Cyberbullying resulting from digital connectivity at work - A systematic review

Alberto Ribeiro Neves - April 30, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Cyberbullying resulting from digital connectivity at work A systematic review

Alberto Ribeiro Neves

Cyberbullying resulting from digital connectivity at work

Alberto Ribeiro Neves

Alberto Ribeiro Neves April 30, 2018 albertoneves42@gmail.com -

0

Alberto Ribeiro Neves - April 30, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Cyberbullying resulting from digital connectivity at work A systematic review

Abstract: Background: Faced with the technological disruption, based on the digital connectivity revolution, little attention has been given to the phenomenon of cyberbullying at work and its impact on occupational health and in particular on the psychic activity of workers.

So far, there has been no systematic summary to provide the evidence on the assessment of the phenomenon.

Goals: At a time when the rapid behavioral adaptation of workers to the ongoing digital transformation is required, this qualitative systematic review aims to reveal evidence resulting from research on this psychosocial risk factor, which is cyberbullying at work.

Method: 11 electronic databases were searched for qualitative systematic review.

Scientific reference articles using cyberbullying assessment instruments at work were independently selected.

Results: The review included 6 articles referenced in the qualitative synthesis in which the results come from the use of measurement instruments, pointing to the development of methodological interventions.

Discussion: More systematic reviews are needed to identify, understand and deal with victims and intimidators of cyberbullying at work, obtaining scientific evidence on the impact on victims and organizations due to abusive acts and / or behaviors that limit work satisfaction and the commitment normative and affective.

Keywords: Bullying; Cyber; Cyberbullying at work; Mobbing; Work.

1 - Introduction: The increase and disruption of the use of information and communication technologies at work, broadens the scope of cyberbullying behaviors (Vranjes et al., 2018).

Cyberbullying is characterized by all negative acts arising from working relationships and occurring through the use of information and communication technologies (ICT’s) that are carried out repeatedly and over a period or carried out at least once but form an intrusion into personal life, with the potential of exposing private information to a large online public (Vranjes et al., 2018).

This is the anchor definition, adopted by the author to develop the object of study.

The behavior of workers on social networks is increasing due to the publication of certain content.

Consequently, the access and monitoring of employees' private electronic correspondence also increases through programs installed on personal computers, even when they use electronic mail outside of working hours, for personal use.

Vranjes, Baillien, Vandebosch, Erreygers & De Witte (2017) defined cyberbullying at work, taking into account the unique characteristics of the online environment. Thus, “cyberbullying at work” is defined as all negative acts arising from relationships at work and occurring through the use of ICT’s, taking into account that (a) is performed repeatedly and over a period of time or b) performed at least one but it constitutes an intrusion into personal life, having the potential to expose private information to a broad online audience.

1

Alberto Ribeiro Neves - April 30, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Vranjes et al. (2017) define “cyberbullying at work” as all negative behavior arising from the work context and occurring through the use of ICT’s, which is (a) performed repeatedly and for a period of time or (b) carried out at least once, but forms an intrusion into one's private life, (potentially) exposing it to a broad online audience and leaving it with a sense of incapacity.

Cyberbullying can also be defined as aggressive or hostile behaviors carried out by means of ICT’s that aim to harm or cause discomfort to others (Camacho, Hassanein & Head, 2018).

The reviews show that although researchers have presented a number of definitions for the phenomenon of work, there is still no single conceptualization to classify and define the same phenomenon in the workplace, for example in Europe, English researchers have used designating "bullying" to describe this pattern of abusive and negative behaviors, while German researchers have used the term "mobbing" for the same work-related behaviors (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Cooper, 2011; Zapf & Einarsen, 2011).

All definitions found in the literature on workplace bullying contain aggressive and systematic behaviors (frequency and prolonged duration), and there is an imbalance of power.

With the advent of ICT’s, the extent of bullying behavior at work is increasing. The use of social networks in the context of work is increasing exponentially and through them cyberbullying.

The term "mobbing" was used in the early 1980´s to describe assaults on an ongoing basis in the exercise of work functions, being more common in authoritarian and asymmetric hierarchical relations of long duration, causing adverse consequences, detrimental to safety and occupational health.

It is an emotional and subjective experience that causes intangible damage to the well-being, performance, and productivity of workers and organizations (Leymann, H., 1990).

It was initially used in ethology to describe the attacks of a group of small animals that threaten a single larger animal. In the ethological context, one can define the behavior of “mobbing” as a collective attack directed at a target considered dangerous, for example a predator. In the 1980s, the concept of mobbing was popularized by Heinz Leymann (1990) who adopted the term "mobbing" (derived from ethology) to define moral harassment in the context of human work, applied to adults in the occupational context, as being a form of psychological violence.

