Aggression and Violent Behavior 69 (2023) 101823 Available online 31 January 2023 1359-1789/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc-nd/4.0/). The making and breaking of workplace bullying perpetration: A systematic review on the antecedents, moderators, mediators, outcomes of perpetration and suggestions for organizations Gülüm Ozer a,*, Jordi Escartín b,c a Department of Social Psychology and Quantitative Psychology, University of Barcelona, 08035 Barcelona, Spain b Department of Social Psychology and Quantitative Psychology, University of Barcelona, 08035 Barcelona, Spain c Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London SE5 8AF, UK A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords: Workplace bullying Perpetrators Systematic review Antecedents Moderators Mediators Outcomes A B S T R A C T Research examining workplace bullying (WB) perpetration from the perspective of perpetrators has remained limited compared to the literature on targets and victims. Until now, no systematic review of the studies from the perpetrators’ viewpoints has been published. The present review aimed to synthesize the empirical studies that examine antecedents, mediators, moderators, and outcomes of WB perpetration. It also analyzed the practical suggestions given to curb perpetration and the research methods used. A literature search in Scopus, ProQuest, Science Direct, PubMed, and Web of Science databases for empirical studies published between 2003 and 2023 in peer-reviewed journals in English resulted in 50 full-text articles. Antecedent–perpetration relationships were primarily examined based on social and aggression theories. These relationships were analyzed in the silos of work environment or individual factors without diverse moderators and mediators. Research on WB perpetrators largely lacked causality analysis. Perpetration was associated with task-focused, conflict-prone, poorly orga- nized, and stressful work environments. WB perpetrators had undesirable personality characteristics, and they were also being bullied. The outcomes of their behavior were rarely studied. The suggestions the researchers gave to curb WB perpetration seemed unlikely to be implemented by the same management team that created the toxic environment in the first place. Research on WB perpetrators, which is still in its infancy stage, lacks variety in terms of topics studied, the combination of work environment and individual factors, causality analysis and evidence-based interventions. 1. Introduction Innumerable constructs explain the negative workplace behaviors that harm employees and organizations. These interpersonal mis- treatments, physical and psychological, range from simple incivility to all-out physical violence. Negative acts that comprise workplace aggression include sexual harassment, counterproductive work behavior, abusive supervision, bullying, deviance, lateral violence (Magnavita et al., 2020) and violence (Manier et al., 2017; Priesemuth et al., 2017). Bullying is a common workplace phenomenon, defined as a severe and damaging interpersonal behavior (Akanksha et al., 2021), occurring regularly and repeatedly over a period of time, with the interaction of personal and work-related factors (Rai & Agarwal, 2018). The phenomenon results in adverse outcomes for all parties involved. For targets and victims, adverse outcomes may be negative well-being (Zapf et al., 2020), sleep problems (Magnavita et al., 2019; Nielsen et al., 2020), mental disturbances (Verkuil et al., 2015), frequent job changes, or unemployment (Einarsen et al., 2020), and/or suicidal thoughts (Gunn & Goldstein, 2020). For spouses, adverse outcomes may be partner social undermining and conflicts (Rodríguez-Mu~noz et al., 2020). For witnesses, possible negative consequences may be increases in turnover intentions and reductions in organizational commitment (Salin & Notelaers, 2018). For departments or work units, higher employee burnout (Escartín, Dollard, et al., 2021) and finally, for or- ganizations and society, funds wasted (Cullinan et al., 2020; Kline & Lewis, 2019) may be possible adverse outcomes of workplace bullying (WB). * Corresponding author. E-mail address: aozeroze7@alumnes.ub.edu (G. Ozer). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Aggression and Violent Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aggviobeh https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2023.101823 Received 29 March 2022; Received in revised form 18 January 2023; Accepted 26 January 2023 Aggression and Violent Behavior 69 (2023) 101823 2 1.1. Research on bullying from perpetrators’ viewpoint The direct causes (antecedents) and outcomes of WB, the factors which indirectly play a part in these relationships (mediators), and the factors that strengthen, diminish or alter these relationships (modera- tors) have typically been studied from the perspective of the WB victims. Research on WB started through the lens of targets and victims in the 1990s, and the study of moderators and mediators started after 2001 (Rai & Agarwal, 2018). As in-depth research from the perspective of perpetrators lagged behind, a detailed understanding of the underlying and intervening mechanisms involved in WB perpetration was not thoroughly achieved. To fill this gap, studies analyzing the bullying phenomenon from the lens of other actors of the phenomenon started. Research on perpetrators or bullies started in 2003 (Coyne et al., 2003). Since then, research on WB perpetrators has been growing. Among the 50 articles covered in the present systematic review, 46 studies focused on antecedents, 17 tested mediators and moderators in the relationship between antecedents and WB perpetration, and four focused on the WB perpetration outcomes (Fig. 1). One of the reasons for the lack of effective interventions is, perhaps, our limited understanding of the perpetrators. Although perpetrators were studied along with other actors for some time, the emergence of studies only focusing on them is a positive advancement in under- standing their perspective in-depth. Along with the utilization of com- plex research methods and robust software development, the cross- sectional method gave way to longitudinal research on perpetrators. Longitudinal research and testing of mediators and moderators have replaced earlier simpler cross-sectional studies, allowing for more detailed analysis over time. These advancements bring us closer to fully understanding the complexities of WB and may lead to more effective interventions and further policy changes to prevent it. 1.2. Perpetration prevalence Despite the efforts to reduce WB in the last 30 years, the prevalence rate of victimization is around 15 % globally (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018). Bullying prevalence is often measured, but different methods used to calculate prevalence result in a wide range of figures. If analyzed by intensity, 3 % of employees experience severe and 10 % occasional bullying, while 10–20 % experience negative social behaviors (Zapf et al., 2020). According to a recent world-wide review (Leon-Perez et al., 2021), bullying prevalence fluctuates between 0.6 %- 13 % in Scandi- navian countries, between 2.5 %–27.9 % in Mediterranean countries, between 2.4 %–51 % in American countries, and between 0.3 %–18.5 % in Asia-Pacific countries, suggesting that the organizational context and specific characteristics of the sample, rather than the national culture, may explain differences in the prevalence of bullying. As the research on WB started with analyzing victims and targets, the phenomenon was defined and measured from the victims’ points of view. Hence, the literature on WB perpetration has been comparatively limited. Only a few studies measure WB perpetration from the perpetrator’s perspec- tive. Few scales assess WB from the perpetrators’ perspective (Escartín, Vranjes, et al., 2021), and few studies show a range of prevalence of self- reported bullies and perpetrators, e.g., 9.5 % in workplaces (Leon-Perez et al., 2021). The prevalence rate of perpetration was reported by 17 of the 50 studies in our review. Nine studies measured bullies by the self-labeling method, where the average rate of bully prevalence was 4 %. The other eight studies measured perpetration by the behavioral approach and found an average prevalence of 8 % (please refer to Table 1). 1.3. Need for the review Although the organizational psychology field has supplied organi- zations with valuable insights into the phenomenon, the high level of sustained prevalence and possible management indifference indicates 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 3 4 1 1 1 2 3 4 2 1 1 3 2 1 4 2003 2004 2006 2007 2009 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Number of articles published from the perpective of perpetrators (n=50) Cross-sectional Longitudinal 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 111 2 1 1 1 1 3 2009 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Number of articles published from the perpective of perpetrators with mediators and moderators (n=19) Moderator Mediator Fig. 1. Articles included in the systematic review. G. Ozer and J. Escartín Aggression and Violent Behavior 69 (2023) 101823 3 that the field still has a long way to go in the research to eliminate these illegal and unethical workplace acts. While many comprehensive re- views were published on WB (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018; Rai & Agarwal, 2018; Samnani & Singh, 2014), they approached bullying from the victims’ and targets’ perspectives. There is no compiled knowledge on antecedents, mediators, moderators and outcomes of WB from the perpetratorsperspective. Therefore, the present review aims to identify the factors causing individuals to become perpetrators and how they are affected and synthesize suggestions for practitioners to stop this phe- nomenon. This aim seems relevant, as we have limited knowledge of how work conditions trigger perpetrators and which dispositions affect their behavior. The ultimate goal is to provide clarity for future research to develop effective interventions in organizations focusing on potential or active perpetrators to reduce bullying. 2. Methodology In this review, we included primary empirical studies on anteced- ents, moderators, mediators and outcomes of WB from the perspective of perpetrators. We used the following keywords (or a combination of keywords) in the search (Appendix A) from 2003 to 2023: WB, perpe- trator, perpetration, bully, and bullies. We searched Scopus, ProQuest, Science Direct, PubMed, and Web of Science databases in January 2023. Our eligibility criteria for inclusion were; a) primary empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals in English with full texts available and doctorate theses; b) publication period between 2003 and 2023; c) focused on antecedents, moderators, mediators and outcomes of WB from the perspective of perpetrators. Therefore, the following records were excluded from our review a) conference abstracts, book chapters, commentaries, editorials, academic letters, systematic reviews, meta- analyses, literature reviews, and all other types of non-empirical studies; b) studies from the perspectives of others, such as victims, tar- gets, managers, bystanders, human resources practitioners, occupa- tional health physicians; c) other negative behaviors like school bullying, workplace violence, cyberbullying, sexual harassment, abusive supervision, counterproductive work behaviors, and incivility. Search results for 3507 records were uploaded to Rayyan software (Rayyan Systems Inc. Cambridge, MA, USA). With the help of the software, we deleted duplicates (1159), non-English abstracts and main text lan- guages (10) and publications other than empirical studies such as sys- tematic reviews, meta-analyses, book chapters, magazines, books, news (260), resulting in eligible records (2078) for abstract reviews. The ab- stracts of the remaining records were screened for eligibility by the first author. After the deletion of articles with other constructs such as mistreatment, incivility, cyberbullying, violence (610), and studies that were not from the perspectives of perpetrators (1423), our research yielded 45 articles. These studies were downloaded as full-text articles and reviewed based on strict inclusion criteria. Study quality was ensured by checking that all articles were published in peer-reviewed articles, including authors’ details, aims pursued, details on methods and measures used, study participants’ details, and all the related con- texts reflecting perpetrators’ perspectives. Two articles were excluded due to i) missing information on the scales used to measure perpetration (Hidzir et al., 2017) ii) lack of recordings of the interviews (4: Misra & Table 1 Prevalence of perpetration measured by self-reports and behavioral method. Authors/publication year Measures Participants Bullies % Coyne et al. (2003) Single item with definition “Workplace bullying is ‘persistent, offensive, abusive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behavior, abuse of power or unfair penal sanctions, making the recipient feel upset, threatened, humiliated or vulnerable, undermining self-confidence, causing stress” 288 56 19 % Matthiesen and Einarsen (2007) Single item with definition “To label something as bullying it has to occur repeatedly over a period of time, and the person confronted has to have difficulties defending themselves. It is not bullying if two parties of approximately equal ‘strength’ are in conflict or the incident is an isolated event.” 4742 237 5 % Seigne et al. (2007) Single item with definition “When a person is bullied in the workplace, he/she is repeatedly exposed to aggressive acts, which can either be physical, psychological and/or verbal. Cruelty, viciousness, the need to humiliate and the need to make somebody feel small dominates a working relationship”. 34 10 29 % Hauge et al. (2009) Single item with definition “Bullying takes place when one or more persons systematically and over time feel that they have been subjected to negative treatment on the part of one or more persons, where the person(s) exposed to the treatment have difficulty in defending themselves. It is not bullying when two equally strong opponents are in conflict with each other”. 2359 68 3 % Liu (2012) Respondents were asked if they displayed bullying behaviors towards others 114 8 7 % Nielsen (2013) Single item with definition “Bullying takes place when one or more persons systematically and over time feel that they have been subjected to negative treatment from the part of one or more persons, where the person(s) exposed to the treatment have difficulty in defending themselves against them”. 594 21 4 % De Wet and Jacobs (2014) Single item self-constructed questionnaire “If you have ever bullied one or more of your colleagues, please feel free to share your experiences with us” 999 32 3 % Glambek et al. (2016) Single item with definition “Bullying (for example harassment, torment, freezeout or hurtful teasing) is a problem in some workplaces and for some employees. To be able to call something bullying, it has to occur repeatedly over a certain period of time, and the bullied person has difficulty in defending him- or herself. It is not bullying when two persons of approximately equal “strength” are in conflict, or if it is a single situation. 1613 45 3 % Ozer et al. (2022) Single item with definition “Bullying means that a person repeatedly is exposed to unpleasant or degrading treatment, and that the person finds it difficult to defend himself or herself against it”. 