significance values also confirm the acceptability of this structural model. The results show that

the structural paths from Workplace Bullying to Emotional Dissonance (β=0.54, p<0.001) was

significant. Furthermore, the structural paths from Emotional Dissonance to Job Stress (β=0.68,

p<0.001), Turnover Intensions (β=0.50, p<0.001), Psychological Strain (β=0.74, p<0.001) and

Burnout (β=-0.65, p<0.001) was significant. Workplace Bullying explained 30% variation in

Emotional Dissonance. Furthermore, Emotional Dissonance explained 46% variation in Job

Stress, 25% in Turnover Intensions, 54% psychological strain and 42% in Burnout. Thus the

mediation hypothesis of Emotional Dissonance (H7) between Workplace Bullying and Job

Strains was fully supported for all outcomes.

118

Figure 13. Path model of Emotional Dissonance as Mediator between Workplace Bullying

and Job Strains (Stress, Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions)

119

4.2.4 Path model of Perceived Support Types and Emotional Dissonance as sequential

Mediators between Workplace Bullying and Job Strains (Stress, Burnout, Psychological

Strain and Turnover Intensions)

Hypothesis 8 predicted that Perceived Support types (Perceived Organization, Perceived

supervisor and Perceived coworker support) and Emotional Dissonance act as sequentially

mediators in the relationship between Bullying and Job strains (Stress, Burnout, Psychological

Strain and Turnover Intensions).

The structural model fit diagram for H8 is shown in Figure 14. The model fit statistics for

structural model testing the mediating effects of Emotional Dissonance between Workplace

Bullying and Job strains i.e. Chi-square, χ² = 3593.06; df=1715; chi-square/Df ratio= 2.10;

p<0.001; CFI=0.87; and GFI= 0.74; NFI= 0.78; and RMSEA= 0.06 shows that the sequential

mediation path model adequately fits the data.

The values of the parameter estimates comprising of standardized regression weights and

significance values also verify the suitability of this structural model. The results show that the

structural paths from Workplace Bullying to Perceived Supervisor Support (β=-0.40, p<0.001),

Perceived Co-worker Support (β=-0.36, p<0.001) and Perceived Organization Support (β=-0.33,

p<0.001) was negative and significant. Furthermore, the structural paths from Perceived

Organization Support to Emotional Dissonance (β=-0.23, p<0.001) was significant and negative.

The structural paths of Perceived Supervisor Support to Emotional Dissonance (β=-0.10, p=n.s.),

and Perceived Co-worker Support to Emotional Dissonance (β=0.10, p=n.s.) were insignificant.

The structural paths from Emotional Dissonance to Job Stress (β=0.40, p<0.001), Turnover

Intensions (β=0.48, p<0.001), Psychological Strain (β=0.60, p<0.001) and Burnout (β=0.58,

120

p<0.001) was significant. Workplace Bullying explained 13% variation in Perceived Co-worker

Support, 11% in Perceived Organization Support and 16% in Perceived Supervisor Support.

Furthermore, Emotional Dissonance explained 40% variation in Job Stress, 23% in Turnover

Intensions, 36% psychological strain and 33% in Burnout. Since the structural paths of Perceived

Organization support was significant to Emotional dissonance whereas the other two support

types i.e. Perceived Co-worker and Perceived Supervisor support had insignificant paths with

emotional dissonance, therefore the sequential mediation hypothesis of Perceived organization

support and Emotional Dissonance (H8) between Workplace Bullying and Job Strains was fully

supported for all outcomes. Whereas the sequential mediation of PSS and PCS was not supported

lending partial support for hypothesis 8.

121

Figure 14. Path model of Perceived Support Types and Emotional Dissonance as sequential

Mediators between Workplace Bullying and Job Strains (Stress, Burnout, Psychological

Strain and Turnover Intensions)

122

Figure 15. Full Structural Model of Perceived Support Types (POS, PSS and PCS) and

Emotional Dissonance as Parallel and sequential Mediators between Workplace Bullying

and Job Strains (Stress, Burnout, Psychological Strain and Turnover Intensions)

N=334; Full structural model showing direct effects, simple, parallel and sequential mediating

effects. The actual diagram as displayed in AMOS path diagram builder is depicted below.

Standardized regression weight values on paths and asterisks indicate significance values. Model

Fit: χ² = 3179.52; df=1692; χ²/Df ratio= 1.88; p< .001; CFI= 0.90; and GFI= 0.78; NFI= 0.80;

& RMSEA= 0.05.

(a) Parallel mediation paths running from bullying to emotional dissonance to outcomes on one

hand and bullying to support types to outcomes (Stress, BO, Strain and TOI) on the other.

(b) Sequential mediation paths are reflected from workplace bullying to the 3 support types

(POS, PSS and PCS) to Emotional dissonance to outcomes (Stress, BO, Strain and TOI).

Workplace

Bullying

Emotional

Dissonance

Perceived

Organization

Support

Perceived

Co-worker

Support

Perceived

Supervisor

Support

Job Stress

Psychological

Strain

Job Burnout

Turnover

Intensions

.42***

-.32***

-.40***

-.37***

.48***

.29***

.31*** .34**

*

-.07

-.06

-.21*** -.24***

.10

-.11***

-.15***

-..11 -.14***

-.20*

-.01

-.15***

-.17*

.08

.24

123

Figure 15: Path model of Perceived Support Types (POS, PSS and PCS) and Emotional Dissonance as

Parallel and sequential Mediators between Workplace Bullying and Job Strains (Stress, BO, Strain and TOI)

(AMOS Output)

124

4.3 Mediation and Moderation analysis using Bootstrapping

In the current study, I also conducted regression analysis through the process technique

developed by Preacher & Hayes (2004; 2008). The Process approach is an updated and advanced

data analysis technique which utilizes bootstrapping for conducting and checking moderation

and mediation hypothesis. The results of the structural equation modeling provided support for

majority of the direct, simple mediation, parallel mediation and sequential mediation hypothesis.

Therefore after implementing SEM, I utilized another robust technique of Process to verify my

hypotheses. I first tested simple mediation hypotheses for my 4 mediators i.e Emotional

Dissonance, Perceived Organization Support, Perceived Co-worker Support and Perceived

Supervisor Support. Then tested for parallel and sequential mediation hypothesis. Lastly

conducted moderation analysis using bootstrapping.

4.3.1 Tests of Mediation (Simple, Parallel and Sequential)

According to Baron and Kenny (1986), mediational analysis was conducted on the basis of

fulfilling three pre-requisite conditions. However, the step-wise technique of performing

mediation was marred with numerous weaknesses (Mackinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West &

Sheets, 2002).

For example, Baron & Kenny (1986) suggest that three fundamental conditions should be met

before performing mediational analysis. First of all, the main effects of Independent variable (X)

on the dependant variable (Y) should be significant. Next, the relationship between Independent

variable (X) and Mediator (M) should be significant and finally, the mediator variable should be

significantly associated to the outcome or dependant variable. If any of these three pre-requisites

are not fulfilled mediational analysis is not possible. Hence upon sufficiently meeting these

125

requirements, the researcher is able to conduct mediational analysis whereby it is assumed that in

order to confirm full mediation, when the mediator variable is added in the data analysis process

the relationship of independent variable on dependant variable becomes insignificant. This would

imply that the influence of independent variable is caused on the outcome or dependent variable

through the several causal mechanisms of intervening or mediating variable(s) thereby lessening

the main effects of the IV(predictor) on the DV (outcome) variables (Shrout & Bolger, 2002).

Nonetheless, the statistical and research methods experts have been skeptical and raised many

concerns regarding the importance given by Baron and Kenny (1986) to ascertain the

relationship between the IV and DV (Mackinnon, Krull & Lockwood, 2000; Shrout & Bolger,

2002). Responding to these objections, Kenny, Kashy and Bolger (1998) provided latest

suggestions and recognized that the first condition is not essential for performing mediational

analysis. Thus, it was recommended that mediational analysis can be substantiated clearly by

looking into the significance values of the indirect effects which are represented through the

Sobel (1982) test.

In line with this Preacher and Hayes (2004) contended that the above approach is more reliable

as compared to Baron and Kenny's (1986) sequence wise method of mediation, since it more

succinctly illustrates mediation. In addition, it is also argued that the Sobel (1982) test is also not

free of weaknesses as it assumes that there is normal distribution between the indirect effects that

range from the independent variable to the dependent variables. This supposition is flawed as the

as the relationship between X and Y is not normally distributed even when the factors producing

the XY terms are normally dispersed (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). To address this concern

experts have recommended using the bootstrapping technique. By employing confidence

126

intervals which are bootstrapped, it is possible to avoid strength issues generated as a result of

uneven sample distributions and other irregularities of indirect effects (MacKinnon, Lockwood

& Williams, 2004).

Therefore in the present thesis, I utilized the mediational analysis for testing direct, simple

mediation, parallel and sequential mediation as recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2004).

Preacher & Hayes (2004) formulated a macro tool which can be installed in the SPSS software

that guides the researcher in the analysis and calculation of determining indirect effects, by

utilizing Sobel (1982) test. This technique also utilizes bootstrapping method to determine

confidence intervals (CI) and also incorporates the stepwise approach devised by Baron and

Kenny (1986). Preacher and Hayes also provided templates of 74 models which can be used by

the researcher to specify the kind of analysis required and then input study variables in

accordance with the model specified. For testing simple mediation I ran model 4 for the 4

mediators (Emotional Dissonance, Perceived Organization Support, perceived supervisory

support and perceived coworker support) for each of the four outcomes. I then used model 6 for

testing both parallel and sequential mediation hypothesis simultaneously. Lastly I utilized model

1 for testing my moderation hypothesis.

4.3.2 Regression Results for Simple Mediation using Bootstrapping

4.3.2.1 Emotional Dissonance as mediator between Workplace Bullying and Outcomes (Job

Stress, Burnout, Turnover Intensions and Psychological Strain)

Table 6 presents the results of Emotional Dissonance as a mediator between workplace bullying

and outcomes (Job Stress, Burnout, Turnover Intensions and Psychological Strain) and

127

consequently address H1, H3, H5 and H7. According to Table 6 (a, b, c and d) supporting

Hypothesis1 workplace bullying is significantly and positively associated with job stress (B=

0.21, t= 4.19, p < .001), job burnout (B= 0.39, t = 6.88, p < .001), Turnover Intensions (B= 0.17,

t= 2.51, p < .001) and psychological strain (B=0.49, t = 9.51, p < .001). Therefore H1 was fully

supported. In accordance with Table 6 (a, b, c and d) and in line with hypothesis 3 Emotional

dissonance was found to be significantly and positively associated with job stress (B=0.43, t =

8.20, p<0.001), job burnout (B= 0.31, t = 5.22, p < 0.001), Turnover Intensions (B= 0.39, t =

5.41, p < 0.001) and psychological strain (B = 0.28, t = 5.13, p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was

fully supported. Referring to Table 6 (a, b, c and d) and supporting Hypothesis 5 workplace

bullying was related positively with Emotional dissonance (B= 0.27, t = 5.41, p < 0.001). Thus,

Hypothesis 5 was fully confirmed.

Lastly we tested the mediation hypothesis (Hypothesis 7) for each outcome, which asserts that

Emotional Dissonance acts as a mediator in the relationship between workplace bullying and job

stress, which is supported (B= 0.33, t = 6.22, p < 0.001). The significance tests (two-tailed and

with a normal dispersion) confirmed that the indirect effects were significant (Sobel, z=4.49,

p<0.001). The results of the bootstrap further verified the Sobel test (refer to Table 6a), with

confidence interval (CI) of 95% and the non-zero indirect effects (.07, .18).

Emotional dissonance mediates the relationship between workplace bullying and job burnout

(see Table 6b) which is also supported (B = 0.47, t = 8.40, p < .001). The significance tests (two-

tailed and with a normal dispersion) confirmed that the indirect effects were significant (Sobel,

128

z=3.72, p<0.001). The results of the bootstrap further verified the Sobel test (refer to Table 6b),

with confidence interval (CI) of 95% and the non-zero indirect effects (.04, .14).

