bs_bs_banner
Japanese Psychological Research 2013, Volume 55, No. 4, 400–408
doi: 10.1111/jpr.12030
Investigation of the association between mobbing and musculoskeletal discomfort in academicians BETUL TASPINAR*, FERRUH TASPINAR, SULTAN GUCLU, and ABDURRAHMAN NALBANT Dumlupinar University BILGE BASAKCI CALIK
Pamukkale University
AHMET USLU High School of Social Sciences SERMET INAL
Dumlupinar University
Abstract: This study aimed to identify the association between exposure to mobbing and musculoskeletal discomfort in academicians. One hundred academicians working at a university were included in the study. Permission was granted by the Rector prior to the study and questionnaires were delivered to the academicians. The Turkish version of the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror (LIPT) was used to evaluate mobbing and the Turkish version of the Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire (CMDQ) was used to assess musculoskeletal discomfort. When the data were analyzed, a moderate association was found between mobbing perceived by the academic staff and musculoskeletal discomfort. In conclusion, this study showed that mobbing is a risk factor for musculoskeletal discomfort. Key words: mobbing, musculoskeletal discomfort, pain.
Mobbing is repeated, malicious, and irrational behavior that is directed towards a person or a group of people and which creates a risk to health and safety. This may be in the form of frightening, physical violence, discrimination, threat, social isolation, or destabilization. Mobbing may present itself as behavior comprising words, acts, gestures, or writings that affect personality, dignity, physical, or psychological integrity (Godin, 2004). The term “mobbing” was first used by Heinz Leymann, who defined mobbing as a psychological violence by hostile and unethical communication which is directed in a systematic way towards
one or more individuals in the workplace (Leymann, 1996). Also, the term mobbing has been used synonymously with suppression, attack, violence, bullying, psychological harassment, social isolation, threatening, and discrimination in business life, and workplace trauma (Farrell, Bobrowski, & Bobrowski, 2006; Godin, 2004). Some environments have more risk in terms of being exposed to mobbing. Mobbing can be toward one or more people in any hierarchical level of the organization, but it is more predominant in bureaucratic organizations such as public service offices and health and education
*Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to: Betul Taspinar, Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, School of Health, Dumlupinar University, Campus of Evliya Celebi, Kutahya 43100, Turkey. (E-mail:
[email protected]) © 2013 Japanese Psychological Association. Published by Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.
Mobbing and musculoskeletal discomfort
authorities (Shallcross, 2005). Westhues (2006a) concluded that organizations with high job safety, subjective performance criteria, and demanding personal and corporate objectives are more prone to mobbing. Moreover, he stated that the main aim of universities is to be objective and maintain freedom of thought, but mobbing damages these goals by creating subjective and dependent minds (Westhues, 2006b). Academic settings have organizational and work characteristics that increase the possibility of interpersonal hostile behaviors (Neuman & Baron, 2003; Twale & De Luca, 2008). Academic settings, which have a solid ground for mobbing based on these features, may negatively affect the physical and psychosocial health of academicians. Raskauskas (2006), in a study conducted in New Zealand universities, reported that 65.3% of the academic personnel were exposed to mobbing. Pedro, Sánchez, Navarro, and Izquierdo (2008) reported an increase in the number of stress cases and an important and positive association between mobbing and psychosomatic symptoms. Musculoskeletal discomfort associated with work is a common problem and is defined by the World Health Organization as “a problem caused by a number of factors which are highly affected by work settings and work performance conditions” (Luttmann, Ja¨ger, & Griefahen, 2003). Musculoskeletal disorders are a major cause of health-related absences from work in industrialized countries, with the most common among these being back, neck, and upper extremity injuries (Luttmann et al., 2003). The most common health outcome of muscle disorders is a sensation of pain, where pain is defined as an unpleasant sensory experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage (Visser & van Dieen, 2006). Studies have reported that psychosocial work factors are important risk factors for musculoskeletal discomfort (Bongers, Kremer, & Ter Laak, 2002; Bongers, de Winter, Kompier, & Hildebrandt, 1993). Okamura, Tsuda, and Matsuishi (2011), stated that lonely people experience more stress at work due to the lack of social support, while Leymann (1996) found
401
that mobbing leads to social isolation, which can enhance working stress. Stress causes increased cortisol levels (Tsumura, Shimada, Nomura, Sugaya, & Suziki, 2012). Individuals working under high work strain are at a higher risk of health problems, including musculoskeletal discomfort (Karasek, 1979; Nomura, Nakao, Sato, Ishikawa, & Yano, 2007). When people who are exposed to aggression are compared with people who do not experience aggression, there is a substantial difference between their physical symptoms, affective problems, cognitive problems, and social problems (Kaukiainen, Salmivalli, Björkqvist, Österman, Lahtinen, Kostamo, & Lagerspetz, 2001). Mental stress plays an important role in the increase in the prevalence of musculoskeletal discomfort in physically light but psychologically stressful jobs (Moon & Sauter, 1996; Schleifer & Ley, 1996). Based on their working conditions, academicians are also at risk of musculoskeletal problems. University academic staff make frequent use of computers, and their daily office work involve repetitive movements such as typing and prolonged static posture. Academic staff are also required to read for significant amounts of time (Chiu, Ku, Lee, Sum, Wan, Wong, & Yuen, 2002). In the literature, the data describing the relation between mobbing and musculoskeletal discomfort in the Turkish population are limited. Consequently, the aim of this study was to determine whether there is a relation between exposure to mobbing and musculoskeletal discomfort in academicians working at a university.
