Violence and Victims, Volume 22, Number 2, 2007

Personality and Psychopathological

Profiles in Individuals Exposed
to Mobbing
Paolo Girardi, MD
Edoardo Monaco, MD
Claudio Prestigiacomo, MD
Alessandra Talamo, MD
Amedeo Ruberto, MD
Roberto Tatarelli, MD
University of Rome “La Sapienza,” Italy

Increasingly, mental health and medical professionals have been asked to assess claims of
psychological harm arising from harassment at the workplace, or “mobbing.” This study
assessed the personality and psychopathological profiles of 146 individuals exposed to mob-
bing using validity, clinical, and content scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory 2. Profiles and factor analyses were obtained. Two major dimensions emerged
among those exposed to mobbing: (a) depressed mood, difficulty in making decisions,
change-related anguish, and passive-aggressive traits (b) somatic symptoms, and need for
attention and affection. This cross-sectional pilot study provides evidence that personality
profiles of mobbing victims and psychological damage resulting from mobbing may be
evaluated using standardized assessments, though a longitudinal study is needed to delineate
cause-and-effect relationships.

Keywords: psychological harassment; emotional harm; psychological harm; workplace;

MMPI-2

P
sychosocial risks in the workplace, especially those related to difficulties in interper-
sonal relations, have been increasingly investigated in recent years as a cause of men-
tal health issues (Long, Rouse, Nelsen, & Butcher, 2004). The phenomena underlying
these risks and their specific effects on health remain poorly understood despite their contri-
bution to psychopathological development. Better detection and assessment of psychosocial
risk may be useful for preventing its occurrence and improving workplace environments.
Among these risks there is a phenomenon commonly referred to as “mobbing.”
Mobbing is a term that recalls bullying phenomena but is specific to workplaces
(Spivak & Prothrow-Stith, 2001). It is a form of systematic psychological harassment
in workplaces whereby one worker is “ganged up” on and stigmatized by colleagues or
superiors through rumor, innuendo, intimidation, humiliation, discrediting, and isolation
(Cassitto & Gilioli, 2003; Davenport, Distler Schwartz, & Pursell Elliott, 1999; Ege, 1996;
Leymann, 1990, 1996, 2000; Monaco, Bianco, Di Simone, Di Giuseppe, & Prestigiacomo,

172 © 2007 Springer Publishing Company

Profiles of Individuals Exposed to Mobbing 173

2004; Monaco et al., 2003). It involves colleagues or superiors “ganging up” on a target
employee and subjecting him or her to psychological harassment characterized by discred-
iting, personal attacks, emotional abuse, marginalization, discrimination, and isolation.
Mobbing is thus a specific form of psychological harassment unique to the workplace that
threatens both the emotional well-being and the professional ability of its victims.
Victims of this mobbing behavior experience high stress levels at the workplace that
may be further associated with psychological harm; whether this damage is caused by or
is only coincidentally associated with the mobbing remains unknown. To our knowledge,
there are no validated scales specifically designed to identify mobbing exposure, and
therefore the definition of mobbing as a specific workplace stressor is based mainly on
collected data from self-reported experiences of mobbing victims. A multiple-choice ques-
tionnaire was recently developed and validated in Italy to evaluate the risk of mobbing at
the workplace (Gilioli et al., 2005). It is hoped that this questionnaire may reveal work-
place risks and ultimately help to prevent mobbing occurrences; however, in the meantime,
the psychological harm associated with mobbing must be characterized.
It is becoming increasingly evident that mobbing is widespread, involving most
Western countries and leading to symptoms and disorders in individuals involved in mob-
bing situations. The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
Conditions, an institute of the European Union (EU), reported a prevalence of mobbing in
Italy of 4% for 2000, amounting to approximately 800,000 to 1,000,000 employees (Paoli
& Merllié, 2000). This estimate, though sizable, is low compared to the rest of the EU,
which reports a 9% rate of harassment in the workplace, or an estimated 12 million people
(about 8% of the working population). Finland shows the highest rate (15%), followed by
the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (14%), Sweden (12%), Belgium (11%), France
and Ireland (10%), Denmark (8%), Germany and Luxembourg (7%), Austria (6%), Spain
and Greece (5%), and Italy and Portugal (4%) (Paoli & Merllié, 2000). The current atten-
tion to the mobbing phenomenon in Italy is due mainly to an increase in the sensitization
of the public to several social forces and lobbyists (unions, health agencies, physicians,
psychologists, lawyers, and workers themselves). This interest triggered multidisciplinary
collaborations to recognize this phenomenon and its effects on working people.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM CLAIMED BY THE

“MOBBING VICTIMS”

Although an extended discussion of the evaluation of mobbing and legal implications is

beyond the scope of this article, a limited discussion about the psychological harm reported by
employees and mobbing as form of psychological harassment is useful to explain the underly-
ing rationale for applying the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2 (MMPI-2) in
the assessment of psychological harm claims. Mobbing victims develop stress symptoms that
may increase in severity as the mobbing continues as a form of workplace stressor.
In the initial phase, the mobbing victim may present with psychosomatic symptoms
such as headaches, tachycardia, gastrointestinal symptoms, bone and joint pain, increased
blood pressure, sleep problems, generalized physical discomfort, insecurity, difficulty
concentrating, inability to initiate activity, social isolation, crying spells, and change in appe-
tite. If the mobbing is long term, these symptoms become more organized into syndromes
known as “life event reactions” (Gilioli et al., 2001). Mobbing-related psychopathology is
174 Girardi et al.

linked to the exposure to one or more stressful events. This exposure generally leads to con-
ditions diagnosed according to the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000)
criteria as Axis I adjustment disorder or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Cassitto &
Gilioli, 2003). The persistence of mobbing behavior in the workplace (according to the
previous definition of mobbing) with no treatment may lead to an increase in the severity
of already existing symptoms (those developed after harassment or preexisting ones), the
development of new symptoms, or even to the onset of other comorbid disorders, like major
depression and anxiety disorders. Mobbing victims must therefore be carefully assessed
with a focus on prior psychopathology both to identify the possible vulnerabilities and pre-
disposing characteristics of psychopathological development and to institute timely treat-
ment to counter the effects of stress related to mobbing behavior in the workplace.

