Ethnicity and cultural values as predictors of the occurrence and impact of experienced workplace incivility.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2015, Vol. 20, No. 2, 205–217

© 2014 American Psychological Association 1076-8998/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038277

Ethnicity and Cultural Values as Predictors of the Occurrence and Impact of Experienced Workplace Incivility Jennifer L. Welbourne, Ashwini Gangadharan, and Ana M. Sariol

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.

University of Texas–Pan American Workplace incivility is a subtle type of deviant work behavior that is low in intensity and violates workplace norms of respect. Past research demonstrates the harmful impact of incivility on work attitudes and employee wellbeing; however, little is known about how incivility is experienced by individuals of different ethnicities and cultural orientations. In the current study, we compared the amount and impact of workplace incivility that was experienced by Hispanic and white, non-Hispanic employees. Further, we examined whether cultural dimensions of vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism moderated the relationships between workplace incivility and work and health outcomes. A sample of 262 university employees (50% Hispanic; 63% female) provided self-reports of experienced incivility, burnout, job satisfaction, and cultural values. Although male Hispanic employees experienced more incivility, female Hispanic employees experienced less incivility than non-Hispanic employees of the same gender. Hispanic employees displayed greater resilience against the impact of incivility on job satisfaction and burnout, compared with non-Hispanic employees. Additionally, employees with strong horizontal collectivism values (emphasizing sociability) were more resilient against the impact of incivility on burnout, whereas employees with strong horizontal individualism values (emphasizing self-reliance) were more susceptible to burnout and dissatisfaction when faced with incivility. These findings suggest that employees’ ethnicity and cultural values may increase or decrease their vulnerability to the impact of incivility at work. Keywords: collectivism, culture, individualism, workplace incivility

counter and respond to incivility at work. We suggest that examining incivility through a wider ethnic and cultural lens will inform research and practice. First, because cultural values play a key role in shaping our perceptions (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995), they may influence how incivility is perceived. Because uncivil behaviors are subtle and of ambiguous intent, targets’ perceptions affect how incivility is interpreted (Pearson & Porath, 2005, p. 9). Second, as highlighted in Selective Incivility Theory (Cortina, 2008; Cortina, Kabat-Farr, Leskinen, Huerta, & Magley, 2013), members of ethnic minorities may be especially likely to encounter incivility, due to thinly veiled prejudiced attitudes in the workplace. Finally, both ethnicity and cultural values have been linked to how people cope with and respond to stressors (Chun, Moos, & Cronkite, 2009; Montoro-Rodriguez & GallagherThompson, 2010); thus, incivility as a stressor may differentially impact employees with different cultural backgrounds. In particular, we propose that greater understanding of how Hispanic and white, non-Hispanic employees differ in their experiences and response to workplace incivility will broaden theoretical knowledge of incivility and its practical implications. Individuals of Hispanic origin, defined as those who indicate their origin as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American1

Scholars have recently identified the importance of investigating subtle forms of deviant behaviors in the workplace (Cortina, 2008). Workplace incivility, described as “low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 457), includes behaviors such as excluding a colleague from an important meeting, speaking condescendingly to someone, or addressing someone unprofessionally. Despite its subtle nature, the negative consequences of incivility on employees’ job attitudes (Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008) and mental and physical health (Lim et al., 2008) have been established. These impacts can be understood through a stressor-strain framework in which incivility is conceptualized as a chronic, low-intensity stressor (e.g., Cortina et al., 2001; Cortina, 2008). Despite well-documented impacts of incivility on work attitudes and behaviors, there is a paucity of research exploring how employees of different ethnicities, with unique cultural values, en-

This article was published Online First November 3, 2014. Jennifer L. Welbourne, Ashwini Gangadharan, and Ana M. Sariol, Department of Management, University of Texas–Pan American. Ashwini Gangadharan is now affiliated with the Department of Business Administration, Kutztown University. We thank Paul Sale for providing support for our data collection process and Celina Esparza for her assistance in survey administration. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jennifer L. Welbourne, Department of Management, 1201 West University Drive, University of Texas–Pan American, Edinburg, TX 78539. E-mail: [email protected]

1 Although each of these Hispanic subcultures has its own unique characteristics (Marin & Marin, 1991; Romero, 2004), they also share some core cultural values and experiences (Gallo et al., 2009; Hofstede, 1980; Sabogal et al., 1987; Stone-Romero, Stone, & Salas, 2003), suggesting that the variability within this category does not negate the value of identifying and studying broader characteristics of Hispanic culture (Romero, 2004).

205


206

WELBOURNE, GANGADHARAN, AND SARIOL

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2010), are expected to comprise one of every three U.S. residents by 2060 (www.census.gov). Drawing from Selective Incivility Theory (Cortina, 2008; Cortina et al., 2013), Hispanics, as a growing ethnic minority within the United States may be expected to encounter higher levels of workplace incivility than white, non-Hispanic employees. Additionally, we suggest that distinctions in cultural values between Hispanic and white, non-Hispanic employees may contribute to differential resilience to incivility. Certain shared values have been found to emerge among individuals who have been socialized as Hispanic2 (e.g., Gallo, Penedo, Espinosa, de los Monteros, & Arguellos, 2009; Hofstede, 1980; Sabogal et al., 1987; Stone-Romero, Stone, & Salas, 2003). In particular, two cultural values recognized to contribute to resilience, specifically, values stressing interpersonal functioning (Plant & SachsEricsson, 2004) and family (Menselson et al., 2008; Organista, Organista, & Kurasaki, 2003), are emphasized within Hispanic culture (Cuéllar, Arnold, & Gonzalez, 1995; Gallo et al., 2009), potentially providing a source of resilience to incivility at work. In contrast, white, non-Hispanic employees are more likely to focus on independence of the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), rather than on connections to others; we suggest that this may reduce their resources (e.g., social support) for effectively managing interpersonal stressors (see Chun et al., 2009), thereby lessening their resilience to the impacts of incivility. To address these issues, we explored the roles of ethnicity and cultural values in relation experienced workplace incivility. The goals of this research were to examine whether Hispanic and white non-Hispanic employees differ in the amount of incivility that they experience at work and their resilience to the impact of incivility on job dissatisfaction and burnout, and whether cultural values moderate the relationship between incivility, job satisfaction, and burnout. In the following sections we review the theoretical background and basis for our hypotheses.

finding that collectivistic cultural values were associated with reduced initiation of incivility. Lim and Lee (2011), however, found that more than 90% of a sample of Singaporean workers experienced incivility, which affected their work–life conflict, psychological distress, and satisfaction with supervisors and coworkers, suggesting that incivility is not only an individualistic phenomenon. Although these initial studies yield promising insights into the experience of workplace incivility across cultures, we note several issues that warrant future investigation. First, we suggest that there is a need for research to more directly compare the prevalence and impact of incivility across cultures or ethnic groups. Additionally, while Liu et al. (2009) examine how individualistic and collectivistic values relate to instigation of incivility, the relevance of these values for employees who are targets of uncivil behavior warrants further attention. Finally, as both studies focused on Asian employees, there is a need for greater understanding of how incivility is experienced by members of other ethnic groups, such as Hispanic employees. In the following sections, we examine how ethnicity and cultural dimensions of individualism– collectivism may relate to the prevalence and impact of experienced incivility at work. We first use Selective Incivility Theory (Cortina, 2008; Cortina et al., 2013) as a framework for proposing differences in the prevalence of incivility between Hispanic and non-Hispanic employees. Second, we draw on resilience theory (Richardson, 2002) and research on protective cultural factors (Mendelsohn et al.; Plant & SachsEricsson, 2004; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2011) to suggest that the impact of incivility on job satisfaction and burnout is weakened for Hispanic employees and strengthened for white, non-Hispanic employees. Finally, we discuss the broader cultural dimension of individualism– collectivism (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1995) as a potential moderator of the relationships between incivility and job satisfaction and burnout.