Heinz Leymann (1990) was the one who carried out one of the first clinical and epidemiological studies in the work context, having defined "mobbing" as the phenomenon in which a person or group of people exerts extreme psychological violence, were systematic and recurrent and for an extended time for more than six months and whose attacks are repeated on an average frequency of twice a week) over another person at work, in order to destroy the target victim's communication networks, to destroy his reputation, to disturb the execution of their work, and finally to get that person or persons to leave the workplace). Heinz Leyman (1996) began to define “mobbing” in professional life as hostile and unethical communication that is directed systematically by one or more people, mainly addressed to an individual (at least once a week) and over a long period time (at least 6 months), resulting in considerable psychological, psychosomatic and social harm.

Later, Vandekerckhove & Commers (2003) defined “mobbing” as the repeated behavior of individuals or groups that intentionally harmed others with whom they work.

The consequences of the behavior of mobbing are not only at the individual level (cognitive effects, stress, muscle tension and sleep problems) but also at the family, organizational level (high turnover rate, decreased productivity and teamwork, increased absenteeism, etc.) and society (Aquadro, D., 2017, Vveinhardt, J., 2017, Tunc, Y., 2017, Mulder et al., 2017, Leymann, H., 1996).

"Bullying at work" is used in the literature when there is repeated exposure to unwanted negative acts, whether personal or work related, and of a predominantly psychological nature, and there is an imbalance of power between the protagonists. Although bullying may take different forms, for example behavior directed against one or more individuals, or arising out of a dispute or conflict between two parties, its presence is associated with negative results for targets in terms of detrimental health and wellbeing, sometimes also affecting observers or third parties (Rosta, J., 2018, Gregerson, J., 2017, Kwan, S., 2016, Fox, S., 2015, Einarsen & Nielsen, 2015).

2

Alberto Ribeiro Neves - April 30, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________________________

In order to conceptualize the same phenomenon, other authors use "harassment at work" (Hewett et al., 2018, Rosta & Aasland, 2018, Aquadro, D., 2017, Kwan et al., 2016, Fox & Cowan, 2015) and "Incivility" (Tsuno et al., 2017).

According to Bartlett & Bartlett (2011), both “mobbing” and “bullying at work” refer to the description of the same phenomenon, which appears widely in the research literature, in a variety of disciplines, categorized as being work-related and that negatively affects both the individual and the organization. Results for individuals are seen in terms of impact on work, health (physical and emotional) and affective domains such as motivation.

Although the concept of bullying has been discussed in recent decades, the original investigation of this behavior focused exclusively on the school context. Thus, “bullying”, “harassment at work”, “mobbing”, “bullying at work”, “psychological harassment at work”, “psychological terror at work” or “incivility at work” have been used as synonyms to define personal, moral and psychological violence, vertical or down) or horizontal on the desktop.

The investigation by Coyne et al. (2017) considers that it is necessary to understand and consider the impact of cyberbullying at work in greater detail and that cyberbullying outside the work environment is a predictor model that bullying at work may increase.

Cyberbullying has potentially more implications for workers well-being and for organizational performance than for offline bullying and that human resources policies and procedures for offline bullying should be considered for their effectiveness in reducing cyberbullying and expanded within and outside working contexts (Coyne et al., 2017).

The literature on cyberbullying at work is still scarce and its impact is less on traditional bullying (Coyne et al., 2017).

The indicators analyzed are a result of the significant relationship between the volume and intensity of the cyberbullying experience and individual psychological pressure with job satisfaction, and a strong negative relation between the results of exposure to cyberbullying and job satisfaction when compared with bullying has emerged offline. However, the perceived intensity of cyberbullying and the testimony of cyberbullying are not significantly related to negative outcomes (Coyne et al., 2017).

Assuming the number is even higher today in Europe, the percentage of people working at least a quarter of their time with computers has increased from 39% in 2000 to 52% in 2010 (Vranjes et al., 2018, citing Korunka & Hoon Akker, 2014).

Bullying at work is a growing trend in Western countries such as the US. The latest data for 2017 indicate that about 60.4 million Americans are affected by bullying at work, with 46% reporting worsening labor relations, post-Trump election (Workplace Bullying Institute, 2018).

According to Camacho, Hassanein & Head (2018), although researchers interested in the phenomenon of cyberbullying explored their prevalence and the negative consequences for the victims, they did not include any measures to consider the evaluation of the victim.

The present qualitative systematic review study aims to contribute to the embryo of research on cyberbullying at work, supporting the explanation of the impotence theory about the impact that cyberbullying has on general mental stress and job satisfaction, proving to be a serious problem in the workplace in terms of individual and organizational impact, taking into account the specific nature that the cybernetic context may have (Coyne et al., 2017).