THE NEED FOR OBJECTIVE CLINICAL ASSESSMENT

Psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health and medical professionals have been
increasingly involved in assessing claims of psychological harm following psychological
and physical harassment in the workplace (Long et al., 2004). However, when requested
to assess such claims, health professionals face considerable obstacles in conducting fair
and independent psychological assessments.
The primary challenge of evaluating an alleged mobbing victim is to determine whether
the psychopathology resulted from mobbing or developed independently of it. Initially, it
is essential to test the reliability of the patient in order to exclude malingering or other
preexistent severe psychiatric illness, such as psychosis. The assessment of individuals
claiming that they have been psychologically harmed relies mostly on the subjective
self-report. Although treatment plans may rely on a patient’s self-report, the presence
of a secondary gain (American Psychiatric Association, 1984) may distort self-reported
symptoms in situations where the litigants may use the evaluation for legal reasons or to
obtain economic rewards.
This is a pilot study using quantitative and qualitative methods to assess specific psy-
chopathological characteristics among individuals who claim to be exposed to mobbing
behavior at the workplace. Currently this is a relatively unexplored phenomenon. The
results of this study should be used to design future studies that aim to identify risk factors
for mobbing and its associated psychopathological harm. A standardized rating scale that
could detect mobbing behavior as form of workplace psychological harassment and pre-
dict specific psychopathological characteristics related to mobbing behavior in mobbing
victims seems an appropriate goal for future studies.

THE USE OF THE MMPI-2 IN MOBBING VICTIMS

To our knowledge, there have been no previously published studies reporting empirical
research on MMPI or MMPI-2 profiles of mobbing victims. However, several investigators
have studied MMPI-2 personality patterns among other groups of psychologically harmed
individuals, such as sexual harassment and discrimination litigants, individuals with
chronic pain, and those claiming PTSD due to psychological injuries (Long et al., 2004;
Love & Peck, 1987; Riley & Robinson, 1998; Strassberg, Tilley, Bristone, & Oei, 1992).
Profiles of Individuals Exposed to Mobbing 175

Many psychologically harmed individuals generally show common characteristics

that encompass relevant psychiatric overlay to physical symptoms as well as the involve-
ment in legal proceedings that may provide them with possible compensation and other
forms of secondary gain. In such cases, the use of MMPI-2 is crucial to objectively
assess personality and psychopathological patterns and to exclude possible malinger-
ing or other forms of implausible exaggerations or denying symptoms (Lim & Butcher,
1996).
In this regard, it would be extremely helpful to identify the personality characteristics
of individuals who report to mental health services as mobbing victims in order to detect
common clinical response patterns. Also, studying the correlation between such personal-
ity characteristics and the threshold for the development of work-related issues could help
recognize and treat such individuals earlier.
Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to apply MMPI-2 to assess the personality
and psychopathological profiles of individuals who reported being exposed to mobbing.
Moreover, the study aimed to assess validity response pattern with MMPI-2.

METHOD

Participants
This study was carried out between 2001 and 2004. All participants were recruited after
being interviewed at a Worker’s Union for complaints related to their work environment.
Of the 1,830 participants interviewed, 29% (N = 535) were referred by the Worker’s Union
to the Occupational Medicine Outpatient Service and Psychiatry Service specifically for
reports of psychological harassment at the workplace.
We interviewed these 535 participants both to obtain thorough occupational histories
and to assess psychopathological symptoms possibly related to mobbing exposure at their
workplace. Following the psychiatric assessment, the Occupational Medicine Service
released a certification of compatibility with mobbing (Monaco et al., 2003, 2004).
Diagnoses were assigned based on the following items: the Mini-International
Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.-Plus), Italian Version 5.0.0, a structured clini-
cal interview for the main Axis I diagnostic categories in the DSM-IV-TR (American
Psychiatric Association, 2000; Sheehan & Lecrubier, 1998) by psychiatrists trained in the
administration of the M.I.N.I.-Plus, and additional clinical interviews. The diagnosis was
formulated according to the DSM-IV-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). All
535 participants were additionally administered the MMPI-2, Italian version (Hathaway
& McKinley, 1996).
All data were collected from subject medical records. We divided the list of mobbing
patients into two subpopulations based on gender and selected a simple random sample of
30% of each subpopulation (Dunn & Clark, 2001). The sample randomly chosen was com-
posed of 160 patients. We included in the present study 146 patients who were considered
eligible for our study. The eligibility was based on the completeness and accuracy of data
from outpatient medical records, the M.I.N.I.-Plus interview, and the MMPI-2 self-rated
questionnaires. All participants were Italian. The sample consisted of individuals in vari-
ous professional fields who were all employed in southern and central Italy. Data collected
included demographic data, MMPI-2, and M.I.N.I.-Plus. The demographic characteristics
of the sample are shown in Table 1.
176 Girardi et al.

TABLE 1. Demographics of the Sample (N = 146)

Gender
Male 75 (51.4%)
Female 71 (48.6%)
Age
Mean 45
Standard deviation (SD) 9.5
Education (years)
Mean 14
SD 4
Marital status
Unmarried 38 (26%)
Married 108 (74%)
Diagnosis
Past-psychiatric disorder 130 (89%)
Adjustment disorder 116 (79.4%)
Anxiety disorder 7 (4.7%)
Affective disorder 11 (7.5%)
No psychiatric disorder 12 (8.2%)

