doi: 10.56294/mw2023152
ORIGINAL
Sociodemographic factors, resilience, and mobbing among teachers in La Paz, Bolivia 2023
Factores sociodemográficos, resiliencia y mobbing en docentes de La Paz, Bolivia 2023
David Max
Olivares Alvares1 
*, Doriana María Roa González2 *,
Penélope Hernández Lara3 
*, María Edwar Salazar
Arango4 *, Sandra Lorena Rincón Gómez⁴ *
1Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo Ecuador, Guayaquil, Ecuador.
2Universidad de Carabobo, Valencia, Venezuela.
3Universidad Pedagógica Experimental Libertador, Caracas, Venezuela.
4Universidad Estatal Península de Santa Elena. Santa Elena, Ecuador.
Cite as: Olivares Alvares DM, Roa González DM, Hernández Lara P, Salazar Arango E, Rincón Gómez SL. Sociodemographic factors, resilience, and mobbing among teachers in La Paz, Bolivia 2023. Seminars in Medical Writing and Education. 2023; 2:152. https://doi.org/10.56294/mw2023152
Submitted: 08-10-2022 Revised: 15-01-2023 Accepted: 12-06-2023 Published: 13-06-2023
Editor: PhD.
Prof. Estela Morales Peralta
Corresponding author: David Max Olivares Alvares *
ABSTRACT
Introduction: mobbing has been studied in Bolivia, but its recognition in the workplace is limited. Resilience is related to social and economic crises.
Objective: to determine the relationship between sociodemographic factors, resilience, and mobbing among teachers in La Paz, Bolivia, in 2023.
Method: quantitative approach, non-experimental and descriptive-correlational scope. A total of 385 primary and secondary education teachers participated. The IVAPT and SV-RES resilience scales were used. Statistical methods such as descriptive analysis, Pearson’s χ², and Spearman›s correlation were employed for data analysis.
Results: 73,51 % of participants reported a high incidence of psychological violence, while 9,35 % did not experience harassment. 49,35 % are at an average level of resilience, with 26,49 % at a low level and 24,16 % at a high level. Regarding resilient response, 46,23 % are average, 30,39 % are low, and 23,38 % are high. 67,19 % of those experiencing less mobbing have an average resilient response, and 44,96 % with average resilience report high levels of mobbing.
Conclusions: the research emphasizes the importance of addressing mobbing from a multidimensional perspective, considering the individual and contextual characteristics of employees.
Keywords: Psychological Harassment at Work; Primary and Secondary Education; Sociodemographic Factors; Mobbing; Resilience.
RESUMEN
Introducción: el mobbing ha sido estudiado en Bolivia, pero su reconocimiento laboral es limitado. La resiliencia se relaciona con crisis sociales y económicas.
Objetivo: determinar la relación entre factores sociodemográficos, resiliencia y mobbing en docentes de La Paz, Bolivia, en 2023.
Método: enfoque cuantitativo, no experimental y de alcance descriptivo-correlacional. Participaron 385 profesores de educación primaria y secundaria. Se utilizaron las escalas IVAPT y de Resiliencia SV-RES.Para el análisis de los datos, se utilizaron métodos estadísticos como el análisis descriptivo, X^2 de Pearson y correlación de Spearman.
Resultados: 73,51 % de los participantes reportó alta incidencia de violencia psicológica, el 9,35 % no experimentó acoso. El 49,35 % se sitúa en un nivel promedio de resiliencia, con un 26,49 % en bajo y un 24,16 % en alto. En cuanto a la respuesta resiliente, el 46,23 % está en promedio, el 30,39 % en bajo y el 23,38 % en alto. El 67,19 % de quienes sufren menos mobbing tienen una respuesta resiliente promedio, y el 44,96 % con resiliencia promedio reporta altos niveles de mobbing.
Conclusiones: la investigación subraya la importancia de abordar el mobbing desde una perspectiva multidimensional, considerando las características individuales y contextuales de los empleados.
