RUNNING HEAD: WOMEN BEHAVING BADLY

Women Behaving Badly:

Exploring Relational Aggression Among Women in the Workplace

Shelly J. Hines

Department of Psychology

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the

Degree of Bachelor of Arts, Honours

Faculty of Arts

University of Prince Edward Island

Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island

May, 2010
 CERTIFICATION

I certify that this thesis has not been submitted for an

undergraduate degree to any other university or institute.

________________________________________

Shelly J. Hines
 CERTIFICATE OF EXAMINATION

for an undergraduate honours thesis submitted by

Shelly J. Hines

Thesis Title: Women Behaving Badly: Exploring Relational Aggression Among Women in the
Workplace

Examining Board Thesis Supervisor &

Examining Board Chair

___________________________ _____________________________
Stacey-Leigh macKinnon, PhD Fiona Ann Papps, PhD
Psychology Psychology

___________________________ _____________________________
Michael Arfken, PhD Date
Psychology

is accepted in partial fulfilment of the undergraduate BA Honours degree in the Department of

Psychology at the University of Prince Edward Island.
 Contents

Acknowledgments...........................................................................................................................7

Abstract..........................................................................................................................................8

Introduction..................................................................................................................................9

Defining Aggression....................................................................................................................11

Sex Differences in Aggression.....................................................................................................11

Explaining Women‟s Preference for Relational Aggression........................................................14

Relational Aggression in the Workplace......................................................................................19

Conclusions and Research Questions...........................................................................................22

Method.........................................................................................................................................23

Participants....................................................................................................................................23

Table 1..........................................................................................................................................24

Rationale for Method of Data Collection…………………………………………………….…25

Interview Schedule………………………………………………………………………….…..25

Procedure………………………………………………………………………………….…….26

Method of Analysis.......................................................................................................................27

Results and discussion................................................................................................................28

Overview of Results.....................................................................................................................28

I am a “Good Woman”: Gender Schemata...................................................................................29

Getting ahead, as long as I can still be a “good woman”: Ambition/Competition......................30

Stepping out of Line/Staying in Line: Conflict in the Workplace...............................................35

Going for it/Letting it Go: Negotiating Conflict in the Workplace.............................................38

“Maybe I‟m not so good”: Deviating from the Norm..................................................................43

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Present Study.....................................................................51

Strengths.......................................................................................................................................51

Weaknesses...................................................................................................................................51

Conclusion....................................................................................................................................52

References....................................................................................................................................54

Appendices ..................................................................................................................................65

Appendix A: Facebook Advertisement Letter…………………………………………………...65

Appendix B: Interview Schedule………………………………………………………………...66

Appendix C: Participant Information Letter……………………………………………………..71

Appendix D: Informed Consent Form……………………………………………..…………….72

Appendix E: Interview Transcripts……………………………………………………………...73

 List of Tables

Table 1: Participants.……………………………………………………………………………24
 Acknowledgments

There are a few people that I would like to acknowledge to the development of this

thesis. First, I would like to thank my family for their patience and support throughout this

process. I am grateful to the amazing women whose interest and participation in this research

continued to motivate me. I am especially thankful to Dr. Fiona Ann Papps for her guidance,

advice and mentoring from the first brainstorming sessions to the last series of revisions. It was

her support, encouragement and belief in me that helped provide the focus I needed to see this

thesis through to completion. And finally, I would like to make a special mention of my

grandmother and dearest friend Andrea who passed away before this endeavour was completed,

but whose love and beautiful spirits surround me daily and inspire me to persevere.

iv
 Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the complex social processes that represent

women‟s experiences with female workplace aggression, with particular focus on the question of

whether women in the workplace prefer to use relational forms of aggression. This purpose was

addressed using a qualitative research methodology. Ten women aged from 24 years to 62 years,

five in managerial and five in front-line positions, participated in semi-structured, face-to-face

interviews concerning their experiences of conflict and aggression in the workplace. Resultant

data were analysed inductively for themes capturing women‟s understandings of female to

female conflict and aggression women in the workplace. Themes emerging from the data

indicated that participants used gender schemata, particularly those concerning what is

appropriate feminine role performance, to guide their experiences with female to female

workplace conflict. Furthermore, data indicated that exercise of female to female aggression in

the workplace is not merely relational, but direct, and dependent upon the intersection of gender

schemata and contextual factors, such as power. Overall, then, the present research points to

complexities in the understanding and expression of female-to –female aggression in the

workplace that to date, has been underexplored.

Women Behaving Badly: Exploring Relational Aggression Among Women in the Workplace

Introduction

One of the most important social groups with whom we spend much of our time is the

network of fellow employees at work. Statistics Canada reports that Canadian employees spend

at least 1778 hours on average per year in the workplace environment (www.statcan.gc.ca). It

would therefore not seem unusual that good relationships between employees would constitute a

basis for well-being in individuals. However, good relationships among workers are not always a

reality. For example, in a study of workplace aggression, Bjorqkvist, Osterman and Lagerspetz

(1994) concluded that workplace harassment is a serious problem, severely affecting the lives of

those who are exposed to it. In Sweden, a country with 9 million inhabitants, it is estimated that

100-300 people commit suicide yearly as a result of harassment by colleagues. Every 6th to 8th

suicide is directly related to work harassment (Leymann, 1986). Work harassment is thus a form

of interpersonal aggression which is at least as harmful as violence in the traditional sense.

However, every act of aggression that takes place in a work setting is not necessarily harassment.

Indeed, people can harm each other in many ways. According to Buss (1995), aggressive

acts can be categorized into sets of dichotomies such as personal-social, active-passive, direct-

indirect, physical-verbal, and overt-covert (Kaukiainen, Salmivalli, Björkqvist, Österman,

Lahtinen, Kostamo, & Lagerspetz, 2001). Direct means of aggression take place in face-to-face

situations while indirect aggression is delivered to the victim “via the negative reactions of

others; the victim gets into trouble at the end of a chain of mediating events and people” (Buss,

1961, p. 8).

The study of female aggression as a phenomenon in itself has only recently begun to

receive due attention. Buss (1961) claimed that women are so seldom aggressive, that female
aggression is not worth the trouble of study. According to his view (at that time), aggression is

typically a male phenomenon. Olweus (1978), who investigated bullying among adolescent

school children, was similarly of the opinion that bullying occurs so rarely among female

adolescents that he excluded girls as participants from his research (Bjorqkvist, 1994). In the last

ten years, popular media has focused attention towards female aggression through films such as

Mean Girls (2004), and accounts of girl culture as found in Queen Bees and Wannabes

(Wiseman, 2003), and several studies have started to focus on adolescent women and a

preference for indirect forms of aggression that extends into adulthood (Bjorkqvist, 1994;

Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz & Kaukianen, 1992; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988; Crick,

1995; Crick & Groepeter, 1995; Crick, Casses & Mosher, 1997; Galen & Underwood, 1997). To

date, however, there is limited research on adult women‟s preference for indirect aggression, and

particularly, relational aggression in the workplace. Therefore, the aim of the present study will

be to address this gap and examine relational aggression among women in the workplace. In

particular, it will focus on the expression of relational aggression among frontline and

managerial female workers. This focus is deemed important given that in the U.S. the number of

working women has risen from 5.1 million in 1900, to 18.4 million in 1950, to 65.7 million in

2005. The number of working women is projected to reach nearly 76 million by 2014 (www.pay

equity.org). Given these numbers, aggression among women in the workplace, then, constitutes a

significant social problem that needs to be addressed.

Defining aggression

Aggression has been defined as behaviour with the immediate intent to cause harm to

another individual (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Previously, research on aggression was

concerned with overt forms of physical aggression and verbal harm, usually perpetrated by males

(Owens, Slee, & Shute, 2000). However, more recent research has been focused on the

examination of covert or indirect forms of aggression, usually associated with girls and

adolescent women. Indirect aggression is defined as verbal rejection, negative facial gestures,

slanderous rumours or social exclusion from a group. It also includes criticism and questioning

judgment (Dettinger & Hart, 2007).

One form of indirect aggression that has received much attention since the release of the

popular film, Mean Girls (2004), is relational aggression. Relational aggression has been

described as the use of relationships to inflict emotional pain on another person (Galen &

Underwood, 1997). Crick and other researchers (Crick, 1995; Crick, 1996; Crick & Gropeter,

1996; Crick & Bigsbee, 1998) define this type of aggression as harming others through

damaging or threatening peer relationships. Examples of relational forms of aggression include

excluding a member of a group or threatening to destroy a relationship as a means of exhibiting

control. Crick and Gropeter (1995) further define it as a manipulation of friendship patterns, such

as telling others they will not like them if they do not do something and excluding others from

activities.

Sex Differences in Aggression

Sex differences in regard to aggressive styles appear during all stages of life: childhood,

adolescence and adulthood. Much of the social scientific literature on women‟s aggression has

been couched within a sex-difference or evolutionary framework (Burbank, 1994). This work has
consistently concluded that aggression and violence are predominantly male or masculine traits

(Ember, 1981; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Rohner, 1976; Whiting & Edwards, 1973; Wilson,

1975) thereby reinforcing women as the „Other‟, non-aggressive sex (White & Kowalski, 1994).

The claim that human males are more aggressive than females (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974)

appears, however, to be false, and a consequence of narrow definitions of aggression in previous

research with a predominant emphasis on physical aggression (Bjorkqvist, et al., 1994).

Sex differences and the developmental course are affected by the social norms of the

society in question (Bjorkqvist & Niemela, 1992; Burbank, 1987; Cook, 1992; Fry, 1988, 1990,

1992; Glazer, 1992; Kuschel, 1988, 1992). A certain amount of physical aggression is usually

considered acceptable among young boys but not among girls (Cook, 1992). Because societal

and cultural norms teach boys and girls to behave differently from a very young age (Agars,

2004; Mooney, 2005; Raymond, 2001; Valian, 1998), the behaviors that are considered socially

acceptable for boys are very different from the socially acceptable behaviors prescribed for girls.

Boys learn through their toys, games and male role models that physical aggression,

outspokenness, strength, and power are all standard masculine behaviors. Alternatively, girls are

taught through similar methods that quietness, reservation, nurturance, and equality are all part of

socially acceptable feminine behaviors (Mooney, 2005). Even if people feel that they are

resistant to gender schemata and the impacts that such schemata have on how they behave, the

gender specific lessons to which children are subjected in every aspect of their childhood often

continue throughout adulthood. Valian (1998, p. 30) demonstrated this perspective when she

stated:

Everyone, it appears, is likely to be affected – deeply and nonconsciously – by their

culture‟s view of what it means to be male and female. Even people who consciously
 espouse egalitarian beliefs do not realize how profoundly they have internalized their

culture‟s norms.

