An eye for an eye? Exploring the relationship between workplace incivility experiences and perpetration.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2014, Vol. 19, No. 2, 143–154

© 2014 American Psychological Association 1076-8998/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0035931

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

An Eye for an Eye? Exploring the Relationship Between Workplace Incivility Experiences and Perpetration Jessica A. Gallus

Jennifer A. Bunk

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Fort Belvoir, VA

West Chester University of Pennsylvania

Russell A. Matthews

Janet L. Barnes-Farrell and Vicki J. Magley

Bowling Green State University

University of Connecticut

We examined the effects of gender and organizational climate for incivility on the relationship between individuals’ incivility experiences and perpetration. Based on Andersson and Pearson’s (1999) concept of the incivility spiral, Naylor, Pritchard, and Ilgen’s (1980) theory of behavior in organizations, and social interactionist theory (Felson & Tedeschi, 1993), we proposed an interaction between incivility experiences, organizational climate for incivility (organizational tolerance and policies), and gender in predicting incivility perpetration. Results indicate that incivility experiences predict incivility perpetration and that men are more likely to be uncivil to others when their organization tolerates rudeness. Women’s incivility experiences were associated with increased incivility perpetration, but were unaffected by incivility climate. Implications for research and practice are discussed. Keywords: incivility, incivility climate, incivility perpetration, organizational climate, gender

perpetration of incivility (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000; Penney & Spector, 2005). Given the number of employees who experience incivility during their working lives, it is no surprise that this topic has frequently been explored by examining the experiences of targets of incivility. Researchers have examined the negative impact of incivility experiences on targets as well as the relationship between targets’ experiences of incivility and more severe forms of mistreatment (Lim & Cortina, 2005). More recent research has explored target characteristics of incivility such as general personality traits (e.g., agreeableness, neuroticism), organizational position and power, and target coping (Cortina & Magley, 2009; Milam, Spitzmueller, & Penney, 2009). And most recently, research has explored the spillover of negative consequences associated with experiencing uncivil behaviors as related to other important life domains (e.g., family). For example, Ferguson (2012) demonstrated that workplace incivility has an indirect and negative effect on the behaviors and attitudes of the incivility target’s partner. Although it is incredibly important to understand target experiences and characteristics, given the potential implications for organizational interventions, we argue that it is equally important to understand incivility perpetration. Despite what we know about targets of incivility, little attention has been paid to understanding incivility from the perpetrator’s perspective (e.g., Cortina et al., 2001; Pearson et al., 2000). Although perpetrators have oft been studied in the broader workplace aggression literature (Arnold, Dupré, Hershcovis, & Turner, 2011; Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Howard, 2011), the absence of research on incivility perpetration is particularly problematic in light of research suggesting a positive relationship between incivility and more severe forms of workplace mistreatment (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Lim &

In the past few years, the prominence of workplace rudeness has been reflected not only in the psychological literature, but also in magazines, newspapers and even popular books (Sutton, 2007, 2010; Truss, 2005). The increased attention given to workplace mistreatment in the popular literature highlights workplace incivility as a topic that continues to be important to thousands of employees today (Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001). Indeed, research has shown that as many as 70% of employees are affected by incivility, that is, “low intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 457). Uncivil behaviors include interrupting others, putting others down or acting in a condescending manner, excluding individuals from meetings of which they should be a part, and giving someone the “silent” treatment. Although various individual or organizational characteristics may act as catalysts for uncivil behavior, researchers have posited that job stress, increasing work demands, diminishing resources, and the heightened use of technologies that depersonalize interactions may all play a part in the experience and

This article was published Online First March 17, 2014. Jessica A. Gallus, Foundational Science Research Unit, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Fort Belvoir, VA; Jennifer A. Bunk, Department of Psychology, West Chester University of Pennsylvania; Russell A. Matthews, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University; Janet L. Barnes-Farrell and Vicki J. Magley, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jessica A. Gallus, 6000 6th Street, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060. E-mail: [email protected] 143


144

GALLUS, BUNK, MATTHEWS, BARNES-FARRELL, AND MAGLEY

Cortina, 2005). The present study thus lends a unique contribution to the literature by providing the first examination of incivility through the perspectives of targets and perpetrators. In addition, this research addresses existing gaps in the workplace incivility literature regarding contextual influences by considering experiences and perpetration within a broader organizational context. Leveraging theoretical research on the incivility spiral (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), Naylor, Pritchard, and Ilgen’s (1980) theory (hereafter, NPI theory) of behavior in organizations, as well as social interactionist theory (Felson & Tedeschi, 1993), we explore the interaction among three theoretically grounded predictors of incivility perpetration: the experience of incivility, target and perpetrator gender, and organizational climate for incivility. By simultaneously examining the individual and contextual variables that influence incivility experiences and perpetration, we provide a first glimpse at understanding a problem that is typically only studied from the perspective of the target. Moreover, exploring the interaction of critical individual and contextual factors (i.e., gender, organizational climate for incivility) in the incivility–perpetration relationship can deepen our understanding of the complex social environment in which employees work. Although Andersson and Pearson (1999), in their seminal conceptualization of workplace incivility, discuss how contextual and individual difference factors may affect incivility, they did not predict how these factors interact with one another. Thus, we consider such factors simultaneously in the current study, not only to inform theory but also to inform potential prevention and intervention strategies for organizations striving to eradicate workplace rudeness.

What Is Workplace Incivility? In layman’s terms, incivility is understood as general rudeness at work. Perpetrators of uncivil behaviors have been described as rude to peers, disrespectful to subordinates, as well as temperamental and difficult to get along with (Johnson & Indvik, 2001). As noted by Sutton (2007, p. 1), they are the “creeps, jerks, weasels, tormentors, tyrants, serial slammers, despots, or unconstrained egomaniacs” that oftentimes plague one’s work environment. Although incivility falls under the umbrella of employee deviance, it differs from the more overtly harmful acts of workplace mistreatment (for an in-depth review of differences and similarities, see Andersson & Pearson, 1999), in that the intent behind uncivil behaviors is ambiguous. For instance, workplace violence and aggression are “purposive and goal-directed” (Inness, Barling, & Turner, 2005, p. 732), whereas workplace incivility can be described as “low intensity” mistreatment that may be attributed to ignorance on the part of the perpetrator or misinterpretation on the part of the target (Cortina et al., 2001). The harmful effects of incivility have been well documented. Although these low-intensity behaviors may seem inconsequential when compared with more severe forms of mistreatment (e.g., abusive supervision, sexual harassment, workplace bullying), findings indicate that targets of incivility suffer from a number of negative organizational and psychological outcomes (Cortina et al., 2001). Experiences of incivility have been found to contribute to lower job satisfaction and higher turnover, and have been found to be positively related to anxiety, depression, and hostility (Cortina et al., 2001; Johnson & Indvik, 2001). In addition, merely

witnessing uncivil behavior has been associated with decreased psychological and physical well-being, along with higher organizational withdrawal (Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2007). Finally, recent research has demonstrated that within organizations that tolerate incivility, other types of mistreatment (e.g., sexual harassment) are likely to be present (Lim & Cortina, 2005). Thus, incivility may only be the tip of the iceberg in terms of the mistreatment experiences to which employees are exposed.

