Victims of workplace mobbing show diverse coping behavior. We investigated the impact of this behavior on bystander cognitions, emotions, and helping toward the victim, integrating coping literature with attribution theory. Adult part-time university students ( N = 161) working at various organizations participated in a study with a 3(Coping: approach/avoidance/neutral) × 2(Gender Victim: male/female) × 2(Gender Bystander: male/female) design. Victims showing approach (vs. avoidance) coping were considered to be more self-reliant and less responsible for the continuation of the mobbing, and they elicited less anger. Continuation responsibility and self-reliance mediated the relationship between the victim’s coping behavior and bystanders’ helping intentions. Female (vs. male) participants reported more sympathy for the victim and greater willingness to help, and female (vs. male) victims elicited less anger. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Most literature on workplace mobbing concentrate on victims or perpetrators. However, bystanders are also part of the problem (Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik, 2010 Namie, G., & Lutgen-Sandvik, P. E. (2010). Active and passive accomplices: The communal character of workplace bullying. International Journal of Communication, 4, 343–373. doi: 1932-8036/20100343; Paull, Omari, & Standen, 2012 Paull, M., Omari, M., & Standen, P. (2012). When is a bystander not a bystander? A typology of the roles of bystanders in workplace bullying. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50, 351–366. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00027.x) and therefore also part of a possible solution. These solutions are necessary because the costs of workplace mobbing are substantial, and the consequences for victims devastating. For the victim, exposure to mobbing can lead to heightened job insecurity and intention to leave (Glambek, Matthiesen, Hetland, & Einarsen, 2014 Glambek, M., Matthiesen, S. B., Hetland, J., & Einarsen, S. (2014). Workplace bullying as an antecedent to job insecurity and intention to leave: A 6-month prospective study. Human Resource Management Journal, 24, 255–268. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12035; Jennifer, 2003 Jennifer, D. H. K. (2003). Perceptions and experience of workplace bullying in five different working populations. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 489–496. doi:10.1002/ab.10055), sleep difficulties (Hansen, Hogh, Garde, & Persson, 2014 Hansen, Å., Hogh, A., Garde, A., & Persson, R. (2014). Workplace bullying and sleep difficulties: A 2-year follow-up study. International Archives of Occupational & Environmental Health, 87, 285–294. doi:10.1007/s00420-013-0860-2), anxiety and fatigue (Raknes et al., 2014 Raknes, I., Pallesen, S., Magerøy, N., Moen, B. E., Bjorvatn, B., & Einarsen, S. (2014). Exposure to bullying behaviors as a predictor of mental health problems among Norwegian nurses: Results from the prospective SUSSH-survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51, 479–487. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.06.017), burnout (Trépanier, Fernet, & Austin, 2015 Trépanier, S.-G., Fernet, C., & Austin, S. (2015). A longitudinal investigation of workplace bullying, basic need satisfaction, and employee functioning. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20, 105–116. doi:10.1037/a0037726), and post-traumatic stress disorder (for an overview, see Hogh, Mikkelsen, & Hansen, 2011 Hogh, A., Mikkelsen, E. G., & Hansen, A. M. (2011). Individual consequences of workplace bullying/mobbing. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 107–129). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.). At an organizational level, companies face absenteeism, turnover and replacement costs, lowered productivity and performance, grievance procedures, and loss of public goodwill (Hoel, Sheehan, Cooper, & Einarsen, 2011 Hoel, H., Sheehan, M. J., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Organizational effects of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 129–149). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.). Workplace mobbing refers to instances of repeated anti-social behavior, directed against a victim who finds it hard to defend him/herself (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011 Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 3–39). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.), and it is mainly related to psychological violence (Leymann, 1996 Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165–184. doi:10.1080/13594329608414853). It concerns an evolving process in which the victim meets with increasingly stigmatizing behavior (Einarsen, 1999 Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 16–27. doi:10.1108/01437729910268588; Leymann, 1996 Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165–184. doi:10.1080/13594329608414853). Zapf, Knorz and Kulla (1996) localized seven types of mobbing behavior—namely, spreading rumors, social isolation, verbal aggression, organizational measures, attacking the victim’s private life, attacking the victim’s attitudes, and physical violence, of which spreading rumors occur the most and physical violence the least. The prevalence rate of workplace mobbing differs across studies, depending on the measures used (Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010 Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 83, 955–979. doi:10.1348/096317909x481256). Integrating both behavioral and self-labeling estimations, Leon-Perez, Notelaers, Arenas, Munduate, and Medina (2014 Leon-Perez, J. M., Notelaers, G., Arenas, A., Munduate, L., & Medina, F. J. (2014). Identifying victims of workplace bullying by integrating traditional estimation approaches into a latent class cluster model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1155–1177. doi:10.1177/0886260513506280) concluded that 3% of their sample had been subjected to both mobbing and more direct forms of violence, 5% of their sample had been subjected to severe mobbing, and 12% to occasional mobbing. Given the costs and prevalence associated with workplace mobbing, it is important to investigate factors either contributing to or inhibiting the mobbing process. From a social interactionist perspective, bystanders are actors in the process of workplace mobbing (Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik, 2010 Namie, G., & Lutgen-Sandvik, P. E. (2010). Active and passive accomplices: The communal character of workplace bullying. International Journal of Communication, 4, 343–373. doi: 1932-8036/20100343), although their role in this process is still unclear (Keashly & Jagatic, 2011 Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2011). North American perspectives on hostile behaviors and bullying at work. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 41–71). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.). Bystanders can take various positions in the mobbing process, ranging from helping the bully to helping the victim (Paull et al., 2012 Paull, M., Omari, M., & Standen, P. (2012). When is a bystander not a bystander? A typology of the roles of bystanders in workplace bullying. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50, 351–366. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00027.x). Research that focuses on the antecedents of bystander behavior in workplace mobbing is still scarce and is mainly based on qualitative studies (e.g., D’Cruz & Noronha, 2011; Lutgen-Sandvik & Fletcher, 2013 Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Fletcher, C. V. (2013). Conflict motivations and tactics of targets, bystanders, and bullies: A thrice-told tale of workplace bullying. In J. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict communication (pp. 349–377). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.), where experimental studies can enhance theory development in this area (Neall & Tuckey, 2014 Neall, A. M., & Tuckey, M. R. (2014). A methodological review of research on the antecedents and consequences of workplace harassment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 225–257. doi:10.1111/joop.12059). One recent study indicates that factors such as bystanders’ perceptions of the victim’s responsibility for the onset of the mobbing, bystanders’ anticipations of stigma by association, and bystanders’ gender might all influence their response to workplace mobbing (Mulder, Pouwelse, Lodewijkx, & Bolman, 2014). Yet there is little information about how the victim’s response to the mobbing can influence bystander behavior. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to investigate the influence of the victim’s coping behavior on bystanders’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions toward the victim. For this purpose, we integrate theory on coping with the attribution-emotion model of stigmatization (Dijker & Koomen, 2003 Dijker, A. J. M., & Koomen, W. (2003). Extending Weiner’s attribution-emotion model of stigmatization of ill persons. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 51–68. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2501_4; Weiner, Perry, & Magnusson, 1988 Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 738–748. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.738). Additionally, we examine gender effects based on the social role theory of gender differences (Eagly & Crowley, 1986 Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283–308. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283).

