Scope of Client Aggression The Scope of Client Aggression toward Social Workers in Israel
DRAFT COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY
Accepted for publication: Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma Guy Enosh School of Social Work, University of Haifa Haifa, 31905 Israel AND Shay S. Tzafrir* Faculty of Management University of Haifa Haifa, 31905 Israel
Guy Enosh, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the school of Social Work, University of Haifa. Shay, S. Tzafrir, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the department of Business Administration, University of Haifa.
*Please direct all correspondence to the first author at:
[email protected] Note: Authors contributed equally to the paper.
1
Scope of Client Aggression The Scope of Client Aggression toward Social Workers in Israel Accepted for publication: Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma Abstract The phenomenon of client violence towards social workers has been documented in various parts of the world. The goal of this study is to describe the phenomenon and explore the relationship pattern between contextual variables and clients’ aggression. The study encompassed a sample of 645 workers in 34 municipal social service agencies. Of the entire sample, 80% reported being exposed to some form of aggression at least once over the last 3 months. The findings highlight two broad axes related to client aggressiveness: frequency and level of aggression. With respect to frequency, we can discern a continuum running from common types of aggressive behaviors to rare ones. The other axis focuses on the level of aggressiveness used, from minor types of client aggression, such as verbal assaults and threats, increasing to more severe ones, such as property damage, and finally to physical injury. The routineness of aggression in the work environment lends it the appearance of being normal, and functioning in such an environment desensitizes social workers to clients' aggressiveness. Also examined and discussed are organizational and personal factors that contribute to aggressive behavior of clients, including seniority, gender, workload, inadequate service conditions, and co-workers aggressive behavior. Keywords: Client Aggression, Social Workers, Prevalence
2
Scope of Client Aggression The Scope of Client Aggression toward Social Workers in Israel Contextual theory (Johns, 2006) relates to the level of omnibus and discrete contexts and emphasizes the importance of environment in explaining various phenomena. Clients’ aggressive behavior has become an alarming phenomenon, harming employees and the organization as well (Zelnick et al., 2013). Recently researchers have found that contexts, which vary, for example, with respect to nationality, workplace, or social-work roles, impact client aggressiveness differently (Denney, 2010; Harris & Leather, 2012; Koritsas, Coles, & Boyle, 2010). For instance, Shin (2011), focusing on the context of workers’ roles, found that child protection workers were more frequently attacked by clients than any other social workers, and that they suffered more from mental health consequences. Yet, studies have failed to focus simultaneously on various ecological levels (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) within the context. Using contextual theory (Johns, 2006) as a point of departure, the goal of this study is to describe the phenomenon and explore the relationship pattern between contextual variables and clients’ aggression. One profession in which employees are especially exposed to aggressive client behavior is social workers (Harris & Leather, 2012), and those working in the social service departments are continuously exposed to aggressive behavior by clients (Enosh, Tzafrir & Gur, 2013; Macdonald & Sirotich, 2005; Tzafrir, Enosh & Gur, 2015). Though frequency and severity may vary, depending on measurement tools and cultural differences, the phenomenon has been documented in numerous locations, including such countries as Australia (e.g., Koritsas, Coles & Boyle, 2010), Canada (e.g., Kosny & Eakin, 2008), Finland (Virkki, 2008), the United Kingdom (e.g., Harris & Leather, 2012; Littlechild, 2005), and the United States (e.g., Jayaratne, Croxton, & Mattison, 2004). For instance, Koritsas, Coles, and Boyle (2010) found that 67% of Australian social workers had experienced at least one occurrence of aggression during the year preceding
3