Of course, the implications of this differential situation is that females should resort to verbal

and, especially indirect means of aggression rather than to physical means, using physical

violence only when absolutely necessary (Bjorkqvist, et al., 1994).

Several studies support women‟s greater use of indirect aggression in comparison with

men. Indeed, indirect aggression is typical among a range of females across cultures (Bjorkqvist,

1994; Bjorkqvist et al., 1992; Crick, 1995; Crick & Groepeter, 1995; Crick et al., 1997., Galen &

Underwood, 1997, Lagerspetz et al., 1988.). In Finland, Bjorkqvist and others (Bjorkqvist, 1994;

Bjorkqvist et al., 1992; Lagerspetz et al., 1988) developed a scale to measure direct and indirect

aggression (the DIAS) and conducted a series of studies which consistently found that girls

preferred indirect aggression over more physical forms of direct aggression. In the United States,

Crick and colleagues, (Crick, 1995; Crick & Groepeter, 1995; Crick et al., 1997) developed their

own scale to measure relational aggression, and found similar results; that females prefer to use

indirect forms of aggression, particularly relational aggression, rather than overt forms.

Research framed within an evolutionary sex difference perspective suggests that it is

women‟s lesser physical strength (and not their socialization) that leads them to use significantly

greater levels of indirect and relational aggression than men. Bjorkqvist et al. (1994), rationalize

the differences between the sexes by discussing the effect/danger ratio. They state:

The effect/danger ratio is an expression of the subjective estimation of the likely

consequences of an aggressive act. The aggressor assesses the relation between a) the

effect of the intended strategy, and b) the dangers involved, physical, psychological or

social, for him/herself, and for people important to him/her. The objective is to find a
 technique that will be effective and, at the same time, incur as little danger as possible.

The aggressor tries to maximize the effect, and to minimize the risks involved (pg. 29).

The effect/danger ratio facilitates the understanding of both sex differences and

developmental stages in regard to aggressive style and can be applied to a wide variety of

circumstances and personal differences. However, as discussed, a socialization perspective

would suggest that socialization into norms for appropriate masculine and feminine performance

in a particular culture would be responsible for sex differences observed in aggression,

particularly women‟s preference for relational aggression. This latter perspective has been

further developed by feminist identity theorists.

Explaining women’s preference for relational aggression

Aggression and violence during childhood and adolescence have been the focus of much

research over the past several decades (Loeber & Hay, 1997; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber,

1998; Olweus, 1979; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992; Zumkley, 1994), and researchers have

consistently demonstrated that serious forms of aggression remain relatively stable from

childhood through adulthood. However, Loeber and Hay (1997) argue that minor forms of

aggression might have their onset during early or late adolescence. Adolescents, seeking

autonomy from their parents, turn to their peers to discuss problems, feelings, fears, and doubts,

thereby increasing the salience of time spent with friends (Sebald, 1992; Youniss & Smollar,

1985). However, this reliance on peers for social support is coupled with increasing pressures to

attain social status (Corsaro & Eder, 1990; Eder, 1985). It is during adolescence that peer groups

become stratified and issues of acceptance and popularity grow increasingly important. Research

indicates, for example, that toughness and aggressiveness are important status considerations for

males, while appearance is a central factor of social status among females (Eder, 1995). At the
same time, the process of gender intensification ensures that adolescent women in western

cultural groups adhere to norms for femininity, which require them to be “nice.” Given that

“nice” girls do not engage in acts of direct aggression against others, it is hardly surprising, then,

that adolescent girls use more indirect strategies in order to achieve and maintain popularity.

Popular attention was first directed to adolescent women‟s greater preference for

relational aggression through the film, Mean Girls (2004), even though the 1980s film, Heathers,

concerned similar issues. Mean Girls is loosely based on Rosalind Wiseman‟s (2003) guide to

“helping your daughter survive cliques, gossip, boyfriends, and other realities of adolescence,”

Queen Bees and Wannabes. In Mean Girls (2004), the primary character, Cady, is the new girl

trying to figure out her place in a new school. Cady first makes friends with two „Geeks‟ who

encourage her to make false friendships with “The Plastics”, who are known to be the most

popular and beautiful girls in the school. Cady wants to fit in and is faced with the dilemma of

now having friends from two different worlds. To keep them as friends she must do things she

has never done before, such as being deceitful, scheming, and finally untrustworthy. This

pressure to obtain peer acceptance and status is represented in the film as associated with an

increase in aggression to demonstrate superiority over peers.

Since the film Mean Girls (2004), attention given to the “Mean Girls phenomenon” has

exploded. Moreover, this attention is moving past adolescence and into the adult world,

consistent with research that shows that, contrary to original arguments (Owens, 1996), relational

aggression is indeed used by adult women, not merely adolescent women (Loeber & Hay, 1997;

Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998; Olweus, 1979; Patterson, et al., 1992; Zumkley, 1994). The

challenge for researchers, then, has been to explain the preference for this type of aggression

among women, and its persistence over the lifespan. One focus of the research has been to
consider the ways in which women are socialized into gendered subjectivities as significant in

shaping the form of aggression displayed and the contexts in which it is displayed.

In her 1982 book, In a Different Voice, Carol Gilligan drew on the work of Nancy

Chodorow to frame an argument that women‟s moral judgements favoured a care perspective,

whereas men‟s moral judgements favoured a social justice perspective. From Gilligan‟s

arguments, identity theorists such as Ruthellen Josselsen (1998), have suggested that women

tend to privilege connections and relatedness in developing an identity, whereas men tend to

privilege individuality, competition, and power in developing an identity. For many white middle

class women, then, gendered subjectivity is grounded in understandings that to be a “woman” is

to be caring and supportive of others. That is, to be evaluated as a “woman” and a “good”

woman, women must not be outwardly aggressive. Consequently, because women‟s identities

focus on nurturing, to express direct aggression is evaluated as conflicting with what it means to

be a woman, and so hostility is expressed in ways less open and less explicit – that is, through

relationships. In a study examining the role of gender identity and relational aggression

(Crothers, Field & Colbert, 2005), girls with traditional feminine gender identities match their

preferences, attitudes, behaviours, and personal attributes with traditional feminine gender

schema (Bem, 1981). Such gender role constructions (O‟Neal & Egan, 1993) involve restricting

the emotional expression of anger, since voicing one‟s feelings may result in hurting others

(Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger & Tarule, 1997). Because girls are expected to maintain

harmonious relationships with others, if they are concerned about the potential negative impact

of the expression of anger on others, they will likely temper their reactions (Hatch & Forgays,

2001). Thus, because directness and overt confrontation are not consistent with a feminine

gender identity, girls adhering to such standards are forced to use more manipulative and covert
means of expressing anger, resolving conflict, and establishing dominance (Bem, 1981). Indeed,

using relational aggression may be the only means that girls have to prevent the social goals of

persons whom they dislike (Dettinger & Hart, 2007), simultaneously maintaining their own

popularity and a belief that they are “nice” and “good.” As Sutphen (2002, p. 10) notes:

Perhaps girls don‟t necessarily want to be mean, they just want to be. „Be‟ in the sense

of personal power, the kind that everybody wants.

Connected with identity perspectives on women‟s greater preference for relational

aggression are perspectives that focus on women‟s self-esteem. Jessica Valenti (2008) has

observed that femininity and power are frequently represented in popular media as being

incompatible. Consequently, women who desire power or desire to maintain their status may

need to find ways of obtaining their goals that do not interrupt their self-understandings as

“feminine” and therefore, nice, good, and desirable. This position is evident in Cowan and

Ullman‟s (2006) projection theory.

In projection theory, Cowan and Ullman (2006) posit that women who have a sense of

personal inadequacy, that is, a perception of a lack of personal power, may project their negative

sense of self onto other women. In addition to a sense of personal inadequacy, an underlying

assumption is that other women serve as comparison persons (Major, 1994) and likely targets of

competition. Women who feel competent and in control of their lives may experience less threat

from other women (Cowan, Neighbors, DeLaMoreaux, & Behnke, 1998) and consequently

experience less desire to compete with and criticize other women. Crocker and Park (2004)

suggested that striving for self-esteem can lead to the desire to be superior to other women,

hence leading to competition with other women.

 What is suggested by this research is that women with lower self-esteem are those who

are more likely to aggress relationally, because of their subscription to standards of normative

femininity (Dellasega, 2005). Such feelings of inner self-doubt and inferiority may then prompt

these women to lash out against other women, possibly as a way of gaining esteem or simply

because they have nothing to lose.

However, other researchers, such as Baumeister, Bushman, and Campbell (2000) dispute

this view, and posit that the link between self-regard and aggression is best captured by the

theory of threatened egotism, which depicts aggression as a means of defending a highly

favourable view of self against someone who seeks to undermine or discredit that view. People

with low self-esteem lack confidence of success, whereas aggression is usually undertaken in the

expectation of defeating the other person. Low self-esteem involves submitting to influence,

whereas aggression is often engaged in to resist and reject external influence. Perhaps most

relevant, people with low self-esteem are confused and uncertain about who they are, whereas

aggression is likely to be an attempt to defend and assert a strongly held opinion about oneself.

As well, Baumeister, Smart, and Boden (1996), propose that violence tends to result from very

positive views of self that are threatened by others. In this analysis, hostile aggression was an

expression of the self‟s rejection of esteem-threatening evaluations received from other people

(Baumeister, et al., 2000). According to this perspective, those women who have more positive

self-views may be those who are more likely to aggress. This perspective would suggest that the

women who are in positions of power may respond to other women aggressively, in order for

them to maintain their position of power. Indeed, research cited by Dellasega (2005) would

support this interpretation, as it is the “Queen Bees” who are most likely to aggress against the

“Wannabees” in the peer hierarchy of the school. However, simply because women are in
positions of power does not mean that they are able to abandon their gendered subjectivities.

Thus, it might be expected that even when women have positive views of self and are in

positions of power, the clash between their views of self and their gendered subjectivities causes

them considerable discomfort. Indeed, Sutphen (2002, p. 10) observed these patterns of

behaviour among women in the workplace, reporting that because power through another is all

that women know, women “are often ill prepared to support one another as some gain access to

public power on their own” (pg. 10).