Emotional Dissonance mediates the relationship between workplace bullying and Turnover

Intensions (see Table 6c) which is confirmed(B= 0.28, t = 4.06, p < .001). The significance tests

(two-tailed and with a normal dispersion) confirmed that the indirect effects were significant

(Sobel, z=3.79, p<0.001). The results of the bootstrap further verified the Sobel test (refer to

Table 6c), with confidence interval (CI) of 95% and the non-zero indirect effects (.06, .17).

Emotional Dissonance mediates the relationship between workplace bullying and Psychological

Strain (see Table 6d) which is supported (B= 0.57, t= 11.03, p < .001). The significance tests

(two-tailed and with a normal dispersion) confirmed that the indirect effects were significant

(Sobel, z=3.69, p<0.001). The results of the bootstrap further verified the Sobel test (refer to

Table 6d), with confidence interval (CI) of 95% and the non-zero indirect effects (.04, .12). Thus

Hypothesis 7 received full support for all outcomes. So H1, H3, H5 and H7 were fully

confirmed.

Table 6. Emotional Dissonance as Mediator between Workplace Bullying and Outcomes

a. Job Stress

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on Stress

0.21 0.05 4.19 .000

129

2 Direct effects of WPB

on ED

0.27 0.05 5.41 .000

3 Direct effects of ED

on Stress

0.43 0.05 8.20 .000

4 Mediation of ED btw

WPB and Stress

0.33 0.05 6.22 .000

Significance using normal distribution and Indirect effects

Effect SE z p

Sobel 0.12 0.03 4.49 .000

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

ED 0.12 0.03 0.07 0.18

b. Burnout

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on Burnout

.39 .06 6.88 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on ED

.27 .05 5.41 .000

3 Direct effects of ED

on Burnout

.31 .06 5.22 .000

4 Mediation of ED btw

WPB and Burnout

.47

.06 8.40 .000

130

Indirect Effect and Significance using normal distribution

Effect SE Z p

Sobel .084 .02 3.72 .000

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

ED .08 .03 .04 .14

c. Turnover Intensions

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on TOI

.17 .07 2.51 .012

2 Direct effects of WPB

on ED

.27 .05 5.41 .000

3 Direct effects of ED

on TOI

.39 .07 5.41 .000

4 Mediation of ED btw

WPB and TOI

.28 .07 4.06 .000

Indirect Effect and Significance using normal distribution

Effect SE Z p

Sobel .11

.03 3.79 .000

131

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

ED .11 .03 .06 .17

d. Psychological Strain

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on Strain

.49 .05 9.51 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on ED

.27 .05 5.41 .000

3 Direct effects of ED

on Strain

.28 .05 5.13 .000

4 Mediation of ED btw

WPB and Strain

.57 .05 11.03 .000

Indirect Effect and Significance using normal distribution

Effect SE Z p

Sobel .08 .02 3.69 .000

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

ED .08 .02 .04 .12

132

4.3.2.2 Perceived Organization Support as mediator between Workplace Bullying and Outcomes

(Job Stress, Burnout, Turnover Intensions and Psychological Strain)

Table 7 presents the results of Perceived Organization Support as a mediator between workplace

bullying and outcomes (Job Stress, Burnout, Turnover Intensions and Psychological Strain) and

consequently address H1, H2a, H4a and H6a. The first three hypotheses are related to the direct

effects of bullying on outcomes, then Perceived Organization Support on outcomes, bullying on

Perceived organization support and the last one state the mediation of Perceived Organization

support between bullying and outcomes respectively.

According to Table 7 (a, b, c and d) and in consonance with Hypothesis1 workplace bullying is

associated positively to job stress (B= 0.30, t = 5.59, p < .001), job burnout (B = 0.39, t = 7.05, p

< .001), Turnover Intensions (B = 0.22, t = 3.13, p < .001) and psychological strain (B= 0.52, t =

9.90, p<0.001). Therefore H1 was fully supported. In accordance with Table 7 (a, b, c and d) and

in line with hypothesis 2a Perceived Organization Support was found to be significantly and

negatively associated with job burnout (B= -0.31, t = -5.61, p <0.001), Turnover Intensions (B= -

0.23, t = -3.30, p< 0.001) and psychological strain (B= -0.20, t = -3.83, p < 0.001) and job stress

(B= -0.09, t = -1.73, p< 0.1). Thus, Hypothesis 2a was fully supported for all outcomes except

job stress. Referring to Table 7 (a, b, c and d) and supporting Hypothesis 4a Workplace bullying

was negatively and significantly associated with perceptions of organization support (B= -0.26, t

= -4.83, p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 4a was fully confirmed.

133

Lastly we tested the mediation hypothesis (Hypothesis 6a) for each outcome, that asserts that

Perceived Organization Support mediates the relationship between workplace bullying and job

stress, which was not supported for job stress (B = 0.33, t = 6.22, p<0.1). The significance tests

(two-tailed and with a normal dispersion) showed that the indirect effects was insignificant

(Sobel, z=1.60, p=n.s). Bootstrap results did not confirm the Sobel test (see Table 7a), with a

bootstrapped 95% CI around the indirect effect which contained zero (-.00, .06).

Next, according to Table 7b, Perceived Organization Support fully acts as a mediator in the

relationship between bullying at the workplace and job burnout which is confirmed (B= 0.47, t =

8.40, p< 0.001). The significance tests (two-tailed and with a normal dispersion) confirmed that

the indirect effects were significant (Sobel, z=3.63, p<0.001). The results of the bootstrap further

verified the Sobel test (refer to Table 7b), with a bootstrap confidence interval (CI) of 95% and

the non-zero indirect effects (.04, .13).

Perceived Organization Support fully mediates the relationship between workplace bullying and

Turnover Intensions (see Table 7c) which is confirmed (B= 0.28, t = 4.06, p < 0.001). The

significance tests (two-tailed and with a normal dispersion) confirmed that the indirect effects

were significant (Sobel, z=2.69, p<0.01). The results of the bootstrap further verified the Sobel

test (refer to Table 7c), with confidence interval (CI) of 95% and the non-zero indirect effects

(.02, .12).

Perceived Organization Support fully mediates the relationship between workplace bullying and

Psychological Strain (see Table 8d) which is supported (B= 0.57, t= 11.03, p< 0.001). The

134

significance tests (two-tailed and with a normal dispersion) confirmed that the indirect effects

were significant (Sobel, z=2.96, p<0.01). The results of the bootstrap further verified the Sobel

test (refer to Table 7d), with confidence interval (CI) of 95% and the non-zero indirect effects

(.02, .09). Thus Hypothesis 6a received full support for all outcomes except Job Stress. So H1

and H4a were fully confirmed whereas H2a and H6a were supported for all outcomes except Job

Stress.

Table 7. Perceived Organizational Support as Mediator between Workplace Bullying and

Outcomes

a. Job Stress

Variable B SE T p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on Stress

.30 .05 5.59 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on POS

-.26 .05 -4.83 .000

3 Direct effects of POS

on Stress

-.09 .05 -1.73 .085

4 Mediation of POS btw

WPB and Stress

.33 .05 6.22 .000

Indirect Effect and Significance using normal distribution

Effect SE Z p

Sobel .0239 .0150 1.5957 .1106

135

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

POS .02

.02 -.00 .06

b. Burnout

Variable B SE T p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on Burnout

.39 .06 7.05 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on POS

-.26 .06 -4.83 .000

3 Direct effects of POS

on Burnout

-.31 .06 -5.61 .000

4 Mediation of POS btw

WPB and Burnout

.47 .06 8.40 .000

Indirect Effect and Significance using normal distribution

Effect SE Z p

Sobel .08 .02 3.63 .000

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

POS .08 .02 .04 .13

136

c. Turnover Intensions

Variable B SE T p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on TOI

.22 .07 3.13 .001

2 Direct effects of WPB

on POS

-.26 .05 -4.83 .000

3 Direct effects of POS

on TOI

-.23 .07 -3.30 .001

4 Mediation of POS btw

WPB and TOI

.28 .07 4.06 .000

Indirect Effect and Significance using normal distribution

Effect SE Z p

Sobel .06

.02 2.69 .007

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

POS .06 .03 .02 .12

d. Psychological Strain

Variable B SE T p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on Strain

.52 .05 9.90 .000

137

2 Direct effects of WPB

on POS

-.26 .05 -4.83 .000

3 Direct effects of POS

on Strain

-.20 .05 -3.83 .000

4 Mediation of POS btw

WPB and Strain

.57 .05 11.03 .000

Indirect Effect and Significance using normal distribution

Effect SE Z p

Sobel .05

.01 2.96 .003

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

POS .05 .02 .02 .09

4.3.2.3 Perceived Co-worker Support as mediator between Workplace Bullying and Outcomes

(Job Stress, Burnout, Turnover Intensions and Psychological Strain)

Table 8 presents the results of Perceived Co-worker Support as a mediator between workplace

bullying and outcomes (Job Stress, Burnout, Turnover Intensions and Psychological Strain) and

consequently address H1, H2b, H4b and H6b. The first hypothesis states the direct effects of

bullying on outcomes, then the direct effects of perceptions of coworker support on outcomes,

138

bullying on Perceived Co-worker Support and the last one states the mediation of Perceived Co-

worker support between bullying and outcomes respectively.

According to Table 8 (a, b, c and d) and in consonance with Hypothesis1 workplace bullying is

related positively to job stress (B= 0.32, t = 5.85, p < 0.001), job burnout (B= 0.42, t = 7.24, p <

.001), Turnover Intensions (B = 0.31, t = 4.34, p < .001) and psychological strain (B = 0.52, t =

9.65, p < .001). Therefore H1 was fully supported. In accordance with Table 8 (a, b, c and d) and

in line with hypothesis 2b Perceived Co-worker Support was found to be significantly and

negatively associated with job burnout (B = -0.14, t = -2.72, p < .001) and psychological strain

(B = -0.15, t = -3.22, p < .001). However, Perceived Co-worker support was insignificant for job

stress (B = -0.01, t = -.20, p=n.s) and Turnover Intensions (B = 0.10, t = 1.53, p=n.s). Thus,

Hypothesis 2b was supported for all outcomes except job stress and turnover intensions.

Referring to Table 8 (a, b, c and d) and supporting Hypothesis 4b Workplace bullying was

significantly negatively related to Perceived Co-worker Support (B = -0.35, t = -5.87, p < .001).

Thus, Hypothesis 4b was fully confirmed.

Lastly we tested the mediation hypothesis (Hypothesis 6b) for each outcome, which asserts that

perceptions of Co-worker Support acts as a mediator in the relationship between workplace

bullying and job stress, which was not supported for job stress (B = 0.33, t = 6.22, p<0.1). The

significance tests (two-tailed and with a normal dispersion) depicted that the indirect effects were

insignificant (Sobel, z=0.19, p=n.s.). The results of the bootstrap further verified the Sobel test

(refer to Table 8a), with confidence interval (CI) of 95% and the indirect effects containing zero

(-.03, .04).

139

Next, according to Table 8b, Perceived Co-worker Support fully mediates the relationship

between workplace bullying and job burnout which is supported (B = 0.47, t = 8.40, p < .001).

The significance tests (two-tailed and with a normal dispersion) confirmed that the indirect

effects were significant (Sobel, z=2.44, p<0.05). The results of the bootstrap further verified the

Sobel test (refer to Table 8b), with confidence interval (CI) of 95% and the non-zero indirect

effects (.02, .09).

Perceived Co-worker Support did not mediate the relationship between workplace bullying and

Turnover Intensions (see Table 8c) (B = 0.28, t = 4.06, p=n.s). The significance tests (two-tailed

and with a normal dispersion) showed that the indirect effects was insignificant (Sobel, z=-1.46,

p=n.s.). Bootstrap results did not confirm the Sobel test (see Table 8c), with a bootstrapped 95%

CI around the indirect effect which contained zero (-.08, .01).

Perceived Co-worker Support fully mediates the relationship between workplace bullying and

Psychological Strain (see Table 8d) which is supported (B= 0.57, t= 11.03, p < 0.001). The

significance tests (two-tailed and with a normal dispersion) confirmed that the indirect effects

were significant (Sobel, z=2.80, p<0.01). The results of the bootstrap further verified the Sobel

test (refer to Table 8d), with confidence interval (CI) of 95% and the non-zero indirect effects

(.02, .10). Thus Hypothesis 6b received full support for all outcomes except Job Stress and

Turnover Intensions. So H1 and H4b were fully confirmed whereas H2b and H6b were

supported for all outcomes except Job Stress and turnover Intensions.