Measures
M.I.N.I.-Plus. The M.I.N.I. is a short structured interview designed for diagnostic
purposes. The instrument was validated by a cross-national study involving more than 600
subjects and by another study utilizing the Italian version specifically (Rossi et al., 2004;
Sheehan et al., 1998). The M.I.N.I. is a short and easily administered clinical interview
compatible with international diagnostic criteria, including the International Classification
of Disorders (ICD-10; World Health Organization, 1990) as well as the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R and DSM-IV; American Psychiatric
Association, 1987, 1994, respectively).
The main psychiatric disorders considered in the M.I.N.I. include 17 Axis I disorders
(major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, mania, panic disorder, agoraphobia,
social phobia, specific phobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety
disorder, alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, drug dependence, drug abuse, psychotic
disorder, anorexia nervosa, bulimia, and posttraumatic stress disorder), a suicidality
module, and one Axis II disorder (antisocial personality disorder). The M.I.N.I.-Plus
(Version 5.0.0; used in this study) was subsequently developed to include a total of 23
disorders. It features questions for ruling out or ruling in disorders, disorder subtyping,
and chronology (e.g., age at onset) and includes modules for somatization disorders
(e.g., hypochondriasis, body dysmorphic disorder), conduct disorder, attention-defi-
cit/hyperactivity disorder, adjustment disorder, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, and
mixed anxiety/depressive disorders.
MMPI-2. The MMPI-2 and its predecessor, the MMPI, are widely accepted and
empirically validated self-report inventories that assess major patterns of personality and
psychological disorders.
The MMPI-2 consists of 567 true-false questions that can be answered by any adult who
has a sixth-grade education. It is easily administered and the most widely used instrument
in forensic evaluation (Borum & Grisso, 1995; Keilen & Bloom, 1986; Lees-Haley, Smith,
Profiles of Individuals Exposed to Mobbing 177

Williams, & Dunn, 1996), including those cases involving personal injury, emotional harm,
workers’ compensation, pain, and disability (Alfano, Neilson, Paniak, & Finlayson, 1992;
Boccaccini & Brodsky, 1999; Butcher, 1985; Slesinger, Archer & Duane, 2002).
The MMPI-2 contains 10 clinical scales ([1] Hs-Somatization; [2] D-Depression; [3] Hy-
Hysteria; [4] Pd-Psychopathic Deviate; [5] MF-Masculinity or Femininity; [6] Pa-Paranoia;
[7] Pt-Psychastenia; [8] Sc-Schizophrenia; [9] Ma-Mania; [10] Si-Social Introversion) and
15 content scales ([1] ANX-Anxiety; [2] FRS-Fears; [3] OBS-Obsessiveness; [4] DEP-
Depression; [5] HEA-Health Concerns; [6] BIZ-Bizarre Mentation; [7] ANG-Anger; [8]
CYN-Cynicism; [9] ASP-Antisocial Practices; [10] TPA-Type A Behavior; [11] LSE-Low
Self-Esteem; [12] SOD-Social Discomfort; [13] FAM-Family Problems; [14] WRK-Work
Interference; [15] TRT-Negative Treatment Indicators).
T-scores greater than or equal to 65 reflect responses that are equal to or greater than
two standard deviations above the mean or the “normal” comparative population. These
scales have been objectively derived, scored, and interpreted and have been associated with
well-established behavioral measures. When combined with an analysis of the validity
scales, the T-scores obtained on the clinical and content scales can provide the examiner a
wealth of information about an individual’s personality and offer hypotheses about psychi-
atric diagnosis, personality type, chronology of psychological disturbance, and prognosis
(Graham, 1990).

Procedure
We used the MMPI-2 to assess personality and psychopathological characteristics as well
as test-taking attitudes of the participants. All 146 participants completed the MMPI-2.
Their test data were scored using the MMPI-2 National Computer Systems Program. This
MMPI-2 version allows for the analysis of the basic and content scales and a supplemen-
tal scale called the Variable Response Inconsistency scale (VRIN; Graham, 1990). We
used validity scales (Lie [L]; Infrequency [F]; Correction [K]) and the VRIN scale of the
MMPI-2 to provide considerable information about test-taking attitudes.
Since the test is self-rated, the assessment of validity scales is necessary to understand
test-taking attitudes. This seems important, especially in situations where the evaluation
may be used for legal reasons or to obtain economic rewards. In similar situations, there
is a higher risk for symptom exaggeration; in such cases, the use of validity scales reveals
that the disorder is probably feigned and diagnosis unreliable. We would expect high
scores on the validity scales for individuals who simulated psychopathology to obtain an
economic reward, that is, F-scale T-scores equal to or greater than 80 (Butcher & Williams,
1992). On the other hand, the test could be considered not valid when a severe psychiatric
disorder is present, especially psychosis; the latter are known to alter the responses on the
validity scales. In a severely disturbed population, we would certainly expect the indicators
of distress to be high. These would be reflected by elevations on the validity scales of the
MMPI-2, especially the F and the VRIN scales (Stukenberg, Brady, & Klinetob, 2000).
The elevation on the F and VRIN may be indicative of severe psychopathology, such as
hallucinations, delusions, short attention span, and disorientation, indicated in the MMPI-
2 profile of individuals by T-scores on the F scale equal to or greater than 100 (Gynther,
Altman, & Warbin, 1973).
We considered F-scale T-scores greater than or equal to 90 and VRIN greater than
80 mainly as invalidating the resulting MMPI-2 protocols (Butcher & Williams, 1992;
Graham, 1990).
178 Girardi et al.

We considered clinical and content scale T-scores greater than 65 of psychopathologi-

cal significance. Furthermore, the scores on the separate scales were not considered only
on their own but rather in relationship to those obtained on other related scales, as in code
types. Thus, inferences about participants with scores on several scales could be made
if they could explain specific psychopathological dimensions of our sample (Butcher &
Williams, 1992; Graham, 1990).
This procedure yielded a total of 29 MMPI-2 scales to be analyzed:
• Clinical scales: [1] Hs-Somatization; [2] D-Depression; [3] Hy-Hysteria; [4]
Pd-Psychopathic Deviate; [5] MF-Masculinity or Femininity; [6] Pa-Paranoia; [7] Pt-
Psychastenia; [8] Sc-Schizophrenia; [9] Ma-Mania; [10] Si-Social Introversion
• Content scales: [1] ANX-Anxiety; [2] FRS-Fears; [3] OBS-Obsessiveness; [4] DEP-
Depression; [5] HEA-Health Concerns; [6] BIZ-Bizarre Mentation; [7] ANG-Anger;
[8] CYN-Cynicism; [9] ASP-Antisocial Practices; [10] TPA-Type A Behavior; [11]
LSE-Low Self-Esteem; [12] SOD-Social Discomfort; [13] FAM-Family Problems;
[14] WRK-Work Interference; [15] TRT-Negative Treatment Indicators
• Validity scales: L-Lie; F-Infrequency; K-Correction; VRIN

