The relationship between workplace bullying and family functioning: A systematic review

Yang Jie; Daniella Mokhtar; Nurul-Azza Abdullah

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0310300

. 2024 Sep 17;19(9):e0310300. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310300

The relationship between workplace bullying and family functioning: A systematic review

Yang Jie ^1,², Daniella Mokhtar ^1,^*, Nurul-Azza Abdullah ¹

Editor: Rogis Baker³

PMCID: PMC11407676 PMID: 39288149

Abstract

While the occupational and health-related consequences of workplace bullying have received extensive research attention, the effects of workplace bullying on the family domain have been largely ignored. Based on the PRISMA framework, the Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and PubMed databases were searched up to May 12, 2024, for articles on associations between workplace bullying and family functioning. A total of 1347 articles were identified, of which 37 were found after review to meet the criteria for inclusion. All the included studies found a direct or indirect association between workplace bullying and family functioning. Most studies are grounded in the conservation of resources (COR) theory, spillover theory, crossover theory, and work-family interface model. Negative affect (emotions), work-family conflict (WFC), and burnout were considered essential mechanisms explaining the links between workplace bullying and family functioning, with personal resources (demands) as the main moderators. Most studies focus on the one-way impact of workplace bullying on family functioning, mainly using cross-sectional, non-randomized self-report designs. Future research will benefit from using a longitudinal design, continued characterization of the workplace bullying-family functioning relationship, including its nature, direction, processes, and boundary conditions in various industrial and cultural contexts, together with the use of models for the integration of research findings.

Introduction

Workplace bullying is an unethical phenomenon that involves a spectrum of subtle or overtly hostile psychosocial behaviors [1]. Approximately 15% of workers throughout the world experience workplace bullying, making it a global problem that affects several types of occupations and workers [2, 3]. For instance, while the American Workplace Bullying Survey reported that approximately one-third of workers have experienced workplace abuse either directly or indirectly [4], the prevalence of bullying among Chinese employees in Hong Kong and perioperative nurses in Australia was 58.9% and 61%, respectively [5, 6]. Workplace bullying may lead to the target suffering from anxiety [7, 8], depression [7, 9], emotional exhaustion [10, 11], and higher levels of burnout [12, 13]. Additionally, workplace bullying can negatively affect employees’ job performance [14, 15], work engagement [16], job satisfaction [17, 18], organizational commitment [19], and occupational well-being [20], as well as increasing the turnover rate [21, 22].

While a substantial body of evidence demonstrates the detrimental impact of workplace bullying on employee performance in the work sphere, there is limited information on its effects on the family environment. The spillover theory proposes that work and family function as mutually influencing domains, resulting in similarities in terms of emotions, values, skills, and overt behaviors [23]. In addition, the work-family border theory suggests three types of borders between work and family, namely, physical, temporal, and psychological. Permeability between the borders allows the spillover of negative emotions and attitudes from the work sphere into the home sphere [24]. Research indicates that negative experiences at work may harm employees’ family functioning [25] and that the quality of family functioning directly impacts the mental health and well-being of family members [26]. As a result, researchers have begun to explore the relationship between workplace bullying and the family outcomes. Tepper et al. reported an association between abusive supervision and greater work-family conflict (WFC) among subordinates and suggested that workplace bullying may permeate the employees’ family lives [27]. Abusive supervision can adversely affect the functioning and satisfaction of the family environment [25]. Moreover, supervisors who were undermined in their families during childhood were more likely to engage in abusive supervision in adulthood, highlighting the impact of poor family functioning on workplace behaviors [28].

Despite available evidence on the relationship between family functioning and workplace bullying, the association has not been considered in previous reviews conducted on workplace behaviors [9–11]. For instance, one of the earliest reviews focused on the types of workplace bullying, its individual and organizational impacts, and the role of human resource management in addressing the issue [29]. Fast forward to 2020, Gupta and colleagues conducted a narrative review to classify recent workplace bullying studies and measures taken at the organizational level to address the issue [30]. A recent systematic review looked at the moderators of the relationship between employees’ well-being and workplace bullying based on the job demand resources model [31]. Likewise, Özer and Escartín [32] synthesized the empirical studies reporting antecedents, moderators, mediators, and outcomes of workplace bullying from the perpetrators’ perspectives. Thus, three types of research gaps can be identified in previous workplace bullying reviews. First, some of the reviews did not employ any systematic approach, which makes the results unreproducible. Second, despite attempts to elucidate the underlying mechanisms between workplace bullying and individual or organizational factors, none of the reviews focused on how workplace bullying affects family functioning. Third, theoretical backgrounds for explaining the factors associated with workplace bullying were not comprehensively reviewed, apart from the job demand resources model explored by Farley et al. [31].

Based on the above-mentioned research gaps, a systematic review offers the opportunity to elucidate the relationship between workplace behaviors and family functioning. Moreover, research on the association between the variables, especially in terms of directions, mechanisms, and boundary conditions, is fragmented and requires further integration. Thus, this systematic review aims to achieve the following objectives (a) present an overview of current research and the direction of the association between workplace bullying and family functioning, and (b) elucidate the mechanisms and moderating factors underlying the relationship between workplace bullying and family functioning. By systematic integration of these studies, we seek a more profound and comprehensive understanding of the field, offering insights for future research endeavors.

Methods

Databases and search terms

Four databases were searched for articles, namely, PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and the Web of Science. The searches were conducted in May 2024. All articles published up to May 12, 2024, were targeted. The keywords used for the search were selected before the formal search based on relevant previous studies. Three combinations of keywords were used for searches. First, search terms relating to “work” included “job,” “occupation,” “employee,” and “worker.” The second set of keywords was associated with workplace bullying, and included “mobbing,” “victimization,” and “emotional abuse.” The last group of keywords was related to family functioning, for example, “family function*,” “family adaptability,” and “family relation*.” After selecting the search terms, the search strategy was adjusted appropriately according to the requirements of each database. The searches included all studies published on bullying in the workplace and its effect on family functioning. The search items were combined using the Boolean operators “OR” and “AND” are shown in the S1 Table. Databases such as Google Scholar were not searched because of their incompatibility with complex search strings with Boolean operators, the large volume of results from preliminary searches, and the absence of effective filters to identify highly relevant literature.

Criteria for inclusion and exclusion

Several inclusion criteria were used for the systematic review of the literature to refine the search and identify relevant articles as shown in Table 1. Only original research articles were included to ensure a higher standard of literature in the study. Although we did not restrict the study location or country, non-English articles were excluded, as English-language literature encompasses a broad range of international research findings and includes the most significant studies. Focusing on English-language sources ensures access to high-quality, relevant research materials and enhances screening efficiency while reducing the risk of translation-related errors.

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Criteria	Included	Excluded
Aims and objectives	Workplace bullying and family functioning	① Focused only on either workplace bullying or family functioning or none of the variables
Aims and objectives	Workplace bullying and family functioning	② Studies focusing on aspects that may be interpreted differently in various cultural and legal contexts and are distinct from the broader bullying phenomenon
Study population	Working populations	Students or non-working populations
Study design and type of publications	Quantitative and peer-reviewed	Qualitative, case reports, theoretical papers, review papers, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, conference papers, book chapters, reports, and gray literature
Language	English	Non-English written articles

Open in a new tab

Data extraction

Searches of the PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and the Web of Science databases for research published up to May 12, 2024, identified a total of 1347 papers. Following independent screening by two authors and the removal of duplicates (n = 223),1124 articles were eligible for title and abstract screening. Thereafter, 1040 articles were excluded for not focusing on workplace bullying and/or family functioning, with 59 excluded based on the abstract and 981 based on the title. After extensive reading and evaluation of the full texts of 84 studies that were deemed acceptable, studies involving non-working population samples, qualitative studies, theoretical studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and studies on sexual harassment, racial harassment, and studies that did not address the connection between workplace bullying and family functioning (n = 49) were excluded. In addition, the reference lists of articles were searched for relevant studies, yielding two articles that qualified for inclusion. Finally, 37 studies were considered eligible for inclusion in the review. We made attempts to retrieve unavailable full texts by sending a formal request to the corresponding author of the article. Reminders were sent twice after which such articles were excluded if no response was received from the corresponding author. Fig 1 illustrates the screening procedures for studies.

Quality assessment tool

Quality assessments were conducted independently by the first and corresponding authors by using a revised version of a previously established methodological quality checklist [33]. The original checklist comprised 13 items which were adapted appropriately to suit the content of the review. For instance, the original item "How was sickness absence assessed?" was modified to "How was family functioning assessed?" and the response options to "Self-report-0; Data from the spouses, family member-1" were adjusted to align with the focus of the study. Additionally, irrelevant questions, such as "Was previous sickness absence adjusted for in prospective analyses?" were removed. After these revisions, the quality checklist consisted of 10 items that provided information such as sampling, response rate, representativeness, selection bias, measurement, sample size, and the presence of confounders. The revised methodological quality checklist is provided in the S2 Table. The checklist scores ranged from 0 (lowest study quality) to 10 (highest study quality). Scores between 7 and 10 were considered high quality, with low quality indicated by scores below 3, and moderate quality by scores between 4 and 6. Disagreements regarding study quality were resolved by discussion.

Results

Study characteristics

Table 2 summarizes the features of the 37 included papers. The studies came from North America (N = 11), Asia (N = 22), South America (N = 1), Africa (N = 1), Europe (N = 1), Oceania (N = 1) and were published between 2006 and 2024. Among them,1 study was published in 2006, and 36 were published after 2010. In terms of the sample distribution, four (10.81%) articles did not report the sample industry studied, while 15 (40.54%) included samples from various industries, with the 16 samples (43.24%) obtained from specific industries, the healthcare, hospitality, manufacturing, construction, and sales sectors. Additionally, 2 articles (5.41%) utilized samples from both specific and multiple industries concurrently.

Table 2. Overview of included studies.

