Chronic Tension Of Workplace Bullying And Cortisol Response

4.88 (26 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

4.75 (24 votes)

This paper will discover a theoretical model linking the chronic stress of workplace bullying with alterations in cortisol secretion, provide qualitative descriptions and definitions of bullying, and describe tools that have been developed to operationalize the construct. Further, the use of salivary cortisol assays to measure free serum cortisol is going to be discussed. Study that set out to link the direct personal encounter of bullying amongst workers with cortisol response deviations is going to be examined.

High prevalence of bullying in nursing has been suggested, creating the topic of concern to the profession. Bullying has been demonstrated to have physiological and psychological effects for its victims. It has also been shown to boost employee absenteeism, turnover, and negatively impact employee function product. Finally, recommendations for further study to far more fully understand implications to health and mitigation of ill effects will probably be proposed.

IntroductionWhile a lot of might describe pressure as an unpleasant but acceptable, even required at occasions, aspect of the workplace, bullying represents a unique form of pressure that may possibly induce lengthy term well being consequences in its victims. Ramifications towards the individual facing such negative interactions throughout the course of day-to-day employment include anxiety and depression (Niedhammer, et al 2005). Matthiesen and Einarsen (2004) located that 3 out of 4 respondents in a study of bullied workers scored above the threshold for a diagnosis of post traumatic pressure disorder (PTSD). Physical symptoms are also manifested in increased absenteeism (Murray, 2010). Fries, et al (2005) reported that low cortisol pursuant to chronic tension, as exhibited in victims of lengthy term harassment, correlated with “enhanced pressure sensitivity, fatigue and pain” and loss of cortisol mitigation of the immune method resulting in increased inflammatory responses. In reality, an entire workforce can suffer from decreased morale and loss of a cooperative work environment (Rocker, 2008). Adverse effects on well-being and job satisfaction have been reported among bystanders within the workplace (Cowie, 1999).

In nursing, and perhaps the field of well being delivery in general, the prevalence of bullying behaviors may exceed that of the overall work force. While several large scale studies of worker satisfaction discover self-reports of exposure towards the behavior on the order of 10% of respondents, studies of nursing populations are typically much higher. Simmons (2008) identified that 31% of nurses responding to an investigation of prevalence reported having been bullied. In nursing, behaviors consistent with bullying have been implicated in important increases in medication errors and other adverse patient events (Martin, 2008). Whereas nurses could be at higher threat for exposure to bullying inside the workplace, and would suffer individually the psychological and physiological effects of the chronic anxiety it represents, their patients could also suffer.

This paper will discover a theoretical model linking the chronic stress of workplace bullying with alterations in cortisol secretion, provide qualitative descriptions and definitions of bullying, and describe tools that have been developed to operationalize the construct. Further, the use of salivary cortisol assays to measure free serum cortisol will probably be discussed. Research that set out to link the direct personal expertise of bullying among workers with cortisol response deviations will be examined.

Literature ReviewA literature evaluation was conducted to locate primary study relating bullying and cortisol levels. Web of Science was searched employing keywords bullying or mobbing, and cortisol or hypohalmo-pituitary-adrenal axis as topic. The search yielded 13 matches. Articles not specific to measurement of cortisol profiles in otherwise normal adults experiencing bullying inside the function place had been excluded. To develop the theoretical framework and context, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched using additional keywords: bullying or mobbing and measuring, salivary cortisol, mobbing or bullying and nursing, chronic anxiety and cortisol.

Definitional descriptions of bullying have been advanced and expounded upon by numerous researchers.Generally, aggressive acts that are repetitive and of duration, inflicting emotional harm on a victim are viewed as prospective bullying behaviors. These include demeaning comments, threats to physical or professional nicely being, social isolation, relational disruption, and over or under function (Cowie et al, 2002 ). Singular or isolated instances of negative acts inside the function place encounter don’t constitute bullying. Leymann (1996) suggests that a weekly frequency more than a period of six months sets the criteria for bullying.