Scope of Client Aggression the study, with verbal aggression and threats being the most common forms of aggression reported. These aggressive behaviors emanate from various ecological levels in the organizational environment, with antecedents stemming from individual, group, and service interaction; the results are verbally or physically aggressive behavior, also possibly manifesting as threats and in damage to property (Koritsas, Coles, & Boyle, 2010; Littlechild, 2005). This study set up to examine the pattern of relationship between antecedent factors stemming from different ecological levels and various aggressive behaviors. Theory and Hypotheses Aggressive client behavior toward service workers is expressed at the organizational, group, interpersonal, and personal levels and interrupts normal conduct inside and outside the organization. Studies confirm that in organizations where aggression exists, performance is impaired (Barling, Rogers, & Kelloway, 2001; Budd, Arvey, & Lawless, 1996). Therefore, aggression in general is harmful to the organization in the short- and long-term, both directly and indirectly. According to Schneider and Bowen (1993), clients are exposed to the organizational dynamics as well as the organization’s culture and atmosphere. Therefore, in exploring client aggressiveness in organizations, researchers have to take into account the various contexts (Johns, 2006) that may facilitate such behavior. Contextual theory (Johns, 2006) relates to various ecological elements within the organization—such as agency, individual, and interpersonal interactions—that encourage clients to adopt aggressive behavior as acceptable and worthwhile. The outcome, although not volitional, leads to a situation in which the organization
4
Scope of Client Aggression and the service environment serve as antecedents that may trigger clients’ aggressive behavior toward service providers (Newhill, 1996, 1997). Social learning theory (Bandura, 1973) suggests that both environmental and personality factors have an impact on individual aggressive behavior. In the organizational setting, this frequently means that some factors causing aggressive behavior are determined and influenced by the organization. For instance, an organization that does not adapt its facilities so that waiting is more pleasant for its clients is almost certainly inviting aggression. In addition, an organization can encourage aggressive behavior by showing tolerance for aggressive behaviors of clients, employees, or other stakeholders. According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1973), aggressive culture in the workplace can potentially increase aggressiveness for two reasons. First, aggressors might become models of imitation for other clients; second, by tolerating aggressors and acquiescing to their demands, the staff may be providing both the aggressors and other clients observing them with an incentive to behave aggressively (O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1996). The service delivery process is an opportunity for clients to observe the organizational atmosphere and note if actors behave aggressively, possibly deciding to imitate them (Bandura, 1973; Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961). According to Bandura, it is not only imitation that is possible; the observer is also able to learn and use tactics and strategies to develop new forms of aggression (Bandura, 1978). Unpleasant and uncomfortable conditions in the physical environment can also instigate clients’ aggressive action (Bandura, 1973; Berkowitz, 1993). Bitner’s model (1992) has already underlined the association between servicescape design and client behaviors. Additional research claimed to be able to link servicescape design and forms of misbehavior (e.g., Reynolds & Harris, 2009). For instance, an unpleasant service environment might generate feelings of 5
Scope of Client Aggression disrespect toward the organization and its employees, possibly resulting in aggressive behavior. In addition, objective conditions such as air conditioning, lighting, and so forth are likely to result in client aggression. Total client experience management research (Berry, Carbone, & Haeckel, 2002) suggests that client experience is shaped by clues, which are anything that can be perceived or sensed throughout the service process. Organizations that tend to ignore or underestimate client experience are likely to decrease the value of their products or services in the eyes of their clients. Service organizations, especially those in which goods are not provided such as social work agencies, should pay close attention to the type of emotional clues conveyed by their clients, by recognizing their emotional needs. Emotional clues can be conveyed through direct interaction between an employee and client and through the servicescape environment, but also through interactions among employees and between employees and other clients (Daunt & Harris, 2012). This employment social arena can place social workers in a dilemma emanating from the conflict between personal feelings, such as the wish to assist the client, and the reality of the workload stress at the workplace, emanating from high client caseloads, bureaucratic demands, and interagency conflicts. This conflict between personal feelings and values on the one hand and workload stress on the other, is often expressed emotionally and manifests as exhaustion, lack of energy, depletion of emotional resources, and burnout (Deery et al., 2002; Jackson et al., 1986). The relationship between stressful experiences at work and overall negative effects on workers is widely documented (Moskowitz, Shmueli-Blumberg, Acree, & Folkman, 2012). This pattern of relationships between workload stress and client aggressive is part of the microfoundation (Barney & Felin, 2013) representing individuals’ characteristics, various forms 6