Palabras clave: Acoso Psicológico en el Trabajo; Educación Primaria y Secundaria; Factores Socio-Demográficos; Mobbing; Resiliencia.
INTRODUCTION
Mobbing, also known as workplace bullying, is defined as a systematic pattern of psychological harassment in which one or more individuals engage in unfavorable behavior towards a victim in the workplace. These actions form a problem of contemporary sociocultural violence(1) and can include insults, humiliation, isolation, and the spreading of rumors to damage the professional reputation and emotional well-being of the person affected. Psychologist Heinz Leymann popularized this term in the 1980s and characterized it as a situation that causes the victim social isolation and considerable psychological distress over a prolonged period, generally at least six months.(2)
Resilience, on the other hand, is understood as the ability of people to face and overcome difficult situations, adapt to them, and, in some cases, emerge stronger. This concept encompasses coping with adversity and emotional dissonance and the learning and growth that derive from negative experiences.(3) Resilience is fundamental for personal development, work motivation, and evaluating effort,(4) as it allows individuals to manage stress and difficulties effectively, contributing to their emotional and psychological well-being.(5) In Bolivia, 57 % of teachers have suffered from mobbing, while 74,8 % have experienced psychological violence. This research highlights the need to address this problem to protect teachers’ mental and physical health.
In the educational context, mobbing can manifest itself in various ways, including harassment by colleagues, managers, or even students and their families.(6) Violence is expressed globally in multiple forms, thus revealing an alarming lack of respect, tolerance, and deficiency of social intelligence.(7) A lack of job autonomy and dissatisfaction in supervisor relationships predict mobbing.(8) From a psychosocial point of view, there is a lack of well-developed interpersonal relationships and socio-emotional skills that depend on the social formation of the individual.(9) Furthermore, covert workplace bullying is a silent but significant problem in educational centers, generating a toxic work environment.(10,11)
In Bolivia, the study by Pando and Beltrán(12) analyzed the Inventory of Violence and Psychological Harassment at Work “IVAPT-PANDO” in the populations of Bolivia and Ecuador. In terms of the intensity of violence, Bolivia registered 13,2 % and Ecuador 17,9 %, while psychological harassment was 3,5 % in Bolivia and 6,1 % in Ecuador, figures that are lower than those reported in other countries.
In this context, there is currently a need to study and identify sociodemographic factors; resilience and mobbing are important because mobbing (psychological violence at work) hurts the health of the worker,(13) and resilience could be a protective factor in dealing with this risk factor. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the relationship between sociodemographic factors and resilience and mobbing in teachers at educational institutions in the city of La Paz, Bolivia, 2023.
METHOD
The research was developed using a quantitative, non-experimental approach with a descriptive-correlational scope. The sampling method used was convenience sampling, as there is no exact figure for the number of teachers at the level of regular basic education, which was 385 primary and secondary school teachers in the city of La Paz, Bolivia, in 2023.
The following inclusion criteria were used: teachers who voluntarily decide to participate in the study, tenured teachers who have been in their posts for more than a year, teachers who fully complete the surveys applied, primary and secondary school teachers, and as exclusion criteria: teachers who voluntarily decide not to participate in the study, tenured teachers who have been in their posts for less than a year, teachers who do not fully complete the surveys applied, administrative staff of educational units. As an ethical consideration, when the data was collected using scales, they signed a confidentiality form.
The IVAPT Scale was used, and the instrument was adapted to maintain its original structure of twenty-two items with five response options: “Never,” “Rarely,” “Sometimes,” “Frequently,” and “Very Frequently,” classifying it as a multidimensional scale. The second instrument used was the SV-RES Resilience Scale, which is also multidimensional, consisting of sixty items distributed across 12 specific resilience factors.