Einarsen (2009) accepts the six month duration from a convenience of measurement perspective, suggesting that restriction to this time period each ensures capturing duration without having potential problems of subjects’ memory recall or distortion. As such, the specific requirements for duration and frequency of acts is somewhat arbitrary and chosen for convenience by the social scientists. Leymann and several other European researchers prefer the term “mobbing” to identify bullying; the translational difference from the Anglo-American term “bullying” suggests the possibility of operation of much more than one perpetrator acting in concert against a victim.

Implicit in the conceptualization of bullying is an asymmetrical power relationship between perpetrator(s) and victim; had been it not so, the target of negative acts would feel empowered to counter the aggression. Typically there is an institutional hierarchical mismatch in between the subjects; nevertheless, the interpersonal relationship might be 1 of uneven power, even amongst peers. Differences in personality, social standing, and encounter all represent potential fields of imbalance. The perception of power and helplessness in the subjective knowledge of events will be the essential definitional consideration in this aspect (Cowie, et al 2002)

The perception of bullying is subjective in numerous respects. Measurement of the phenomenon from a practical standpoint requires assessing potential victims and the potential distortions of personal perspective. Even so, Based on Niedl (2006, as cited in Einarsen, 2009), the possible impact of bullying on wellness and well-being exists precisely within the subjective interpretation of behaviors; “the definitional core of bullying at work rests on the subjective perception made by the victim that these repeated acts are hostile, humiliating and intimidating and that they are directed at him/herself.” A critique of relying upon subjective perception has been that it possibly admits a circular argument into the assessment (Hoel, 2009), ie since one believes oneself to have been victimized, 1 is, therefore, a victim. Brodsky (1976, as cited in Einarsen, 2009) suggests that truly objective measures of bullying need to be performed by third party observation.

Obviously, you’ll find difficulties in applying the approach in retrospective analysis where a trained observer was not present for the duration of the acts in question. Coworker hesitance to provide information because of their economic dependence upon relationships at work is also cited as producing third party peer nominations of bullying perpetrators and victims less than reliable (Bjorkqvist, et al 2004). Critics of the self-report method note that there is little evidence of establishment of validity by test-retest to establish the accuracy of participant’s recollections and interpretations of incidents over time.

Operationalizing the phenomenon of bullying has relied upon questionnaires administered to possible victims. Heinz Leymann developed and factor analyzed the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror (LIPT) in 1999 to diagnose severe instances of bullying. Originally written in Swedish, the inventory has been translated and validated in German, French, and English. To remove subjectivity from the self-report, Leymann establishes a rigid set of criteria, predefining negative acts and specifying frequency and duration guidelines. In this approach, many kinds of specific incidents are described, and respondents indicate regardless of whether or not they have experienced them within the time frame described. The tool hopes to measure perceived exposure to behaviors which Leymann has determined are indicative of bullying (Notelaers et al, 2006).

Leymann (1990) identified a series of behaviors throughout case study analysis which he classifies into 5 categories with respect to the effects they have upon the target of bullying. These correspond to diminished ability to communicate, social isolation, diminishment of personal reputation, occupational restrictions, and physical assaults. The tool has been criticized as being overly long, with 45 items; culturally biased; and possible uses wording which is emotionally charged and likely to influence responses. Leymann acknowledges the cultural bias, advising that “…these activities mainly describe hostile actions as they are carried out in northern European countries.”

While the LIPT had been structured to identify severe forms, Einarsen devised the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) to allow respondents to self-identify as victims of bullying and identifies a broader range of negative behavior related to bullying. The NAQ was originally developed with 23 items to investigate subjects’ perceptions of workplace bullying. Its revised form, the NAQ – R attempts to resolve troubles of cultural bias (the original NAQ was written for a Scandinavian population) and factor structure limitations. The 22 item scale has been adapted to an Anglo-American cultural setting, and is devised to test for occupational, interpersonal and physical aspects of bullying using behavioral terms (Einarsen, et al 2009). Internal consistency is established with a Cronbach’s alpha of .90.