Relational Aggression in the Workplace

Neuman and Baron (1996) and Geddes and Baron (1997) found that in workplace

settings, verbal and passive forms of aggression were rated to occur more frequently than

physical and active forms of aggression (Kaukiainen et al, 2001). Although workplace

aggression has received little attention or research, there is evidence however, that such

behaviour is increasingly being recognized as a major occupational stressor (Lewis, 2006).

Workplace aggression impacts negatively on targets‟ mental and physical health, with well

documented psychological effects including symptoms consistent with stress (Mikkelsen &

Einarsen, 2001), anxiety (Leymann, 1990; Niedl, 1996), post-traumatic stress disorder, and

depression (Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Hjelt-Back, 1994; Groeblinghoff & Becker, 1996; Leyman

& Gustaffson, 1996; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002).

Since more women are working outside the home than ever before (e.g., approximately

95% of American women work outside the home at some point in their lives, and women

comprise approximately 46% of the total United States workforce [Crawford & Unger, 2004]),

investigating the contexts that contribute to the perpetration of indirect aggression among women

in the workplace, and the effects of such aggression on other women, seems crucial.
 Within the last ten years, there has been a movement to increase the understanding of

indirect aggression and how it applies to women in their culture (Dettinger & Hart, 2007). In the

United States, women are the majority (56.3%) of workers in the occupational category expected

to grow most rapidly: the professional and related occupations, which are expected to increase by

more than 21.2% from 2004–2014 (Hecker, 2005). As the number of women pursuing

professional careers increases, there is bound to be some level of competition among them in the

workplace. Indeed, both women and men are capable of verbal and emotional bullying

behaviour; the Workplace Bullying and Trauma Institute research shows that women comprise

58 percent of the perpetrator pool, while men represent 42 percent. Research also shows that

when the targeted person is a woman, she is bullied by a woman in 63 percent of cases. Most

bullying is same-sex harassment which is ignored by laws and employer policies. Overall,

women comprise 80% of bullied employees. In fact, WBTI research shows that half of all

bullying is woman-on-woman. Unless the target enjoys protected status based on race, ethnicity,

religion or disability, it is not likely that the current laws will provide the target with legal

recourse. Without laws, employers are reluctant to recognize, let alone correct or prevent,

destructive behaviour, preferring to minimize it as “personality clashes” (Namie, 2003).

Competitiveness among women in the workplace can be explained by a phenomenon

called horizontal hostility. The term, “horizontal hostility”, was coined by Florynce Kennedy, in

her 1970 paper, “Institutionalized Oppression vs. the Female”, printed in the anthology edited by

Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful (Penelope, 1992). Horizontal hostility is a form of power-

as-domination between and among women. One of the top goals of the women‟s movement was

fighting for equality with men. In that context, women were in direct competition with men,

especially within the corporate sector. Yet, while some women were out fighting “the man” and
attempting to level the playing field within patriarchal institutions, other women sought to

advance themselves by undermining female coworkers through the use of rumours and sabotage;

that is, through the use of what has now been termed relational aggression. As a result of these

dual and competing strategies in the quest for the limited number of top level management

positions, women failed to realize that they may be competing not only against men but also

against other women. Female vs. female competition may have a strong impact on women‟s

professional careers. Well-documented obstacles and limitations can negatively affect women‟s

self-concept in terms of their abilities at work (McKenna, Smith, Poole, & Coverdale, 2003;

Phillips & Imhoff, 1997). In turn, women‟s lowered self-concept is often internalized and the

resulting negative feelings and perceptions may compel them to engage in horizontal hostility

(Thompson, 1993). This explanation is consistent with Cowan and Ullman‟s (2006) projection

theory and suggests that motivations for relational aggression may be context dependent. This

suggestion arises, as it appears that in the school system, female to female relational aggression

is motivated by the need to maintain a position at the top of the peer hierarchy (Dellasega, 2005)

– a type of threatened egotism that is at the centre of Baumeister et al‟s (2000) arguments

concerning relational aggression.

One of the major impacts that the process of horizontal hostility has upon women is that

it divides them and prevents them from working together to build alliances needed to fight

oppression (Blasingame, 1995; Passman, 1993; Penelope, 1992). The oppression exerted by

members of the dominant group is learned by members of marginalized groups, who, in turn,

oppress each other, continuing their victimization (Kennedy, 1970; Penelope, 1992; Pharr, 1988).

Another reason that women engage in horizontal hostility is because they fear retribution by

members of the dominant culture for seeking to share power with the dominant culture. It is
much safer for oppressed group members to express their feelings of fear, anger and frustration

toward those of equal or lesser status than it is to express these feelings towards those oppressing

them (Ostenson, 1999; Pharr, 1988). This perspective again supports Cowan and Ullman‟s

projection theory (2006), suggesting that in the workplace, women with lesser power will be

those most likely to aggress relationally.

Conclusions and Research Questions

Research has indicated that women are just as capable of displaying acts of aggression as

men, only they prefer indirect or relational forms such as verbal rejection, negative facial

gestures, slanderous rumours, criticism, questioning judgement and/or social exclusion from a

group (Dettinger & Hart, 2007). There have been those who suggest that relational aggression

among women does not extend past adolescence (Owens, 1996), while other research implies

that forms of relational aggression extend well into adulthood (Loeber & Hay, 1997; Loeber &

Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998; Olweus, 1979; Patterson, et al., 1992; Zumkley, 1994).

Although various perspectives have been used to account for the expression of aggression

among women, the foregoing discussion suggests that there may be an undercurrent of

competitiveness that underlies female-female relationships. This covert competition, arising from

understandings of power as being power through another, manifests in covert forms of

aggression such as undermining, manipulation and betrayal (Dellasega, 2005). Ultimately

responsible for women‟s greater use of relational aggression is women‟s socialization into

gender roles that elevate connectedness over other ways of being, and the centrality of

“niceness” to femininity, thus preventing the overt expression of hostility. Relatedly, threatened

egotism perspectives suggest that it is a threat to positive self-regard and popularity among

women that motivates female-to-female aggression, accounting for the greater perpetration of
relational aggression by the most popular female adolescents. In the workplace , however, it

seems that such relational aggression is motivated by negative self-concept and the desire to

obtain power. Overall what stimulates both the rivalry and its form, however, is unclear,

although it has been suggested that it is an attempt to gain personal power in a patriarchal society

that does not give power to women, or gives them a limited power through being with another,

that is, a male (Sutphen, 2002). What is also unclear is how women themselves experience and

enact relational aggression, and how these experiences and enactments are manifested in the

social context of the workplace. Consequently, the present research aims to explore these issues

using a qualitative inductive approach, to enable women to articulate their experiences with

relational aggression in the workplace using their own words (Sandfield & Percy, 2003).

Method

Participants

Given the nature of the research questions posed by the present study, a convenience

sample and purposive sample was used. Women who were willing to participate were recruited

from an advertisement placed on the internet website Facebook (See Appendix A for

advertisement). A final sample of ten women was attained. The final sample used in the present

study includes ten women ranging in age from 24 to 62 years, with a mean age of 40 years. Nine

of these participants were currently employed and one woman was retired for 2 years.

The majority of the women in the sample had high educational qualifications, with four

completing a university degree and five completing a college program. Of the ten women in the

final sample, the occupations varied, three were in administrative positions, one was a nurse, one

a principal, one a guidance counselor, one a lawyer, one a youth worker, one in hospitality and

one in retail services. All of the women were Canadian and Caucasian. In order to assist the
reader in identifying participants, excerpts from participants‟ self-descriptions are listed in Table

1.

Table 1: Participants

Pseudonym Age Employment Details

Wanda 42 Information Manager – 15yrs. (frontline)

Grace 62 Administrative Assistant – 22yrs. (frontline)

Carla 41 Registered Nurse – 20yrs. (frontline)

Karen 41 Youth Services – 10yrs. (frontline)

Laura 42 Lawyer – 12 yrs. (supervision)

Rhonda 53 Hospitality Industry – 10yrs. (supervision)

Jayne 38 Guidance Counsellor – 10yrs. (supervision)

Anne 58 School Administrator – 27yrs. (supervision)

Linda-Lou 42 Administrative Assistant – 11yrs. (frontline)

Vicky 24 Retail Industry – 7yrs. (supervision)

Rationale for Method of Data Collection

The main objective of the present study is to examine the women‟s understandings and

enactments of relational aggression in the workplace. The following issues will be examined in

the present research: how and why women experience relational aggression in the workplace,

and how they deal with the conflict that generates and results from acts of aggression.

Because of the foci of the present study, and its intention to explore relational aggression

in the workplace as it is experienced by women, semi-structured interviews is the method

selected by the researcher as being the most appropriate means of collecting data for the present

study.

According to Jack and Anderson (1991) the interview is a significant instrument for

collecting data because it reflects an individual‟s experience. The interview is focused on

particular content areas, thus allowing a naturalistic conversational exchange, through which to

collect women‟s accounts of relational aggression in the workplace. This type of collaborative

approach allows the formation of a relationship between the researcher and the respondent.

Therefore, use of the interview method in the present study will first enable access to the ways in

which each woman makes meaning from her experiences with relational aggression in the

workplace, and second, provide information that will enable the researcher to discern the

discourses and themes that are used by (some) women in this process of meaning making.

Interview Schedule

In order to explore each participant‟s perceptions of women in the workplace and

experiences with indirect aggression, a twelve item interview schedule was devised. These

twelve items were written based upon themes identified in the review of the literature as

presented in the introduction to this thesis; the link between women and relational aggression,
the effects of relational aggression on women‟s lives and characteristics of relational aggression

in women‟s working relationships. In addition, further questions focused on gender schemata and

women‟s expectations of each other. The interview schedule used in the final study was at times

modified in response to feedback from the participants after the interview process. For a copy of

the final interview schedule used in the present study, see Appendix B.

Procedure

After receiving ethics approval for the present study from the Department of Psychology

Research Ethics Committee at the University of Prince Edward Island, participants were

recruited as outlined in the Participants section. After reading an information letter about the

study (see Appendix C for a copy of the Information Letter provided to each intending

participant), women who agreed to participate provided the researcher with their names and

contact details. These women were then contacted by the researcher to arrange at a time at which

they were able and willing to be interviewed. Participants were given a copy of the questions

comprising the interview schedule a week prior to commencing the interview, and were

instructed to read through the questions, and remove any with which they were uncomfortable.