Scope of Client Aggression of social interactions, and the process dynamics involved (Ferris et al., 1998). Therefore, we hypothesized that: H1: Aggressive culture in the workplace will be positively associated with clients’ aggressive behavior. Negative perceptions of aggressive culture in the workplace will be related to a higher incidence of aggressive incidents towards the workers. H2: Client exposure to workers’ aggression will be positively associated with clients’ aggressive behavior. Higher recurrence rate of client exposure to workers’ aggression will be related to more occurrences of aggressive incidents towards the workers. H3: Inadequate service conditions will be positively associated with clients’ aggressive behavior. Higher recurrence rate of inadequate service conditions will be related to more occurrences of aggressive incidents towards the workers. H4: Workload stress will be positively associated with clients’ aggressive behavior. Higher levels of workload stress will be related to more occurrences of aggressive incidents towards the workers. Method This study is part of a larger one on client aggression toward social workers in Israel. The Israeli Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services permitted the researchers to attend municipal social service agency staff meetings and three regional meetings (devoted to workplace safety issues), which were all organized by the Ministry, and to present the study’s goals. The participants were informed of their right not to participate and to refrain from answering any specific questions, without incurring any negative consequences, including risk to their employment. Questionnaires were delivered to all attendees and were collected later by the 7
Scope of Client Aggression researchers in sealed envelopes. The return rate was 92.14% (645 out of a total of 700 questionnaires delivered). Participants The survey sample encompassed 573 workers from 34 municipal social-service agencies (leshachot revaha), which together with agencies throughout the country form Israel’s principal case management system, delivering many types of social work interventions to the service populations. An additional 72 workers were sampled during three social-worker regional meetings, which were organized by the Ministry of Welfare, bringing the total number of socialworker participants from social-service agencies to 645. The age of participants ranged from 20 to 67 (M = 41.64, SD = 10.21); 556 (86.2%) were females; and participants’ experience ranged from two months to 42 years (M = 10.18, SD = 8.38). Instruments Exposure to client aggression was measured by the Client Violence Questionnaire (CVQ; Enosh, Tzafrir, & Stolovi, 2014), a 14-item self-report measure that evaluates the frequency of social workers’ exposure to four types of client violence experienced over the preceding year: verbal aggression, aggression toward property, threats, and physical violence. The items were assessed on a scale from 0 (never) to 6 (six times and more over the previous year); an additional score of 9 was used to designate no occurrences over the past year but one or more earlier occurrences. The total exposure score was calculated as the average of the items. The scale presented satisfactory reliability (Cronbach’s α = .89), above the minimum .70 value for a newly developed scale (Nunnally, 1978). The subscales had reliability higher than .70 (verbal α = .85; threat α = .78; property α = .90; physical α = .92). 8
Scope of Client Aggression A modified measure, aggressive culture in workplace, was adapted from Douglas and Martinko’s (2001) instrument. We used 4 items, with responses ranging from 1 (do not agree) to 7 (totally agree). Paticipants were asked to respond to the following questions: “Staff members often confront each other verbally / physically / with insults / by threatening each other” (the type of aggression was changed for each item). The scale presented satisfactory reliability (Cronbach’s α = .72). A two-item scale, client exposure to workers’ aggression, was used to measure clients’ exposure to staff-members’ aggression among themselves and clients’ exposure to staff members’ aggression toward other clients. The same response scale was used. The internal validity of the scales was satisfactory (α = .79). We assessed workload stress using a modified index (Spector & Jex, 1998), with eight items. The respondents indicated the extent to which each item caused stress at work on a seven point Likert-like scale, with higher scores signifying a higher workload stress level. Sample items were: “I have to deal with client demands that go beyond my official duties” and “I don’t have enough time to finish all my official duties.” The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was .73. Four items describing inadequate service conditions were developed for this study. Respondents used a seven-point response scale ranging from 1 (do not agree) to 7 (totally agree). Sample items were: “The agency is not well air-conditioned,” and “Worker-client meetings are not held in a discreet atmosphere.” The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was .78.