140

Table 8. Perceived Co-worker Support as Mediator between Workplace Bullying and

Outcomes

a. Job Stress

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on Stress

.32 .06 5.85 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on PCS

-.35 .06 -5.87 .000

3 Direct effects of PCS

on Stress

-.01 .05 -.20 .844

4 Mediation of PCS btw

WPB and Stress

.33 .05 6.22 .000

Indirect Effect and Significance using normal distribution

Effect SE Z p

Sobel .00 .02 .19 .846

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

PCS .00 .02 -.03 .04

b. Burnout

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on Burnout

.42 .06 7.24 .000

141

2 Direct effects of WPB

on PCS

-.35 .06 -5.87 .000

3 Direct effects of PCS

on Burnout

-.14 .05 -2.72 .006

4 Mediation of PCS btw

WPB and Burnout

.47 .06 8.40 .000

Indirect Effect and Significance using normal distribution

Effect SE Z p

Sobel .05 .02 2.44 .014

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

PCS .05 .02 .02 .09

c. Turnover Intensions

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on TOI

.31 .07 4.34 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on PCS

-.35 .06 -5.87 .000

3 Direct effects of PCS

on TOI

.10 .06 1.53 .127

4 Mediation of PCS btw

WPB and TOI

.28 .07 4.06 .000

142

Indirect Effect and Significance using normal distribution

Effect SE Z p

Sobel -.03 .02 -1.46 .14

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

PCS -.03 .02 -.08 .01

d. Psychological Strain

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on Strain

.52 .05 9.65 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on PCS

-.35 .06 -5.87 .000

3 Direct effects of PCS

on Strain

-.15 .05 -3.22 .001

4 Mediation of PCS btw

WPB and Strain

.57 .05 11.03 .000

Indirect Effect and Significance using normal distribution

Effect SE Z p

Sobel .05 .02 2.80 .005

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

143

Effect

PCS .05 .02 .02 .10

4.3.2.4 Perceived Supervisor Support as mediator between Workplace Bullying and Outcomes

(Job Stress, Burnout, Turnover Intensions and Psychological Strain)

Table 9 presents the results of Perceived Supervisor Support as a mediator between workplace

bullying and outcomes (Job Stress, Burnout, Turnover Intensions and Psychological Strain) and

consequently address H1, H2c, H4c and H6c. The first hypothesis states the direct effects of

bullying on outcomes, then the direct effects of Perceived Supervisor Support on outcomes,

bullying on Perceived Supervisor Support and the last one states the mediation of Perceived

Supervisor support between bullying and outcomes respectively.

According to Table 9 (a, b, c and d) and in consonance with Hypothesis1 workplace bullying is

associated positively with job stress (B= 0.33, t = 5.83, p < .001), job burnout (B= 0.38, t = 6.43,

p<0.001), Turnover Intensions (B= 0.25, t = 3.37, p < 0.001) and psychological strain (B= 0.50,

t = 9.12, p < 0.001). Therefore H1 was fully supported. In accordance with Table 9 (a, b, c and d)

and in line with hypothesis 2c Perceived Supervisor Support was established to be significantly

and negatively related to job burnout (B= -0.27, t= -4.63, p < 0.001) and psychological strain

(B= -0.21, t = -3.65, p < .001). However, Perceived Supervisor support was insignificant for job

stress (B =0.01, t =.15, p=n.s) and Turnover Intensions (B =-0.09, t =-1.12, p=n.s). Thus,

Hypothesis 2c was supported for all outcomes except job stress and turnover intensions.

Referring to Table 9 (a, b, c and d) and supporting Hypothesis 4c Workplace bullying was

144

negatively and significantly associated to perceived supervisor support (B = -0.35, t = -7.16, p <

.001). Thus, Hypothesis 4c was fully confirmed.

Lastly we tested the mediation hypothesis (Hypothesis 6c) for each outcome, that contends that

perceptions of supervisor support mediates the relationship between workplace bullying and job

stress, which was not supported for job stress (B= 0.33, t = 6.22, p<0.1). The significance tests

(two-tailed and with a normal dispersion) depicted that the indirect effects was insignificant

(Sobel, z=-0.15, p=n.s.). Bootstrap results did not confirm the Sobel test (see Table 9a), with a

bootstrapped 95% CI around the indirect effect which contained zero (-.05, .04).

Next, according to Table 9b, perceptions of supervisor support fully mediates the relationship

between workplace bullying and job burnout which is confirmed (B= 0.47, t = 8.40, p < .001).

The significance tests (two-tailed and with a normal dispersion) confirmed that the indirect

effects were significant (Sobel, z=3.69, p<0.001). The results of the bootstrap further verified the

Sobel test (refer to Table 9b), with bootstrapped confidence interval (CI) of 95% and the non-

zero indirect effects (.05, .15).

Perceived Supervisor Support did not mediate the relationship between workplace bullying and

Turnover Intensions (see Table 9c) (B = 0.28, t = 4.06, p=n.s). The significance tests (two-tailed

and with a normal dispersion) highlighted that the indirect effects were insignificant (Sobel,

z=1.09, p=n.s.). The results of the did not confirm the Sobel test (see Table 9c), with a

bootstrapped 95% CI around the indirect effect which contained zero (-.02, .09).

145

Perceptions of supervisory support fully mediates the relationship between workplace bullying

and Psychological Strain (see Table 9d) which is supported (B= 0.57, t = 11.03, p < .001). The

significance tests (two-tailed and with a normal dispersion) confirmed that the indirect effects

were significant (Sobel, z=3.22, p<0.001). The results of the bootstrap further verified the Sobel

test (refer to Table 9d), with confidence interval (CI) of 95% and the non-zero indirect effects

(.04, .12). Thus Hypothesis 6c received full support for all outcomes except Job Stress and

Turnover Intensions. So H1 and H4c were fully confirmed whereas H2c and H6c were supported

for all outcomes except Job Stress and turnover Intensions.

Table 9. Perceived Supervisor Support as Mediator between Workplace Bullying and

Outcomes

a. Job Stress

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on Stress

.33 .06 5.83 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on PSS

-.35 .05 -7.16 .000

3 Direct effects of PSS

on Stress

.01 .06 .15 .879

4 Mediation of PSS btw

WPB and Stress

.33 .05 6.22 .000

Indirect Effect and Significance using normal distribution

Effect SE Z p

Sobel -.00 .02 -.15 .88

146

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

PSS -.00 .02 -.05 .04

b. Burnout

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on Burnout

.38 .06 6.43 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on PSS

-.35 .05 -7.16 .000

3 Direct effects of PSS

on Burnout

-.27 .06 -4.36 .000

4 Mediation of PSS btw

WPB and Burnout

.47 .06 8.40 .000

Indirect Effect and Significance using normal distribution

Effect SE Z p

Sobel .09 .03 3.69 .000

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

PSS .09

.02 .05 .15

147

c. Turnover Intensions

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on TOI

.25 .07 3.37 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on PSS

-.35 .05 -7.16 .000

3 Direct effects of PSS

on TOI

-.09 .08 -1.12 .264

4 Mediation of PSS btw

WPB and TOI

.28 .07 4.06 .000

Indirect Effect and Significance using normal distribution

Effect SE Z p

Sobel .03 .03 1.09 .274

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

PSS .03 .03 -.02 .09

d. Psychological Strain

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on Strain

.50 .05 9.12 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on PSS

-.35 .05 -7.16 .000

148

3 Direct effects of PSS

on Strain

-.21 .06 -3.65 .000

4 Mediation of PSS btw

WPB and Strain

.57 .05 11.03 .000

Indirect Effect and Significance using normal distribution

Effect SE Z p

Sobel .07 .02 3.22 .001

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

PSS .07 .02 .04 .12

4.3.3 Regression Results for Parallel and Sequential Mediation using Bootstrapping

4.3.3.1 Emotional Dissonance and Perceived Supervisor Support as Parallel and Sequential

mediators between Workplace Bullying and Outcomes

Table 10 presents the results of Perceived Supervisor Support and Emotional Dissonance as

parallel and sequential mediators between workplace bullying and outcomes (Job Stress,

Burnout, Turnover Intensions and Psychological Strain) and consequently address H6c, H7, H8.

The first hypothesis (i.e. H6c) relates to the parallel path or in other words simple mediating

effect of Perceived Supervisor Support as mediator between bullying and outcomes, the second

hypothesis (i.e. H7) relates to the other parallel path or in other words simple mediating effect of

Emotional Dissonance as mediator between bullying and outcomes and the last one deals with

149

the sequential mediation of Perceived Supervisor support and Emotional Dissonance between

bullying and outcomes respectively.

According to Table 10 (a, b, c and d) (Hypothesis 6c) revealed for each outcome that Perceptions

of supervisor support mediates the relationship between workplace bullying and job burnout with

a confidence interval of 95% bootstrapped and which contains non-zero around the indirect

effects (.06, .16)(see Table 10b). Moreover, Perceived Supervisor Support mediates the

relationship between workplace bullying and Psychological Strain with a confidence interval of

95% bootstrapped and which contains non-zero around the indirect effects (.05, .14)(refer to

Table 10c). However, Perceived Supervisor Support did not mediate the relationship between

workplace bullying and job stress as bootstrap results for indirect effects were insignificant (-.02,

.06)(see Table 10a) and for turnover intensions as well (-.01, .11) )(see Table 10d). Thus, the

parallel or simple mediating effects of perceived supervisor support as a mediator between

workplace bullying was supported for all outcomes except job stress and turnover intensions.

Thus H6c was confirmed for all outcomes except Job Stress and Turnover Intensions.

According to Table 10(a, b, c and d) (Hypothesis 7) revealed for each outcome that Emotional

Dissonance fully mediated the relationship between workplace bullying and job stress with a

confidence interval of 95% bootstrapped and which contains non-zero around the indirect effects

(.08, .20)(refer to Table 10a), Job burnout (.06, .17) )(see Table 10b), Psychological Strain (.05,

.15)(see Table 10c) and Turnover Intensions (.07, .20) )(see Table 10d). Thus, the parallel or

simple mediating effects of Emotional Dissonance as a mediator between workplace bullying

was fully supported. Thus H7 was fully confirmed.

150

According to Table 10(a, b, c and d) (Hypothesis 8) revealed for each outcome that Perceived

Supervisor Support and Emotional Dissonance sequentially mediated the relationship between

workplace bullying and job stress with a confidence interval of 95% bootstrapped and which

contains non-zero around the indirect effects (-.04, -.00)(see Table 10a), Job burnout (-.03,-.00)

(see Table 10b), Psychological Strain (-.03, -.00)(see Table 10c) and Turnover Intensions (-.04, -

.00) )(see Table 10d). Thus, the sequential mediation effects of Perceived Supervisor Support

and Emotional Dissonance as a mediator between workplace bullying was fully supported. Thus

H8 was fully confirmed. Thus, H7 was fully supported, H6c was supported for all outcomes

except job stress and turnover intensions and H8 was fully confirmed for Perceived Supervisor

support.