Cortisol ResponsesThe HPA axis is really a major route by which external social and psychological variables illicit physiological responses (Adam & Kumari, 2009). It’s well nicely established that an individual’s cortisol levels vary in response to pressure. Use of measurements from saliva as opposed to serum or urinary levels has been suggested as a means of furthering psychoneuroendocrinological understanding of interactions between tension and effects on the body (Hazler, et al, 2006). Ease of sample collection and storage, facilitating higher acceptance and compliance by subjects, would make feasible large scale studies of HPA axis changes in specific populations. Polla, et al (2007) found that salivary cortisol could be a reliable indicator of total free serum cortisol. Even though salivary concentrations are 1000 lower than located that of serum, the levels have been discovered to correlate (Rantonen et al, 2000).

Operational definitions using measurements of salivary cortisol to assess HPA response would be valid. Insofar as absolute cortisol levels may not be the relevant object of study, analysis correlating cortisol and bullying have focused on the adjustments of daily cortisol levels from cortisol awakening response. Minimum protocol for determining cortisol diurnal slope, that rate of alter in between levels at bedtime and awakening response, is measured with at least two measurements; as many as five points taken all through the day or several days with line of best fit modeled with linear regression gives far better resolution, although it’s unknown if the degree of curvilinearity of the slope is significant to any process under investigation (Adam & Kumari, 2009).

Theoretical BackgroundStress and psychological distress as an outcome of a hostile function environment has been established. Leymann’s clinical case studies provide a body of qualitative study producing the association. Niedhammer (2007) established statistical associations among negative employment outcomes, ie, absenteeism, sickness, and function injury and employee-reported feelings of workplace intimidation. Chronic tension has been linked to a wide range of physiological and psychological illnesses from clinical depression to coronary heart disease (McFarlane, 2010). Hypothalmic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis (HPA) activation resulting in heightened hormonal secretion, a normal response to stressors, was thought to increase tissue exposure to damaging levels. In victims of acute trauma, highly elevated levels of cortisol have been measured shortly after the traumatic event (Reul, 2008), a phenomenon that has been noted in laboratory studies of induced stress.

Therefore, traditional models of disease related to chronic tension have implicated cortisol as an intermediary, disrupting normal biological processes and causing tissue damage (Miller, et al 2006). The confound has been in contradictory outcomes from studies of PTSD and sufferers of chronic trauma and pressure in whom cortisol levels seemed to be depressed (Rehl & Nutt 2008).

Cortisol is a hormone that is mediated by numerous external stimuli. Social interaction, physical sensation, and immune program responses can induce modifications in levels of cortisol. In return, the hormone has regulatory influences more than immune method responses, sensory acuity, memory acquisition, along with the “fight or flight” response.

As an evolutionary adaptation, cortisol’s effects serve to preserve the organism under threat or challenge; learning and memory systems are inhibited, immune responses are suppressed whilst the threat is expressed. Subjected to anxiety, levels of cortisol boost. Miller, et al (2006) conducted a meta analysis of 119 articles in which HPA axis function was assessed in subjects having experienced past or ongoing anxiety of duration of a month or longer. Compared with those that had not skilled chronic pressure, those having had long term exposure to anxiety had lower awakening concentrations of cortisol, higher afternoon levels and greater day-to-day volume of output. The overall effect was a flattening of diurnal response.

By contrast, in control subjects, the day-to-day cortisol profile shows a high awakening level which declines quickly for the duration of the day. The study discovered patterns of response specific to social tension, along with the subjects ability to control stressful outcomes. Specifically, scenarios posing threats to the social self had been related to lower morning cortisol levels, greater afternoon levels, resulting in a flattened response with overall greater total day-to-day volume. The same pattern noticed in social anxiety is repeated for scenarios in which the stressor is perceived as uncontrollable.

Clear from the research is that chronic tension is associated with alterations in how the HPA axis is activated throughout the day. Studies which drew conclusions about tension associated modifications in HPA functioning by way of a single everyday sample had been missing the broader picture. An assessment of cortisol output due to environmental stressors can only be reliable from a series of day-to-day measures which describe total day-to-day volume.