Responses to Workplace Mistreatment One of our goals in the current study is to better understand incivility from the perspectives of targets and perpetrators. For example, what is it that prompts a worker to be rude to another? And more specifically, does the experience of incivility trigger a desire to reciprocate this behavior, thus starting the beginnings of an incivility spiral in which employees both experience and perpetrate (Andersson & Pearson, 1999)? One potential way to conceptualize how this process unfolds between perpetrator and target is to consider past conceptual and empirical research regarding socially based aggression. For example, the social interactionist approach to aggression (Felson & Tedeschi, 1993) suggests that actors oftentimes view aggression as moral and legitimate behavior. Felson and Tedeschi discuss several potential justifications for aggression, including demonstration of power (e.g., “I’m the boss so I can be harsh”), preservation of one’s identity (e.g., “I am just an aggressive person”), and retaliation (“You were rude to me so you deserve it”). Although aimed at explaining aggressive behaviors, we argue that a social interactionist approach can appropriately be applied to less intense forms of deviance, like incivility. Indeed, Andersson and Pearson (1999) used this approach in describing how incivility can escalate into more intense forms of mistreatment (like physical violence), and this so-called “incivility spiral” is fueled by individual desires to retaliate. Even though there has been some scholarly interest in the incivility spiral (e.g., Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Penney & Spector, 2005), the writing surrounding this idea has, to date, been mainly theoretical. However, there is emerging empirical evidence that workers do endorse retaliation as a justification for engaging in moderately uncivil acts (Bunk, Karabin, & Lear, 2011). Within the organizational justice literature, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) found that when employees perceive that they are being treated unjustly, they are more likely to retaliate against the organization with behaviors that include indirect, subtle, and/or covert attempts to “get even.” In a related but distinct line of research, Bies and Tripp (2004) investigated the dynamics of workplace revenge and the cognitive and emotional processes that lead workers to engage in interpersonally aggressive behaviors that result from perceived injustices. More recent research has demonstrated that the relationship between leader mistreatment and target retaliation was stronger for targets with strong negative reciprocity beliefs; these individuals may seek revenge as a means of “evening the playing field” and correcting perceived injustices (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper et al., 2009). In instances when employees do not exact revenge against their more powerful supervisors, they may instead displace their aggression on peers or subordinates (Restubog, Scott, & Zagenczyk, 2011). Following from this discussion, we suggest that, due to a desire to directly or indirectly

INCIVILITY PERPETRATION

retaliate, targets of incivility will themselves engage in incivility. Thus, we hypothesize that the experience of workplace incivility will predict the perpetration of workplace incivility (Hypothesis 1).


The Role of Incivility Climate Although much of the incivility research concerns individuallevel antecedents and outcomes (Cortina et al., 2001), more recent research has called for an increased focus on group and organizational factors that may impact mistreatment (Cortina, 2008; O’Boyle, Forsyth, & O’Boyle, 2011; Ramsay, Troth, & Branch, 2011). The “sheer lack of examination of contextual factors that might differentially influence the occurrence of workplace mistreatment for women and men” is surprising, given that individuals do not operate in a vacuum but rather function in a broader workgroup context (Magley, Gallus, & Bunk, 2010, p. 437). As such, the workgroup context may be particularly influential with respect to mistreatment experiences and perpetration. For instance, Glomb (2002) found that anger experienced within a workgroup was often related to subsequent and more severe forms of aggression; and results from a recent study indicate that more aggressive organizational norms are related to increases in targets’ abusive work behaviors, particularly for men (Restubog et al., 2011). Although few studies have focused on contextual factors that influence incivility (Cortina, 2008), research on other types of mistreatment highlight climate as an important factor in understanding mistreatment from a broader perspective. Research on sexual harassment has demonstrated that employees working in positive social climates are less apt to experience harassment (Timmerman & Bajema, 2000), and that organizations with climates that discourage or punish sexual harassment report lower incident rates of this misbehavior when compared with organizations that demonstrate more tolerance of sexual harassment (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley, 1997; Williams, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 1999). Given these findings and the call for more research on contextual factors that influence workplace mistreatment experiences and perpetration, we examined the organizational climate for incivility in our current study. Specifically, we propose that organizational climate for incivility will affect the relationship between incivility experience and incivility perpetration. We begin with an overview of climate conceptualization and ultimately integrate NPI theory of behavior in organizations (Naylor et al, 1980) to present our hypothesis. Climate has been conceptualized in various ways, including molar or specific climate. Molar climate focuses on the organization’s goals and the means by which those goals are achieved, whereas an examination of a specific climate highlights one aspect of the organization’s norms and values. As noted by Carr, Schmidt, Ford, and DeShon (2003), it is important to use a specific climate construct when one is interested in predicting outcomes or behaviors related to a particular aspect of one’s work environment. For example, researchers have examined climate from various perspectives, such as safety climate, service climate, climate for sexual harassment, and ethical work climate (Babin, Boles, & Robin, 2000; Bergman, Langhout, Palmieri, Cortina, & Fitzgerald, 2002; Hui, Chiu, & Yu, 2007; Mearns, Whitaker, & Flin, 2001, 2003; Varonen & Mattila, 2000; Zohar, 2002). Given that we focus on predictors of incivility perpetration, it is most appropriate for us to discuss climate in a specific, as opposed to a molar, manner.

145

Climate has also been conceptualized as either psychological or organizational. Many definitions of these two conceptualizations exist, perhaps the simplest being that psychological climate refers to individual’s perceptions, and organizational climate refers to organizational variables (Ostroff, Kinicki, & Tamkins, 2003). This follows from James and Jones (1976) classic definitions, in which organizational climate “refers to organizational attributes, main effects, or stimuli while PC [psychological climate] refers to individual attributes” (p. 100). Similarly, Schneider (1990) defined organizational climate as employees’ perceptions of routines (organizational events, practices, and procedures) and rewards (rewarded, supported, and expected behaviors). Although psychological climate may play an important role in understanding the experiences and perpetration of incivility, our focus in the current study is on the contextual factors (e.g., organizational variables/ attributes like practices and rewards) that might have an impact on workplace incivility. In the current study, we use the term organizational climate for incivility to capture a specific organizational climate that refers to the degree to which incivility is tolerated within an organization. A civil climate is a climate in which uncivil behavior is generally not tolerated (i.e., a low amount of incivility is the likely outcome). In such an environment, perceptions of organizational practices, policies, and punishment indicate that uncivil behaviors are discouraged or punished within that organization. On the other hand, an uncivil climate indicates that uncivil behaviors are generally tolerated or encouraged (i.e., a high amount of incivility is the likely outcome). NPI theory posits that organizational stimuli influence individuals’ perceptions and that these perceptions, in turn, impact individuals’ subsequent behaviors (Naylor et al, 1980). With respect to workplace incivility, the stimuli are messages sent by the organization that such behavior is discouraged or encouraged—thus resulting in a civil climate or uncivil climate. Additionally, NPI theory suggests that when specific behaviors are rewarded, this encourages the individual to continue to perform such behaviors. In instances when incivility is rewarded, experiences and perpetration of incivility may thus increase. Based on this theoretical framework, as well as existing research highlighting the role of organizational climate in more severe forms of workplace mistreatment (Bergman et al., 2002; Fitzgerald et al., 1997; Harned, Ormerod, Palmieri, Collinsworth, & Reed, 2002; Kath, Swody, Magley, Bunk, & Gallus, 2009), it is thus important to consider the influence of organizational climate for incivility on incivility experiences and perpetration. Although organizational climate for incivility has seldom been explored in the literature, initial work suggests that incivility climate plays an important role in the experience and perpetration of rudeness (Cortina, 2008). With regard to incivility experiences and perpetration, individuals perceive whether or not the organization will tolerate rudeness between employees. Thus, acting uncivilly may stem from one’s conscious or subconscious interpretation of incivility policies, whether formal (e.g., written in the organization’s code of conduct) or informal (e.g., presented as one of the core values of an organization). Future incivility may be based, then, on whether the perpetrator might be reprimanded for his or her destructive behavior or whether the behavior would likely go unpunished. Accordingly, we propose that climate for incivility will moderate the

