Experiencing Incivility in Organizations - Wiley Online Library

Experiencing Incivility in Organizations: The Buffering Effects of Emotional and Organizational Support1 Isis H. Settles and Jennifer S. Pratt-Hyatt

Kathi N. Miner2 Department of Psychology and Women’s and Gender Studies Program Texas A&M University

Michigan State University

Christopher C. Brady Western Kentucky University Research shows that being a target of organizational incivility is associated with negative outcomes, including declines in job satisfaction, physical health, and psychological well-being. Two studies (90 property management company employees; 210 undergraduate students) were conducted to examine whether 2 types of social support—emotional and organizational—act as buffers of the relationship between incivility and outcomes in workplace and academic contexts. Two types of incivility were also examined: general workplace incivility and gendered incivility. Consistent with the hypotheses, the results of both studies indicated that employees and students who experienced higher levels of incivility reported better outcomes when they felt organizationally and emotionally supported. Implications for organizations are discussed. jasp_891

340..372

A review of the organizational psychology literature suggests that instances of perceived incivility, or rude and discourteous behaviors, are on the rise (Blau & Andersson, 2005; Johnson & Indvik, 2001; Pearson, Andersson, & Porath 2000). A poll published in U.S. News and World Report (Marks, 1996) reported that 89% of Americans thought that uncivil behaviors are a serious problem, and 78% of those asked thought that incidences of incivility have increased over previous decades. In line with these statistics, Pearson et al. reported that over 50% of 327 frontline workers surveyed claimed to have been targets of incivility in the past 3 years, and Cortina, Magley, Williams, and Langhout (2001) found that over 70% of 1,180 private-sector employees had been the victim of incivility in the past 5 years. Incivility is considered to be a type of daily hassle, or chronic stressor, (Cortina et al., 2001) and, because of this, can have detrimental effects for 1 Portions of this research were presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York, NY, April 2007. 2 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kathi N. Miner, 012 Legett Hall, TAMU 4355, College Station, TX 77843-4355. E-mail: [email protected]

340 Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2012, 42, 2, pp. 340–372. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00891.x

INCIVILITY AND SUPPORT

341

employees such as lower job satisfaction and physical health (Cortina et al., 2001) and increased job turnover (Johnson & Indvik, 2001). The purpose of the present research is to advance the organizational incivility literature by specifically examining two types of social support— emotional and organizational—as buffers of the negative consequences associated with incivility. In so doing, the current studies are, to our knowledge, the first to integrate research on organizational incivility with the literature on social support. In our first study, we establish the moderating role of social support for general incivility in the workplace. In a second study, we provide a further test of the proposed relationships by looking at gendered incivility, which is rude behavior that is perceived by the target as being a result of her or his gender, and do so within the context of a university in order to extend the types of organizational contexts in which these relationships may occur.

Organizational Incivility and its Consequences Incivility has largely been examined in work settings. In this context, workplace incivility has been defined as “low-intensity deviant behaviors, with an ambiguous intent to harm the target” (p. 456) that are “characteristically rude and discourteous” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 456). Thus, an uncivil action consists of several components, including low magnitude, deviance, and an ambiguous intent to harm others. Typical examples of uncivil behaviors in a work context include making jokes at someone’s expense, speaking condescendingly to a coworker, and addressing someone inappropriately or unprofessionally. Uncivil behavior is considered to have low magnitude in that it requires relatively little energy, in contrast to high-intensity behaviors (e.g., physical aggression, violence), which require larger amounts of energy (Neuman & Baron, 1998). In addition, the behavior must be considered deviant in that the action goes against established norms of behavior, and thus would be considered by most people to be rude or discourteous. The last aspect of incivility is the ambiguous intent to harm others. As such, it may be unclear whether or not the instigator of the behavior meant to hurt the target. The majority of research on organizational incivility has been in work organizations, and in this setting, it has been linked to a number of occupational health outcomes (Cortina et al., 2001; Pearson & Porath, 2005). For instance, Pearson and Porath (2005) surveyed a national sample of over 700 employees in different occupational settings and found that as employees’ experiences of incivility increased, their levels of job satisfaction decreased. Cortina et al. found an identical relationship between incivility and job satisfaction in a sample of nearly 1,200 employees. They also found that as