Research Linking Cortisol to Workplace BullyingIn 2004, Kudielka and Kern conducted a small-scale preliminary study of cortisol profiles in subjects of workplace bullying. The pilot study conducted in Switzerland hoped to explore whether or not bullying could be related to measurable signs of HPA axis modifications. The German language version of the LIPT was used to assess exposure to mobbing; no indication of subject recruitment methods or sample characteristics was given. Exclusionary criteria were good health, score on LIPT indicating bullying exposure, and in active employment. Twenty eight participants were enrolled, with an average mobbing duration of 62 months.

Cortisol salivette samples were taken at waking, 30 minutes following waking, and at 8:00, 11:00, 15:00, 20:00, and 22:00. The method was used for each day in which every subject worked, along with a day in which the subject did not work. A compliance rate of 57% was achieved, as 17 participants returned all samples requested. No important difference was discovered between waking cortisol levels or diurnal profile of days at perform or days off. A trend towards lesser decrease in between morning and evening levels between perform day and day off was noted.

The authors acknowledge that the small sample size was an problem and created a suggestion that a larger scale study really should be done. Few conclusions might be drawn from the outcomes of such a modest sample, the characteristics of which are unknown from the article. Exclusion of people who did not test positively for exposure to mobbing deprived the study of a control group with which to compare outcomes, which is really a serious flaw. Kudielka and Kern refer to studies suggesting that flattened circadian cortisol profile might indicate danger for disease, but don’t elaborate on theoretical background.

Monteleone, et al. conducted an investigation into cortisol profiles and mobbing with an emphasis on subjects’ temperament. The authors cite studies linking severe pressure from exposure to bullying and symptoms of PTSD, chronic fatigue among others. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether or not bullying tension effects HPA activity, and whether or not personality traits play a part in HPA responses in victims of bullying. The study was conducted in Italy. Ten subjects who tested positive for having been bullied utilizing the LIPT inventory were gender matched having a control group who did not test positive for bullying. The average duration of exposure to workplace harassment was 24.three months. Subjects signed informed consent, had been physically wholesome and drug-free for at least six weeks. Cloninger’s Temperament and Character Inventory – Revised (TCI-R) was administered to assess subjects’ temperament. Subjects had been then asked to go to bed at their standard time, then awake and take saliva samples at 6:00, 8:00, 12:00, 16:00, and 20:00.

Results showed that bullied subjects had drastically lower cortisol concentrations at awakening in addition to overall lower day-to-day cortisol volume than the control group. Monteleone correlated a characteristic of harm avoidance with victims of bullying, and suggests that the characteristic may possibly make them less able to cope with social challenges and impair their ability to deal with perform place harassment. Two way ANOVA showed that duration of bullying explained 76% of the cortisol variations in bullied subjects; following removing this effect, the harm avoidance characteristic explained another 11% of the variation.

Despite a tiny number of participants, the authors noted a substantial difference in between cortisol profiles in between the bullied and control group. It is unclear from the methodology if the sampling protocol was for a single day for every subject, or if numerous days had been included in the protocol. 1 would expect individual every day variability in cortisol levels unrelated to the phenomena studied; sampling over many days may well allow researchers to identify and exclude from analysis these types of variations.

The methodology may have a flaw within the request that participants go to bed at their habitual time , but awaken at 6:00. The regular circadian rhythms of the participants may not have been habituated to awakening in the prescribed time, and as a result cortisol levels may not accurately indicate normal wakening cortisol levels. The authors give no rationale for this aspect of the protocol.

The authors also included a personality inventory, and concluded that behavioral and social inhibition could account for responses of victims of bullying. The error in logic could be the assumption that these are stable characteristics that existed prior to exposure to bullying. The authors were aware of studies relating PTSD-like symptoms to mobbing victims. According to the DSM-II-R, PTSD in a chronic phase is a condition that results in permanent alterations of personality. Assessing personality soon after onset of effected alterations makes it impossible to make conclusions as to its the original state; 1 can only describe what it has become. As such, the inclusion of this leg of the study is of questionable value.

RecommendationsSeveral studies conducted to measure cortisol variations in victims of bullying as identified employing the LIPT assessment tool have noted flattened diurnal profiles. Each and every study was retrospective in that cortisol profiles had been determined after identification of victimization. The conclusion that these deviations from expected values had been due to a response to external experiences cannot be made conclusively. Although flattened diurnal response to chronic tension is predicted from some models of HPA activity, much more investigation is required to draw more definitive causality among the two phenomena.

It could possibly be difficult to construct a study of the breadth needed to establish standard baseline cortisol profiles which are then altered in response to bullying. The commonalities with PTSD, in which cortisol alteration persists for decades following the initial trauma, suggest that cortisol variations, if triggered by the expertise of bullying stress, may possibly also persist as lengthy,. Further investigation could be designed to establish the latency of altered profiles; whether you’ll find conditions under which they boost to standard.

Neither study into the relationship in between cortisol response and bullying has examined cortisol measurements in direct response to bullying behavior. A study could be designed to take baseline measurements, with additional sampling throughout acute experiences of aggressive behavior to establish whether or not cortisol levels stay unresponsive throughout episodes of increased tension, or if levels boost.

Physiological ramifications of flattened cortisol response have yet to be fully examined. It’s not known if alterations to normal rhythmic pattern of secretion is in itself a pathology, or if emphasis ought to be placed on measurement of total every day cortisol volume. According to present theory, it is this parameter, not absolute values nor their certain diurnal profile, which leads to symptoms.

While further research may possibly but a lot more fully describe the process of bullying and the physiological and psychological effects it has on victims, little investigation has been done into reversing what appears to be a destructive process. Interventions which can reestablish normality towards the circadian cortisol rhythm, and repairing the psychological damage done to victims must be developed. Improving workplace awareness of the difficulty and creating techniques to mitigate conflict just before it escalates into bullying are also indicated.

Written by: Pamela Irvin- Lazorko

Pamela Irvin- Lazorko can be a nursing doctoral student at Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA USA.