Workplace Incivility and Cultural Influences

Prevalence of Incivility Among Hispanic and White Non-Hispanic Employees

Workplace incivility is characterized by its violation of norms of respect and courtesy, low intensity, and ambiguous intent (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Pearson et al., 2000, 2001). Between 70% to 96% of employees from various industries report experiencing incivility in recent years (Cortina et al., 2001; Cortina & Magley, 2009; Pearson & Porath, 2009). Targets of workplace incivility frequently report lowered job satisfaction (Cortina et al., 2001; Lim et al., 2008; Penney & Spector, 2005; Miner-Rubino & Reed, 2010) and greater intentions to quit (Cortina et al., 2001; Lim et al., 2008; Miner-Rubino & Reed, 2010; Pearson et al., 2000, 2001). Additionally, incivility has been linked to poorer psychological health (Cortina et al., 2001; Lim et al., 2008) and burnout (Miner-Rubino & Reed, 2010), and indirectly to physical health through the psychological distress it causes (Lim et al., 2008). Studies examining workplace incivility have tended to focus on the experiences of White, non-Hispanic employees from predominately individualistic cultures. However, two recent studies explore this phenomenon through a broader cultural scope. Liu, Chi, Friedman, and Tsai (2009) examined the relationship between cultural values and instigation of incivility among employees from collectivistic (Taiwan) and individualistic (United States) cultures,

According to Selective Incivility Theory (Cortina, 2008; Cortina et al., 2013), incivility, particularly that which is subtle and ambiguous, may selectively target ethnic minorities (as well as women); thus, incivility aimed at these groups can be viewed as a form of modern discrimination reflecting subtle prejudices. Cortina (2008; Cortina et al., 2013) suggests that in today’s workplace, which prohibits more blatant forms of racism and sexism, the ambiguity of uncivil behaviors allows instigators to express subtle prejudices in ways that escape detection, because of the ease with which uncivil behaviors can be attributed to factors other than gender or race. Cortina (2008; Cortina et al, 2013) further proposes that when ethnicity and gender intersect (e.g., an employee is both female and a member of an ethnic minority), a type of “double jeopardy” (Beal, 1970; Epstein, 1973) occurs, such that the employee will be at heightened risk for experiencing incivility. 2 Stone-Romero et al. (2003) assert that Hispanics within the United States frequently retain these traditional cultural values, such as collectivism, emphasis on family, and motivation to maintain positive interpersonal relationships (Hofstede, 1980), rather than fully assimilating to the predominant culture within the United States.


CULTURE AND WORKPLACE INCIVILITY

Although support for Selective Incivility Theory has been found among samples of female employees (Cortina et al., 2001; Cortina et al., 2002; Cortina et al., 2013) and African American employees (Cortina et al., 2013), the question of whether Hispanic employees, and in particular, Hispanic women, experience higher levels of incivility than non-Hispanic employees has yet to be examined. However, studies have demonstrated that Hispanic employees experience other differential treatment in comparison to white, non-Hispanic employees in the workplace (e.g., Cianni & Romberger, 1995; Dreher & Cox, 1996). Further, because we conceptualize incivility as a stressor, we note that the broader stress literature finds that members of ethnic minorities are likely to experience heightened levels of stressors (Farley, Galves, Dickinson, & Perez, 2005; Rodriguez-Calcagno & Brewer, 2005), in part due to heightened discrimination faced by these groups (Clark, Anderson, Clark, & Williams, 1999; James, 1994). Based on the previous theory and research, we predict the following: Hypothesis 1: Hispanic Employees will report higher levels of experienced incivility than non-Hispanic employees. Hypothesis 2: The relationship between ethnicity and experienced incivility will be moderated by gender, such that Hispanic women will report the highest levels of incivility.

Cultural Resilience and Incivility We draw from the resilience literature to explain how ethnicity and cultural values might affect how individuals cope with incivility and its negative impacts. Resilience can be understood as a positive adaptation to stress (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004; Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013; Richardson, 2002). Richardson (2002) suggests that individuals may develop protective factors from social, ecological, and spiritual sources, which enable them to overcome stressors. Culture can be a source of resilience that protects individuals against the negative impacts of stressors. In particular, scholars suggest that the values or coping styles associated with certain cultures may provide a protective influence with regard to the health impacts of stressors (Case & Robinson, 2003; Garcia Coll, Akerman, & Cicchetti, 2000; Menselson et al., 2008; Palloni & Morenoff, 2001; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2011) and have called for additional research on the adaptive aspects of culture under conditions of stress or risk (Garcia Coll et al., 2000). In particular, cultural emphases on sociability and family may contribute to resilience in overcoming stressors. Researchers have posited that cultures that emphasize strong interpersonal functioning have increased resilience against the mental health impacts of stressors (Menselson et al., 2008; Plant & SachsEricsson, 2004). Similarly, cultural values that promote attachment and loyalty to family can provide increased social support to buffer against the impact of stressors on mental health (Gil-Rivas et al., 2003; Menselson et al., 2008; Organista et al., 2003). Although these constructs are not specific to (or characteristic of all) individuals of Hispanic ethnicity, research suggests that values focusing on sociability and family tend to be emphasized within Hispanic culture. For instance, the importance of sociability is highlighted in the Hispanic values of personalismo (Cuéllar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995) and simpatía (Gallo et al., 2009); personalismo reflects a drive to relate to others in a warm, personal way (Cuéllar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995), whereas simpatía

207

encompasses a motivation to maintain pleasant, conflict-free associations with others (Gallo et al., 2009). Familism, a value promoting attachment and loyalty to family (Schwartz, 2007), is also identified as a core value within Hispanic culture, that is fairly robust across different Hispanic subcultures, generations, and levels of acculturation. In contrast, white, non-Hispanic cultural values tend to highlight independence from others, rather than connection with others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991); thus, there is less emphasis on the importance of interpersonal functioning (Plant & Sachs-Ericsson, 2004) and family (Sabogal et al., 1987). As a result, white, nonHispanic employees may be less likely to experience the resilience that has been associated with these qualities. Additionally, a cultural emphasis on independence from others may be isolating (Singelis et al., 1995) and result in less social support (Chun et al., 2009), potentially decreasing resilience to stressors, such as incivility. Although growing research supports that aspects of culture may provide resilience against the impact of stressors, there has been little investigation of these culturally specific protective mechanisms within the domain of occupational stress. Here we examine them in relation to workplace incivility, which has been conceptualized as a low-grade occupational stressor (Cortina, 2008; Cortina & Magley, 2009; Cortina et al., 2001). Because the cultural values held by Hispanic individuals are expected to provide more resilience against stressors than those held by white, non-Hispanic individuals, we propose that incivility will be less strongly related to burnout and low job satisfaction for Hispanic employees than for white non-Hispanic employees. Hypothesis 3: The relationship between workplace incivility and (a) burnout and (b) job satisfaction is moderated by ethnicity, such that the relationship between these variables is weaker among Hispanic than white non-Hispanic employees.

Individualism–Collectivism and Experienced Incivility The aspects of culture (interpersonal functioning, focus on family) identified as contributing to resilience in face of stressors are ones that are generally valued in collectivistic and de-emphasized in individualistic cultural traditions (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). The individualism– collectivism dimension represents one of the most fundamental distinctions made between cultures. Collectivists tend to have interdependent self-construals; they view themselves in terms of relationships with others, and are influenced by social norms and a desire for group harmony (Hofstede, 1980; Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis, 1995). Both family integrity (e.g., agreement with statements such as children should live at home with their parents until they get married) and sociability are encompassed within collectivistic values (Triandis et al., 1986; Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao, & Sinha, 1995). In contrast, individualists tend to have independent self-construals; they view themselves as unique and autonomous from others, and are influenced by personal goals and preferences (Hofstede, 1980; Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis, 1995). Individualistic values center on competition, self-reliance, and distance from one’s in-groups (Singelis et al., 1995). The United States and Western European countries are typically characterized as individualistic cultures (Hofstede, 1980), whereas


208


Asian, Latin American, and African cultures tend to demonstrate higher levels of collectivism (Hofstede, 1980). Although there are crosscultural differences in individualism and collectivism, these values also show considerable variation within any given culture (Triandis, 1994). For example, although Hispanic cultures in general are based in stronger collectivistic roots than Anglo-American cultures (Gomez, 2003; Marin & Triandis, 1985), there is still a great deal of variability in the degree to which individuals within each culture endorse collectivistic and individualistic values. The recognition that these values coexist in every culture and that individuals within a particular culture can be arrayed along these cultural dimensions (Triandis et al., 1998) leads us to suggest that (regardless of ethnicity) the degree to which individuals adhere to collectivistic and individualistic cultural values will influence their resilience to experienced incivility at work.