Reference (year)	Region	Study-design	Theories	Industry	N^a	Multi-resource data	Sample type	Relationship examined	Quality Score^d
Hoobler et al. (2013) [34]	North America	Cross-sectional	“Trickle-down effects” of abusive supervision	Various	200 tri-matched	Yes	Non-random	WB^b→FF^c	8	8
Barber et al. (2017) [35]	North America	Cross-sectional	Self-regulation theory	Various	118 pairs	Yes	Non-random	WB→FF	7	6
Raja et al. (2018) [12]	South Asia	Cross-sectional with time-lag	COR theory^e	Government organizations	151	No	Non-random	WB→FF	5	5
Hoobler et al. (2006) [36]	North America	Cross-sectional	Displaced aggression theory	Various	210 tri-matched	Yes	Non-random	WB→FF	8	8
Pradhan et al. (2021) [37]	South Asia	Cross-sectional	COR theory Crossover theory	Various	188 pairs	Yes	Non-random	WB→FF	8	8
Carlson et al. (2012) [38]	North America	Cross-sectional with time-lag	COR theory	Various	328	No	Non-random	WB→FF	6	7
Ju et al. (2020) [39]	East Asia	Cross-sectional	The work-family interface model	Construction	Study1:361 Study 2:608	No	Non-random	WB→FF	6	6
Viotti et al. (2018) [40]	North America	Cross-sectional	COR theory	Nurses	333	No	Non-random	WB→FF	7	7
Sarwar et al. (2023) [41]	South-east Asia	Cross-sectional with time-lag	The work-family interface model	Service (restaurants)	238	No	Non-random	WB→FF	6	6
Selem et al.2024 [42]	Africa	Cross-sectional with time-lag	Affective events theory	Service (hotel)	519	No	Non-random	WB→FF	6	7
Zhou et al. (2018) [43]	North America	Cross-sectional	The stress/strain framework	Various	2058	No	Random	WB→FF	7	7
Pluut et al. (2022) [44]	East Asia	Experience sampling study	Spillover theory COR theory	Not report	70 pairs	Yes	Non-random	WB→FF	7	9
Liang (2020) [45]	East Asia	Cross-sectional with time-lag	Affective events theory Crossover theory	Plastics corporation	569 pairs	Yes	Non-random	WB→FF	8	8
Yoo et al. (2018) [20]	East Asia	Cross-sectional	Work-family interface model	Various	307	No	Non-random	WB→FF	7		7
Zhang et al. (2017) [46]	East Asia	Cross-sectional with time-lag	COR theory	Manufacturing	323 pairs	Yes	Non-random	WB→FF	8		8
Chi et al. (2018) [47]	East Asia	Experience sampling study	Stressor-emotion model	Various	77	No	Non-random	WB→FF	7		7
Choi et al. (2019) [48]	East Asia	Cross-sectional	The transactional stress model	Various	285	No	Non-random	WB→FF	4		4
Sarwar et al. (2021) [49]	South Asia	Cross-sectional with time-lag	Spillover theory	Nurse	251	No	Non-random Random	WB→FF	7		7
Machado et al. (2021) [7]	South America	Cross-sectional	Resource drain theory	Service (gastronomy)	160	No	Non-random	WB→FF	6		6
Valle et al. (2021) [50]	North America	Cross-sectional with time-lag	COR theory	Not report	260	No	Non-random	WB→FF	6		6
Thompson et al. (2020) [51]	North America	Cross-sectional with time-lag	W-HR model^f Crossover theory	Not report	350 pairs	Yes	Non-random	WB→FF	7		9
Carlson et.al (2011) [25]	North America	Cross-sectional	Spillover theory Crossover theory	Various	280 pairs	Yes	Non-random	WB→FF	7		7
Choi et al. (2018) [52]	East Asia	Cross-sectional	The transactional stress model	Various	310	No	Non-random	WB→FF	5		5
Chen (2018) [53]	East Asia	Cross-sectional	Stressor–strain model Spillover theory	Service	457 pairs	Yes	Non-random	WB→FF	8		8
Zhu et al. (2023) [54]	East Asia	Cross-sectional with time-lag	Ego depletion theory Crossover theory	Service	230 pairs	Yes	Non-random	WB→FF	7		8
Zhang et al. (2019) [55]	East Asia	Cross-sectional with time-lag	Stressor-strain-outcome COR theory	Service	221	No	Non-random Random	WB→FF	8		8
Dionisi et al. (2019) [56]	North America	Cross-sectional	COR theory	Not report	123 pairs	Yes	Non-random	FF→WB	7		7
Restubog et al. (2011) [57]	Oceania	Cross-sectional with time-lag	The transactional stress model	Various	Study1:184 tri-matched Study2:188 pairs	Yes	Non-random	WB→FF	8		8
Choi (2021) [58]	East Asia	Cross-sectional	COR theory	Various	226	No	Non-random	WB→FF	6		6
Wu et al. (2012) [59]	East Asia	Cross-sectional with time-lag	Work-family interface model	Manufacturing	209	No	Non-random Random	WB→FF	8		8
Liu et al. (2013) [60]	East Asia	Cross-sectional with time-lag	Work-family interface model	Manufacturing	233	No	Non-random Random	WB→FF	7		6
Kiewitz et al. (2012) [28]	South-east Asia	Cross-sectional	Social learning theory	Various	Study1:179 pairs Study2:97 tri-matched	Yes	Non-random	FF→WB	7		7
Liu et al. (2022) [61]	East Asia	Cross-sectional with time-lag	Spillover theory	Service (hotel)	286	No	Non-random	WB→FF	7		7
Rodríguez-Muñoz et al. (2017) [62]	Europe	Experience sampling	COR theory	Various	68 pairs	Yes	Non-random	WB→FF	8		8
Li et al. (2024) [63]	East Asia	Cross-sectional with time-lag	W-HR model	Various	431	No	Non-random	WB→FF	7		7
Rafique et al. (2024) [64]	South Asia	Cross-sectional with time-lag	COR theory	Construction	235	No	Non-random	FF→WB	6		5
Demsky et al. (2014) [65]	North America	Cross-sectional	COR theory	Various	107 tri-matched	Yes	Non-random	WB→FF	7		7

Open in a new tab

Note

^a “N” represents the final sample.

^b “WB” represents workplace bullying.

^c “FF” represents family functioning.

^d Methodological quality score (scale: 0–10).

^e “COR theory” represents the conversation of resources theory.

^f “W-HR model” represents the work-home resources model.

Second, most of the included studies employed cross-sectional, non-randomized self-report designs. Of the 37 articles, 17 were cross-sectional, 17 were time-lag studies, and 3 used experience sampling (diary studies).

Of the 37 studies, 13 examined bullying using the Abusive Supervision Scale (ASS). This consists of the original 15-item ASS [27], the revised ASS [66], and the shortened ASS [27, 67]. 10 studies used the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ), which includes the original NAQ [68] and the Revised NAQ [69]. Six studies utilized the Workplace Ostracism Scale developed by Ferris [70] and its simplified version to measure workplace ostracism. Other studies used several instruments, including the Negative Workplace Gossip Scale [71] and the Workplace Aggression Research Questionnaire [72], to measure the prevalence of workplace gossip and aggression, respectively.

In terms of quality assessment, the inter-rater agreement for study quality was 81.08%, and Cohen’s Kappa demonstrated substantial agreement between the raters (k = 0.700). The quality ratings for the included studies ranged from 4 to 9, with a mean value of 6.92 (SD = 1.057). Most of the examined studies were cross-sectional in design, with reported response rates of over 50% and employed non-probability sampling methods.

Together with self-reported measures, family member ratings were used to assess family functioning. Furthermore, most studies diligently controlled for variables that previous research has indicated as potential factors influencing workplace bullying and family functioning. These variables encompassed demographic factors (e.g., age, gender, education, and marital status), work-related variables (e.g., tenure, work hours, work performance, number of employees), and family-related factors (e.g., number of children living at home and the length of the marital relationship). The inclusion of these control variables allowed the researchers to eliminate the influence of other potential factors on the study results, ensuring accuracy and reliability.

Workplace bullying and its impact on family functioning

Five indicators were selected for the assessment of family functioning in the 37 included studies. These indicators were (a) work-family conflict (WFC), (b) family undermining, (c) family satisfaction, (d) marital behaviors, and (e) family emotional exhaustion. Figs 2 and 3 illustrate the mediators, moderators, and theories that linked workplace bullying to family functioning, with parentheses indicating the number of tests conducted for each variable.

Workplace bullying: Work-family conflict (WFC) relationships

Eighteen studies examined the correlation between workplace bullying and WFC, and two concentrated on workplace bullying and work-family interference (WFI). Of the studies on WFC, five explored the direct relationship, three analyzed the indirect connection, and 10 investigated both direct and indirect associations. All studies showed a direct or indirect positive correlation between bullying and WFC. Moreover, two studies on WFI yielded consistent findings. Workplace bullying positively correlates with WFI [7] and indirectly influences strain-based and time-based interferences from work to private life [40].

Mechanisms linking workplace bullying and WFC. Fourteen studies explored the mechanisms linking workplace bullying to WFC, consistently supporting an indirect effect. The mediating factors can be classified broadly into affect (emotion)-related, energy (resources)-related, and mental health-related. These various mediators were investigated based on different theories, with burnout being the most extensively studied, followed by negative affect or emotions (Fig 4).

Moderators between workplace bullying and WFC. Eleven moderation tests offered insights into the boundary conditions of the relationship between workplace bullying and WFC. According to Lee et al.’s [73] taxonomy of resources and demands, these moderators encompassed three critical areas, namely, organizational, home, and personal resources (demands) (Fig 5).

Three moderation tests concerning organizational resources (demands), and all were significant. Perceived organizational support (POS) alleviated the indirect effects of workplace bullying on WFC through video game addiction [52]. Workplace ostracism showed a stronger positive association with WFC among female employees with low POS [58]. Customer service training also alleviated the detrimental impacts of daily customer mistreatment on service employees’ daily WFC [47].

Regarding home resources (demands), only one moderation test was reported, with results indicating that family support moderated the indirect effect of abusive supervision on WFC via psychological distress [39]. Family support played distinct roles at different stages: it intensified the impact of abusive supervision on psychological distress but mitigated the effects of psychological distress on WFC.

Seven moderation tests were tested within the personal resources (demands) category, of which five were significant. Two significant tests exhibited exacerbating effects, while three showed mitigation effects. Moderators in this category covered various individual-level characteristics, including demographics, coping strategies, psychological states, and personal traits. Specifically, fear and rumination significantly intensified the indirect relationship between workplace ostracism and WFC [41, 46]. Two personal traits, core self-evaluation, and psychological resilience, depicted significant mitigating effects [47, 63]. Meanwhile, high levels of problem-focused coping reduced the impact of supervisor aggression on negative emotions [53]. However, the moderating role of psychological detachment in the relationship between workplace ostracism and WFC in a group context was not supported [63], and no gender differences exist in the impact of abusive supervision on WFC [43].