146


relationship between the experience of incivility and the perpetration of incivility, such that the relationship between experiencing and perpetrating incivility will be stronger when the organizational climate is more tolerant toward incivility (i.e., an uncivil climate) and weaker when incivility is discouraged or punished (i.e., a civil climate; Hypothesis 2).

ceptable means of doing business. In an organization with a civil climate, or one in which incivility is not tolerated, the relationship between men’s experiences and perpetration of incivility may be weaker than when the organization has an uncivil climate, or a climate in which incivility is tolerated or goes unpunished.

Method


The Role of Gender Given documented gender differences in men and women’s experience and perpetration of different forms of workplace mistreatment (e.g., aggression, sexual harassment, incivility), we would be remiss if we did not consider the impact of gender in the current study. Research demonstrates that men are more likely than women to be the perpetrators of workplace mistreatment (Pearson et al., 2000; Cortina et al., 2001; Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996), and, with the exception of conflicting results in the workplace bullying literature (Magley et al., 2010), women are most often the targets. Although there has been extensive focus on the gender of perpetrators and targets, the broader gendered nature and context of workplace mistreatment has seldom been explored (Cortina, 2008; Magley et al., 2010). For example, how are men and women’s experiences and perpetration of incivility impacted by the organizational climate in which they work? Exploring the gendered nature of workplace incivility is critical given the potential insight such research may provide to understanding Andersson and Pearson’s (1999) “incivility spiral” and the more egregious acts of workplace deviance (e.g., workplace bullying, aggression, and violence) that pervade many organizations. Although little research exists regarding the gendered nature of incivility (Cortina, 2008), initial findings regarding incivility perpetration suggest that men are more likely to engage in incivility based on situational and contextual factors related to the work environment or the incivility experience. For example, men are more likely to engage in rudeness based on target characteristics (i.e., incivility is more likely when the target has low organizational power), yet women are just as likely to behave uncivilly to their superiors as they are to their subordinates (Pearson et al., 2000). In another study that examined gender and context in relation to incivility, Bunk, Pettengill, Jacot, and Montero (2011) found that male’s reactions to incivility depended upon the location where the incivility occurred (i.e., public or private), whereas female’s reactions did not. Although more research is needed to understand how gender and context influence perpetration, these initial findings suggest that, compared with their female counterparts, men may be more susceptible to environmental or situational cues when engaging in rudeness. Thus, we suggest that a three-way interaction between incivility experiences, climate, and gender will predict incivility perpetration. We hypothesize that the organizational context, specifically organizational climate for incivility, might have a greater impact on the relationship between experiencing and perpetrating incivility for men (Hypothesis 3). Given that men have been found to be more likely to treat others uncivilly, it is possible that men may be more influenced by organizational norms for rudeness. Men have been found to have much higher rates of incivility perpetration than women (Pearson et al., 2000), and, as such, their perpetration may be exacerbated in organizations in which incivility is tolerated and dampened in organizations in which rudeness is not an ac-

Participants and Procedure Participants were recruited through a peer-nomination Webbased survey. Fifty-eight trained student recruiters from advanced psychology classes at larger Northeastern public university assisted with the data collection process; they were trained on the data collection methodology and ethics in research. They were provided with an e-mail invitation that they distributed to working adults they personally knew who met the eligibility requirements for the study (at least 18 years old and working at least 30 hr a week). Recipients of the invitation e-mails were asked to follow the Web link supplied in the e-mail and complete the online survey. The survey took approximately 20 min to complete. Student recruiters received nominal course extra credit for recruiting participants. Because of the nature of the recruitment strategy, it was not possible to calculate response rates. However, a significant benefit of this type of recruitment methodology is that it allowed us to recruit participants from a multitude of organizations, increasing the likelihood of having heterogeneity of types of working environments, particularly as it relates to organizational climate (e.g., civil climate vs. uncivil climate). Three hundred fifty-three individuals participated; on average, students recruited 6.08 participants each (SD ⫽ 4.37). Given the nature of this study, several inclusion criteria were used to increase the generalizability of our findings; to be included in the present analyses, respondents had to be working full time (40⫹ hr a week), had to have been employed with their organization for at least 3 months, and could not be self-employed. Using these inclusion criteria, our results are based on an analysis sample of 234 participants. Of these participants, 58.1% were female and 60.3% were married or living with a partner. The mean age was 38.9 years (SD ⫽ 12.4), with an average workweek of 45.5 hr (SD ⫽ 7.2). Almost one quarter of the sample reported working in professional occupations, and another 23.9% reported working in management, business, and financial operations. Approximately 7% reported working in service occupations, and another 8.6% reported working in manual labor or related professions (i.e., construction and production occupations).

Measures The Web-based survey that participants completed was comprised largely of multi-item measures existing in the published literature. Items for each construct were averaged to form composite scores, in which a higher value indicated “more” of the construct at hand. Scale descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and construct intercorrelations are presented in Table 1. Incivility experiences. Participants’ reports of being a target of incivility were measured with a 7-item measure adapted from Cortina et al. (2001; ␣ ⫽ .87). Participants were given the prompt, “During the PAST YEAR, how often have you been in a situation


147

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates, and Bivariate Correlations for Study Variables (N ⫽ 234)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. a


ⴱ

Work overloada Incivility experiencesb Incivility climate: Policiesa Incivility climate: Consequencesa Genderc Incivility perpetrationb

1 to 7 Likert-type scale. p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

b

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

3.41 .76 4.65 5.19 .58 .62

1.52 .72 1.78 1.28 .49 .66

(.87) .21ⴱⴱ ⫺.01 .06 .13ⴱ .16ⴱ

(.87) ⫺.19ⴱⴱ ⫺.03 .09 .44ⴱⴱ

(.81) .25ⴱⴱ ⫺.07 ⫺.26ⴱⴱ

(.77) .06 ⫺.18ⴱ

— ⫺.12

(.88)