Vertical and Horizontal Dimensions of Individualism–Collectivism Scholars have proposed that different varieties of collectivism and individualism may exist, and therefore, a simple dichotomy is not capable of fully capturing the complexity of these values (Shavitt, Lalwani, Zhang, & Torelli, 2006; Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis, 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Accordingly, Triandis (1995) distinguished between vertical and horizontal varieties of individualism and collectivism, creating a four-category typology that includes vertical individualism (VI), horizontal individualism (HI), vertical collectivism (VC), and horizontal collectivism (HC). Although both types of individualism focus on independence of the self from others, VI emphasizes status and competition to distinguish oneself from others, whereas HI emphasizes autonomy through unique characteristics and self-reliance. Similarly, although both types of collectivism are characterized by interdependence with others, vertical collectivists embrace status differences within their in-groups, with value placed on self-sacrifice and compliance to one’s in-group, whereas horizontal collectivists emphasize sociability in an “equal status” framework. There is growing consensus with regard to the value of applying this more fine-tuned framework of horizontal-vertical dimensions of individualism– collectivism to understand cultural influences on behavior and perception (see Nelson & Shavitt, 2002; Sivadas, Bruvold, & Nelson, 2008; Singelis et al., 1995; Shavitt et al., 2006). Singelis et al. (1995) suggest that vertical-horizontal distinctions may be especially significant for understanding how people respond to and manage interpersonal conflicts. Accordingly, we propose that use of this distinction may be particularly relevant to understanding the way that targets manage and respond to workplace incivility. In the following section, we develop specific hypotheses regarding the degree to which horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism– collectivism provide a source of resilience in overcoming incivility.

Vertical–Horizontal Dimensions of Collectivism and Resilience to Incivility HC has been characterized by an emphasis on sociability, cooperation, and maintaining caring relationships (Shavitt et al., 2006). This parallels cultural emphases on interpersonal relationships that have been purported to contribute to resilience in the

face of stressors (Menselson et al., 2008; Plant & Sachs-Ericsson, 2004). Additionally, Triandis and Gelfand (1998) suggest that HC values, because of their emphasis on developing caring bonds with others, may be associated with receiving greater social support. Social support has been demonstrated as an effective buffer against a wide range of stressors (Cortina, 2004; Van Emmerik, 2002); further, both emotional and organizational social support have been linked to improved functioning in the face of workplace incivility (Miner, Settles, Pratt-Hyatt, & Brady, 2012). Therefore, we suggest that employees with strong HC values may demonstrate greater resilience against the impact of incivility on burnout and job satisfaction. Hypothesis 4: The relationship between workplace incivility and (a) burnout and (b) job satisfaction will be moderated by levels of HC, such that the relationship between these variables will be weaker for employees who endorse high levels of HC values. Whereas HC emphasizes sociability and interdependence, VC emphasizes conformity and deference to one’s ingroup (Singelis et al., 1995; Shavitt et al., 2006). Both theoretically and empirically, VC has been linked to familism. Conceptually, both VC and familism share an emphasis on the prioritization of family over self (Schwartz, 2007). VC correlates with familism scores (Schwartz, 2007) and is often operationalized through items which measure sacrifice to family (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998; Singelis et al., 1995). As previously discussed, strong family bonds can be a source of resilience against stressors (Gil-Rivas et al., 2003; Holleran & Waller, 2003; Menselson et al., 2008; Organista et al., 2003; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2011). Further, VC values are based in an acceptance of inequalities and expectations that one should sacrifice personal goals for the good of one’s group (Singelis et al., 1995). Employees who hold this combination of beliefs may be more likely to tolerate or accept uncivil behavior from workgroup members for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of their group. Therefore, we predict that VC values will weaken the impact of incivility on burnout and job satisfaction. Hypothesis 5: The relationship between workplace incivility and (a) burnout and (b) job satisfaction will be moderated by levels of VC, such that the relationship between these variables will be weaker for employees who endorse high levels of VC values.

Vertical–Horizontal Dimensions of Individualism and Resilience to Incivility Whereas collectivistic cultural values are linked to interdependence, individualistic cultural values are associated with independence (Hofstede, 1980; Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis, 1995). Because individualism focuses on autonomy, this cultural value may be associated with a lack of social resources in times of stress (Chun et al., 2009). In particular, Singelis and colleagues (1995) suggest that HI’s emphasis on self-reliance and “doing one’s own thing” may carry a risk of social isolation. We propose that this may exacerbate the impact of interpersonal stressors, such as workplace incivility, such that individuals with HI values may have fewer social resources to turn to for support when facing these challenges. Further, we suggest that the alienation associated


with incivility (e.g., Vickers, 2006) may be compounded for employees who are already experiencing greater social isolation, because of their HI cultural values. Based on these arguments, we propose that strong HI values will strengthen the negative impact of incivility on burnout and job satisfaction.


Hypothesis 6: The relationship between workplace incivility and (a) burnout and (b) job satisfaction will be moderated by levels of HI, such that the relationship between these variables will be stronger for employees who endorse high levels of HI values. Although VI shares with HI an emphasis on independence, it focuses primarily on competitive values and has not been explicitly linked to values of self-reliance that might be associated with social isolation. Further, although it shares with VC an emphasis on acceptance of inequalities, VI does not encompass values of family integrity proposed to provide protective influences of VC. Therefore, we do not expect this dimension of individualism to either strengthen or weaken the relationship of incivility with job satisfaction and burnout. Although we do not make specific predictions for VI, we will test its moderating role in an exploratory way.

Method Participants Data were collected from faculty and staff at a public university located in the southern United States near the border of Mexico. A total of 266 faculty and staff completed an anonymous online survey. Four respondents with missing data on primary outcome measures were removed from the sample and excluded from data analysis. Our final sample included 262 employees (63% female) comprising 42% faculty/instructors, 24% executive staff, 28% technical, clerical, and service staff, and 6% who indicated other types of university positions. The average age of the participants was 44.9 years (SD ⫽ 11.8), and the average tenure of the participants in their current position was 8.4 years (SD ⫽ 8.5). Our sample of faculty and staff respondents comprised 132 Hispanic employees (50%), 108 white non-Hispanic employees (41%), 13 Asian employees (5%), and 3 Black/African American employees (1%). This varied across job type, such that the majority of faculty in our sample were white, non-Hispanic (65%), whereas the majority of staff in our sample were Hispanic (70%). More specifically, faculty respondents were composed of 65% white, non-Hispanic, 25% Hispanic, 9% Asian, and 1% Black/ African American employees, and staff respondents were composed of 27% white, non-Hispanic, 70% Hispanic, 1.5% Asian, and 1.5% Black/African American employees. This sample is generally consistent with the demographics of the university at which we collected our data: the faculty is made up of 46% white, non-Hispanic, 35% Hispanic, 9% Asian, and 2% Black/African American employees, and the university staff is composed of 13% white non-Hispanic, 83% Hispanic, 2% Asian, and 1% Black/ African American employees. We note that the ethnic/racial diversity in our sample, as well as within the university as a whole, is greater than that found in the broader community. The population of the county in which this university is located is 90.7%

209

Hispanic, 7.5% white non-Hispanic, 1.1% Asian, .8% Black/African American, .5% American Indian or Alaskan Native, and .4% indicating two or more races (quickfacts.census.gov). Data that we collected to assess the acculturation of Hispanic respondents3 indicated that 26% of the Hispanic respondents in our sample were strongly assimilated to the United States culture (based on their classification on the Brief Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans (ARSMA)-II (Bauman, 2005), whereas 72% were classified as “bicultural” or holding aspects of both cultures.