Workplace bullying: Undermining relationships in the family

Seven studies examined the impact of workplace bullying on family undermining. One study analyzed the direct relationship between bullying and family undermining; four studies explored its indirect effects; and two studies investigated both direct and indirect relationships. These studies consistently supported that workplace bullying is positively associated with family undermining, both directly and indirectly.

Mechanisms associated with the link between workplace bullying and family undermining. Drawing upon various theoretical frameworks, researchers examined six mediators linked to emotions, energy, mental health, and work-family relationships (Fig 6). Across all studies, consistent findings indicated the existence of indirect effects.

Moderators between workplace bullying and family undermining. Researchers conducted five moderation tests exploring the boundary conditions between workplace bullying and family undermining, all of which yielded significant results. These examinations indicated that organizational and personal resources played a significant moderating role in this relationship (Fig 7).

Within the organizational category, perceived organizational support (POS), viewed as a vital contextual resource, mitigated the indirect link between negative workplace gossip and family undermining [54]. Personal resources like boundary strength at home and exercise also showed similar buffering effects [35, 59]. Moreover, gender moderated the relationship, with men experiencing abusive supervision showing a stronger link between psychological distress and spouse undermining [57]. Additionally, neuroticism worsened the connection between negative emotions caused by workplace bullying and family incivility [49].

Workplace bullying: Family satisfaction

Four studies investigated the impact of workplace bullying on family satisfaction. Two focused on indirect relationships, while the other two examined both direct and indirect relationships. All studies indicated that workplace bullying is associated with family satisfaction, either directly or indirectly.

Mechanisms associated with the link between workplace bullying and family satisfaction. Two mediators related to the work-family relationship were investigated in the connection between workplace bullying and family satisfaction. Three studies demonstrated that work-family conflict (WFC) is a critical mechanism linking workplace bullying to family satisfaction, while one study did not support this finding [25]. Additionally, relationship tension was confirmed as an important mediator [25]. These investigations primarily draw on perspectives from spillover theory, COR theory, crossover theory, the stress-strain-outcome model, and the work-family interface model. (Fig 8).

Moderators of the relationship between workplace bullying and family satisfaction. There are four moderation tests, primarily focusing on social and personal resources. All moderation tests yielded significant results, demonstrating an attenuating effect (Fig 9). Notably, Leader-member exchange (LMX), as a social resource, significantly reduced the direct impact of customer mistreatment on WFC and the indirect influence on family satisfaction [55]. Higher levels of emotional intelligence weakened the impact of negative workplace gossip on family satisfaction [61]. Moreover, increased psychological detachment mitigated the adverse effects of customer mistreatment on family satisfaction via WFC [55]. Furthermore, high work-home segmentation preferences alleviated the impact of workplace ostracism on WFC [60].

Workplace bullying: Marital behaviors and relationships

Two experience-sampling studies explored the repercussions of workplace bullying on marriages. One study found that social stressors, such as abusive supervision, indirectly led to anger, withdrawal, and reduced supportive marital behaviors [44]. Another suggested an indirect correlation between workplace bullying and home conflicts reported by employees and their spouses [62]. Furthermore, the study also revealed that despite the lack of a direct association between bullying and relationship satisfaction, it indirectly influenced self-reported relationship satisfaction through affective distress and psychological detachment [62].

Mechanisms associated with the link between workplace bullying and marital behaviors. Two diary studies explored the mediating role of three factors related to affect and resources in the relationship between workplace bullying and marital behaviors and confirmed their significance. The theories for these findings lie in the spillover and crossover theory (Fig 10).

Moderators between workplace bullying and marital behaviors. Only one study examined trust as a moderator. Pluut et al. found that trust significantly aggravated the impact of social stressors on burnout. Individuals with higher levels of trust may be more susceptible to the experience of burnout when facing abusive supervision [44].

Workplace bullying: Emotional exhaustion in the family

Only one study explored the impact of workplace ostracism on family emotional exhaustion among employees and their spouses. Applying the work-home resources (W-HR) model, the study proposed two pathways: workplace ostracism affects family emotional exhaustion by diminishing positive mood and increasing psychological distress. The results indicated that both employees’ and spouses’ family emotional exhaustion primarily arose through psychological distress rather than positive mood [51].

Family functioning and its impact on workplace bullying

Three studies (8.11%) investigated the influence of family functioning on workplace behaviors and highlighted the importance of family functioning in shaping workplace bullying. Specifically, supervisors’ experiences of family undermining were positively associated with perceived abusive supervision of their subordinates [28]. Time-based, strain-based, and behavior-based WFC are positively related to abusive supervision [64]. Furthermore, research has shown the indirect effects of WFC and romantic relationship conflict on abusive supervision [56, 64]. All findings support the direct or indirect effects of family dynamics and workplace behaviors, particularly in the context of abusive supervision and workplace bullying (Fig 11).

Mechanisms associated with the link between family functioning and workplace bullying

Two studies investigating how family functioning influences workplace bullying highlighted the significance of job commitment and depressive symptoms based on the COR theory (Fig 11).

Moderators between family functioning and workplace bullying

Two moderation tests related to personal resources were performed in this context, which were significant and showed alleviating effects (Fig 11). Specifically, higher levels of psychological resilience were associated with weaker adverse effects of WFC on project commitment [64]. Supervisors with high self-control could mitigate the impact of family undermining on abusive supervision by foreseeing the consequences of their actions and thus avoiding such behavior [28].

Discussion

This systematic review rigorously followed the PRISMA guidelines, identifying 37 quantitative studies on the relationship between workplace bullying and family functioning. Most of the studies were cross-sectional and time-lag research designs, which are expected since the objectives were to identify the relationship between workplace bullying and family functioning. Moreover, the use of longitudinal studies has been recently recommended to elucidate the daily dynamics of bullying and its consequences [74].

Relationship between workplace bullying and family functioning indicators

This study identified five main indicators of family functioning that were explored in the reviewed studies, which included work-family conflict (WFC), family undermining, family satisfaction, marital behaviors, and family emotional exhaustion. The mediating and moderating factors were also identified, thus providing robust information on the relationships between the indicators and workplace bullying. Our understanding of workplace bullying and family functioning was further supported by the underlying theories. Each of these family functioning indicators are discussed below.

Work-family conflict (WFC)

WFC arises from incompatible demands between an individual’s professional and home lives [75]. Positive correlations were observed between workplace bullying and work-family interference, with variables relating to a negative affect (emotion), energy or resources, and mental health as mediators. These findings were gleaned from several theories such as the COR theory, stressor-emotion and stressor-strain model, work-family interface theory, and transaction stress model.

Negative affect (emotion) is crucial in understanding workplace bullying-WFC relationships. According to the stressor-emotion [47] and stressor-strain models [53], workplace bullying acts as a stressor and triggers negative emotional and affective reactions in the target. Subsequently, the target may carry these negative emotions home, leading to WFC.

Regarding resource-related factors, the examination of burnout, resilience, and psychological detachment was grounded in the COR theory, which posits that people attempt to preserve, develop, and safeguard resources. These resources can be defined as personal traits, conditions, or energies individuals value or allow them to achieve their goals [76]. Within this framework, bullying is considered a significant occupational stressor, as coping with stressors can drain an individual’s resources and result in burnout. The drain on resources reduces the ability to deal effectively with family demands, thus contributing to [12, 38].

Mental health variables also provide insights into how workplace bullying affects WFC. Based on the affective events (AET) theory, psychological strain denotes the employee’s response to bullying. Employees experiencing psychological strain may carry this burden and negative work experiences into their family life when they leave their organizations, contributing to difficulties in fulfilling family obligations and resulting in WFC [45]. From the view of the work-family interface model, work and family domains interact with stress in one domain, affecting behaviors and emotions in another.

Abusive supervision leads to psychological distress in employees (e.g., depression and anxiety), and these negative emotions and stresses can spill over from work to home, disrupting family interactions and causing WFC [39]. In addition, drawing upon the transactional stress model, workplace bullying can induce stress in employees, prompting them to turn to social networking services and video games as coping mechanisms. Excessive engagement in these activities and significant time consumption may hinder employees from effectively fulfilling their family responsibilities, intensifying WFC [48, 52]. It was not surprising as factors ranging from organizational resources (i.e., perceived organizational support and service training), to home resources such as family support, and personal resources (i.e., demographics, coping strategies, psychological states, and personal traits) were identified as moderators of the relationship between workplace bullying and WFC.

Family undermining

Family undermining demonstrated a consistent positive association with workplace bullying either directly or indirectly. Family undermining and family incivility involve the initiation of disrespectful behaviors towards family members, adversely affecting the establishment and maintenance of positive interpersonal relationships in the family [49, 59]. Despite their differences in purpose and severity, these types of behaviors involve adverse treatment that can emotionally and psychologically harm family members, potentially leading to strained or broken family relationships. These events explain the exploration of family incivility and undermining as a combined category in the reviewed studies.

From the spillover theory viewpoint, workplace bullying serves as a stress-inducing event and triggers negative emotions in individuals, which could spill over into the home environment and prompt targets to exhibit incivility [49]. Similarly, the transactional stress model suggests that abusive supervision acts as an external stressor and triggers psychological distress in employees. Affected individuals tend to employ emotion-focused coping strategies, transferring negative emotions to family members and exhibiting undermining behaviors to alleviate negative emotions or frustration [57].

Drawing from the COR theory, employees subjected to technology-enacted abusive supervision may invest their resources in surface acting during emotional labor, leading to potential emotional exhaustion. With work stress spilling over into the family domain and the employees being too exhausted to manage it effectively, they might be more likely to express anger towards family members and display undermining behaviors [50]. Moreover, self-regulation theory posits that workplace undermining depletes employees’ energy, requiring recovery through rest and sleep. However, poor sleep quality disrupts this recovery process, compromising employees’ self-regulation abilities. This impairment makes it difficult for them to manage negative emotions and behaviors at home, thereby increasing home undermining [35].

Finally, WFC reveals the pathways through which workplace bullying impacts family undermining. Grounded in ego depletion and crossover theory, negative workplace gossip depletes employees’ self-regulatory resources, resulting in ego depletion. This depletion makes balancing work and family demands challenging, exacerbating WFC. Subsequently, these conflicts and negative emotions are transmitted across domains to the family, leading to negative interactions with partners and undermining behaviors within the family [54]. Moreover, Voydanoff’s work-family interface model suggests a link between work characteristics and WFC, which is related to outcomes in the family domain [77]. Thus, abusive supervision exacerbates WFC and subsequently leads to family undermining [59].