Coping Coping can be defined as “behaviors used to manage the internal and external demands of situations that are appraised as stressful” (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004 Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745–774. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456, p. 745). It is often construed as either approach-oriented—i.e., consisting of cognitive and behavioral efforts to address the problem—or avoidance-oriented—i.e., consisting of attempts to evade the problem (Carver, 2007 Carver, C. S. (2007). Stress, Coping, and Health. In H. S. Friedman & R. C. Silver (Eds.), Foundations of health psychology (pp. 117–144). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.; Ebata & Moos, 1991 Ebata, A. T., & Moos, R. H. (1991). Coping and adjustment in distressed and healthy adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12, 33–54. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(91)90029-4). Coping has been found to have an impact on social support (Dunkel-Schetter, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1987 Dunkel-Schetter, C., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1987). Correlates of social support receipt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 71–80. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.71). It has been shown that when observers believe individuals to be coping poorly, as compared to coping well, they experience more discomfort and anger, and have less sympathy for the individual. Moreover, they intend to provide less social support to the individual (Bos, Dijker, & Koomen, 2007 Bos, A. E. R., Dijker, A. J. M., & Koomen, W. (2007). Sex differences in emotional and behavioral responses to HIV+ individuals’ expression of distress. Psychology & Health, 22, 493–511. doi:10.1080/14768320600976257; Schreurs & De Ridder, 1997 Schreurs, K. M. G., & de Ridder, D. T. D. (1997). Integration of coping and social support perspectives: Implications for the study of adaptation to chronic diseases. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 89–112. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(96)00050-5; Schwarzer & Weiner, 1991 Schwarzer, R., & Weiner, B. (1991). Stigma controllability and coping as predictors of emotions and social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 133–140. doi:10.1177/0265407591081007; Silver, Wortman, & Crofton, 1990 Silver, R. C., Wortman, C. B., & Crofton, C. (1990). The role of coping in support provision: The self-presentational dilemma of victims of life crises. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 397–426). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.). Furthermore, people estimate the victim’s chance for improving the situation as greater for victims who they perceive to be coping well, compared to those they perceive to be coping poorly (Schwarzer & Weiner, 1991 Schwarzer, R., & Weiner, B. (1991). Stigma controllability and coping as predictors of emotions and social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 133–140. doi:10.1177/0265407591081007). People may therefore fail to recognize the need to support victims who appear to be coping well, as these victims do not signal this need (Silver et al., 1990 Silver, R. C., Wortman, C. B., & Crofton, C. (1990). The role of coping in support provision: The self-presentational dilemma of victims of life crises. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 397–426). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.) and hence appear to be more self-reliant. It is likely that the victim’s coping behavior impacts bystanders’ responses to the victim. As the literature shows, victims of workplace mobbing can cope with the mobbing in different ways (Zapf & Gross, 2001 Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 497–522. doi:10.1080/13594320143000834). On the one hand, victims can engage in avoidance coping. In doing so, they try to avoid the mobbing and move away from the problem by means of absenteeism, asking for transfer, or by leaving the organization. On the other hand, victims can engage in approach coping, whereby they try to solve the problem by confronting the bully and telling him/her to stop (Olafsson & Johannsdottir, 2004 Olafsson, R., & Johannsdottir, H. (2004). Coping with bullying in the workplace: The effect of gender, age and type of bullying. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32, 319–333. doi:10.1080/03069880410001723549). Although it has been shown that victims seldom confront the perpetrator (Salin, Tenhiälä, Roberge, & Berdahl, 2014 Salin, D., Tenhiälä, A., Roberge, M.-É., & Berdahl, J. L. (2014). ‘I wish I had…’: Target reflections on responses to workplace mistreatment. Human Relations, 67, 1189–1211. doi:10.1177/0018726713516375), but instead tend to avoid the situation (Hogh & Dofradottir, 2001 Hogh, A., & Dofradottir, A. (2001). Coping with bullying in the workplace. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 485–495. doi:10.1080/13594320143000825), approach coping is often considered the more appropriate coping response (Brodsky, 1976 Brodsky, C. M. (1976). The harassed worker. Oxford, UK: D. C. Heath & Co.; Salin et al., 2014 Salin, D., Tenhiälä, A., Roberge, M.-É., & Berdahl, J. L. (2014). ‘I wish I had…’: Target reflections on responses to workplace mistreatment. Human Relations, 67, 1189–1211. doi:10.1177/0018726713516375). Non-victims report that they would engage in approach coping themselves, if they were ever to be bullied (Rayner, 1997 Rayner, C. (1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 7, 199–208. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(199706)7:3<199::AID-CASP418>3.0.CO;2-H). Even victims regret not having been more confrontational (Salin et al., 2014 Salin, D., Tenhiälä, A., Roberge, M.-É., & Berdahl, J. L. (2014). ‘I wish I had…’: Target reflections on responses to workplace mistreatment. Human Relations, 67, 1189–1211. doi:10.1177/0018726713516375). In a classic study carried out by Brodsky (1976 Brodsky, C. M. (1976). The harassed worker. Oxford, UK: D. C. Heath & Co.), coworkers perceived victim avoidance behavior (such as asking for support or taking sick leave) as unfair, cheating, or malingering. In summary, people generally view approach coping to be an adequate reaction to workplace mobbing, and one that could lead to a decrease in the amount of mobbing. In contrast, avoidance coping is perceived as an inadequate way of coping that will not stop the mobbing. This implies that victims are believed to be able to influence the mobbing process and can therefore be held responsible for the outcome. We therefore expect bystanders to react more positively to victims showing approach coping than to victims showing avoidance coping. To explain the underlying mechanism, we use the attribution-emotion model of stigmatization, which will be described in the following paragraph.