9
Scope of Client Aggression Control Variables In light of prior research, we controlled for individual-based factors, such as age, gender, and years of experience. The correlations between the control variables and the dependent variable were either insignificant or lower than .10. Ethical Considerations The project was conducted with the permission and support of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Social Services and was funded through a grant from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor. Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that they were free to refuse or stop the survey at any stage. No identifying details were requested. Because the survey could potentially elicit intense memories and emotions, a list of possible support resources was handed to all participants. The study was authorized by the university committee for ethical research with human beings. Results Prevalence of Exposure to Client Aggression Table 1 presents the prevalence of exposure to client aggression as three different estimates and as intercorrelations as well. The first is the mean level of exposure to each type of client aggression (overall average measure of exposure to any aggression type: verbal, threats, property damage, and physical violence). The second was the percentage of those exposed at least once over the previous three months to any type of aggression, and the third was the percentage of those exposed at least once in their careers. INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
11
Scope of Client Aggression Table 1 show that 80% reported being exposed to some form of aggression at least once over the last 3 months, while exposure at some time in their careers was close to 86%. Exposure to verbal aggression was about 71% for the last three months and close to 80% for any incident occurring at any time in their careers. Threats were experienced by 69% of the participants over the last three months, while about 77% were threatened at least once in their careers. Of the severe types of aggression, exposure to property damage was close to 11% for the last three months, and 21% of the participants suffered the same at least once in their careers. Finally, not surprisingly, exposure to physical violence was close to 4% over the last three months, and somewhat less than 9% were exposed once or more during their careers. As can be seen in the correlation matrix, all types of exposure to client aggression were positively correlated. Table 2 presents the results for the relative distribution of the hypothesized correlates of exposure to client aggression. It includes workplace related variables as well as personal variables. As can be seen from the table, aggressive culture was relatively low (M = 1.94, SD = .94), as well as client exposure to workers’ aggression (M = 1.88, SD = 1.28). With respect to workers’ estimation of inadequate service conditions, the results show an average score (M = 3.32, SD = 1.75). Finally, participants reported a high workload level (M = 5.34, SD = 1.05). As can be seen in the correlation matrix, all variables were positively correlated. INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE Table 3 presents the correlations between workplace variables and exposure to types of client aggression over the last 3 months. As can be seen, and in line with our research hypotheses, verbal exposure and exposure to threats are positively associated with all workplace-related variables. Interestingly, exposure to property damage is only associated with workload stress,
11
Scope of Client Aggression while exposure to physical aggression is associated with client exposure to workers’ aggressive behavior. INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE Prediction of Exposure to Client Aggression The associations reported above are zero-order correlations. In order to examine the relative effects of the various demographic and workplace-related variables, as well as to control for the possible clustering effect emanating from the fact that we measured workers within agencies, we conducted a series of logistic regressions using generalized estimating equations (GEE) with semi-robust estimates of variance (Hardin & Hilbe, 2001, 2003) in STATA-11. Table 4 presents the prediction of exposure at least once over the previous three months, while Table 5 presents the prediction of exposure at any time over the participant’s career. INSERT TABLES 4 and 5 ABOUT HERE Examining Table 4, we see that exposure to verbal aggression and threats, as well as the combined measure of exposure, is predicted only by employees’ workload. Male workers are almost three times more prone to be exposed to property damage than females. Similarly, male workers are about five times more prone to be exposed to physical violence from clients. Physical violence exposure is also predicted by aggressive culture in the agency and by client exposure to workers’ aggression. Examining the predictors of overall career exposure in Table 5, we see some recurrent patterns as well as differences. Exposure to verbal aggression and threats is still predicted by employees’ workload. The findings also reveal that exposure to damage of property is predicted only by inadequate service conditions, while exposure to physical aggression is predicted only by 12
Scope of Client Aggression gender. Over their careers, males are about 2.5 times more prone to be physically abused by clients than female workers are. Finally, the combined measure is predicted only by workload stress, as was for the three-month exposure. Discussion According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1973, 1978), people acquire much of their behavior by observation and imitation of others in a social context. Bandura and his colleagues (Bandura, 1971; Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963) suggest that there are many different ways in which people learn from others, besides by doing. These researchers stressed the interactions among individuals as opportunities for learning and called attention to the importance of learning by watching others, modeling, and imitation. In other words, clients can learn to respond aggressively by observation and imitation of other actors in the organization. Such insight is crucial for the organization because it is against precisely this kind of behavior that the organization can then take proactive steps to prevent or reduce it. If proactive management in general has the potential to improve organizational performance by facilitating exchange, communication, interaction, coordination, and control, then the organization may be able to reduce instances of aggressive behaviors against employees by managing its client relationships proactively and giving early attention to factors from within that might trigger clients’ aggressiveness This is why exploring and identifying the factors—organizational and personal— that contribute to aggressive behavior of clients is so important and justified. The findings highlight two broad axes related to client aggressiveness: frequency and level of aggression. With respect to frequency, we can discern a continuum running from common types of aggressive behaviors to rare ones. The other axis focuses on the level of aggressiveness used, from minor types of client aggression, such as verbal assaults and threats, increasing to more 13