Family satisfaction

Another indicator of family functioning identified in this review was family satisfaction–an essential metric of individual well-being [26] and a reflection of a person’s attitude towards family life or the family situation [78]. Abusive supervision exacerbated relationship tension, resulting in a lack of motivation and ability to interact positively with family members, affecting family satisfaction and functioning [25]. These findings highlight the potential diversity and complexity of how workplace bullying affects family satisfaction. Additionally, WFC constitutes a family consequence of bullying and a crucial mediator linking bullying with family satisfaction. Hence, future research may focus on reducing the impact of bullying on WFC.

Overall, factors such as leader-member exchange (LMX), higher levels of emotional intelligence, and increased psychological detachment significantly reduced the negative effects of various events (customer mistreatment, negative workplace gossip, and workplace ostracism) on WFC and their indirect effects on family satisfaction [55, 61]. High work-home segmentation preferences also alleviated the impact of workplace ostracism on WFC [60]. These findings underscore the critical role of social and personal resources in moderating the relationship between workplace bullying and family satisfaction.

Marital behaviors

Although only a few studies reported marital behaviors and family emotional exhaustion while exploring workplace bullying, the results underscore the multifaceted influence of workplace bullying on family dynamics. For instance, abusive supervision was identified as a social stressor that indirectly triggers anger, withdrawal, and reduced supportive marital behaviors [44]. However, home conflicts reported by employees and their spouses were not directly linked to workplace bullying with affective distress and psychological detachment acting as mediating factors [62].

The underlying mechanisms are grounded in the COR theory, which posits that workplace bullying exhausts an individual’s emotional resources, resulting in affective distress that harms spousal interactions and reduces relationship satisfaction [62]. However, psychological detachment is a pivotal resource complementary mechanism with the capacity to alleviate the conflicts at home resulting from workplace bullying [62]. Furthermore, abusive supervision increases social-based WFC by depleting employees’ regulatory resources, causing burnout symptoms, and hindering their ability to manage home demands. Subsequently, employees are likely to experience anger, withdrawal, and reduced supportive behaviors toward spouses [44]. These findings highlight the detrimental effects of bullying on marital relationships and the significant role of affective and resource mechanisms in the work-family interface.

Family emotional exhaustion

Only one study in this review explored the impact of workplace ostracism on family emotional exhaustion among employees and their spouses. Applying the work-home resources (W-HR) model, workplace ostracism affects family emotional exhaustion by diminishing positive mood and increasing psychological distress. Both employees’ and spouses’ family emotional exhaustion primarily arose through psychological distress rather than positive mood. Specifically, workplace ostracism increases employees’ psychological distress, which transfers negative emotions and behaviors to their spouses through family undermining, ultimately leading to spouses’ family emotional exhaustion [51].

We found two studies that reported how family functioning influences workplace bullying, based on the underlying roles of job commitment and depressive symptoms. Drawing upon COR theory, conflicts in romantic relationships can deplete an individual’s emotional resources, leading to depressive symptoms. These symptoms may weaken self-control and self-regulation, increasing the likelihood of aggressive reactions and potentially resulting in abusive supervision [56]. WFC also depletes individual resources, reducing project managers’ commitment. This resource depletion and project stress may motivate project managers to engage in abusive supervision [64].

Overall, all the included studies depicted that workplace bullying is directly or indirectly related to indicators of family functioning, and this relationship was consistent across cross-sectional, experiencing sampling studies and different occupational settings. These findings have important practical and theoretical implications.

Implications of the findings

Practical implications

This systematic review has pertinent practical and theoretical implications. As for the practical implications, while most of the results depict consistent relationships between workplace bullying and indicators of family functioning, some slight discrepancies in the findings have to be acknowledged. For instance, customer mistreatment did not directly impact family satisfaction [55], but this family functioning indicator was negatively associated with workplace ostracism and negative workplace gossip [60, 61]. Moreover, bullying was positively linked to self-reported and spousal-reported home conflicts but not directly correlated with relationship satisfaction [62]. These findings emphasize that future research should further examine the relationship between the multiple sources of workplace bullying and various indicators of family functioning for a better understanding.

Regarding the direction of the relationship between bullying and family functioning, 91.2% (n = 34) of the studies investigated the intrusion of workplace dynamics into the family sphere. Researchers examined workplace bullying as a potential predictor of family functioning, and the results consistently affirmed that workplace bullying could trigger employees’ WFC, family undermining, erode family satisfaction, as well as increase family emotional exhaustion, anger, and withdrawal behaviors in marital relationships. Meanwhile, only three (8.11%) studies investigated whether this phenomenon contributed to spillover from the home to the workplace. The results confirmed that family functioning could affect abusive supervision both directly and indirectly. That is, family functioning is predictive of abusive supervision. However, it is currently unknown whether and to what extent family functioning can predict an individual’s exposure to workplace bullying or ostracism, requiring further exploration.

The present study identified four mechanisms linking workplace bullying to family functioning, comprising emotions, energy (resources), mental health, and work-family relationships. The most extensively studied mediators are negative affect (emotions), WFC, and burnout. In addition, this review found four categories of moderators associated with organizational, social, home, and personal resources (demands). These resources (demands) exacerbate or buffer the bidirectional effects of workplace bullying and family functioning. Various organizations and policy workers may consider perceived organizational support and service training as strategies for addressing workplace bullying and alleviating its effects on employees’ family functioning. Furthermore, family support and personal resources such as demographics, coping strategies, psychological states, and personal traits are practical approaches that can be integrated into interventions designed to address workplace bullying at organizational and individual levels. Nevertheless, home resources research has suggested that family support may exacerbate the harmful impact of abusive supervision on psychological distress and mitigate the link between psychological distress and WFC. Pre-existing psychological trauma among employers or supervisors may also affect an individual’s resources and their capabilities in dealing with adverse workplace experiences. Further investigation is thus required to determine whether family support can alleviate these adverse outcomes under certain conditions or if additional moderating factors are involved. Insight into these issues will enhance our comprehension of the complex interconnections between workplace bullying and family functioning.

Theoretical implications

Theoretical frameworks are crucial to build a solid foundation in understanding the mechanisms linking research variables. Several theories were reported in the reviewed studies, which led to the identification of four mechanisms: affect (emotion), energy (resources), mental health, and work-family relationships, linking workplace bullying to family functioning. These moderating and mediating factors were grounded in various theories, with the most frequently used being COR theory, spillover theory, crossover theory, and the work-family interface model. Specifically, the COR theory provided a strong network to elucidate how resource-related (i.e., burnout, resilience, and psychological detachment) and work-family factors influence the direction and strength of the relationship between workplace bullying and family functioning indicators.

The spillover and crossover theories, as well as those relating to WFC also explain how family members can be psychologically harmed by poor treatments and adverse behaviors at the workplace, leading to weakened family relationships. Hence, this review has shown how these theories are interlinked and their suitability in improving our understanding of workplace bullying and family functioning. Despite the diversity of these theories, our findings reflect the opportunities to integrate the models, thoroughly explore, and provide diverse perspectives for understanding the complex relationship between workplace bullying and family functioning. Such integration is essential to explore some of the research gaps identified in this review, particularly the role of family support in ameliorating the adverse effects of workplace bullying and how an individual’s vulnerability to this problem can be predicted by family functioning.

Limitations and future directions

This review has several limitations that should be acknowledged. Firstly, the literature search was confined to the Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and PubMed databases. While these databases are widely recognized and host vast amounts of scholarly literature, some crucial articles may not be indexed, thus affecting the comprehensiveness of the study findings. Secondly, non-English and gray literature are excluded during the screening process, which may limit the comprehensiveness of the analysis. Consequently, future research should consider expanding the database selection to include high-quality non-English and gray literature while considering constraints such as time and resources to provide a more thorough analysis.

Analysis of the 37 included articles revealed that most studies employed a cross-sectional design, making it difficult to determine causal relationships between bullying and family functioning. Most data predominantly came from self-reported, which carries a bias risk. Future studies could benefit from using a longitudinal design and multi-source data collection, combining self-reports with reports from family members or coworkers to minimize methodological bias and enhance result reliability.

Moreover, since workplace bullying is an occupational risk transcending industries and organizations, it is likely to occur in various sectors. Despite the reviewed studies having covered a range of industries, the findings are restricted to working populations, preferably individuals who are currently employed or have worked in an organizational setting. Hence, the findings are not generalizable to the population of students or younger population. It is essential to specifically target several high-risk organizations or sectors, such as lawyers, the police, and multinational enterprises. We also recommend that researchers make meaningful comparisons of sample data across various industries and sectors to derive more inclusive conclusions. The extrapolation of the results to non-English speaking countries should also be performed cautiously since studies from those locations were not included in the review.

Furthermore, most research has been published over the last decade, suggesting that the field is still nascent, with evident research gaps. Future research could delve deeper into various family outcomes associated with workplace bullying, such as family support, performance, parenting activities, and divorce. Apart from spillover effects, further exploration of crossover effects could widen the social dimensions of parents, children, friends, and coworkers. In terms of the underlying mechanisms, future research could explore cognition mechanisms such as work-related rumination and resource mechanisms, including psychological capital, optimism, and vigor. Furthermore, it would be helpful to examine the extent to which self-efficacy, workplace friendships, and job characteristics alleviate the impact of workplace bullying on family functioning. Examining these variables could provide valuable strategies and insights for mitigating the adverse consequences of workplace bullying on individuals and their families.

Finally, current research has largely evaluated the unidirectional influence of workplace bullying on family functioning. Nevertheless, due to the interconnectedness and permeability of both the work and family domains, an in-depth understanding of how family life influences the workplace experiences of the employee would be valuable. Subsequent research might consider employing the work-home resources (W-HR) model [79] to investigate two-way interactions between the workplace and the family. The work-home resources (W-HR) model has significant strength in emphasizing the bidirectional interactions between the work and family domains.