2508 50 2 % Sub total 13,251 527 4 % Authors/publication year Measures Participants Perpetrators % Lee and Brotheridge (2006) 43 items from existing scales (Cortina et al., 2001; Keashly et al., 1994; Quine, 1999; Rayner, 1997). 180 44 24 % Escartín et al. (2012) Adapted NAQ-RE & NAQ-P 521 52 10 % Brotheridge et al. (2012) 43 items from existing scales (Cortina et al., 2001; Keashly et al., 1994; Quine, 1999; Rayner, 1997). 180 3 2 % Escartín et al. (2013) 14 item Adapted Spanish NAQ-RE (Moreno-Jimenez et al., 2007) 4848 194 4 % Linton and Power (2013) Modified NAQ-R 224 39 17 % Pilch and Turska (2014) Adapted version of UBQ 117 28 24 % Mazzone et al. (2021) Three items adjusted from the SNAQ (Notelaers et al., 2019) 630 17 3 % Ozer et al. (2023) Modified EAPA-T-R (Escartín et al., 2017) 2508 369 15 % Sub total 9208 746 8 % Notes: NAQ-RE: Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised Spanish, NAQ-P: Negative Acts Questionnaire-Perpetrators, NAQ-R: Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised, UBQ: Unethical Behavior Questionnaire; SNAQ: Short Negative Acts Questionnaire, EAPA-T-R: Reduced form of Psychological Abuse Scale Applied in the Workplace. G. Ozer and J. Escartín Aggression and Violent Behavior 69 (2023) 101823 4 Sharma, 2022). Seven articles (referenced by other articles) were added to the review based on their adherence to inclusion criteria, leading to the final group of 50 selected articles. Fig. 2 includes the PRISMA flowchart representing the step-by-step exclusion. We acknowledge that our search may not be exhaustive and recognize the opportunity for a more comprehensive systematic review. 3. Results Scholars have long analyzed bullying victims and targets, concluding that two main theories could explain bullying behavior from victims’ perspectives. The “Work Environment Hypothesis” (Leymann, 1996) suggests that work conditions such as role conflicts, work overload, and job ambiguity created by poor job design and an unfavorable social environment foster bullying. On the other hand, the “individual dispo- sitions” hypothesis indicates that the victim or perpetrator’s character- istics trigger bullying behavior (Einarsen et al., 2020). Empirical data on bullying studies indicated many possible causes related to the organi- zation, the department or unit, the perpetrator or bully, and the target or victim. Out of the 50 empirical studies analyzing WB from perpetrators’ views, 15 focused exclusively on the antecedents of the work environ- ment, 14 on individual differences, and 21 incorporated both factors in their studies (see Table 2). We also analyzed researchers’ suggestions to organizations on preventing WB based on the results of their studies. 3.1. Antecedents of perpetration 3.1.1. Work environment factors as antecedents of bullying perpetration 3.1.1.1. Job demands & job resources. Employee well-being was defined as a function of job demands and the decision authority the employee has to meet these demands (Job Demand-Control; Karasek, 1979) and the effort put in meeting the job demands and the rewards obtained in return (Siegrist, 1996). By adding job resources to the function, the Job Demands-Resources Model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) emphasized job resources (e.g., social support, performance feedback, and autonomy), triggering motivation to meet the demands resulting in lower strain and thus better well-being. The organizational inefficiencies arising from the imbalance of job demands and resources were frequently considered as antecedents in WB research. Cross-sectional studies showed that accused perpetrators complained about staff shortages (Jenkins, Zapf, et al., 2011), being overworked (Liu, 2012), perceived less laissez-faire su- pervisory leadership, less job insecurity, and significantly more job satisfaction and control over decisions (Hauge et al., 2007). If perpe- trators perceived to have high resources, such as being highly employ- able (De Cuyper et al., 2009), or if they had task autonomy under high job demands, they still bullied others (Van den Broeck et al., 2011), when analyzed cross-sectionally. In longitudinal studies, perpetrators seemed neither triggered by the changes in job demands (workload, role conflicts, job insecurity) nor by job resources (skills, autonomy, social support) over 12 months (Bail- lien, Rodríguez-Mu~noz, et al., 2011). However, research also showed that having an imbalance of demands and resources, such as high workloads with low autonomy, reported higher perpetration after 12 months (Baillien, De Cuyper, et al., 2011). The Work Environment Hypothesis, the Job Demands and Resources model, the Stressor Emotion framework of Counterproductive Work Behaviors (Spector & Fox, 2005), and General Strain (Hinduja, 2007) theories have assisted in explaining the results that poorly organized work environments with imbalanced demands and resources, create stressful work conditions, triggering emotional responses to strain, and acts of perpetration. However, one result that these models could not explain was that high resources such as high employability and job autonomy seemed to go beyond helping relieve stress for some in- dividuals and encouraged perpetration. Perhaps conflicting results suggested that other forces related to the organization or related to the individual might be at play. 3.1.1.2. Conflicts & role ambiguity. Conflicts are an inevitable part of work-life that arise from the clash of principles, interests, or opinions; they can be work-related or interpersonal, and when unsolved, they may lead to WB (Baillien et al., 2009; Baillien et al., 2017). Task (Baillien et al., 2015) and role conflicts (Hauge et al., 2009; Jenkins, Zapf, et al., 2011; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007) were related to perpetration cross- sectionally. Moreover, role conflicts predicted it after 12 months (Bal- ducci et al., 2012); forcing conflict management style increased reports of perpetration after six months while the problem-solving style reduced it (Baillien et al., 2013). Role ambiguity refers to a lack of clear understanding of what actions must be taken to achieve one’s individual goals (Kahn et al., 1964). Fig. 2. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for systematic reviews. G. Ozer and J. Escartín Aggression and Violent Behavior 69 (2023) 101823 5 Table 2 Critical findings of the 50 analyzed studies in chronological order. Authors & publication year Study design, participants, country, subjects Domain of research & variables Summary of results Coyne et al. (2003) *CS & *QN; Fire service, UK (n ˆ 288); Victims & Bullies *ID. *Ant: Personality, perceptions of the work environment. Independence, extroversion, and conscientiousness were not related to perpetration. Self & peer-reported bullies tended to have difficulty coping with personal criticism. Coyne et al. (2004) CS & QN; Fire service, UK (n ˆ 288); Victims & Bullies *WE. Ant: Team member preference and effectiveness. Self- and peer-reported bullies tended to be the least preferred people to work with. Lee and Brotheridge (2006) CS & QN; Diverse industries, Canada (n ˆ 180); Targets & Perpetrators WE. Ant: Being Bullied. Receiving undermining and verbal abuse predicted scapegoating and undermining others. Hauge et al. (2007) CS & QN; Representative sample, Norway (n ˆ 2539); Targets & Bullies WE. Ant: Job (satisfaction, demands, insecurity), decision authority, leadership behavior. Bullies reported less laissez-faire leadership, job stressors, job insecurity; and more job satisfaction, control over decisions than targets and target/bullies. Seigne et al. (2007) CS & QN; Random employees, Ireland (n ˆ 34); Bullies ID. Ant: Personality. Bullies tended to be significantly more independent, competitive, assertive, single-minded, and forthright than non-bullies. Matthiesen and Einarsen (2007) CS & QN; Heterogenous employee sample, Norway (n ˆ 4742); Targets, Victims, Bullies WE & ID. Ant: Aggression, role conflict, role ambiguity. Most bullies were males, tended to show unstable self- esteem, score higher aggressiveness, role conflict and role ambiguity. De Cuyper et al. (2009) CS & QN; Two organizations, Belgium (n ˆ 693); Targets & Perpetrators WE & ID. Ant: Job insecurity; *Mod: Perceived employability. Individuals who perceived themselves as highly employable, despite feeling insecure about their jobs, reported perpetration. Glasø et al. (2009) CS & QN; Random employee sample, Norway (n ˆ 2539); Targets & Bullies ID. Ant: Interpersonal problems. Bullies tended to be more domineering, vindictive, cold, socially avoidant, intrusive, distrustful than non-victims, and had high interpersonal problems. Hauge et al. (2009) CS & QN; Representative sample, Norway (n ˆ 2359; Bullies WE & ID. Ant: Being bullied, role conflict, interpersonal conflicts, gender. Being bullied, being male, role and interpersonal conflicts significantly predicted being a bully. Age and organizational position was not related to it. Baillien, Rodríguez- Mu~noz, et al. (2011) L (2 waves 12 months lag) & QN; A financial organization, Belgium (n ˆ 177); Targets & Perpetrators WE Ant: JD and JR (not supported). JD was positively, and JR was negatively correlated with perpetration but no significant cross-lagged effect was found after 12 months. Van den Broeck et al. (2011) CS & QN; 17 organizations, Belgium (n ˆ 749); Targets & Perpetrators WE. Ant: Job Demands (JD), Job resources (JR); *Med: Emotional exhaustion (not supported). The combination of high JD and high JR was indicative of perpetration. Emotional exhaustion related positively to perpetration but was not a mediator Baillien, De Cuyper, and De Witte (2011) *L (2 waves 12 months lag) & QN; Two organizations, Belgium (n ˆ 320); Targets & Perpetrators WE Ant: Workload Mod: Job Autonomy. Workload was associated with perpetration with 12 months lag for those who scored low on job authority. Jenkins, Zapf, et al. (2011) CS & QL; Heterogenous employee sample, Australia (n ˆ 24); Accused bullies WE. Ant: Stressful work environment, being bullied. Alleged bullies have highly stressful work environments, ambiguous roles, staff shortages, high levels of conflict and some are being bullied. They showed inappropriate behavior (joking), and rationalized their behavior as legitimate performance management. Jenkins, Winefield, and Sarris (2011) CS & QL; Heterogenous employee sample, Australia (n ˆ 24); Accused bullies WE & ID. Out: Personal and professional experiences Accused bullies experienced depression, anxiety, post- traumatic stress, suicide ideation and felt injustice. They were dismissed or resigned, and lost confidence in their managerial abilities Ceja et al. (2012) CS & Mixed Method; 10 organizations, Spain (n ˆ 287); Perpetrators WE Ant: Task-oriented focus, too little hierarchy, negative work atmosphere. Family firms tended to be associated with balanced people- task orientation, a positive work environment, and low mobbing levels. Balducci et al. (2012) L (2 waves 12 months lag) & QN; Healthcare agency, Italy (n ˆ 234); Targets & Perpetrators WE & ID. Ant: Role conflict, role ambiguity (not supported); Mod: Personal vulnerability (e.g. depressive & anxiety disorder) (not supported). Role conflict positively affected perpetration after 12 months, and perpetration did not predict role conflict. Bloch (2012) CS & QL; A heterogeneous bully group, Denmark (n ˆ 15); Bullies ID Ant: Bullies’ experiences with victims. Bullies classified the victims as violators of basic norms of the work community, triggering contempt, anger, vengeance, and negative actions, to consolidate power. Defended themselves as victim did not object. Brotheridge et al. (2012) CS & Mixed Method; 4 organizations, Canada (n ˆ 180); Targets & Perpetrators WE & ID. Ant: Anger, Machiavellianism, self- esteem, self-monitoring, social support, job autonomy & control, physical health outcomes. Perpetrator-targets are in vicious cycle of bullying, reported higher levels of self-doubt, anger, bullying and perpetration. They had lower work autonomy/control and co-worker support. Self-esteem was not related to perpetration. Escartín et al. (2012) CS & QN; Heterogenous employee sample, Spain (n ˆ 521); Targets & Perpetrators WE & ID. Ant: Gender, occupational status and supervisor transformational leadership style Transformational leadership was negatively related to the personal bullying of others. Men and supervisors tended to engage in perpetration. Liu (2012) CS & Mixed Method; Pharma/Biotech/ Medical Device Industry, USA (n ˆ 114); Targets, Victims, Bullies, Witnesses WE & ID. Ant: Work environment, emotions. Perpetrators admitted that they were poor leaders and overworked. Relatively younger ones rationalized their behavior stating that others are trying to bring them down due to jealousy. Baillien et al. (2013) L (2 waves 6 months lag) & QN; Two organizations, Belgium (n ˆ 277); Targets & Perpetrators WE & ID. Ant: Task conflict, Conflict management styles. The forcing style of conflict management was positively, and the problem-solving style was negatively related to becoming a perpetrator after 6 months. Linton and Power (2013) CS & QN; Working university students, Canada (n ˆ 224); Targets & Perpetrators ID Ant: Personality characteristics of the Dark Triad, aggression, sensation seeking. Perpetration was positively related to Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychoticism, aggression, and disinhibition. (continued on next page) G. Ozer and J. Escartín Aggression and Violent Behavior 69 (2023) 101823 6 Table 2 (continued ) Authors & publication year Study design, participants, country, subjects Domain of research & variables Summary of results Escartín et al. (2013) CS & QN; Heterogenous employee sample, Spain (n ˆ 4848); Targets & Perpetrators WE Ant: Being bullied, Psychosocial Safety Climate (PSC). There is a positive relationship between victimization & perpetration; a negative one between PSC and perpetration. Nielsen (2013) CS & QN; Two shipping companies, Norway (n ˆ 594); Targets, Victims, Bullies, Witnesses WE Ant: Leadership style of the perpetrator. Laissez-faire leadership is positively related to perpetration, whereas both transformational leadership styles and authentic leadership styles were not. García-Ayala et al. (2014) CS & QN; Security sector, Spain (n ˆ 392); Targets & Perpetrators WE & ID. Ant: Being bullied; Mod: Psychological detachment, empathy. Being a target of bullying behaviors predicted becoming a perpetrator, psychological detachment and empathic concern attenuated this relationship. De Wet and Jacobs (2014) CS & Mixed Method; A sample of teachers, South Africa (n ˆ 999, 32 bullies); Bullies ID. Ant: Bullies’ experiences with victims. Bullies abused others due to jealousy, retaliation, stress, personal and health problems, and they rationalized their behavior. Pilch and Turska (2014) CS & QN; Random employee sample, Poland (n ˆ 117); Targets & Perpetrators WE & ID. Ant: Machiavellianism, Perceptions of organizational culture (clan, adhocracy, market & hierarchy). Perceptions of organizational culture were not significantly correlated to perpetration, while Machiavellianism predicted perpetration. Zabrodska et al. (2014) CS & QL; Researchers in academia, Austrialia, Czech Republic, Iran (n ˆ 7); Targets, perpetrators ID. Ant: Moral condemnation, failure to recognize the harm done, precarious emotions Perpetrators believed targets violated shared social norms and values, they rationalized their acts as necessary to sustain moral