Attribution-emotion model of stigmatization The attribution-emotion model of stigmatization (Dijker & Koomen, 2003 Dijker, A. J. M., & Koomen, W. (2003). Extending Weiner’s attribution-emotion model of stigmatization of ill persons. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 51–68. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2501_4; Weiner et al., 1988 Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 738–748. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.738) proposes that the behavior of a stigmatized person influences the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses directed at this person. More specifically, when the stigmatized condition is perceived as controllable and reversible, people attribute responsibility to the stigmatized person. Consequently, high (vs. low) perceived responsibility will evoke more anger and less sympathy, and hence less intention to help. A distinction has been made between onset and offset responsibility (Brickman et al., 1982 Brickman, P., Rabinowitz, V. C., Karuza, J. J., Coates, D., Cohn, E., & Kidder, L. (1982). Models of helping and coping. American Psychologist, 37, 368–384. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.4.368; Weiner et al., 1988 Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 738–748. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.738). Onset responsibility refers to responsibility for creating the stigmatized condition, for example, becoming obese as a result of overeating. Offset responsibility refers to responsibility for the resolution or the continuation of the stigmatized condition, for example, dieting or exercising in order to lose weight. Offset responsibility, based on the perceptions of the way a person copes with the problem, is an important predictor of negative evaluations (Black, Sokol, & Vartanian, 2014 Black, M. J., Sokol, N., & Vartanian, L. R. (2014). The effect of effort and weight controllability on perceptions of obese individuals. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 515–526. doi:10.1080/00224545.2014.953025), and of helping behavior (Karasawa, 1991 Karasawa, K. (1991). The effects of onset and offset responsibility on affects and helping judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 482–499. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00532.x; Schwarzer & Weiner, 1991 Schwarzer, R., & Weiner, B. (1991). Stigma controllability and coping as predictors of emotions and social support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 133–140. doi:10.1177/0265407591081007). In this study, we are interested in bystanders’ perceptions of the victim’s responsibility for the continuation of the mobbing; therefore, we use the term continuation responsibility rather than the term offset responsibility. By integrating the coping literature with the attribution-emotion model of stigmatization, the present study examines how the coping behavior of a victim of workplace mobbing relates to a bystander’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions toward this victim. In relation to cognition, we expect that victims showing approach (vs. avoidance) coping will be perceived to be less responsible for the continuation of the mobbing (hypothesis 1a). Furthermore, we expect that victims showing approach (vs. avoidance) coping will be perceived to be less dependent on help for resolving the situation—that is, they will be seen as more self-reliant (hypothesis 1b). In relation to emotions, we expect victims showing approach (vs. avoidance) coping to arouse less anger (hypothesis 2a), and more sympathy (hypothesis 2b), in bystanders. In relation to helping intention, we expect that continuation responsibility and perceived self-reliance will mediate the relationship between the victim’s coping behavior and bystanders’ helping intentions. We hypothesize that bystanders will attribute less continuation responsibility toward a victim showing approach (vs. avoidance) coping, and hence will feel more sympathy and less anger toward the victim. As a consequence, we expect these bystanders to show greater willingness to help the victim (hypothesis 3a). At the same time, we expect that approach (vs. avoidance) coping will decrease intended helping behavior as a consequence of the perceived self-reliance of the victim (hypothesis 3b).