Table 10. Perceived Supervisor Support and Emotional Dissonance as parallel and

sequential mediators between Workplace Bullying and Outcomes

a. Job Stress

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on PSS

-.35 .05 -7.16 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on ED

.31 .05 5.82 .000

3 Direct effects of PSS

on ED

.12 .06 2.08 .038

4 Direct effects of WPB .19 .05 3.58 .000

151

on Stress

5 Direct effects of PSS

on Stress

-.04 .05 -.77 .441

6 Direct effects of ED

on Stress

.43 .05 8.23 .000

7 Mediation of PSS and

ED btw WPB and

Stress

.33 .05 6.22 .000

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

PSS .01 .02 -.02 .06

PSS and ED -.02 .01 -.04 -.00

ED .14

.03 .08 .20

b. Burnout

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on PSS

-.35 .05 -7.16 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on ED

.31 .05 5.82 .000

3 Direct effects of PSS

on ED

.12 .06 2.08 .038

152

4 Direct effects of WPB

on Burnout

.27 .06 4.61 .000

5 Direct effects of PSS

on Burnout

-.31 .06 -5.23 .000

6 Direct effects of ED

on Burnout

.34 .06 5.99 .000

7 Mediation of PSS and

ED btw WPB and

Burnout

.47 .06 8.40 .000

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

PSS .11 .02 .06 .16

PSS and ED -.01 .01 -.03 -.00

ED .11 .03 .06 .17

c. Psychological Strain

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on PSS

-.35 .05 -7.16 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on ED

.31 .05 5.82 .000

3 Direct effects of PSS

on ED

.12 .06 2.08 .038

4 Direct effects of WPB .40 .05 7.34 .000

153

on Strain

5 Direct effects of PSS

on Strain

-.24 .05 -4.45 .000

6 Direct effects of ED

on Strain

.31 .05 5.75 .000

7 Mediation of PSS and

ED btw WPB and

Strain

.57 .05 11.03 .000

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

PSS .09 .02 .05 .14

PSS and ED -.01 .01 -.03 -.00

ED .10 .02 .05 .15

d. Turnover Intensions

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on PSS

-.35 .05 -7.16 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on ED

.31 .05 5.82 .000

3 Direct effects of PSS

on ED

.12 .06 2.08 .038

4 Direct effects of WPB

on TOI

.12 .07 1.64 .101

154

5 Direct effects of PSS

on TOI

-.13 .07 -1.80 .073

6 Direct effects of ED

on TOI

.41 .07 5.59 .000

7 Mediation of PSS and

ED btw WPB and TOI

.28 .07 4.06 .000

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

PSS .05 .03 -.00 .11

PSS and ED -.02 .01 -.04 -.00

ED .13 .03 .07 .20

4.3.3.2 Emotional Dissonance and Perceived Co-worker Support as Parallel and Sequential

mediators between Workplace Bullying and Outcomes

Table 11 presents the results of Perceived Co-worker Support and Emotional Dissonance as

parallel and sequential mediators between workplace bullying and outcomes (Job Stress,

Burnout, Turnover Intensions and Psychological Strain) and consequently address H6b, H7, H8.

The first hypothesis (i.e. H6b) relates to the parallel path or in other words simple mediating

effect of Perceived Co-worker Support as mediator between bullying and outcomes, the second

hypothesis (i.e. H7) relates to the other parallel path or in other words simple mediating effect of

Emotional Dissonance as mediator between bullying and outcomes and the last one deals with

155

the sequential mediation of Perceived Co-worker support and Emotional Dissonance between

bullying and outcomes respectively.

According to Table 11(a, b, c and d) (Hypothesis 6b) revealed for each outcome that Perceived

Co-worker Support mediates the association between bullying at the workplace and job burnout

with a confidence interval of 95% bootstrapped and which contains non-zero around the indirect

effects (.03, .11)(refer to Table 11b). Moreover, Perceived Co-worker Support mediates the

relationship between workplace bullying and Psychological Strain with a confidence interval of

95% bootstrapped and which contains non-zero around the indirect effects (.03, .12)(refer to

Table 11c). However, Perceived Co-worker Support did not mediate the relationship between

workplace bullying and job stress as bootstrap results for indirect effects were insignificant (-.00,

.06) (see Table 11a) and for turnover intensions as well (-.06, .02)(see Table 11d). Thus, the

parallel or simple mediating effects of perceived co-worker support as a mediator between

workplace bullying was supported for all outcomes except job stress and turnover intensions.

Thus H6b was confirmed for all outcomes except Job Stress and Turnover Intensions.

According to Table 11(a, b, c and d) (Hypothesis 7) revealed for each outcome that Emotional

Dissonance fully mediated the relationship between workplace bullying and job stress with a

confidence interval of 95% bootstrapped and which contains non-zero around the indirect effects

(.08, .21)(refer to Table 11a), Job burnout (.06, .17) )(see Table 11b), Psychological Strain (.06,

.16)(see Table 11c) and Turnover Intensions (.07, .19) )(see Table 11d). Thus, the parallel or

simple mediation effects of Emotional Dissonance as a mediator between workplace bullying

and outcomes was fully supported. Thus H7 was fully confirmed.

156

According to Table 11(a, b, c and d) (Hypothesis 8) revealed for each outcome that Perceived

Co-worker Support and Emotional Dissonance sequentially mediated the relationship between

workplace bullying and job stress with a confidence interval of 95% bootstrapped and which

contains non-zero around the indirect effects (-.04, -.01)(refer to Table 11a), Job burnout (-.04,-

.01)(see Table 11b), Psychological Strain (-.04, -.01)(see Table 11c) and Turnover Intensions (-

.04, -.01) )(see Table 11d). Thus, the sequential mediation effects of Perceived Co-worker

Support and Emotional Dissonance as a mediator between workplace bullying and outcomes was

fully supported. Thus H8 was fully confirmed. Thus, H7 was fully confirmed, H6b was

supported for all outcomes except job stress and turnover intensions and H8 was fully supported

for Perceived Co-worker support as sequential mediator between workplace bullying and

outcomes.

Table 11. Perceived Co-worker Support and Emotional Dissonance as parallel and

sequential mediators between Workplace Bullying and Outcomes

a. Job Stress

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on PCS

-.35 .06 -5.87 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on ED

.32 .05 6.18 .000

3 Direct effects of PCS

on ED

.14 .05 3.14 .001

4 Direct effects of WPB .18 .05 3.39 .000

157

on Stress

5 Direct effects of PCS

on Stress

-.07 .04 -1.64 .101

6 Direct effects of ED

on Stress

.45 .05 8.38 .000

7 Mediation of PCS and

ED btw WPB and

Stress

.33 .05 6.22 .000

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

PCS .03 .02 -.00 .06

PCS and ED -.02 .01 -.05 -.01

ED .14 .03 .09 .21

b. Burnout

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on PCS

-.35 .06 -5.87 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on ED

.32 .05 6.18 .000

3 Direct effects of PCS

on ED

.14 .05 3.14 .001

4 Direct effects of WPB

on Burnout

.31 .06 5.29 .000

158

5 Direct effects of PCS

on Burnout

-.19 .05 -3.82 .000

6 Direct effects of ED

on Burnout

.35 .06 5.90 .000

7 Mediation of PCS and

ED btw WPB and

Burnout

.47 .06 8.40 .000

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

PCS .07 .02 .03 .11

PCS and ED -.02

.01 -.04 -.01

ED .11 .03 .06 .17

c. Psychological Strain

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on PCS

-.35 .06 -5.87 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on ED

.32 .05 6.18 .000

3 Direct effects of PCS

on ED

.14 .05 3.14 .001

4 Direct effects of WPB .41 .05 7.69 .000

159

on Strain

5 Direct effects of PCS

on Strain

-.20 .05 -4.35 .000

6 Direct effects of ED

on Strain

.32 .05 5.93 .000

7 Mediation of PCS and

ED btw WPB and

Strain

.57 .05 11.03 .000

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

PCS .07 .02 .03 .12

PCS and ED -.02 .01 -.04 -.01

ED .10 .03 .06 .16

d. Turnover Intensions

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on PCS

-.35 .06 -5.87 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on ED

.32 .05 6.18 .000

3 Direct effects of PCS

on ED

.14 .05 3.14 .001

160

4 Direct effects of WPB

on TOI

.19 .07 2.59 .010

5 Direct effects of PCS

on TOI

.04 .06 .68 .498

6 Direct effects of ED

on TOI

.39 .07 5.21 .000

7 Mediation of PCS and

ED btw WPB and TOI

.28 .07 4.06 .000

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

PCS -.01 .02 -.06 .03

PCS and ED -.01 .01 -.04 -.01

ED .12 .03 .07 .19

4.3.3.3 Emotional Dissonance and Perceived Organization Support as Parallel and Sequential

mediators between Workplace Bullying and Outcomes

Table 12 presents the results of Perceived Organization Support and Emotional Dissonance as

parallel and sequential mediators between workplace bullying and outcomes (Job Stress,

Burnout, Turnover Intensions and Psychological Strain) and consequently address H6a, H7, H8.

The first hypothesis (i.e. H6a) relates to the parallel path or in other words simple mediating

effect of Perceived Organization Support as mediator between bullying and outcomes, the

161

second hypothesis (i.e. H7) relates to the other parallel path or in other words simple mediating

effect of Emotional Dissonance as mediator between bullying and outcomes and the last one

deals with the sequential mediation of Perceived Organization support and Emotional

Dissonance between bullying and outcomes respectively.

According to Table 12(a, b, c and d) (Hypothesis 6a) revealed for each outcome that Perceived

Organization Support mediates the relationship between workplace bullying and job burnout

with a confidence interval of 95% bootstrapped and which contains non-zero around the indirect

effects (.04, .12)(refer to Table 12b). Moreover, Perceived Organization Support mediates the

relationship between workplace bullying and Psychological Strain with a confidence interval of

95% bootstrapped and which contains non-zero around the indirect effects (.02, .09)(refer to

Table 12c) and turnover intensions (.02, .11) )(see Table 12d). However, Perceived Organization

Support did not mediate the relationship between workplace bullying and job stress as bootstrap

results for indirect effects were insignificant (-.01, .05) (see Table 12a). Thus, the parallel or

simple mediating effects of perceived organization support as a mediator between workplace

bullying was supported for all outcomes except job stress. Thus H6a was verified for all the

outcomes except Job Stress.

According to Table 12(a, b, c and d) (Hypothesis 7) revealed for each outcome that Emotional

Dissonance fully mediated the relationship between workplace bullying and job stress with a

confidence interval of 95% bootstrapped and which contains non-zero around the indirect effects

(.06, .17)(refer to Table 12a), Job burnout (.04, .13)(see Table 12b), Psychological Strain (.04,

.12)(see Table 12c) and Turnover Intensions (.05, .16) )(see Table 12d). Thus, the parallel or

162

simple mediation effects of Emotional Dissonance as a mediator between workplace bullying

and outcomes was fully supported. Thus H7 was fully confirmed.

According to Table 12(a, b, c and d) (Hypothesis 8) revealed for each outcome that Perceived

Organization Support and Emotional Dissonance did not sequentially mediate the relationship

between workplace bullying and job stress with a bootstrapped 95% CI around the indirect effect

not containing zero (-.01,.02)(see Table 12a), Job burnout (-.00, .02)(see Table 12b),

Psychological Strain (-.00, .01)(see Table 12c) and Turnover Intensions (-.00, .02)(see Table

12d). Thus, the sequential mediation effects of Perceived Organization Support and Emotional

Dissonance as a mediator between workplace bullying was rejected. Thus H8 was not supported

for Perceived Organization Support and Emotional Dissonance as Sequential mediator between

workplace bullying and outcomes. Thus, simple mediation or parallel H7 was fully supported

H6a was supported for all outcomes except job stress whereas H8 was not confirmed for POS

only.