order. They had difficulty recognizing the harm they inflict and had oscillating emotions (self- righteous, doubtful, remorseful). Baillien et al. (2015) CS & QN; Representative sample, Belgium (n ˆ 2029); Targets & Perpetrators WE & ID. Ant: Task conflict. Mod: Forcing style of conflict management. Med: Relationship conflict. There was a positive relationship between task conflicts and perpetration mediated by relationship conflicts and moderated by forcing conflict management style for perpetrators. Mackey et al. (2016) S1: CS & QN (n ˆ 396); S2: L & QN (2 waves, 3 weeks lag) (n ˆ 123); Random employees, USA; Perpetrators ID. Ant: Entitlement. Mod: Felt accountability. Med: Perceptions of abusive supervision. There was an indirect relationship between entitlement and perpetration through perceptions of abusive supervision that was stronger for employees who report lower levels of felt accountability. Holten et al. (2016) L (2 waves 2 years lag) & QN; Heterogeneous employees, Denmark (n ˆ 1650); Targets & Perpetrators WE & ID. Ant: Task and relational organizational change. Mod: Leadership quality, positive/ negative affectivity. Organizational change, specifically relations-related change, predicts perpetration. The more employees perceived low leadership quality and the more they feel distressed, nervous, upset (high negativity), perpetration intensified. Glambek et al. (2016) L (3 waves, 5 years) & QN; Representative sample, Norway (n ˆ 1650); Perpetrators WE. Out: Occupational status Perpetrators’ occupational status is largely unchanged, and remains so over time Jacobson et al. (2016) CS & QN; Working university students, USA (n ˆ 128); Perpetrators ID. Ant: Moral emotional traits and perspective- taking. Mod: Self-esteem. Med: Reparative action. Moral emotional traits, self-esteem, conscientiousness were negatively, and being male was positively related to perpetration. Reparative action mediated the relationship between guilt proneness and perpetration, which was moderated by self-esteem. Baillien et al. (2018) L (3 waves 6 months lag) & QN; Heterogeneous employees, Belgium (n ˆ 1994); Perpetrators WE & ID. Ant: Organizational change. Med: Psychological contract breach. Exposure to organizational change was positively related to being a perpetrator (after 12 months) through perceptions of psychological contract breach. Mortensen and Baarts (2018) CS & QL; Hospital employees, Denmark; Targets & Perpetrators WE. Ant: Distinctive joking practice. Joking practices caused perpetration to emerge. Employees felt forced to participate due to social exclusion fear. Abbink and Dogan (2018) L (2 waves) & QN; Random employees, Netherlands & Germany (n ˆ 860); Targets & Perpetrators WE Ant: Group dynamics. Mob formation as a game was easy and more frequent if the individual gains from it were higher. Envy increased but pity did not decrease mobbing. Dåderman and Ragnestål-Impola (2019) CS & QN; Five organizations, Sweden (n ˆ 172); Targets & Perpetrators ID Ant: Personality traits. Mod: Honesty and Humility. Perpetrators are callous, manipulative, extrovert, disagreeable, and dishonest. The relationship between perpetration and Machiavellianism was stronger when Honesty-Humility was low. Kizuki et al. (2019) CS & QN; Heterogeneous employees, Japan (n ˆ 927); Perpetrators WE & ID. Ant: Adverse childhood home experiences and school bullying (ACESB) Med: Being bullied Employees who had ACESB were at increased risk later in life of enacting bullying behaviors at work. Being bullied did not mediate this relationship Vandevelde et al. (2020) CS & QN; 26 organizations, Belgium (n ˆ 1077); Targets & Perpetrators WE & ID. Ant: Person-job fit, Person-group fit, Person-organization fit. Med: Strain and conflict. Employees Job fit, Group fit and Organization fit were associated with perpetration, explained by strain. Conflict explained the relationship between Group Fit and perpetration. Lacy (2020) CS & QN; Employees in a university, USA (n ˆ 63); Accused bullies ID Ant: Dark Triad personality traits, cultural values Psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism predicted engagement in WB, while cultural values did not. Sischka et al. (2020) CS & QN; Random individuals in the world (n ˆ 1260); Targets, Victims, Perpetrators, Bullies WE. Ant: Coworker competition. Mod: Passive avoidant leadership style. Coworker competition predicted perpetration, passive avoidant leadership moderated the relationship between competition and perpetration. Escartín, Dollard, et al. (2021). CS & QN; Random employees, Spain (n ˆ 3778); Targets & Perpetrators WE & ID. Ant: Psychosocial Safety Climate (PSC). Med: Emotional Exhaustion. Work-unit perpetration explained the negative relationship between perceptions of PSC and employees’ emotional exhaustion. In their reverse effects, PSC was significantly linked to WB for targets and perpetrators via emotional exhaustion. Vranjes et al. (2021) L (2 waves 6 months lag) & QN; ten organizations, Belgium (S1 n ˆ 1226; S2 n ˆ 1205); Targets & Perpetrators WE & ID. Ant: Being bullied. Mod: Coping strategy. Employees who tend to cope actively with bullying have a higher likelihood of becoming perpetrators, whereas those who tend to disengage from it are less likely to become perpetrators. (continued on next page) G. Ozer and J. Escartín Aggression and Violent Behavior 69 (2023) 101823 7 Qualitative studies found that when interviewed, accused bullies com- plained about role ambiguity (Jenkins, Zapf, et al., 2011), and when studied quantitatively, perpetrators reported elevated levels of it (Mat- thiesen & Einarsen, 2007). Although one quantitative study found that role ambiguity did not increase the probability of perpetration (Hauge et al., 2009), results on role ambiguity were all cross-sectional and did not unravel causality. In general, study results agreed that if work roles were confusing, went against each other, especially when task conflicts were reduced to relationship conflicts and intensified by a forcing style of conflict man- agement on the perpetrator’s part, conflicts lead to perpetration. Results were also backed by theories as follows: mediocre work environments trigger conflicts (Work Environment Hypothesis), leading to loss of re- sources (Conservation of Resources; Hobfoll, 2001), draining in- dividuals, causing negative emotions (Stressor Emotion Framework) such as frustration and aggression (Frustration-Aggression; Berkowitz, 1989). If individuals were bullied, they were stressed and bullied others. Some individuals had a deep concern for themselves but not for others (Dual Concern; De Dreu et al., 2000). They engaged in bullying to save face or regain power and thus felt nourished with new resources (Social Interaction Theories; Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). 3.1.1.3. Organizational culture and climate. The established rules, be- liefs, assumptions, and values make up the organizational environment and play a role in WB. However, the research on the organizational environment as an antecedent to perpetration is fragmented. The most studied construct is the psychosocial health and safety climate, which focuses on employee psychological health and safety, defining what is expected of employees and what behaviors should be avoided in workplaces. Three studies examined the relationship between organi- zational context and acts of perpetration cross-sectionally. Low per- ceptions of psychosocial health and safety climate on an individual level (Escartín et al., 2013) and on the work unit level (Escartín, Dollard, et al., 2021) were related to higher levels of perpetration. Study results showed that bullying is also a group-level construct affecting the health of all related parties and triggered by the organizational psychosocial health and safety climate. Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1973) supported this finding, as social behavior can be acquired by observing and imitating others. Two studies examined organizational change as an antecedent to perpetration. Organizational change predicted perpetration after 12 months if employees felt betrayed and frustrated, believing that the organization did not fulfill its commitments to them while they did (Baillien et al., 2018). Relational changes in organizations are social changes where the quality and number of interactions with others are modified. Such workplace developments predicted perpetration events after two years (Holten et al., 2016). Results were backed by various theories stating that change may be stressful and frustrating (Frustra- tion-Aggression theory) for the employees, increasing employee expec- tations for the organization to meet (Social Exchange; Blau, 1964). However, if employee efforts are not matched, individuals may see this as a violation of social exchange and direct their stress and frustration onto others to gain power (Proxy Blaming; Zemba et al., 2006; Social Interactionist Theory; Goffman, 1967). The research found that “non- family-owned” companies focused more on tasks, neglecting the well- being of employees, recorded higher perpetration than “family- owned” companies with balanced “task-people focus” (Ceja et al., 2012). These results were supported by theories stating that an unfavorable work environment and short-term focus on employees (Stakeholder models; Zellweger & Nason, 2008) created stress and emotional re- sponses (Stressor Emotion Framework and Three-Way; Baillien et al., 2009). Pilch and Turska (2014) studied how perceptions of organizational culture (hierarchy, market, clan, and adhocracy) lead to perpetration, but they found no impact cross-sectionally. Ozer et al. (2022) studied the impact of organizational trust and justice on perpetration with three waves of data collection. Despite the cross-sectional relations, no sig- nificant direct or indirect paths were found after six months. 3.1.1.4. Teams and groups. The grouping of individuals to achieve organizational tasks and goals may also be the germinating grounds for perpetration. Cross-sectional studies showed that bullies had low co- worker support (Brotheridge et al., 2012), and they were the least preferred ones in teams despite their help in achieving team goals Table 2 (continued ) Authors & publication year Study design, participants, country, subjects Domain of research & variables Summary of results Fernandez-del-Río et al. (2021) CS & QN; Heterogeneous employees, Spain (n ˆ 613); Targets & Perpetrators ID. Ant: Personality traits. Narcissism and sadism were positively, and agreeableness was negatively related to workplace perpetration behaviors. Perpetrators tended to be males. Wicks et al. (2021) CS & QL; Medical doctors, New Zealand (n ˆ 24); Targets & Accused Bullies WE. Out: Physical and psychological outcomes Accused bullies felt ignored and bullied, perceived injustice and unpleasant work environment. They isolated themselves, felt stressed, anxious, depressed and physically sick. Mazzone et al. (2021) CS & QN; School teachers, Ireland (n ˆ 630); Targets, bullies, bystanders ID. Ant: empathic concern and perspective- taking. Employees who were bullied frequently, witnessed and bullied others frequently. Respondents with higher perspective-taking, empathic concern, and personal distress were less likely to be involved in bullying perpetration Ozer et al., 2022 L (3 waves 6 months lag) & QN; Heterogeneous employees, Spain and Turkey (n ˆ 2447); Perpetrators WE & ID. Ant: Organizational trust (OT) and justice (OJ). Med: Psychological distress and physical symptoms. OJ negatively predicted psychological and physical health deterioration, while unexpectedly, OT positively predicted the same. Health conditions did not predict perpetration after 3 months. Balducci et al. (2022) L (2 waves 12 months lag) & QN; Healthcare organization, Italy (n ˆ 235); Perpetrators ID. Ant: Workaholism Med: Job-related negative affect (anger, disgust, pessimism, discouragement). Workaholism was a significant predictor of WB perpetration after 12 months; reverse causation was not supported. Job related negative affect did not mediate this relationship. Vranjes et al. (2022) L (4 waves 6 months lag) & QN; Heterogeneous employees, Belgium (n ˆ 1420); Targets & Perpetrators WE & ID. Out: WB. Med: Relationship conflict with colleagues & Perceived control. WB perpetration led to more exposure to bullying 18 months later. Relationship conflicts and perceived control partially mediated this effect. Ozer et al., 2023 L (24 waves 1 week lag) & QN; Heterogeneous employees, Spain and Turkey (n ˆ 31); Perpetrators WE & ID. Ant: Being bullied, sleep duration and quality, physical exercise. Physical activity during the work week and being bullied positively predicted perpetration the same week, while sleep quality did not. Perpetrators tend to score high on psychological distress, tend to be supervisors and tend not to have mental illnesses Note: CS: Cross-sectional; QN: Quantitative; OL: Qualitative; L: Longitudinal; WE: Work Environment; ID: Individual Dispositions; Ant: Antecedent; Mod: Moderator; Med: Mediator, Out: Outcome. G. Ozer and J. Escartín Aggression and Violent Behavior 69 (2023) 101823 8 (Coyne et al., 2004). Accused bullies showed inappropriate social be- haviors (e.g., joking) in groups (Jenkins, Zapf, et al., 2011). Cross-sectional studies showed that perpetrators were triggered if they perceived a low fit with their job, group, and organization. The underlying reasons were stress and conflicts experienced in the low-fit environment (Vandevelde et al., 2020). Perpetrators bullied others in competitive work environments, especially when they were under the management of passive-avoidant supervisors (Sischka et al., 2020). Longitudinal studies showed that bullies selected victims easily, showed no pity, adapted to group dynamics that promoted unethical behavior even for small gains (Abbink & Dogan, 2018), and embraced social games like joking to defend themselves, avoiding social exclusion (Mortensen & Baarts, 2018). Various theories backed results on perpetrator behaviors, stating that in stressful work environments, individuals may deplete their resources (Conservation of Resources Theory), get frustrated (Frustration- Aggression), and act negatively even for small gains (Social Preferences; Fehr & Schmidt, 1999). Witnesses repeat these negative behaviors (So- cial Learning; Victim Precipitation Theory by Aquino et al., 2004), especially when they perceive many are doing it (Group Dynamics theory; Forsyth, 2009) and when they believe that this behavior will go unpunished by the absent leader (Social Identity; Tajfel, 1974). In summary, all of the above studies on various constructs of teamwork found that team level of interaction was strongly related to perpetration. 3.1.1.5. Leadership. Studies showed that the individual in charge of leading the group or the organization has a significant impact on perpetration phenomena. An inactive and ineffective laissez-faire lead- ership style was associated with an increased risk of perpetration where the perpetrators possibly perceived that the leaders did not care about work problems or were not concerned about the well-being of sub- ordinates. Perpetrators perceived that there would not be any re- percussions for their negative acts (Nielsen, 2013). Cross-sectional research on transformational leadership style had contradictory results where one study found no relationship between transformational lead- ership and perpetration (Nielsen, 2013), another one found that per- petrators reported less perpetration under transformational leaders, possibly because their opinions were valued, increasing their resources and lowering their stress (Escartín et al., 2012). Perceptions of good leadership quality lowered perpetration after two years (Holten et al., 2016). 