Materials and methods Participants This study was conducted on academicians who work at a university. Four hundred and fifty academicians were reported by the Directorate of Personnel Department of a university. The academicians in the sample were selected using a simple random sampling method, with 22% of the total selected for evaluation. The necessary permissions were granted by the Rector before © Japanese Psychological Association 2013.
402
B. Taspinar, F. Taspinar, S. Guclu, A. Nalbant et al.
the study and questionnaires were delivered to the academicians after the study was announced to all academic personnel through e-mails by the Rector and the academicians were informed about the study. Questionnaires were delivered to the secretaries of faculties to protect privacy and later the questionnaires were collected from the secretaries of faculties. Therefore, the response status of the academicians wasn’t influenced. The study was conducted in accordance with Declaration of Helsinki. Two hundred and fifty questionnaires were delivered, but only 102 questionnaires were completed. Two of the 102 completed questionnaires were excluded due to missing data; thus a total of 100 participants (62 male and 38 female) were included in the study. Measures A form was created for the academicians including data about age, sex, marital status, the faculty in which the participant worked, title, working hours, and the number of employees the participant was working with. The obtained data were recorded on this form. Leymann inventory of psychological terror. Exposure to mobbing was evaluated using the Turkish Version of the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror. This scale was developed by Leymann in 1993 and is also known as Leymann’s Typology. Leymann identified 45 mobbing behaviors, which are divided into five groups depending on the features of the behavior: impact on the victim’s abilities in self-expression and communication (e.g., constant criticism of private life; 11 items); attacks on social relationships (e.g., not talking to the victim; 5 items); attacks on reputation (e.g., talking negatively behind the person’s back; 15 items); attacks on quality of life and occupational position (e.g., causing damage at the home or workplace; 9 items); and direct attacks on the person’s health (e.g., forcing the person to do physically heavy work; 5 items). A 5-point Likert-type scale was used, on which the scores were determined as 1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Frequently, and 5 = Very © Japanese Psychological Association 2013.
often. The subgroup score and the total score were calculated for each participant, with the maximum possible score being 225 and the minimum being 45. The scores were calculated and converted into percentile values. The following formula was used to create the percentile values.
Percentile values of LIPT (LIPT score − Min. Score) × 100 = Max. Score ( 225) − Min. Score ( 45) A high score indicated a high exposure to mobbing by the participant. The scale was found to have a Cronbach’s alpha score of .95 and thus to be valid and reliable in a study conducted by Girgin (2007). Cornell musculoskeletal discomfort questionnaire. In this study, musculoskeletal discomfort was evaluated using the Turkish Version of the Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire (CMDQ). The CMDQ was first developed at the University of Cornell to evaluate musculoskeletal symptoms in Englishspeaking employees (Cornell University Ergonomics, 2009; Hedge, Morimoto, & McCroibe, 1999).The CMDQ addresses the frequency, severity, and working ability interference effects of musculoskeletal discomfort across 20 body parts. Versions for male and female standing and sedentary workers are also available (Fagarasanu & Kumar, 2006). In this study, the female and male versions for sedentary employees were used.The participants were asked to assess different regions of the body in terms of pain experienced. The frequency of pain in each area over the last week was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = No pain at all, 2 = Felt once or twice, 3 = Felt three or four times, 4 = Felt once a day, 5 = Felt more than once a day). The severity of pain was assessed using a 3-point scale (1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe), and the extent to which the pain interfered with work was evaluated using a 3-point scale (1 = I did not stop, 2 = A bit disrupted, 3 = A serious barrier). For example, the participants who experienced a pain in their neck were asked how frequently the pain was felt, how severe it was, and