Table 12. Perceived Organizational Support and Emotional Dissonance as parallel and

sequential mediators between Workplace Bullying and Outcomes

a. Job Stress

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on POS

-.26 .05 -4.83 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB .26 .05 4.95 .000

163

on ED

3 Direct effects of POS

on ED

-.06 .05 -1.07 .285

4 Direct effects of WPB

on Stress

.19 .05 3.76 .000

5 Direct effects of POS

on Stress

-.07 .05 -1.41 .160

6 Direct effects of ED

on Stress

.43 .05 8.11 .000

7 Mediation of POS and

ED btw WPB and

Stress

.33 .05 6.22 .000

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

POS .02 .01 -.01 .05

POS and ED .01 .01 -.01 .02

ED .11 .03 .06 .17

b. Burnout

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on POS

-.26 .05 -4.83 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB .26 .05 4.95 .000

164

on ED

3 Direct effects of POS

on ED

-.06 .05 -1.07 .285

4 Direct effects of WPB

on Burnout

.32 .06 5.71 .000

5 Direct effects of POS

on Burnout

-.30 .05 -5.51 .000

6 Direct effects of ED

on Burnout

.29 .06 5.11 .000

7 Mediation of POS and

ED btw WPB and

Burnout

.47 .06 8.40 .000

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

POS .08 .02 .04 .12

POS and ED .00

.00 -.00 .02

ED .07 .02 .04 .13

c. Psychological Strain

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on POS

-.26 .05 -4.83 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB .26 .05 4.95 .000

165

on ED

3 Direct effects of POS

on ED

-.06 .05 -1.07 .285

4 Direct effects of WPB

on Strain

.45 .05 8.57 .000

5 Direct effects of POS

on Strain

-.19 .05 -3.67 .000

6 Direct effects of ED

on Strain

.27 .05 5.00 .000

7 Mediation of POS and

ED btw WPB and

Strain

.57 .05 11.03 .000

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

POS .05 .02 .02 .09

POS and ED .00 .00 -.00 .01

ED .07 .02 .04 .12

d. Turnover Intensions

Variable B SE t p

1 Direct effect of WPB

on POS

-.26 .05 -4.83 .000

2 Direct effects of WPB

on ED

.26 .05 4.95 .000

166

3 Direct effects of POS

on ED

-.06 .05 -1.07 .286

4 Direct effects of WPB

on TOI

.12 .07 1.75 .081

5 Direct effects of POS

on TOI

-.21 .07 -3.12 .002

6 Direct effects of ED

on TOI

.38 .07 5.28 .000

7 Mediation of POS and

ED btw WPB and TOI

.28 .07 4.06 .000

Bootstrap results for indirect effects

M SE LL95% CI UL 95% CI

Effect

POS .05 .02 .02 .11

POS and ED .01 .01 -.00 .02

ED .10 .03 .05 .16

4.3.4 Regression Results for Moderation using Bootstrapping

4.3.4.1 Tests of Moderation

To test moderation hypothesis, we employed the macros devised by Preacher and Hayes (2004).

The process technique offered by these authors deviates from the Baron and Kenny's traditional

approach of conducting moderation analysis i-e to test moderation using normal regression the

interaction term is created comprising the IV and the moderator variable. The macro developed

167

by these authors allows the user to directly enter the moderator variable without the need of

creating the cross product term of the IV and moderator variable. In addition, in the options

section, variables are automatically centered by checking the mean center for products box.

Moderation takes place when the relationship between the predictor and the outcome variable is

contingent on a third factor which enhances the strength of the relationship between the IV and

the DV. This third factor or moderator variable in combination with the independent variable

influences the outcome variable (Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Preacher, Rucker & Hayes, 2007).

If the cross product term of IV and moderator is significant, the interactive effects may be

checked to establish if the slope of X on Y is significant for given values of the moderator (W)

i.e. normally it is plotted one standard deviation above and below the mean point. This technique

is explained at greater length by Aiken and West (1991). The simple regression of dependant

variable (Y) on independent variable (X) at different value points of moderator (W) are also

drawn to help explanation. Instead of deciding on a fewer amount of random values of moderator

(W) and examining the p-values of the simple slopes at those points, we can look for the points

of moderator (W) for which the slope of Y is significant on X.

4.3.4.2 Core Self Evaluation as a Moderator between Workplace Bullying and Emotional

Dissonance

Hypothesis 10 states that core self evaluation will moderate the relationship between Workplace

Bullying and Emotional Dissonance which was supported (B= 0.13, t = 2.26, p < .05). The

significance tests (two-tailed and with a normal dispersion) confirmed that the indirect effects

168

were significant (Effect = .42, Boot SE= .08, t = 5.00, p < .001). The results of the bootstrap

further verified these effects (refer to Table 13a), with confidence interval (CI) of 95% and the

non-zero indirect effects (.25, .58).

Figure 16. Interaction effects of Workplace Bullying and Core Self Evaluations on

Emotional Dissonance

Figure 16 depicts the interaction plot of workplace bullying x Core self evaluation for emotional

dissonance. Contrary to expectations, the slope of the relationship between workplace bullying

and emotional dissonance was relatively negative for negative core self evaluations (simple slope

= -.44, p < .05), whereas the slope was weak for positive core self evaluations (simple slope =-

.20, p=n.s). Thus, hypothesis 10 was partially supported.

Low High

Workplace Bullying

Em

oti

onal

Dis

sonan

ce

169

4.3.4.3 Core Self Evaluation as a Moderator between Workplace Bullying and Perceived

Supervisor Support

Hypothesis 9c states that core self evaluation will moderate the relationship between Workplace

Bullying and perceptions of supervisory support which was significant (B=-0.15, t= -2.60, p <

.01). The significance tests (two-tailed and with a normal dispersion) confirmed that the indirect

effects were significant (Effect = -.44, Boot SE= .08, t = -5.27, p < .001). The results of the

bootstrap further verified these effects (refer to Table 13b), with confidence interval (CI) of 95%

and the non-zero indirect effects (-.60, -.28).

Figure 17 shows the interaction plot of workplace bullying x Core self evaluation for perceived

supervisor support. Contrary to expectations, the slope of the relationship between workplace

bullying and emotional exhaustion was positive and strong for negative core self evaluations

(simple slope = .55, p < .01), whereas the slope was weak for positive core self evaluations

(simple slope =.43, t = 6.84, p<.01). Thus, hypothesis 9c was partially supported.

Low High

Workplace Bullying

Per

ceiv

ed S

uper

vis

or

Support

170

Figure 17. Interaction effects of Workplace Bullying and Core Self Evaluations on

Perceived Supervisor Support

4.3.4.4 Core Self Evaluation as a Moderator between Workplace Bullying and Perceived Co-

worker Support

Hypothesis 9b states that core self evaluation moderates the relationship between Workplace

Bullying and Perceived Co-worker Support which was not supported (B =-0.09, t = -1.50,

p=n.s). The significance tests (two-tailed and with a normal dispersion) depicted that the indirect

effects were insignificant (Effect = -.09, Boot SE= .07, t = -1.67, p=n.s.). The results of the

bootstrap highlighted no effects (refer to Table 13c), with confidence interval (CI) of 95% and

indirect effect containing zero (-.31, .02). Thus, Hypothesis 9b was rejected.

4.3.4.5 Core Self Evaluation as a Moderator between Workplace Bullying and Perceived

Organization Support

Hypothesis 9a states that core self evaluations moderates the relationship between Workplace

Bullying and perceptions of organization support which was rejected (B =-0.08, t = -1.07,

p=n.s). The significance tests (two-tailed and with a normal dispersion) showed that the indirect

effects were insignificant (Effect = -.09, Boot SE= .07, t = -1.32, p=n.s.). The results of the

bootstrap highlighted these insignificant effects (refer to Table 13d), with confidence interval

(CI) of 95% and the non-zero indirect effects (-.22, .04).

171

Thus, Hypothesis 9a was rejected. Table 14 also provides details of the moderation analysis

through the regression method in which step-1 shows the controls, step-2 consists of independent

variable of workplace bullying and moderator core self evaluations whereas step-3 depicts the

interaction of workplace bullying x core self evaluations for all the four outcomes i.e. Emotional

Dissonance, perceptions of coworker support, perceptions of supervisory support and Perceived

Organization support.

Table 13. Results of Moderated Regression Analyses for Core Self Evaluations as

Moderator in the relationship between Workplace Bullying and Outcomes

a. Emotional Dissonance (Time-3)

Predictor B SE t p

Constant 3.43 .26 13.36 .000

CSE (Time-2) -.17 .07 -2.32 .020

WB (Time-1) .30 .05 5.44 .000

WB*CSE .13 .06 2.26 .024

Conditional direct effects of X on Y

CSE (Time-2) Effect Boot SE T p LLCI ULCI

CSE -1 SD(-.93) .17 .07 2.46 .01 .03 .31

CSE M (.00) .30

.05 5.44 .00 .19 .40

CSE +1 SD (.93) .42 .08 5.00 .00 .25 .58

b. Perceived Supervisor Support (Time-3)

Predictor B SE t p

Constant 4.99 .26 19.44 .000

CSE (Time-2) .30 .07 4.15 .000

172

WB (Time-1) -.30 .05 -5.52 .000

WB*CSE -.15 .06 -2.60 .009

Conditional direct effects of X on Y

CSE (Time-2) Effect Boot SE T p LLCI ULCI

CSE -1 SD(-.93) -.16 .07 -2.26 .02 -.29 -.02

CSE M (.00) -.30 .05 -5.52 .00 -.40 -.19

CSE +1 SD (.93) -.44 .08 -5.27 .00 -.60 -.28

c. Perceived Co-worker Support (Time-3)

Predictor B SE t p

Constant 4.82 .31 15.40 .000

CSE (Time-2) .34 .09 3.93 .000

WB (Time-1) -.21 .07 -3.22 .001

WB*CSE -.08 .07 -1.07 .287

Conditional direct effects of X on Y

CSE (Time-2) Effect Boot SE T p LLCI ULCI

CSE -1 SD(-.93) -.14

.08 -1.67 .10 -.31 .025

CSE M (.00) . 21 .07 -3.22 .00

-.34 -.082

CSE +1 SD (.93) -.28 .10 -2.78 .01 -.48 -.083

d. Perceived Organization Support (Time-3)

Predictor B SE t p

Constant 4.63 .25 18.34 .000

CSE (Time-2) .48 .07 6.83 .000

WB (Time-1) -.17 .05 -3.21 .002

WB*CSE -.09 .06 -1.50 .134

Conditional direct effects of X on Y

CSE (Time-2) Effect Boot SE T p LLCI ULCI

CSE -1 SD(-.93) -.09

.07 -1.32 .19 -.22 .04

173

CSE M () -.17 .05 -3.21 .00 -.28 -.07

CSE +1 SD (.93) -.25

.08 -3.06 .00 -.41 -.09

4.3.5 Moderated Regression Analysis

Table 14. Results of Moderated Regression Analyses

Dependant Variables at Time-3

Emotional

Dissonance

β

POS

β

PCS

β

PSS

β

Step 1

Age .14* -.01 -.02 -.05

Gender .12* .02 -.01 .01

Step ∆R2 .03* .00 .00 .00

Step 2

Workplace Bullying (WPB-T1) .28*** -.16** -.17** -.27***

Core Self Evaluations (CSE-T2) -.16** .38*** .24*** .25***

Step ∆R2 .13*** .20*** .11*** .18***

Step 3

WPBxCSE .58* -.37 -.28 -.66*

Step ∆R2 .01* .01 .00 .02*

Note. N=334; for Gender 0= ‘Male’ and 1= ‘Female’; all predictors and interactions were mean-

centered.

†p< .10, *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001

174

Table 15. Summary of Findings of proposed Hypothesis

a. Direct Effect Results

Sr

No

Hyp

No

IV DV Result for each

outcome

Overall Result

1 H1 Workplace

Bullying

Job Stress Confirmed

Fully

Confirmed

Job Burnout Confirmed

Turnover Intensions Confirmed

Psychological Strain Confirmed

2 H2a

Perceived

Organization

Support

Job Stress Not Confirmed (ns)

Confirmed for

all outcomes

except Job

Stress

Job Burnout Confirmed

Turnover Intensions Confirmed

Psychological Strain Confirmed

3 H2b Perceived Co-

worker Support

Job Stress Not Confirmed (ns)

Fully

Confirmed for

Burnout and

Strain only

Job Burnout Confirmed

Psychological Strain Confirmed

Turnover Intensions Not Confirmed (ns)

4 H2c

Perceived

Supervisor

Support

Job Stress Not Confirmed (ns)

Fully

Confirmed for

Burnout and

Strain only

Job Burnout Confirmed

Turnover Intensions Not Confirmed (ns)

Psychological Strain Confirmed

175

5 H3 Emotional

Dissonance

Job Stress Confirmed

Fully

Confirmed

Job Burnout Confirmed

Turnover Intensions Confirmed

Psychological Strain Confirmed

6 H4a Workplace

Bullying

Perceived

Organization Support

Confirmed Fully

Confirmed

7 H4b Workplace

Bullying

Perceived

Co-worker Support

Confirmed Fully

Confirmed

8 H4c Workplace

Bullying

Perceived Supervisor

Support

Confirmed Fully

Confirmed

9 H5 Workplace

Bullying

Emotional

Dissonance

Confirmed Fully

Confirmed

b. Mediating Effect Results (Simple/Parallel and Sequential)

Sr

No

Hyp No IV Mediator/(s) DV Result for

each outcome

Overall

Result

Simple and Parallel mediation Results

1 H6a Workplace

Bullying

Perceived

Organization

Support

Job Stress Not

Confirmed

(ns)