3.1.1.6. Being bullied. When employees are abused, they feel stressed and drained, showing aggression to others to cope with bullying and recuperate the energy lost, as supported by the Conservation of Re- sources and Frustration – Aggression Theories. Being bullied predicted bullying others (Escartín et al., 2013; García-Ayala et al., 2014; Hauge et al., 2009; Jenkins, Zapf, et al., 2011), but the relationship attenuated after 12 months (Baillien, Rodríguez-Mu~noz, et al., 2011). Although previously bullying others did not predict being bullied cross-sectionally (Lee & Brotheridge, 2006), the effect from exposure to enactment and enactment to exposure of bullying was of equal strength after six months (Vranjes et al., 2021). Target-perpetrators engaged in active coping (trying to stop the bully) when confronted with bullying and tended to have high levels of physical symptoms (Brotheridge et al., 2012), possibly due to the stress caused by the vicious cycle of bullying. Actively trying to stop the bullying and seeking support on how to solve the problem increased the perpetration events after being bullied, whereas coping with bullying by expressing emotions, seeking emotional support, and withdrawing behaviorally or mentally from the bullying situation reduced perpetration (Vranjes et al., 2021). First of its kind in bullying literature, researchers studied perpetrator behavior over a 24-week daily and weekly diary study. They found that em- ployees who reported being bullied during the work week did not show enactment of bullying the next week, but being bullied predicted perpetration the same week (Ozer et al., 2023). Results were explained by various theories stating that individuals dealing with a stressful work environment may deplete their resources (Conservation of Resources Theory) and sometimes lash out towards innocent third parties (Displaced Aggression Theory; Dollard et al., 1939) due to frustration (Frustration-Aggression Theory). Others model this behavior (Social Learning Theory) as people’s immediate environ- ment influences their attitudes and behaviors (Social Information Pro- cessing Theory; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). None of the studies revealed if the original perpetrators were targeted in revenge or if bullying was a learned act targeting others in the organization. 3.1.1.7. Summary of work environment factors as antecedents. To sum- marize, studies on the work environment showed that absent managers who did not intervene in conflicts and organizations with poor work designs focusing only on tasks and neglecting employee well-being created conflict-prone environments. Such environments incited stress, exhaustion, insecurity, and frustration, triggering some individuals to bully others. Once ignored, allowed or not condemned, such behaviors became learned behavior for many. These behaviors multiplied, creating many targets and perpetrators in the vicious circle of perpetration. However, some individuals did not perceive the work environment as stressful, but they still engaged in perpetration. The possible reasons for their behavior will be examined under individual characteristics as an- tecedents below. It is worth noting that most of the research on ante- cedents (46 articles) was conducted with a cross-sectional study design (34: 74 %) where cause-and-effect relationships were not established. 3.1.2. Individual differences as antecedents of bullying perpetration 3.1.2.1. Character traits. Behaviors that describe individuals are per- sonality traits, and some traits were found to be related to perpetration. Bullies were found to be high on self-doubt and low on self-monitoring (Brotheridge et al., 2012); low on emotional stability, tended to have difficulty coping with personal criticism, be easily upset, and view the world as threatening (Coyne et al., 2003); assertive, aggressive (Mat- thiesen & Einarsen, 2007); impulsive, selfish, not empathetic (Seigne et al., 2007); domineering, vindictive, socially avoidant, intrusive with a high level of interpersonal problems (Glasø et al., 2009). Perpetrators who were analyzed based on Dark Triad scales (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) tended to score high on sadism (Fernandez-del-Río et al., 2021), high on Machiavellianism (Brotheridge et al., 2012; Pilch & Turska, 2014) and high in Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychop- athy traits (Dåderman & Ragnestål-Impola, 2019; Fernandez-del-Río et al., 2021; Lacy, 2020; Linton & Power, 2013). Perpetrators tended to be manipulative, lacked empathy, scored high in extroversion, and dishonesty (HEXACO; Lee & Ashton, 2004), scored low in agreeableness, fairness, and sincerity (Dåderman & Ragnestål-Impola, 2019), and high in aggression, sensation seeking (Linton & Power, 2013). Study results were contradictory regarding perpetrators’ self-esteem. Studies found that perpetrators tended to have highly unstable (Mat- thiesen & Einarsen, 2007) and low self-esteem (Brotheridge et al., 2012). Backed by the Sociometer Theory of Self-esteem (Leary, 2004), one study showed that high self-esteem inhibited individuals from engaging in perpetration (Jacobson et al., 2016). If individuals were equipped with guilt, shame proneness, reparative action tendencies, empathy, and conscientiousness (Jacobson et al., 2016) or had high levels of perspective-taking and empathic concern (Mazzone et al., 2021), reports of perpetration dropped. An earlier study found no relationships between perpetration and openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, and neuroti- cism traits (Coyne et al., 2003). However, later studies using the Five- Factor scale (McCrae & Costa, 2013) found that perpetrators tended to be less agreeable (Dåderman & Ragnestål-Impola, 2019; Fernandez-del- Río et al., 2021), and score low in conscientiousness (Jacobson et al., G. Ozer and J. Escartín Aggression and Violent Behavior 69 (2023) 101823 9 2016). Perpetrators were found to be low on conscientiousness in a study (Jacobson et al., 2016), suggesting that perpetrators are not quite dutiful and responsible. They thus may tend to fail to fulfill their obligations. In another longitudinal study, workaholic individuals reported WB perpetration after 12 months (Balducci et al., 2022), which might sug- gest that perpetrators may be focusing only on work, neglecting other areas and lacking a holistic approach to life. 3.1.2.2. Emotions. Individuals show emotions if an event is of personal significance to them. Bullies scored high on anger (Brotheridge et al., 2012); felt revenge and contempt towards victims (Bloch, 2012); and showed swaying emotions such as self-righteousness, doubtfulness, and remorsefulness (Zabrodska et al., 2014). Bullies regarded victims as vi- olators of rules of working life (De Wet & Jacobs, 2014) or violators of shared social norms and values (Zabrodska et al., 2014). They reacted to preserve their positions in work-life, justifying perpetration as the vic- tims were jealous of them (Liu, 2012), believed that the victim was deserving of it (Bloch, 2012) and had trouble recognizing the harm they inflicted (Zabrodska et al., 2014). Various theories supported these findings stating that individuals regularly assess and classify each other (Social Interactionist Theory) and construct group-based hierarchical systems based on ethnicity, class, and religion (Social Dominance; Pratto & Stewart, 2012). Some individuals look for cooperation and reciprocity in society. When cooperation is contested, they react. Some are motivated to acquire higher status and legitimize dominance over perceived inferior groups (Moral Codes and Emotions Theories, Barbalet, 1998; Pelzer, 2005). 3.1.2.3. Perceptions. Individuals’ understanding and awareness of the work environment may be instrumental in triggering perpetration. Employees who believed they deserved better treatment at work perceived their supervisors as abusive and tended to bully others (Mackey et al., 2016). Theories supported by these results state that behavior is a social exchange where negative behavior is reciprocated with a negative one (Social Exchange Theory) and may be displaced onto others (Displaced Aggression Theory; Frustration-Aggression Theory). 3.1.2.4. Age. Upon examining the descriptive statistics tables, it is observed that some studies found that perpetrators are younger em- ployees rather than older (Baillien et al., 2013; Baillien et al., 2015; Baillien et al., 2018; De Cuyper et al., 2009; Kizuki et al., 2019; Ozer et al., 2022; Sischka et al., 2020; Vandevelde et al., 2020), while others did not find statistically significant correlations between age and perpetration (Brotheridge et al., 2012; Hauge et al., 2009; Mazzone et al., 2021). 3.1.2.5. Gender. Studies that published the correlation between gender and reports of perpetration mostly noted that male participants were more likely than females to engage in perpetration (Baillien et al., 2013; Brotheridge et al., 2012; De Cuyper et al., 2009; Escartín et al., 2012; Fernandez-del-Río et al., 2021; Hauge et al., 2009; Jacobson et al., 2016; Kizuki et al., 2019; Vandevelde et al., 2020). However, others did not find any correlation between gender and perpetration behavior (Baillien et al., 2018; Balducci et al., 2012; Mazzone et al., 2021; Ozer et al., 2022; Sischka et al., 2020). A recent review interpreted such results showing that perpetrators tend to be males as follows; based on victims’ reports most perpetrators are supervisors, and males are overrepresented, in supervisory positions, resulting in perpetration being associated with males (Zapf & Einarsen, 2020). 3.1.2.6. Supervisory position. Another frequently investigated factor of perpetration behavior was the supervisory roles of the study partici- pants. The hierarchical position of the perpetrators showed conflicting results where some studies found no relationship between supervisory position and perpetration (De Cuyper et al., 2009; Hauge et al., 2009; Sischka et al., 2020), while other studies found that perpetrators tend to be supervisors (Baillien et al., 2015; Escartín et al., 2012; Ozer et al., 2022; Ozer et al., 2023). Studies also mentioned that perpetrator su- pervisors could also be a target of bullying (Ozer et al., 2023; Vranjes et al., 2022). 3.1.2.7. Physical and psychological health. Linton and Power (2013) indicated that female body weight was significantly and positively correlated with perpetration, suggesting that obese females tended to bully others more than non-obese ones. Another cross-sectional study studied perpetration behavior based on Social Learning Theory. They found that employees with adverse childhood experiences, such as being slapped, punched, shouted at, ignored and who experienced school bullying were at higher risk of becoming WB perpetrators (Kizuki et al., 2019). A diary study based on the Conservation of Resources Theory, showed that perpetrators’ excess physical activity during the work week positively predicted perpetration the same week. Researchers also tested if sleep quality predicted WB perpetration. They found that changes in sleep quality did not predict reports of perpetration (Ozer et al., 2023). Results of a three-wave longitudinal study showed that perpetrators tended to score high on psychological distress and physical symptoms at each data collection (Ozer et al., 2022). 3.1.2.8. Summary of individual dispositions as antecedents. In summary, studies on individual dispositions’ perspective showed that perpetrators and bullies seemed to be mistreated during childhood; they tended to be males and have undesirable personality characteristics such as being narcissistic, selfish, manipulative, uncompassionate, and disagreeable with low moral emotions. They expected to be better treated in work life, were activated under absent managers, and where engaged in excessive physical activity during the work week. They felt anger to- wards victims and rationalized their behaviors. Contrasting to their generally believed powerful image, some studies showed that perpe- trators felt remorse after their behaviors, doubted themselves, had low self-esteem, and they were experiencing bullying even if they were managers. Studies on traits showed that perpetrators tend to be low in conscientiousness but can also be workaholics. 3.2. Moderators of perpetration Of the 50 studies in our review, 11 articles tested moderators to explain WB perpetration (Table 2). Some traits related to reports of perpetration were used as modera- tors in antecedent–perpetration relationships. Empathy (being bul- lied–perpetration relationship, García-Ayala et al., 2014); positive/ negative affectivity (organizational change – perpetration relationship, Holten et al., 2016); honesty and humility (personality-perpetration relationship, Dåderman & Ragnestål-Impola, 2019) have been found to act as moderators that weaken the antecedents–bullying relationships. Higher levels of self-esteem were instrumental in inhibiting bullying through the need to maintain social relationships (Jacobson et al., 2016). To better understand how self-esteem contributes to perpetra- tion, longitudinal studies should be conducted to capture stability and level of self-esteem. One study found that the perpetrator’s forcing conflict management style boosted perpetration (task conflicts- perpetration, Baillien et al., 2015). Another study analyzed psycholog- ical health as a moderator and found that the baseline personal vul- nerabilities such as depressive and anxiety disorder of the perpetrator (Role conflict-perpetration relationship, Balducci et al., 2012) margin- ally influenced the level of perpetration under role conflicts. Having high employability perceptions (job insecurity-perpetration relation- ship, De Cuyper et al., 2009) and not feeling the need to explain their behavior to their supervisors (entitlement- perpetration relationship, G. Ozer and J. Escartín Aggression and Violent Behavior 69 (2023) 101823 10 Mackey et al., 2016) were the two moderators intensifying reports of perpetration. Additionally, psychological detachment (being bul- lied–perpetration relationship, García-Ayala et al., 2014) and passive coping strategies towards bullying (being bullied-perpetration rela- tionship, Vranjes et al., 2021) reduced the strength of the perpetration phenomenon. The theory of emotional regulation strategies (Parkinson & Totterdell, 1999) supported these results, where individuals who could psychologically detach from work reduced their stress and reduced the likelihood of becoming a perpetrator. In contrast to recov- ery exercises, low job autonomy (workload-perpetration relationship, Baillien, De Cuyper, et al., 2011); poor leadership quality (organiza- tional change – perpetration relationship, Holten et al., 2016), and passive avoidant supervisors (co-worker competition-perpetration rela- tionship, Sischka et al., 2020) increased strength of the antecedent- perpetration relationship. In summary, working under managers with passive avoidant styles and poor leadership quality, using forcing style of conflict management, having perceptions of high employability, low accountability, and low job autonomy increased WB perpetration incidences. Contrastingly, having empathy, positive affectivity, honesty, humility, high self- esteem, psychological detachment, recovery exercises, and passive coping strategies against WB attenuated perpetration behavior. 