Conclusion

This systematic review revealed that the adverse effects of workplace bullying can spill over and impact target family life. Meanwhile, family functioning also influences employees’ behaviors at work. The study identified the theoretical foundations, mediators, and moderators of the relationship between workplace bullying and family functioning. Workplace bullying was associated with the family functioning across industries and study design. The longitudinal methodologies are recommended to identify causal links and variable dynamics between workplace bullying and family functioning. Moreover, this relationship requires more in-depth and extensive research regarding its direction, mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Finally, alternative theories that support the links, identifying industries at high risk of bullying, and a model of the family consequences of workplace bullying incorporating existing research results may be potential future research directions.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0310300.s001.docx^{(31.3KB, docx)}

S1 Table. Search terms and strategy.

(DOCX)

pone.0310300.s002.docx^{(24.7KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Revised checklist for methodological quality.

(DOCX)

pone.0310300.s003.docx^{(18.3KB, docx)}

S1 File. Quality assessment by two authors.

(ZIP)

pone.0310300.s004.zip^{(37.7KB, zip)}

S2 File. Search results from four databases.

(ZIP)

pone.0310300.s005.zip^{(700.8KB, zip)}

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.D’Cruz P, Noronha E. Mapping “varieties of workplace bullying”: The scope of the field. Concepts, Approaches and Methods. 2021;3–53. [Google Scholar]
2.Nielsen MB, Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2010. Dec;83(4):955–79. [Google Scholar]
3.Nielsen MB, Einarsen SV. What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: An overview of the literature and agenda for future research. Vol. 42, Aggression and Violent Behavior. Elsevier Ltd; 2018. p. 71–83. [Google Scholar]
4.Namie G. 2021 WBI U.S. WORKPLACE BULLYING SURVEY. 2021. Available from: https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_protect/@protrav/@safework/documents/instructionalmaterial/wcms_178397.pdf [Google Scholar]
5.Ng CSM, Chan VCW. Prevalence of workplace bullying and risk groups in Chinese employees in Hong Kong. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021. Jan 1;18(1):1–11. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18010329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Lang M, Jones L, Harvey C, Munday J. Workplace bullying, burnout and resilience amongst perioperative nurses in Australia: A descriptive correlational study. J Nurs Manag. 2022;30(6):1502–13. doi: 10.1111/jonm.13437 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Machado ICK, Bernardes JW, Monteiro JK, Marin AH. Stress, anxiety and depression among gastronomes: association with workplace mobbing and work–family interaction. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2021. Nov 1;94(8):1797–807. doi: 10.1007/s00420-021-01745-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Rodríguez-Muñoz A, Moreno-Jiménez B, Sanz-Vergel AI. Reciprocal relations between workplace bullying, anxiety, and vigor: A two-wave longitudinal study. Anxiety Stress Coping. 2015;28(5):514–30. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2015.1016003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Pauksztat B, Salin D, Kitada M. Bullying behavior and employee well-being: how do different forms of social support buffer against depression, anxiety and exhaustion? Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2022;95(7):1633–44. doi: 10.1007/s00420-022-01844-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Anasori E, Bayighomog SW, Tanova C. Workplace bullying, psychological distress, resilience, mindfulness, and emotional exhaustion. Service Industries Journal. 2020. Jan 25;40(1–2):65–89. [Google Scholar]
11.Liang HL. Does Workplace Bullying Produce Employee Voice and Physical Health Issues? Testing the Mediating Role of Emotional Exhaustion. Front Psychol. 2021. Feb 9;12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.610944 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Raja U, Javed Y, Abbas M. A time lagged study of burnout as a mediator in the relationship between workplace bullying and work–family conflict. Int J Stress Manag. 2018;25(4):377. [Google Scholar]
13.Srivastava S, Agarwal S. Workplace bullying and intention to leave: a moderated mediation model of emotional exhaustion and supervisory support. Employee Relations. 2020. Sep 22;42(6):1547–63. [Google Scholar]
14.Chia SM, Kee DMH. Workplace bullying and task performance: A study on salespeople in retail industry. Management Science Letters. 2018;8(6):707–16. [Google Scholar]
15.Wu M, He Q, Imran M, Fu J. Workplace Bullying, Anxiety, and Job Performance: Choosing Between “Passive Resistance” or “Swallowing the Insult”? Front Psychol. 2020. Jan 17;10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Nimmi PM, Jose G, Vincent MTP, John A. Workplace Bullying, Engagement and Employability: Moderating Role of Organization-Based Self-Esteem. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. 2022. [Google Scholar]
17.Ng K, Franken E, Nguyen D, Teo S. Job satisfaction and public service motivation in Australian nurses: the effects of abusive supervision and workplace bullying. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2022;1–30. [Google Scholar]
18.Plimmer G, Nguyen D, Teo S, Tuckey MR. Workplace bullying as an organizational issue: Aligning climate and leadership. Work Stress. 2022;36(2):202–27. [Google Scholar]
19.M Abdel-Azeem A M Amin S, M El-Sayed N. Bullying among Staff Nurses and Its Relationship to Psychological Distress and Organizational Commitment during Covid-19 Pandemic. Egyptian Journal of Health Care. 2022;13(1):1439–43. [Google Scholar]
20.Yoo G, Lee S. It doesn’t end there: Workplace bullying, work-to-family conflict, and employee well-being in Korea. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018. Jul 22;15(7). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Al Muharraq EH, Baker OG, Alallah SM. The prevalence and the relationship of workplace bullying and nurses turnover intentions: A cross-sectional study. SAGE Open Nurs. 2022; 8:23779608221074656. doi: 10.1177/23779608221074655 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Favaro A, Wong C, Oudshoorn A. Relationships among sex, empowerment, workplace bullying and job turnover intention of new graduate nurses. J Clin Nurs. 2021;30(9–10):1273–84. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15671 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Edwards JR, Rothbard NP. Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of management review. 2000;25(1):178–99. [Google Scholar]
24.Clark SC. Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations. 2000;53(6):747–70. [Google Scholar]
25.Carlson DS, Ferguson M, Perrewé PL, Whitten D. The fallout from abusive supervision: An examination of subordinates and their partners. Pers Psychol [Internet]. 2011;64(4):937–61. [Google Scholar]
26.Mandara J, Murray CB. Development of an empirical typology of African American family functioning. Journal of Family Psychology. 2002;16(3):318–37. doi: 10.1037//0893-3200.16.3.318 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Tepper BJ. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of management journal. 2000;43(2):178–90. [Google Scholar]
28.Kiewitz C, Restubog SLD, Zagenczyk TJ, Scott KD, Garcia PRJM, Tang RL. Sins of the parents: Self-control as a buffer between supervisors’ previous experience of family undermining and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervision. Leadership Quarterly. 2012. Oct;23(5):869–82. [Google Scholar]
29.Bartlett JE, Bartlett ME. Workplace bullying: An integrative literature review. Vol. 13, Advances in Developing Human Resources. 2011. p. 69–84. [Google Scholar]
30.Gupta P, Gupta U, Wadhwa S. Known and Unknown Aspects of Workplace Bullying: A Systematic Review of Recent Literature and Future Research Agenda. Human Resource Development Review. 2020. Sep 1;19(3):263–308. [Google Scholar]
31.Farley S, Mokhtar D, Ng K, Niven K. What influences the relationship between workplace bullying and employee well-being? A systematic review of moderators. Work Stress. 2023;1–28. [Google Scholar]
32.Özer G, Escartín J. The making and breaking of workplace bullying perpetration: A systematic review on the antecedents, moderators, mediators, outcomes of perpetration and suggestions for organizations. Aggress Violent Behav. 2023; 69:101823. [Google Scholar]
33.Nielsen MB, Indregard AMR, Øverland S. Workplace bullying and sickness absence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the research literature. Vol. 42, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health. Nordic Association of Occupational Safety and Health; 2016. p. 359–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Hoobler JM, Hu J. A model of injustice, abusive supervision, and negative affect. Leadership Quarterly. 2013. Feb;24(1):256–69. [Google Scholar]
35.Barber LK, Taylor SG, Burton JP, Bailey SF. A self-regulatory perspective of work-to-home undermining spillover/ crossover: Examining the roles of sleep and exercise. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2017. May 1;102(5):753–63. doi: 10.1037/apl0000196 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Hoobler JM, Brass DJ. Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2006. Sep;91(5):1125–33. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Pradhan S, Gupta P. Abusive supervision and work-family conflict: an empirical investigation of Indian professionals. International Journal of Conflict Management. 2020;32(3):493–513. [Google Scholar]
38.Carlson D, Ferguson M, Hunter E, Whitten D. Abusive supervision and work-family conflict: The path through emotional labor and burnout. Leadership Quarterly. 2012. Oct;23(5):849–59. [Google Scholar]
39.Ju L, Zhao W, Wu C, Li H, Ning X. Abusive supervisors and employee work-to-family conflict in Chinese construction projects: how does family support help? Construction Management and Economics. 2020. Dec 1;38(12):1158–78. [Google Scholar]
40.Viotti S, Arnetz JE, Converso D. Does Bullying Affect Work-to-Private-Life Interference? Testing the Mediating Role of Resilience. J Aggress Maltreat Trauma. 2018. Apr 21;27(4):409–24. [Google Scholar]
41.Sarwar A, Imran MK, Hafeez H, Zaheer M, Fatima T. Does workplace ostracism negatively affect family life during a pandemic? Personnel Review [Internet]. 2023. Jan 1; ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). Available from: 10.1108/PR-02-2022-0128 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
42.Selem KM, Shoukat MH, Shehata AE, Ahmad MS, Gursoy D. From workplace to home: consequences of supervisor bullying in the hospitality setting. Evidence-based HRM: a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship [Internet]. 2024. Jan 1; ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). Available from: 10.1108/EBHRM-10-2023-0309 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
43.Zhou B, Marchand A, Guay S. Gender differences on mental health, work-family conflicts and alcohol use in response to abusive supervision. Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones. 2018;34(3):157–67. [Google Scholar]
44.Pluut H, Ilies R, Su R, Weng Q, Liang AX. How Social Stressors at Work Influence Marital Behaviors at Home: An Interpersonal Model of Work-Family Spillover. J Occup Health Psychol. 2022;27(1):74–88. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000298 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Liang HL. How Workplace Bullying Relates to Facades of Conformity and Work-Family Conflict: The Mediating Role of Psychological Strain. Psychol Rep. 2020. Dec 1;123(6):2479–500. doi: 10.1177/0033294119862984 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Zhang R, Ye C, Ferreira-Meyers K. Linking workplace ostracism to interpersonal citizenship behavior: A moderated mediation model of work-to-family conflict and rumination. Int J Stress Manag [Internet]. 2017. Aug;24(3):293–320. [Google Scholar]
47.Chi NW, Yang J, Lin CY. Service workers’ chain reactions to daily customer mistreatment: Behavioral linkages, mechanisms, and boundary conditions. J Occup Health Psychol. 2018. Jan 1;23(1):58–70. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Choi Y, Chu K, Choi EJ. Social network services addiction in the workplace. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business. 2019;6(1):249–59. [Google Scholar]
49.Sarwar A, Bashir S, Khan AK. Spillover of workplace bullying into family incivility: Testing a mediated moderation model in a time-lagged study. J Interpers Violence [Internet]. 2021. Sep;36(17–18):8092–117. doi: 10.1177/0886260519847778 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Valle M, Carlson DS, Carlson JR, Zivnuska S, Harris KJ, Harris RB. Technology-enacted abusive supervision and its effect on work and family. Journal of Social Psychology. 2021;161(3):272–86. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2020.1816885 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Thompson MJ, Carlson DS, Kacmar KM, Vogel RM. The cost of being ignored: Emotional exhaustion in the work and family domains. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2020;105(2):186–95. doi: 10.1037/apl0000433 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Choi YG, Chu K, Choi EJ. The impact of video game addiction in the workplace. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning. 2018. Apr 1;8(2):1–19. [Google Scholar]
53.Chen SC. The relationships between multifoci workplace aggression and work–family conflict. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2018. May 15;29(9):1537–64. [Google Scholar]
54.Zhu Q, Cheng K. The work–family spillover and crossover effects of negative workplace gossip. The Service Industries Journal. 2023. Aug 22;1–19. [Google Scholar]
55.Zhang R, Wu Y, Ferreira-Meyers K. The Work-Family Spillover Effects of Customer Mistreatment for Service Employees: The Moderating Roles of Psychological Detachment and Leader–Member Exchange. Front Psychol. 2019. Sep 18;10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Dionisi AM, Barling J. What happens at home does not stay at home: The role of family and romantic partner conflict in destructive leadership. Stress and Health. 2019. Aug 1;35(3):304–17. doi: 10.1002/smi.2858 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57.Restubog SLD, Scott KL, Zagenczyk TJ. When Distress Hits Home: The Role of Contextual Factors and Psychological Distress in Predicting Employees’ Responses to Abusive Supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2011. Jul;96(4):713–29. doi: 10.1037/a0021593 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Choi Y. Workplace ostracism and work-to-family conflict among female employees: moderating role of perceived organisational support. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 2021. Feb 25;29(2):436–49. [Google Scholar]
59.Wu LZ, Kwan HK, Liu J, Resick CJ. Work-to-family spillover effects of abusive supervision. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2012. Sep;27(7):714–31. [Google Scholar]
60.Liu J, Kwan HK, Lee C, Hui C. Work-to-Family Spillover Effects of Workplace Ostracism: The Role of Work-Home Segmentation Preferences. Hum Resour Manage. 2013. Jan;52(1):75–93. [Google Scholar]
61.Liu T, Liu L, Cafferkey K, Jia Y. Assessing the impact of negative workplace gossip on family satisfaction: Evidence from employees in China. Current Psychology. 2022. [Google Scholar]
62.Rodríguez-Muñoz A, Antino M, Sanz-Vergel AI. Cross-domain consequences of workplace bullying: A multi-source daily diary study. Work Stress. 2017. Jul 3;31(3):297–314. [Google Scholar]
63.Li X, Lin X. Can’t shake office “Cold Violence” outside workplace: an investigation of how and when workplace ostracism affect employee work-to-family conflict. Current Psychology. 2024. [Google Scholar]
64.Rafique M, Jaafar M, Ahmed S, Amjad-ur-Rehman M. Does work-family conflict lead to abusive supervision in the construction projects? The role of project commitment and psychological resilience. Future Business Journal. 2024. Apr 5;10(1). [Google Scholar]
65.Demsky CA, Ellis AM, Fritz C. Shrugging it off: Does psychological detachment from work mediate the relationship between workplace aggression and work-family conflict? J Occup Health Psychol. 2014;19(2):195–205. doi: 10.1037/a0035448 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66.Harris KJ, Harvey P, Kacmar KM. Abusive supervisory reactions to coworker relationship conflict. Leadersh Q. 2011;22(5):1010–23. [Google Scholar]
67.Mitchell MS, Ambrose ML. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007;92(4):1159. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68.Einarsen S, Raknes BI. Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men. Violence Vict. 1997;12(3):247–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69.Einarsen S, Hoel H, Notelaers G. Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the negative acts questionnaire-revised. Work Stress. 2009. Jan;23(1):24–44. [Google Scholar]
70.Ferris DL, Brown DJ, Berry JW, Lian H. The development and validation of the Workplace Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008;93(6):1348. doi: 10.1037/a0012743 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71.Chandra G, Robinson SL. They’re talking about me again: The impact of being the target of gossip on emotional distress and withdrawal. In: Academy of Management Conference Chicago. 2009. p. 153–74. [Google Scholar]
72.Neuman JH, Keashly L. Development of the workplace aggression research questionnaire (WAR-Q): Preliminary data from the workplace stress and aggression project. In: Bennett RJ & Crossley CD (Chairs), Theoretical advancements in the study of anti-social behavior at work Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL. 2004. [Google Scholar]
73.Lee JY, Rocco TS, Shuck B. What is a resource: Toward a taxonomy of resources for employee engagement. Human Resource Development Review. 2020;19(1):5–38. [Google Scholar]
74.Boudrias V, Trépanier SG, Salin D. A systematic review of research on the longitudinal consequences of workplace bullying and the mechanisms involved. Vol. 56, Aggression and Violent Behavior. Elsevier Ltd; 2021. [Google Scholar]
75.Greenhaus JH, Beutell NJ. Sources of Conflict between Work and Family Roles. The Academy of Management Review. 1985. Jan;10(1):76. [Google Scholar]
76.Hobfoll SE. Conservation of Resources A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress. 1989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77.Voydanoff P. Linkages between the work-family interface and work, family, and individual outcomes: An integrative model. J Fam Issues. 2002;23(1):138–64. [Google Scholar]
78.Rathi N, Barath M. Work‐family conflict and job and family satisfaction: Moderating effect of social support among police personnel. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal. 2013;32(4):438–54. [Google Scholar]
79.Ten Brummelhuis LL, Bakker AB. A resource perspective on the work-home interface: The work-home resources model. American psychologist. 2012;67(7):545. doi: 10.1037/a0027974 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310300.r001