Gender In mobbing situations, gender is an important factor to study because it can affect the mobbing process in several ways (Salin, 2011 Salin, D. (2011). The significance of gender for third parties’ perceptions of negative interpersonal behaviour: Labelling and explaining negative acts. Gender, Work & Organization, 18, 571–591. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00465.x; Salin & Hoel, 2013 Salin, D., & Hoel, H. (2013). Workplace bullying as a gendered phenomenon. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 235–251. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941311321187). For instance, compared to male victims, female victims of mobbing are more likely to use avoidance coping and to seek help, and are less likely to use assertive strategies (Olafsson & Johannsdottir, 2004 Olafsson, R., & Johannsdottir, H. (2004). Coping with bullying in the workplace: The effect of gender, age and type of bullying. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32, 319–333. doi:10.1080/03069880410001723549). Furthermore, as compared to men, women tend to feel more harassed (Björkqvist, Österman, & Lagerspetz, 1994 Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1994). Sex differences in covert aggression among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 27–33. doi:10.1002/1098-2337(1994)20:1<27::aid-ab2480200105>3.0.co;2-q) and to rate mobbing behavior as more severe (Escartín, Salin, & Rodríguez-Carballeira, 2011 Escartín, J., Salin, D., & Rodríguez-Carballeira, Á. (2011). Conceptualizations of workplace bullying: Gendered rather than gender neutral? Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10, 157–165. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000048). Women also tend to attribute less responsibility to the victim as compared to men (Salin, 2011 Salin, D. (2011). The significance of gender for third parties’ perceptions of negative interpersonal behaviour: Labelling and explaining negative acts. Gender, Work & Organization, 18, 571–591. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00465.x). The social role theory of gender differences (Eagly, 1987 Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.) may help to explain bystanders’ responses to the victim. According to this theory, men are expected to be dominant, controlling and assertive, and women are expected to be subordinate, cooperative, compliant to social influences, and less overtly aggressive (Eagly, Wood, & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2004 Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2004). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: Implications for the partner preferences of women and men. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (pp. 269–295). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.). Furthermore, as compared to men, women are expected to be more dependent on others (Bornstein, 1995 Bornstein, R. F. (1995). Sex differences in objective and projective dependency tests: A meta-analytic review. Assessment, 2, 319–331. doi:10.1177/1073191195002004003; Lerner, 1983 Lerner, H. E. (1983). Female dependency in context: Some theoretical and technical considerations. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53, 697–705. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1983.tb03412.x), and are perceived to be more vulnerable (Dijker, 2001 Dijker, A. J. (2001). The influence of perceived suffering and vulnerability on the experience of pity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 659–676. doi:10.1002/ejsp.54). Empirical evidence supports these notions of gender role expectations. When confronted with people with HIV displaying distress, men reported feeling more anger, less sympathy, and were less likely to engage in prosocial behavior as compared to women (Bos et al., 2007 Bos, A. E. R., Dijker, A. J. M., & Koomen, W. (2007). Sex differences in emotional and behavioral responses to HIV+ individuals’ expression of distress. Psychology & Health, 22, 493–511. doi:10.1080/14768320600976257). Furthermore, female (vs. male) victims received more sympathy and evoked a higher protective tendency. This effect was stronger for male (vs. female) perceivers (Dijker, 2001 Dijker, A. J. (2001). The influence of perceived suffering and vulnerability on the experience of pity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 659–676. doi:10.1002/ejsp.54). Based on these theoretical assumptions and empirical findings, we expect bystander gender, as well as victim gender, to affect the cognitions, emotions, and intended helping behaviors of bystanders. First, we theorize that bystanders’ reactions toward the victim will depend on their expected gender role—i.e., that the gender of the bystanders will influence their cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions toward the victim. We expect that female bystanders will react in a more other-oriented, nurturing way than male bystanders. We hypothesize that they will attribute less continuation responsibility to the victim of workplace mobbing (hypothesis 4a), show more sympathy (hypothesis 4b), less anger (hypothesis 4c), and report a greater willingness to help the victim (hypothesis 4d) toward the victim. Second, we propose that the victim’s gender will influence the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions of the bystanders. We expect female victims to evoke more supportive reactions than male victims. Specifically, as compared to male victims, we expect that female victims will be perceived to be more reliant on help in terms of solving the situation (hypothesis 5a) and evoke more sympathy (hypothesis 5b), less anger (hypothesis 5c), and more willingness to help the victim (hypothesis 5d).