3.3. Mediators of perpetration Out of the 50 studies in our review that analyze perpetration, 11 articles tested mediators to explain WB perpetration. Please refer to Table 2 for details on mediators and note the longitudinal designs as they would be more reliable for mediation analysis. Relationship conflicts (task conflicts-perpetration relationship, Bail- lien et al., 2015) and conflicts, in general, were the underlying reasons for perpetration (Group-fit - perpetration relationship, Vandevelde et al., 2020). Emotional exhaustion (psychosocial safety climate- perpetration relationship, Escartín, Dollard, et al., 2021), strain (Person-job fit, group-fit, organization fit– perpetration relationship, Vandevelde et al., 2020) and reparative action (Guilt proneness -perpetration relationship, Jacobson et al., 2016) were mediators in the antecedent-perpetration relationships. Another cross-sectional study examined the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and workplace perpetration and found that WB did not mediate this relationship (Kizuki et al., 2019). However, as the mediation effects in these studies were measured cross- sectionally, cause-and-effect relationships were not established. A longitudinal study examined psychological distress and physical symptoms as mediators (organizational trust and justice - perpetration relationship, Ozer et al., 2022) and found that poor organizational environment seemed to cause psychological stress and poor health conditions after three months. However, eroding health conditions did not result in perpetration after three months. Despite cross-sectional associations between poor health and perpetration, individuals may have adapted to the stressful environments and thus did not show aggressive negative behavior in the long term (Conservation of Re- sources Theory). Perceptions of abusive supervision (entitlement- perpetration relationship, Mackey et al., 2016), and psychological con- tract breach (organizational change-perpetration relationship, Baillien et al., 2018) explained the perpetration when the underlying forces were studied longitudinally. Another longitudinal study established a signif- icant relationship between workaholism and WB perpetration after 12 months. Researchers tested if job-related negative affect, such as anger, was a mediator but did not find it significant in this relationship (Bal- ducci et al., 2022). A longitudinal study examined being bullied as an outcome of WB perpetration after 18 months and found that relationship conflicts increased employees’ vulnerability to bullying exposure (Vranjes et al., 2022). 3.4. Outcomes of perpetration When accused of bullying, individuals experienced depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, suicide ideation and felt injustice. They were dismissed or resigned from their jobs, and they lost confidence in their managerial abilities (Jenkins, Winefield, & Sarris, 2011). Similarly, another cross-sectional study found that employees accused of bullying felt that the accusation of bullying was a form of bullying, as they were not allowed to defend themselves. They perceived injustice and reported an unpleasant work environment. After the accusations, they isolated themselves from others, engaged in self-reflection, felt stressed, anxious, depressed and physically sick (Wicks et al., 2021). Over five years, a longitudinal study found that being a perpetrator did not significantly increase the probability of reporting sick leave of >24 days, receiving disability benefits, change of employer, or proba- bility of being unemployed. Results suggested that perpetrators of WB have uninterrupted work lives and do not experience unemployment or job changes (Glambek et al., 2016). However, another longitudinal study results (Vranjes et al., 2022) showed that perpetrators experience WB 18 months later, where relationship conflicts increase over time, draining one’s resources (Conservation of Resources Theory) and resulting in experiencing bullying. 3.5. Practical suggestions for organizations, practitioners and policymakers Of the 50 studies in our review, 39 articles suggested steps to restrain perpetration. These suggestions were compiled in Table 3 to guide top management, human resource practitioners, professionals and govern- ment bodies to shed light on actionable steps and further studies to stop WB. Researchers suggested conducting character trait assessments to Table 3 Practice, policy implications. Assessments: Conduct personality trait assessments; test the potential hires for fit to the job, the group, and the organization; assess the psychological wellbeing of all employees; detect vulnerable, overworked, stressed departments, teams, and individuals; assess organizational trust and justice environment, informal networks within teams to reveal isolated individuals to integrate them. Training: Organize conflict handling, cognitive behavior, and empathic skills training to de-escalate problems; problem-solving style of conflict management and an ethical, perspective-taking leadership style training for supervisors and organization-wide training for recognizing, dealing with, and preventing bullying. Job Designs and Organizational Change: Assess work designs, and personalize them to reduce high-strain jobs with imbalanced job demands and resources. Establish open communication and employee participation in organizational changes to avoid self-protecting behaviors. Managing potential and active perpetrators: Manage frustrations, and conflicts by encouraging problem-solving behavior, intervene to resolve the conflicts, be attentive to physically and psychologically exhausted, frustrated employees, give them feedback, promote work recovery experiences, listen to bullies, note that they may also be bullied, trace back to the origin of their behavior, mentor and advise perpetrators that their behaviors are unacceptable. Leadership: Place special effort in leadership training by promoting constructive forms of leadership (transformational, authentic, ethical), reducing supervisor job stress, and ensuring there are no absent managers (passive avoidant leadership). Organizational policies and practices: Develop effective policies to discourage dysfunctional, conflict-escalating behaviors, establish explicit accountability mechanisms against bullying, ensure clear communication, establish human resource hotlines to report mistreatment, enhance the psychological climate by introducing employee health and safety rules, advocate a change in harmful social practices, do not reinforce workaholic tendencies, to stop individuals that take matters in their hands to achieve justice. Governments: The European framework agreement on harassment and violence at work explicitly states that being a perpetrator of bullying should result in “disciplinary actions.” Such laws should be passed globally, and organizations should be made accountable for WB; government entities should charge penalties if organizations do not have clear policies, practices that inhibit WB and a clear description of potential sanctions. Governments should fight bullying early on in families and schools through awareness and prevention programs. G. Ozer and J. Escartín Aggression and Violent Behavior 69 (2023) 101823 11 detect potential and active perpetrators (Dåderman & Ragnestål-Impola, 2019). However, human resources should be mindful of perpetrators’ dark traits where potential hires may not answer the questions truthfully to conceal themselves. Therefore, if individuals with undesirable char- acteristics enter the organizations, management is advised to monitor them to avoid outbreaks of bullying (Fernandez-del-Río et al., 2021) and only promote individuals with strong moral character (Jacobson et al., 2016). Once in the organization, potential and active perpetrators may undergo corporate training on various topics, such as how to handle conflicts constructively (Baillien et al., 2015), how to build empathy (García-Ayala et al., 2014; Mazzone et al., 2021) and how to engage in ethical and rational leadership practices (Sischka et al., 2020; Vande- velde et al., 2020). To detect a potential outbreak of perpetration events, researchers advised conducting ongoing assessments on the psychological well- being of all employees and on informal networks within teams to reveal isolated and stressed individuals (Coyne et al., 2004; Mackey et al., 2016). Organization-wide training for conflict handling (Baillien et al., 2013; Escartín et al., 2013; Lee & Brotheridge, 2006; Vandevelde et al., 2020; Vranjes et al., 2022) and for recognizing, dealing with, and preventing bullying (De Wet & Jacobs, 2014) were also suggested to set the boundaries on employee behavior and obstruct vigilante justice (Brotheridge et al., 2012). The lion’s share of the intervention over perpetrators lies with the managers. Research showed that WB is a long-standing power struggle arising from unsolved conflicts turning into systematic and persistent bullying (Strandmark & Hallberg, 2007). Therefore, researchers sug- gested that supervisors should actively focus on employees with unde- sirable characteristics (Pilch & Turska, 2014), manage their stress, physical and psychological exhaustion (Ozer et al., 2023; Van den Broeck et al., 2011), frustrations (Hauge et al., 2007) and promote work recovery experiences to ensure psychological detachment from work and relief from stress (García-Ayala et al., 2014). Since conflicts at work are unavoidable, managers should also attend to conflicts immediately (Escartín et al., 2013), encourage problem-solving behavior (Baillien et al., 2013), use the sense-making approach to encourage self-reflecting (Zabrodska et al., 2014) and prevent individuals from bullying others (Hauge et al., 2009). Despite all the aforementioned precautionary steps, if a bullying incident is reported, managers are advised to listen to bullies (Bloch, 2012; Jenkins, Winefield, & Sarris, 2011; Linton & Power, 2013; Wicks et al., 2021); carefully trace back to the originating event (Vranjes et al., 2021); watch out if they have high job resources in hand that might be used to abuse others (Van den Broeck et al., 2011); give them feedback and help (Baillien et al., 2018) so that perpetrators could make amends to their behavior; and refrain from encouraging workaholism (Balducci et al., 2022). Despite high expectations from managers to curb bullying, victim reports suggest that bullies are supervisors more than subordinates (Zapf et al., 2020). Studies showed that managers may misbehave under organizational performance pressures (Blackwood & Jenkins, 2018) and use tactical bullying to eliminate low-performing employees or strengthen their positions (Jenkins, Zapf, et al., 2011). Therefore, re- searchers indicated that special effort has to be placed on leadership training by promoting constructive forms of leadership, reducing job stress (Hauge et al., 2009), and ensuring there are no absent managers (passive avoidant leadership), especially in competitive work environ- ments (Sischka et al., 2020). When a bullying incident is exposed, top management and human resource practitioners (Salin et al., 2020) are advised to reflect on organizational malpractices that led to the incident. It is paramount that organizations recognize their wrongdoings in creating perpetrators at work. As perpetration seems to stem from stressful, poorly organized workplaces, researchers advised organizations to assess work designs, personalizing them for employees (Vandevelde et al., 2020) so that high strain jobs with imbalanced job demands and resources are reduced (Baillien, De Cuyper, et al., 2011; Van den Broeck et al., 2011), and supportive cultures are established (Ceja et al., 2012). During organi- zational changes, organizations are urged to establish open communi- cation and encourage employee participation to avoid perceptions of injustice, causing self-protecting behaviors (Baillien et al., 2018; Holten et al., 2016). Studies found that perpetrators were rarely punished (Salin et al., 2019) and researchers urged organizations to develop effective policies to discourage dysfunctional, conflict-escalating behaviors (Lee & Brotheridge, 2006); establish explicit accountability mechanisms against bullying; ensure clear communication with employees, and establish human resource hotlines to report mistreatment (Mackey et al., 2016). To maintain a positive working environment free of perpetration, researchers suggested enhancing the psychological climate by intro- ducing employee health and safety rules (Escartín, Dollard, et al., 2021; Nielsen, 2013), advocating a change in harmful social practices (Mor- tensen & Baarts, 2018); allowing employee participation in organiza- tional processes and developing their competences (Baillien et al., 2018); and ensuring a good balance between task and employee focus (Ceja et al., 2012) under a balanced hierarchical structure (Pilch & Turska, 2014). Lastly, government bodies are urged to make organizations accountable for WB, charging penalties for the lack of clear policies and practices (Lacy, 2020) and enforcing clear descriptions of potential sanctions to bullying-related parties to inhibit workplace bullying (Glambek et al., 2016). Governments are also advised to fight bullying early on in families and schools by launching awareness and prevention programs for the public (Kizuki et al., 2019). 3.6. Research methods 3.6.1. Category and time dimension of the data Different research methods are used to empirically study social behavior, test hypotheses and theories, and look for relationships be- tween different variables (please see Table 2 for the research methods used). Out of the 50 studies in the review, 14 had a longitudinal survey design, and 36 had a cross-sectional design. Six studies had a qualitative approach with observations, collective biographies, focus groups, and interviews, enabling a deeper understanding of the bullies’ experiences, environment, and inner world; 40 articles had quantitative study de- signs; four had mixed methods enriching quantitative findings with qualitative data. Out of the 14 longitudinal articles, three studies had three waves (Baillien et al., 2018; Glambek et al., 2016; Ozer et al., 2022), one four waves (Vranjes et al., 2022), suggesting a proper ex- amination of causality and mediation. Remarkably, only one diary study was conducted with perpetrators measuring variables daily and weekly, measuring within-level changes (Ozer et al., 2023). We conclude that perpetration studies largely lack causality analysis based on the lack of studies over two waves. 3.6.2. Study variables As perpetration is a complex and multilayered phenomenon, it needs to be studied simultaneously with work and individual factors. Out of the 50 articles in the review, 14 studies examined perpetration based on individual differences, 15 on the work environment, and 21 on both factors. Out of the 50, the number of articles testing moderators and mediators was 19; 11 moderators and 11 mediators were tested. In our review, sixteen articles focused only on the enactment of bullying; thirty articles focused on exposure and enactment of bullying; and four articles reported results on witnesses, exposure, and enactment of bullying. The fragmented nature of information on perpetration may be due to research conducted on targets, witnesses, and perpetrators simultaneously losing focus on perpetrators. This lack of focus or incli- nation to report on targets, victims, or witnesses together with perpe- trators reduced the detailed analysis and presentation of perpetrators’ data in some studies (Holten et al., 2016; Lee & Brotheridge, 2006; Liu, 2012; Mazzone et al., 2021; Nielsen, 2013). More research focusing only on perpetrators, and on dyads (perpetrator-target and bully-victim) may G. Ozer and J. Escartín Aggression and Violent Behavior 69 (2023) 101823 12 ameliorate bullying perpetration literature, demonstrating a clearer picture of the phenomenon from the perpetrators’ viewpoint. 