References:
– Adam, E., Kumari, M. (2009). Assessing salivary cortisol in large-scale epidemiological study.
Psychoneuroendocrinology. volume 34 pages 1423 -1436.
– Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., Hjeit-B?ck, M. (1994). Aggression amongst university employees. Aggressive Behavior. volume 20 pages 173 – 184
– Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Rivers, I., Smith, P., Pereira, B.(2002). Measuring workplace bullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior. volume 7 (2002) pages 33-51
– Cowie, H., Bradshaw, L., Kaipiainen, S., Smith, P., et al. (1999). Adult bullying: report of a working party chaired by Helen Cowie. Nature and Prevention of Bullying. retrieved on the web at
http://old.gold.ac.uk/tmr/reports/aim2_surrey1.html
– Dickerson, S., Gruenewald, S., Kemeny, T. (2009). Psychobiological responses to social self threat: functional or detrimental? Self and Identity. volume: 8, Problem: 2-3. pages: 270-285
– 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 and Pressure.
Volume: 23. Problem: 1. pages: 24-44
– Fries, E., Hesse, J., Hellhammer, J. , Hellhammer, D. (2005). A brand new view on hypocortisolism.
Psychoneuroendocrinology (2005) xx. pages1-7
Hansen, A., Hogh, A., Persson, R., Karlson, B., Garde, A., Orbaek, P. (2006). Bullying at work, wellness outcomes, and physiological tension response. Journal of Psychometric Study. volume 60 pages 63 – 72.
– Hazler, R., Carney, J., Granger, D. (2006). Integrating biological measures into the study of bullying. Journal of Counseling and Development. volume 84 pages 298 -307
– Hoel, H., Beale, D. (2006). Workpalce bullying, psychological perspectives and industrial relations: towards a contextualized and interdisciplinary approach. British Journal of Industrial Relations. 44:two June 2006 0007-1080 pages 239 – 262
– Joint Commission.(2008).Concern 40: behaviors that undermine a culture of safety. Sentinel Event Alert. July 9, 2008. retrieved online from: http://www.jointcommission.org/SentinelEvents/SentinelEventAlert/sea_40.htm
– Kudielka, B., Kern, S.(2004). Cortisol day profiles in victims of mobbing (bullying in the work place): preliminary outcomes of a initial psychobiological field study. Journal of Psychosomatic Investigation 56 (2004). pages 149-150
- Leymann, H.(1996) The content and development of mobbing at perform. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(two), pages 165-184
– Leymann, H.(1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5. (2).
– McFarlane, A. (2010). The long-term costs of traumatic anxiety: intertwined physical and psychological consequences. Globe Psychiatry. volume: 9 concern: 1 pages: 3-10
– Martin, W. (2008). Is Your Hospital Safe? Disruptive behavior and workplace bullying. Hospital Topics: Analysis and Perspectives on Healthcare.Vol. 86, no. 3 Summer 2008
– Matthiesen, S., Einarsen, S. (2004). Psychiatric distress and symptoms of PTSD amongst victims of bullying at perform. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, volume 32, issue three . pages 335-356
– Miller, G., Chen, E., Zhou, E. (2006). If it goes up, should it come down? chronic pressure and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis in humans. Psychological Bulletin . Volume 133(1), January 2007, p 25-45
– Monteleone,P., Nolfe, G., Serritella, C. Milano, V, Di Cerbo, A et al. 2009. Hypoactivity of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis in victims of mobbing: role of the subjects’ temperament and chronicity of the work-related psychological distress. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. Volume: 78 Issue: 6. Pages: 381-383
– Murray, J. (2010). Workplace bullying in nursing: a difficulty that can’t be ignored. MedSurg Nursing. Sept-Oct 2009.
– Nater, U., Rohleder, N. (2009). Salivary alpha-amylase as a non-invasive biomarker for the sympathetic nervous program: existing state of study. Psychoneuroendocrinology. volume 34 pages 486 – 496.
– Niedhammer, I., David, S, Degioanni, S. 2007. Association in between workplace bullying and depressive symptoms within the French working population. Journal of Psychosomatic Investigation 61 (2006). pages 251- 259
– Notelaers, G., Einarsen, S., De Witte, H., Vermunt, J. (2006). Measuring exposure to bullying at function: the latent class cluster approach. Perform and Pressure. volume 20 issue 4 pages 288 -301.
– Polla, E., Kreitschmann-Andermahra, I., Langejuergena, Y., Stanzelc, S., Gilsbacha, J., Gressnerb, A., Yagmurb, E. (2007). Saliva collection method affects predictability of serum cortisol. Clinica Chimica Acta. volume 382, problems 1-2, July 2007, pages 15-19.
– Rantonen, P., Pentilla, I., Meurman, J., Savolainen, K., Narvanen, S., Helenius, T. (2000). Growth hormone and cortisol in serum and saliva. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. volume: 58 problem: 6 pages: 299-303
– Reul,J., Nutt, D.(2008). Glutamate and cortisol a critical confluence in PTSD? Journal of Psychopharmacology; 22. page 469.
– Rocker, C. (2008). Addressing nurse-to-nurse bullying to promote nurse retention. OJIN: The On-line Journal of Issues in Nursing; Vol 13 No. three.
– Simons, S. (2008). Workplace bullying skilled by Massachusetts registered nurses and the relationship to intention to leave the organization. Advances in Nursing Science. volume31, issue 2. pages 48-59.
– Tafet,G.(2001). Correlation between cortisol level and serotonin uptake in patients with chronic anxiety and depression. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 1.4 (2001). pages 388-393
– Tracy, S.(2006). Nightmares, demons and slaves: exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying. Management Communication Quarterly. Volume 20 Number 2. pages 1-38
- Wessa, M., Rohleder, N., Kirschbaum, C., Flor, H.(2006). Altered cortisol awakening response in post traumatic pressure disorder. Psychoneuroendocrinology. volume31. pages 209-215.

Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced with no permission of Medical News Today

Posted in Uncategorized