Confirmed

for all

outcomes

except Job

Stress

Burnout Confirmed

Psychological

Strain

Confirmed

176

Turnover

Intensions

Confirmed

2 H6b Workplace

Bullying

Perceived Co-

worker Support

Job Stress Not

Confirmed

(ns)

Fully

Confirmed

for Burnout

and Strain

only

Burnout Confirmed

Psychological

Strain

Confirmed

Turnover

Intensions

Not

Confirmed

(ns)

3 H6c Workplace

Bullying

Perceived

Supervisor

Support

Job Stress Not

Confirmed

(ns)

Fully

Confirmed

for Burnout

and Strain

only

Burnout Confirmed

Psychological

Strain

Confirmed

Turnover

Intensions

Not

Confirmed

(ns)

4 H7 Workplace

Bullying

Emotional

Dissonance

Job Stress Confirmed

Fully

Confirmed

Burnout Confirmed

Psychological

Strain

Confirmed

177

Turnover

Intensions

Confirmed

Sequential Mediation Results

5 H8a Workplace

Bullying

Perceived

Supervisor

Support (M1)

Emotional

Dissonance

(M2)

Job Stress Confirmed

Fully

confirmed

Burnout Confirmed

Psychological

Strain

Confirmed

Turnover

Intensions

Confirmed

6 H8b Workplace

Bullying

Perceived Co-

worker Support

(M1)

Emotional

Dissonance

(M2)

Job Stress Confirmed

Fully

confirmed

Burnout Confirmed

Psychological

Strain

Confirmed

Turnover

Intensions

Confirmed

7 H8c Workplace

Bullying

Perceived

Organization

Support (M1)

Emotional

Dissonance

(M2)

Job Stress Not

Confirmed

(ns)

Fully

Rejected

Burnout Not

Confirmed

(ns)

Psychological

Strain

Not

Confirmed

(ns)

178

Turnover

Intensions

Not

Confirmed

(ns)

c. Moderation Results

Sr

No

Hyp No IV Moderator DV Result for each outcome

1 H9a

Workplace

Bullying

Core Self

Evaluations

Perceived

Organization

Support

Not Confirmed (ns)

2 H9b

Perceived Co-

worker

Support

Not Confirmed (ns)

3 H9c

Perceived

Supervisor

Support

Partially Supported

(opposite effects)

4 H10 Emotional

Dissonance

Partially Supported

(opposite effects)

Chapter Summary

The present chapter highlighted the details of the various data analytical techniques used and the

results of these techniques. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis were performed. The

study's proposed hypothesis which included the main effects, simple mediation, parallel and

sequential mediation and moderation results were tested through Structural Equation Modeling

179

and Process technique by Hayes. The results of SEM and Process lend support for most of the

direct effects hypothesis except for three support types (POS, PSS and PCS) effects on job stress

and turnover intensions.

The simple mediation results and parallel mediation path of emotional dissonance between

workplace bullying was fully supported. The simple mediation results and parallel path of

perceived organization support between workplace bullying and outcomes was supported for all

outcomes except job stress. The simple mediation/parallel path of perceived co-worker support

and perceived supervisor support between workplace bullying and outcomes was supported for

all outcomes except job stress and turnover intensions.

The sequential mediation results depicted that perceived supervisory and perceived co-worker

support was sequentially related to emotional dissonance and further outcomes whereas

Perceived organization support was unrelated to emotional dissonance. Therefore the results of

the sequential mediation highlight that Perceived supervisor and Emotional dissonance fully

sequentially mediated the relationship between bullying and outcomes. Similarly Perceived co-

worker support and Emotional dissonance fully sequentially mediated the relationship between

workplace bullying and outcomes whereas the results of Perceived organization support were

rejected.

The moderation results showed that the interaction term of workplace bullying and core self

evaluations was significant for two out of four outcomes i.e. Emotional Dissonance and for

Perceived Supervisor Support (moderation is suggested at first link of the research model

therefore outcomes in the case of moderator are Emotional dissonance, Perceived Organization

Support, Perceived Co-worker Support and Perceived Supervisor Support). However, the results

180

of the interaction plots depict that the moderator was significant in the proposed direction

however the relationship between the independent and dependant variables were reversed

suggesting partial support for these two moderation hypotheses. Thus, the results depict support

for most of the main effects, simple mediation, parallel mediation and sequential mediation

according to both SEM and Process methods whereas moderation results were partially

supported.

181

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

Chapter Overview

The current chapter gives the details of the findings of the present study for both SEM and

Process results. Furthermore, it gives the reader information regarding study’s strengths and

limitations. Then, the findings are discussed in the light of theoretical implications it might have

for further theory development and extension. Then the findings of the study are explained in

terms of the benefits and usefulness it might have for mangers in organizations. The findings are

also explained in terms of the relevance of the research model, theory and results in the Pakistani

Context. Lastly, Future research directions are put forth to indicate how the study can be useful

in generating and extending research.

5.1 Major Findings

5.1.1 Overview

The current thesis investigated the impact of workplace bullying as a stressor in creating job

strains through the underlying mechanisms of emotional dissonance and perceived support types.

It also investigated the moderating role of core self evaluation as a personality trait between

workplace bullying and emotional dissonance and perceived support types (i.e. POS, PSS and

PCS). This study utilized temporally segregated data with longitudinal research design collected

182

at three different time periods i.e. time-1, time-2 and time-3 with an appropriate time lag of

approximately 2 to 3 months between each of the three time periods. A sample of complete

useable 334 dataset with match responses from the same respondent was obtained for all the 3

time periods.

5.1.2 Reliability and Validity results summary

Data was verified for errors and missing data was dealt accordingly. Before hypothesis testing

preliminary analysis was done to check instrument reliability and validity. Reliability analysis of

each of the instrument items for each construct revealed excellent reliabilities for all the study

variables. The decision for removing a given number of item/(s) from a particular construct was

done in combination with the reliability and the confirmatory factor analysis results. The items of

a particular variable which demonstrated poor factor loadings and whose removal increased the

overall scale reliability were subsequently deleted from the relevant scale. After checking the

reliability of the measures used in the present study a series of CFAs (confirmatory factor

analysis) were conducted to test each construct's convergent and discriminant validity.

The CFA's conducted included different models comprising of alternate pairing of variables

which were measured within one time period and from the same rater for each time period. The

results of the CFA indicated that for each pairing of variables the multiple factor unconstrained

model demonstrated higher acceptable model fit (see table 2 and 3 for detailed CFA results for

time-2 and time-3 and section 3.8 for CFAs). In addition to the time wise alternate paired

comparisons CFAs, a full measurement model was run as an initial step of Structural Equation

modeling. This full measurement model comprised of CFAs conducted of all the study variables

utilized. The full 9 factor measurement model demonstrated higher model fit statistics signaling

183

adequate model fit to the data. Moreover, each item of the variable displayed factor loadings well

above the minimum level of 0.4 highlighting higher convergent validity. The other tests of

convergent validity were also run for example the results of composite reliability of the

constructs revealed that all the variables had values above the minimum acceptable level of 0.6.

The average variance extracted (AVE) values above 0.45 for all variables showed that all the

study variables demonstrated adequate discriminant and convergent validity.

After establishing construct validity and reliability of the study variables, the researcher moved

on to conduct initial analysis for hypothesis testing. Descriptive statistics were run, Means of the

variables were created, correlational analysis and paired correlation comparisons were conducted

to check the association among the study variables. All the current thesis variables were co-

related significantly in the desired direction. Bivariate Correlation consisting of two-tailed

significance demonstrated that correlation value greater than 0.1 was significant for all the

current thesis variables.

5.1.3 Hypotheses Testing through SEM and Process

Hypothesis testing was done through two different techniques in the present study i.e. the direct

effects, simple, parallel and sequential mediation and moderation hypothesis were tested through

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and Preacher and Hayes (2004) process technique using

bootstrapping. These two are not only the latest techniques in mediation and moderation research

but they exhibit superiority on a number of fronts over the existing regression method of testing

mediation and moderation.

184

First SEM is conducted where the direct effects hypothesis are tested one by one in the course of

which direct structural models, after that path models for checking simple/parallel mediation and

lastly sequential mediation are tested. In order to support each hypothesis, the statistics for model

fir are stated which signify model fit to the data, For each hypothesis, the model fit statistics are

reported which indicate fit of the model to the data, the label of parameter estimates consisting of

beta values or standardized regression values running from each of the latent or unobserved

variable is reported along with their significance values which either confirms or rejects the

proposed hypothesis.

Finally R-square values for each path are stated to explain the variation caused in the

intervening/mediating or outcome variables (as defined endogenous variables) because of

specific exogenous or independent variables. A full structural model at the end is run which

consolidates all the proposed hypotheses and presents a complete picture of findings of the full

research model with path estimates and significance along with model fit statistics. After the

confirmation of most of the hypothesis through Structural Equation Modeling then the researcher

tested the proposed hypotheses through another current, robust and relevant technique of

conducting regression through process method developed by Preacher and Hayes (2004) for

testing mediation and moderation and is well suited for testing complex models in quantitative

research.

5.1.4 Direct Effects findings through SEM and Process

Table 15 shows the summary of findings of the suggested study hypothesis. Hypothesis 1

suggested that workplace bullying is related positively to outcomes (i.e. Job stress, burnout,

psychological strain and turnover intensions). The results of SEM and Process lend full support

185

for this hypothesis. H2a states the direct effects of perceptions of organization support on

outcomes. The findings of the Hayes process method and the structural paths revealed that

perceptions of organization support was negatively and significantly associated with all

outcomes except job stress. Thus H2a was supported for all outcomes except job stress. H2b also

deals with the main effects of perceptions of coworker support on outcomes. The findings

highlighted that coworker perceptions of support negatively and significantly related to two out

of the four outcomes i.e. support was found for this hypothesis for burnout and psychological

strain only. H2c proposed that perceptions of supervisory support has a direct negative influence

on job strains. The findings showed that supervisor perceptions of support was negatively and

significantly associated with burnout and psychological strain.

H3 put forth the direct and positive influence of emotional dissonance on work outcomes. The

SEM structural path models and Hayes Process method provided full support for this contention,

as Emotional Dissonance was significantly positively associated to all outcomes proving

hypothesis 3. H4 a, b and c proposed the direct negative effects of workplace bullying on

perceived organization support, coworker perceptions of support and supervisor perceptions of

support correspondingly. The results of SEM and Hayes method also provided full support for

these hypothesis. H5 proposed the direct and positive effect of workplace bullying in creating

emotional dissonance. The SEM and Hayes Process results highlighted that workplace bullying

was significantly positively related to Emotional Dissonance thus rendering full support for

hypothesis 5.

186

5.1.5 Mediation Effects results (Simple, Parallel and Sequential)using Process and SEM

Confirmation of direct effects for almost all of the hypothesis resulted in testing of the simple

and parallel mediation effects hypotheses. H6a proposed the mediating and parallel path of

perceived organization support linking bullying at the workplace and job strains. The results

highlight that POS fully acted as a mediator between work related bullying and burnout,

psychological strain and turnover intensions excluding job stress. Thus, H6a was supported for

all outcomes except job stress. H6b contended that perceived co-worker support acts as a

mediator between workplace bullying and outcomes. The findings reflected that perceived co-

worker support mediated the relationship of workplace bullying on outcomes except job stress

and turnover intensions. Thus, the mediation hypothesis H6b was supported for burnout and

psychological strain only. H6c proposed that the third perceived support type i.e. perceived

supervisor support mediates the relationship of workplace bullying and job outcomes. The

findings of Process and SEM highlight that PSS mediated the relationship of workplace bullying

on all outcomes except for job stress and turnover intensions. H7 stated that emotional

dissonance acts as a mediator in the relationship of workplace bullying on outcomes. Both SEM

and Process method lend full support for this hypothesis as Emotional Dissonance fully mediated

the relationship of workplace bullying on all outcomes.