0 to 4 Likert-type scale.

in which any of your supervisors or coworkers . . .” Sample items include “put you down or was condescending to you” and “doubted your judgment on a matter over which you have responsibility.” Participants were asked to respond on a 5-point frequency response scale (0 ⫽ never, 1 ⫽ once or twice, 2 ⫽ sometimes, 3 ⫽ often, 4 ⫽ many times). Incivility perpetration. Participants’ reports of perpetrating incivility were measured with a parallel set of seven items, adapted from Cortina et al. (2001; ␣ ⫽ .88). Participants were given the prompt, “During the PAST YEAR, how often have you engaged in the following toward any of your supervisors or coworkers?” Participants were again asked to respond on a 5-point frequency response scale (0 ⫽ never, 1 ⫽ once or twice, 2 ⫽ sometimes, 3 ⫽ often, 4 ⫽ many times). Organizational climate for incivility. Organizational climate for incivility was assessed with four items, adapted from Porath, Shapiro, and Duffy (2004). For all four items, participants were asked to respond on a 7-point Likert scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 7 ⫽ strongly agree). Items were reversed scored as necessary, such that higher scores indicated more organizational policies around incivility and less incivility tolerance. Although four items were originally adapted to assess organizational climate for incivility, empirical analyses (i.e., exploratory factor analyses) suggested that they did not tap into a unified holistic construct but instead corresponded to two subscales, Organizational Policies Regarding Incivility and Organizational Tolerance for Incivility. Specifically, using our analysis sample (n ⫽ 234), a principal components factor analysis (varimax rotation) with Kaiser normalization resulted in a two-factor solution explaining 83.0% of the variance. Two items loaded on each of the two conceptually distinct factors: (a) Organizational Policies (factor loadings of .92 and .90, with cross-loadings less than .30), and (b) Organizational Tolerance (factor loadings of .90 and .89, with cross-loadings less than .30). The two items used to assess organizational policies (␣ ⫽ .81) as related to workplace incivility were, “There are no company guidelines on how to treat each other” and “There is no training about how coworkers are supposed to treat each other.” The remaining two items were used to assess organizational tolerance (␣ ⫽ .77) for incivility. The two items were, “You would be reprimanded if you were rude to others” and “You would have career problems if you were rude to others.” Control variable. Given existing research that highlights the role of job stress in relation to incivility (Pearson et al., 2000;

c

1 ⫽ male, 2 ⫽ female.

Penney & Spector, 2005), and to eliminate the possibility of confounding factors that might influence our results, we controlled for work overload. According to Johnson and Indvik (2001), downsizing, technological advances, and skill shortages have contributed to a work environment in which employees must put in maximum effort and output if they want to remain competitive and employed. Given this reduction in employee resources, combined with the greater ability to access employees on nonworking hours, it is not surprising that work overload has been linked with the perpetration of counterproductive work behaviors (Penney & Spector, 2005) as well as incivility (Johnson & Indvik, 2001). Work overload was assessed with a four-item measure, adapted from Ivancevich and Matteson (1976 –2005). Participants were given the prompt, “Thinking about your work life, please respond to the following items.” A sample item includes, “I spend too much time in unimportant meetings which take me away from my work.” Participants were asked to respond on a 7-point Likert scale (1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 7 ⫽ strongly agree).

Results Preliminary Results Means, standard deviations, internal consistency reliability estimates, and bivariate correlations among study variables are reported in Table 1. It is interesting that policies and consequences were only moderately correlated (r ⫽ .25, p ⬍ .01), suggesting that although related, they are independent facets of incivility climate, and thus may interact differently with the other variables of interest included in the present study. As might be expected, though, both policies (r ⫽ ⫺.26, p ⬍ .01) and consequences (r ⫽ ⫺.18, p ⬍ .05) were negatively related to incivility perpetration. In addition, as expected, work overload (r ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .05) and incivility experiences (r ⫽ .44, p ⬍ .01) were both positively related to incivility perpetration. At the bivariate level, gender (r ⫽ ⫺.12, p ⬎ .05) was not statistically related to incivility perpetration. Within the analysis sample, 85% of participants indicated they had experienced workplace incivility in the past year. Of note, 77.8% indicated they had perpetrated workplace incivility in the past year. Collectively, 71.8% of participants reported both experiencing and perpetrating incivility. Furthermore, although not a specific hypothesis, in light of previous research (e.g., Cortina et al., 2001; Magley et al., 2010;


148

Pearson et al., 2000), we also sought to examine whether the frequency of being a target or perpetrator of incivility varied by gender. To examine this issue, a series of t tests were conducted to examine mean differences by gender in reports of incivility (target and perpetrator), as well as for our other study variables (i.e., overload and climate perceptions). The results of these analyses are reported in Table 2. Of interest, although women reported significantly more work overload (M ⫽ 3.58) than men (M ⫽ 3.19), t(232) ⫽ ⫺1.96, p ⫽ .05, none of our other study variables demonstrated significant mean differences.


Hypothesis Testing It was hypothesized that greater incivility experiences would predict increased incivility perpetration (Hypothesis 1), and that this relationship would be influenced by organizational climate, such that individuals working in an uncivil climate would be more likely to perpetrate incivility than those working in a civil climate (Hypothesis 2). Additionally, we predicted that this relationship would differ by gender, such that men’s incivility perpetration would be more influenced by the organizational climate for incivility than women’s (Hypothesis 3). Although we initially hypothesized a three-way interaction between organizational climate, incivility, and gender on the relationship between experiencing and perpetrating incivility, the two distinct factors of the organizational climate construct warranted the testing of a four-way interaction to include organizational tolerance for incivility and organizational policies in addition to incivility and gender. The four-way interaction was tested via a five-stage hierarchical regression analysis (Baron & Kenny, 1986). To avoid potential problems with multicollinearity, all predictor variables were mean centered before interaction terms were created. Results of the regression analyses are reported in Table 3. In Step 1, our control variable, work overload, was entered. As anticipated, work overload predicted incivility perpetration (␤ ⫽ .16, p ⬍ .01); individuals working in situations in which they felt more overload were more likely to report incivility perpetration. In Step 2, incivility experiences, organizational climate for incivility (both tolerance and policies), and gender were entered into the regression equation. All four direct effects were significant. Being the target of past incivility experiences had the largest incremental effect in terms of predicting incivility perpetration (␤ ⫽ .39, p ⬍ .01). In Step 3, all two-way interactions were entered. None of these two-way interactions were significant. In Step 4, all three-way Table 2 Test of Gender Differences In Study Variables Men (n ⫽ 98)

Work overload Policies Consequences Incivility experiences Incivility perpetration

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t value

3.19 4.80 5.11 .69 .71

1.45 1.76 1.28 .71 .75

3.58 4.54 5.25 .82 .55

1.56 1.79 1.29 .73 .58

⫺1.96ⴱ ⫺.83 1.09 ⫺1.42 1.84

Note. Degrees of freedom ⫽ 232. p ⱕ .05.