Interviews were conducted in locations selected by the participant. Before each participant was

interviewed, she was required to sign a form giving her informed consent for participation in the

study (see Appendix D for a copy of the Informed Consent Form used in the present study).

Participants were also advised that any publications regarding the research study would protect

their names and personal information, that they were free to withdraw from the study at any time

without penalty and without having to explain their reasons for discontinuance, that they were

free not to answer any question with which they felt uncomfortable, that they could contact the
researcher for access to the results from the study, and that they would be notified of any

publication of the results of the study.

One semi-structured interview was conducted with each participant. Interviews

commenced with some structured demographic questions, to collect information on the

characteristics of the sample, and to establish rapport with each participant. Interviews were then

commenced, using a semi-structured format. This format allowed for interviewer-participant

interaction as well as facilitating open-ended discussion. Participants were given the opportunity

to elaborate on their answers and any questions that showed ambivalence were followed with

other questions intended to add more relevant information and/or clarify any misunderstandings

for the researcher. All interviews were audio-taped and fully transcribed for analysis. Complete

interview transcripts are available in Appendix E.

Method of Analysis

The research approach adopted in the present study is qualitative in emphasis, combining

an interest in documenting the women‟s thoughts, ideas, and opinions about experiences with

relational aggression from or against other women in the workplace with an analysis of the ways

in which gender and role identity were subjectively understood and constructed by the

participants.

The transcripts resulting from the interviews conducted in the present study were,

therefore, analyzed in two ways. First, themes grounded in the raw data were identified. Themes

were defined as units of meaning that recurred either within one interview transcript or across

two or more interview transcripts, which cohered around a common conceptual issue (Leavy,

2000; Martin, 1990).

 Second, transcripts were then analyzed for the operation and use of schemata about

gender role and appropriate gender performance. Existence of gender schema was inferred from

interpretive analysis of themes identified from the interviews. Moreover, contradictions and

ambivalence about specific issues and absences or silences in the interviews were used to suggest

the existence of taken for granted assumptions around gender and gender performance.

Consequently, the experiences of relational aggression in the workplace by female workers, was

interpreted and represented through the networks of themes and gendered assumptions that each

woman used to frame her experiences.

Results and Discussion

Overview of Results

The purpose of this study was to determine if relational aggression was used among

women in the workplace and to learn what specific behaviours women associated with relational

aggression. More specifically, using face-to-face interviews participants were asked to discuss

their interactions, relationships and experiences with other women, highlighting and describing

specific instances of conflict, competition and other repercussions associated with relational

aggression. Participants also were asked to reflect on and describe the strategies and behaviours

they engaged in to deal with the difficult situations they experienced with other women in the

workplace.

The experiences participants described were analyzed and categorized according to the

themes and assumptions that provided answers to the following research questions: first, do

women experience relational aggression in the workplace and second, how do women negotiate

conflict that generates and results from acts of relational aggression. Results are presented as

follows. First, gender schemata with which the women operated are identified. Second, the

circumstances in which women used relational aggression in the workplace are identified. Third,
how women negotiated these circumstances is discussed. Fourth and finally, what the women

noted as consequences for deviating from the schema of “the good woman” is considered.

I am a “Good Woman”: Gender Schemata

In order to tap into the gender schemata used by women, a question was posed that asked

them to reflect on what they would consider their personal strengths at work. All ten of the

women discussed their personal strengths in relation to how well they connected to others. The

following quotations are representative:

Grace: “My compassion for the clients and advocating for their rights with the welfare

system programs, to ensure that the clients were treated fairly with the appeals board and

financial workers”.

Interviewer: “You had mentioned loyalty, would you consider this a personal

strength”?

Grace: “Oh yes, I was loyal to my employer, but especially to those clients I felt needed

taking care of”.

Another example:

Anne: “I think my ability to listen and communicate. To understand where people are

coming from. I think I‟m very patient, I understand that the things that I want can‟t

happen overnight. I‟ve always been one that welcomes change and it‟s being patient

enough and waiting for people to come along with me” (56-60).

These quotations support the interpretation that the women in the present study are

adhering to the discourse of what it means to be a “good woman”. These women indicate that for

them, a “good woman” is compassionate, loyal, understanding, patient, listens, communicates

well, and is good humoured (that is, not bad humoured, or expressive of negative emotions, such
as anger). As discussed in the introduction, identity theorist Ruthellen Josselsen (1998) suggested

that women tend to privilege connections and relatedness in developing an identity and that for

many women, gendered subjectivity is grounded in understandings that to be a “woman” is to be

caring and supportive of others. This construction of femininity was so central to identities of the

women in the present study that they performed the “good woman” role in their workplaces –

even though such a performance could be disadvantageous to their jobs. For example,

compassion for others and taking care of their needs will not necessarily achieve a promotion

(Moss, 2006). Indeed in her exploration of gender challenges in academia, Glazer-Raymo (2008)

observes that academic women are frequently disadvantaged by their engagement in service

work, work that assumes some adherence to the “good woman” schema, since “production of

knowledge” (or scholarship) is what is used to assess success, rather than any “work” associated

with care, compassion, and nurturing.

Despite the possibility of relative disadvantage in the workplace, for many women,

feminine performance that violates or deviates from the “good woman” script raises anxieties, an

issue that will become evident in discussing women‟s understanding of ambition and

competition.

Getting ahead, as long as I can still be a “good woman”: Ambition/Competition

When participants were asked to describe characteristics of an ambitious woman/person,

being goal-oriented, completing a task successfully, the desire to learn, striving to succeed, doing

your best, being open to ideas, visionary, not afraid of challenges, eager to please, were

statements that were common. When the participants were asked if they considered themselves

to be ambitious, each one replied with a positive or yes response, for example:

Interviewer: “What would you consider characteristics of an ambitious woman”?

 Karen: “Someone who strives for something, who tries to better herself‟.

Interviewer: “Do you consider yourself to be an ambitious person”?

Karen: “I do, yes”.

Interviewer: “Why‟?

Karen: “Because I want those things for myself, I always want to better my

situation” (27-31).

When participants were also asked to describe characteristics of a competitive

woman/person, some of the qualities described were wanting to win at any cost, doing that little

bit extra to accomplish a goal, fighting harder (than/for), having to be right, being driven,

wanting to be the best, wanting to be noticed and not caring about peers. In comparison with

responses concerning ambition, when asked if the participants described themselves as

competitive, the replies were varied. Five of the women responded to the question with a

negative response. For example:

Interviewer: “How would you describe the characteristics of a competitive

person”?

Anne: “I think someone who wants to be noticed is my idea of a competitive

person. They want to win, I don‟t necessarily think that competition is healthy unless it

is healthy within yourself. When I think of a competitive person, I think of sports and

winning at all costs, I think of people that would walk over the top of someone else to

win”.

Interviewer: “So you would attach a lot of negative meaning to the word competition”?

Anne: “Yes, yes”...

Interviewer: “Would you consider yourself to be competitive at all”?

 Anne: “I‟d definitely have to say no to that one” (43-53).

Anne is the only participant of these who is in a position of management, implying that

four of the five front-line workers see themselves as not competitive. She makes the statement

that competition involves “walking over the top of someone to win”, indicating that competition

involves a violation of equality, and that being a “good woman” means adhering to equality, in

turn fostering connection.

Three of the participants noted ambivalence when describing themselves as being

competitive. Two of these participants were in managerial positions, and one, Linda-Lou, was in

a front-line position. Overall, these women indicated that they can be competitive at times and

under certain circumstances. Lind-Lou‟s response is exemplary.

Interviewer: “Could you describe what you would consider characteristics of a

competitive woman”?

Linda-Lou: “In the workplace, it can get a little ugly. I‟d say a woman who is

competitive at work wouldn‟t care about her peers or co-workers. She would want to get

her own needs met regardless of everyone else around her. I guess she would do

whatever to get ahead, that‟s what I would consider a competitive woman”.

Interviewer: “Right”...

Linda-Lou: “Outside of work, I don‟t see a problem. I think it‟s great if you want

to be competitive in sports or love a good game and want to win”.

Interviewer: “Would you consider yourself to be a competitive woman”?

Linda-Lou: “I‟m competitive outside of work, but in the workplace I prefer to work as a

team. I have just seen too much competition at work and it‟s too disruptive and downright

ugly” (51-67).
 For Linda-Lou, her understanding of competition is that it is not a quality appropriate for

the workplace. She describes competition as “ugly” and notes that in order to be competitive,

you need to be non-caring or selfish. These statements suggest that for Linda-Lou, competition in

the workplace means deviating from what it means to be a “good woman,” since being

competitive involves the more masculine focus on the self.

There were two participants who indicated that they were competitive. Interestingly, both

of these participants worked in managerial positions. For Jayne, competition is a quality that

seems to cause her a certain amount of conflict, both within herself and her environment. She

states:

Interviewer: “Could you describe characteristics of a competitive person?

Jayne: Oh God, got a mirror? Someone who wants to be right, can‟t handle

criticism well. It‟s very important to be on top and to be the best”.

Interviewer: “Would you consider yourself to be a competitive person”?

Jayne: “Oh just a little...to a fault”.

Interviewer: “Would you consider having a competitive nature to be positive or

negative”?

Jayne: “I think it can be positive to some degree, having a competitive spirit can keep

you motivated and push you beyond what you thought was possible. I think that it gets

negative when you want that at any cost. I guess I was describing some of the

characteristics about my own competitive personality that can be challenging sometimes”

(40-49).

The mere fact that Jayne notes the importance of being “on top” and “being the best”

suggests that she subscribes to a notion of hierarchy in the workplace. By definition, hierarchy
opposes equality, and thus Jayne seems to be endorsing a more masculine subjectivity, since

being a “good woman” suggests a privileging of equality in the workplace. However, by noting

that competition can be “negative” when it is desired at “any cost” suggests that, at times, Jayne

finds being competitive to be problematic. Her ambivalence around competition is echoed by her

use of the expression “to a fault” – a term with a double meaning suggesting that competition can

be both good and bad, that is, “a fault.” For Laura, however, competition was not so much a

quality that she embodied, but something that was required by the nature of her job. Laura states:

Interviewer: “Would you consider yourself a competitive person”?

Laura: “Absolutely...again”.