Procedure Participants were invited to participate in this research via e-mails sent to faculty and staff university listservs. Employees received an initial e-mail requesting their participation in an anonymous survey on workplace attitudes and behaviors; the e-mail informed them that they would receive a link to the survey in the upcoming weeks. Two weeks later, they received another e-mail which contained the link to the survey with instructions for completion. Two weeks later, a reminder e-mail was sent containing the link to the survey. The survey assessed participants’ responses on workplace incivility, burnout, and job satisfaction, as well as vertical and horizontal dimensions of individualism and collectivism.

Measures Workplace incivility. Workplace incivility was measured with the 7-item Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS) (Cortina et al., 2001). Cronbach’s alpha in the current sample indicated a reliability of 0.94. Sample items include Have you been in a situation where any of your superiors or coworkers ignored or excluded you from professional camaraderie? and Have you ever been in a situation where any of your superiors or coworkers paid little attention to your statement or showed little interest in your opinion? Participants were asked to think about the last 6 months at their job when responding to these items, and to indicate the frequency of these events using a 7 point scale ranging from never to very frequently. Job satisfaction. We assessed Job satisfaction using a 6-item version of the Brayfield and Rothe (1951) overall job satisfaction measure. The measure contains six items, with response options on a 7-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha for the sample was 0.90. Sample items include I feel fairly well satisfied with my present job and Most days I am enthusiastic about my work. Burnout. We assessed burnout using a 21-item burnout scale developed by Pines and Aronson (1988) to measure elements of physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion at work. The Cronbach’s alpha for burnout was 0.97. Participants indicated the frequency (on a 7-point scale ranging from never to always) with which they experienced feelings such as rejected, and trapped. Responses were collected with 7-point Likert scales, ranging from never to always. Individualism/Collectivism. We assessed cultural values of individualism and collectivism using the 16-item scale developed 3 Because the items of Brief ARSMA-II are specifically designed to assess acculturation among Mexican American individuals, it was administered only to participants who indicated Hispanic ethnicity.



210

by Triandis and Gelfand (1998). Consistent with Triandis and Gelfand (1998), horizontal and vertical dimensions of individual and collectivism were assessed. HC (4 items; ␣ ⫽ .70) included statements such as To me, pleasure is spending time with others and I feel good when I cooperate with others. VC (4 items; ␣ ⫽ .78) contained items such as Family members should stick together, no matter what sacrifices are required and It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want. For HI (4 items; ␣ ⫽ .82), sample items included I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely on others and I’d rather depend on myself than others. Finally, VI (4 items; ␣ ⫽ .67) included statements such as Competition is the law of nature and It is important that I do my job better than others. All items were rated on 7-point scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Demographic variables. Participants reported their gender, age, and ethnicity. They were also asked to indicate the type of job they held (selecting from categories of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, lecturer/instructor, executive/administrative staff, technical staff, clerical/secretarial staff, service/maintenance staff, or other) and the length of time they had been employed in that position. Acculturation. Participants who self-identified as Hispanic were additionally asked to complete the Brief ARSMA-II (Bauman, 2005), a measure of acculturation that has been shown to demonstrate adequate reliability and validity (Bauman, 2005). This scale is a shortened version of the ARSMA-II (Cuéllar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995), which was a refinement of the ARSMA (Cuellar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980); both of these scales are among the most frequently used measures to assess acculturation among Hispanic populations in the United States (Thomson & Hoffman-Goetz, 2009). The Brief ARSMA-II is aimed at assessing acculturation of Mexican American persons (although it also has some applicability for other Hispanic groups; Cuéllar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995); therefore, it was a good fit for measuring acculturation of Hispanic participants in our region at the border of Mexico. The Brief ARSMA-II contains two subscales to assess Mexican Orientation (6 items) and Anglo Orientation (6 items) of respondents as orthogonal constructs. Items are measured on a 5-point scale (not at all to extremely often/nearly always) with a focus on language use and preferences (e.g., I speak English; I enjoy speaking Spanish), media preferences (e.g., I enjoy English language movies; I enjoy reading in Spanish), and social interaction (e.g., My friends are Anglo). Subscale scores are combined to compute an overall acculturation score, which is classified at 5 levels ranging from highly assimilated to maintaining traditional cultural values from one’s country of origin.

Results Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and reliability coefficients for all variables were computed (see Table 1). Composite scores were created for all variables containing multiple items. The Cronbach’s alpha for the VI scale (␣ ⫽ .67) was slightly lower than accepted standards. All other scales demonstrated acceptable reliability. We conducted Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) and moderated hierarchical regression analyses to test our hypotheses. Because our first set of research questions (H1–H3) focused specifically on comparison of Hispanic and white, non-Hispanic employees, participants who self-identified as a member of another

ethnic group (n ⫽ 16) or chose not to report their ethnicity (n ⫽ 6) were excluded from those analyses. For all other analyses that we report, the full data set was used.

Ethnicity and Amount of Experienced Incivility We predicted that Hispanic employees would experience greater levels of incivility than white Non-Hispanic employees (H1), and that this effect would be moderated by gender such that female Hispanic employees would experience the highest level of incivility (H2). We tested these hypotheses by conducting an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) in which we controlled for job type. Job type was controlled for in the analysis,4 because it was associated with the amount of incivility that employees experienced (F ⫽ 4.29, p ⬍ .05). The ANCOVA indicated no main effects of gender [Females: M ⫽ 2.3; Males: M ⫽ 2.5; F(1, 227) ⫽ 2.49, ns] or ethnicity [Non-Hispanics: M ⫽ 2.3; Hispanics: M ⫽ 2.4; F(1, 227) ⫽ 1.79, ns] on the amount of incivility experienced by employees. A statistically significant interaction, F(1, 227) ⫽ 10.04, p ⫽ .01, between gender and ethnicity on incivility indicated that among males, Hispanic employees (M ⫽ 2.6) experienced more incivility than non-Hispanic employees (M ⫽ 2.0), F(1, 83) ⫽ 4.93, p ⫽ .03, whereas, among females, Hispanic employees experienced less incivility (M ⫽ 2.3) than non-Hispanic employees (M ⫽ 2.8), F(1, 147) ⫽ 4.39, p ⫽ .04. Thus, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were not supported.

Does Ethnicity Moderate the Impact of Incivility on Burnout and Job Satisfaction? We predicted that employees of Hispanic ethnicity would experience a weaker association between incivility and burnout (H3a) and job satisfaction (H3b) than White, Non-Hispanic employees. We conducted moderated regression analyses (Aiken & West, 1991) to examine our hypotheses regarding the role of ethnicity in moderating the impact of incivility on job satisfaction and burnout (see Table 2). Because of the meaningful interaction of ethnicity and gender on incivility found in the previous analysis, we also included gender in our tests of the current hypotheses. Following Aiken and West (1991), all predictor variables were transformed into standardized z scores, and interaction terms were computed. Main effects of experienced incivility, ethnicity, and gender were entered into the regression in Step 1. In the second step, two-way interaction terms between ethnicity, gender, and incivility were entered into the regression. For all statistically significant interaction effects, means were estimated and plotted at high (⫹1 SD) and low (⫺1 SD) levels of each of the terms of the interaction, and simple slope analyses were computed to interpret the interaction. Consistent with prior research, incivility predicted lower job satisfaction (␤ ⫽ ⫺.72, p ⫽ .002) and greater burnout (␤ ⫽ .92, p ⬍ .01). Supporting Hypothesis 3, the relationship between incivility and job satisfaction was moderated by ethnicity (␤ ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .05), with the pattern of this interaction (See Figure 1) indicating that the negative relationship between incivility and job 4 We note that the same pattern of results and statistical significance was found when we computed this analysis without the inclusion of job type as a covariate.