Method Participants, design, and procedure Participants were working adults studying part-time at the Open University of the Netherlands (N = 161, 39.8% male, mean age 40.81 years, SD = 10.92). In 2014, 16.888 students were registered at this University, which is organized into regional study centers in various parts of the Netherlands and Belgium. Participants were recruited from classes and through social media groups of the faculties of Psychology and Management. Participants were employed in a wide range of organizations with contract hours ranging from 3 to 40 hours per week. A 3 (Coping: approach/avoidance/neutral) × 2 (Gender Victim: male/female) × 2 (Gender Bystander: male/female) randomized between-subjects design was used for this vignette study. Gender of participant was randomly assigned to six conditions (χ2 (5, N = 161) = 6.03, p = .30). By means of an online survey, participants were first presented with one of six vignettes and then requested to answer questions about their cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses toward the victim. Participants in this study acted as bystanders. Vignettes The vignettes first introduced an imaginary coworker (the victim, either female or male) who worked as an administrative assistant in the same department as the participant. The vignettes then described the ongoing negative behavior of another coworker (the perpetrator) toward this first coworker. This behavior included interrupting, belittling, ignoring the victim during informal gatherings, gossiping, and exclusion from conversations and collaborations. The perpetrator’s gender was not disclosed. Next, the vignettes presented the victim’s coping strategy as either (1) approach coping (telling the bully to stop this behavior, not allowing the bully to interrupt, and asking the perpetrator to tell things to his/her face instead of gossiping); (2) avoidance coping (avoiding the bully, taking sick leave and asking for a transfer); or (3) neutral (the vignette did not provide information on the victim’s coping strategy). Measures Ratings for all variables ranged from 1 (= “not at all”) to 7 (= “very much”). Composite scales were created by aggregating the items and averaging the scores. Manipulation checks We measured the effectiveness of the manipulation of approach coping with the item “To what extent does <male name/female name> stand up for her/himself?” and avoidance coping with “To what extent does <male name/female name> try to avoid the situation?” Dependent variables Cognitions Two cognitive variables were measured. Perceived responsibility The victim’s perceived responsibility for the continuation of the mobbing was measured with three items (α = .73): “Is <male/female> responsible for the continuation of the negative treatment by his/her coworker?”; “Does the way <male/female> reacts to the situation influence its continuation?”; and “Do you think that the way <male/female> handles the situation contributes to its continuation?” These items, adapted from those used by Steins and Weiner (1999 Steins, G., & Weiner, B. (1999). The influence of perceived responsibility and personality characteristics on the emotional and behavioral reactions to people with AIDS. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 487–495. doi:10.1080/00224549909598408), were rephrased in order to correspond to the mobbing situation. Self-reliance Perceived self-reliance of the victim was measured with two items (α = .67): “I expect that <male/female> can look after him/herself in this situation” and “I expect that <male/female> needs help from others” (reversed item). Emotions Furthermore, two emotions were assessed based on items used by Struthers, Weiner, and Allred (1998 Struthers, C. W., Weiner, B., & Allred, K. (1998). Effects of causal attributions on personnel decisions: A social motivation perspective. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 155–166. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2002_7). Sympathy Sympathy was measured with three items on how much pity, compassion and concern the participant felt toward the victim (α = .66). Anger Anger was measured with three items asking how annoyed, angered and irritated the participant felt toward the victim (α = .84). Helping Intentions Finally, helping intention was measured with three items (α = .87), assessing the probability, willingness, and confidence of the participant helping the victim (cf. Greitemeyer & Rudolph, 2003 Greitemeyer, T., & Rudolph, U. (2003). Help giving and aggression from an attributional perspective: Why and when we help or retaliate. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1069–1087. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01939.x). Analyses Hypotheses 1, 2, 4, and 5 were tested with (M)ANOVAs. For hypothesis 3, we used the PROCESS macro v2.13, model 6 for serial multiple mediation testing (Hayes, 2012 Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. White paper. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf), applying a method suitable for a multicategorical independent variable (see Hayes & Preacher, 2014 Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451–470. doi:10.1111/bmsp.12028) with 1000 bootstrap samples and 95% CI. This method yields unstandardized indirect and direct effects of one group relative to one or more reference groups. For the (M)ANOVAs, the experimental conditions were dummy coded as follows: coping (1 = neutral, 2 = avoidance, and 3 = approach), gender (0 = male, 1 = female). For the mediation analyses, the coping conditions were dummy coded with the approach coping condition serving as the reference group (see Hayes & Preacher, 2014 Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451–470. doi:10.1111/bmsp.12028).