RESULTS

MMPI-2 Protocols Validity. Of the 535 participants referred by the Worker’s Union to the
Occupational Medicine Outpatient Service and to the Psychiatric Service, a certification of com-
patibility with mobbing was released to 402 participants, representing 75% of the sample.
Of the 160 patients randomly chosen, the resulting MMPI-2 protocols of 14 participants
were considered not valid for the following reasons: (a) six for F-scale scores greater than
or equal to 90T, (b) four for VRIN scale scores greater than 80, (c) four for incompleteness
and/or inaccuracy of data from outpatient medical records, the MMPI-2, and/or M.I.N.I.-
Plus interview. Therefore, we considered 146 patients eligible for analysis.
Of the 146 included in the sample, we found five patients who had T-scores in the range
of 66 to 79 on the L validity scale, but on the other validity scales these scores were F =
78, VRIN = 43. Consequently, these questionnaires were considered valid.
Table 2 shows means for the L, F, K, and VRIN validity scales calculated for the over-
all sample. On average, the participants produced validity scale scores for valid MMPI-2
protocols. The average scores of the F and VRIN validity scales were not high enough to
suggest random or fake-bad response sets, indicating a tendency of our sample to be neither
excessively undecided nor impulsive in responding to the items of the MMPI-2. Further,
their mean T-scores on the L validity scale was only slightly below average, so we may

TABLE 2. Mean Validity Scale Scores of the Overall Sample

MMPI-2 Scales Mean T-Score SD
Lie (L) scale 53 8.6
Infrequency (F) scale 61.7 10.7
Correction (K) scale 44.7 8.3
Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN) scale 58.8 8.8
Profiles of Individuals Exposed to Mobbing 179

infer that they were not blatantly defensive and denying in their attitude toward the test. The
mean T-score on the K validity scale indicated that they were not defensive but were instead
rather self-critical in responding to the items. Such low K-scale scores are rather common
among people voluntarily seeking help at a mental health service (Graham, 1990).
Post hoc univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to determine which
scales contributed significantly to the validity and test-taking attitude differences among
sexes. Because of the number of post hoc t tests, the significance levels were adjusted
using Bonferroni correction (p < .005 for the validity scales). We found only significant
differences between women and men in L validity scale (F = 16.89, df = 1, p < .001) with
means of 55.6 and 50.05, respectively, for women and men.
Profile Analyses. The profiles of the 10 clinical scales were analyzed for between-
groups differences using multivariate ANOVA. Post hoc univariate ANOVA were con-
ducted to determine which scales contributed significantly to the profile differences
among sexes. The profiles of the 15 content scales were also analyzed for between-group
differences in similar fashion. Because of the number of post hoc t tests, the significance
levels were adjusted using Bonferroni correction (p < .005 for the clinical and content
scales).
Figures 1 and 2 present the MMPI-2 profiles for women and men, respectively, for clini-
cal and content scales. Both women and men group profiles have higher mean elevation on
Hs, D, Hy, and Pa clinical scales and HEA content scales. The group profiles of men show
highest mean elevation (T > 65) on the DEP content scale and slight elevation (T = 64) for
the ANX content scale. The two group profiles for the clinical scales are significantly dif-
ferent, Wilks’s lambda = 0.8 (F = 1.8, df = 10, p = .05). Post hoc analyses indicate no sig-
nificant differences on Hs, D, Hy, and Pa clinical scales for women and men group profiles,

Figure 1. MMPI-2 profiles of clinical scale for women and men.

*Bonferroni-adjusted p < .05. Hs = Hypochondriasis; D = Depression; Hy = Hysteria;
Pd = Psychopathic Deviate; Mf = Masculinity-Femininity; Pa = Paranoia; Pt = Psychastenia;
Sc = Schizophrenia; Ma = Hypomania; Si = Social Introversion.
180 Girardi et al.

Figure 2. MMPI-2 profiles of clinical scale for women and men.

*Bonferroni-adjusted p < .05. ANX = Anxiety; FRS = Fears; OBS = Obsessiveness; DEP =
Depression; HEA = Health Concerns; BIZ = Bizarre Mentation; ANG = Anger; CYN = Cynicism;
ASP = Antisocial Practices; TPA = Type A; LSE = Low self-esteem; SOD = Social Discomfort; FAM
= Family Problems; WRK = Work Interference; TRT = Negative Treatment Indicators.

although we found the Si clinical scale (F = 6.22, df = 1, p < .05) significantly different
for men and women group profiles. The two group profiles for the content scales are also
significantly different, Wilks’s lambda = 0.7 (F = 0.7, df = 15, p < .05). Post hoc analyses
indicate significant differences on the DEP (F = 5.15, df = 1, p < .05) and ANX (F = 6.38, df
= 1, p < .05) for women and men group profiles. Post hoc analyses also indicate significant
differences on the OBS (F = 10.86, df = 1, p < .05), ANG (F = 4, df = 1, p < .05), ASP (F =
8.59, df = 1, p < .05), LSE (F = 4.57, df = 1, p < .05), SOD (F = 3.97, df = 1, p < .05), and
FAM (F = 6.98, df = 1, p < .05). Using contingency tables, we found that there are signifi-
cantly more married men than women (N = 61 [41.7%] vs. N = 47 [32.2%]; χ2 [df = 1, 106]
= 4.3; p = .03). Furthermore, unmarried individuals score significantly higher than married
subjects on the FAM content scale (mean = 58.6 vs. 53.6; F [df = 1, 144] = 6.7, p = .01).
The average profile for the overall sample shows clinical elevations (T > 65) in obtain-
ing 3-point codes on the Hs, D, and Hy clinical scales in 41.7% (N = 61).
Of the overall sample, 32.8% (N = 48) obtained the 3-point code Hs, D, Hy in conjunc-
tion with elevations (T > 65) for the Pa clinical scale.
Regarding the content scales of the overall sample, T-score elevation (T > 65) was
found on the DEP and ANX content scales in 42% (N = 62) and 39% (N = 57) of the cases,
respectively. Clinical elevation (T-score > 65) was also found on the HEA scale among 94
(64%) of the cases.
Age and Education Correlations for the MMPI-2. We found significant, positive
linear correlations by simple regression between the F validity scale and age (R = 0.195,
p = .01) as well as the SOD content scale and age (R = 0.236, p = .004). Further, we
found positive linear relationships for Pd, Pt, and Si and years of education (Pd vs.
education: R = 0.41, p = .01; Pt vs. education: R = 0.177, p = .03; Si vs. education: R
= 0.179, p = .003).
Profiles of Individuals Exposed to Mobbing 181