211

Table 1 Means, Standard deviations, Internal Consistency Reliability, and Intercorrelations Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Job satisfaction Burnout Incivility Horizontal individualism Vertical individualism Horizontal collectivism Vertical collectivism

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

5.48 2.84 2.47 5.50 3.56 5.71 5.15

1.41 1.11 1.40 1.11 1.13 .74 1.22

.90 ⫺.58ⴱⴱ ⫺.42ⴱⴱ ⫺.11 .02 .08 .01

.97 .62ⴱⴱ .08 .05 ⫺.19ⴱⴱ ⫺.07

.94 .03 .02 ⫺.12ⴱ ⫺.19ⴱⴱ

.82 .30ⴱⴱ .02 ⫺.02

.67 ⫺.18ⴱ .15ⴱ

.70 .31ⴱ

.78


Note. Coefficient alpha reliabilities are displayed in the diagonal. ⴱ Correlation is significant at p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ Correlation is significant at p ⬍ .01.

satisfaction was stronger for non-Hispanic employees (␤ ⫽ ⫺.49) than for Hispanic employees (␤ ⫽ ⫺.30). The interaction between incivility and ethnicity on burnout approached statistical significance (␤ ⫽ ⫺.10, p ⫽ .056), with the pattern of the interaction (see Figure 2) indicating that the relationship between incivility and burnout was slightly stronger for non-Hispanic (␤ ⫽ .71) than Hispanic participants (␤ ⫽ .57). Gender did not moderate these relationships.

Do Cultural Values Buffer the Impact of Incivility on Burnout and Job Satisfaction? t tests indicated that Hispanic participants scored higher than white non-Hispanic participants on HC, t(235) ⫽ ⫺2.12, p ⬍ .05; M ⫽ 5.8 vs. 5.4 and VC, t(235) ⫽ ⫺5.83, p ⬍ .01; M ⫽ 5.6 vs. 4.7. We conducted moderated hierarchical regression analyses (Aiken & West, 1991) to examine our hypotheses regarding the role of cultural values in buffering the impact of incivility on job satisfaction and burnout (see Table 3). All predictor variables were transformed into standardized z-scores, and interaction terms were computed. Main effects of experienced incivility, HI, HC, VI, and VC were entered into the regression in Step 1. In the second step, the two-way interaction terms between incivility and each cultural value (e.g., Incivility ⫻ HC; Incivility ⫻ VC; etc.) were entered into the regression. For all statistically significant interaction effects, means were estimated and plotted at high (⫹1 SD) and low

(⫺1 SD) levels of each of the terms of the interaction, and simple slope analyses were computed to interpret the interaction. HC moderated the impact of incivility on burnout (␤ ⫽ ⫺.15, p ⬍ .01). The plotted interaction (See Figure 3) shows that the relationship between incivility and burnout was weaker among employees with high HC values (␤ ⫽ .53, p ⬍ .01), as compared with employees with low HC values (␤ ⫽ .83, p ⬍ .01). These findings support Hypothesis 4a, suggesting that HC values buffer the impact of incivility on burnout. However, HC did not moderate the relationship between incivility and job satisfaction (␤ ⫽ .03, ns); thus, Hypothesis 4b was not supported. VC did not moderate the relationship between incivility and job satisfaction (␤ ⫽ ⫺.02, ns) or the relationship between incivility and burnout (␤ ⫽ .04, ns), suggesting that this cultural value does not increase resilience against the impact of incivility. Thus, Hypothesis 5 was not supported. HI values moderated the relationship between incivility and job satisfaction (␤ ⫽ ⫺.20, p ⬍ .01) and the relationship between incivility and burnout (␤ ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .01). The plotted interaction (See Figure 4) shows that employees with high HI values experience a stronger negative relationship (␤ ⫽ ⫺.82, p ⬍ .01) between incivility and job satisfaction than employees who score lower on HI (␤ ⫽ ⫺.25, p ⬍ .06). Similarly, Figure 5 demonstrates that employees with high HI cultural values experience a stronger relationship between incivility and burnout (␤ ⫽ .89, p ⬍ .01) than employees who score lower on HI (␤ ⫽ .48, p ⬍ .01). Thus, in support of Hypothesis 6, these results suggest that the cultural value of HI strengthens the negative impacts associated with

Table 2 Moderated Regression Results With Job Satisfaction and Burnout as Dependent Variables Dependent variables Job satisfaction

Burnout

Predictors

Model 1

Model 2

Model 1

Model 2

Ethnicity Incivility Gender Incivility ⫻ Ethnicity Incivility ⫻ Gender Gender ⫻ Ethnicity R2 ⌬R2

⫺.08 ⫺.37ⴱⴱ .10

.23 ⫺.72ⴱⴱ .13ⴱ .13ⴱ .32 ⫺.30 .17 .02⫹

⫺.02 .61ⴱⴱ .00

⫺.36⫹ .92ⴱⴱ ⫺.03 ⫺.10⫹ ⫺.29 .33 .40 .02⫹

.15 .15ⴱⴱ

.38 .38ⴱⴱ

Note. Standardized regression coefficients are displayed. ⫹ p ⬍ .06. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

Figure 1. Interaction of incivility and ethnicity on job satisfaction.



212

Figure 3. Interaction of incivility and horizontal collectivism on burnout. Figure 2. Interaction of incivility and ethnicity on burnout.

incivility. As expected, VI did not moderate the relationships between incivility and job satisfaction (␤ ⫽ .05, ns); however, unexpectedly, the effect of VI as a moderator of incivility and burnout approached significance (␤ ⫽ ⫺.11, p ⫽ .06). As plotted in Figure 6, employees with high VI values demonstrated a slightly weaker relationship between incivility and burnout (␤ ⫽ .57, p ⬍ .01), compared with employees with low VI scores (␤ ⫽ .80, p ⬍ .01).

Discussion The goal of this research was to investigate ethnicity and cultural values in relation to workplace incivility, a subtle form of workplace mistreatment often conceptualized as an occupational stressor (Cortina, 2008). Past research recognizes the role of ethnicity and culture in shaping perceptions (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995), as well as responses to stressors (Chun et al., 2009; Montoro-Rodriguez & Gallagher-Thompson, 2010), suggesting the value of examining incivility within a broader cultural context. Further, increased diversity in the United States workforce (Toossi, 2012) underscores the need for better understanding of how members of various ethnic and cultural groups

Table 3 Moderated Regression Results With Job Satisfaction and Burnout as Dependent Variables

interpret and respond to uncivil behavior at work. In this research, we compared the prevalence and impact of incivility experienced by Hispanic and white non-Hispanic employees. Additionally, we examined whether cultural values of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism moderated the relationship between incivility, burnout, and job satisfaction. We explore our findings below.

Prevalence of Workplace Incivility Among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Employees In contrast to our predictions based in Selective Incivility Theory (Cortina, 2008; Cortina et al, 2013), there was no main effect of ethnicity on experienced incivility, contradicting prior research that suggests Hispanic individuals are at higher risk for stressful events as a result of discrimination (Farley et al., 2005; RodriguezCalcagno & Brewer, 2005). This finding might be interpreted in light of the value of simpatía that characterizes Hispanic culture. Placing value on interacting with others in a congenial way may reduce conflict in interpersonal relationships (Stone-Romero et al., 2003), therefore reducing experiences of incivility. Further, the direction of the interactive effect of ethnicity and gender on incivility was opposite to our prediction, such that Hispanic females reported experiencing less (rather than more) incivility, compared with white, non-Hispanic females or Hispanic males. This result contradicts Selective Incivility Theory (Cortina, 2008; Cortina et al., 2013), as well as previous studies that provided support for the double jeopardy hypothesis (Buchanan & Fitzger-

Dependent variables Job satisfaction Predictors HI VI HC VC Incivility Incivility Incivility Incivility Incivility R2 ⌬R2

Model 1 ⴱ

⫻ ⫻ ⫻ ⫻

⫺.15 .10 .10 ⫺.10 ⫺.38ⴱⴱ HI HC VI VC .17 .17ⴱⴱ

Burnout

Model 2 ⴱⴱ

⫺.18 .13ⴱ .10 ⫺.12 ⫺.37ⴱⴱ ⫺.20ⴱⴱ .03 .05 ⫺.02 .20 .03ⴱ

Model 1

Model 2

.08 ⫺.01 ⫺.14ⴱ .09 .61ⴱⴱ

.11ⴱ ⫺.05 ⫺.14ⴱ .09 .60ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ ⫺.15ⴱ ⫺.11⫹ .04 .44 .04ⴱⴱ

.40 .40ⴱⴱ

Note. Standardized regression coefficients are displayed. ⫹ p ⬍ .06. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

Figure 4. Interaction of incivility and horizontal individualism on job satisfaction.