RESULTS
The results in table 1 reveal gender, age, marital status, academic background, years of work in the educational institution, and work shift. In the category of not being a victim of mobbing, a higher percentage of men (4,4 %) compared to 2,3 % of women. Likewise, the categories were less than to colleagues and the same as to colleagues. The percentage of men was higher, 33,2 % and 19,0 %, respectively. These results suggest that, although mobbing is a problem in both groups, its manifestation may vary according to gender. The absence of cases of severe mobbing in both genders also indicates a considerable group unaffected by these dynamics.
|
Table 1. Analysis of the Intensity of Mobbing according to Sociodemographic Variables |
|||||||||||
|
Sociodemographic variables |
|
Intensity of Mobbing |
|||||||||
|
|
Not a victim of mobbing |
Less than to colleagues |
The same as for colleagues |
More than to my colleagues |
Total |
||||||
|
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
|
Gender |
Male |
17 |
4,4 % |
128 |
33,2 % |
73 |
19,0 % |
0 |
0,0 % |
218 |
56,7 % |
|
Female |
9 |
2,3 % |
91 |
23,6 % |
58 |
15,1 % |
0 |
0,0 % |
158 |
41,0 % |
|
|
Total |
26 |
6,8 % |
219 |
57,1 % |
131 |
34,1 % |
0 |
0,0 % |
385 |
100,0 % |
|
|
Age |
61 years and over |
9 |
2,34 % |
36 |
9,36 % |
54 |
14,03 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
99 |
25,71 % |
|
51 to 60 years |
11 |
2,86 % |
58 |
15,06 % |
24 |
6,23 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
93 |
24,16 % |
|
|
From 41 to 50 years old |
12 |
3,12 % |
62 |
16,10 % |
28 |
7,27 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
102 |
26,49 % |
|
|
From 31 to 40 years old |
12 |
3,12 % |
78 |
20,26 % |
32 |
8,31 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
122 |
31,64 % |
|
|
From 20 to 30 years old |
0 |
0,00 % |
20 |
5,19 % |
19 |
4,93 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
39 |
10,16 % |
|
|
Total |
44 |
11,43 % |
254 |
66,46 % |
157 |
40,74 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
385 |
100,00 % |
|
|
Marital status |
Single |
9 |
2,34 % |
22 |
5,73 % |
17 |
4,42 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
48 |
12,47 % |
|
Married |
30 |
7,79 % |
61 |
15,84 % |
30 |
7,79 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
121 |
31,39 % |
|
|
Separated |
0 |
0,00 % |
9 |
2,34 % |
1 |
0,26 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
10 |
2,60 % |
|
|
Widowed |
0 |
0,00 % |
1 |
0,26 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
1 |
0,26 % |
|
|
Total |
39 |
10,16 % |
93 |
24,16 % |
48 |
12,47 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
385 |
100,00 % |
|
|
Academic Qualifications |
Other |
0 |
0,00 % |
26 |
6,77 % |
13 |
3,38 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
39 |
10,16 % |
|
University |
4 |
1,04 % |
23 |
5,97 % |
12 |
3,12 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
39 |
10,16 % |
|
|
Higher technical |
4 |
1,04 % |
30 |
7,79 % |
26 |
6,77 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
60 |
15,58 % |
|
|
Auxiliary |
0 |
0,00 % |
1 |
0,26 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
1 |
0,26 % |
|
|
High school |
4 |
1,04 % |
23 |
5,97 % |
7 |
1,82 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
34 |
8,83 % |
|
|
Total |
12 |
3,12 % |
103 |
26,77 % |
58 |
15,06 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
385 |
100,00 % |
|
|
Years working at the I.E. |
From 21 years and over |
1 |
0,26 % |
2 |
0,52 % |
2 |
0,52 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
5 |
1,30 % |
|
From 11 to 20 years |
2 |
0,52 % |
16 |
4,16 % |