Interviewer: “Why”?

Laura: “That‟s a tough one”.

Interviewer: “What do you think is the difference, or is there any”?

Laura: “I feel like ambition is more self-driven, like you are achieving goals that you

have set out for yourself, while competitiveness is more with someone else or

something outside of yourself”.

Interviewer: “So why do you feel that you are competitive”?

Laura: “Well I know I‟m a bit of a perfectionist and I think the way I described

competition, it‟s just the mere fact that I‟m a lawyer and am fighting for a desired

outcome. I‟m always in direct competition with someone or something” (47-59).

The above statements indicate that although these women are certainly happy about

considering themselves ambitious, they are less certain and eager to consider themselves

competitive. Interestingly, both ambition and competition are aspects of the male gender role. As

indicated in the introduction, men tend to privilege competition in developing their personalities
(Josselsen, 1998). For the women in the sample, it appears appropriate to consider themselves

ambitious, as being ambitious does not involve breaking connections and deviating from the

“good woman” role. However, the front-line workers in this sample seemed to understand

competition as having to break connections within relationships, and two of the women in

managerial positions described competition as involving hierarchy and being the best, and

expressed some ambivalence about being competitive. Competition, then, appears to be a

characteristic that leads these women to an evaluation of themselves as “not good women,”

which can be interpreted as being like men.

It seems then, that for the women in this study, in order to be evaluated as a “woman” and

as “good” woman, they should not be outwardly competitive. Such an interpretation would

suggest that these women would also see the expression of direct aggression as negative

(particularly for front-line workers), and so workplace hostility would be expected to be

expressed in ways that are less open and explicit – that is, through relational aggression. In this

study it appears that this may not be the case. Although the women acknowledge some instances

of relational aggression, it appears to be only under certain circumstances and under certain

relations of power.

Stepping out of Line/Staying in Line: Conflict in the Workplace

Participants were asked to talk about a situation at work in where they experienced

conflict. In discussing the primary conflict experienced at their workplace, two of the women

who were in frontline positions noted that conflict arose when they were perceived as stepping

outside of their expected role. For example:

Linda-Lou: “The biggest conflict or issues I had were with new employees that

wouldn‟t take the job seriously. I would be very clear about what the expectations were,

and I‟d feel a little disrespected when they started to slack off, almost like they would say
 whatever or agree to whatever to get the job, but not really following through on the

responsibility of the job”.

Interviewer: “And were these women you were supervising”?

Linda-Lou: “No, lol, it just bothered me that they weren‟t doing what they were

supposed to so I would call them on it” (97-110).

The three remaining frontline staff noted that conflict arose when they perceived management as

exerting power. For example:

Wanda: “There‟s myself and two other people that do the same job, and if one of those

other people happen to be off, say on a Friday, and I wanted a Friday off, I would be

refused. But, if I was off on a Friday and one of those women wanted it off, they would

get it. That happened on numerous occasions. Anyways, I did ask her about it and her

reply was “that‟s just the way that it is”. I felt there was no real acknowledgement of

my concern” (85-92).

In contrast, the five women in management positions noted that conflict arose when they

were perceived as attempting to encourage those with whom they worked to adhere to workplace

standards, that is, to “stay in line.” In doing so, the women whom they were disciplining

perceived them as exerting power. For example:

Vicky: “When I started managing I had a completely different staff and I had to get

rid of them all. So I hired all these girls and we get along great”.

Interviewer: “Could you describe the conflict with the other girls”?

Vicky: “In my opinion, I was threatening to them. The other manager was really lenient

and I think the girls came to work to socialize and hang out, I think they resented me for

wanting to make a change or do things differently I guess” (67-76).

 These quotations suggest that when women are in a workplace environment and are

attempting to maintain what they perceive as “professional” standards, other women perceive

their behaviour as violating what it means to be a “good” woman. In the example of the frontline

worker Linda-Lou, being a “good” woman appears to be understood as maintaining connection

with those of equally oppressed status. As discussed in the introduction to this thesis, the

maintenance of connections is deemed to be a crucial aspect of the successful performance of

“normative” femininity (eg., Gilligan, 1982; Josselson, 1998), and so any behaviour in the

workplace that is perceived as interrupting connections with colleagues becomes problematic.

However, in the examples of the two management positions, and Wanda, a frontline

worker who notes conflict when she perceives her manager as exerting power, being a “good”

woman appears to be interpreted as not involving the active and explicit exercise of power and

status. What is clear here, is the way in which femininity is understood as being incompatible

with power and individualism – both qualities that are associated with masculinity. Women‟s

experiences with conflict in the workplace, then, act to reinforce what is expected of them

generally as women, and thus as “feminine.” Indeed, it seems that women expect that the

standards of “niceness” (that is, of working to maintain intimate connections with others) that are

demanded of them outside of the workplace be enacted in the workplace.

Such expectations for behaviour, then, leave little room for women to exercise their

intelligence, strength, capability, and independence (Moss, 2006) in the workplace. That is,

inside the workplace, as well as outside the workplace, women cannot be men. For example,

Laura, who is in a management position notes ambivalence about having to be direct with staff:

Laura: “Well I think sometimes I wish I was more vocal about my feelings, I think

that there are times I can get a little passive-aggressive when I have to deal with conflict,
 there are times I‟m just expecting someone to read between the lines and not have to be

so direct. But that doesn‟t always work and when it doesn‟t, I start to get frustrated when

I really should be more open to what I want or expect. Sometimes I think I‟m being

diplomatic but in retrospect it is probably more passive-aggression” (208-216).

Furthermore, because of the pressure women place on one another to be “feminine” in the

workplace, it would be expected that any conflict they did experience was negotiated using

strategies that allowed them to maintain their self-perceptions as “good” women – and “good” in

the dual sense of performing femininity well and being a “nice” woman. Consequently, the use

of direct strategies of conflict resolution would not be expected; but rather, the use of indirect

strategies, such as relational aggression. Furthermore, if direct strategies of conflict resolution

were used, it might be expected that the women who used them experienced significant

discomfort because of the violation of good feminine performance that the exercise of such

strategies involve, and moreover, that they would be disciplined by other women for stepping

outside the boundaries of “normative” femininity. That is, the same ambivalence as was noted

around being competitive would be observed in discussions of the negotiation of conflict in the

workplace. These issues are considered next by examining the responses given by the women in

the present study to situations of conflict in which they were involved.

Going for it/Letting it Go: Negotiating Conflict in the Workplace

Five of the ten women interviewed in the present study stated that, in a situation of

conflict in the workplace, regardless of the position they held, they used some direct method in

negotiating the conflict with the other woman involved. The direct methods listed by the women

included offensive strategies, such as confronting and challenging the other woman and

retaliating against the other woman and defensive strategies, such as refusing to let the situation
go and becoming defensive. One example of the use of direct strategy to negotiate conflict was

given by Grace:

Grace: “We eventually had it out. The whole organization was in conflict. There were a

lot of changes and most of management and directors were having to start competing for

their own jobs. Everyone was on edge all the time, not really knowing what was going to

happen with their positions. Anyways, a new system was coming into the organization

and all of the old files had to be boxed up. She had asked me to go and see if any of the

other staff could use a hand. Now this was after I had already cleaned out our section.

Everyone was in charge of their own data and old files. Anyhow, I had no problem

helping out, but because of confidentiality issues, I couldn‟t do much. So, I took my

coffee and purse to head back downstairs. She met me in the hallway and asked “where

do you think you‟re going”. I told her that the others didn‟t need my help and I was

heading back to my desk. She then said in front of everyone “I told you to stay up here

and do whatever needs to be done, you can help out in other ways”.

Interviewer: “What did you do”?

Grace: “I asked her if we could discuss this in her office. She seemed embarrassed

and we headed down to the office. When I went in I purposefully left the door open and

tore a strip off her for being so disrespectful”.

Interviewer: “Why did you leave the door open”?

Grace: “I wanted her to feel a little of how she just made me feel, she embarrassed

me in front of my co-workers”.

Interviewer: “And how did she respond to your confrontation”?

 Grace: “She got beet red and sputtered out that she thought I was leaving for the day, I

said, why would I leave in the middle of the day, I told her she was wrong, and if she

ever spoke to me like that again I would report her” (133-162).

In this situation, both of the women used relational aggression, as suggested by the use of

deliberate embarrassment. However, the incident seems to have been instigated by Grace‟s

manager, suggesting that her use of aggression was a tactic aimed at maintenance of her position

higher in the workplace hierarchy. Although conclusions regarding the levels of self-esteem of

the women involved in this situation cannot be made, it would seem that in this context, the use

of relational aggression is a function both of adherence to a feminine gender schema (consistent

with Dellesega [2005]) and of a need to maintain position in a hierarchy, consistent with

Baumeister et al. (2000). The retaliation response, however, indicates a desire to maintain some

level of personal power consistent with Cowan and Ullman‟s (2006) projection theory. These

interpretations point to the complexity of relational aggression in the workplace – a complexity

that will be evident in subsequent analyses.

A further example is as follows:

Rhonda: “There was this one girl who was always late or was calling in sick, just

not pulling her weight. I had several chats with her before she was fired to see if there

was anything I could do to help her but she always said everything was fine. I had to give

her a written reprimand, to which she didn‟t really didn‟t seem fazed by, and one evening

she called in sick again, Facebook is a great tool because I seen pictures of her out

partying that same night. So I had to call her in and let her go”.

Interviewer: “How did she react”?

 Rhonda: “LOL, well she seemed stunned and tried to lie, but eventually realized she

wasn‟t going to be able to explain her way out of it, so she called me a “fat bitch” and

stormed out..lol”..(97-108).

The employee‟s reaction to Rhonda‟s disciplinary action is a direct expression of

aggression and uses words that are aimed at attacking the core of the feminine self: “fat” – since

body image is known to be the best predictor of self-esteem – and “bitch” implying that not only

is she not human, she has moved beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable for “good”

women, since the term “bitch” is used to denote a woman who is malicious, unpleasant, or

selfish; that is, a woman who is focused on the self (see dictionary.com). Consequently, even

though the employee is using direct aggression, her statement is centered in a particularly

feminine way and is aimed to discipline Rhonda who was perceived by the employee as stepping

out of line. Moreover, it seems that the response given in retaliation to the supervisor reflects the

employee‟s attempt to save face, and maintain some level of self-esteem and equality (through

personal attack). This interpretation again suggests support for Cowan and Ullman‟s projection

theory (2006), whereby relational aggression becomes an attempt to assert personal power and

compensate for perceived personal inadequacies.