Decision Letter 0

Rogis Baker

10 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-22601The relationship between workplace bullying and family functioning: A systematic review.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mokhtar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 24 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rogis Baker, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Title: The relationship between workplace bullying and family functioning: A systematic review

Dear Authors,

I enjoyed reading and evaluating your article. You have demonstrated considerable skill and diligence in composing this insightful article. I concur with the authors that workplace bullying is an important topic and its spillover effect on family life should be given more attention, especially the occupational health aspect of workplace bullying should not be overlooked. Your article exhibits notable merits, yet there are some aspects that could be improved. I will present my feedback following the structure of your article.

Summary

The study is a systematic review. The study uses PRISMA framework for analyzing articles from SCOPUS, WOS, PsycINFO, and PubMed. All included studies indicate that workplace bullying is associated with family functioning, both directly and indirectly. The theories which were mostly used for explaining the said relationship were COR, spillover theory, crossover theory, and work-life interface model. Most of the studies included in this systematic review concentrated on one way impact of workplace bullying on family functioning, and the designs used were predominately cross-sectional, non-randomized self-report surveys. The suggested future direction for research were also given with an increased focus on longitudinal designs to better understand the direction, nature, and context of the relationship between workplace bullying and family functioning across different cultures. The authors stressed the need for more extensive research to explore the relationship further.

Introduction

Although the introduction provides a comprehensive overview of the research problem and provide statistics from the global perspective on workplace bullying but some of the information is repeated and the introduction can be made concise. I believe authors can provide more specific examples of existing research gaps by citing more work, this would strengthen the importance of the research. I would suggest research questions and hypotheses can be made clearer and more visible. And lastly, authors can put more emphasis on significance and potential contribution of the study.

PRISMA

The study has largely followed the PRISMA diagram, however some important observations are as follows.

1. Provide more detail on inclusion and exclusion criteria so that reader can quickly understand the selection process (focus on exclusion criteria).

2. Indicate the number of duplicates removed and prominently display in the PRISMA diagram.

3. Distinguish the studies excluded during the title/abstract screening and full text screening. This clarification can clarify the review process.

4. Provide a detail list of reasons for exclusion (I don’t mind if you put it in the Appendix). And briefly discuss this in the main body so the reader can understand the selection process.

5. Were other methods such as citation tracking and expert suggestion/consultation used as sources? If not please mention it briefly in the text.

Search Criteria

The database search method used in this paper seems thorough and methodological, however a few points can be clarified further.

1. Why additional databases such as Google Scholar (very popular these days) were not included in the searching process.

2. What was the logical reason for not including the gray literature?

3. The study mentions the usage of combination of words but does not specify the usage of Boolean operators such as (AND, OR, NOT) in their search strategy. Please provide a documentation for these operators.

4. The inclusion criteria were that studies in English language were include. Why other studies in regional languages were not used? As we may miss out on a big body of literature by excluding those studies. Does workplace bullying only happens in English speaking countries or where English is understood? Please provide a logical reasoning for such a decision.

Discussion

The discussion could benefit from more integration with the broader literature on workplace stress and family dynamics. While the study focuses on workplace bullying, connecting findings to related research on general workplace stress and its family impacts would provide a richer context.

The authors should discuss the methodological limitation as well.

The generalizability issue should be addressed more prominently.

The discussion could benefit from a more detailed exploration of the practical implications of the findings. This could include specific recommendations for organizations, policymakers, and practitioners on how to mitigate the negative impacts of workplace bullying on family functioning.

From where is am looking at the discussion section it seems dense and somewhat crowded. Perhaps breaking it down into subsection can enhance the readability and comprehension (summary of the findings, methodological limitation, theoretical implication, practical implication etc.)

Over all I enjoyed reading this well written paper. Best of Luck

Reviewer #2: This is a timely as well as thoroughly executed systematic review on a topic gaining attention and importance, aiding in the unlocking of knowledge on the ‘anatomy’ and ‘physiology’ of workplace bullying and its effects on families and family life. The complexity of this topic could be characterized as a crosspollination of moderators and dynamics, resulting in a multitude of non-linear ‘processes’.