5 |
1,30 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
23 |
5,97 % |
|
|
From 6 to 10 years |
2 |
0,52 % |
16 |
4,16 % |
16 |
4,16 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
34 |
8,83 % |
|
|
From 1 to 5 years |
3 |
0,78 % |
30 |
7,79 % |
14 |
3,64 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
47 |
12,21 % |
|
|
Zero years |
1 |
0,26 % |
14 |
3,64 % |
11 |
2,86 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
26 |
6,77 % |
|
|
Total |
9 |
2,34 % |
78 |
20,26 % |
48 |
12,47 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
385 |
100,00 % |
|
|
Which shift do you work? |
Party (morning-afternoon) |
1 |
0,26 % |
10 |
2,60 % |
5 |
1,30 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
16 |
4,16 % |
|
Morning |
3 |
0,78 % |
37 |
9,61 % |
32 |
8,31 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
72 |
18,70 % |
|
|
Afternoon |
5 |
1,30 % |
21 |
5,45 % |
9 |
2,34 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
35 |
9,09 % |
|
|
Evening |
0 |
0,00 % |
2 |
0,52 % |
1 |
0,26 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
3 |
0,78 % |
|
|
Rotating (Morning-afternoon-evening) |
0 |
0,00 % |
6 |
1,56 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
6 |
1,56 % |
|
|
Other |
0 |
0,00 % |
2 |
0,52 % |
1 |
0,26 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
3 |
0,78 % |
|
|
Total |
9 |
2,34 % |
78 |
20,26 % |
48 |
12,47 % |
0 |
0,00 % |
385 |
100,00 % |
|
Table 2 provides an analysis of resilience in terms of several socio-demographic variables, including gender, age, marital status, academic background, years of work in the educational institution and work shift. In terms of gender, both men and women show similar levels of resilience, with 54,81 % of men and 45,19 % of women in total. However, males have a slightly higher percentage in the high resilience categories (40,76 %) compared to females (41,38 %).
|
Table 2. Resilience in the Educational Environment: Distribution by Gender, Age and Marital Status |
|||||||||
|
Socio-demographic variables |
|
Intensity of Mobbing |
|||||||
|
|
Low |
Medium |
Stop |
Total |
|||||
|
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
|
Gender |
Male |
40 |
18,96 |
85 |
40,28 |
86 |
40,76 |
211 |
54,81 |
|
Female |
29 |
16,67 |
73 |
41,95 |
72 |
41,38 |
174 |
45,19 |
|
|
Total |
69 |
17,92 |
158 |
41,04 |
158 |
41,04 |
385 |
100,00 |
|
|
Age
|
61 years and over |
23 |
20,00 |
80 |
69,57 |
12 |
10,43 |
115 |
29,87 |
|
51 to 60 years |
18 |
33,33 |
24 |
44,44 |
12 |
22,22 |
54 |
14,03 |
|
|
41 to 50 years |
29 |
29,90 |
46 |
47,42 |
22 |
22,68 |
97 |
25,19 |
|
|
31 to 40 years |
20 |
23,26 |
49 |
56,98 |
17 |
19,77 |
86 |
22,34 |
|
|
20 to 30 years |
3 |
9,09 |
18 |
54,55 |
12 |
36,36 |
33 |
8,57 |
|
|
Total |
93 |
24,16 |
217 |
56,36 |
75 |
19,48 |
385 |
100,00 |
|
|
Marital Status
|
Single |
9 |
6,29 |
100 |
69,93 |
34 |
23,78 |
143 |
37,14 |
|
Married |
32 |
17,02 |
96 |
51,06 |
60 |
31,91 |
188 |
48,83 |
|
|
Separated |
8 |
27,59 |
18 |
62,07 |
3 |
10,34 |
29 |
7,53 |
|
|
Widowed |
6 |
24,00 |
12 |
48,00 |
7 |
28,00 |
25 |
6,49 |
|
|
Total |
55 |
14,29 |
226 |
58,70 |
104 |
27,01 |
385 |
100,00 |
|
|
Academic Qualifications
|
Other |
5 |
8,20 |
44 |
72,13 |
12 |
19,67 |
61 |
15,84 |
|
University |
27 |
25,71 |
60 |
57,14 |
18 |
17,14 |
105 |
27,27 |
|
|
Advanced technician |
27 |
19,42 |
70 |
50,36 |
42 |
30,22 |
139 |
36,10 |
|
|
Assistant |
6 |
54,55 |
3 |
27,27 |
2 |
18,18 |
11 |
2,86 |
|
|
High school graduate |
24 |
34,78 |
31 |
44,93 |
14 |
20,29 |
69 |
17,92 |
|
|
Total |
89 |
23,12 |
208 |
54,03 |
88 |
22,86 |
385 |
100,00 |
|
|
Years working at the I.E.