ⴱ

Women (n ⫽ 136)

interactions were entered. Again, none of these three-way interactions were significant. Finally, in Step 5, the four-way interaction term between incivility experiences, consequences, policies, and gender was entered. Inclusion of this interaction term resulted in a significant model, F(16, 217) ⫽ 6.40, p ⬍ .01; R2 ⫽ .32, wherein the four-way interaction term was significant (␤ ⫽ .28, p ⬍ .01) and a significant change in R2 was observed (⌬R2 ⫽ .01; p ⬍ .01). It is also informative to note that both incivility experiences (␤ ⫽ .50, p ⬍ .01) and policies (␤ ⫽ ⫺.30, p ⬍ .01) also had incremental effects in the final model. In order to clarify support for our hypotheses, the four-way interaction term was graphed using a ⫾1-standard-deviation approach based on the recommendation provided by Aiken and West (1991). Figure 1 depicts the interaction between incivility experiences, policies, and consequences for men, and Figure 2 depicts the same interactions for women. Results indicate that, overall, men were more likely to engage in incivility when compared with women regardless of organizational policies or level of organizational tolerance for incivility. Additionally, organizational policies and tolerance for incivility were particularly important for men, who were most likely to experience and perpetrate incivility when the organizational policies regarding incivility were weak or nonexistent and when the organization did not punish perpetrators of incivility. Men were least likely to perpetrate when the organizational climate indicated that perpetration would lead to negative consequences. For women, though, incivility perpetration was based less on organizational consequences and policies and more on incivility experiences. Women in organizations with better organizational policies and less tolerance for incivility were just as likely to perpetrate as women who worked in organizations in which policies were weaker and incivility was tolerated. Interestingly, women were least likely to perpetrate in organizational climates in which policies against incivility were strong yet those who perpetrated incivility were not necessarily punished.

Discussion Although workplace incivility researchers have focused primarily on the characteristics and experiences of incivility targets, the present study is among the first to provide insight into incivility experiences and perpetration. Although mistreatment experiences and perpetration have been examined with respect to other types of workplace deviance (i.e., workplace aggression, abusive supervision; Glomb & Liao, 2003; Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2009; Keashly & Neumann, 2008; Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, & Marinova, 2012), the current study is the first to tackle the experience–perpetration relationship in a less severe form of mistreatment: workplace incivility. Additionally, this study moves beyond the existing incivility literature by considering the organizational context for mistreatment—an area in which scholars have called for additional research (Tepper, 2007) and in which incivility researchers have begun to scratch the surface (Walsh et al., 2012). Understanding how an organization’s tolerance (or lack thereof) for incivility impacts the experience and perpetration of such behavior is critical in the development of strategies for preventing or intervening in the spiral of rudeness. Finally, although gender has been studied in relation to targets’ incivility experiences and outcomes (Cortina et al., 2001), we are unaware of


149

Table 3 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis in Predicting Incivility Perpetration (N ⫽ 234)

Step 1: Control variable Work overload Step 2: Main effects Incivility experiences Policies Consequences Gender Step 3: Two-way interactions Incivility Experiences ⫻ Policies Incivility Experiences ⫻ Consequences Incivility Experiences ⫻ Gender Policies ⫻ Consequences Policies ⫻ Gender Consequences ⫻ Gender Step 4: Three-way interactions Incivility Experiences ⫻ Consequences ⫻ Gender Incivility Experiences ⫻ Policies ⫻ Gender Policies ⫻ Consequences ⫻ Gender Incivility Experiences ⫻ Consequences ⫻ Policies Step 5: Four-way Interaction Incivility Experiences ⫻ Consequences ⫻ Policies ⫻ Gender F df R2 ⌬R2

Step 2 ␤

.16ⴱ

5.83ⴱ 1,232 .03 —

Step 3 ␤

Step 4 ␤

Step 5 ␤

.10

.08

.09

.08

.39ⴱⴱ ⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱ ⫺.18ⴱⴱ

.49ⴱⴱ ⫺.32ⴱⴱ ⫺.16 ⫺.11

.49ⴱⴱ ⫺.32ⴱ ⫺.14 ⫺.09

.50ⴱⴱ ⫺.30ⴱⴱ ⫺.15 ⫺.07

.12 ⫺.04 ⫺.12 .07 .09 .10

.12 ⫺.07 ⫺.12 .15 .08 .08

.07 ⫺.09 ⫺.16 .25ⴱ .11 .06

.03 .02 ⫺.07 ⫺.04

.09 ⫺.02 ⫺.26ⴱ ⫺.20

17.30ⴱⴱ 5,228 .28 .25ⴱⴱ

8.83ⴱⴱ 11,222 .30 .03ⴱⴱ

6.45ⴱⴱ 15,218 .31 .00

.28ⴱ 6.40ⴱⴱ 16,217 .32 .01ⴱⴱ

Note. df ⫽ degrees of freedom. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

previous research that examines gender and incivility climate simultaneously. Examining the impact of gender in relation to incivility climate, experiences, and perpetration provides a more in-depth understanding of the complex dynamics surrounding workplace incivility and also supports existing arguments that present workplace mistreatment as a gendered phenomenon (Magley et al., 2010). We hypothesized that incivility experiences would predict incivility perpetration (Hypothesis 1) and that organizational climate for incivility would moderate the relationship between incivility experiences and perpetration (Hypothesis 2). Specifically, we predicted that the relationship between incivility experiences and

perpetration would be stronger when employees worked in an organization with an uncivil climate (i.e., incivility tolerant), and weaker when employees worked in a company in a civil climate (i.e., incivility intolerant). We also predicted that this relationship would differ by gender. We hypothesized that men would be more influenced by context, such that the relationship between experiencing and perpetrating incivility would be stronger for men working in an uncivil climate and weaker for men in a civil climate (Hypothesis 3). Our results highlight the influence of gender and context in the incivility experience–perpetration relationship, as

1.25

1.00 Low Policy Low Consequence .75

Low Policy High Consequence

.50

High Policy Low Consequence High Policy High Consequence

.25

Incivility Perpetration

1.25

Incivility Perpetration


Step 1 ␤

1.00 Low Policy Low Consequence

.75

Low Policy High Consequence High Policy Low Consequence

.50

High Policy High Consequence

.25

.00

.00 Low Incivility Experience

High Incivility Experience

Figure 1. Interaction between incivility experiences, policies, and consequences in predicting incivility perpetration for men.

Low Incivility Experience

High Incivility Experience

Figure 2. Interaction between incivility experiences, policies, and consequences in predicting incivility perpetration for women.