The authors very well succeeded, in the opinion of this reviewer, in following the chosen route for the review, analyzing and discussing the data from the included papers, resulting in a comprehensive, although readable report.

Additional to the current discussion section, this reviewer suggests, also to widen the scope of the context of the current work. For example the authors could point out the possible effects of pre-existing psychological trauma of workers or employers/supervisors, which can jeopardize these individuals’ resources, e.g., in dealing with adverse workplace experiences.

Also, although this review indicates several work domains, differences between professional domains, e.g., the domain of medicine or law, in which professional identity (professional ‘ego’) might be relevant to point out as well.

(PS - re-reading the manuscript could help solve some last very minor punctuation issues).

Well done and thanks.

Reviewer #3: I enjoyed reading this interesting systematic literature review paper.

The process of identifying papers for reveiw seems systematic and follows PRISMA framework. The writing is clear and flowing well. The structure and headings of the paper seem appropriate. However, my concern is that the theoretical contribution of the paper does not seem to be clear and strong. The authors seem to have described how many studies supported specific relationships between variables of interest. The authors should focus more on the underlying theory being tested and studeid in each paper, and provide theoretical implications emanating from the revie of these studies.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Adnan Fateh

Reviewer #2: Yes: Wouter Keijser MD PhD

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Sep 17;19(9):e0310300. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310300.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

18 Aug 2024

Respected editors and reviwers, I have carefully reviewed and addressed all the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers and have made the necessary revisions to the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s requirements. A detailed response to each comment has been provided in the “Response to Reviewers” document, which has been uploaded to the system.

I sincerely thank the reviewers and the editorial team for their valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. Your insights have greatly contributed to improving the quality of the manuscript, and I am grateful for your time and effort.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0310300.s006.docx^{(24.7KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310300.r003

Decision Letter 1

Rogis Baker

29 Aug 2024

The relationship between workplace bullying and family functioning: A systematic review.

PONE-D-24-22601R1

Dear Daniella Mokhtar,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rogis Baker, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310300.r004

Acceptance letter

Rogis Baker

6 Sep 2024

PONE-D-24-22601R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mokhtar,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Rogis Baker

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0310300.s001.docx^{(31.3KB, docx)}

S1 Table. Search terms and strategy.

(DOCX)

pone.0310300.s002.docx^{(24.7KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Revised checklist for methodological quality.

(DOCX)

pone.0310300.s003.docx^{(18.3KB, docx)}

S1 File. Quality assessment by two authors.

(ZIP)

pone.0310300.s004.zip^{(37.7KB, zip)}

S2 File. Search results from four databases.

(ZIP)