Figure 5. out.

Interaction of incivility and horizontal individualism on burn-

ald, 2008; Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Barnum, Liden, & DiTomaso, 1995); however, it is consistent with a recent study (Raver & Nishii, 2010) that found no evidence of double jeopardy for general workplace harassment. Although these findings may indeed reflect actual differences in incivility directed at these targets, alternatively, they may reflect differences in targets’ perceptions of incivility (i.e., female Hispanic employees may have a higher threshold for perceiving incivility). For example, Lim and Lee (2011) suggest that cultural differences in the salience of gender power differences may contribute to their finding that females reported less incivility than males in a sample of Singaporean employees. Specifically, within this culture, males may expect more respectful treatment and therefore have lower thresholds for incivility. This explanation may also be relevant to the current study, as Hispanic culture is characterized as adhering to strong gender roles (Cuéllar, Arnold, & Gonzalez, 1995). We suggest that future research examine more directly whether different thresholds for incivility are associated with ethnicity and whether instigators of incivility are less likely to direct incivility at targets that are Hispanic and female.

Ethnicity and Resilience to Incivility As predicted, Hispanic employees, compared with White nonHispanic employees, experienced less burnout and reduction in job satisfaction in response to incivility. The greater resilience experienced by Hispanic employees compared with white, nonHispanic employees in our study is consistent with studies that have reported protective cultural influences associated with values focused on social functioning and family (Case & Robinson, 2003; Garcia Coll et al., 2000; Menselson et al., 2008; Palloni & Morenoff, 2001; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2011). These values are emphasized within Hispanic culture (Cuéllar, Arnold, & Gonzalez, 1995; Gallo et al., 2009; Plant & Sachs-Ericsson, 2004), potentially contributing to greater resilience against incivility, whereas white, non-Hispanic participants are more likely to hold values focusing on independence and autonomy (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), which are less likely to provide (and may even reduce) resilience to incivility’s impact. The current study is one of the first to investigate culturally specific protective mechanisms within the domain of occupational stress and in relation to work-related outcomes such as job satisfaction, Further, these findings extend the workplace incivility literature by providing evidence that em-

213

ployees of different ethnic backgrounds may respond differently to an uncivil work environment. Although the current research focused on differences in resilience attributable to cultural values, we recognize that other factors might also contribute to reduced impact of incivility on satisfaction and burnout among Hispanic employees. For example, Hispanic participants may experience (at work or in general) greater exposure to stressors, particularly related to discrimination; as a result, they may have developed more effective coping responses for handling uncivil behaviors. Indeed, Raver and Nishii (2010) propose that increased exposure to multiple forms of mistreatment may result in adaptation to the mistreatment resulting in weakened outcomes. Additionally, participants may have varied in how they attributed uncivil behavior. For instance, Hispanic participants may have been more likely to relate the incivility that they experienced to their ethnicity, compared with non-Hispanic white participants, potentially impacting their responses to incivility. Although these factors were not assessed here, they are valuable directions for future work.

Cultural Values and Resilience to Incivility To better understand the role of specific cultural values in buffering or exacerbating the impacts of incivility, we examined whether vertical and horizontal dimensions of collectivism and individualism moderated the relationships between incivility and job satisfaction and burnout. Our results suggest that HC values, which emphasize sociability and warm interpersonal relationships (Shavitt et al., 2006), increase resilience to burnout associated with incivility. We suggest that HC values may be protective against burnout, because they facilitate the formation of strong social support networks (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Previous work demonstrates beneficial effects of emotional support in the context of incivility (Miner et al., 2012). Interestingly, protective aspects of HC did not extend to job satisfaction. To interpret this result, we suggest that job satisfaction may be more closely aligned with individualistic than collectivistic cultural values. Defining oneself through attitudes and traits is characteristic of individualistic cultural orientations. However, persons with collectivistic orientations tend to define themselves through relationships and group memberships, rather than personal attitudes and traits (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998); thus, job satisfaction, as an attitude toward one’s job, may not be as relevant of an outcome for them. This interpretation is consistent with our

Figure 6.

Interaction of incivility and vertical individualism on burnout.


214


finding that individualistic values (specifically, HI) moderated the relationship between incivility and job satisfaction, whereas collectivistic values did not. Given that past research (e.g., Case & Robinson, 2003; Garcia Coll et al., 2000; Menselson et al., 2008; Palloni & Morenoff, 2001; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2011) has primarily focused on cultural resilience in relation to physical and mental health impacts, we suggest that researchers further investigate the degree to which protective benefits of HC generalize to work outcomes. VC values emphasize acceptance of status differences, as well as compliance and sacrifice to one’s ingroup (Shavitt et al., 2006; Singelis et al., 1995). VC has been linked conceptually and empirically to the cultural dimension of familism (Schwartz, 2007; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998), which has been shown to provide resilience in response to stressors. Contrary to prediction, VC values did not weaken the impact of incivility on burnout or job satisfaction. One reason may be that whereas we based our hypotheses on the protective benefits associated with familism, many studies have operationalized familism in terms of family warmth and support (e.g., Gil-Rivas et al., 2003; Holleran & Waller, 2003; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2011). In contrast, VC emphasizes elements of duty and sacrifice (e.g., to family). These particular components of familism may not provide the same type of protection when facing stressors. Alternatively, the protective influence of familyrelated cultural values may not extend to the subtle workplace stressors examined here. For instance, Lim and Lee (2011) found that perceived family support did not buffer Singaporean employees against the impact of incivility, but instead appeared to exacerbate its negative consequences for employees. Individuals with strong HI values experienced a greater association between incivility, burnout, and reduced job satisfaction. Consistent with our predictions, this suggests that employees who endorse HI values, which emphasize self-reliance and independence (Singelis et al., 1995), are more vulnerable to the negative strains associated with workplace incivility. We suggest that this is attributable to the combination of experiencing a potentially isolating phenomenon [incivility] (Vickers, 2006) while at the same time holding cultural values that may place one at risk for greater social isolation (Singelis et al., 1995). Future research might test more directly whether individuals with HI values are less likely to obtain social support when facing incivility. Interestingly, our analyses show a nonsignificant trend (p ⫽ .06) of VI values, which emphasize status and competition (Singelis et al., 1995), buffering the impact of incivility on burnout. Why might individuals who value status and competition be less likely to experience burnout when targeted by incivility at work? One possibility is that they may be more accepting of incivility, if they see uncivil acts as simply part of a competitive playing field at work, or a way to get ahead. Although the current study focuses specifically on subtle workplace deviance, we encourage future work to further explore the potential for protective cultural mechanisms within individualistic cultures. Overall, our findings suggest that vertical and horizontal dimensions of individualism and collectivism relate uniquely to incivility and its associated outcomes. In general, we found that horizontal dimensions were most crucial to buffering or strengthening the relationship between incivility and work and health outcomes; we attribute this to the fact that these cultural values relate more directly to the presence or absence of support networks (Triandis

& Gelfand, 1998). Additionally, Chen and colleagues (1997) propose that horizontal dimensions are more relevant to explaining interpersonal phenomenon (e.g., incivility5), whereas vertical dimensions are more appropriate for research on intergroup phenomenon; this may also account for the differential effects for horizontal and vertical dimensions found here. More broadly, this pattern of results underscores the importance of examining vertical and horizontal dimensions of individualism and collectivism separately, as argued by previous researchers.