Scope of Client Aggression severe ones, such as property damage, and finally to physical injury. Overall, the descriptive and inferential data indicate that social workers in the agencies are exposed to mild types of aggression on an ongoing and almost daily basis. According to our findings, the different levels of aggression directed at social workers are positively correlated. These results are in line with studies that were conducted in other countries (e.g., by Koritsas, Coles & Boyle, 2010; Kosny & Eakin, 2008) and with qualitative results reported elsewhere (Enosh, Tzafrir & Gur, 2013). The routineness of aggression in the work environment lends it the appearance of being normal, and functioning in such an environment desensitizes social workers to clients' aggressiveness. It has been said that fish are unaware of the water they live in; in this sense, social workers live in very murky waters, which blind them to the monsters that lurk beneath and thus expose them to unexpected bursts of severe physical violence (Tzafrir, Enosh & Gur, 2015; Virkki, 2008). Interestingly, female and male social workers are exposed equally to the milder forms of aggression; yet as previous research indicates (e.g., Newhill, 1996), males were more prone to be exposed to the more severe types of aggression (both property and physical). A possible explanation for the difference may be that the social positioning of males (including male social workers) is more aggressive. As Ringstad (2005) has found, male social workers were more likely to wield aggression against clients and therefore to draw aggression and violence toward themselves. Client aggression toward social workers does not occur in a vacuum, but rather grows out of an ongoing interaction between the client and the agency as a whole, and the specific worker in particular. In line with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), when clients mark specific workers as more “deserving” of being victimized because of a previous interaction, it stands to reason that the same clients will again direct violence toward those workers, based on the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), quid pro quo.
14
Scope of Client Aggression Social-work agencies can influence clients’ behavior by paying more attention to the workload and to the ways in which employees behave toward each other and toward clients. Inadequate service conditions in the agency’s physical surrounding also have an impact on client behavior; thus, agencies should take these into account in designing and managing the environment in which the service process is delivered. Limitations and Future Research Several limitations of our study also provide excellent opportunities for future research. First, the current study is limited to the social-work arena. Future research should be conducted in order to examine and validate the organizational characteristics that correlate with client’s aggressive behavior in other service contexts (Johns, 2006), such as the health industry. Second, data were collected within a single, unique national culture, a fact which could cast doubt on its generalizability. However, the Israeli environment provides researchers and practitioners with a convenient laboratory for studying and analyzing advanced workplace environments inasmuch as it is a “Maduradam” (microcosm) of the developed countries in Western Europe and North America (Harel & Tzafrir, 1999). Third, Our research took place within communities. As Brofenbrenner (1979) have suggested, more comprehensive perspectives of the communities within which the agencies were located should have been taken into account. However, collecting more data related to clients' bio-psycho-social backgrounds, and neighborhood characteristics, expanding our knowledge of the context (Johns, 2006) were beyond the scope of this study. Thus, future research would complement the current one by examining the social settings and locations (Tzafrir, Enosh, Stone, & Parry, 2013) incorporating data regarding places with greater violence and poorer families.
15
Scope of Client Aggression In spite of the limitations, therefore, the research findings presented here provide new insights into the relationship between client aggression and work related characteristics. By examining organizational characteristics to explain exposure to client aggression, our findings lay a basis for enhancing our understanding of the interdependence between workplace culture and client behavior.
16
Scope of Client Aggression References Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression : A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall. Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28(3), 1229. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582. Barling, J., Rogers, A. G., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Behind closed doors: in-home workers' experience of sexual harassment and workplace violence. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(3), 255-269. Barney, J., & Felin, T. (2013). What are microfoundations?. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 138-155. Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression – Its causes, consequences, and control. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Berry, L. L., Carbone, L. P., & Haeckel, S. H. (2002). Managing the total customer experience. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 1-6. Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees, Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71. Blau, M. P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley. Bronfenbrenner , U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Budd, J. W., Arvey, R. D., & Lawless, P. (1996). Correlates and consequences of workplace violence. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(2), 197-210. Daunt, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2012): Exploring the forms of dysfunctional customer behaviour: A study of differences in servicescape and customer disaffection with service, Journal of Marketing Management, 28(1-2), 129-153. Denney, D. (2010). Violence and social care staff: Positive and negative approaches to risk. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 1297– 1313.
