In a meta-analysis, investigating the relationship between the Five-Factor Model of personality (McCrae and Costa, 1987) and exposure to harassment (a higher-ordered construct including different forms of psychological mistreatment), Nielsen et al. (2017) reported that being exposed to harassment was positively associated with neuroticism, and negatively related to extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The theoretical relations between the personality dimensions and harassment were built upon the four mechanisms explaining the relationship between bullying and individual dispositions (Nielsen and Knardahl, 2015).

In sum, Nielsen and Knardahl (2015) propose that bullying and individual dispositions relationship can be explained by (1) the no-relationship mechanism; indicating no association, (2) the target-behavior mechanism; implying that employees with certain dispositions not only fail to meet expectations but also irritate others, possibly by violating the usual norms of polite and friendly interaction, which can lead to others responding with aggressive behaviors, (3) the negative perceptions mechanism; suggesting that specific individual dispositions are related with a lowered threshold for interpreting behaviors as harassing, and therefore, employees with such dispositions have a higher risk than others for labeling negative events at the workplace as bullying, and (4) the reverse causality mechanism; individual dispositions are viewed as outcomes rather than precursors of workplace bullying.

Nielsen et al. (2017) highlight that the findings regarding the association between bullying and personality should not be used to conclude whether dispositional characteristics among those harassed are causes or consequences of harassment, as their study was cross-sectional [see Bowling et al. (2010), Nielsen and Knardahl (2015), and Podsiadly and Gamian-Wilk (2017) for longitudinal research findings]. As our study is also cross-sectional in nature, we firstly focus on replicating the above findings in a Czech cultural setting. Moreover, we utilize a more recent operationalization of the Big Five dimensions [see Soto and John (2017a,b)]. Soto and John (2017a) used the following labels for the Big Five personality dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Negative Emotionality (also known as Neuroticism; see, e.g., McCrae and Costa, 2008), and Open-Mindedness [also known as Openness to Experience, Intellect, or Imagination; see Goldberg (1993), John et al. (2008), and McCrae and Costa (2008)]. The Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2) operationalizes these domains using a total of 60 items, and it was shown that it has a robust hierarchical structure, controls for individual differences in acquiescence, and has conceptual breadth, specificity, and predictive power (Soto and John, 2017a). In the present study, we employ the abbreviated 30 items version of the scale, i.e., the BFI-2-S (Soto and John, 2017b).

Gelotophobia is defined as the pathological fear of being an object of laughter or appearing to others as a ridiculous object (Ruch and Proyer, 2008b; Titze, 2009). Individuals scoring high on gelotophobia do not perceive humor and laughter as relaxing and joyful social experiences (Titze, 2009) and they fail to discriminate between ridicule and good-humored teasing (Platt, 2008). Clinically observed behaviors described by Titze (1997, 2009) was developed into a model of the causes and consequences of gelotophobia (Ruch and Proyer, 2008a), which later was updated to include putative causes and the moderating factors (Ruch et al., 2014). Ruch and Stahlmann (2020) advanced the framework to a dynamic model of gelotophobia, providing an updated definition that is anchored in the construct of vulnerability. Gelotophobia is understood “as a distinguishable pattern of lacking resources (i.e., misinterpretation of joy and laughter) that can result in negative consequences (e.g., reduced well-being and performance) if individuals have no access to further resources (e.g., social support) or are exposed to severe stressors (e.g., workplace bullying)” (Ruch and Stahlmann, 2020, p. 16,369).

By far, a few studies have investigated the association between gelotophobia and (workplace) bullying. Some of these previous investigations focused on children and/or adolescents (Führ, 2010; Proyer et al., 2012, 2013) and reported that higher gelotophobia was related to feelings of being a victim of bullying. Therefore, the importance of gelotophobia in school therapy practice has been already put forward (Bledsoe and Baskin, 2014; Platt et al., 2016). Considering workplace bullying – although the role of gelotophobia in workplace bullying has been theoretically discussed (e.g., Hofmann et al., 2017) – to our knowledge there are the only three empirical studies to date.