Practical Implications Our results suggest that Hispanic males and non-Hispanic females were especially likely to experience incivility at their jobs. Thus, we encourage managers to be aware that members of these groups may be particularly likely to be targeted by incivility and to consider appropriate interventions at both the individual and organizational levels. Given the differential effects between the groups examined here, we suggest that discussions of culture, ethnicity, and gender may enhance the effectiveness of employee trainings or interventions designed to curb incivility. Our findings also demonstrate that employees with different cultural values may vary in their vulnerability to incivility. Specifically, employees from individualistic cultures who hold values associated with self-reliance (HI) may be more susceptible to the negative impacts of incivility on their job attitudes and wellbeing. Awareness of this will allow employers to be more attuned to the needs of employees whose cultural values may place them at greater risk for these impacts. In particular, organizations might consider providing additional support networks for these employees, given that their values of self-reliance might be isolating for them if they experience incivility. Additionally, the finding that individuals with strong HC values experienced less burnout when faced with incivility suggests that organizations focus on fostering employee values that emphasize sociability and interconnection with others.

Limitations and Future Directions Although this study provides initial insights into how cultural values and ethnicity relate to incivility, it has limitations. Crosssectional data limit our ability to infer causality in the relationships examined here. Additionally, the use of single-source, self-report methodology increases the threat of common method variance. However, because incivility and cultural values are experienced directly by the respondent and not always observable by others, we believe they are most appropriately assessed through self-report, rather than by more objective measures or observer ratings. Additionally, because interaction effects are less likely to be artifacts of common method variance (Evans, 1985; Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010), we suggest that the moderating effects of ethnicity and culture found here cannot be fully accounted for in this way. Our sample focused solely on university employees and was limited to a single workplace. However, because academia has been identified as an occupation in which employees are likely to encounter incivility (Morrissette, 2001), we suggest that this was 5 Although incivility may be selectively targeted based on group membership, we note here that more broadly, incivility is considered an interpersonal stressor.



an appropriate setting for our research. Further, although our work aimed to increase understanding of how Hispanic and white, non-Hispanic employees differ in their experience of incivility, our sample lacked representation of other ethnic groups. As noted earlier, values emphasizing relationships and family are not unique to persons of Hispanic origin; in particular, similar values emerge in African and Asian cultures (Schwartz et al., 2010). Thus, it will be informative to examine the buffering effects of cultural values within other ethnic groups. It is possible that the location in which we conducted our research influenced our findings. In contrast to other locations within the United States, individuals of Hispanic ethnicity are a numeric majority (rather than a minority) in the border region in which we collected our data (www.census.gov). This may have affected intergroup relationships, potentially reducing selective incivility targeted at Hispanic employees. However, because increased incivility was reported by male Hispanic employees (in spite of being a majority in the population), we suggest that the research context cannot fully account for these results. Being in a location where the majority of the population is Hispanic may also strengthen the degree to which Hispanic employees hold values that are traditionally emphasized within their culture. In this case, the effects of cultural resilience that are observed within this sample may be stronger than in another research context. Finally, because of proximity to Mexico, it is likely that a majority of our Hispanic participants were of Mexican background (although we did not directly assess country of origin). As a result, our research does not acknowledge the variability that may occur across different Hispanic subcultures. We suggest that future research take a more nuanced approach to examine whether employees coming from different Hispanic subcultures (e.g., Central American, Cuban, etc.) have differential experiences of workplace incivility.

Conclusion In spite of increased diversity in the workforce, there has been sparse attention to ethnicity and cultural values in the experience of workplace incivility. The current study sheds light on how ethnicity and cultural values relate to the incidence of workplace incivility and its impact on work attitudes and wellbeing. These findings highlight the value in examining workplace incivility through a broader cultural lens in order to better understand employees’ vulnerability and resilience to workplace incivility.

References Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Andersson, L., & Pearson, C. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 425– 471. Barnum, P., Liden, R. C., & DiTomaso, N. (1995). Double jeopardy for women and minorities: Pay differences with age. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 863– 880. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256749 Bauman, S. (2005). The reliability and validity of the Brief Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II for children and adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 426 – 441. http://dx.doi .org/10.1177/0739986305281423 Beal, F. M. (1970). Double jeopardy: To be black and female. Detroit, MI: Radical Education Project.

215

Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 426 – 436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.426 Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ h0055617 Buchanan, N. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2008). Effects of racial and sexual harassment on work and the psychological well-being of African American women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 137–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.13.2.137 Case, M. H., & Robinson, W. L. (2003). Interventions with ethnic minority populations: The legacy and promise of community psychology. In G. Bernal, J. E. Trimble, A. K. Burlew, & F. T. L. Leong (Eds.), Handbook of racial and ethnic minority psychology (pp. 573–590). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412976008.n29 Chen, C., Meindl, J., & Hunt, R. (1997). Testing the effects of vertical and horizontal collectivism: A study of reward allocation preferences in China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 44 –70. http://dx.doi .org/10.1177/0022022197281003 Chun, C., Moos, R., & Cronkite, R. (2009). Culture: A fundamental context for the stress and coping paradigm. In P. Wong & L. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (International and Cultural Psychology) (pp. 29 –53). New York, NY: Springer. Cianni, M., & Romberger, B. (1995). Perceived racial, gender, and ethnic differences in access to developmental experiences. Group & Organization Management, 20, 440 – 459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1059601195204004 Clark, R., Anderson, N. B., Clark, V. R., & Williams, D. R. (1999). Racism as a stressor for African Americans. A biopsychosocial model. American Psychologist, 54, 805– 816. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.10 .805 Cortina, L. M. (2004). Hispanic perspectives on sexual harassment and social support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 570 – 584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262854 Cortina, L. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 33, 55–75. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.27745097 Cortina, L., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. (2013). Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Journal of Management, 39, 1579 –1605. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0149206311418835 Cortina, L. M., Lonsway, K. L., Magley, V. J., Freeman, L. V., Collinsworth, L. L., Hunter, M., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). What’s gender got to do with it? Incivility in the federal courts. Law & Social Inquiry, 27, 235–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2002.tb00804.x 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. http://dx.doi.org/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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10768998.6.1.64 Cuéllar, I., Arnold, B., & Gonzalez, G. (1995). Cognitive referents of acculturation: Assessment of cultural constructs in Mexican Americans. Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 339 –356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/15206629(199510)23:4⬍339::AID-JCOP2290230406⬎3.0.CO;2-7 Cuéllar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275–304. http://dx .doi.org/10.1177/07399863950173001 Cuellar, I., Harris, L., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale for Mexican American normal and clinical populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 2, 199 –217.