|
From 21 years and over |
6 |
27,27 |
8 |
36,36 |
8 |
36,36 |
22 |
5,71 |
|
From 11 to 20 years |
8 |
9,88 |
48 |
59,26 |
25 |
30,86 |
81 |
21,04 |
|
|
From 6 to 10 years |
8 |
9,09 |
48 |
54,55 |
32 |
36,36 |
88 |
22,86 |
|
|
From 1 to 5 years |
9 |
7,03 |
90 |
70,31 |
29 |
22,66 |
128 |
33,25 |
|
|
Zero years |
4 |
6,06 |
32 |
48,48 |
30 |
45,45 |
66 |
17,14 |
|
|
Total |
35 |
9,09 |
226 |
58,70 |
124 |
32,21 |
385 |
100,00 |
|
|
What shift are you working?
|
Party (morning-afternoon) |
3 |
6,25 |
30 |
62,50 |
15 |
31,25 |
48 |
11,9 |
|
Morning |
9 |
4,74 |
111 |
58,42 |
70 |
36,84 |
190 |
53,3 |
|
|
Afternoon |
15 |
15,15 |
63 |
63,64 |
21 |
21,21 |
99 |
25,9 |
|
|
Night |
2 |
16,67 |
6 |
50,00 |
4 |
33,33 |
12 |
2,2 |
|
|
Rotating (morning-afternoon-night) |
1 |
4,76 |
18 |
85,71 |
2 |
9,52 |
21 |
4,4 |
|
|
Other |
4 |
26,67 |
6 |
40,00 |
5 |
33,33 |
15 |
2,2 |
|
|
Total |
34 |
8,83 |
234 |
60,78 |
117 |
30,39 |
385 |
1,00 |
|
DISCUSSION
Resilience has been recognized as a fundamental element in the experience of mobbing.(2,5,8) The findings support the idea that resilience is a moderator that helps people face and recover from adverse situations. Resilient people have a greater capacity to manage stress and difficulties, which allows them to maintain their psychological well-being in contexts of harassment. In this sense, the results suggest that promoting resilience in the workplace could be an effective strategy for reducing the perception of harassment. Furthermore, resilience does not only imply the ability to recover but also the ability to adapt and learn from challenging experiences, which can be crucial for the personal and professional development of employees.(9,10)
The limitation of this study was the lack of diversity in the work contexts analyzed. Organizations must implement programs that strengthen the resilience of their employees. Early identification of abusive behavior and the promotion of a respectful work environment are essential to reduce psychological violence and improve the quality of working life.(3) Given the magnitude of the problem in the educational field, it is necessary to include personal development workshops, training in coping skills, and emotional support programs. Promoting a work environment that values mental health and well-being can be critical to mitigating the impact of mobbing.
CONCLUSIONS
This research reveals a complex interaction between demographic factors, resilience, and mobbing in the educational work environment. Gender, age, and marital status have been observed to be significant variables influencing the mobbing experience. Men tend to report higher levels of victimization, while individuals between the ages of 31 and 40 are the most affected, suggesting that work pressures at this stage of life are particularly intense. In addition, marital status seems to play a crucial role, as married individuals experience higher levels of harassment, highlighting the need to consider the personal context when addressing these dynamics.