Interestingly, two of the women who responded to conflict using a direct method

indicated that they “felt sorry” that they had taken that path of action. For example, in the words

of Carla:

Carla: “I kind of felt like she was denying my feelings, she just mumbled something

about being sure that‟s not the case, now I‟m regretting ever saying anything at all,

which is now only adding to my insecurities” (lines 312-315).

 In Carla‟s situation, the refusal of the other woman to negotiate with her concerns acts as

a disciplinary strategy that discourages her from future use of direct strategies of conflict

resolution. In turn, then, it acts to silence Carla, indirectly reinforcing what is expected of her in

terms of “appropriate” feminine behaviour – that is, to say nothing in the situation, as saying

nothing will maintain the illusion of a female connectedness, while allowing the other woman in

the situation to maintain her position of power, without threatening her perception of herself as a

“good” woman. Indeed, as Bem (1981) has argued, because directness and overt confrontation

are not consistent with a feminine gender identity, girls adhering to standards for feminine

performance are forced to use more manipulative and covert means of expressing anger,

resolving conflict, and establishing dominance or maintaining equality. Carla‟s response again

offers some measure of support for Cowan and Ullman‟s (2006) perspective.

In addition to the responses of other women that made these women regret their decision

to use a direct strategy to resolve conflict, those women who reported “going for it” as a strategy

for conflict resolution also experienced positive reactions in response to their use of direct

strategies. For example,

Karen: “There was an issue where I had to receive a verbal reprimand and part of

the resolution was that my supervisor had to do this „coaching‟ thing. I didn‟t agree with

it all, but my boss was good about it and actually she agreed with me, behind closed

doors of course. Actually she told me that she didn‟t agree with the outcome either so we

met once a week for „coaching‟ and kept management happy” (103-110).

Interestingly, the disciplinary action between Karen and her manager could be perceived

as an example of silencing. Even though Karen perceived a positive outcome, she was
reprimanded and not publicly supported as the support happened “behind closed doors”. Indeed,

this is further evidence of feminine performance and women keeping the peace.

Although half of the sample reported the use of direct strategies in an attempt to resolve

conflict in the workplace, four of the women interviewed noted that in a situation of conflict in

the workplace, they simply “let it go.” For example, when asked if she made her dissatisfaction

with conflict known, Wanda responded, “No, what are you going to do...it is what it is” (138).

Another participant recalls conflict with another woman (peer), earlier in her career in which she

was in a frontline position. Anne notes “I got the sense she was perhaps jealous of the

relationship I had with the principal” (114-116), and when asked how she dealt with that, she

responded “I just let it go” (118). Moreover, Anne indicated that this response was what she

would usually use when confronted with conflict. “Yea, I mean it was her issue. I wasn‟t about to

let it become mine. I usually take that approach, try not to personalize the negativity” (120-122).

As noted in the in the introduction to this thesis, Crothers and Field (2005) examined the

role of gender identity and relational aggression and found that girls with traditional feminine

gender identities match their preferences, attitudes, behaviours, and personal attributes with

traditional feminine gender schema. Constructing such gender roles therefore involves restricting

the emotional expression of anger, which may be limiting for some females. This issue is

discussed next, by analysing responses to women‟s experiences where they felt regret for their

behaviour towards another woman in the workplace, and the reasons for their regret.

“Maybe I’m not so good”: Deviating from the Norm

A question was posed to the participants to recall a time when they had acted in a way

towards a female colleague that they regretted. They were also asked to explain why they may

have behaved this way. Eight of the participants agreed that they felt they had treated a co-
worker in a manner of which they were not proud. All of these participants cite use of methods

of relational aggression toward a female colleague for various reasons. Three of the participants

indicated that when frustrated with their environment at work, they “take it out” on their

colleagues. Both Karen and Vicky discuss situations when they were in management positions,

in which they became frustrated with what they would consider inappropriate or inadequate

performance from their subordinates. For example:

Interviewer: “Have you ever behaved towards another female co-worker in a manner

that you weren‟t proud of or wished you had of handled differently”?

Karen: “I‟m sure I have. I get really frustrated with people I see as not having

common sense. I don‟t think you need to have high academics to work in this job, but I

do think you need to have street smarts and common sense. When we get new casual

workers and they are clueless, I can get frustrated pretty easily and become distant and

cold”.

Interviewer: “So why do you think you react that way”?

Karen: “My coping skills I guess. I think I‟ve been doing this for so long that I forget

how scary it can be, what seems like common sense for me, may take some time for

someone else to understand. Again, I‟m easily frustrated and lacking patience..lol” (227-

245).

In another example:

Vicky: “I think maybe sometimes I can be hard on the new girls (I asked what “being

hard on” meant and she indicated that she would be direct and “call them on” their

inadequacy, intending to embarrassed them). It‟s hard because I find as I get older,

I get more irritated with the new girls. I don‟t know whether they‟re stupid and can‟t get
 what I‟m telling them or I‟m just not a fan. I guess the reason doesn‟t matter does it? I

think I‟m too easily frustrated with the new girls”.

Interviewer: “Why do you think you behaved in this way”?

Vicky: “Cause they‟re dumbasses !! The store could be really busy and they‟re

hanging around and talking about last night‟s drunk and customers can hear them, it‟s

just really unprofessional. So I guess I‟m trying to make a point” (151-161).

Both of these women were in positions of power during the experiences they discussed.

Karen withholds support from the women she feels are not performing up to her standards,

whereas Vicky uses more direct methods to “make a point”, asserting her power and becoming

critical in order to get her subordinates to perform to her standards. In these situations, where

these women are in positions of power, the exercise of aggression functions to maintain them in

their position of power, a situation observed by Baumeister et al. (2000) in their discussion of

threatened egoism. Interestingly, the exertion of power in situations where subordinates are not

performing could be interpreted as appropriate. However, that these women experience regret in

this situation indicates the extent to which they are invested in schemata of femininity. Again, it

is clear that the exercise of relational aggression in the workplace is highly complex.

In the situation of criticism exercised by a frontline worker, the motivation for expression

of aggression is different. For example, although Carla indicates that she also can become

frustrated with her co-workers and become critical, it is usually after she believes she has been

judged or criticized by her superior. In her own words, Carla states:

Interviewer: Have you ever behaved in a way towards a colleague in a manner that

you weren‟t proud of?

 Carla: “I‟m sure I have, but it‟s hard to think of something specific. I can get easily

irritated when I get stressed, the fear sets in and then I‟m sure I get testy and take it out

on the other girls”.

Interviewer: “Fear of what”?

Carla: “I think fear of making a mistake, especially when I worked in critical care. I

mean its high intensity and the last thing you need is someone criticizing you, so if my

nurse manager is on my back, well, I‟m sure I would take that out on someone else. But I

learned that all I was doing was setting off a chain of negative events, so I try to be

aware of my anxiety when I get stressed at work” (337-349).

Interestingly, this woman use uses words such as “testy” and “irritated” to justify her

behaviour, qualities that are opposite to the personal strengths she observed in herself in earlier

questioning. In other words, her “bad behaviour” in conflict situations arises from self attributed

masculine traits. Therefore, bad behaviour is behaving like a man.

Two participants noted using indirect methods of aggression towards women in the

workplace. Both Jayne and Rhonda indicated that they behaved in a manner of which they were

not proud after feeling rejected by either their co-workers or their workplace. In the words of

Rhonda:

Rhonda: “I lost a job to another woman here and I didn‟t handle it very well”.

Interviewer: “In what way”?

Rhonda: “She was a nice person and I treated her like crap when she got the position.

I remember she would ask me for help and I wouldn‟t give it. I‟d make up some excuse

not to help her out. That wasn‟t nice and it wasn‟t her fault that I didn‟t get the job”.

Interviewer: “Why do you think you behaved that way”?

 Rhonda: “I was really angry and took it out on her. I had been here so long and it didn‟t

make any sense to me” (140-147).

Interestingly, Rhonda refers to the employee as “nice”, and states that she treated her like

“crap”. These statements indicate that Rhonda has transgressed the boundaries of appropriate

femininity and this situation creates discomfort for her. Moreover, this situation is one that

clearly involves a threat to the participant‟s personal adequacy (she lost a job), and so her

aggressive behaviour can be interpreted as an attempt to restore a threatened self-esteem,

consistent with Cowan and Ullman‟s (2006) projection theory.

In another example:

Interviewer: “Have you ever behaved towards another woman that you work with

in a manner that you weren‟t proud of”?

Jayne: “To their face, or behind their back”?

Interviewer: “Either”.

Jayne: “Well I think I always feel that way – not happy with the way I deal with other

women. I can be as catty as the next woman I guess”.

Interviewer: “Why do you think you would behave that way”?

Jayne: “Oh, I don‟t know, maybe someone is getting on my nerves, maybe I was jealous

of something or offended in some way”.

Interviewer: “Can you think of a situation in particular”?

Jayne: “There was this one female staff member...there you go, “the princess‟s”,

anyways, I wasn‟t invited and even though I tell myself I couldn‟t care less, I think I was

offended and guess I would retaliate by being catty” (167-182).

 Jayne describes her behaviour as “catty” and justifies it by indicating she was rejected by

co-workers. I asked Jayne what being “catty” meant, and she stated that she would be critical

(though not to their face) and would use a sarcastic tone when mentioning their names in order to

express her displeasure with their behaviour (according to dictionary.com, “catty” means sly,

malicious, spiteful). Even when asking her to describe what her understanding of “catty”, Jayne

expressed dissatisfaction with herself and how she chose to deal with her feelings, stating “Oh

God, Why would I do that”? Both Rhonda and Jane appear to regret how they deal with their

hurt feelings, and recognize that they are projecting their frustrations with themselves onto other

women; actions that would be predicted by Cowan and Ullman (2006).

There were three women who indicated that they felt badly about their behaviour towards

a co-worker after they were direct, indicating that when they deviate from the boundaries of what

it means to be a “good woman”, they feel regretful. For example, Grace states:

Grace: “I was working in reception and I had to share a desk with a woman who had a

really bad skin disorder, this is gross, but she would shed. I had to talk to her about

cleaning our shared work space because she wouldn‟t and there would be skin

everywhere. Now I don‟t think I behaved badly towards her, but it did make me feel bad

because I‟m sure that was embarrassing for her and I didn‟t like making her feel like

that” (243-250).