342 MINER ET AL. employees’ levels of incivility increased, so did their frequency of reported physical illness and stress at work. Additional research has found that 78% of the targets of incivility suffer a decrease in productivity as a result of the uncivil behavior, and 12% of these victims ultimately leave their jobs as a result (Johnson & Indvik, 2001). There is some evidence that incivility occurs in other types of organizations, such as academic contexts (e.g., high schools, universities). For example, Plank, McDill, McPartland, and Jordan (2001) found that 58% of high school seniors reported experiences of incivility in school. Examples of uncivil behaviors in academic settings might include disturbing one’s class, shunning a classmate, or cursing at other students. As in the workplace, incivility in academic contexts is associated with negative performance and psychological outcomes. Chiu and Khoo (2003) studied the dynamics and performance outcomes of workgroups comprised of high school students attempting to solve algebra problems collectively. Their results indicated that in groups that incorrectly solved problems, rude exchanges among group members were related to incorrect evaluations of others’ suggestions, fewer correct solutions, and an inability to reach agreement, suggesting that uncivil behavior in academic workgroups can affect the harmony and success of such groups. In a study of psychological outcomes, Wells (1998) found that African American university students’ perceptions of “noxious ambience” (p. 411) at their institution (i.e., student hostility, exclusion) were negatively associated with their quality of life as students (i.e., physical and psychological well-being, homesickness). Incivility has primarily been conceptualized as a general phenomenon in that it is not based on characteristics of the target, such as gender or race. However, Cortina (2008) theorized that incivility is often selective by frequently being directed toward women and racial/ethnic minority group members. In this way, incivility allows biases and prejudices toward devalued group members to be maintained in settings in which discriminatory behaviors would not be permitted. Further, she contended that the perpetrators of selective incivility may not be aware of their own biases, because they are able to attribute their rude or hostile action to factors other than the characteristics of the target (e.g., the perpetrator’s mood, situational constraints). Thus, incivility may often reflect subtle or covert types of discrimination or harassment. Accordingly, in Study 2, we examine gendered incivility, which we define as a type of gender-based mistreatment that, like general incivility, is low in intensity and ambiguous in its intent to harm. With the construct of gendered incivility, however, we are able to examine whether targets of incivility perceive that their treatment is related to their sex, similar to Cortina’s (2008) conceptualization of selective incivility. This is an important contribution of the present study.

INCIVILITY AND SUPPORT

343

Based on past research on how experiencing general incivility affects targets, we expect to also document the negative effects of uncivil behavior in our study, and we propose that this relationship will also extend to gendered incivility. Specifically, we examine the effects of incivility on work outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, job stress) and personal outcomes (i.e., physical illness, life satisfaction, depression). These outcome variables were chosen to replicate and extend past research, and to provide a broad picture of how incivility affects individuals’ occupational, physical, and psychological health. Thus, our first hypothesis is as follows: Hypothesis 1. Higher incivility will be related to more job stress, physical illness, and depression and to lower job and life satisfaction.

Beneficial Effects of Social Support Advancing previous research, we investigate social support as a mitigating factor of the relationship between incivility and negative outcomes. Social support has been defined as “information that leads a person to believe he or she is cared for and loved . . . esteemed and valued . . . and belongs to a network of communication and mutual obligations” (Kirmeyer & Lin, 1987, p. 139). In their classical review on the relationship between stress and support, Cohen and Wills (1985) described the buffering model of social support, which proposes that social support buffers, or protects, individuals’ well-being when they are under stress. Based on the work of early stress researchers (e.g., Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Launier, 1978), Cohen and Wills posited that when a stressful event arises, individuals go through an appraisal process in which they may perceive the situation as threatening and demanding of personal coping resources. If they do appraise the event in this way, they may, in turn, experience feelings of helplessness or a loss of self-esteem, which may subsequently lead to declines in occupational, psychological, and physical health. We argue that experiencing an uncivil act is an event that may be appraised as stressful and, consequently, may lead to detriments in well-being. We further argue that social support may affect this process. Cohen and Wills (1985) maintained that social support can alleviate the negative effects of stressful events in two ways. First, feeling socially supported can attenuate or prevent the stress response (i.e., feelings of helplessness) by allowing targets to alter or redefine the event in a way that they perceive to be less harmful and within their ability to cope. Second, when an event is appraised as stressful, individuals may ultimately be less negatively affected by it (i.e., show fewer declines in well-being) when they feel socially