REFERENCES
1. Bautista G, Vera J Ángel, Cuevas MC, Tánori J. Propiedades psicométricas de un instrumento de mecanismos de desconexión moral: validación en adolescentes del noroeste de México. Eur. j. educ. psicol. [Internet]. 1 de diciembre de 2020;13(2):127-41. Disponible en: https://revistas.uautonoma.cl/index.php/ejep/article/view/1322
2. Flores D, Jenaro C, Arias B. El mobbing: concepto, causas, consecuencias y programas de intervención. Apuntes de Psicología. 2007;25(1):135-147.
3. Hyeonsu B, Mi-Ra K. The impact of social support, emotional intelligence, and academic stress on resilience in risk society: focusing on college students. Korean Journal of Social Quality. 2020;4(4):57-76. https://doi.org/10.29398/kjsq.2020.4.4.5
4. Loayza Flores LJ, Marujo Serna MDP, Primo Mendoza J, Alanya Coras E. Motivación laboral y desempeño docente en el Perú. Rev Prop Educ [Internet]. 4 de enero de 2022; 4(7):19-31. Disponible en: https://propuestaseducativas.org/index.php/propuestas/article/view/772
5. Salgado-Lévano AC. Resiliencia: una perspectiva teórica. Revista de Psicología. 2005;23(2):147-169.
6. Barria J. Acoso laboral en el ámbito educativo: análisis desde la perspectiva de los docentes. Revista Electrónica Educare. 2017;21(3):1-16.
7. Villavicencio Flores JM, Bocanegra Morales MB, Cordero Sarmiento LK, Morán Espino CE. Inteligencia social y convivencia escolar en una institución pública del Perú. rebe [Internet]. 1 de enero de 2022 ;4(6):40-51. Disponible en: https://revistarebe.org/index.php/rebe/article/view/802
8. Rincón Fuenmayor DP. Competencias psicosociales en estudiantes universitarios. rebe [Internet]. 7 de septiembre de 2020; 1(1):28-40. Disponible en: https://revistarebe.org/index.php/rebe/article/view/66
9. Lara P, Galarza J, Pando M. Factores asociados al mobbing en docentes universitarios. Ciencia & Trabajo. 2017;19(58):58-64
10. González-Trijueque D, Giachero S, Delgado S. Riesgos psicosociales en el lugar de trabajo: aproximación teórica y marco legal en Uruguay. CienciasPsi [Internet]. 30 de mayo de 2012; 6(1):75-87. Disponible en: https://revistas.ucu.edu.uy/index.php/cienciaspsicologicas/article/view/64
11. Chavarría Campos PS. Efectos sociales y laborales en las familias del Municipio de Potosí ocasionadas por el COVID-19. rc [Internet]. 2024 Mar. 1; 4(7):40-5. Available from: https://revistaconcordia.org/article/view/113
12. Pando V, Beltrán C. Análisis del Inventario de Violencia y Acoso Psicológico en el Trabajo “IVAPT-PANDO” en poblaciones de Bolivia y Ecuador. Ciencia & Trabajo. 2012;14(43):55-60.
13. Nielsen, M. B., Magerøy, N., Gjerstad, J., & Einarsen, S. (2015). Resultados de una revisión sistemática sobre la influencia del acoso laboral en la salud de los trabajadores. Archivos de prevención de riesgos laborales, 18(4), 202-203.
FINANCIAL SUPPORT
None.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
CONTRIBUTION OF AUTHORSHIP
Conceptualization: David Max Olivares.
Data curation: Penélope Hernández.
Formal analysis: Edwar Salazar Arango.
Research: David Max Olivares.
Methodology: Sandra Lorena Rincón Gómez.
Project administration: Sandra Lorena Rincón Gómez.
Resources: David Max Olivares.
Software: Doriana Roa.
Supervision: David Max Olivares.
Validation: Edwar Salazar Arango.
Visualization: Doriana Roa.
Writing – original draft: David Max Olivares.
Writing – review and editing: Penélope Hernández.