H8 (a, b and c) proposes that perceived support types (i.e. PSS, PCS and POS) respectively and

Emotional Dissonance sequentially acts as a mediator in the relationship of bullying at the

workplace on job strains. The results depict that PSS, PCS and Emotional Dissonance (H8a and

8b) fully sequentially mediated the relationship of bullying at work on all outcomes. Whereas

Perceived Organization Support was not related to Emotional Dissonance and accordingly did

187

not show effects of sequential mediation between workplace bullying and all job outcomes hence

indicating full rejection of H8c. Thus, 8a and b were fully supported whereas 8c was rejected.

5.1.6 Moderation results through Process method

Moderation effects were checked by using Preacher and Hayes (2004) process method which is

different from the traditional approach of Baron and Kenny (1986) for testing moderation

analysis by means of regression method. It has been corroborated that the Hayes technique

exhibits statistical and procedural advantage above the Baron and Kenny's (1986) conventional

method for performing and checking moderation effects (see Section 4.3.4.1). H9 and H10

pertain to the moderation hypothesis of the study.

Table 15c demonstrated the results of the moderation analysis conducted through the Hayes

Process technique. As depicted in this table H9c and H10 proposed that CSE would moderate the

negative relationship of workplace bullying on perceived supervisor support and positive

relationship of workplace bullying on emotional dissonance such that these relationships would

be stronger for individuals in low core self evaluations respectively. Although the interaction

term of CSE x PSS and CSE x ED was significant however the results of the interaction plots

and subsequent slope tests revealed that workplace bullying and perceived supervisor support

and bullying and emotional dissonance demonstrated opposite directions in case of low core self

evaluations. Thus, H9c and H10 were partially supported whereas H9a and H9b were fully

rejected.

188

On the whole, out of the 10 stated hypothesis, the present thesis confirmed most of the

hypothesis. Complete support was found for 5 out of the 10 hypothesis for all outcomes i.e. H1,

H3, H4 a, b and c, H5 and H7. 3 hypothesis i.e. H2 a, b and c; H6 a, b and c and H8 a, b and c

were supported for all outcomes except job stress and turnover intensions. Finally, the last 2

hypotheses concerning moderation indicated partial support for H9c and H10 whereas H9 a and

b were not confirmed. Thus, support for found for main effects, almost all simple/parallel

mediation and sequential mediation hypotheses whereas moderation results depicted only partial

support.

5.2 Strengths of Study

The current thesis presents several theoretical and methodological advantages. This thesis

focused on studying workplace bullying which is nowadays considered as the most pertinent,

burning and suitable topics not only in management and OB literatures but also in the context of

the global workplace where hostile treatment from superiors, co-workers, customers and sub-

ordinates have become widespread (Einarsen, Raknes & Matthiesen, 1994; Nielsen & Einarsen,

2012; Samnani & Singh, 2012; Tuckey & Neal, 2014).

The present thesis is distinctive as it put forth and then also investigates novel and unexplored

underlying processes of how and why workplace bullying as a stressor leads to strains.

Specifically, it contends that victims of bullying might develop negative perceptions of support

types (i.e. POS, PCS and PSS) which ultimately results in stress, burnout, psychological strain

and turnover intensions.

189

Recent meta-analysis and reviews on workplace bullying suggest weak and in most cases

inconsistent relationships between workplace bullying and outcomes suggesting the possibility of

mediators and moderators existing in this relationship (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012; Samnani &

Singh, 2012). The present study provides cognitive (POS, PCS and PSS) and affective

mechanisms (Emotional Dissonance) through which workplace bullying shows its disastrous

effects on employees in the form of stress, burnout, psychological strain and turnover intensions.

In line with this, the results also support the full mediation of Perceived Organization Support

between workplace bullying on all outcomes except job stress. Regarding the results of other two

support types full support was found for the mediating influence of perceptions of coworker and

perceptions of supervisory support types between bullying at work and burnout and strain

whereas the other two outcomes of stress and turnover intensions was insignificant. In addition,

full support was found for the results of main, simple mediation and parallel mediation of

emotional dissonance between workplace bullying and outcomes.

Further, two out of the 3 support types i.e. Perceived Co-worker and Perceived Supervisor

support and Emotional dissonance sequentially explain how targets of bullying develop negative

perceptions of supervisor and co-worker support towards them which leads to emotional

dissonance of felt and displayed emotions thus eventually becoming evident in the form of

higher stress, burnout, psychological strain and turnover intensions. Therefore, the present thesis

attempts to offer attractive solutions to resolve queries of 'how' and 'why' workplace bullying as a

stressor creates strains. The current study by proposing and investigating new mechanisms opens

up a new avenue for researchers in the aggression literature and specifically workplace bullying

domain.

190

The current thesis is also unique in the sense as it employs and expand two famous theoretical

approaches in the stress literatures domains that is Conservation of Resources theory (Hobfoll,

1998; 2001) and Cognitive Appraisal theory of Stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) as

overarching theoretical paradigms to justify the theoretical foundations of the suggested research

model links. The solid reasoning employed to develop justifications for hypothesized research

model associations provide confidence and extension of these two theories.

The present study also offers a distinctive edge as it employed research design using longitudinal

and temporally segregated data at three different time points i-e time 1, time 2 and time 3 with a

time interval of approx two months which makes it empirically better than cross-sectional

research examinations of workplace bullying. Nielsen and Einarsen (2012) in their recent meta-

analytical study indicated that till date less than 15 studies exist on workplace bullying all in the

developed countries that have utilized research designs with longitudinally collected data with

one or more time lags. Therefore, the current thesis focuses on an extremely significant and latest

gap in the workplace bullying domain by not only suggesting new underlying processes but also

by using temporally separated data with longitudinal research design at multiple time points with

adequate time gaps for checking the suggested research model relationships.

The present thesis utilized three different time periods with a lag of approx 2 to 3 months in

between for collecting data on the suggested research model. Using even 2 time waves becomes

a tedious and time consuming task, this study employed 3 time periods with a 2 to 3 months time

lag between these three time periods for data collection purposes which makes it empirically

strong. This study employed two of the recent and vigorous techniques for analyzing data

namely Process approach utilizing bootstrapping (Preacher & Hayes, 2004) and Structural

equation modeling (SEM) technique for confirming hypotheses.

191

The results of the study and substantiation for most of the direct paths, simple/parallel mediation

and sequential mediation highlight the significance and methodological superiority of utilizing

these approaches and for analyzing and checking complicated path models. The findings of

confirmatory factor analysis and confirmation for most of the suggested main effects,

simple/parallel and sequential mediation effects signify that the measures employed for checking

the research model variables demonstrate high validity (convergent as well as discriminant) and

reliability and hypothesis are supported expanding the conceptual and methodological field of

investigation in the workplace bullying literatures.

5.3 Study limitations and Future Research Avenues

Although the current research provides novel theoretical insights and methodological vigor, just

like any other research there are weaknesses as well which if attended to by future researchers

can present an opportunity for expanding the workplace bullying domain. First of all, despite the

current study utilized research design with longitudinally collected data at more than one time

points it cannot be classified as a full longitudinal design as all the research model variables were

not tapped at all 3 different time points. The present research can be categorized as study

employing temporally separated longitudinal data collected at three different time periods as the

independent variable of workplace bullying was measured at time-1, the moderator variable of

core self evaluation tapped at time-2 only and the study's mediator variables i.e. perceptions of

support kinds (POS, PCS, PSS) and Emotional Dissonance were tapped at time 2 and time-3 and

the outcome variables along with the mediators were measured at time-3. Scholars in future can

192

gain by employing complete longitudinal design involving more than one time periods where all

the research model variables are tapped at all the different time intervals utilized.

Secondly another constraint of the current research is that even though longitudinal research

design at three different time points with suitable time intervals was employed nevertheless all

the variables were tapped from the same source. However, the kind of variables examined in the

present thesis showed that self-reported measures was the best approach to tap these variables as

previous research highlights that Perceived support types, emotional dissonance, stress burnout,

Turnover intensions, core self evaluations and workplace bullying are more accurately reported

through self reports.

Furthermore, our intension was to determine the victims who experienced bullying at the

workplace therefore employees themselves were in a better position to report whether they have

been exposed to incidences of bullying at the workplace or not. Peers and supervisory reports of

bullying might not be beneficial as they might not be aware of it and even if aware might be

apprehensive to report bullying behaviors inflicted by them onto others. Additionally, the strong

support for the findings of factor analysis for both the full CFA model as well as alternate

models performed within one time period (consisting of adequate factor loadings of the items of

the related constructs, the convergent and discriminant validity results) obviously signal that self

reported measures were not a major issue to the results of the study. Nonetheless, future research

studies need to take account not only a victim perspective but a perpetrator viewpoint of

promoting instances of bullying at the workplace.

Thirdly another drawback of the current study was that I did not find confirmation for the

mediation hypothesis for all the three Perceived types (POS, PCS and PSS) between workplace

193

bullying and job stress. One of the justification for the rejection of meditational hypothesis for

perceived support types between bullying and specifically only for job stress outcome indicates

that workplace bullying reflected strong positive direct effects on job stress and the need for

mediation and moderation arises in the case of weak to non-existent relationships. However,

future researchers should explore these 3 support types between workplace bullying and job

stress particularly to deal with such weakness.

Lastly, although the current thesis found support for most of the direct, simple, parallel and

sequential mediation hypothesis this study did not find the moderating role of Core self

evaluation personality trait between bullying and outcomes. Although the interaction term of

CSE x bullying was significant for Emotional Dissonance and PSS, the resulting interaction plots

depict reverse effects for bullying-emotional dissonance and bullying-perceived support types

lending only partial support for these two and non-confirmation for the other two hypothesis.

Future researchers should investigate the moderating influence of CSE between bullying and

these outcomes. As a final point, potential scholars should replicate the suggested research

model in newer, lesser researched and developing countries context to corroborate the above

results in alike cultures like Pakistan.

5.4 Theoretical Implications

For the past few years, there has been rising attention paid by researchers in understanding and

examining the dark side of employee behaviors particularly workplace bullying (Einarsen et.al.,

2003; Hutchinson, Vickers, Jackson, & Wilkes, 2010; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012; Samnani &

194

Singh, 2012; Tuckey & Neal, 2014). The current research study contributes to this line of

investigation on workplace bullying and offers new contentions for theory building and

expansion in this domain. This research extends the workplace bullying literature by suggesting

novel dynamics through which workplace bullying as a stressor exhibits its deleterious

consequences on strains. Specifically, this study proposed perceived support types (POS, PCS

and PSS) and emotional dissonance as parallel and sequential mediators between workplace

bullying and outcomes. The above underlying mechanisms have not been examined till date to

the best of the researcher's understanding thus this research is unique in the sense that it is

examining these particular processes.

This research study employs two of the most popular theories in the areas of stress namely

Conservation of resources (COR) (Hobfoll, 1989; 2001; 2002) and Cogntive appraisal theory of

stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) to justify the suggested research model

relationships. The COR theory contends that people try to increase, preserve and guard their

current resources; resources can be of many types i.e. monetary resources, cognitive resources,

support and personality resources.

Hobfoll (1989; 2001; 2002) further argues that resource depletion is more pertinent than resource

expansion and consists of 2 basic assumptions of primary and secondary resource loss. I contend

that primary resource loss occurs when individuals who experience emotional battering in the

form of bullying build negative perceptions of organization, supervisor and co-worker support

towards them which further depletes their resources leading to higher levels of stress, burnout,

strain and turnover intensions.

195

The secondary resource loss happens when individuals who experience bullying try to protect

their existing resources and suppress their negative emotions creating emotional dissonance

which results in a vicious cycle of resource depletion resulting in disastrous consequences like

greater stress, turnover intensions, strain and burnout. Thus, the theoretical foundations of COR

and Cognitive Appraisal theory of stress and coping addresses the main, mediation, parallel and

sequential mediation hypothesis of perceived support types between bullying and outcomes on

one hand and emotional dissonance between workplace bullying and outcomes on the other hand

most of which are supported except for job stress. Hence, the theoretical justifications and the

subsequent data collection and analysis builds confidence for the suggested relationships and

expands the Appraisal theory of stress and Conservation of resources framework.