344 MINER ET AL. supported. Thus, social support can both help define the extent to which the event is appraised as stressful, and mitigate negative outcomes when it is perceived as such. The protective role of social support is thought to result because it communicates to targets that they are valued and accepted. In line with the buffering hypothesis, and particularly the second process proposed, we posit that feeling socially supported can protect individuals’ well-being from the stress associated with incivility. We maintain that two forms of social support—emotional and organizational—may be especially likely to moderate or buffer the negative effects of experiencing incivility for targets. These types of social support are more relational and interpersonal than are some other forms (e.g., instrumental support, informational support, political support). As a result, they serve to counteract incivility by signifying to targets that they are worthwhile human beings who deserve dignity and respect. Whereas emotional support communicates this respect from other individuals, organizational support reflects feelings of respect from the organization as an entity. Emotional support refers to “the actions of caring or listening sympathetically to another person” (Fenlason & Beehr, 1994, p. 158), and may be provided by any type of individual (e.g., friend, family member, coworker). Examples of emotional support include giving words of encouragement, offering friendship, and listening to concerns (DiGiulio, 1995). Only a handful of studies have specifically examined the relationship between emotional support and mistreatment in organizations. Duffy, Ganster, and Pagon (2003) investigated the mitigating effect of emotional support from supervisors and coworkers on the relationship between being undermined at work (a subtle, yet intentionally unambiguous form of workplace mistreatment) and work outcomes in a sample of mostly male employees of the police force in the Republic of Slovenia. They found partial support for the buffering hypothesis in that emotional support buffered the negative effects of undermining on counterproductive work behaviors and somatic complaints, but only when the support was provided by those in an unrelated domain (e.g., a coworker providing support when a supervisor was the instigator of the undermining behavior). Dormann and Zapf (1999) found that emotional support from supervisors attenuated the effect of social stressors at work (e.g., interpersonal conflicts) on depressive symptoms 8 months later in a sample of East German citizens. Research with more diverse American samples has primarily examined how emotional support buffers consequences associated with severe forms of stress, such as the death of a loved one or being the victim of a violent crime (DiGiulio, 1995). For example, Krause (1986) found that emotional support attenuated the negative effects associated with stressful life events (e.g., crime) in older adults. Similarly, a study of college students found the

INCIVILITY AND SUPPORT

345

relationship between experiencing a traumatic event and post-traumatic stress disorder was weaker for those individuals who perceived that they had high levels of emotional support from friends and family, as compared to those who felt they had little support (Haden, Scarpa, Jones, & Ollendick, 2007). In another study of college students, the relationship between negative life events and depression was mitigated by perceived emotional support (Cohen, McGowan, Fooskas, & Rose, 1984). Cauce, Hannan, and Sargeant (1992) found that the negative relationship between adverse life events and school competence was moderated by the extent to which students felt supported by school personnel (e.g., coaches, teachers). Thus, there is evidence that emotional support moderates the negative outcomes of stressful experiences. Emotional support is thought to serve this role because it affirms and validates targets’ reactions and allows them to restore feelings of safety, trust, and self-esteem (Allen & Bloom, 1994; Antai-Otong, 2001; Cohen & Wills, 1985). Researchers have also argued that organizational support can buffer the negative effects of experiencing mistreatment within organizations (Denney & O’Beirne, 2003; Schat & Kelloway, 2003; Wasco, Campbell, & Clark, 2002). Organizational support is defined as individuals’ global beliefs concerning the extent to which an organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). Research has shown that feeling supported by an organization can lessen the negative well-being outcomes associated with being the target of violent behaviors at work (Leather, Lawrence, Beale, Cox, & Dickson, 1998; Schat & Kelloway, 2003; Swanberg, Macke, & Logan, 2007). For example, Schat and Kelloway found that victims of violence who reported feeling supported by their organization reported fewer declines in emotional well-being, physical health, and job-related positive affect, as compared to victims who did not feel supported. Similar results have been found in school settings; for example, clear organizational policies have been shown to attenuate the negative emotional impact of sexual harassment (Paludi & Paludi, 2003). Thus, the existing literature on emotional and organizational support indicates that, consistent with the buffering hypothesis (Cohen & Wills, 1985), these forms of social support reduce the negative impact of negative life events. Because of its growing prevalence and adverse consequences, it is essential for researchers to find means of mitigating the negative effects of the everyday social hassle of experiencing incivility. We propose that emotional and organizational support may buffer the effects of incivility, although the underlying mechanisms may differ for the two types of support.