Results Manipulation check A one-way MANOVA on approach coping and avoidance coping showed a significant effect of the coping conditions (approach, avoidance and neutral), F(4,316) = 95.42, p < .001. Univariate analysis showed that the coping conditions had a significant effect on perceived approach coping, F(2,158) = 337.38, p < .001, η p 2 = .81, and on perceived avoidance coping, F(2,158) = 83.58, p < .001, η p 2 = .51. Participants in the approach condition rated the victim’s reaction to the mobbing as more consistent with approach coping than those in the neutral (M = 6.15, SD = .66 and M = 2.60, SD = 1.04, respectively; d = 4.09) or avoidance condition (M = 2.07, SD = .98; d = 4.88). Likewise, participants in the avoidance condition rated the victim’s reaction as more consistent with avoidance coping (M = 6.09, SD = 1.35) than those in the neutral (M = 3.66, SD = 1.20; d = 1.90) or approach condition (M = 2.66, SD = 1.53; d = 2.38). LSD posthoc tests showed that the mean differences between the conditions were all significant (p < .01). These results suggest that the manipulations were successful. Cognitions A 3 (Coping condition: approach/avoidance/neutral) × 2 (Gender Victim: male/female) × 2 (Gender Bystander: male/female) MANOVA on perceived continuation responsibility and perceived self-reliance showed a main effect of coping behavior, F(4,298) = 17.69, p < .001. Univariate analyses showed a main effect of coping behavior on continuation responsibility, F(2,149) = 36.87, p < .001, η p 2 = .33. Supporting hypothesis 1a, participants attributed less continuation responsibility to the victim in the approach conditions as compared to the avoidance conditions (M = 3.09, SD = 1.07 and M = 4.88, SD = .85, respectively; Tukey post hoc, p < .001; d = 1.85), and as compared to the neutral conditions (M = 4.27, SD = 1.12; Tukey post hoc, p < .01; d = 1.08). The analyses further revealed a main effect of coping behavior on self-reliance, F(2,149) = 12.49, p < .001, η p 2 = .14. Supporting hypothesis 1b, participants attributed more self-reliance to the victim in the approach conditions as compared to the avoidance conditions (M = 4.00, SD = 1.16 and M = 2.80, SD = 1.06, respectively; Tukey post hoc, p < .001; d = 1.08), and as compared to the neutral conditions (M = 3.32, SD = 1.02; Tukey post hoc, p < .01; d = 0.62). There were no other main or interaction effects for either the continuation responsibility variable or the self-reliance variable. This implies that, in contrast to hypothesis 4a, bystander gender did not influence perceived continuation responsibility of the victim. Female participants did not attribute less continuation responsibility to the victim of workplace mobbing. Furthermore, in contrast to hypothesis 5a, victim gender did not affect the perceived self-reliance of the victim. Female victims were not perceived to be more reliant on help in order to resolve the situation. Emotions A 3 (Coping condition: approach/avoidance/neutral) × 2 (Gender Victim: male/female) × 2 (Gender Bystander: male/female) MANOVA on the emotions anger and sympathy revealed main effects of coping behavior, F(4,298) = 3.51, p < .01, participant gender, F(2,148) = 7.09, p < .01, and victim gender, F(2,148) = 3.30, p < .05. No interaction effects were found. Univariate analyses showed a main effect of coping behavior on anger, F(2,149) = 4.92, p < .01, η p 2 = .06. Confirming hypothesis 2a, participants in the approach (vs. avoidance) condition reported less anger (M = 2.01, SD = .98 and M = 2.82, SD = 1.36, respectively; Tukey post hoc, p < .01; d = 0.68). The difference between with participants in the approach and the neutral condition (M = 2.37, SD = 1.04) was not significant (Tukey post hoc, p = .28; d = 0.36). In contrast with hypothesis 2b, coping behavior had no effect on sympathy F(2,149) = 0.75, p = .47, η p 2 = .01. Univariate analyses further showed a main effect of bystander gender on sympathy, F(1,149) = 13.68, p < .001, η p 2 = .08. Supporting hypothesis 4b, women reported more sympathy with the victim than men (M = 5.57, SD = .84 and M = 5.07, SD = .76, respectively; d = 0.62). In contrast to hypothesis 4c, we found no effect of bystander gender on anger F(1,149) = .24, p = .62, η p 2 = .00. Hypothesis 5b was not supported; female victims did not evoke more sympathy than male victims F(1,149) = 0.22, p = .64, η p 2 = .00. However, there was a main effect of victim gender on anger, F(1,149) = 4.99, p < .05, η p 2 = .03. In accordance with hypothesis 5c, female victims elicited less anger than male victims. (M = 2.11, SD = 1.04 and M = 2.60, SD = 1.24, respectively). The effect size however is small (d = 0.34). Helping intention A 3 (Coping condition: approach/avoidance/neutral) × 2 (Gender Victim: male/female) × 2 (Gender Bystander: male/female) ANOVA on helping intention showed no main effect of coping behavior F(2,149) = 0.07, p = .93, η p 2 = .00. Supporting hypothesis 4d, there