Factor Analysis. The T-scores from the MMPI-2 scales were factor analyzed using a
principal components analysis with varimax rotation. The subjects-to-variable ratio was
5:1, which was been deemed acceptable for factor analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989).
We found significant correlations between the content, validity, and clinical scales by
factor analysis using method of principal components (Bartlett chi-square = 3,022.25, df =
434, p < .0001). Although six factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, only three
were judged to be interpretable. The total amount of variance explained by the considered
three factors was found to be 55.7% versus 13.4% of the others. Table 3 shows factor
loadings and the amount of variance explained by each factor. To aid in the interpretation
of factors, the criterion for meaningful correlation between variables and factors was set
at >0.60.

TABLE 3. Factor Analysis of MMPI-2 Scales Showing Percentage of Variance and

Factor Loadings
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6
% Variance 37.1 10.2 8.4 5.4 4.2 3.9
explained
WRK .859* –.037 –.161 –.074 .017 –.111
DEP .845* .011 –.115 .005 –.145 .094
TRT .836* .004 –.140 –.113 –.084 –.067
OBS .813* –.087 .048 –.004 .034 –.068
Pt .794* .279 .010 .114 –.088 .074
LSE .783* –.020 –.262 .008 .063 –.006
Sc .768* .243 .276 .200 –.166 .146
D .739* .466 –.233 –.047 –.031 .129
F- .718* –.019 .225 .105 .027 .191
SOD .656* –.031 –.508 –.095 .039 .011
K- –.627* .426 –.001 .192 –.250 –.084
FRS .615* –.156 .162 .052 .454 –.007
ANG .606* –.269 .077 .064 –.224 –.086
Si .653* .048 –.612* –.013 .181 .069
Ma .301 –.282 .642* .047 –.195 –.101
Hy .395 .728* .160 .002 –.048 –.237
Hs .457 .691* .163 –.243 –.028 –.363
FAM .590 –.179 .154 .355 .015 –.143
HEA .589 .405 .334 –.344 .120 –.356
ANX .571 –.057 –.508 –.154 .070 .174
BIZ .551 –.171 .595 –.122 .136 .155
Pa .522 .141 .397 –.086 .121 .517
TPA .508 –.590 .170 –.011 –.016 –.102
CYN .496 –.503 .092 –.380 .012 –.075
Pd .447 .195 –.030 .410 –.531 .225
ASP .348 –.536 –.115 –.031 –.367 –.269
VRIN .255 .045 .087 .525 .196 .087
Mf/m .070 .031 –.029 .570 .503 –.286
L-lie –.338 .243 .194 –.366 .108 .333
Note. Boxes indicate scales, which were considered for interpretation on the particular
factor.
*Factor loadings > 0.60 are considered significant.
182 Girardi et al.

To reflect scale loadings, factors 1 to 3 were labeled Psychological Dysfunction, Physical

Dysfunction, and Psychomotor Hyperactivity, respectively. Table 4 shows abbreviated scale
descriptions by factor. More extensive descriptions of the scales can be found elsewhere
(Graham, 1990). Factor 1 reflects general psychological distress potentially related to dif-
ficulties at work by problems in a variety of areas. These include overall psychological dis-
tress (scale F), tension, anxiety, feelings of alienation, depression, various aspects of limited
resources to deal with stress, and presence of passive aggressive traits (K[-], TRT, LSE, OBS,
FRS, and ANG scales). Factor 2 represents physical dysfunction. Scales loading on this fac-
tor reflect concern about physical functioning (scale Hs), reporting of somatic complaints,
and physical malfunctioning (scale Hy). Factor 3 reflects psychomotor hyperactivity charac-
terized by high energy, impulsivity, irritability (Ma scale), and social extroversion.

DISCUSSION

We applied the MMPI-2 to investigate the personality characteristics of participants who

were subjected to mobbing and found elevations in the neurotic code-type and gender-related

TABLE 4. MMPI-2 Scale Descriptors for Each Factor

MMPI-2 Scale Scale Description
Articolo I. Factor 1. Psychological
Dysfunction
WRK-Work Interference Poor work performances
DEP-Depression Depression, hopelessness
TRT-Negative Treatment Indicators Difficulties making changes, coping difficulties
OBS-Obsessiveness Indecision, dislike changes
Pt-Psychastenia Worried, tense, indecisive
LSE-Low Self-Esteem Poor self-concepts, overly sensitive, passive in
relationships
Sc-Schizophrenia Feelings of alienation
D-Depression Depression
F-Infrequency A rough index of psychological distress
SOD-Social Discomfort Socially introverted
K-Correction (-)* Limited resources to deal with stress, openly
acknowledging distress
FRS-Fears Lack of competitiveness, fears
ANG-Anger Feelings of anger, low frustration tolerance
Si-Social Introversion Social introversion
Articolo II. Factor 2. Physical
Dysfunction
Hy-Hysteria Excessive concern about vague and diffuse
physical complaints
Ss-Somatization Physical complaints, denial of psychological problems
Articolo III. Factor 3. Psychomotor
Hyperactivity
Si-Social Introversion (-)* Socially extroverted
Ma-Mania Increased energy, irritable, difficulty inhibiting
expression of impulses
*These scale descriptors are for negative loadings on the factor.
Profiles of Individuals Exposed to Mobbing 183