17
Scope of Client Aggression Deery, S., Iverson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Work relationships in telephone call centers: Understanding emotional exhaustion and employee withdrawal. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 471–496. Douglas, S.C., & Martinko, M.J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 547-559. Enosh, G., Tzafrir, S., & Gur, A. (2013). Client aggression towards social workers and social services in Israel – a qualitative analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(6), 11231142. Enosh, G., Tzafrir, S. S., & Stolovi, T. (2014, Online). The development of the Client Violence Questionnaire (CVQ). Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Doi: 1558689814525263. Ferris, G. R., Arthur, M. M., Berkson, H. M., Kaplan, D. M., Harrell-Cook, G., & Frink, D. D. (1998). Toward a social context theory of the human resource management-organization effectiveness relationship. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3), 235-264. Gouldner, A.W. (1960), "The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement", American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-179. Hardin, J. & Hilbe, J. (2001). Generalized linear models and extensions. College Station, TX: Stata Press. Hardin, J. & Hilbe, J. (2003). Generalized Estimating Equations. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC. Harel, G.H. & Tzafrir, S.S. (1999). The effect of human resource management practices on the perceptions of organizational and market performance of the firm. Human Resource Management, 38, 185–199.
18
Scope of Client Aggression Harris, B., & Leather, P. (2012). Levels and Consequences of Exposure to Service User Violence: Evidence from a Sample of UK Social Care Staff. British Journal of Social Work, 42 (5), 851-869. Jackson, S. E., Schwab, R. L. & Schuler, R. S. (1986). Toward an understanding of the burnout phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 630–40. Jayaratne, S., Croxton, T. A., & Mattison, D. (2004). A National survey of Violence in the Practice of Social Work. Families in Society, 85(4), 445-453. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 396-408. Koritsas, S., Coles, J. & Boyle, M. (2010). Workplace violence towards social workers: The Australian experience. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 257-271. Kosny A & Eakin J. (2008). The hazards of helping: work, mission and risk in nonprofit social service organizations. Health, Risk & Society,10 (2), 149–166. Littlechild, B. (2005). The nature and effects of violence against child protection social workers: Providing effective support, British Journal of Social Work, 35(3), 387–401. Macdonald, G., & Sirotich, F. (2001). Reporting client violence. Social work, 46, 102-114. Macdonald G., Sirotich F. (2005). Violence in the social work workplace: The Canadian experience. International Social Work, 48(6), 772-781. Moskowitz, J. T., Shmueli-Blumberg, D., Acree, M. and Folkman, S. (2012). Positive affect in the midst of distress: implications for role functioning. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 502–518. doi: 10.1002/casp.1133 Newhill, C. E. (1996). Prevalence and risk factors for client violence toward social workers. Families in Society, 77, 488-495.
19
Scope of Client Aggression Newhill, C. E. & Wexler, S. (1997). Client violence toward children and youth service workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 19, 195–212. Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 250–256. doi:10.1037/00223514.35.4.250. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 225-253. Reynolds, K.L. & Harris, L.C. (2009). Dysfunctional customer behavior severity: an empirical examination. Journal of Retailing, 85(3), 321-335. Ringstad, R. (2005). Conflict in the workplace: Social workers as victims and perpetrators. Social Work, 50, 305–313. Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. (1993). The service organization: Human resources management is crucial. Organizational Dynamics, 21(4), 39-52. Shin, J. (2011). Client violence and its negative impacts on work attitudes of child protection workers compared to community service workers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3338-3360. Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 356 - 367. Tzafrir, S. S., Enosh, G., & Gur, A. (2015). Social workers' disenchantment in the face of client aggression: Realizing the gap. Qualitative Social Work, 14(1), 65 – 85. Tzafrir, S. S., Enosh, G., Parry, E., & Stone, D. L. (2013). CODIFYing Social issues in organizations – Scope and perspectives. Global Business Perspective, 1(1), 39-47.
21
Scope of Client Aggression Virkki, T. (2008). Habitual trust in encountering violence at work: Attitudes towards clientviolence among Finnish social-workers and nurses. Journal of Social-Work, 8, 247-267. Zelnick, J. R., Slayter, E., Flanzbaum, B., Butler, N. G., Domingo, B., Perlstein, J., & Trust, C. (2013). Part of the Job? Workplace Violence in Massachusetts Social Service Agencies. Health & Social Work, 38(2), 75-85.
21