was a main effect of participant gender, F(1,149) = 6.55, p < .05, η p 2 = .04. Female (vs. male) participants reported more intended helping behavior (M = 5.85, SD = .82 and M = 5.50, SD = .83, respectively), with a small effect size (d = 0.42). Hypothesis 5d was not supported, as there was no main effect of victim gender on helping intentions F(1,149) = 0.28, p = .60, η p 2 = .00. However, there was an interaction effect between participant gender and victim gender, F(1,149) = 4.48, p < .05, η p 2 = .03. Further analyses showed a simple main effect of the victim gender for female participants, F(1,149) = 4.62, p < .05. Female participants reported more intended helping behavior toward the male (vs. female) victim (M = 6.04, SD = .79 and M = 5.67, SD = .81, respectively, p < .05; d = 0.46). There was no effect of victim gender for male participants. No other interaction effects were found. The mediation analyses showed the two hypothesized indirect effects of the approach coping conditions through the mediators continuation responsibility and self-reliance. Confirming hypothesis 3a, there was an indirect positive effect on helping behavior in the approach coping condition relative to the avoidance coping and neutral conditions (B = 0.07, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.18, 0.12 and B = 0.04, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.12, 0.01, respectively). Compared to participants in the avoidance and neutral conditions, participants in the approach coping condition reported less perceived continuation responsibility, which increased sympathy and hence intended helping behavior toward the victim (see Figure 1). In contrast to hypothesis 3a, anger did not serve as a mediator in this particular sequence. Workplace mobbing: How the victim’s coping behavior influences bystander responses All authors Roelie Mulder Arjan E. R. Bos Mieneke Pouwelse Karen van Dam https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1152213 Figure 1. Model outlining relationships between the victim’s coping behavior, bystanders’ emotions, and intended helping behavior, with continuation responsibility as mediator. Note. Unstandardized regression weights. D1 = effect of the approach coping condition relative to the avoidance coping condition, with D2 as control variable. D2 = effect of the approach condition relative to the neutral coping condition, with D1 as control variable. Self-reliance served as control variable. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; ns = non significance. Display full size Figure 1. Model outlining relationships between the victim’s coping behavior, bystanders’ emotions, and intended helping behavior, with continuation responsibility as mediator. Note. Unstandardized regression weights. D1 = effect of the approach coping condition relative to the avoidance coping condition, with D2 as control variable. D2 = effect of the approach condition relative to the neutral coping condition, with D1 as control variable. Self-reliance served as control variable. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; ns = non significance. In line with hypothesis 3b, the approach (vs. avoidance and neutral) conditions had an indirect negative effect on helping intention through self-reliance (B = −0.19, SE = 0.09, 95% CI = −0.04, −0.43 and B = −0.11, SE = 0.06, 95% CI = −0.02, −0.27, respectively). Relative to participants in the avoidance coping and neutral conditions, participants in the approach coping conditions reported more perceived self-reliance and hence, less helping intentions toward the victim (see Figure 2). Workplace mobbing: How the victim’s coping behavior influences bystander responses All authors Roelie Mulder Arjan E. R. Bos Mieneke Pouwelse Karen van Dam https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1152213 Figure 2. Model outlining relationships between the victim’s coping behavior, bystanders’ emotions, and intended helping, with self-reliance as mediator. Note. Unstandardized regression weights. D1 = effect of the approach coping condition relative to the avoidance coping condition, with D2 as control variable. D2 = effect of the approach condition relative to the neutral coping condition, with D1 as control variable. Continuation responsibility served as control variable. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; ns = non significance. Display full size Figure 2. Model outlining relationships between the victim’s coping behavior, bystanders’ emotions, and intended helping, with self-reliance as mediator. Note. Unstandardized regression weights. D1 = effect of the approach coping condition relative to the avoidance coping condition, with D2 as control variable. D2 = effect of the approach condition relative to the neutral coping condition, with D1 as control variable. Continuation responsibility served as control variable. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; ns = non significance.