differences. Considering the limited literature on the use of the MMPI-2 to assess “mob-
bing victims,” this study showed the appropriateness of the MMPI-2 for the evaluation of
individuals who claim to have been subjected to mobbing. Although it is still unclear how
mobbing may lead to a psychiatric illness, we found a considerable proportion of psychiat-
ric symptoms in this population that followed patterns of homogeneity. Overall, our sample
was found to be cooperative during the assessment.
Regarding clinical and content scales, we consistently identified an average profile of
the sample with elevations involving both clinical and content scales. Forty-two percent
of these patients produced their highest 3-point scale elevations on the Hs, D, and Hy
clinical scales, with no significant differences between sexes. Further, we found that the
individuals with this “neurotic triad” scored higher on the Pa scale in 33% of the cases.
Although a mean T-score greater than 65 on this clinical scale (Pa) was found, the score
is not high enough to lead to inferences concerning psychotic symptoms and behavior
(Graham, 1990). Rather, we would expect a tendency of our sample to be excessively sen-
sitive and overly responsive to the opinions of others. This average profile of the sample
suggests that these individuals frequently reported somatic complaints and affective dis-
tress in a similar way to that of chronic pain populations, providing substantial support
for the tendency to involve this “neurotic triad” in response to stressful situations (Gilioli
et al., 2001; Slesinger et al., 2002). Moreover, men more frequently had psychopathologi-
cal elevations than women on the F validity and ANX and DEP content scales, indicating
significantly higher overall levels of affective distress as well as presence of more anxious
and depressive symptoms. In general, unmarried individuals had significant elevations
on the FAM content scale relative to the married subsample, indicating that unmarried
individuals had more family problems than married individuals. Although we found low
mean scores on the FAM content scale for both men and women, scores on this scale
tended to be higher when they involved single women, suggesting that the single status
might bring more family problems to women than men. Social reasons could underlie
this finding. Although this finding seems interesting, it is not fully clear and should be
investigated further.
Older age was significantly associated with social discomfort or depressive symptoms
(SOD and F scales) and a higher level of education, with more frequent elevations on the
Pd, Pt, and Si clinical scales, indicating a tendency for mobbing victims to be passive-
aggressive and introverted (Graham, 1990).
Finally, we found three homogeneous psychopathological dimensions to explain most
of the variance of the overall sample. Some participants tended to display depressed mood,
difficulty in making decisions, anguish of the change, and a wide variety of attitudes and
behaviors that are likely to contribute to poor work performance, such as a tendency to be
passive-aggressive and introverted (factor 1: Psychological Dysfunction).
The current criteria for the passive-aggressive personality disorder as proposed by the
Personality Disorders Work Group for the DSM-IV include passive resistance to fulfill-
ing social and occupational tasks through procrastination and inefficiency; complaints of
being misunderstood, unappreciated, and victimized by others; sullenness, irritability, and
argumentativeness in response to expectations; angry and pessimistic attitudes toward a
variety of events; unreasonable criticism and scorn toward those in authority; envy and
resentment toward those who are more fortunate; self-definition as luckless in life and an
inclination to whine and grumble about being jinxed; and alternating behavior between
hostile assertion of personal autonomy and dependent contrition (Millon & Radovanov,
1995, p. 321).
184 Girardi et al.

Specific personality disorders, such as passive-aggressive personality disorder, may

affect work environment and its organizations by specific disruptive behaviors that can
challenge coworkers and negatively affect the effectiveness of the work group (Trimpey &
Davidson, 1994).
On the other hand, personality traits may reflect an important vulnerability for devel-
oping symptoms related to stress along with other risk factors, such as specific charac-
teristics of the traumatic event and previous stressful experiences (Fishbain, Goldberg,
Labbe, Steele, & Rosomoff, 1988; Lecic-Tosevski, Gavrilovic, Knezevic, & Priebe, 2003;
Sansone, Pole, Dakroub, & Butler, 2006).
Our results were suggestive for passive-aggressive personality traits, which could
explain mainly features of difficulties on regulating and expressing anger with symptoms
of psychological distress and impairment related to conflicts at the workplace.
It seems important to identify prevention strategies that could avoid a high level of con-
flicts among coworkers, providing support, therapeutic, and consultation services.
Another dimension of the sample (factor 2: Physical Dysfunction) can be described
as endorsing several somatic symptoms that increase in times of stress, such as need for
attention and affection and denial of psychological problems. The essential features of
this factor and the “neurotic triad” profile suggest that these individuals “are probably
using denial and repression excessively. They tend to have little or no insight into their
own needs, conflict or symptoms” (Graham, 1987, pp. 114–115). This characteristic
profile of reactivity to stress, a tendency to convert psychological problems into somatic
complaints, and the avoidance of responsibility by developing physical symptoms
resembles personality patterns found in individuals with chronic back pain (Bradley,
Prokop, Margolis, & Gentry, 1978; Lousberg, Groenman, & Schmidt, 1996; Slesinger
et al., 2002).
Factor 3 (Psychomotor Hyperactivity) is considered a psychopathological dimension
that is characterized, if high scores are present (T > 65), by a tendency to have excessive
energy, accelerated speech, elevated mood, increased motor activity, irritability, flight
of ideas, and difficulty inhibiting expression of impulses while also inversely related to
the tendency to be sociable and extroverted. Our findings indicate that if a patient has a
T-score on the BIZ content scale greater than 65, clinicians should consider a psychiatric
evaluation for psychosis.
We found that personality traits are important in determining a psychopathological
condition, here, in particular, among individuals exposed to mobbing in the form of
psychological harassment at the workplace. Such personality patterns may lead to the
recognition of either psychopathologic features characteristic of mobbing, which act
on a vulnerable personality, or elements not related to mobbing as a risk factor, which
could lead to problems within the workplace. Therefore, the mobbing phenomenon
seems to represent an element acting in the social and work environment that affects
vulnerable individuals or allows the onset of specific personality patterns as homoge-
neous psychopathological features as seen in the present sample. The homogeneity of
psychopathological features might be considered as though mobbing acts as a trigger in
those vulnerable individuals who would not otherwise develop a disorder in the absence
of mobbing exposure. In fact, according to Joel Paris’s social psychiatry theory, some
cultures encourage certain behaviors over others; by reinforcing different behavioral pat-
terns, societies may reduce the frequency of those traits that are not socially accepted.
In other words, culture may enhance the level of tolerance for some traits and reduce it
for others (Paris, 1996). Therefore, the personality as a fertile ground would represent
Profiles of Individuals Exposed to Mobbing 185

