PSY-801 Advanced Research: Re-specialization Concentration

GCU PSY-801 Advanced Research: Re-specialization Concentration Assignments

PSY-801 Advanced Research: Re-specialization Concentration


1. Need all 3 article read and compared answering the questions I have left blank Please expound on article 2 & 3 on every question just in case. Document name is


Use Article1

Struggling to meet your deadline ?

Get assistance on

PSY-801 Advanced Research: Re-specialization Concentration

done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!

Use Article 2

Use Article 3

College of Doctoral Studies

Expanded Comparison Matrix

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3


Individual and Situational Predictors of Workplace Bullying: Why Do Perpetrators Engage in Bullying of Others?

Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, (2009)

Does Trait Anger, Trait Anxiety or Organizational Position Moderate the Relationship Between Exposure to Negative Acts and Self-Labeling as a Victim of Workplace Bullying?

Vie & Einarsenm, (2010)

Developmental stage of performance in reasoning about school bullying.

Joaquim, (2014)

Persistent GCU library link

PSY-801 Advanced Research: Re-specialization Concentration

Purpose of the study

What is the author’s rationale for selecting this topic? Does he build a strong case?

The purpose of the study is to examine why perpetrators bully co-workers.

The assumption has been that stressful workplace conditions lead to bullying. Less research has been devoted to why perpetrators engage in bullying. This study addresses a gap in the literature by exploring individual and situational variables that contribute to bullying in the workplace.

Yes, the researchers provide a strong justification for their research, identifying what has been studied and what needs to be studied (a gap in the literature).

The aim of this study was to examine whether the relationship between exposure to negative acts and self-labeling as a victim of bullying was moderated by trait anger and trait anxiety or by the target’s organizational position.

The assumption has been that self-labeling does not bare a relationship with anger, anxiety or position. Previous research has been conducted to prove that the above factors are directly correlated with the study. This study is to be used as a conjecture to previous studies.


The research somewhat builds a strong justification for their research. Their main goal was to disprove a method that has been justified in the past.

The purpose of the study is to determine, at what cognitive developmental stages ) do urban

High school and middle school students reason about bullying.

The assumption being that students are between primary and formal cognitive developmental stages.

Which level of cognition plays a role in school bullying.

Research Question(s)

What question(s) does the author present?

What individual and situational variables predict bullying of others in the workplace?

Specifically, they administered a survey asking respondents to indicate whether they had exposed others to bullying in their workplace during the last six months. They included additional measures to explore the situational and individual variables that predict bullying behavior.

Situational variables were decision authority, role ambiguity, and interpersonal conflicts. Individual variables were status, gender, hierarchical position, and age.

What traits in the work place affect self-labeling?

Specifically, they administered a questionnaire asking 837 employees to indicate self-labeling, with 12 anger questions, 20 anxiety questions, and one position question. They gave previous studies definitions to expose the situation and allow varied responses for measurement in situational bullying.

At what stages of cognitive development (preoperational, primary, concrete, abstract, formal, systematic, or metasystematic) do urban high school and middle school students reason about bullying? How effective is the Student-Bully Problem at measuring cognitive developmental stage in adolescent students?

PSY-801 Advanced Research: Respecialization Concentration

Five new questions added to the older research study. Listed as followed:

»How smart is (insert name) for saying this and acting this way?

»How much do you trust (insert name) to help you with a bully?

»How much do you look up to (insert name) for saying this and acting this way?

»How much trouble will (insert name) get in for saying this and acting this way?

»How much will the other student hate (insert name) for saying this and acting this way?

Literature Review

How is this organized? What are the main themes found in the review? Who are the main authors used?

Workplace bullying is defined and examples of bullying behaviors are provided (Einarsen et al., 2003; Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaers, 2009).

Explanations for bullying are proposed: being a victim of workplace bullying, lack of social competencies, protecting one’s self-esteem, personality factors, organizational factors, etc. Authors argue against a simplistic explanation.

The (Fox, 2005) postulates that work-related stress leads to aggressive behavior.

Research on perpetrator characteristics is scarce.

Sample Population(s)

What group(s) is/are being studied?

2,539 Norwegian workers. (48.5% male, 51.5% female). 19.8% were supervisors. The mean age was 43.7 (M=43.7)

837 Employees. 466 responses. (57.5% leaders and 42.5% followers). 86.3% male. 13.7 female. Mean age 45.

116 students 9th-12th grade.

Results/ Conclusions

What did the author find through the study? Was the original question answered?

2.9% of the sample reported that they had been a bully in the workplace (perpetrators) while 1.9% reported being bullied themselves (target).

Most of the variables showed moderate to weak relationships with being a perpetrator.

There was a significant relationship between being a perpetrator and a target of bullying.

Role conflict and interpersonal conflicts showed weak, but significant correlations with bullying (perpetrator). (See Table 1.)

Target status (being a victim of bullying) was the best predictor of being a perpetrator of bullying (using a regression model; See Table 2). Males were also more likely than females to bully in the workplace.

Stress experienced at work predicts bullying behavior. Role conflict and interpersonal conflict can cause frustration in the workplace which may be projected onto co-workers and lead to bullying behavior.

Conclusion: this study did answer the research question by identify important factors related to engaging in the bullying of others in the workplace.


What are the limitations of the study? Why can it only encompass so much?

Self-reports (questionnaires) always have limitations (how well do we know ourselves? How accurately do we report our behaviors?)

Respondents were asked to report on a detrimental behavior that may result in under-reporting such behaviors.

Could the methodology be improved if peers were asked to rate coworkers in addition to respondents’ self-report?

Self-reports (questionnaires) always have limitations. Will employees accurately respond? How many will respond? How well do they remember the act?

Respondents were asked to report on their position and their anxiety and anger levels.

The study with the questionnaire only encompasses so much because the time period covers six months of perspective. An act that ma

Open chat
WhatsApp chat +1 908-954-5454
We are online
Our papers are plagiarism-free, and our service is private and confidential. Do you need any writing help?