150


demonstrated in the four-way interaction among incivility, gender, tolerance for incivility, and organizational policies. Specifically, results indicate that the nature of responses to incivility are not only gendered but also depend on two distinct aspects of organizational context, namely, organizational tolerance for incivility and organizational policies around incivility. The gendered pattern among incivility climate, incivility experiences, and incivility perpetration indicates that men were more likely to perpetrate incivility than were women. Although this result is consistent with the previous incivility literature on perpetrators and targets of rudeness (Pearson et al., 2000), our study was the first to investigate gender and climate as part of the incivility perpetration– experience relationship. Specifically, we found that men who worked in an uncivil climate generally reported higher likelihood of perpetrating incivility than anyone else, even when they did not report being a target of incivility. This may indicate that organizations that tolerate incivility create an environment that gives men permission to act out, regardless of whether these men have been treated in an uncivil manner. Interestingly, women were essentially unaffected by the climate toward incivility; as women experienced incivility in both civil and uncivil climates, perpetration toward incivility increased. This may demonstrate that women are more likely to perpetrate as a response to experiencing incivility, whereas men’s perpetration may be more influenced by the organizational context in which these behaviors unfold. If male workers feel they have more liberty to act rudely without recourse, such employees may have a greater likelihood to be perpetrators of uncivil behavior following experiences of incivility. This urge to “strike back” may indicate the presence of an incivility spiral as proposed by Andersson and Pearson (1999). That some employees engage in a back-and-forth spiral of insult hurling demonstrates that these behaviors are not always solitary instances of rudeness, but that such mistreatment often takes place as part of a larger, more complex social interaction. Indeed, very few respondents in the current sample reported solely being a target or perpetrator of incivility; the majority (70%) of the sample reported that they were both targets and perpetrators. These findings are consistent with Glomb and Liao’s (2003) research on workplace aggression, which demonstrated that being the target of aggression and working in a more aggressive workgroup positively predicts one’s likelihood of engaging in aggressive behavior. Future research should determine whether the empirical evidence supports the theoretical foundation for a dyadic incivility spiral or whether incivility experiences and perpetration reach much further into an organization’s social network. The incivility spiral has typically been conceptualized as a dyadic relationship in which two actors engage in an escalating spiral of rudeness (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), yet our initial results indicate that some actors are not targets and some targets are not actors. From a network perspective, “bad apples” may contribute to a climate in which rudeness permeates the workgroup to poison even those team members who were not initially exposed to the rudeness. Unfortunately, the influence of such perpetrators may extend beyond their initial target to impact a target’s peers, subordinates, and even the target’s friends or family (Hoobler & Brass, 2006). This influence may be direct (i.e., displaced aggression) or indirect (i.e., witnessing rudeness) in nature. Future research utilizing social network analyses can capture the temporal and pervasive nature of incivility, as well as the impact for those in the direct line of fire

or those who suffer negative consequences merely through observing such behavior (Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2007).

Limitations One of the limitations of the current study was the use of a convenience sample for data collection purposes. As noted by Messick (1989), the use of convenience samples may limit the generalizability of study findings, given the self-selection biases that may result (e.g., participants who more closely resemble the demographics or beliefs of the student researchers who collected the data). For the purposes of the present study, participants were found through student researchers, who may have drawn primarily on their network of friends, family, and acquaintances. Even so, the participants in the present study were working adults and represented a wide range of occupations and work experiences, as described previously. Participants came from multiple organizations and a broad spectrum of occupations, thus still contributing to a diverse sample and reducing potential response biases. This study was also cross-sectional in nature; thus, a causal relationship between the study variables and measured outcomes cannot be undeniably confirmed. Future researchers should consider the use of longitudinal methods to track the temporal nature of such interactions. It would have been optimal to study specific target–perpetrator relationships over time to empirically test theoretical conceptions of the incivility spiral; however, the sensitivity of collecting data on socially undesirable behavior (i.e., incivility perpetration) poses a particular challenge to future research in this area. Additionally, a closer examination of perpetrator and target characteristics (e.g., organizational power, organizational status, tenure, performance) would likely have provided greater insight into the gendered nature of our findings and the individual factors that impact the experience–perpetration relationship. Previous research has found that incivility responses are oftentimes heavily influenced by the perpetrator and target’s organizational (e.g., supervisory status, tenure) and social (i.e., gender, ethnicity; Bunk et al., 2011; Cortina & Magley, 2009; Magley et al., 2010) power. Because females have inherently lower social power than men (Lewis & Orford, 2005), and because they are more likely to use communal, rather than agentic, tactics at work (Smith et al., 2013), female targets may perceive experiences of rudeness as particularly threatening and may respond accordingly. The crosssectional nature of our data do not allow us to test these relationships, although our results provide a preliminary view of previously unexplored research (Spector, 1994). Given the supported findings of the current study, this piece contributes to the literature by providing a first glance at the influence of incivility climate and gender on incivility experiences and perpetration. Finally, although researchers have empirically defined incivility and the behaviors that constitute general rudeness in the workplace (Cortina et al., 2001), the current study highlights the need for more research in regard to measuring and understanding incivility climate. The incivility climate measure used in the present study was created based on the existing incivility literature. However, the creation and validation of a more comprehensive incivility climate measure would be useful in gaining a better understanding of the incivility experience– climate– outcome relationship. Although a number of established measures assess employee perceptions of various aspects of organizational climate, to date,


there exists only one validated measure that specifically assesses incivility climate. Although this measure was not available at the time this study was conducted, future researchers may want to consider assessing incivility climate using the Civility Norm Questionnaire–Brief or similar measures that have been found to adequately capture an organization’s climate for incivility (Walsh et al., 2012).


Future Research In addition to the greater need for empirical research on the incivility spiral, as well as the use of more established incivility climate measures in future studies, there exists a number of research areas that should be explored with respect to our findings. First, future researchers should continue to explore the role of the perpetrator in incivility experiences, given the negative consequences for those who experience incivility. Although our research indicates that the majority of targets are also perpetrators (70%), we were not able to discern through the current study whether those who experienced incivility were retaliating against those who were uncivil or whether such targets were responding uncivilly to other, and perhaps less threatening, targets. For example, if a supervisor is rude to a target, is the target less likely to respond rudely to the supervisor and more likely to behave uncivilly toward a peer or subordinate? Future research should consider additional perpetrator and targets characteristics (e.g., organizational power, likability, popularity, job security, performance), which may help explain the complex relationship between experiencing and perpetrating incivility. In addition, the broader mistreatment literature demonstrates the importance of examining additional contextual factors (e.g., group cohesion, ethical work climate, team and leader role-modeling behaviors) that may influence incivility experiences and perpetration (Glomb & Liao, 2003; Harned et al., 2002; Mawritz et al., 2012). Examining gender differences in relation to these personal and contextual factors may provide insight into why women are more apt to engage in rudeness based on experiences of incivility, whereas men’s behavior may be more context dependent. Given the incredible pressure for women to assume a more relational identity, and the potential backlash for behaving in a manner that violates gender norms or traditional female stereotypes (Gelfand, Smith Major, Raver, Nishii, & O’Brien, 2006; Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004), it is not entirely surprising that women’s incivility perpetration was less influenced by the organizational climate and more impacted by women’s experiences of incivility. As such, it is possible that men are more often the start of the incivility spiral, whereas women may be more likely to keep the spiral going. More research is needed in this area to verify whether this is indeed the case. Our results also indicated that there are a small percentage of employees (6%) who do not experience but perpetrate incivility, as well as a small percentage of employees (12%) who experience incivility but do not perpetrate. Although some research has already been conducted with respect to targets of incivility, more research is needed in this area to understand what characteristics may make particular individuals susceptible to incivility experiences. With respect to the group of participants who reported experiencing but not perpetrating incivility, it would be interesting to know if there is something unique about such individuals or their work environments that reduces their likelihood of engaging