individuals who enter in a certain social mechanism and are pushed toward a psychiatric
illness. If we consider mobbing as a psychological and social risk factor, we should also
be aware of hidden health costs that influence the annual budget of National Health
Services.
One limitation of this study is that we employed a sample with no control group to
provide grounds for comparison. Ideally, a control group would be limited to subjects
who work at the same place as the mobbing sufferers. This control group would allow
us to study whether background psychopathological changes exist that increase the
probability of mobbing exposure and if mobbing influences these changes. However,
the high cost of recruitment did not allow us to enroll such a control group because a
control group should have a size proportional to the working population not affected by
mobbing. Hence, we assumed that patients were exposed to mobbing at the workplace
and that what they reported was the more likely consequence. Another limitation is that
we did not compare the DSM-IV-TR diagnoses of our participants with their MMPI-2
profiles. We found that 80% of the participants had DSM-IV-TR adjustment disorder,
but we could not know whether the participants were not adapting to work because of
the disorder or whether the disorder was the result of their problems at the workplace.
We found that our sample had homogeneously distributed work impairment (factor 1).
However, the main purpose of our study was to assess the psychopathological charac-
teristics of the sample.
In several cases, we excluded participants when the results obtained from the M.I.N.I.
interview differed from the clinical interview in terms of diagnostic overinclusion.
This cross-sectional study without a control group could not answer whether patients
affected by mobbing had psychopathological changes before or after being subjected to
harassment. However, by reporting on their psychopathological characteristics, we focus
on the need to assess workplace-related issues in patients with ill-defined psychiatric
symptoms and the need for widespread assessment of psychopathology in work envi-
ronments so as to provide a basis for comparison of psychopathological status before
and after possible harassment. We consider our study as a pilot study, given the limited
literature on mobbing as a risk factor for the onset of psychiatric disorders; this is why
we aimed first to determine whether our sample had homogeneous features and to assess
their personality characteristics in psychopathological terms. A next step would be to
reassess the same population to obtain a time-related course of psychopathological
symptoms and characteristics. Accordingly, a longitudinal design would enable us to
understand the phenomenon more thoroughly. This first study should stimulate further
assessment with different research designs. Focusing on problems such as malingering
in mobbing patients and evaluating the level of maladjustment or understanding the
personality of the “mobbers” would also shed light to the mechanisms of the mobbing
phenomenon.

CONCLUSIONS

The mobbing phenomenon is accompanied by significant psychopathology, as assessed

with the MMPI-2. Since this is a cross-sectional study, the question of whether mob-
bing-related psychopathology is a consequence of the mobbing acts or whether some
background psychopathological characteristics exist prior to these acts is unanswerable. It
is also unclear whether the preexistence of background psychopathological characteristics
186 Girardi et al.

would give rise to a psychiatric disorder regardless of whether mobbing occurs. It might be
that some psychopathologically affected individuals could use mobbing as an opportunity
to find a way to express psychological sufferance, in this example by consulting a psychi-
atric service. Longitudinal studies could give answers to these open questions.

REFERENCES

Alfano, D. P., Neilson, P. M., Paniak, C. E., & Finlayson, M. A. J. (1992). The MMPI and closed-
head injury. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 6, 134–142.
American Psychiatric Association. (1984). Psychiatric glossary. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
Boccaccini, M. T., & Brodsky, S. L. (1999). Diagnostic test usage by forensic psychologists in
emotional injury cases. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 253–259.
Borum, R., & Grisso, T. (1995). Psychological test use in criminal forensic evaluation. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 465–473.
Bradley, L. A., Prokop, C. K., Margolis, R., & Gentry, W. D. (1978) Multivariate analyses of the
MMPI profiles of low back pain patients. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 3, 253–272.
Butcher, J. N. (1985). Assessing psychological characteristics of personal injury and workers’
compensation litigants. Clinical Psychologist, 38, 84–87.
Butcher, J. N., & Williams, C. L. (1992). Essentials of MMPI-2 and MMPI-A interpretation.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Cassitto, M. G., & Gilioli, R. (2003). Aspetti emergenti dello stress occupazionale [Emerging aspects
of occupational stress]. La Medicina del lavoro, 94, 108–113.
Davenport, N., Distler Schwartz, R., & Pursell Elliott, G. (1999). Mobbing: Emotional abuse in the
American workplace. Ames, IA: Civil Society Publishing.
Dunn, O. J., & Clark, V. A. (2001). Basic statistics: A primer for the biomedical sciences (3rd ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Ege, H. (1996). Mobbing. Bologna: Prima.
Fishbain, D. A., Goldberg, M., Labbe, E., Steele, R., & Rosomoff, H. (1988). Compensation and
non-compensation chronic pain patients compared for DSM-III operational diagnoses. Pain,
2, 197–206.
Gilioli, R., Adinolfi, M., Bagaglio, A., Boccaletti, D., Cassetto M. G., Della Pietra, B., et al. (2001).
Un nuovo rischio all’attenzione della medicina del lavoro: Le molestie morali (mobbing) [A
new risk in the occupational medicine setting: Mobbing]. La Medicina del lavoro, 92, 61–69.
Gilioli, R., Cassitto, M. G., Campanini, P., Punzi, S., Consonni, D., Rengo, C., et al. (2005).
Questionario per il rischio di mobbing: CDL2.0 [Questionnaire for the mobbing risk: CDL2.0].
Giornale Italiano di Medicina del Lavoro ed Ergonomia, 27, 385–391.
Graham, J. R. (1987). The MMPI: A practical guide. New York: Oxford University Press.
Graham, J. R. (1990). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and pathology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gynther, M. D., Altman, H., & Warbin, R. (1973). Interpretation of uninterpretable Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory profiles. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 78–83.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J, C. (1996). MMPI-2: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-
2. Italian adaptation by P. Pancheri and S. Sirigatti. Florence: Organizzazioni Speciali.
Keilen, W. G., & Bloom, L. J. (1986). Child custody evaluation practices: A survey of experienced
professionals. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 338–346.
Profiles of Individuals Exposed to Mobbing 187