346

MINER ET AL.

Emotional support offered by another individual may act as a positive personal affirmation that counters the negative message inherently communicated by uncivil treatment. In contrast, organizational support may communicate that experiences of uncivil treatment reflect the bad actions of one (or a few) individual(s) in an organization, rather than reflecting a hostile organizational climate. We further propose that the moderating role of these two types of social support will occur in two disparate contexts and with both general workplace and gender-based incivility. Thus, we propose the following: Hypothesis 2. The relationship between incivility and negative well-being will be weaker for individuals who report higher levels of emotional support such that individuals who feel less supported will report more job stress, physical illness, and depression, as well as lower job and life satisfaction. Hypothesis 3. The relationship between incivility and negative well-being will be weaker for individuals who report higher levels of organizational support such that individuals who feel less supported will report more job stress, physical illness, and depression, as well as lower job and life satisfaction.

The Present Studies This research contributes to and advances the literature on organizational incivility in at least three ways. First, to our knowledge, this is the first study to examine possible ways to reduce the negative effects associated with incivility in organizations. In particular, we examine two different facets of social support as buffers of incivility in organizations. Second, we examine whether social support buffers the negative effect of organizational incivility in two contexts: for employees in a workplace, and for students in college. To date, research on incivility has focused primarily on work contexts. However, incivility likely has similar patterns of relationships in other types of organizations, such as in universities. Workplaces and universities are two types of organizations in which there are many daily interpersonal interactions. Thus, these settings are those in which individuals have many opportunities to experience uncivil treatment. Finally, this research is also the first to examine two types of organizational incivility: general incivility in Study 1, and gendered incivility in Study 2. Thus, this research is perhaps the first to examine incivility that is specifically attributable to the target’s gender group, a type of selective incivility (Cortina, 2008).

INCIVILITY AND SUPPORT

347

Study 1: Work Sample Method Participants and Procedure Participants for Study 1 were employees of a property management company. This organization owns and operates 35 separate apartment complexes in the Southeast region of the United States, each staffed with its own manager, assistant manager, leasing agent(s), and maintenance workers. All employees (N = 203) were mailed a workplace experiences survey in order to “explore the importance of workgroups and coworker relations in employees’ lives.” Surveys included a stamped envelope for easy return. On the first page of the survey, instructions described the purpose of the study, assured anonymity, and informed employees that they could skip any items. To maximize return rates, respondents had the opportunity to win a $50 gift certificate to a department store. Using these procedures, 90 employees (36 males, 54 females) completed the questionnaire (response rate = 45%). Participants’ mean age was 39.0 years (SD = 11.8), they worked an average of 42 hr per week (SD = 3.8), and their mean tenure at the company was 3.0 years (SD = 3.4). Of the sample, 79% reported a White, European, or European American background; 10% reported an ethnic background of Black, African, or African American; and 9% reported a Hispanic or Hispanic American background (2% reported “Other”). The most common educational background of the participants was a high school diploma or GED (35%); 7% had less than a high school diploma, 17% had technical or vocational training, 28% had some college, 11% had a college degree, and 2% had graduate or professional degrees. Measures The survey included a number of multi-item scales. Most relevant to the current study were measures of physical illness, job satisfaction, and job stress; emotional and organizational support; and experiences of workplace incivility. Survey construction focused on minimizing response bias and utilizing valid and reliable measures. For example, outcome measures appeared prior to questions about uncivil experiences to allow for an unbiased assessment of employee functioning. All scale scores were computed by taking the mean of items, after reverse-coding any necessary items. Thus, for final scale scores, higher values reflect higher levels of the underlying construct. Workplace incivility. We assessed experiences of workplace incivility using a revised version of the Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS; Cortina et al.,

348

MINER ET AL.