In a sample of adults, Platt (2008) found that participants who reported that were victims of bullying had higher gelotophobia scores (in comparison to individuals who did not disclose such an experience). It should be noted that it was not considered whether being a victim of bullying was specifically in the workplace. Gelotophobes [for cut-off points indicating slight pronounced, and extreme expression of gelotophobia, see Ruch and Proyer (2008b)] also did not discriminate between scenarios of ridicule (a form of bullying) and friendly teasing; individuals with extreme gelotophobia had same emotional reactions (i.e., disgust, surprise, and shame) to both types of interactions. Platt et al. (2009) confirmed and extended these findings, in particular by showing that being a victim of bullying was best predicted by high gelotophobia scores and by low happiness scores concerning playful teasing situations. Although some of the participants were recruited from an anti-workplace bullying support network group, the victim of bullying status was more broadly defined as in the previous study. The most recent panel study by Ruch and Stahlmann (2020) focused, among other things, on the relationship between gelotophobia and workplace bullying (workplace bullying was operationalized with the four-item Workplace Incivility Scale; Cortina et al., 2001), and found that there was a positive correlation between gelotophobia and workplace bullying in all of the six measurement intervals (waves) in their research.

Finally, it should be stressed that previous investigations have related gelotophobia to personality dimensions (Ruch et al., 2008, 2013; Hřebíčková et al., 2009; Ruch and Proyer, 2009; Proyer and Ruch, 2010; Ďurka and Ruch, 2015). Utilizing a Czech sample, Hřebíčková et al. (2009) reported that gelotophobia was associated with higher neuroticism, and lower extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience (neuroticism and extraversion showed the most robust relations); and concluded that personality dimensions play a significant role in whether individuals cope with ridicule easily, or whether they find it difficult. In general, gelotophobes can be described as introverted neurotics with a lower inclination to openness (Ruch et al., 2013). While personality characteristics have been studied in relation to gelotophobia, there is no previous research taking into account the joint consideration of personality and gelotophobia, and their relation to workplace bullying.

The current study aimed to investigate the relationship between personality dimensions, gelotophobia, and exposure to workplace bullying. Furthermore, our specific aim was to explore whether gelotophobia has an incremental validity in predicting exposure to workplace bullying beyond the Big Five dimensions of personality. We expect that gelotophobia will have an incremental effect over and above personality dimensions in predicting exposure to workplace bullying (and especially humor-related bullying).

Two research gaps are considered in this study. First, the joint investigation of the Big Five dimensions and gelotophobia – and their relation to workplace bullying – has not been undertaken yet. Secondly, previous studies (relating gelotophobia with bullying) have either focused on children and/or adolescents (Führ, 2010; Proyer et al., 2012, 2013) or used only self-labeled victimization from bullying (Platt, 2008; Platt et al., 2009; cf., Ruch and Stahlmann, 2020). In general, we aim to extend previous findings by including a well-established behavioral type measure of workplace bullying (the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised – NAQ-R; Einarsen et al., 2009) and consider a humor-related bullying dimension (a specific sub-factor of person-related bullying) as well.

Data was gathered online using software for online assessment (MindMap Diagnostic Methods). On the first page of the study link, participants were informed about the purpose of the study and it was stated that by continuing to fill in the questionnaires they provide an informed consent. In addition, it was stated that they should participate in the research if they are more than 6 months employed. The data collection was conducted from January 2023 to June 2023, and participants were recruited by social media posts on Facebook and LinkedIn. No monetary incentives were offered for participation. An email from one of the authors of this study was provided in case of further questions regarding the research. However, no participant utilized this option.

The study sample size was a priori estimated with power analysis on previous correlations of gelotophobia and workplace bullying (from Ruch and Stahlmann, 2020), where the mean zero-order correlation was r = 0.145. Using 85% power, a standard α = 0.05, and a one-sided test, the needed total sample would be 339 participants (performed with package pwr, Champely et al., 2020). We maximized our collection possibilities; in total, 482 participants opened the test battery, with 137 not completing all of the questionnaires. Therefore, only 345 individuals completed the test battery. The final sample consisted of 328 participants (77% females) as 17 participants were flagged as outliers (and removed from the dataset) using the Mahalanobis Distance procedure in the careless package [v1.1.3; Yentes and Wilhelm, 2018; see also Meade and Craig (2012) for identifying careless responding by using Mahalanobis Distances]. Data cleaning was conducted on the answers provided on the separate scales on the Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2-S; see Instruments section). Participants were from the Czech Republic and their age was between 20 and 66 years (M = 37.95, SD = 9.66). The sociodemographic characteristics of the sample are provided in the Supplementary Table S1.

The descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis) of the measures are depicted in Table 1.

Table 1 shows that skewness and kurtosis indicated substantial non-normality for the NAQ-R total score and the bullying dimensions (i.e., values for the skewness and/or kurtosis were greater than +2). For the rest of the measures, the values of the skewness and kurtosis could be considered acceptable [see Hair et al. (2022)].

Considering the prevalence of workplace bullying, in our sample it was found that 27.1% of the participants were exposed to workplace bullying when Leymann’s criterion (Leymann, 1996) was applied (i.e., facing at least one of the 22 negative acts on a weekly/daily basis during a minimum of 6 months). When a more strict criterion was used, or two acts on a week/daily basis (Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2001), 12% of the participants could be classified as victims of workplace bullying. The prevalence of self-reported bullying was 9%. The percentage of endorsed behavioral items and the self-labeled victimization from bullying are given in the Supplementary Tables S2, S3.

Pearson product–moment correlations between the Big Five domains, gelotophobia and exposure to workplace bullying are given in Table 2.

Table 2 shows that negative emotionality was positively related to the NAQ-R total score, and to each of the bullying dimensions, as expected. However, there was not a statistically significant relation between negative emotionality and self-labeled victimization from bullying. The rest of the Big Five traits were not related to any of the bullying measures, with an exception of the significant negative association between extraversion and humor-related bullying. In line with the expectations, gelotophobia correlated positively with the NAQ-R total score, the separate bullying dimensions, and the self-labeled victimization from bullying. The relation between personality and gelotophobia also corroborated previous findings, as gelotophobia was related to each of the personality domains, and the most robust correlations were found with extraversion and negative emotionality. Finally, self-reported victimization from bullying was strongly related to the NAQ-R total score and its dimensions.

In order to correct for the substantial non-normality of the exposure to bullying measures, we also calculated Spearman rank order correlations (see Supplementary Table S4). Each of the above mentioned findings were replicated (except for the extraversion relation to humor-related bullying, which cease to be significant), albeit the correlations were generally weaker.

We conducted two hierarchical multiple regression models and used the NAQ-R total score as a dependent variable. Model 1 included the personality domains (Big Five), whereas Model 2 incorporated both personality domains and gelotophobia to assess its incremental effect on bullying. A summary of both models can be found in Table 3. Assumptions of linear regression were mostly met, however residuals had a minor deviation from normal distribution.

In the first model, negative emotionality was the only statistically significant predictor of the NAQ-R total score; beta = 0.16 [95% CI (0.03, 0.29), t(322) = 2.43, p = 0.016]. However, in the second model, gelotophobia had the only significant effect [beta = 0.37, 95% CI (0.24, 0.50), t(321) = 5.61, p < 0.001], and the difference in R2 between Models 1 and 2 is ΔR2 = 0.086.

Next, humor-related bullying was used as a dependent variable. Similar results occurred (see Table 4), where only gelotophobia was statistically significant in the second model [beta = 0.39, 95% CI (0.26, 0.52), t(321) = 5.98, p < 0.001].

To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to provide evidence for the incremental validity of gelotophobia beyond the personality domains. Although negative emotionality and gelotophobia overlap to a certain degree, the results from the regression analysis indicated that gelotophobia predicted exposure to workplace bullying (operationalized with the total score on the NAQ-R) over and above negative emotionality. More interestingly, gelotophobia was the only significant predictor of humor-related bullying, which is in line with theoretical considerations (e.g., Hofmann et al., 2017). In sum, we provide initial evidence that the construct of gelotophobia should be considered, over and above the personality dimensions, in order to understand exposure to workplace bullying.