Lecic-Tosevski, D., Gavrilovic, J., Knezevic, G., & Priebe, S. J. (2003). Personality factors and
posttraumatic stress: Associations in civilians one year after air attacks. Personality Disorders,
17, 537–549.
Lees-Haley, P. R., Smith, H. H., Williams, C. W., & Dunn, J. T. (1996). Forensic neuropsychological
test usage: An empirical survey. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 11, 45–51.
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims,
5, 119–126.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165–184.
Leymann, H. (2000, February). The Mobbing Encyclopaedia. Files 12100e, 12220e, and 13100e.
Retrieved November 9, 2004, from http://www.leymann.se/English/
Lim, J., & Butcher, J. N. (1996). Detection of faking on the MMPI-2: Differentiation among
faking-bad, denial, and claiming extreme virtue. Journal of Personality Assessment,
67, 1–25.
Long, B., Rouse, S. V., Nelsen, R. O., & Butcher, J. N. (2004). The MMPI-2 in sexual harassment
and discrimination litigants. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 643–657.
Love, A. W., & Peck, C. L. (1987). The MMPI and psychological factors in chronic low back pain:
A review. Pain, 28, 1–12.
Lousberg, R., Groenman, N., & Schmidt, A. (1996). Profile characteristics of the MPI-DLV clusters
of pain patients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52, 161–167.
Millon, T., & Radovanov, J. (1995). Passive-aggressive (negativistic) personality disorder. In W. J.
Livesley (Ed.), The DSM-IV personality disorders (pp. 312–325). New York: Guilford.
Monaco, E., Bianco, G., Ceppi Ratti, E., Di Simone, Di Giuseppe, B., Risicato, A., et al. (2003).
Violenza morale e psichica sul lavoro: Valutazione e certificazione [Moral and psychological
violence at work: Assessment and certification]. Giornale Italiano di Medicina del Lavoro ed
Ergonomia, 25(Suppl. 3), 150–152.
Monaco, E., Bianco, G., Di Simone, Di Giuseppe, B., & Prestigiacomo, C. (2004). Patologie emer-
genti in Medicina del Lavoro: Il mobbing [Emergent pathology in occupational medicine: The
mobbing]. Giornale Italiano di Medicina del Lavoro ed Ergonomia, 26, 28–32.
Paoli, P., & Merllié, D. (2000). Third European survey on working conditions. Dublin: European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
Paris, J. (1996). Social factors in the personality disorders: A biopsychosocial approach to etiology
and treatment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Riley, J. L., III, & Robinson, M. E. (1998). Validity of MMPI-2 profiles in chronic back pain
patients: Differences in path models of coping and somatization. Clinical Journal of Pain,
14, 324–335.
Rossi, A., Alberio, R., Porta, A., Sandri, M., Tansella, M., & Amaddeo, F. (2004). The reliability
of the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview—Italian version. Journal of Clinical
Psychopharmacology, 24, 561–563.
Sansone, R. A., Pole, M., Dakroub, H., & Butler, M. (2006). Childhood trauma, borderline personal-
ity symptomatology, and psychophysiological and pain disorders in adulthood. Psychosomatics,
47, 158–162.
Sheehan, D. V., & Lecrubier, Y. (1998). M.I.N.I. International Neuropsychiatric Interview Plus.
Italian Version 5.0.0 by L. Conti and P. Donda. Pisa: Università degli Studi di Pisa.
Sheehan, D. V., Lecrubier, Y., Sheehan, K. H., Amorim, P., Janavs, J., Weiller, E., et al. (1998). The
Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): The development and validation of
a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry, 59(Suppl. 20), 22–33.
Slesinger, D., Archer, R. P., & Duane, W. (2002). MMPI-2 characteristics in a chronic pain popula-
tion. Assessment, 9, 406–414.
Spivak, H., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (2001). The need to address bullying—an important component of
violence prevention. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2131–2132.
188 Girardi et al.

Strassberg, D. S., Tilley, D., Bristone, S., & Oei, T. P. (1992). The MMPI and chronic pain: A cross-
cultural view. Psychological Assessment, 4, 493–497.
Stukenberg, X., Brady, C., & Klinetob, N. (2000). Psychiatric inpatients and the MMPI-2: Providing
benchmarks. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 747–756.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row.
Trimpey, M., & Davidson, S. (1994). Chaos, perfectionism, and sabotage: Personality disorders in
the workplace. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 15, 27–36.
World Health Organization. (1990). Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Version
1.0. Geneva: Author.

Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Paolo Girardi, MD, Ospedale S. Andrea,
Via di Grottarossa 1035/39, Rome 00189, Italy. E-mail: paolo.girardi@uniroma1.it

Order Form
Yes! Start my subscription to Enclosed is $ __________
Violence and Victims with Charge to: Visa MasterCard American Express
the current issue. Card No. ___________________________________ Exp. ______
Domestic Individual Institution Signature ______________________________________________
Print $100 $245
Name__________________________________________________
Online $95 $225
Print and Online $120 $275 Institution______________________________________________

Outside the U.S. Address________________________________________________

Print $110 $265 City/State/Zip ________________________________________
Online $105 $245 Telephone ______________________________________________
Print and Online $130 $295
E-mail ________________________________________________
Send this order form to:
Checks or International Money Orders must be in U.S.
Springer Publishing Company dollars drawn on a U.S. bank made payable to Springer
11 West 42nd Street Publishing Company. All prices are subject to change. Air
New York, NY 10036 shipments are available for an additional $30/year (Outside
U.S. only).

Fax: (212) 941-7842  Order Toll-Free: 877-687-7476  Order On-Line: www.springerpub.com