The current research adds to the perceived support types literatures by proposing workplace

bullying as a significant determinant of perceived support types (POS, PSS and PCS) and further

these support types mediate the relationship of workplace bulling and strains. Past research has

suggested that stressful environments promote incidences of workplace bullying (Einarsen &

Mikkelsen, 2003; Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Vartia, 1996; Zapf et.al., 1996). This study opens a new

avenue in the literature on workplace bullying by asserting that victims experiences of bullying

leads to the development of negative perceptions of not only towards the organization but

towards the supervisor and co-worker's support as well as victims assume that the organization is

not doing to stop such incidences and supervisors and co-workers are also adding fuel to fire.

The consequent results of Hayes Process and SEM confirm these contentions and expand the

COR theory's assumptions as well. Secondly, the present study contributes to the literature on

emotions by proposing emotional dissonance as an outcome for victims exposed to bullying and

further conceptualizes and tests the mediating role of emotional dissonance between bullying and

196

outcomes. The support for emotional dissonance as an outcome of bullying is consistent with the

theoretical dynamics of COR and Appraisal theory of stress and the resulting full support for

emotional dissonance as an outcome of bullying and as a mediator between bullying and

outcomes gives confidence to these proposed dynamics and bridges an important gap by linking

workplace bullying to emotional dissonance literatures.

Future researchers can investigate other emotions as mediating mechanisms between workplace

bullying and outcomes, for example it might be useful to investigate the mediating role of

negative emotions such as anger between workplace bullying and strains. Moreover, on the basis

of the assumptions of COR and Appraisal theory of stress and coping it can be proposed that

future researchers can examine how workplace bullying depletes other individual resources such

as self-identity and self-concept which further creates resource depletion in the form of stress,

burnout, psychological strain and turnover intensions.

5.5 Managerial Implications

This research thesis offers several recommendations for managers working in organizations. The

current study confirmed that employees subjected to instances of bullying at the workplace

develop negative perceptions of organization, supervisor and co-worker support which takes a

toll at employees in the form of higher stress, burnout, strain and turnover intensions. Managers

at the workplace must engage at all levels to curb instances of bullying since it creates negative

employee perceptions of support towards the organization.

197

Managers within organizations should take a number of actions to lessen incidences of

maltreatment in the form of bullying to employees. Managers must be assigned the task of

establishing, clearly conveying and approving system of policy guidelines and rules concerning

interpersonal behavior within organizations. There must be equitable and just procedures

established by means of adequate contribution, involvement and agreement of employees at all

levels in the organization to tackle and curb incidences of workplace bullying. Official liability

procedures should be operational whereby employees despite of their position and status are

answerable and accountable for their misconduct to concerned authorities and departments.

Human resource management units/divisions within corporations should initiate the following

steps to curb workplace bullying (1) Establish official SOPs (standard operating procedures)

signaling a zero tolerance policy towards unpleasant actions such as workplace bullying (2)

Observe firm conformance to these SOPs on a constant basis (3) Development of departments

and divisions whereby victims of such abusive treatment can anonymously register such

instances (4) Preservation of written evidence of such grievances (5) Creation of just and

impartial teams for performing and dealing with disciplinary matters regarding workplace

bullying (6) Periodic follow-up policies to ensure moral and well-timed solutions for both the

bully and the bullied (7) Enforcing punishments in accordance with the kind and degree of

transgression caused by perpetrators of bullying.

Co-worker and witnesses evidencing bullying instances should help victims to report such

incidents as the study hypothesis and findings depict that workplace bullying promotes negative

perceptions of co-worker support as well which is evident in the form of disastrous strains and

quitting of job. Therefore, co-workers should also play their due role in combating bullying

incidents and avoid indulging in ridicule behaviors themselves since the study lends credence to

198

the assertion that targets of bullying also build negative perceptions of co-worker support as

well. Thus co-workers should not only restrain from bullying others themselves, should avoid

being the silent witness and in worse case supporting the perpetrators of bullying against the

victims as the present study lends credence that targets of abuse blame not only the organization

but the supervisors and co-workers in the form of negative perceptions of organization,

supervisor and co-worker support.

The present study also asserted and fully proved that individuals exposed to bullying suppress

their felt negative emotions and display positive emotions to cope with the lost resources creating

emotional dissonance which further exhausts their resources in the form of greater stress,

burnout, turnover intensions and strain. Managers and organizations should arrange stress

management and emotional management workshops to help employees vent their frustrations

particularly for employees who have been subjects of emotional abuse and verbal mistreatment.

These employees would let out their suppressed negative emotions as this study explains that

bullied employees feel emotional dissonance which further uses up their emotional resources

creating strains and eventually quitting the organization.

5.6 Contextual Implications

Quantative research studies in the area of workplace bullying conducted in a number of countries

across the globe such US, UK, Germany, Canada, Argentina, Nordic Countries, Australia,

Turkey, India, Hong Kong, Singapore etc indicates the nature and prevalence of bullying in

different occupational contexts and within different cultural contexts (Einarsen & Skogstad,

199

1996; Hoel, Cooper, & Faragher, 2001; Hutchinson & Eveline, 2010; Jimenez, Munoz, Gamarra,

& Herrer, 2007; Keashly & Jagatic, 2000; Power, et al., 2013).

Nonetheless, majority of research on workplace bullying signify that few studies are present in

this area in the developing countries context such as Pakistan. The current study not only attends

to an extremely pertinent and global burning topic but also advocates novel processes of how

workplace bullying as a stressor manifests itself in employees in the form of strains in a

developing country context like Pakistan. The present thesis has also a distinctive edge as it

employs temporally segregated longitudinal research design with three time wave data to

confirm novel theoretical dynamics in a newer and lesser studied context like Pakistan.

With respect to the insights into national culture, Hofstede (1983) more than 40 years ago carried

an extensive survey of employees working in the subsidiaries of IBM corporation in more than

50 different countries and came with a five dimensional classification of national cultures. Since

that time the acceptability and usefulness of these cultural dimensions have spawned a lot of

research and each country differs on scoring of these cultural dimensions (Bond, 1988; Hofstede,

1983; Triandis, 1982; Trompenaars, 1983; Schwartz, 1994; Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars,

1996). Although it was not the objective of the present study to measure national cultural

dimensions with respect to bullying and is beyond the scope of the study, however the present

study's research model findings can only be explained and applied in the current cultural context

by using the Hofstede's classification of national culture.

Furthermore, the applicability and relevance of findings on any area in the management and OB

domains is incomplete and presents an imperfect picture of the reality unless and until it is

discussed with respect to the connotations that study's findings might have on a particular

200

culture. This study proposed, tested and unfolded an important and new mechanism of Emotional

Dissonance as an outcome of workplace bullying and also Emotional dissonance as a mediator

between workplace bullying and outcomes. The main effects, simple mediation, parallel and

sequential mediation effects were fully proved for Emotional Dissonance for all the outcomes in

the present study. One of the major connotations for full support of this hypothesis in a cultural

context such as Pakistan is that according to Hofstede (1983, 1991), Pakistan has a large power

distance which means that individuals living in such societies not only accept but except that

power such as authority, status etc to unequally distributed at all levels in the society.

Employees in such cultures when exposed to workplace bullying since perceive a high power

gap between them and others particularly the authorities therefore these bullied employees

suppress their negative emotions creating emotional dissonance which further becomes evident

in the form of higher stress, burnout, psychological strain and greater turnover intensions.

Another reason for the support of emotional dissonance as a mediator between workplace

bullying and outcomes is that Pakistan also categorizes as a highly collectivist culture.

Therefore, the application of findings of the above hypothesis in the Pakistani cultural context

would imply that when victims are subjected to ridicule behaviors in the form of bullying from

co-workers the targets of such incidences are supposed to tolerate such humiliating behaviors in

the name of personal friendships and loyalty. Thus, individuals experiencing bullying from co-

workers/peers generate emotional dissonance due to suppression of emotions in order to maintain

in-group affiliations and personal friendships which could take a toll on the part of such

employees resulting in higher incidences of stress, burnout, turnover intensions and

psychological strain.

201

The current thesis also advocated, tested and proved that bullying leads to the development of

negative perceptions of organization, supervisor and co-worker support which further affects

outcomes. This thesis found confirmation for the mediating effects of the three support types

between workplace bullying and all outcomes except job stress and turnover intensions. Again

applying the findings of this hypothesis in the Pakistani cultural context would mean that due to

having collectivist orientations when employees are subjected to bullying behaviors since they

expect from in-groups these victims of abuse might develop negative perceptions of co-worker

support. In addition, Pakistan also scores strong on uncertainty avoidance and short -term

orientation dimensions which means that employees working in the organizations of such

cultures since perceive a highly limited view of their organizations and supervisors, when such

individuals are exposed to bullying at work might immediately develop negative perceptions not

only towards the organizational representatives but also towards the organization itself. Such

targets of bullying due to having a risk averse and narrow perspective of others might blame the

organization that it does not support and care for them and is not making any effort to stop such

incidences of bullying which might particularly result in higher levels of burnout and

psychological strain as well.

Regarding the sequential mediation hypothesis, this study hypothesized that three support types

would lead to emotional dissonance which would create stress, strain, turnover intensions and

burnout. The results of the present study demonstrate that perceived co-worker and perceived

support fully sequentially mediate the relationship between workplace bullying and outcomes

whereas POS although showed simple and parallel mediation, POS did not sequential mediate

this relationship. The connotation for this finding in the present culture would suggest that in a

collectivist culture such as Pakistan where people work in strong in-groups and exhibit greater

202

loyalty towards others when exposed to maltreatment in the form of bullying would not only

develop negative perceptions towards the supervisor but also towards co-workers as well which

would induce emotional dissonance resulting in job strains.

Individuals in such cultures as a result of exposure to bullying although might develop negative

perceptions towards the organization as well but this would not induce emotional dissonance and

negative POS might directly create stress, burnout, strain and turnover intentions. Thus, POS did

not sequentially mediate with ED between bullying and outcomes whereas PSS and PCS fully

sequentially mediate along with emotional dissonance between bullying and outcomes in the

current cultural context.

5.7 Conclusion

Workplace bullying has surfaced as one of the most important and burning topics of research in

OB and management areas for the past many years. This controversial subject has not only

garnered rising interest but is also drawing practitioner's attention as well (Einarsen &

Mikkelsen, 2003; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012; Samnani & Singh, 2012; Tuckey & Neall, 2014).

Workplaces today are marred with instances of bullying and keeping in view the kind, degree

and occurrence of this phenomenon in a variety of work environments, this study attempts to fill

a significant gap in the workplace bullying literatures by proposing bullying as a stressor which

creates strains through unique mechanisms.

Although the workplace bullying as a stressor creating strains is well-established (Einarsen &

Mikkelsen, 2003; Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996b) but the processes as a result of which bullying

203

shows its deleterious effects on strains is under-researched (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012; Samnani

& Singh, 2012; Tuckey & Neall, 2014). This study opens up a new avenue in the bullying

literatures by advocating perceptions of support types (POS, PCS and PSS) as cognitive

processes through which bullying influences work related outcomes. Another key contribution of

the present thesis is that it asserts emotional dissonance as one of the affective mechanisms

through which workplace bullying manifests itself in the victims in the form of greater stress,

burnout, strain and turnover intensions. The current study investigated both the parallel as well

sequential mediation effects of Perceived Support types (POS, PCS and PSS) and Emotional

Dissonance between workplace bullying and outcomes.

This study employed the basis of two of the most renowned theories namely Cognitive appraisal

theory of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and Conservation of resources (Hobfoll, 1988; 1989;

2002) to justify the suggested research model relationships. A research design comprising

longitudinal and temporally segregated data was used to collect data at three different time point

i-e time 1, time 2 and time 3 with an adequate time interval of approx 3 months between each.

Different data analysis techniques were employed such as descriptive statistics, validity and

reliability tests, correlational tests, Confirmatory factor analysis. In addition, two of the most

vigorous statistical approaches of Process by Hayes (2004) and SEM were used to check and

verify hypothesis. The Hayes regression technique and structural models of SEM substantiated

majority of the direct, simple/parallel mediation and sequential mediation hypotheses. The

results of the moderation analysis indicated only partial support. Hence, in general the current

thesis offers novel mechanisms of how bullying at the workplace negatively influences

employee's job outcomes and contributes to not only the workplace bullying literature but also

204

expands the methodological base by checking these new mechanisms in an unexplored and new

context of Pakistan.