Even though Grace states she does not think she behaved poorly toward the other woman,

the fact that her words may embarrass the other woman makes her feel regretful. Grace‟s

statements indicate that for her, even having to be direct (without malice) causes her discomfort

and makes her feel “badly”, since such directness violates what it means to be a “good” woman.
 According to the research cited in the introduction, direct expressions of aggression take

place in face-to-face situations while indirect aggression is delivered to the victim “via the

negative reactions of others; the victim gets into trouble at the end of a chain of mediating events

and people” (Buss, 1961, p. 8). Indirect aggression is defined as verbal rejection, negative facial

gestures, slanderous rumours or social exclusion from a group. It also includes criticism and

questioning judgment (Dettinger & Hart, 2007). There is no doubt that these women, when faced

with conflict admittedly resort to both direct and indirect methods of aggression towards other

women. Their reasons seem to vary, but all apppear to experience internal conflict about

deviating from thier understanding of what it means to be a “good” woman.

Interestingly, there were two participants, Anne and Linda-Lou, who indicated that they

could not recall behaving towards a female co-worker in a “manner in which they were not proud

of”. Both of these women were able to cite instances where they experienced indirect aggression

from other women but both stated that they felt they were very “conscious about how they treat

others”. Also interestingly both of these women discussed competition between women in the

women in the workplace as negative and inappropriate. When asking Anne to recall a time she

may have deviated from the norm, she states:

Interviewer: “Have you ever behaved towards a female colleague in a manner that you

were not proud of”?

Anne: “No, I don‟t think so. I mean I try to give everyone the respect they deserve at

work. I am not one to let things go, so if there is an issue that needs to be resolved at

work with a colleague, I‟m pretty confident I deal with it in a respectful manner” (125-

130).
 Linda-Lou: “Well I‟m usually pretty conscientious about how I treat people. I think

if I did I‟d have to deal with it right away. I‟m not good at leaving things unsaid, I don‟t

know if I can answer that question honestly..I‟m just not sure” (230-233).

Both of these women are unable to recall a specific incident of deviating from the “good”

woman role. They discuss that in the workplace, they see themselves as conscientious and

respectful, qualities that encompass a good woman. Interestingly, perhaps it is that in the

workplace, these women strictly adhere to being a “good” woman that they rarely encounter

anxiety or discomfort as they rarely deviate from the norm. As Valian (1998, pg. 30) states,

“Everyone, it appears, is likely to be affected – deeply and nonconsciously – by their culture‟s

view of what it means to be male and female. Even people who consciously espouse egalitarian

beliefs do not realize how profoundly they have internalized their culture‟s norms”.

The struggle that women have trying to balance who they are as women and who they are

as women in the workplace has been evident throughout this study. A question was posed to all

participants in this study whether they believed women had a responsibility to support one

another in the workplace. All of the women said they felt they (as women) had a responsibility to

support not only women but all people in the workplace, indicating that it is a “good” woman‟s

role to be supportive to everyone. The question was then posed as to whether they felt women

did support each other in the workplace and responses were varied with most of the women

stating that they did not see that support, thought it was a struggle to support each other, with

Karen stating that even though she knows women can be “really nasty to each other”, they really

want each other to succeed. The presence of conflict and aggression among women in the

workplace, suggests that women may be unable to support one another and therefore, unable to

work together towards achieving both their personal goals and the goals of the organization.
Such lack of support indicates that despite forty years of feminism, and the high percentages of

women in the workplace, horizontal hostility is still very much present (Penelope, 1992). Indeed,

as Sutphen (2002) notes, because power through another is all that women know, they often are

not prepared to support one another as some gain access to public power.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Present Study

Strengths

The present research had a number of significant strengths. In particular, the use of

interpretive thematic analysis to examine data emerging from the interview transcripts enabled

the discovery and identification of ongoing themes that are not always obvious in conversation.

The analysis of interviews gave insight into the ways in which taken for granted assumptions,

particularly how gender schemata come to shape women‟s expectations about their behaviour

towards each other in the workplace.

Weaknesses

The primary weakness of the present study involved the inability of the sample to

communicate specific experiences of relational aggression amongst females in the workplace.

Although many of the participants were able to cite instances of aggression between women in

the workplace, they could not refer to themselves specifically as a “victim” or a “perpetrator” of

relational aggression. One of the ways in which the participants were able to lessen the impact of

the behaviours they were citing was by using slang terms or colloquialisms to express the

behaviours they were experiencing. Rather than talk about specific behaviours, words and

phrases such as “catty”, “bitchy”, “knock her down a peg”, and “get my back up” made it

difficult to identify certain behaviours related to relational aggression.

 Another weakness is that since participants reside in a small town in Atlantic Canada and

seven of the participants work within provincial government, many of these participants may not

have been as forthcoming with experiences due to concerns of being recognized and

encountering consequences for participating. As indicated in the introduction, women are

expected to maintain harmonious relationships with others, and if they are concerned about the

potential negative impact of the expression of anger on others, they will likely temper their

reactions (Hatch & Forgays, 2001). Finally, all of the participants in the present study were born

in Prince Edward Island and spent most of their lives residing on the Island, including the

interviewer. A significant cultural aspect of PEI is the use of slang and/or colloquial language to

express oneself. As the interviewer reflected upon the interview process, she realized that

because she was also immersed in the Island culture, there were times when she did not probe for

a more direct explanation of a construct due to the belief of a mutual subjective understanding of

a slang term and/or colloquial phrases (“catty”, “bitchy”, “knock her down a peg”, and “get my

back up”) used by the participants.

Conclusion

The present study shows that women‟s experience with relational aggression in the

workplace is much more complex than various theoretical perspectives indicate. Relational

aggression has been well established by researchers as a separate form of aggression used across

cultures and predominantly by females. Factors that contribute to the development of this

phenomenon include gender socialization and the construction of self among females as

interdependent persons who place a high value on the development and nurturing of relationships

(Bowie, 2007; Gilligan, 1982; Josselson, 1998). This particular study shows that relational

aggression involves the intersection of women‟s understandings of gender and what it means to
be a “good woman”, with the roles that are expected of them in the workplace. Clearly, the

women in the present study experienced themselves as ambitious and desirous of success.

However, unless they were in management positions, they did not embrace the competitive spirit

that seems essential for success in the workplace. Even then, many would cite examples of

discomfort relating to the exercise of power, which supports Gilligan‟s (1982) and Josselson‟s

(1998) claims regarding the centrality of interconnection and “niceness” to feminine identity.

Although it did seem that direct aggression was exercised by some women, this aggression was

context dependent and was used by women in positions of power to maintain that power,

consistent with Baumeister et al‟s (2000) theory of threatened egoism, or by women in lesser

positions of power in response to threatened personal adequacy, consistent with Cowan and

Ullman‟s (2006) projection identification theory. Overall, though, relational aggression seemed

to be used more in situations of threatened self-adequacy between women of both equal and

unequal status in the workplace. Future study could be directed to further investigation of these

complexities and also to an exploration of the effects of relational aggression on both victims and

perpetrators in the workplace. Such focus would seem timely, given the current government

concern with establishing healthy environments. Understandings of dominant masculine and

feminine performances should also be considered and re-evaluated, to encourage alternative

performances of masculinity and femininity in the workplace and alternate models of being and

leading in the workplace.

 References

Agars, M. D. (2004). Reconsidering the impact of gender stereotypes on the advancement of

women in organizations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 103-111.

Anderson, C.A. & Bushman, B.J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53.

doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231. Retrieved Oct. 19, 2009.

Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning Theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28(3), 12-

29.

Baumeister, R. E, Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence

and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5-33.

Baumeister, R., Bushman, B., and Campbell, K. (2000). Self-esteem, narcissism, and

aggression: Does violence result from low self-esteem or from threatened egotism?

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(1), 26-29.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1997). Women’s ways of

knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological

Review, 88, 354–364.

Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight?

Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior,

18, 117-127.

Bjorkqvist, K. & Niemela, P. (1992). New trends in the study of female aggression.

In K. Bjorkqvist & P. Niemala (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of female

Aggression. (pp. 149-162). San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.

Bjorkqvist, K. (1994). Sex Differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of
 recent research. Sex Roles, 30(3/4), 177-188.

Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Hjelt-Back, M. (1994). Aggression among University

Employees. Aggressive Behaviour, 20(1), 173-184.

Björkqvist, K., Österman, K. & Lagerspetz, K.M.J. (1994). Sex differences in covert aggression

among adults. Aggressive Behaviour, 20(1), 27-33

Blasingame, B. (1995). Power and privilege beyond the invisible fence. In N. Tucker (Ed.),

Bisexual politics: Theories, queries, and visions. (pp.229-240). New York: The Hawthorn

Press.

Bowie, B. H. Relational aggression, gender, and the developmental process. Journal of Child

and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing. FindArticles.com. 12 May, 2010.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3892/is_200705/ai_n19433121/

Burbank, V.K. (1987). Women‟s aggression in cross-cultural perspective. Behaviour

Science Research, 21, 70–100.

Burbank, V.K. (1994). Cross-cultural perspectives on aggression in women and girls:

An introduction, Sex Roles, 30(3/4), 169–76.

Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley.

Buss, A. H. (1995). Personality: Temperament, social behaviour and the self. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.

Cook, K. (1992). Matrifocaliaty in female aggression in Margeriteno society. In Bjoirkqvist, K. ,

Niemela, P. (eds). Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression. (pp.149-162). San

Diego: Academic Press.

Corsaro, W.A., & Eder, D. (1990). Children‟s peer cultures. Annual Review of Sociology, 16,

197-220.
Cowan, G., Neighbors, C., DeLaMoreaux, J., & Behnke, C. (1998). Women‟s hostility toward

women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 267-284.

Cowan, G. & Ullman, J.B. (2006). Ingroup rejection among women: The role of personal

inadequacy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 399-409.

Crawford, M. & Unger, R. (2006). Women and gender: A feminist psychology. Boston:McGraw-

Hill.

Crick, N. (1995). Relational aggression: The role of intent attributions, feelings of distress, and

provocation type. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 313-322.

Crick, N. & Grotpeter, J. (1995). Relational Aggression, gender and social- psychological

adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.

Crick, N. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in

the prediction of children‟s future social adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317-

2327.