3.6.3. Study measures From 2003 onwards, the scales used to measure perpetration started with single-item questions giving bullying definitions and asking in- dividuals if they acted out bullying. However, measuring perpetration is a delicate task where the wording of the questions should not reveal the purpose of the task at hand, as the participants may be discouraged from reporting that they bullied others or may not be aware of their actions. Therefore, the self-labeling method of detecting bullies with a definition was eventually replaced with the behavioral method of detecting perpetration. The transformation of the scales used was visible in our review, where after the 2009’s, the target scales developed with behavioral methods were adapted to active form capturing reports of perpetration.1 Perpetration was also measured by behavioral questions with a self- labeling definition of bullying resulting in questionable results as to what was being measured (Mazzone et al., 2021) or by using an ad-hoc self-constructed scale from a combination of previous scales (De Wet & Jacobs, 2014) resulting in debatable scale usage. Meanwhile, studies with accused bullies used admittance of being accused of bullying (Jenkins, Winefield, & Sarris, 2011; Jenkins, Zapf, et al., 2011; Lacy, 2020; Wicks et al., 2021). In the future, multiple-item behavioral questionnaires reflecting different bully behaviors and using newly developed perpetrator scales would be a better fit for studying perpetration. 3.6.4. Study samples Bullying was predominantly studied in Europe, with 36 articles out of 50. Four studies had representative samples of Belgium and Norway (Baillien et al., 2015; Glambek et al., 2016; Hauge et al., 2007; Hauge et al., 2009). Four studies reported ethnicity (Jacobson et al., 2016; Linton & Power, 2013; Sischka et al., 2020). Incorporating cultural identities in perpetration research may help understand unique issues and provide better solutions to this phenomenon. Out of the 50 articles in the review, 15 focused only on specific sectors (e.g., academia, tex- tiles, finance, healthcare, fire services, security, education, shipping), 2 used working students, and one quantitative study had 34 participants reducing the generalizability of the results. In conclusion, the study participants in articles in this review were skewed towards the experi- ences of European employees (90 % of the sample base) from a het- erogeneous sample of employees from different sectors (79 %) where participants were primarily women (54 %). 4. Discussion This study aimed to review the antecedents, moderators, mediators and outcomes related to workplace perpetration to unravel why some individuals become perpetrators and how they are affected by their actions. Recommendations for management, organizations and policy- makers were also compiled to inhibit perpetration. Variables used in the studies were reviewed from the work environment and individual dif- ferences factors. Theories used in explaining the results and study method details were also analyzed. Results showed that stressful work conditions with poor work designs left employees in the crossfire of demands with inadequate re- sources, resulting in task and relationship conflicts in disharmonious teams. The process wore out employees and deranged their health conditions, leaving them frustrated and ready to unleash their anger on others. If the organization did not have policies against WB, if man- agement was perceived as absent and uncaring about employee well- being, or if there were toxic teams inciting perpetration, then negative acts emerged. If perpetration was ignored, allowed, or not condemned by the management, such behaviors became learned behavior for many and were replicated when individuals took matters into their hands. Therefore, many sufferers became actors of negative behaviors. In- dividuals that reported perpetration were not well physically or psy- chologically, and over time, they experienced the same treatment they had inflicted on others, suggesting a vicious cycle of bullying. The perpetrators’ excess physical activity and psychological distress predicted perpetration, while strain and emotional exhaustion seemed to explain antecedent-perpetration relationships, and recovery exercises seemed to attenuate perpetration. There was little effort to examine if perpetration caused reverse changes in the work environment in the articles in this review. The finding that stressful work environments caused strain, and lowered employees’ resources, resulting in aggression across the organization, was explained by many theories, such as Con- servation of Resources, Frustration-Aggression, Counterproductive Work Behaviors, Social learning, Strain, and Interaction Theories. Studies also showed that perpetrators acted out while working under absent supervisors even though they had high job resources. This behavior seemed to be different from acting out due to stress and was explained by theories such as Social Interaction, Moral Codes, Emotions, or Social Dominance, suggesting individuals are motivated by power and seek dominance over others. Some study results showed that per- petrators tended to be narcissistic, sadistic, selfish, manipulative, un- compassionate, and disagreeable, with inappropriate social behaviors and low moral emotions, while others showed that perpetrators have swaying emotions. Forcing others to accept their terms and turning the work disagreements into personal struggles and workaholism intensified perpetration, while detachment from work significantly lowered perpetration. Some perpetrators believed their behavior was legitimate managerial behavior, and some indicated that targets deserved bullying and were even responsible for it. High job resources did not stop some individuals from acting out. The role of self-esteem and job ambiguity in triggering and the role of transformational leadership in lowering perpetration remained incon- clusive. Moderators and mediators may guide us to understand the re- lationships when there are conflicting study results. However, a limited range of moderators and mediators were used to analyze the phenom- enon. Therefore, the unsubstantiated results were left for future re- searchers to address. 4.1. Implications for organizations The studies in the review offered a wide variety of suggestions to prevent bullying in the workplace (please refer to Table 3 for details). Research showed that management maintained high-performance bullies (Walsh et al., 2019) and protected the organization if gains were more from poor response to bullying (Hodgins et al., 2020). Human Resource practitioners sometimes regarded bullying as an interpersonal conflict, tended to take sides with the accused managers (Harrington et al., 2012), felt less urged to act, and requested hard ev- idence to intervene against bullying (Salin et al., 2020). They ignored organizational shortcomings, did not confront abusive individuals (Martin & Klein, 2013), and did not launch large-scale initiatives to improve work conditions (Karanika-Murray et al., 2016). As organiza- tional changes are challenging, perhaps the organizational psychology field should work on developing creative and subtle interventions for concerned managers and human resource practitioners who aspire to set up bullying-free environments. These interventions may be conducted as 1 Out of the 40 quantitative articles, self-labeling as a bully was used in 11 articles (28 %), while measuring perpetration with behavioral methods was used in 26 articles (65 %) by using a modified version of the target scales (NAQ: Einarsen et al., 2009; NAQ-RE: Moreno-Jimenez et al., 2007; S-NAQ: Notelaers & Einarsen, 2008; NAQ-R: Einarsen et al., 2009; SNAQ-R; Notelaers et al., 2019; EAPA-T-R: Escartín et al., 2017). In recent years, the usage of newly developed perpetrator scales also started picking up (8 %; 3; Baillien et al., 2018; Dåderman & Ragnestål-Impola, 2019; Fernandez-del-Río et al., 2021). G. Ozer and J. Escartín Aggression and Violent Behavior 69 (2023) 101823 13 self-assessments and self-interventions and implicitly lower WB. 4.2. Implications for policymakers Workplace health and safety is a constantly changing field, with new risk factors being identified and recognized. According to the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (www.osha.europa.eu/en), it is important to address psychosocial risks to protect workers’ health and well-being. These workplace risks can negatively impact an employee’s psychological, social, or physical health. They may arise from the design, organization, and direction of work and the social environment in which it is performed. In the past, occupational health professionals primarily focused on the physical hazards present in the workplace, including chemical, physical, and biological factors impacting worker health. However, in recent years, the role of psychological factors, such as WB, covered under workplace violence has become increasingly important (Magnavita & Chirico, 2020). Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, the prevalence of violence towards healthcare workers was measured to be between 18.5 and 84.5 % (Chirico et al., 2022). Based on the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic and especially impacting the healthcare sector adversely, scholars urged policymakers to launch special laws to tackle stress, burnout, suicide and turnover intentions of healthcare workers (Chirico & Leiter, 2022); redefine and eliminate inconsistencies between government bodies in handling work-related mental disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic adjust- ment disorder, caused by psychosocial risks such as bullying (Chirico, 2016) and to identify new interdisciplinary approaches and cooperation strategies between occupational health practitioners and public health stakeholders (Chirico et al., 2021b). Due to management’s apparent indifference to WB perpetration, scholars called policymakers to step in for interventions through legis- lative interventions for implementing mandatory occupational health programs (Chirico et al., 2021a); charging penalties for the lack of clear policies, practices (Lacy, 2020) and requirement of clear description of potential sanctions of related parties (Glambek et al., 2016) to inhibit WB. 4.3. Limitations There are several limitations to the validity of this systematic review. The search for studies was limited to published literature in English. It did not include materials and research produced by organizations outside the traditional commercial or academic publishing and distri- bution channels, such as reports, working papers, government docu- ments, white papers and evaluations. This restriction may have resulted in publication bias, as studies with negative results may not have been published or published in other languages. Additionally, the review used narrative synthesis rather than statistical pooling, which limits the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn. Finally, as perpetrators are often studied alongside targets, witnesses or bystanders, finding studies focused on perpetrators has been arduous. Thus, it is possible that some articles went undetected. 4.4. Future research on perpetrators Our review illustrates several avenues for future research on WB perpetration. To name a few, it is worth noting that bullying literature still lacks comprehensive first-hand knowledge of perpetrators’ physical and mental health before, during, or after the bullying process. Perpe- trators’ physical or psychological health (e.g., female health markers, sexual health) may be a future research area to understand why and how bullying perpetration happens. The use of wearable technologies (Ozer et al., 2023) may be broadened to include wellness apps, smartwatches, and other wearable technologies enabling objective data collection. Another variable that could be incorporated into perpetration studies could be self-control. Theories suggested that the reason and outcome of many negative behaviors (bullying, abusive supervision, incivility) were mainly based on resource losses, leading to self-control dysfunctions. A model derived from the resource theory is the Ego Depletion Model (Baumeister et al., 1998), stating that self-control efforts can exhaust individuals psychologically and lead to regulatory failures. Research showed that individuals who scored high on self-control had higher self- esteem, less bad health habits (binge eating and alcohol abuse), and better interpersonal relationships (Tangney et al., 2004); were less likely to engage in unhealthy and harmful behaviors (Forestier et al., 2018); more likely to perceive life as meaningful with structure and order (Stavrova et al., 2018) and less affected by stress (Yam et al., 2016). Based on the vast number of empirical studies on self-control pointing towards better work and private life, strengthening employees’ self- control through various exercises and motivating them with rewards may be explored as inhibiting factors for bullying perpetration. Finally, as perpetrators are not a homogenous group, perhaps some of the inconclusive results of perpetrator studies are due to distinctive sub- groups within perpetrators. As many studies point towards a vicious cycle of bullying and perpetration, future studies should distinguish between perpetrators and target-perpetrator groups and analyze each group separately to reach the end goal of designing effective in- terventions for both groups. 5. Conclusion Based on the above, we can conclude that perpetration literature is fragmented, with many relationships not studied and some inconclusive. Research examining the temporal precedence of events is rare; causality between many variables is still unknown. Longitudinal studies, ideally with a minimum of three waves (Cole & Maxwell, 2003), including diary studies (Navarro et al., 2015) and qualitative studies providing in-depth understanding, may resolve this complex human behavior. We propose that health conditions and self-control be tested as antecedents, medi- ators, and moderators and that different typologies of perpetrators be analyzed in future research. More high-quality research is needed to examine the possible causal relationships, in addition to research focusing on reversed and reciprocal relations. Funding This review was funded by Universitat de Barcelona Spain, Grant PSI2016-75915-P, AEI/FEDER, EU from the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Spain. Principal investigators: Alvaro Rodríguez-Car- balleira and Jordi Escartín. CRediT authorship contribution statemens Conceptualization, G.O. and J.E.; methodology, G.O.; software, G.O.; formal analysis, G.O.; investigation, G.O.; writing - original draft prep- aration, G.O.; writing - review and editing, J.E.; supervision, J.E.