Mobbing and musculoskeletal discomfort
Table 1 Variables
403
Sample characteristics Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire
Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror
n
18.79 ± 24.93 21.30 ± 22.30
68.04 ± 27.92 72.00 ± 35.53
62 38
19.68 ± 22.84 19.80 ± 25.26
69.09 ± 29.96 70.06 ± 32.28
53 47
16.04 ± 20.33 27.25 ± 28.74
65.32 ± 25.94 78.12 ± 38.16
67 33
20.21 ± 19.79
77.26 ± 37.20
19
21.44 ± 25.65 14.50 ± 17.81 23.56 ± 30.77 19.71 ± 24.26 19.32 ± 26.74
59.88 ± 23.42 61.35 ± 20.92 71.60 ± 36.67 67.53 ± 24.97 74.05 ± 36.92
9 14 15 26 17
18.38 ± 23.99 27.88 ± 27.49 16.20 ± 20.12
65.12 ± 28.01 86.42 ± 43.18 64.96 ± 20.11
50 21 29
22.20 ± 25.74 13.09 ± 16.56
72.90 ± 16.56 60.48 ± 22.79
73 27
39.08 ± 36.52 18.38 ± 23.46 16.23 ± 14.95 32.37 ± 32.94 16.34 ± 22.10
75.00 ± 33.56 68.47 ± 31.93 62.84 ± 18.30 75.62 ± 27.83 72.55 ± 36.93
6 38 19 8 29
Sex Male Female Age (years) ≥35 15
whether it interfered with their work. All of the values obtained from the participants to calculate the total CMDQ score were summed and the total scores were used for correlation analysis. The scale was found to be valid and reliable, with kappa coefficients scores ranging between .62 and .92 in a study conducted by Erdinc, Hot, and Ozkaya (2011). Statistical analysis The data were entered into SPSS 17.0 software for analysis. Categorical data were shown as percentage values and questionnaire result data were shown as mean and standard deviation values. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to investigate whether the data distributions were normal (p < .000). The Spearman correla-
tion coefficient was used to investigate the correlation between data without normal distributions.
Results This study was conducted on 100 academicians who worked at a university between September 2012 and October 2012. The demographic data of the personnel are presented in Table 1. The participants were examined with respect to musculoskeletal discomfort and exposure to mobbing. The score for the subgroup “impact on self-expression/communication” of the LIPT questionnaire administered to the academic personnel was 19.29 ± 9.63. The intensity of © Japanese Psychological Association 2013.
404
B. Taspinar, F. Taspinar, S. Guclu, A. Nalbant et al.
Table 2 Results from the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror and the Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire Variable Subgroup of LIPT Impact on self-expression and communication Attacks on social relationships Attacks on reputation Attacks on quality of life and occupational position Direct attacks on the person’s health LIPT Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire
Minimum-Maximum
M ± SD
%
11–55 5–25 15–75 9–38 5–20 45–193 0–95
19.29 ± 9.63 7.60 ± 3.67 21.58 ± 10.48 14.83 ± 7.95 6.25 ± 2.96 69.55 ± 30.92 19.74 ± 23.89
18.8 13 11 16.2 6.25 13.6 –
Table 3 Correlation between the five subgroups of the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror and the Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror Subgroup Impact on self-expression and communication Attacks on social relationship Attacks on reputation Attacks on quality of life and occupational position Direct attacks on the person’s health Total
mobbing perceived by the personnel in this group was 18.8%.The total score for the respondents in the subgroup “attacks on social relationships” was 7.60 ± 3.67 and the rate of exposure to mobbing was 13%. The “attacks on reputation” subgroup score was 21.58 ± 10.48. This value showed that the intensity of mobbing perceived by the respondents was 11%. The total score for the subgroup “attacks on quality of life and occupational position” was 14.83 ± 7.95 and the rate of exposure to mobbing was 16.2%. The total score for the “attacks on the person’s health” subgroup was 6.25 ± 2.96 and the rate of mobbing was 6.25%.The highest mobbing value perceived by the academic personnel was seen in the subgroup “impact on self-expression/communication”. The lowest value perceived by the participants was in the “attacks on the person’s health” subgroup. The total LIPT score was 69.55 ± 30.92 and the rate of mobbing was 13.6%. The total CMDQ score was 19.74 ± 23.89. The data for these values are shown in Table 2. © Japanese Psychological Association 2013.
Cornell Musculoskeletal Discomfort Questionnaire
P-value
.50 .52 .51 .52 .56 .57