2001). This seven-item measure assesses the degree to which participants have been a target of disrespectful, rude, or condescending behavior from coworkers in the workplace. Items are rated on a 3-point response scale ranging from 0 (never) to 1 (once or twice) to 2 (more than twice). Sample items include “During the past year, has anyone in your property site group made insulting or disrespectful remarks to you?” and “During the past year, has anyone in your property site group put you down or been condescending to you?” The WIS has been shown to be highly reliable (a = .89) and to have good convergent validity, as indicated by a significant negative correlation (r = -.56, p < .001) with the Perceptions of Fair Interpersonal Treatment (PFIT) scale (Cortina et al., 2001; Donovan, Drasgow, & Munson, 1998). To assess convergent validity in the present study, we correlated our measure with the PFIT and also found a significant negative correlation (r = -.47, p < .001). Internal consistency for the WIS in the present study was .90. Emotional support. We measured emotional support with an abbreviated, five-item emotional support subscale of the Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors (ISSB; Barrera, Sandler, & Ramsay, 1981). Items selected for this survey had factor loadings greater than .50 in two validation studies of the ISSB (Piko, 1998; Stokes & Wilson, 1984). These five items also had test– retest reliability coefficients ranging from .61 to .77 (Barrera et al., 1981). The scale instructions begin “During the past month, indicate the frequency with which someone . . . ,” which is followed by a list of five emotionally supportive behaviors. These items are “told you that she/he feels very close to you,” “let you know that she/he will be around if you need assistance,” “expressed interest and concern in your well-being,” “listened to you talk about your private feelings,” and “told you that you are okay the way you are.” Responses were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all ) to 4 (about every day). Cronbach’s alpha for this measure in the present study was .79. Perceived organizational support. Perceived organizational support is defined as the degree to which employees believe that their organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). The most widely used scale to measure this construct is the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS; Eisenberger et al., 1986). Following Eisenberger and colleagues (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), we used a three-item version of the SPOS in this study. Eisenberger et al. found that these items had high factor loadings (ranging from .71 to .83). The items are “[The organization] really cares about my well-being,” “[The organization] I work for strongly considers my goals and values,” and “[The organization] I work for values my contribution to their well-being.” Responses were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Together, the three items formed a highly reliable scale (a = .94).

INCIVILITY AND SUPPORT

349

Physical illness. We assessed physical illness with two items that were adapted from Pennebaker’s (1982) work. These items asked respondents how many days in the past month they had been ill and missed work because of illness. The items were averaged into a composite (a = .78). Job satisfaction. We measured job satisfaction with items taken from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979). Participants were asked to indicate on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) the extent to which two statements characterized their work. The items are “In general, I like working here,” and “All in all, I am satisfied with my job.” Internal reliability for the scale was .84. Job stress. We assessed job stress with an abbreviated, 10-item version of Stanton, Balzer, Smith, Parra, and Ironson’s (2001) Stress in General (SIG) scale, which is a global measure of job stress. The items ask whether each of a list of adjectives (hectic, hassled, pressured, irritating, under control, overwhelming, many things stressful, relaxed, calm, and comfortable; the latter three adjectives were reverse-coded) is descriptive of the respondent’s job. Responses were rated Yes, ?, or No, which were scored 0, 1.5, and 3, respectively, according to standard SIG scoring protocol. The SIG has been shown to have adequate reliability (with alphas ranging from .73 to .86) and to have good convergent and divergent validity (Stanton et al., 2001). Cronbach’s alpha for the present study was .86. Control variables. Finally, the participants were asked to report several demographic variables. They reported their age and job tenure in years (rounding to the nearest year; less than 6 months = 0), hours worked per week, and sex (0 = male, 1 = female).

Results Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all of the variables in Study 1. The distributions of some variables (i.e., workplace incivility, physical illness) were positively skewed, although responses covered the full range of the scales. To correct this, square-root transformations were computed to normalize scores. These transformed variables were used in all analyses.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis One concern about the present data is that some of the relationships among variables may be driven by common method bias because the

Workplace incivility Emotional support Organizational support Physical illness Job satisfaction Job stress Age Sex Hours worked per week Job tenure

Note. Sex: 0 = male, 1 = female. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Variable