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. Data availability Data will be made available on request. G. Ozer and J. Escartín Aggression and Violent Behavior 69 (2023) 101823 14 Appendix A Table 1 Electronic database search, hits and search formulation as of Jan 8, 2023. Electronic library Hits Search formulation Scopus 372 (TITLE-ABS-KEY (workplace AND bullying) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (perpetrator) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (perpetration) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (bully) OR TITLE- ABS-KEY (bullies) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (perpetrators)) AND PUBYEAR >2002 AND PUBYEAR <2024 AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) Science Direct 251 Title, abstract or author-specified keywords (workplace bullying) AND ((perpetrator) OR (perpetrators) OR (perpetration) OR (bully) OR (bullies)) 2003–2023 PubMed 1385 ((workplace bullying) AND (perpetrators OR perpetrator OR perpetration OR bully OR bullies)[Title/Abstract]) Year: 2003–2023, full text, English Web of Science 1413 (AB ˆ (workplace bullying) AND AB ˆ ((perpetrators) OR (perpetrator) OR (bullies) OR (bully))) Year: 2003–2023, articles Proquest 86 abstract((workplace bullying) AND (perpetrators OR perpetrator OR perpetration OR bully OR bullies)) full text, Year; 2003–2023, English Total 3507 References Abbink, K., & Dogan, G. (2018). How to choose your victim. Games and Economic Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2018.10.006 Akanksha, M., Shuchi, S., & Sanjay, G. (2021). A qualitative review of 18 years of research on workplace deviance: New vectors and future research directions. Human Performance. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2021.1948548 Aquino, K., Douglas, S., & Martinko, M. J. (2004). Overt anger in response to victimization: Attributional style and organizational norms as moderators. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(2), 152–164. Baillien, E., Bollen, K., Euwema, M., & De Witte, H. (2013). Conflicts and conflict management styles as precursors of workplace bullying: A two-wave longitudinal study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(4), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2012.752899 Baillien, E., Camps, J., Van den Broeck, A., Stouten, J., Godderis, L., Sercu, M., & De Witte, H. (2015). An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind: Conflict escalation into workplace bullying and the role of distributive conflict behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(2), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015- 2563-y Baillien, E., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2011). Job autonomy and workload as antecedents of workplace bullying: A two-wave test of Karasek’s job demand control model for targets and perpetrators. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910x508371 Baillien, E., Escartín, J., Gross, C., & Zapf, D. (2017). Towards a conceptual and empirical differentiation between workplace bullying and interpersonal conflict. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(6), 870–881. Baillien, E., Griep, Y., Vander Elst, T., & De Witte, H. (2018). The relationship between organizational change and being a perpetrator of workplace bullying: A three-wave longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02678373.2018.1496161 Baillien, E., Neyens, I., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2009). A qualitative study on the development of workplace bullying: Towards a three way model. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ casp.977 Baillien, E., Rodríguez-Mu~noz, A., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2011). Do demands and resources affect target’s and perpetrators’ reports of workplace bullying? A two-wave cross-lagged study. Work & Stress, 25(2), 128–146. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2011.591600 Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, Article 309328. Balducci, C., Cecchin, M., & Fraccaroli, F. (2012). The impact of role stressors on workplace bullying in both victims and perpetrators, controlling for personal vulnerability factors: A longitudinal analysis. Work & Stress, 26(3), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.714543 Balducci, C., Menghini, L., Conway, P. M., Burr, H., & Zaniboni, S. (2022). Workaholism and the enactment of bullying behavior at work: A prospective analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 2399. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/ijerph19042399 Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barbalet, J. (1998). Emotion, social theory and social structure. Cambridge University Press. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252 Berkowitz, L. (1989). The frustration-aggression hypothesis: An examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59–73. Blackwood, K., & Jenkins, M. (2018). “Me? A Bully?”: The different faces of the perpetrator in workplace bullying. In Handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse, and harassment (pp. 1–24). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6173-8_20-1 Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley. Bloch, C. (2012). How do perpetrators experience bullying at the workplace? International Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion, 5(2), 159. https://doi.org/ 10.1504/ijwoe.2012.049519 Brotheridge, C. M., Lee, R. T., & Power, J. L. (2012). Am I my own worst enemy? The experiences of bullying targets who are also aggressors. Career Development International, 17(4), 358–374. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431211255833 Ceja, L., Escartín, J., & Rodríguez-Carballeira, A. (2012). Organisational contexts that foster positive behaviour and well-being: A comparison between family-owned firms and non-family businesses. Revista de Psicología Social, 27(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/ 10.1174/021347412798844051 Chirico, F. (2016). Adjustment disorder as an occupational disease: Our experience in Italy. The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 7(1), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijoem.2016.716 Chirico, F., Capitanelli, I., Bollo, M., Ferrari, G., & Acquadro Maran, D. (2021a). Association between workplace violence and burnout syndrome among schoolteachers: A systematic review. Journal of Health and Social Sciences, 6(2), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.19204/2021/ssct6 Chirico, F., Sacco, A., & Ferrari, G. (2021b). "Total Worker Health" strategy to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic and future challenges in the workplace. Journal of Health and Social Sciences, 6(4), 452–457. https://doi.org/10.19204/2021/ttlw1 Chirico, F., & Leiter, M. (2022). Tackling stress, burnout, suicide, and preventing the “Great resignation” phenomenon among healthcare workers (during and after the COVID-19 pandemic) for maintaining the sustainability of healthcare systems and reaching the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Health and Social Sciences, 7(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.19204/2022/TCKL1 Chirico, F., Afolabi, A. A., Ilesanmi, O. S., Nucera, G., Ferrari, G., Szarpak, L., … Magnavita, N (2022). Workplace violence against healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Journal of Health and Social Sciences, 7(1), 14–35. https://doi.org/10.19204/2022/WRKP2 Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 558–577. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.112.4.558 Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64–80. Coyne, I., Craig, J., & Smith-Lee Chong, P. (2004). Workplace bullying in a group context. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32(3), 301–317. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03069880410001723530 Coyne, I., Smith-Lee Chong, P., Seigne, E., & Randall, P. (2003). Self and peer nominations of bullying: An analysis of incident rates, individual differences, and perceptions of the working environment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12(3), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13594320344000101 Cullinan, J., Hodgins, M., Hogan, V., & Pursell, L. (2020). The value of lost productivity from workplace bullying in Ireland. Occupational Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1093/ occmed/kqaa067 Dåderman, A. M., & Ragnestål-Impola, C. (2019). Workplace bullies, not their victims, score high on the dark triad and extraversion, and low on agreeableness and honesty- humility. Heliyon, 5(10), Article e02609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019. e02609 De Cuyper, N., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity, perceived employability and targets’ and perpetrators’ experiences of workplace bullying. Work & Stress, 23(3), 206–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370903257578 De Dreu, C., Weingart, R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889–905. De Wet, C., & Jacobs, L. (2014). The perpetrators of workplace bullying in schools: A south african study. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. https://doi.org/ 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n16p567 Dollard, J., Miller, N. E., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. Yale University Press. 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 questionnaire-revised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02678370902815673 Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2020). The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. In S. V. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & G. Ozer and J. Escartín Aggression and Violent Behavior 69 (2023) 101823 15 C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed., pp. 3–53). Boca Raton: CRC Press. Escartín, J., Ceja, L., Navarro, J., & Zapf, D. (2013). Modeling workplace bullying behaviors using catastrophe theory. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 17(4), 493–515. Escartín, J., Dollard, M., Zapf, D., & Kozlowski, S. (2021). Multilevel emotional exhaustion: Psychosocial safety climate and workplace bullying as higher level contextual and individual explanatory factors. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30(5), 742–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1359432X.2021.1939412 Escartín, J., Monzani, L., Leong, F., & Rodríguez-Carballeira, A. (2017). A reduced form of the workplace bullying scale – the EAPA-T-R: A useful instrument for daily diary and experience sampling studies. Work & Stress, 31(1), 42–62. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02678373.2017.1295113 Escartín, J., Sora, B., Rodríguez-Mu~noz, A., & Rodríguez-Carballeira, A. (2012). Adaptation and validation of the spanish version of the scale of negative behaviors at work performed by perpetrators: NAQ-perpetrators. Journal of Work and Organization Psychology, 28(3), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.5093/tr2012a13 Escartín, J., Vranjes, I., Baillien, E., & Notelaers, G. (2021). Workplace bullying and cyberbullying scales: An overview. In P. D’Cruz, E. Noronha, G. Notelaers, & C. Rayner (Eds.), Concepts, approaches and methods. Handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment (vol 1). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-981-13-0134-6_10. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 817–868. Fernandez-del-Río, E., Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J., & Escartín, J. (2021). The incremental effect of dark personality over the big five in workplace bullying: Evidence from perpetrators and targets. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, Article 110291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110291 Forestier, C., Sarrazin, P., Allenet, B., Gauchet, A., Heuze, J.-P., & Chalabaev, A. (2018). “Are you in full possession of your capacity?” A mechanistic self-control approach at trait and state levels to predict different health behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 134, 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.044 Forsyth, D. (2009). Group dynamics. Cengage Learning. García-Ayala, A., Rodríguez-Mu~noz, A., Moreno, Y., Antino, M., & Ayllon, E. (2014). The role of psychological detachment and empathy in the relationship between target and perpetrator in workplace bullying situations. Journal of Social Psychology, 29(2), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2014.918824 Glambek, M., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. V. (2016). Do the bullies survive? A five-year, three-wave prospective study of indicators of expulsion in working life among perpetrators of workplace bullying. Industrial Health, 54(1), 68–73. https://doi.org/ 10.2486/indhealth.2015-0075 Glasø, L., Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Interpersonal problems among perpetrators and targets of workplace bullying. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(6), 1316–1333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00483.x Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. Penguin Books. Gunn, J. F., & Goldstein, S. E. (2020). Exploring the association between bullying victimization and suicidal thoughts through theoretical frameworks of suicide. International Journal of Bullying Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-020- 00078-z Harrington, S., Rayner, C., & Warren, S. (2012). Too hot to handle? Trust and human resource practitioners’ implementation of anti-bullying policy. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(4), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12004 Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work & Stress, 21 (3), 220–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370701705810 Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Individual and situational predictors of workplace bullying: Why do perpetrators engage in the bullying of others? Work & Stress, 23(4), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370903395568 Hidzir, N., Jaafar, M., Jalali, A., & Dahalan, N. (2017). An exploratory study on the relationship between the personal factors of the perpetrator and workplace bullying. Jurnal Pengurusan, 49, 77-76. Hinduja, S. (2007). Workplace violence and negative affective responses: A test of Agnew’s general strain theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 657–666. Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50 (3), 337–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062 Hodgins, M., MacCurtain, S., & Mannix-McNamara, P. (2020). Power and inaction: Why organizations fail to address workplace bullying. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 13(3), 265–290. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-10-2019- 0125 Holten, A. L., Hancock, G. R., Mikkelsen, E. G., Persson, R., Hansen, Å. M., & Høgh, A. (2016). The longitudinal effects of organizational change on experienced and enacted bullying behaviour. Journal of Change Management, 17(1), 67–89. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2016.1215340 Jacobson, R. P., Hood, J. N., & Jacobson, K. J. L. (2016). The effects of moral emotional traits on workplace bullying perpetration. Ethics & Behavior, 27(7), 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2016.1182026 Jenkins, M., Winefield, H., & Sarris, A. (2011). Consequences of being accused of workplace bullying: An exploratory study. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 4(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538351111118581 Jenkins, M. F., Zapf, D., Winefield, H., & Sarris, A. (2011). Bullying allegations from the accused Bully’s perspective. British Journal of Management, 23(4), 489–501. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00778.x Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. John Wiley. Karanika-Murray, M., Biron, C., & Saksvik, P.Ø. (2016). Organizational health interventions: Advances in evaluation methodology. Stress and Health, 32(4), 255–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2708 Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/2392498 Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L. (1994). Abusive behavior in the workplace: A preliminary investigation. Violence and Targets, 9, 341–357. Kizuki, M., Fujiwara, T., & Shinozaki, T. (2019). Adverse childhood experiences and bullying behaviours at work among workers in Japan. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. , Article 106009. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2019- 106009. oemed. Kline, R., & Lewis, D. (2019). The price of fear: Estimating the financial cost of bullying and harassment to the NHS in England. Public Money & Management, 39(3), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2018.1535044 Lacy, S. Y. (2020). Predicting workplace bullying behavior: The cultural values profile assessment, Northcentral University (ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 28256326). Northcentral University School of Business. Leary, M. R. (2004). The sociometer, self-esteem, and the regulation of interpersonal behavior. In R. F. Baumeister, & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 373–391). Guilford Press. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358. Lee, R. T., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2006). When prey turns predatory: Workplace bullying as a predictor of counter aggression/bullying, coping, and well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(3), 352–377. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13594320600636531 Leon-Perez, J. M., Escartín, J., & Giorgi, G. (2021). The presence of workplace bullying and harassment worldwide. In P. D’Cruz, E. Noronha, G. Notelaers, & C. Rayner (Eds.), Concepts, approaches and methods. Handbooks of workplace bullying, emotional abuse and harassment (vol 1). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0134- 6_3. Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13594329608414853 Linton, D. K., & Power, J. L. (2013). The personality traits of workplace bullies are often shared by their victims: Is there a dark side to victims? Personality and Individual Differences, 54(6), 738–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.026 Liu, S. L. (2012). U.S. women bullying women in the pharmaceutical/biotechnology/medical device industry. (Publication No. 1034289193). Doctoral dissertation. Pepperdine University Graduate School of Education and Psychology. Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global. Mackey, J. D., Brees, J. R., McAllister, C. P., Zorn, M. L., Martinko, M. J., & Harvey, P. (2016). Victim and culprit? The effects of entitlement and felt accountability on perceptions of abusive supervision and perpetration of workplace bullying. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3348-7 Magnavita, N., & Chirico, F. (2020). New and emerging risk factors in occupational health. Applied Sciences, 10(24), 8906. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10248906 Magnavita, N., Di Stasio, E., Capitanelli, I., Lops, E. A., Chirico, F., & Garbarino, S. (2019). Sleep problems and workplace violence: A systematic review and meta- analysis. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00997 Magnavita, N., Heponiemi, T., & Chirico, F. (2020). Workplace violence is associated with impaired work functioning in nurses: An Italian cross-sectional study. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12549 Manier, A. O., Kelloway, E. K., & Francis, L. (2017). Damaging the workplace: Consequences for people and organizations. In N. A. Bowling, & M. S. Hershcovis (Eds.), Research and theory on workplace aggression (pp. 62–89). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316160930.004. Martin, S., & Klein, A. (2013). The presumption of mutual influence in occurrences of workplace bullying: Time for change. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 5(3), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/jacpr-03-2013-0008 Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Perpetrators and targets of bullying at work: Role stress and individual differences. Violence and Victims, 22(6), 735–753. https:// doi.org/10.1891/088667007782793174 Mazzone, A., Pitsia, V., Karakolidis, A., & Norman, J. O. (2021). Bullied, bystanders, and perpetrators in the workplace: The role of empathy in teachers and school leaders’ experiences. Psychology in the Schools, 59(3), 515–534. https://onlinelibrary-wiley- com.sire.ub.edu/doi/full/10.1002/pits.22628. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2013). Introduction to the empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. In T. Widiger, & P. T. Costa, Jr. (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (3rd ed., pp. 15–27). American Psychological Association. Misra, R. K., & Sharma, D. (2022). Workplace bullying in India: Acts, consequences, and control. Indian Journal of Management, 15(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.17010/ pijom/2022/v15i1/160063 Moreno-Jimenez, B., Rodríguez-Mu~noz, A., Martínez, M., & Galvez, M. (2007). Assessing workplace bullying: Spanish validation of a reduced version of the negative acts questionnaire. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 449–457. Mortensen, M., & Baarts, C. A. (2018). Killing ourselves with laughter … mapping the interplay of organizational teasing and workplace bullying in hospital work life. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 13(1), 10–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrom-10-2016-1429 Navarro, J., Roe, R. A., & Artiles, M. I. (2015). Taking time seriously: Changing practices and perspectives in work/organizational psychology. Revista de Psicología Del Trabajo y de Las Organizaciones, 31(3), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rpto.2015.07.002 G. Ozer and J. Escartín Aggression and Violent Behavior 69 (2023) 101823 16 Nielsen, M. B. (2013). Bullying in work groups: The impact of leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12011 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, 42, 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.007 Nielsen, M. B., Harris, A., Pallesen, S., & Einarsen, S. V. (2020). Workplace bullying and sleep – A systematic review and meta-analysis of the research literature. Sleep Medicine Reviews. , Article 101289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2020.101289 Notelaers, G., & Einarsen, S. (2008, June 4–6). The construction and validation of the short – Negative acts questionnaire. Paper presented at 6th international conference on workplace bullying, Montreal, Canada. Notelaers, G., Van der He, I., Hoel, H., & Einarsen, S. (2019). Measuring bullying at work with the short negative acts questionnaire: Identification of targets and criterion validity. Work & Stress, 33(1), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02678373.2018.1457736 Ozer, G., Griep, Y., & Escartín, J. (2022). The relationship between organizational environment and perpetrators’ physical and psychological state: A three-wave longitudinal study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 3699. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063699 Ozer, G., Griep, Y., & Escartín, J. (2023). A matter of health? A 24-week daily and weekly diary study on workplace bullying perpetrators’ psychological and physical health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(1), 479. https:// doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010479 Parkinson, B., & Totterdell, P. (1999). Classifying affect-regulation strategies. Cognition & Emotion, 13, 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379285 Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563. Pelzer, P. (2005). The hostility triad: The contribution of negative emotions to organizational (un-) wellness. Culture and Organization, 11(2), 111–123. Pilch, I., & Turska, E. (2014). Relationships between machiavellianism, organizational culture, and workplace bullying: Emotional abuse from the Target’s and the Perpetrator’s perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10551-014-2081-3 Pratto, F., & Stewart, A. L. (2012). Social dominance theory. The encyclopaedia of peace psychology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Priesemuth, M., Mitchell, M., & Folger, R. (2017). Third-party reactions to workplace aggression. In N. Bowling, & M. Hershcovis (Eds.), Current perspectives in social and behavioral sciencesResearch and theory on workplace aggression (pp. 156–185). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316160930.008. Quine, L. (1999). Workplace bullying in NHS community trust staff questionnaire survey. British Medical Journal, 318, 228. Rai, A., & Agarwal, U. A. (2018). A review of literature on mediators and moderators of workplace bullying. Management Research Review, 41(7), 822–859. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/mrr-05-2016-0111 Rayner, C. (1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 199–208. Rodríguez-Mu~noz, A., Antino, M., Leon-Perez, J. M., & Ruiz-Zorrilla, P. (2020). Workplace bullying, emotional exhaustion, and partner social undermining: A weekly diary study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260520933031, 088626052093303. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 224–253. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/2392563 Salin, D., Cowan, R., Adewumi, O., Apospori, E., Bochantin, J., D’Cruz, P., Djurkovic, N., Durniat, K., Escartín, J., Guo, J., Isik, I., Koeszegi, S. T., McCormack, D., Monserrat, S. I., & Zedlacher, E. (2019). Workplace bullying across the globe: A cross-cultural comparison. Personnel Review, 48(1), 204–219. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/PR-03-2017-0092 Salin, D., Cowan, R., Adewumi, O., Apospori, E., Bochantin, J., D’Cruz, P., … Zedlacher, E. (2020). Prevention of and interventions in workplace bullying: A global study of human resource professionals’ reflections on preferred action. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(20), 2622–2644. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1460857 Salin, D., & Notelaers, G. (2018). The effects of workplace bullying on witnesses: Violation of the psychological contract as an explanatory mechanism? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–21. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09585192.2018.1443964 Samnani, A.-K., & Singh, P. (2014). Performance-enhancing compensation practices and employee productivity: The role of workplace bullying. Human Resource Management Review, 24(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.08.013 Seigne, E., Coyne, I., Randall, P., & Parker, J. (2007). Personality traits of bullies as a contributory factor in workplace bullying: An exploratory study. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 10(1), 118–132. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijotb- 10-01-2007-b006 Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high effort-low reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 27–41. Sischka, P. E., Schmidt, A. F., & Steffgen, G. (2020). The effect of competition and passive avoidant leadership style on the occurrence of workplace bullying. Personnel Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-09-2019-0469 Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox, & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10893-007. Stavrova, O., Pronk, T., & Kokkoris, M. D. (2018). Finding meaning in self-control: The effect of self-control on the perception of meaning in life. Self and Identity, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2018.1558107 Strandmark, K. M., & Hallberg, L. R. (2007). The origin of workplace bullying: Experiences from the perspective of bully victims in the public service sector. Journal of Nursing Management, 15(3), 332–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2834.2007.00662.x Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13 (2), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204 Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. American Psychological Association. Van den Broeck, A., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2011). Workplace bullying: A perspective from the job demands-resources model. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(2), 1–12. Vandevelde, K., Baillien, E., & Notelaers, G. (2020). Person-environment fit as a parsimonious framework to explain workplace bullying. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35, 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-08-2018-0342 Verkuil, B., Atasayi, S., & Molendijk, M. L. (2015). Workplace bullying and mental health: A meta-analysis on cross-sectional and longitudinal data. PLOS ONE, 10(8), Article e0135225. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135225 Vranjes, I., Elst, T. V., Griep, Y., De Witte, H., & Baillien, E. (2022). What goes around comes around: How perpetrators of workplace bullying become targets themselves. Group and Organization Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221143263 Vranjes, I., Salin, D., & Baillien, E. (2021). Being the bigger person: Investigating the relationship between workplace bullying exposure and enactment and the role of coping in ending the bullying spiral. Work & Stress. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02678373.2021.1969477 Walsh, J. L., Persky, L. R., & Pinnock, K. (2019). The effect of high performing bullying behavior on organizational performance: A bullying management dilemma. Global Journal of Business Research, 13(1), 71–81. https://ssrn.com/abstractˆ3408215. Wicks, E., Murton, S., & Lillis, S. (2021). Bullying in the New Zealand general practitioner workforce. Journal of Primary Health Care, 13(3), 207–212. https://doi. org/10.1071/HC21028 Yam, K. C., Fehr, R., Keng-Highberger, F. T., Klotz, A. C., & Reynolds, S. J. (2016). Out of control: A self-control perspective on the link between surface acting and abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 292–301. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/apl0000043 Zabrodska, K., Ellwood, C., Zaeemdar, S., & Mudrak, J. (2014). Workplace bullying as sensemaking: An analysis of target and actor perspectives on initial hostile interactions. Culture and Organization, 22(2), 136–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14759551.2014.894514 Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. V. (2020). Individual antecedents of bullying: Personality, motives and competencies of victims and perpetrators. In S. V. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed., pp. 269–304). CRC Press. Zapf, D., Escartín, J., Scheppa-Lahyani, M., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2020). Empirical findings on prevalence and risk groups of bullying in the workplace. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Workplace bullying: Development in theory, research and practice. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis. Zellweger, M. T., & Nason, R. S. (2008). A stakeholder perspective on family firm performance. Family Business Review, 21, 203–216. Zemba, Y., Young, M., & Morris, M. (2006). Blaming leaders for organizational accidents: Proxy logic in collective- versus individual-agency cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 36–51. G. Ozer and J. Escartín