151

in rudeness. Future research should examine whether these targets appraise their incivility experiences differently than other individuals (e.g., challenge vs. threat) and whether individual (e.g., assertiveness, problem vs. emotion-focused coping, locus of control) and/or contextual factors (e.g., perpetrator status, available resources, organizational culture) may lessen one’s desire to be uncivil to others. Equally important is the need to better understand those individuals who are perpetrating without experiencing incivility. This small group of respondents may be the most damaging in terms of the negative impact of their behaviors; put another way, this small group could be instigating a higher percentage of the incivility, which, when observed or experienced by others in the organization, could be transmitted to other employees, perpetuating the incivility spiral. Left unchecked by the organization, their detrimental behaviors may indirectly contribute to a significant number of negative organizational and psychological outcomes for a disproportionately high number of employees within the organization, in what might be referred to as snowball effect. As such, it is important to better understand what makes such individuals “untouchable” in terms of experiencing incivility. Do those who are perpetrators only have higher organizational status than the rest of their organizational counterparts? Have they developed such incredible aggression that no one dares to respond uncivilly to their slights? Do individuals in this group have distinct and toxic characteristics (e.g., narcissism, sociopathology, Machiavellianism) that separate them from their peers? Future research is needed to determine the typical profile of those who perpetrate but do not experience incivility, as these individuals may be the “bad apples” who are apt to spoil the whole bunch. Other areas of research include the examination of the tipping point that may prompt individuals to move from viewing an interaction as benign to one that is uncivil. For example, at what point does “blowing off steam” through joke telling or the occasional curse word go from being viewed as funny to crossing the line to rudeness? This may be particularly important in workgroups or occupations in which joking may be used to relieve stress and perhaps even to establish group cohesion (e.g., construction, military, law enforcement). Future researchers should explore individual differences in perceptions of what constitutes incivility, as behaviors that may bother one individual may be viewed positively by another. To date, most incivility studies ask participants whether they have experienced particular types of uncivil behaviors, yet few have asked participants the extent to which they were bothered by such behaviors. Based on Keashly’s (2001) research on emotional abuse, as well as qualitative findings from a study on predictors of sexual harassment reporting (Gallus, 2010), this is a particularly important area of research, as some individuals report that they are not bothered by mistreatment experiences. Related to this, and following from Brown and Leigh (1996), researchers could explore whether incivility affects the extent to which employees perceive their organizations to be “psychologically safe.”

Conclusions Organizations can no longer turn a blind eye to the negative consequences of an uncivil climate. Although some organizations may feel that targets of incivility are overreacting or are simply too sensitive, the incivility research demonstrates that the presence of incivility is often indicative of a greater organizational problem


152


surrounding employee experiences of mistreatment. As mentioned previously, incivility may be an indicator of the presence of other forms of employee deviance (the proverbial tip of the iceberg). Even though the costs associated with workplace rudeness should be sufficient justification for organizations to invest in the fight against incivility, the relationship between incivility and more severe types of mistreatment make the creation of a civil climate even more pressing. Given the positive relationship between incivility experiences and perpetration, organizations should consider the importance of creating an organizational climate that is intolerant of rudeness at work. This may be especially important in male-dominated workgroups and organizations, as an uncivil climate predicts increased perpetration of incivility by men. This finding should not be taken lightly, given the costly organizational and psychological effects that can result when an organization has a climate that tolerates incivility. To protect the well-being of workers in such companies, these types of organizations should take extra care to ensure that the company policies and procedures discourage rudeness and that organizational rewards reflect good sportsmanship among team members. Organizations that dismiss the damaging effects of incivility create an environment that provides permission to act out without regard for the psychological and physical well-being of their employees.

References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452– 471. Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Hershcovis, M. S., & Turner, N. (2011). Interpersonal targets and types of workplace aggression as a function of perpetrator sex. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 23, 163– 170. doi:10.1007/s10672-010-9155-x Babin, B. J., Boles, J. S., & Robin, D. P. (2000). Representing the perceived ethical work climate among marketing employees. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 345–358. doi:10.1177/ 0092070300283004 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 Bergman, M. E., Langhout, R. D., Palmieri, P. A., Cortina, L. M., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). The (un)reasonableness of reporting: Antecedents and consequences of reporting sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 230 –242. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.230 Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2004). The study of revenge in the workplace: Conceptual, ideological, and empirical issues. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 65– 81). Washington DC: APA Press. Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358 –368. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.358 Bunk, J. A., Karabin, J., & Lear, T. (2011). Understanding why workers engage in rude behaviors: A social interactionist perspective. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 30, 74 – 80. doi:10.1007/s12144-011-9102-5 Bunk, J. A., Pettengill, M., Jacot, M. L., & Montero, R. (2011). Public versus private experiences of workplace incivility: A social capital

perspective. Paper presented at the Work, Stress, and Health Conference, Orlando, FL. Carr, J. Z., Schmidt, A. M., Ford, K., & DeShon, R. P. (2003). Climate perceptions matter: A meta-analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states and individual level outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 605– 619. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.605 Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 33, 55–75. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.27745097 Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2009). Patterns and profiles of response to incivility in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 272–288. doi:10.1037/a0014934 Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64 – 80. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64 Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 185–201. doi:10.1080/ 13594329608414854 Felson, R. B., & Tedeschi, J. T. (Eds.). (1993). Aggression and violence: Social interactionist perspectives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10123-000 Ferguson, M. (2012). You cannot leave it at the office: Spillover and crossover of coworker incivility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 571–588. doi:10.1002/job.774 Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578 –589. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.4.578 Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291–309. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803 Gallus, J. A. (2010). Whistle-blowing following sexual harassment: Examining the intricacies of reporting within a planned behavior framework. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Gelfand, M. J., Smith Major, V., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L. H., & O’Brien, K. (2006). Negotiating relationally: The dynamics of the relational self in negotiations. The Academy of Management Review, 31, 427– 451. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.20208689 Glomb, T. M. (2002). Workplace anger and aggression: Informing conceptual models with data from specific encounters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 20 –36. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.7.1.20 Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 486 – 496. doi:10.2307/30040640 Harned, M. S., Ormerod, A. J., Palmieri, P. A., Collinsworth, L. L., & Reed, M. (2002). Sexual assault and other types of sexual harassment by workplace personnel: A comparison of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 174 –188. doi:10.1037/ 1076-8998.7.2.174 Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Individual and situational predictors of workplace bullying: Why do perpetrators engage in the bullying of others? Work & Stress, 23, 349 –358. doi:10.1080/ 02678370903395568 Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gendertyped tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416 – 427. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.89.3.416 Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 24 – 44. doi: 10.1002/job.621