The object of study in the present qualitative systematic review (cyberbullying at work), derives conceptually from the definitions mentioned above, resulting from digital connectivity at work.

The final objective of the review was to contribute to the aggregation of still residual and dispersed knowledge about cyberbullying assessment instruments at work, providing guidance for future research.

The report of this systematic review follows the protocols outlined in the PRISMA guidelines (http://prisma-statement.org/prismastatement).

3

Alberto Ribeiro Neves - April 30, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________________________

2 - Methods:

2.1 - Search strategy: For this qualitative systematic review on “cyberbullying at work”, criteria were adopted that exclude variables associated with sexual harassment. Were included articles published in specialized scientific journals or indexed in the referred databases from 2015 to May 2018, which include emerging factors associated with the use of the Internet and other requirements arising from technological disruption in the work context.

The analysis of the data of the indicated articles was done through a review protocol - checklist of the items included in the systematic review report, identifying the theoretical concepts and the methodological procedures used, as well as the main results of the studies found.

Eleven databases of the international scientific literature dealing with the phenomenon of cyberbullying at work was consulted, aiming at a qualitative, critical and comprehensive systematic review of the available literature, highlighting: Academic Search Complete, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, APA PsycNET, Criminal Justice Periodicals, Web of Science, PsycArticles, Current Contents, PubMed, SCOPUS and European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.

The websites of the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Labor Organization (ILO) of the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI) and the Cyberbullying Research Center (CRC) were also searched for scientific reports and articles.

The research included the following specific key words: "work*" AND “cyber*” AND “bullying” or "cyberbullying* or "cyberbullying at work*" AND "harassment at work*" or "mobbing*".

These terms were crossed. In the consultation of the databases, the languages were limited to English.

The terms have been searched within the title or abstracts of published articles. The research was limited to articles published on research with humans in the work context.

Given that the strategy of qualitative systematic review involves the collection of articles, before reading titles and abstracts, only those that refer to cyberbullying phenomenon resulting from digital connectivity at work were selected, rejecting all those who were not subject to study, taking into account the type of source, document and language.

The complete articles were only obtained if they met the requirements established in sources known to be reliable and presented in good quality. Nevertheless, priority was given to articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

The initial collection recorded 1,469,259 articles. After excluding duplicates, 1,156,816 unique articles were initially identified.

2.2 - Study selection: In this step, the introduction of the criterion related to the type of research source in the work context, allowed to exclude 1,024,587, decreasing to 132,229 articles evaluated for full text eligibility.

Of these, 132,223 articles were excluded with justification: 132,211 because they were not clearly related to the investigation of cyberbullying in the context of work and 12 articles that did not describe instruments for assessment cyberbullying at work. Finally, 6 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis of the systematic review.

4

Alberto Ribeiro Neves - April 30, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________________________

The study selection process is described in the PRISMA flow diagram in figure 1.

Identification

Records identified through database searching: (N = 1,469,259)

Screening

Records after duplicates removed: (N = 1,156,816)

Eligibility

Full-text articles assessed for eligibility: (N = 132,229)

Included

Records screened: (N = 1,156,816)

Studies included in qualitative synthesis: (N = 6)

Records excluded (N = 1,024,587)

Full-text articles excluded.

(N = 132,223) 132,211 = Because they were not clearly related to the investigation of cyberbullying in the context of work.

12 = Because don't describe instruments for assessment cyberbullying at work.

Figure 1- Study selection and exclusion process.

(PRISMA Flow Diagram of articles searched).

2.3 - Data extraction: For the inclusion of the 6 (six) studies in qualitative synthesis, a standardized coding sheet was used an independent and autonomous way to summarize the relevant data of the studies about “cyberbullying at work�, including the names of the first authors, publication date and study, country, sample size (including response rate), age of subjects (mean, SD), identification of the use of assessment instruments and other findings representing the overall quality of included studies.

5

Alberto Ribeiro Neves - April 30, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________________________

The identification of instruments for “cyberbullying at work” assessment is the key criterion for providing a valid and reliable substitute for the quality of the study and methodological rigor required in the face of sampling and response rates that are still not very representative, vulnerable to bias and generalization, regardless of whether there is an association report (estimation), adjustment for sociodemographic covariables and / or use of longitudinal data.

3 - Results: 3.1 - Study characteristics and quality: The Table 1 presents information about the individual characteristics of each study, identifying the instruments used in the assessment of “cyberbullying at work” as a key criterion.

The review found that 6 studies met the key criteria for inclusion.

3.2 - Sample size and recruitment: The table 1 shows the sample size ranging from 331 to 4,500.

Two of the studies do not report response rate (RR), because they recruited convenience samples or because it has not been reported (NR).

3.3 - Measurement and assessment: For the assessment of “cyberbullying at work”, all studies included in the qualitative synthesis, support the criteria of duration and frequency of bullying reported in the pioneer study: “Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror” (LIPT).

Three studies of qualitative synthesis have adopted the "Negative Acts Questionaire Revised" (NAQ-R).

The “Workplace Cyberbullying Measure” (WCM) represents a breakthrough in cyberbullying research at the organizational level, pioneering the development of a valid and reliable measure to evaluate cyberbullying with 17 items of measurement in various communication technologies and working populations involving a total of 944 respondents from different work environments. The use of 3 samples allowed the factorial structure and reliability of the scale to be evaluated, as well as correlations with the wide range of variables in order to demonstrate a significant incremental variance in emotional exhaustion beyond existing harassment constructs.

Although it is based on the existing knowledge of previous studies that use assessment tools, it is the "Inventory of Cyberbullying Acts at Work" (ICA-W) that stands out for the innovative nature of building and validating an inventory of “cyberbullying at work”, broadening the scope of bullying behaviors at work to the online context and the emergency conferred in view of the increase and disruption in the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT’s) within the scope of work.

The "Inventory of Cyberbullying Acts at Work" (ICA-W) is based on a scale tested on two different samples with three-dimensional structured items in order to evaluate cyberbullying behaviors in the context of work, related to the person, work and intrusive.

The reliability and validity of the ICA-W scale were evaluated, as well as the predictive validity was tested to assess the impact of exposure to “cyberbullying at work” on the mental well-being of individuals six months later.

In this way the intervention methodology includes 6 (six) eligible articles that support the qualitative synthesis of the systematic review within the object of study that includes the description of instruments used in revealing evidence resulting from research on “cyberbullying at work” and which can be identified in Table 1.

6

Alberto Ribeiro Neves - April 30, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 1 - Summary of included studies: First author, Year Publ., Country

Vranjes, I. (2018) Belgium

Year study

Sample size

Age mean

Gender (%)

Study 1: n = 710 RR: 32%.

1: Mean age of 44 years (ranging from 19 to 63).

2: Mean age of 42 years (ranging from 18 to 69).

3: Mean age of 42 years (ranging from 20 to 69).

Study 1: 52% - male 48% - female

Study 2: n = 1650 RR: 43%.

2016 Study 3: n = 849 RR: 58%. (public and private sectors).

Hewett, R. (2018) U.K.

Coyne, I. (2017) U.K.

May 2012 March 2013.

2016

N = 3.217 RR: NR Data reported is compiled from four cross-sectional studies in Southeast Asia: Vietnam (n = 1,044), Cambodia (n = 821), Thailand (N = 800), and Philippines (n = 552).

Total N = 331 RR: NR. UK university employees.

N = 944

Farley, F. (2016) U.K.

2016

(different work settings) Study 1: n = 248 (completed surveys).

RR: 26%.

Study 2: n = 424 (inquéritos concluídos).

RR: 45%.

Einarsen, S. (2015) Norway

Leymann, H. (1996), Sweden

2010

1988 1992

Random sample of N = 4.500 employees.

2,539 questionnaires were returned.

RR: 57 %.

The follow-up data were collected in 2010.

The RR for the followup survey was 64 % (N = 1,613).

N = 2.400 employees, representing the entire Swedish Working population, were interviewed.

The Epidemiological statistics revealed that 3,5% of the colective fited into the definition of mobbing.

RR: NR

The mean age was 31.6 years (SD = 9.59) with a range of 18 to 70, mean organizational tenure was 5 years (SD = 6.12).

Study 1: The mean age was 42.4 years (SD = 10.5) and mean job tenure of 9.4 years (SD = 6.6).

1: Mean age of 45 years (ranging from 23 to 68).

SD = 11.2 2: Mean age of 41 yearss (ranging from 19 to 69).

SD = 12.0

The mean age at baseline was 45.23 years.

The sampling criteria were adults between 18 and 67 years of age

The age groups 21-30 years and 31-40 years are overrepresented, compared to the groups 41-50, 51-60 and more than 60.

Study 2: 46% - male 54% - female

Assessment Instrument

ICA-W “Inventory of Cyberbullying Acts at Work”.

Findings

Cyberbullying at work has been shown to have a negative impact on individuals.

“Inventory of Cyberbullying Acts at Work” - ICA-W scores would predict a change in individuals’ mental wellbeing across time.

Study 3: 46% - male 54% - female

53,50% - male 46.5% - female

Study 1: 25% - male 75% - female

Study 1: 28.9% - male 71.1 % - female Study 2: 45% - male 55 % - female

Among the 1,613 respondents, women were slightly overrepresented (54 %).

45% - male 55% - female

NAQ-R “Negative Acts QuestionnaireRevised”.

Checklist of work intimidation items and set of criteria with practical implications on the validity of the definition of the workbullying construct.

NAQ-R “Online revised Negative Acts Questionnaire”.

Cyberbullying is a serious workplace problem in terms of individual and organizational impact, and suggest that electronic media provide another channel for perpetrators to engage in negative acts.

WCM “Workplace Cyberbullying Measure”.

(17- items).

WCM is a valid and reliable tool for measuring cyberbullying during future investigations.

Systematic reviews are needed to determine the differences between traditional bullying and cyberbullying, and whether the development of the last construct adds value.

NAQ - R “Negative Acts QuestionnaireRevised”.

Bullying offline, three factos.

NAQ-R correlated (as expected) with measures of mental health, psychosocial work environment and leadership, indicating a good construct validity of the instrument. It is proposed as a standardized and valid instrument for measuring bullying in the workplace.

LIPT “Leymann inventory of psychological terror”.

Bullying is a process of destruction composed of a series of hostile acts that, if viewed in isolation, may appear anodyne, but with repeated harmful effects.

Reading: ICA-W, Inventory of Cyberbullying Acts at Work; LIPT, Leymann inventory of psychological terror; NAQ-R, Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised; NR, not reported; RR, response rate; SD, Standard deviation; WCM, Workplace Cyberbullying Measure.

7

Alberto Ribeiro Neves - April 30, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________________________

4 - Discussion: The results of the review that culminated in the identification and inclusion of 6 studies show the need for replication of the application of cyberbullying assessment instruments in the work context.

All 6 studies report evidence of the significant prevalence of “cyberbullying at work” and the resulting consequences on the health of workers and organizations.

The still scarce publication of longitudinal, cross-sectional and prospective studies on the assessment of the emerging phenomenon of “cyberbullying at work”, anchored in instruments and rigorous methodologies that are still scattered and not validated, opens the possibility of bias.

Dealing with bullying can be considered effective for potential victims, but leaves damage to wellbeing at work (Hewett et al., 2018).

Confronting bullying was considered effective for those workers who were targeted, but for targets where targets were persistent, bullying was detrimental to their well-being (Hewett et al., 2018).

According to Hewett, Liefooghe, Visockaite & Roongrerngsuke (2018), in relation to work, negative acts of bullying in particular can result in higher performance if individuals do not believe that acts are bullying but in inferior performance if identified as bullying.

Regarding confrontation, the authors identified problem-focused coping strategies to be more effective only when bullying is moderate (Hewett et al., 2018). However, for persistent targets, the confrontation focused on the problem predicted higher levels of psychological strain.

These evidences suggest, first, that they are not sufficient to objectively or subjectively assess the definitions of bullying, but rather to evaluate their interaction, suggesting that when confrontation is passive in relation to bullying, the strategies do not mitigate the impact of negative acts in the results, and the conflict-focused confrontation is only effective in some circumstances (Hewett et al., 2018).

4.1 - Limitations: Despite the evidence on the prevalence of the phenomenon that is emerging, the review of studies on the assessment of “cyberbullying in the work context”, indicates that the evaluation based on selflabeling that involves the general definition of bullying and its frequency of acts or behaviors related to the person and / or to the work, still very supported in the criteria reported by the pioneering studies of H. Leymann (Leyman's Inventory of Psychological Terror - LIPT).

The "Workplace Cyberbullying Measure" (WCM) and the "Inventory of Cyberbullying Acts at Work" (ICA-W) are innovative assessment tools aligned with disruption in the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT's) within the scope of work, with the ICA-W providing a more comprehensive intervention focused on the specificity of intrusive acts that can also be performed by outsiders, such as external clients, paving the way for empirical research that tests other assessment mediators.

Another limitation of this review is associated with the methodological heterogeneity used to measure the same phenomenon, despite differences in population samples and recruitment methods adopted in the various studies. This fact limits the generalization by combination or precise transferability of the measures used in the different findings found.

The disruptive technological change creates limitations that go through the blurring of boundaries between personal space and the workplace and even the terminology adopted around the issue of “cyberbullying at work”, as there is not yet a definition generally adopted internationally by the various authors, knowing that appropriate responses are sought to changes in the external environment, which in this case are related to the use of disruptive communication technologies in the workplace and also because of the cloudiness around which behavior is considered acceptable and not acceptable in the use of this technology and its consequences on psychological health.

8

Alberto Ribeiro Neves - April 30, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________________________

The limitations found in each study included in qualitative synthesis are described in Table 2.

Table 2 - Risk of bias and/or limitations in each study: First author, Year Publ., Country

Vranjes, I. (2018) Belgium

Hewett, R. (2018) U.K.

Coyne, I. (2017) U.K.

Farley, F. (2016) U.K.

Einarsen, S. (2015) Norway

Leymann, H. (1990) Sweden

Risk of bias and / or limitations

1 - The strength of this study lies in the robust, non-parametric techniques for analysis and validation of scale that work with non-normal data. To construct and validate the scale, three different studies were performed and the scale structure tested in two different samples, one representing a variety of sectors and one composed predominantly of public sector workers.

One limitation of this study is that the sample of studies 2 and 3 was more representative for the public sector, limiting the generalization of the results. However, the scale structure was confirmed in two different samples (Study 1 and 2), representing both the public sector and the private sector.

2 - Low occurrence of certain behaviors of cyberbullying, mainly in relation to the intrusion of dimensions, which restricted the variability in the data and the power of the analyzes. Despite this limitation, they were still able to observe significant relationships in the data, which further validates the findings.

3 - It should be noted that data were not collected in relation to similar online constructs, such as cyber-aggression and cybernetic incivility.

4 - An important issue that needs to be addressed is the highly distorted distribution of bullying at work. The same applies to measuring cyberbullying at work. To account for this, several techniques have been applied throughout different studies that are suitable for data where the assumption of multivariate normality is violated. In addition, when testing for convergent validity, were reported the non-parametric correlation coefficient.

Problem-focused coping was found to be effective for those sometimes targeted, but for persistent targets was detrimental to wellbeing.

1 - The use of an adapted NAQ-R scale applied to cybernetic contexts as a method of evaluating cyberbullying can be criticized. However, as existing research has used this approach and the current measures in the workplace are very narrow in scope or evaluate different concepts, the adopted method was appropriate for an emerging research area. In addition, evidence of content validity and construct validity of a twofactor model representing work and negative acts related to the person are also provided. Cyberbullying in the workplace has been conceptualized as "repeated and lasting negative behavior in the workplace that occurs through technology�. The elements emphasized in this definition are reflected in the measurement instrument, since the Cyberbullying Negative Acts Questionnaire (CNAQ) measures exposure to bullying behaviors promulgated by the technology. However, CNAQ only measures the frequency and exposure to different negative acts of cyberbullying and does not assess the power disparity between the perpetrator and the target. If this is a defining feature of cyberbullying in the workplace (such as offline bullying), the research also needs to use an appropriate self-report question to evaluate self-labeled victimization.

Future research will need to examine whether cyberbullying in the workplace is simply "electronic bullying" and whether there are unique cyberbullying behaviors at work (p.966).

2 - A second limitation is the nature of the self-report for the research. Mono-method approaches are common in bullying research, since other reports may only identify those behaviors that are self-evident in nature, and therefore covert bullying can be underestimated. In addition, the nature of the other variables in the current survey lends to self-reporting data collection.

However, Harman's single factor test and latent variable statistical analyzes, along with results showing relationships to outcome measures following general stress management (which was also measured by self-report) suggest that the results are not greatly affected by CMV (p.

966).

3 - The transversal nature of the research does not allow to test causal processes or the possibility of reciprocal and / or reverse causality. In mitigation, the directional hypotheses supported here were based on specific theoretical predictions and, therefore, unlikely due to chance.

Although there is a clear need for further longitudinal research on cyberbullying, recent evidence of workplace bullying would indicate an expected causal pathway of cyberbullying for mental wear and not the other way around (p.966).

4 - All studies involved relatively small samples. This may have been a function of the methodology, since online surveys tend to have high evasion. The method also allows the population surveyed to self-select their participation, so it is possible that respondents were interested in having experienced or witnessed cyberbullying. Although this is a limitation of the research, the methodology was particularly applicable to this research, since the focus was an online phenomenon. However, future research should seek to obtain higher participation rates to promote greater confidence in results (p. 967).

Pioneering research on cyberbullying in the work context.

Need for replication. The lack of psychometric scales that capture the various characteristics of technological communication has made it difficult to research cyberbullying in the workplace.

Different types of bullying should be investigated and evaluated differently All variables are based on self-report, making it difficult to know the objective level of exposure to bullying and the bjective markers of mental health problems, such as medically certified diagnoses. Confirmation of the null hypothesis is difficult in such small samples. The gender differences found in the present study should be followed in studies with an even larger sample.

As wear analyzes showed that bullying targets tended to participate less in follow-up than other respondents, the observed relationship between bullying and mental health symptoms may even be underestimated, a trend that may be even stronger by the fact of looking at fairly healthy employees who are still active in working life five years later, some of whom have faced other stressors and health problems in addition to bullying at work.

It was the pioneering study on bullying at work, and the real reason why bullying was occurring in the workplace was unknown, despite several assumptions.

9

Alberto Ribeiro Neves - April 30, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________________________

5 - Conclusion: The definition that is considered the most adequate and agglutinative in the several authors consulted for this review in which the object of study relates to “cyberbullying at work”, is characterized by all the negative acts arising from the work relations and that occur through the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) that are carried out repeatedly over a period of time or at least once but constitute an intrusion into the worker's personal life by exposing private information to a large online public (Vranjes et al., 2018).

This article makes it possible to understand the current panorama of cyberbullying resulting from digital connectivity at work, reviewing the scientific production on the subject and demonstrating that this is an area that needs to be better studied.

Future investigations can test validated measurement scales in various organizational contexts to confirm the results obtained so far (Vranjes et al., 2018).

The phenomenon of cyberbullying is a major challenge, with the question of defining the boundary between the private life of the worker and his / her working life or between extra-work behavior and work behavior. Regarding the review, most recent studies show that the issue of bullying at work, as a paradigm of psychosocial risks in Occupational Safety and Health, has few proposals for intervention.

"Cyberbullying" is more addressed in children and adolescents, with less attention or research being given to "cyberbullying at work”.

Another particular feature of this study is the finding that the literature commonly uses the term "workplace harassment" and rarely uses "harassment at work", more according to distance communication (telephone, e-mail and / or social networks). This finding opens the possibility of future criteria being established for the inclusion of "harassment at work" and exclusion of "harassment in the workplace" in the future, allowing to combine the objectives of this study with the results to be obtained on cyberbullying resulting from connectivity at work.

“Cyberbullying at work” must cease to be seen as a subset of bullying and the tools for assessing the phenomenon can no longer be the same, adopted in other contexts, as working time and personal time can not be overcome 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, even with the use of technology, owned by companies.

This qualitative systematic review brings additional theoretical contributions, namely on how workers and organizations can now tackle cyberbullying resulting from digital connectivity at work and therefore have implications for the future of research.

References: Acquadro Maran, D., Bernardelli, S. & Varetto, A. (2017). Mobbing (bullying at work) in Italy: characteristics of successful court cases. Article in Journal of injury & violence research, 10 (1), 1-8. January 2018. doi: 10.5249/jivr.v10i1.945.

Barlett, C. P., Kowalewski, D. A., Kramer, S. S., & Helmstetter, K. M. (2018). Testing the Relationship Between Media Violence Exposure and Cyberbullying Perpetration. Psychology of Popular Media Culture. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/ppm0000179 Bartlett, J. E., & Bartlett, M. E. (2011). Workplace bullying: An integrative literature review. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(1), 69-84. doi:10.1177/1523422311410651

10

Alberto Ribeiro Neves - April 30, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Camacho S., Hassanein, K. & Head M. (2018). Cyberbullying impacts on victims’ satisfaction with information and communication technologies: The role of Perceived Cyberbullying Severity.

Information & Management. 55(4), 494-507. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2017.11.004 Coyne, I., Farley, S., Axtell, C., Sprigg, C., Best, L., & Kwok, O. (2017). Understanding the relationship between experiencing workplace cyberbullying, employee mental strain and job satisfaction: a dysempowerment approach. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28 (7), 945-972. doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1116454.

D'Souza N, Forsyth D, Tappin D, Catley B. (2018). Conceptualizing workplace cyberbullying: Toward a definition for research and practice in nursing. Journal Of Nursing Management [serial online].

ISSN: 1365-2834. doi: 10.1111/jonm.12614 Einarsen, S., & Nielsen, M. B. (2015). Workplace bullying as an antecedent of mental health problems: a five-year prospective and representative study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 88(2), 131-142. doi.org/10.1007/s00420-014-0944-7 Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice, 2, 3-40. ISBN nº 13: 978-1-4398-0490-2 (Ebook-PDF).

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts QuestionnaireRevised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24-44. doi: 10.1080/02678370902815673 Farley, S., Coyne, I. J., & D'Cruz, P. (2017). Cyberbullying at work: Understanding the influence of technology. Springer. IN: Rayner, C. and D'Cruz, P. (eds). Workplace Bullying. Concepts, Approaches and Methods. Springer, In Press.

Farley, S., Coyne, I., Axtell, C., & Sprigg, C. (2016). Design, development and validation of a workplace cyberbullying measure, the WCM. Work & Stress, 30, 293-317. doi:10.1080/02678373.2016.1255998 Fox, S., & Cowan, R. L. (2015). Revision of the workplace bullying checklist: The importance of human resource management’s role in defining and addressing workplace bullying. Human Resource Management Journal, 25, 116-130. doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12049.

Gregersen, J. (2017). Is Workplace Bullying a Conflict? Examples from Norwegian lawsuits.

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 24(3), 428-439. doi:10.1080/13218719.2016.1247641 Hewett, R., Liefooghe, A., Visockaite, G., & Roongrerngsuke, S. (2018). Bullying at work: Cognitive appraisal of negative acts, coping, wellbeing, and performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23 (1), 71-84. doi:10.1037/ocp0000064.

Korunk A, C. A., & Hoon Akker, P. (2014). The impact of ICT on quality of working life. Springer Netherlands. eBook Packages. Behavioral Science. Online ISBN: 978-94-017-8854-0 doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8854-0

11

Alberto Ribeiro Neves - April 30, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Kowalski, R. M; Toth, A; Morgan, M. (2018). Bullying and cyberbullying in adulthood and the workplace. The Journal Of Social Psychology, 158(1), 64-81. ISSN: 1940-1183. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2017.1302402 Kwan, S. S. M., Tuckey, M. R., & Dollard, M. F. (2016). The role of the psychosocial safety climate in coping with workplace bullying: A grounded theory and sequential tree analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(1), 133-148. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2014.982102.

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 (2), 165-184. doi: 10.1080/13594329608414853 Leymann, H. & Gustafsson (1996). Mobbing at work and the development of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 251-275. doi: 10.1080/13594329608414858 Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and victims, 5(2), 119126.

Mulder, R., Bos, A. E. R., Pouwelse, M., & van Dam, K. (2017). Workplace mobbing: How the victim’s coping behavior influences bystander responses. Journal of Social Psychology, 157(1), 16-29. doi:10.1080/00224545.2016.1152213.

Privitera, C., & Campbell, M. A. (2009). Cyberbullying: The new face of workplace bullying?. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 395-400. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2009.0025 Rosta, J., & Aasland, O. G. (2018). Perceived bullying among Norwegian doctors in 1993, 2004 and 2014-2015: a study based on cross-sectional and repeated surveys. BMJ Open, 8(2), 1-9. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018161.

Snyman, R., & Loh, J. M. (2015). Cyberbullying at work: The mediating role of optimism between cyberbullying and job outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 161-168. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.050 Tsuno, K., Kawakami, N., Shimazu, A., Shimada, K., Inoue, A., & Leiter, M. P. (2017). Workplace incivility in Japan: Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the modified Work Incivility Scale. Journal of Occupational Health, 59(3), 237-246. doi:10.1539/joh.16-0196-AO Tunc, Y. (2017). Mobbing in Turkish labor law. PressAcademia Procedia (PAP), V.3, p. 409-422 doi: 10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.427 Vandekerckhove, W., & Commers, M. R. (2003). Downward workplace mobbing: a sign of the times?. Journal of business Ethics, 45(1-2), 41-50. doi: 10.1023/A:1024168311652 Vranjes, I., Baillien, E., Vandebosch, H., Erreygers, S., & De Witte, H. (2018). When workplace bullying goes online: construction and validation of the Inventory of Cyberbullying Acts at Work (ICAW). European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(1), 28-39. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2017.1363185

12

Alberto Ribeiro Neves - April 30, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Vranjes, I., Baillien, E., Vandebosch, H., Erreygers, S., & De Witte, H. (2017). The dark side of working online: Towards a definition and an Emotion Reaction model of workplace cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 324–334. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.055 Vveinhardt, J., Grancay, M., & Andriukaitiene, R. (2017). Integrated Actions for Decrease and/or Elimination of Mobbing as a Psychosocial Stressor in the Organizations Accessing and Implementing Corporate Social Responsibility. Engineering Economics, 28(4), 432-445. doi:10.5755/j01.ee.28.4.17911 West, B., Foster, M., Levin, A., Edmison, J., & Robibero, D. (2014). Cyberbullying at work: In search of effective guidance. Laws, 3(3), 598-617. doi:10.3390/laws3030598 Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Individual antecedents of bullying: Victims and perpetrators. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice. Section III - Explaining the Problem. 7 Individual Antecedents of Bullying: Victims and Perpetrators (Vol. 2, pp. 177-200). London: Taylor and Francis. ISBN: 13:978-1-4398-0490-2

Web Addresses: Cyberbullying Research Center (2018). Avaiable in: https://cyberbullying.org/ www.cyberbullying.org/ Workplace Bullying Institute (2018). WBI National (U.S.) Surveys. Workplace Bullying Survey.

Avaiable and retrieved from: http://www.workplacebullying.org/wbiresearch/wbi-2017-survey/ . http://www.workplacebullying.org/multi/img/2017/Infographic-2017.png http://www.workplacebullying.org/multi/pdf/2017/Support.pdf

Alberto Ribeiro Neves April, 30, 2018 albertoneves42@gmail.com

13