Profiles of exposure to face-to-face and cyberbullying at work: A latent class analysis in Spain
This study investigates the co-occurrence of face-to-face bullying (FWB) and cyberbullying (CWB) in workplace settings. In doing so, we opted to use a person-centered approach with latent class analysis (LCA) to identify distinct patterns of bullying experiences rather than general prevalence rates....
| Autores: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2025 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Sevilla (US) |
| Repositorio: | idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:idus.us.es:11441/177680 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/11441/177680 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100822 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Workplace incivility Workplace bullying Mobbing Prevalence Victimization profiles Latent cluster analysis |
| Sumario: | This study investigates the co-occurrence of face-to-face bullying (FWB) and cyberbullying (CWB) in workplace settings. In doing so, we opted to use a person-centered approach with latent class analysis (LCA) to identify distinct patterns of bullying experiences rather than general prevalence rates. Using a panel survey design, participants reported the frequency of exposure to both FWB and CWB (n = 1995; Mage = 42; SDage = 9.23; 53.6 % women). A LCA conducted with the R statistical package poLCA revealed that a 5 cluster solution fits data best (BIC: 36163, AIC: 34461; Entropy: 0.917; G2 = 13779). These clusters can be classified into the following categories: (1) individuals not exposed to bullying behaviors at all (53.84 %); (2) those rarely exposed only to face-to-face bullying behaviors (28.76 %); (3) those rarely exposed to both cyber-and face-to-face bullying behaviors (3.84 %); (4) those exposed to face-to-face bullying behaviors (5.52 %); and (5) those exposed to both cyber-and face-to-face bullying behaviors (8.04 %). Therefore, most of the participants can be considered at low risk of bullying victimization (86.44 %, grouping clusters 1 to 3), whereas 13.56 % of the participants can be considered bullying targets (grouping clusters 4 and 5). Our results suggest that a significant proportion of individuals encounter FWB and CWB together, indicating a complex bullying landscape within workplaces. Thus, our findings underscore the importance of tailored organizational policies that consider the varied experiences of bullying to prevent them and foster a healthier work environment. |
|---|