0.38 1.83 5.42 0.44 6.12 0.86 39.23 0.60 41.67 1.47

M 0.41 1.05 1.24 0.70 0.97 0.79 11.88 0.49 3.78 0.98

SD — -.25* -.43** .11 -.52** .24* -.10 .14 -.05 -.15

1

2 — .21* -.06 .25* -.02 -.05 .19† -.09 -.04

Means and Intercorrelations for Study Variables: Study 1

Table 1

— -.06 .81** -.34** .06 .11 .08 .22*

3

— -.14 .33** -.11 -.01 -.09 -.15

4

— -.43** -.04 .15 -.03 .18

5

— -.01 -.11 .15 -.13

6

— -.34** .24* .47**

7

— -.00 .12

8

— .17

9

350 MINER ET AL.

INCIVILITY AND SUPPORT

351

measures were all self-report. When this bias occurs, correlations among measures tend to be inflated or deflated, possibly leading to inaccurate conclusions. One way to address this issue is through confirmatory factor analysis, where the fit of a common method factor is compared to models with varying numbers of factors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). In Study 1, that would mean comparing the fit of a one-factor (common method) model with a six-factor model in which the items of the predictor (workplace incivility), moderators (emotional and organizational support), and criterion variables (physical illness, job satisfaction, and job stress) are set to load on their hypothesized latent factors. If common method bias were a serious problem, the common-factor model would show a better fit than the six-factor model. We conducted the confirmatory factor analysis for Study 1 using LISREL 8.72. Results of these tests show that the data fit the six-factor model significantly better, c2(394) = 771.96, c2/df = 1.96, than a one-factor common method bias model, c2(405) = 1373.28, c2/df = 3.39; Dc2(11) = 601.32, p < .001. Although Podsakoff et al. (2003) described some limitations with using this approach to assess common method bias, they also stated that it can nonetheless help determine the extent of this bias in a study. Our results, therefore, suggest that common method bias is not a major concern in the present data.

Hypothesis Testing To test the hypotheses, we conducted a series of hierarchical moderated regression analyses in which control variables (age, sex, hours worked per week, job tenure) were entered on the first step, workplace incivility and support (either emotional or organizational) were entered on the second step, and the two-way Workplace Incivility ¥ Support interaction (i.e., Workplace Incivility ¥ Emotional Support or Workplace Incivility ¥ Organizational Support) was entered on the third step. We conducted the analyses separately for emotional and organizational support because these variables were correlated, and we were concerned about issues associated with multicollinearity and because of power concerns, given the small sample size. To correct for multicollinearity that often accompanies testing moderating relationships, we centered the workplace incivility and support variables before computing interaction terms multiplicatively (Aiken & West, 1991). The criterion variables in the analyses were physical illness, job satisfaction, and job stress. As shown in Table 2, after controlling for age, sex, hours worked per week, and job tenure, there were significant main effects for workplace incivility on job satisfaction and job stress, which accounted for 27% and 7%,

Step 2 B (b)

-0.00 (-0.05) 0.03 (0.02) -0.01 (-0.07) -0.08 (-0.12) -0.05 (-0.07) -0.02 (-0.01)

.03 .00 0.17

Step 1 B (b)

-0.00 (-0.05) 0.05 (0.04) -0.01 (-0.06) -0.08 (-0.11)

.03 .03 0.55

-0.00 (-0.05) 0.01 (0.01) -0.01 (-0.08) -0.08 (-0.11) -0.05 (-0.07) -0.05 (-0.03) -0.09 (-0.06) .04 .001 0.24

Step 3 B (b)

.07 .07 1.36

0.00 (0.02) 0.34 (0.17) -0.02 (-0.07) 0.20 (0.20)

Step 1 B (b)

Note. ES = emotional support; WI = workplace incivility. Sex: 0 = male, 1 = female. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Age Sex Hours per week Job tenure ES WI ES ¥ WI Total R2 R2 F

Variable

Physical illness

.34** .27 15.79**

0.00 (0.03) 0.44* (0.23) -0.02 (-0.07) 0.13 (0.13) 0.07 (0.08) -1.20** (-0.51)

Step 2 B (b)

Job satisfaction

0.00 (0.03) 0.35† (0.18) -0.01 (-0.03) 0.09 (0.09) 0.07 (0.07) -1.05** (-0.45) 0.51* (0.25) .40** .06 6.85*

Step 3 B (b)

.06 .06 1.26

-0.00 (-0.01) -0.21 (-0.13) 0.04 (0.18) -0.13 (-0.16)

Step 1 B (b)

.13 .07 2.89†

-0.00 (-0.03) -0.30 (-0.19) 0.04† (0.19) -0.10 (-0.12) 0.07 (0.09) 0.53* (0.28)