216


Dreher, G. F., & Cox, T. H., Jr. (1996). Race, gender, and opportunity: A study of compensation attainment and the establishment of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 297–308. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.297 Epstein, C. F. (1973). Black and female: The double whammy. Psychology Today, 3, 57– 61, 89. Evans, D. S. (1985). Entrepreneurial Choice and Success. Washington, DC: U. S. Small Business Administration. Farley, T., Galves, A., Dickinson, L. M., & Perez, M. J. (2005). Stress, coping, and health: A comparison of Mexican immigrants, MexicanAmericans, and non-Hispanic whites. Journal of Immigrant Health, 7, 213–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10903-005-3678-5 Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological resilience - A review and critique of definitions, concepts and theory. European Psychologist, 18, 12–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000124 Gallo, L. C., Penedo, F. J., Espinosa de los Monteros, K., & Arguelles, W. (2009). Resiliency in the face of disadvantage: Do Hispanic cultural characteristics protect health outcomes? Journal of Personality, 77, 1707–1746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00598.x Garcia Coll, C., Akerman, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). Cultural influences on developmental processes and outcomes: Implications for the study of development and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 333–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400003059 Gil-Rivas, V., Greenberger, E., Chen, C., & Montero y López-Lena, M. (2003). Understanding depressed mood in the context of a familyoriented culture. Adolescence, 38, 93–109. Gomez. (2003). The relationship between acculturation, individualism/ collectivism, and job attribute preferences for Hispanic MBAs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1089 –1105. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Holleran, L. K., & Waller, M. A. (2003). Sources of resilience among Chicano/a youth: Forging identities in the borderlands. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 20, 335–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A: 1026043828866 James, K. (1994). Social identity, work stress, and minority workers’ health. In G. P. Keita & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Job stress in a changing workforce: Investigating gender, diversity and family issues (pp. 127– 145). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.95 Lim, S., & Lee, A. (2011). Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility: Does family support help? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 95–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021726 Liu, W., Chi, S., Friedman, R., & Tsai, M. (2009). Explaining incivility in the workplace: The effects of personality and culture. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2, 164 –184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1750-4716.2009.00035.x Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857– 885. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400004156 Marin, G., & Marin, B. V. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Marin, G., & Triandis, H. (1985). Allocentrism as an important characteristic of the behavior of Latin Americans and Hispanics. In R. DiazGuerrero (Ed.), Cross-cultural and national studies of social psychology (pp. 85–114). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland. Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 – 253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 Menselson, T., Rehkopf, D. H., & Kubzansky, L. D. (2008). Depression among Latinos in the United States: A meta-analytic review. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 355–366. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.76.3.355 Miner, K., Settles, I., Pratt-Hyatt, J., & Brady, C. (2012). Experiencing incivility in organizations: The buffering effects of emotional and organizational support. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 340 –372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00891.x Miner-Rubino, K., & Reed, W. (2010). Testing a moderated mediational model of workplace incivility: The roles of organizational trust and group regard. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 3148 –3168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00695.x Montoro-Rodriguez, J., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. (2009). The role of resources and appraisals in predicting burden among Latina and nonHispanic white female caregivers: A test of an expanded socio-cultural model of stress and coping. Aging & Mental Health, 13, 648 – 658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13607860802534658 Morrissette, P. J. (2001). Reducing incivility in the university/college classroom. IEJLL: International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 5. Nelson, M., & Shavitt, S. (2002). Horizontal and vertical individualism and achievement values: A multimethod examination of Denmark and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 439 – 458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033005001 Organista, P. B., Organista, K. C., & Kurasaki, K. (2003). The relationship between acculturation and ethnic minority health. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement and applied research (pp. 139 –161). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10472-010 Palloni, A., & Morenoff, J. D. (2001). Interpreting the paradoxical in the hispanic paradox: Demographic and epidemiologic approaches. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 954, 140 –174. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb02751.x Pearson, C., Andersson, L., & Porath, C. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 123–137. http://dx .doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00019-X Pearson, C., Andersson, L., & Wegner, J. (2001). When workers flout convention: A study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54, 1387–1419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00187267015411001 Pearson, C., & Porath, C. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. The Academy of Management Executive, 19, 7–18. Pearson, C., & Porath, C. (2009). The cost of bad behavior: How incivility ruins your business- and what you can do about it. New York, NY: Portfolio. Penney, L., & Spector, P. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777–796. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/job.336 Pines, A., & Aronson, E. (1988). Career burnout: Causes and cures. New York, NY: Free Press. Plant, E. A., & Sachs-Ericsson, N. (2004). Racial and ethnic differences in depression: The roles of social support and meeting basic needs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 41–52. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.72.1.41 Raver, J. L., & Nishii, L. H. (2010). Once, twice, or three times as harmful? Ethnic harassment, gender harassment, and generalized workplace harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 236 –254. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/a0018377 Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 307–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ jclp.10020 Rodriguez-Calcagno, M., & Brewer, E. (2005). Job stress among Hispanic professionals. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 504 –516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739986305280691


CULTURE AND WORKPLACE INCIVILITY Romero, E. (2004). Latin American leadership: El Patron and El Lider moderno. Cross Cultural Management, 11, 25–37. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/13527600410797828 Sabogal, F., Marin, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., Marin, B. V., & Perez-Stable, E. J. (1987). Hispanic familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesn’t? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 397– 412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/07399863870094003 Schwartz, S. J. (2007). The applicability of familism to diverse ethnic groups: A preliminary study. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 101–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.147.2.101-118 Schwartz, S. J., Weisskirch, R. S., Hurley, E. A., Zamboanga, B. L., Park, I. J., Kim, S. Y., . . . Greene, A. D. (2010). Communalism, familism, and filial piety: Are they birds of a collectivist feather? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 548 –560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021370 Shavitt, S., Lalwani, A., Zhang, J., & Torelli, C. (2006). The horizontal/ vertical distinction in cross-cultural consumer research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 325–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ s15327663jcp1604_3 Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456 – 476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1094428109351241 Singelis, T., Triandis, H., Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, M. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 29, 240 –275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 106939719502900302 Sivadas, E., Bruvold, N., & Nelson, M. (2008). A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A fourcountry assessment. Journal of Business Research, 61, 201–210. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.016 Stone-Romero, E. F., Stone, D. L., & Salas, E. (2003). The influence of culture on role conceptions and role behavior in organisations. Applied Psychology, 52, 328 –362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00139 Thomson, M. D., & Hoffman-Goetz, L. (2009). Defining and measuring acculturation: A systematic review of public health studies with Hispanic populations in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 69, 983–991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.05.011 Toossi, M. (2012). Labor force projections to 2020: A more slowly growing workforce. Monthly Labor Review, 43– 64. Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

217

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Triandis, H. C., Botempo, R., Betancourt, H., Bond, M., Leung, K., Bernes, A., . . . de Montmollin, G. (1986). The measurement of etic and emic aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38, 257–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00049538608259013 Triandis, H., Chan, D., Bhawuk, D., Iwao, S., & Sinha, J. (1995). Multimethod probes of allocentrism and idiocentrism. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 461– 480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00207599508246580 Triandis, H. C., Chen, X. P., & Chan, D. K. S. (1998). Scenarios for the measurement of collectivism and individualism. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 29, 275–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0022022198292001 Triandis, H., & Gelfand, M. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118 –128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.74.1.118 Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 320 –333. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.320 Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Updegraff, K. A., & Gonzales-Backen, M. A. (2011). Mexican-origin adolescent mothers’ stressors and psychosocial functioning: Examining ethnic identity affirmation and familism as moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 140 –157. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10964-010-9511-z U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Overview of race and hispanic origin: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02 .pdf Van Emmerik, H. (2002). Gender differences in the effects of coping assistance on the reduction of burnout in academic staff. Work & Stress, 16, 251–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267837021000034593 Vickers, M. (2006). Writing what’s relevant: Workplace incivility in public administration- A wolf in sheep’s clothing. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 28, 69 – 88.

Received February 6, 2014 Revision received September 8, 2014 Accepted September 11, 2014 䡲

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online! Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!

Observing workplace incivility.

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

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

Workplace incivility in Japan: Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the modified Work Incivility Scale.

Does being a mom help or hurt? Workplace incivility as a function of motherhood status.

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

Linkages between mental health need and help-seeking behavior among adolescents: Moderating role of ethnicity and cultural values.

Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Workplace Incivility: Who Is Most Targeted and Who Is Most Harmed?

Cultural values and cross-cultural video consumption on YouTube.

The dynamics of democracy, development and cultural values.

Race and ethnicity in the workplace: spotlighting the perspectives of historically stigmatized groups.

Cultural values confronting OR nurses.

Incivility as bullying in nursing education.

Effect of workplace incivility on end-of-work negative affect: examining individual and organizational moderators in a daily diary study.

Soil iron and aluminium concentrations and feet hygiene as possible predictors of Podoconiosis occurrence in Kenya.

Cultural modes of expressing emotions influence how emotions are experienced.

Feminists wrestle with testosterone: hormones, socialization and cultural interactionism as predictors of women's gendered selves.

Attitude and impact of perceived depression in the workplace.

Cross-cultural agreement in facial attractiveness preferences: the role of ethnicity and gender.

Health risk factors as predictors of workers' compensation claim occurrence and cost.

Infant sleeping arrangements and cultural values among contemporary Japanese mothers.

Cultural values and random breath tests as moderators of the social influence on drunk driving in 15 countries.

Values as Predictors of Religious Experience in the Lives of Seminary Students of Philosophy and Students of Physics.

Measuring the impact of nurses and nursing: the core values.