pone.0310300.s005.zip^{(700.8KB, zip)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0310300.s006.docx^{(24.7KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0310300.ref001] 1.D’Cruz P, Noronha E. Mapping “varieties of workplace bullying”: The scope of the field. Concepts, Approaches and Methods. 2021;3–53. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref002] 2.Nielsen MB, Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2010. Dec;83(4):955–79. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref003] 3.Nielsen MB, Einarsen SV. What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: An overview of the literature and agenda for future research. Vol. 42, Aggression and Violent Behavior. Elsevier Ltd; 2018. p. 71–83. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref004] 4.Namie G. 2021 WBI U.S. WORKPLACE BULLYING SURVEY. 2021. Available from: https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_protect/@protrav/@safework/documents/instructionalmaterial/wcms_178397.pdf [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref005] 5.Ng CSM, Chan VCW. Prevalence of workplace bullying and risk groups in Chinese employees in Hong Kong. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021. Jan 1;18(1):1–11. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18010329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref006] 6.Lang M, Jones L, Harvey C, Munday J. Workplace bullying, burnout and resilience amongst perioperative nurses in Australia: A descriptive correlational study. J Nurs Manag. 2022;30(6):1502–13. doi: 10.1111/jonm.13437 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref007] 7.Machado ICK, Bernardes JW, Monteiro JK, Marin AH. Stress, anxiety and depression among gastronomes: association with workplace mobbing and work–family interaction. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2021. Nov 1;94(8):1797–807. doi: 10.1007/s00420-021-01745-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref008] 8.Rodríguez-Muñoz A, Moreno-Jiménez B, Sanz-Vergel AI. Reciprocal relations between workplace bullying, anxiety, and vigor: A two-wave longitudinal study. Anxiety Stress Coping. 2015;28(5):514–30. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2015.1016003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref009] 9.Pauksztat B, Salin D, Kitada M. Bullying behavior and employee well-being: how do different forms of social support buffer against depression, anxiety and exhaustion? Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2022;95(7):1633–44. doi: 10.1007/s00420-022-01844-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref010] 10.Anasori E, Bayighomog SW, Tanova C. Workplace bullying, psychological distress, resilience, mindfulness, and emotional exhaustion. Service Industries Journal. 2020. Jan 25;40(1–2):65–89. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref011] 11.Liang HL. Does Workplace Bullying Produce Employee Voice and Physical Health Issues? Testing the Mediating Role of Emotional Exhaustion. Front Psychol. 2021. Feb 9;12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.610944 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref012] 12.Raja U, Javed Y, Abbas M. A time lagged study of burnout as a mediator in the relationship between workplace bullying and work–family conflict. Int J Stress Manag. 2018;25(4):377. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref013] 13.Srivastava S, Agarwal S. Workplace bullying and intention to leave: a moderated mediation model of emotional exhaustion and supervisory support. Employee Relations. 2020. Sep 22;42(6):1547–63. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref014] 14.Chia SM, Kee DMH. Workplace bullying and task performance: A study on salespeople in retail industry. Management Science Letters. 2018;8(6):707–16. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref015] 15.Wu M, He Q, Imran M, Fu J. Workplace Bullying, Anxiety, and Job Performance: Choosing Between “Passive Resistance” or “Swallowing the Insult”? Front Psychol. 2020. Jan 17;10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref016] 16.Nimmi PM, Jose G, Vincent MTP, John A. Workplace Bullying, Engagement and Employability: Moderating Role of Organization-Based Self-Esteem. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. 2022. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref017] 17.Ng K, Franken E, Nguyen D, Teo S. Job satisfaction and public service motivation in Australian nurses: the effects of abusive supervision and workplace bullying. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2022;1–30. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref018] 18.Plimmer G, Nguyen D, Teo S, Tuckey MR. Workplace bullying as an organizational issue: Aligning climate and leadership. Work Stress. 2022;36(2):202–27. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref019] 19.M Abdel-Azeem A M Amin S, M El-Sayed N. Bullying among Staff Nurses and Its Relationship to Psychological Distress and Organizational Commitment during Covid-19 Pandemic. Egyptian Journal of Health Care. 2022;13(1):1439–43. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref020] 20.Yoo G, Lee S. It doesn’t end there: Workplace bullying, work-to-family conflict, and employee well-being in Korea. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018. Jul 22;15(7). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref021] 21.Al Muharraq EH, Baker OG, Alallah SM. The prevalence and the relationship of workplace bullying and nurses turnover intentions: A cross-sectional study. SAGE Open Nurs. 2022; 8:23779608221074656. doi: 10.1177/23779608221074655 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref022] 22.Favaro A, Wong C, Oudshoorn A. Relationships among sex, empowerment, workplace bullying and job turnover intention of new graduate nurses. J Clin Nurs. 2021;30(9–10):1273–84. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15671 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref023] 23.Edwards JR, Rothbard NP. Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of management review. 2000;25(1):178–99. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref024] 24.Clark SC. Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations. 2000;53(6):747–70. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref025] 25.Carlson DS, Ferguson M, Perrewé PL, Whitten D. The fallout from abusive supervision: An examination of subordinates and their partners. Pers Psychol [Internet]. 2011;64(4):937–61. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref026] 26.Mandara J, Murray CB. Development of an empirical typology of African American family functioning. Journal of Family Psychology. 2002;16(3):318–37. doi: 10.1037//0893-3200.16.3.318 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref027] 27.Tepper BJ. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of management journal. 2000;43(2):178–90. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref028] 28.Kiewitz C, Restubog SLD, Zagenczyk TJ, Scott KD, Garcia PRJM, Tang RL. Sins of the parents: Self-control as a buffer between supervisors’ previous experience of family undermining and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervision. Leadership Quarterly. 2012. Oct;23(5):869–82. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref029] 29.Bartlett JE, Bartlett ME. Workplace bullying: An integrative literature review. Vol. 13, Advances in Developing Human Resources. 2011. p. 69–84. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref030] 30.Gupta P, Gupta U, Wadhwa S. Known and Unknown Aspects of Workplace Bullying: A Systematic Review of Recent Literature and Future Research Agenda. Human Resource Development Review. 2020. Sep 1;19(3):263–308. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref031] 31.Farley S, Mokhtar D, Ng K, Niven K. What influences the relationship between workplace bullying and employee well-being? A systematic review of moderators. Work Stress. 2023;1–28. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref032] 32.Özer G, Escartín J. The making and breaking of workplace bullying perpetration: A systematic review on the antecedents, moderators, mediators, outcomes of perpetration and suggestions for organizations. Aggress Violent Behav. 2023; 69:101823. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref033] 33.Nielsen MB, Indregard AMR, Øverland S. Workplace bullying and sickness absence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the research literature. Vol. 42, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health. Nordic Association of Occupational Safety and Health; 2016. p. 359–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref034] 34.Hoobler JM, Hu J. A model of injustice, abusive supervision, and negative affect. Leadership Quarterly. 2013. Feb;24(1):256–69. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref035] 35.Barber LK, Taylor SG, Burton JP, Bailey SF. A self-regulatory perspective of work-to-home undermining spillover/ crossover: Examining the roles of sleep and exercise. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2017. May 1;102(5):753–63. doi: 10.1037/apl0000196 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref036] 36.Hoobler JM, Brass DJ. Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2006. Sep;91(5):1125–33. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref037] 37.Pradhan S, Gupta P. Abusive supervision and work-family conflict: an empirical investigation of Indian professionals. International Journal of Conflict Management. 2020;32(3):493–513. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref038] 38.Carlson D, Ferguson M, Hunter E, Whitten D. Abusive supervision and work-family conflict: The path through emotional labor and burnout. Leadership Quarterly. 2012. Oct;23(5):849–59. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref039] 39.Ju L, Zhao W, Wu C, Li H, Ning X. Abusive supervisors and employee work-to-family conflict in Chinese construction projects: how does family support help? Construction Management and Economics. 2020. Dec 1;38(12):1158–78. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref040] 40.Viotti S, Arnetz JE, Converso D. Does Bullying Affect Work-to-Private-Life Interference? Testing the Mediating Role of Resilience. J Aggress Maltreat Trauma. 2018. Apr 21;27(4):409–24. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref041] 41.Sarwar A, Imran MK, Hafeez H, Zaheer M, Fatima T. Does workplace ostracism negatively affect family life during a pandemic? Personnel Review [Internet]. 2023. Jan 1; ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). Available from: 10.1108/PR-02-2022-0128 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref042] 42.Selem KM, Shoukat MH, Shehata AE, Ahmad MS, Gursoy D. From workplace to home: consequences of supervisor bullying in the hospitality setting. Evidence-based HRM: a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship [Internet]. 2024. Jan 1; ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). Available from: 10.1108/EBHRM-10-2023-0309 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref043] 43.Zhou B, Marchand A, Guay S. Gender differences on mental health, work-family conflicts and alcohol use in response to abusive supervision. Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones. 2018;34(3):157–67. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref044] 44.Pluut H, Ilies R, Su R, Weng Q, Liang AX. How Social Stressors at Work Influence Marital Behaviors at Home: An Interpersonal Model of Work-Family Spillover. J Occup Health Psychol. 2022;27(1):74–88. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000298 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref045] 45.Liang HL. How Workplace Bullying Relates to Facades of Conformity and Work-Family Conflict: The Mediating Role of Psychological Strain. Psychol Rep. 2020. Dec 1;123(6):2479–500. doi: 10.1177/0033294119862984 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref046] 46.Zhang R, Ye C, Ferreira-Meyers K. Linking workplace ostracism to interpersonal citizenship behavior: A moderated mediation model of work-to-family conflict and rumination. Int J Stress Manag [Internet]. 2017. Aug;24(3):293–320. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref047] 47.Chi NW, Yang J, Lin CY. Service workers’ chain reactions to daily customer mistreatment: Behavioral linkages, mechanisms, and boundary conditions. J Occup Health Psychol. 2018. Jan 1;23(1):58–70. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref048] 48.Choi Y, Chu K, Choi EJ. Social network services addiction in the workplace. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business. 2019;6(1):249–59. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref049] 49.Sarwar A, Bashir S, Khan AK. Spillover of workplace bullying into family incivility: Testing a mediated moderation model in a time-lagged study. J Interpers Violence [Internet]. 2021. Sep;36(17–18):8092–117. doi: 10.1177/0886260519847778 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref050] 50.Valle M, Carlson DS, Carlson JR, Zivnuska S, Harris KJ, Harris RB. Technology-enacted abusive supervision and its effect on work and family. Journal of Social Psychology. 2021;161(3):272–86. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2020.1816885 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref051] 51.Thompson MJ, Carlson DS, Kacmar KM, Vogel RM. The cost of being ignored: Emotional exhaustion in the work and family domains. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2020;105(2):186–95. doi: 10.1037/apl0000433 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref052] 52.Choi YG, Chu K, Choi EJ. The impact of video game addiction in the workplace. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning. 2018. Apr 1;8(2):1–19. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref053] 53.Chen SC. The relationships between multifoci workplace aggression and work–family conflict. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2018. May 15;29(9):1537–64. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref054] 54.Zhu Q, Cheng K. The work–family spillover and crossover effects of negative workplace gossip. The Service Industries Journal. 2023. Aug 22;1–19. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref055] 55.Zhang R, Wu Y, Ferreira-Meyers K. The Work-Family Spillover Effects of Customer Mistreatment for Service Employees: The Moderating Roles of Psychological Detachment and Leader–Member Exchange. Front Psychol. 2019. Sep 18;10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref056] 56.Dionisi AM, Barling J. What happens at home does not stay at home: The role of family and romantic partner conflict in destructive leadership. Stress and Health. 2019. Aug 1;35(3):304–17. doi: 10.1002/smi.2858 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref057] 57.Restubog SLD, Scott KL, Zagenczyk TJ. When Distress Hits Home: The Role of Contextual Factors and Psychological Distress in Predicting Employees’ Responses to Abusive Supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2011. Jul;96(4):713–29. doi: 10.1037/a0021593 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref058] 58.Choi Y. Workplace ostracism and work-to-family conflict among female employees: moderating role of perceived organisational support. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 2021. Feb 25;29(2):436–49. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref059] 59.Wu LZ, Kwan HK, Liu J, Resick CJ. Work-to-family spillover effects of abusive supervision. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2012. Sep;27(7):714–31. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref060] 60.Liu J, Kwan HK, Lee C, Hui C. Work-to-Family Spillover Effects of Workplace Ostracism: The Role of Work-Home Segmentation Preferences. Hum Resour Manage. 2013. Jan;52(1):75–93. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref061] 61.Liu T, Liu L, Cafferkey K, Jia Y. Assessing the impact of negative workplace gossip on family satisfaction: Evidence from employees in China. Current Psychology. 2022. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref062] 62.Rodríguez-Muñoz A, Antino M, Sanz-Vergel AI. Cross-domain consequences of workplace bullying: A multi-source daily diary study. Work Stress. 2017. Jul 3;31(3):297–314. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref063] 63.Li X, Lin X. Can’t shake office “Cold Violence” outside workplace: an investigation of how and when workplace ostracism affect employee work-to-family conflict. Current Psychology. 2024. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref064] 64.Rafique M, Jaafar M, Ahmed S, Amjad-ur-Rehman M. Does work-family conflict lead to abusive supervision in the construction projects? The role of project commitment and psychological resilience. Future Business Journal. 2024. Apr 5;10(1). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref065] 65.Demsky CA, Ellis AM, Fritz C. Shrugging it off: Does psychological detachment from work mediate the relationship between workplace aggression and work-family conflict? J Occup Health Psychol. 2014;19(2):195–205. doi: 10.1037/a0035448 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref066] 66.Harris KJ, Harvey P, Kacmar KM. Abusive supervisory reactions to coworker relationship conflict. Leadersh Q. 2011;22(5):1010–23. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref067] 67.Mitchell MS, Ambrose ML. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007;92(4):1159. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref068] 68.Einarsen S, Raknes BI. Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men. Violence Vict. 1997;12(3):247–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref069] 69.Einarsen S, Hoel H, Notelaers G. Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the negative acts questionnaire-revised. Work Stress. 2009. Jan;23(1):24–44. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref070] 70.Ferris DL, Brown DJ, Berry JW, Lian H. The development and validation of the Workplace Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2008;93(6):1348. doi: 10.1037/a0012743 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref071] 71.Chandra G, Robinson SL. They’re talking about me again: The impact of being the target of gossip on emotional distress and withdrawal. In: Academy of Management Conference Chicago. 2009. p. 153–74. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref072] 72.Neuman JH, Keashly L. Development of the workplace aggression research questionnaire (WAR-Q): Preliminary data from the workplace stress and aggression project. In: Bennett RJ & Crossley CD (Chairs), Theoretical advancements in the study of anti-social behavior at work Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL. 2004. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref073] 73.Lee JY, Rocco TS, Shuck B. What is a resource: Toward a taxonomy of resources for employee engagement. Human Resource Development Review. 2020;19(1):5–38. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref074] 74.Boudrias V, Trépanier SG, Salin D. A systematic review of research on the longitudinal consequences of workplace bullying and the mechanisms involved. Vol. 56, Aggression and Violent Behavior. Elsevier Ltd; 2021. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref075] 75.Greenhaus JH, Beutell NJ. Sources of Conflict between Work and Family Roles. The Academy of Management Review. 1985. Jan;10(1):76. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref076] 76.Hobfoll SE. Conservation of Resources A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress. 1989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref077] 77.Voydanoff P. Linkages between the work-family interface and work, family, and individual outcomes: An integrative model. J Fam Issues. 2002;23(1):138–64. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref078] 78.Rathi N, Barath M. Work‐family conflict and job and family satisfaction: Moderating effect of social support among police personnel. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal. 2013;32(4):438–54. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0310300.ref079] 79.Ten Brummelhuis LL, Bakker AB. A resource perspective on the work-home interface: The work-home resources model. American psychologist. 2012;67(7):545. doi: 10.1037/a0027974 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

The relationship between workplace bullying and family functioning: A systematic review

Yang Jie

Daniella Mokhtar

Nurul-Azza Abdullah

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Databases and search terms

Criteria for inclusion and exclusion

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Data extraction

Fig 1. Flowchart of study retrieval and selection (PRISMA).

Quality assessment tool

Results

Study characteristics

Table 2. Overview of included studies.

Workplace bullying and its impact on family functioning

Fig 2. Mediators organized by category.

Fig 3. Moderators organized by category.

Workplace bullying: Work-family conflict (WFC) relationships

Fig 4. Mediators and theories associated with the relationship between workplace bullying and WFC.

Fig 5. Moderators of the association between workplace bullying and WFC.

Workplace bullying: Undermining relationships in the family

Fig 6. Mediators and theories associated with the relationship between workplace bullying and family undermining.

Fig 7. Moderators associated with the relationship between workplace bullying and family undermining.

Workplace bullying: Family satisfaction

Fig 8. Mediators and theories: Workplace bullying and family satisfaction.

Fig 9. Moderators of the relationship between workplace bullying and family satisfaction.

Workplace bullying: Marital behaviors and relationships

Fig 10. Mediators and theories: Workplace bullying and marital behaviors.

Workplace bullying: Emotional exhaustion in the family

Family functioning and its impact on workplace bullying

Fig 11. Mediators and moderators: Family functioning and workplace bullying.

Mechanisms associated with the link between family functioning and workplace bullying

Moderators between family functioning and workplace bullying

Discussion

Relationship between workplace bullying and family functioning indicators

Work-family conflict (WFC)

Family undermining

Family satisfaction

Marital behaviors

Family emotional exhaustion

Implications of the findings

Practical implications

Theoretical implications

Limitations and future directions

Conclusion

Supporting information

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Rogis Baker

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Rogis Baker

Roles

Acceptance letter

Rogis Baker

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases