The DOI matches its Crossref record; 164 of the 164 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: An overview of the literature and agenda for future research
Open accessAbstract
Over the last three decades, the scientific and social interest in workplace bullying has accelerated and our understanding of this pervasive and detrimental social problem has advanced considerably in a relatively short amount of time. Workplace bullying is now a phenomenon of global interest, new topics are steadily emerging within the field, and the methodological quality of the studies has become more sophisticated. Building on findings from the ever increasing number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this field, the aim of this literature overview was two-folded. In the first part, the aim was to provide a basic overview of what we already know with regard to the nature and content of the bullying phenomenon, its risk-factors and causes, its consequences, and its potential measures and interventions. In the second part, the aim was to address what we do not know and to put forward an agenda for future research within the field. Here, six major knowledge challenges are discussed: a) construct clarification, b) the need for theoretical models, c) causality, d) bullying as a process, e) mediators and moderators, and f) intervention and rehabilitation of victims, perpetrators, and work environments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2013) · Cited by 44,563
Eysenck, H. J. (1985) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0005-7967(85)90087-7 · Cited by 31,975
“Stress: appraisal and coping,”
Folkman, S. (2013) · Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_215 · Cited by 27,833
Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.44.3.513 · Cited by 18,187
The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004) · Political Psychology · doi:10.4324/9780203505984-16 · Cited by 13,467
Psychology of intergroup relations
Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1986) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10,626
Social identity and intergroup behaviour
Tajfel, H. (1974) · Social Science Information · doi:10.1177/053901847401300204 · Cited by 4,074
Does Rejection Hurt? An fMRI Study of Social Exclusion
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1089134 · Cited by 3,849
The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression
(2013) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203771693 · Cited by 2,741
The content and development of mobbing at work
Leymann, H. (1996) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/13594329608414853 · Cited by 2,270
Metadata
- Authors
- Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. V.
- Venue
- Aggression and Violent Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-09
- Volume
- 42
- Pages
- 71-83
- ISSN
- 1359-1789 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2810390016
- Cited by
- 434
- References
- 164
- FWCI
- 85.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: An overview of the literature and agenda for future research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.007
- The paper
- Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. V. (2018). What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: An overview of the literature and agenda for future research. Aggression and Violent Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.