INCIVILITY PERPETRATION Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1125–1133. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1125 Howard, J. L. (2011). Employee perceptions of perpetrators and acts of workplace violence in colleges and universities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 1034 –1058. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011 .00746.x Hui, H. H., Chiu, W. C. K., & Yu, P. L. H. (2007). The effects of service climate and the effective leadership behavior of supervisors on frontline employee service quality: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 151–172. doi:10.1348/ 096317905X89391 Inness, M., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2005). Understanding supervisortargeted aggression: A within-person between-jobs design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 731–739. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.731 Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1976 –2005). Stress Diagnostic Survey [Permission required for use]. Houston, TX: University of Houston. James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1976). Organizational structure: A review of structural dimensions and their conceptual relationships with individual attitudes and behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 16, 74 –113. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90008-8 Johnson, P. R., & Indvik, J. (2001). Slings and arrows of rudeness: Incivility in the workplace. Journal of Management Development, 20, 705–714. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005829 Kath, L. M., Swody, C. A., Magley, V. J., Bunk, J. A., & Gallus, J. (2009). Workgroup climate for sexual harassment as a moderator of the relationship between individuals’ experiences of sexual harassment and job-related outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 159 –182. doi:10.1348/096317908X299764 Keashly, L. (2001). Interpersonal and systemic aspects of emotional abuse at work: The target’s perspective. Violence and Victims, 16, 233–268. Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2008). Aggression at the service delivery interface: Do you see what I see? Journal of Management & Organization, 14, 180 –192. doi:10.5172/jmo.837.14.2.180 Lewis, E., & Orford, J. (2005). Women’s experiences of workplace bullying: Changes in social relationships. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15, 29 – 47. doi:10.1002/casp.807 Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 483– 496. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.90.3.483 Magley, V. J., Gallus, J. A., & Bunk, J. A. (2010). The gendered nature of workplace mistreatment. In D. McCreary & J. Chrisler (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology (pp. 423– 441). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1467-5_18 Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65, 325–357. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01246.x Mearns, K., Whitaker, S. M., & Flin, R. (2001). Benchmarking safety climate in hazardous environments: A longitudinal, interorganizational approach. Risk Analysis, 21, 771–786. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.214149 Mearns, K., Whitaker, S. M., & Flin, R. (2003). Safety climate, safety management practice and safety performance in offshore environments. Safety Science, 41, 641– 680. doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(02)00011-5 Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Lynn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.; pp. 13–103). New York, NY: Macmillan. Milam, A. C., Spitzmueller, C., & Penney, L. M. (2009). Investigating individual differences among targets of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 58 – 69. doi:10.1037/a0012683 Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. (2007). Beyond targets: Consequences of vicarious exposure to misogyny at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1254 –1269. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1254

153

Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159 –1168. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.92.4.1159 Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A theory of behavior in organizations. New York, NY: Academic Press. O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., & O’Boyle, A. S. (2011). Bad apples or bad barrels: An examination of group and organizational level effects in the study of counterproductive work behavior. Group & Organization Management, 36, 39 – 69. doi:10.1177/1059601110390998 Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Tamkins, M. M. (2003). Organizational culture and climate. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology. Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 565–594). New York, NY: Wiley. Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 123–137. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00019-X Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777–796. doi: 10.1002/job.336 Porath, C. L., Shapiro, D. L., & Duffy, M. K. (2004, August). When does perceived incivility lead to production deviance? A test of a systemwide perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA. Ramsay, S., Troth, A., & Branch, S. (2011). Work-place bullying: A group process framework. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 799 – 816. doi:10.1348/2044-8325.002000 Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2011). When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 713–729. doi:10.1037/a0021593 Schneider, B. (1990). The climate for service: An application of the climate construct. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational culture and climate (pp. 383– 412). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434 – 443. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.434 Smith, A. N., Watkins, M. B., Burke, M. J., Christian, M. S., Smith, C. E., & Hall, A. (2013). Gendered influence: A gender role perspective on the use and effectiveness of influence tactics. Journal of Management, 39, 1156 –1183. Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385–392. doi:10.1002/job.4030150503 Sutton, R. (2007). The no asshole rule: Building a civilized workplace and surviving one that isn’t. New York, NY: Warner Business Books. Sutton, R. (2010). Good boss, bad boss: How to be the best and learn from the worst. New York, NY: Business Plus. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289. doi:10.1177/0149206307300812 Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 156 –167. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp .2009.03.004 Timmerman, G., & Bajema, C. (2000). The impact of organizational culture on perceptions and experiences of sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 188 –205. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1741 Truss, L. (2005). Talk to the hand: The utter bloody rudeness of the world today. New York, NY: Gotham. Varonen, U., & Mattila, M. (2000). The safety climate and its relationship to safety practices, safety of the work environment and occupational

154



accidents in eight wood-processing companies. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 761–769. doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(99)00129-3 Walsh, B. M., Magley, V. J., Davies-Schrils, K. A., Marmett, M. D., Reeves, D. W., & Gallus, J. A. (2012). Assessing workgroup norms for civility: The development of the Civility Norms Questionnaire–Brief. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 407– 420. Williams, J. H., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1999). The effects of organizational practices on sexual harassment and individual outcomes in the military. Military Psychology, 11, 303–328. doi:10.1207/ s15327876mp1103_6

Zohar, D. (2002). The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on minor injuries in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 75–92. doi:10.1002/job.130

Received October 3, 2012 Revision received December 18, 2013 Accepted December 28, 2013 䡲

Members of Underrepresented Groups: Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate more in this process. If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at [email protected]. Please note the following important points: • To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective review. • To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission within the context of existing research. • To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information. Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example, “social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude change” as well. • Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1– 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript thoroughly. APA now has an online video course that provides guidance in reviewing manuscripts. To learn more about the course and to access the video, visit http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/reviewmanuscript-ce-video.aspx.

An eye for an eye.

Factors contributing to the perpetration of workplace incivility: the importance of organizational aspects and experiencing incivility from others.

Observing workplace incivility.

An Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth!

The relationship between fusional vergence eye movements and fixation disparity.

Inability to wink an eye and eye dominance.

The relationship between sex and symmetry in thyroid eye disease.

The relationship between delay period eye movements and visuospatial memory.

An American Eye View.

Keep an eye out for myasthenia gravis patients with an eye out.

Evolution: An eye for cryptic variation.

Practical accounting for eye programmes: an introduction.

Relationship between conjugate lateral eye movements and alexithymia.

Relationship between eye movements and oneiric behavior in cats.

How to examine an eye.

Letter: An eye-pad hazard.

Keeping an eye on crime.

Letter: An eye-pad hazard.

Keeping an eye on things.

[The eye of an executed human].

Keeping an eye on the oculocardiac reflex.

'I don't need an eye for an eye': Women's responses to intimate partner violence in Sierra Leone and Liberia.

Models of Workplace Incivility: The Relationships to Instigated Incivility and Negative Outcomes.

Relationship between macular and retinal diseases with prevalent atrial fibrillation - an analysis of the Australian Heart Eye Study.