Crick, N., & Grotpeter, J. (1996). Children‟s treatment by peers: Victims of relational and

overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 367-380.

Crick, N.R., Casas, J.F., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relational and Overt Aggression in Preschool.

Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 579-88.

Crick, N. & Bigsbee, M. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: a

multinformant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 337-

347.

Crocker, J.,& Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130,

392–414.
Crothers, L.M., Field, J.E. & Kolbert, J.B. (2005). Navigating power, control, and being nice:

Aggression in adolescent girls‟ friendships. Journal of Counseling and Development, 83,

349-354.

Dellasega, C. (2005). Mean girls grown up: Adult women who are still queen bees,mMiddle

bees and afraid-to-bees. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Dettinger, S., & Hart, G. (2007). The Relationship Between Self-Esteem And Indirect

Aggression In The Workplace. Journal of Psychiatry & Psychology, 1(1).

Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations among female adolescents.

Sociology of Education, 58, 154-165.

Eder, D. (1995). School talk: Gender and adolescent culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University Press.

Ember, C. (1981). A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Sex Differences. In R. Munroe, R.

Munroe & B. Whiting (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Human Development. (pp.

531-580). NewYork: Garland Press.

Fry, D.P. (1988): Intercommunity differences in aggression among Zapotec children. Child

Development,59, 1008-1019.

Fry, D.P. (1990): Play aggression among Zapotec children: Implications for the practice

hypothesis. Aggressive Behaviour, 16, 321- 34O.

Fry, D. P. (1992): Female aggression among the Zapotec of Oaxaca, Mexico. In Bjorkqvist K,

Niemala, P. (eds), Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression. (pp.187-199). San

Diego: Academic Press.

Galen, B.R., & Underwood, M.K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social aggression

among children, Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 589-600.

Geddes, D., & Baron, R.A. (1997) Workplace aggression as a consequence of negative

performance feedback. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 433-454.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Glazer, I.M. (1992). Interfemale aggression and resource scarcity in a cross-cultural perspective.

In K. Bjorkqvist & P. Niemela (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of female

aggression. (pp. 163-171). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Glazer-Raymo, J. (2008). Unfinished agendas: New and continuing gender challenges to

higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Groeblinghoff, G., & Becker, M. (1996). A case study of mobbing and the clinical treatment of

mobbing victims. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 5, 277-

294.

Hatch, H., & Forgays, D. K. (2001). A comparison of older adolescent and adult females‟

responses to anger-provoking situations. Adolescence, 36, 557–570.

Heathers (1998). Directed: Michael Lehmann. Retrieved May 3, 2010,

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097493/.

Hecker, Dainel E. (2006). “Occupational Employment Projections to 2014”. Monthly Labor

Review Online, November 2005, 128(11),

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/11/art5full.pdf; Employment and Earnings, Annual

Averages, Table 11.

Jack, D. & Anderson, K. (1991). Learning to listen: Interview techniques and analyses. In

S.B. Gluck & D. Patai (Eds.), Women’s words. (pp. 9-26). London: Routledge
Josselson, R. (1998). Revising herself: The story of women’s identity from college to midlife.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Kaukiainen, A., Salmivalli, C., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., Lahtinen, A., Kostamo, A., and

Lagerspetz, K. (2001). Overt and covert aggression in work settings in relation to the

subjective well-being of employees. Aggressive Behaviour, 27, 360-371.

Kennedy, F. (1970). Institutionalized Oppression vs. the Female. In Morgan, R. (Ed.),

Sisterhood Is Powerful. (pp.438-446). New York: Vintage Books/Random House.

Kuschel, R. ( 1988). Vengeance is Their Reply: Blood Feuds and Homicides on Bellona Island.

Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag.

Kuschel, R. (1992). “Women are women and men are men”: How Bellonese women get even.

In K. Bjorkqvist & P. Niemela (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of female

aggression. (pp. 173-185). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Lagerspetz, M.J., Bjorkqviest, K.& Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of

females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11 to 12 year old year-old children.

Aggressive Behaviour, 14, 403-14.

Leavy, P. (2000). Feminist content analysis and representative characters, The Qualitative

Report, 5, (1&2). http://www.nova. Edu/ssss/QR/Qr5.1/leavy.html.

Lewis, S. E. (2006). Recognition of Workplace Bullying: A Qualitative Study of Women Targets

in the Public Sector. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 16, 119-135.

Leyman, H. (1986). Vuxenmobbning. Om psykisktvald i arbealivet. Lund, Sweden:

Studentlitteratur.

Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror in workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5,

119-126.
Leymann, H., & Gustaffson, A. (1996). Mobbing at work and the development of post-traumatic

stress disorder. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 5, 251-275.

Loeber, R., & Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of aggression and violence from

childhood to early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 371-410.

Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1998). Development of juvenile aggression and

violence: Some common misconceptions and controversies. American Psychologist, 53,

242-259.

Maccoby, E.E. & Jacklin, C.N. (1974) The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Major, B. (1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons,

legitimacy, appraisals, and group membership. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology. (Vol. 26, pp. 293–355). San Diego, CA: Academic

Press.

Martin, J. (1990). Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression of gender

conflict in Organizations. Organization Science, 1, 339-359.

McKenna, B. G., Smith, N. A., Poole, S. J., & Coverdale, J. H. (2003). Horizontal violence:

experiences of registered nurses in their first yeas of practice. Journal of Advanced

Nursing, 42, 90-96.

Mean Girls (2004). Mark Waters, Director. Retrieved May 1, 2010,

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377092/>.

Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2001) Bullying in Danish work-life: Prevalence and health

correlates. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 10, 393-413.

Mikkelsen, E.G., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Basic assumptions and symptoms of post traumatic
 stress among victims of bullying at work. European Journal of Work and Organisational

Psychology, 11, 87-111.

Mooney, N. (2005). I can’t believe she did that: Why women betray other women at work. New

York: St. Martin‟s Press.

Moss, G. (2006). Teen Mean Fighting Machine: Why Does the Media Love Mean Girls?

In L. Jervis & Zielser, A. (2006). BITCHfest: Ten years of cultural criticism from the

pages of Bitch magazine. New York: MacMillan.

Myers, D.D., & Spencer. S.J. (2004). Social Psychology.(2nd. Canadian Edition). McGraw-Hill

Ryerson Limited.

Namie, G. (2003). Workplace Bullying: Escalated Incivility. Ivey Business Journal, 68, 1-6.

Neidl, K. (1996). Mobbing and well-being: Economic and personnel development implications.

European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 5, 239-249

Neuman, J.H., & Baron, R.A. (1996). Aggression in the workplace. In Giacalone, R.A., &

Greenberg, J. (Eds.)., Anti-social behavior in organizations. (pp. 37-67). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Olweus, D. (1978) Aggression in the schools. Bullies and whipping boys. New York: Wiley.

Olweus, D. (1979). Stability of aggressive reaction patterns in males: A review. Psychological

Bulletin, 86, 852-875.

O‟Neal, J. M., & Egan, J. (1993). Abuses of power against women: Sexism, gender role conflict,

and psychological violence. In E. P. Cook (Ed.), Women, relationships, and power:

Implications for counselling. (pp. 49–78). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling

Association.
Ostenson, R. (1999). Who‟s in and who‟s out: The results of oppression. In J.C. Chrisler, C.

Golden & P. D. Rozee (Eds.), Lectures on the Psychology of Women (3rd ed.) (pp.19).

New York: McGraw Hill.

Owens, L.D. (1996). Sticks and stones and sugar and spice: Girls‟ and boys‟ aggression in

schools. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 6, 45-55.

Owens, L., Slee, P., & Shute, R. (2000). „It Hurts A Hell Of A Lot…‟ The Effects of Indirect

Aggression on Teenage Girls. School Psychology International, 21(4), 359-376.

Passman, T. (1993). Out of the closet and into the field: Matriculture, the lesbian perspective,

and feminist classics. In N.S. Rabinowitz & A. Richlin (Eds.), Feminist theory and the

classics. (pp.181-208). New York: Routledge.

Patterson, G.R., Reid, J.B., & Dishion, T.J. (1992). A social interactional approach: IV.

Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

Penelope, J. (1992). Do We Mean What We Say? Horizontal Hostility and the World We

Would Create. In Penelope, J. (Ed.), Call Me Lesbian: Lesbian Lives, Lesbian Theory.

(pp. 60-76). Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press.

Pharr, S. (1988). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. Little Rock, AR: Chardon Press.

Raymond, J. A. (2001). Women’s new workplace reality compete over complete? The dark side

of sisterhood in the new millennium. Retrieved February 28, 2005 from

http://www.trainersdirect.com/resources/articles/JRaymond/Women'sNewWorkplace.htm

Rohner, R. (1976) „Sex Differences in Aggression: Phylogenetic and Enculturation

Perspectives‟, Ethos, 4, 57–72.

Sandfield, A. & Percy, C. (2003). Accounting for single status: Heterosexism and

ageism in heterosexual women‟s talk about marriage. Feminism and Psychology, 13(4),

475-488.

Sebald, H. (1992). Adolescence. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Sutphen, Judith (April 8, 2002). “Mean Girls”. www.women.state.vt.us/meangirls.html.

Thompson, D. (1993). A discussion of the problem of horizontal hostility. Unpublished

manuscript.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,(1980). Perspectives on Working Women:

A Databook, Bulletin 2080, 1980. (http://www.pay-equity.org/PDFs/ProfWomen.pdf).

Valenti, J. (2008). He’s Stud, She’s a Slut and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should

Know. Berkeley, California: Seal Press.

Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Valian, V. (2005). Beyond gender schemata: Improving the advancement of women in academia.

Hypatia, 20, 198-213.

White, J.W. & Kowalski, R.M. (1994). Deconstructing the myth of the non-aggressive

woman: A feminist analysis, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 487–508.

Whiting, B. and Edwards, C. (1973). A cross-cultural analysis of sex differences in the

behavior of children aged three through eleven. Journal of Social Psychology,91,

171–88.

Wiseman, R. (2003). Queen Bees & Wannabes: Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques,

Gossip, Boyfriends & Other Realities of Adolescence. New York: Three Rivers

Press.

Wilson, E.O. (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap
 Press of Harvard University Press.

Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/start-debut-eng.html. Retrieved November 19, 2009.

Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985) Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zumkley, H. (1994). The stability of aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. German Journal of

Psychology, 18, 273-281.