Step 2 B (b)

Job stress

Results of Moderated Regression Analyses Examining Emotional Support as a Moderator: Work Sample

Table 2

-0.00 (-0.03) -0.23 (-0.14) 0.03 (0.16) -0.07 (-0.09) 0.07 (0.09) 0.42† (0.22) -0.36* (-0.22) .17* .04 3.83*

Step 3 B (b)

352 MINER ET AL.

INCIVILITY AND SUPPORT

353

2 7

5

Low ES

4

High ES

3

Job stress

Job satisfaction

6

Low ES High ES

1

2 0

1

Low

High Incivility

Low

High Incivility

Figure 1. Emotional support (ES) as a moderator of workplace incivility and job satisfaction, and workplace incivility and job stress in the work sample.

respectively, of the variance in these outcomes. These main effects thus partially support Hypothesis 1. The main effects were qualified by significant interactions between emotional support and workplace incivility. To examine the nature of the relationships, the interactions were graphed (see Figure 1), and simple slope analyses were conducted using conditional values for emotional support that were calculated to be 1 SD above and 1 SD below the mean (Aiken & West, 1991). For individuals with low perceived emotional support, higher incivility was related to significantly less job satisfaction (B = -1.58, b = -.67, SE = .27, p < .001) and significantly higher levels of job stress (B = .83, b = .43, SE = .25, p < .01). However, for individuals who felt that they had higher levels of emotional support, level of incivility was unrelated to job satisfaction (B = -.51, b = -.22, SE = .34, ns) and stress at work (B = .08, b = .04, SE = .33, ns). These interactions accounted for an additional 6% of the variance in job satisfaction and 4% of the variance in job stress, and they partially support Hypothesis 2 (the interaction for physical illness was not significant). As shown in Table 3, after controlling for age, sex, hours worked per week, and job tenure, there were significant main effects for workplace incivility and organizational support on job satisfaction, accounting for 65% of the variance in job satisfaction, again partially supporting Hypothesis 1. There was also a significant main effect for organizational support on job stress, which accounted for 11% of the variance in this outcome. There were significant interactions between organizational support and incivility for job satisfaction and physical illness. These were graphed (see Figure 2), and simple slopes were again calculated. Supporting Hypothesis 3 for two of the outcome variables, the results indicate that there was no relationship between level of incivility and physical illness (B = -.32, b = -.22, SE = .25, ns) or job satisfaction (B = .06, b = .02, SE = .20, ns) for those with felt higher

Step 2 B (b)

-0.00 (-0.05) 0.04 (0.03) -0.01 (-0.06) -0.08 (-0.11) -0.02 (-0.03) -0.01 (-0.01)

.03 .00 .03

Step 1 B (b)

-0.00 (-0.05) 0.05 (0.04) -0.01 (-0.06) -0.08 (-0.11)

.03 .03 .56

-0.01 (-0.09) 0.08 (0.08) -0.01 (-0.05) -0.08 (-0.12) 0.08 (0.15) -0.12 (-0.07) -0.35** (-0.37) .12** .09 7.74**

Step 3 B (b)

.07 .07 1.41

0.00 (0.02) 0.34 (0.17) -0.02 (-0.07) 0.20 (0.20)

Step 1 B (b)

Note. OS = organizational support; WI = workplace incivility. Sex: 0 = male, 1 = female. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.***p < .001.

Age Sex Hours per week Job tenure OS WI OS ¥ WI Total R2 R 2D Fchange

Variable

Physical illness

.71** .65 88.11**

0.00 (0.04) 0.22† (0.12) -0.03 (-0.10) 0.00 (0.00) 0.55*** (0.70) -0.55** (-0.51)

Step 2 B (b)

Job satisfaction

0.01 (.07) 0.27* (0.14) -0.03† (-0.11) 0.01 (0.01) 0.44** (0.56) -0.42** (-0.18) 0.38** (0.29) .77** .05 17.89**

Step 3 B (b)

.06 .06 1.31

-0.00 (-0.01) -0.21 (-0.13) 0.04 (0.18) -0.13 (-0.16)

Step 1 B (b)

.17** .11 5.36**

-0.00 (-0.02) -0.19 (-0.12) 0.04† (0.19) -0.07 (-0.08) -0.17* (-0.26) 0.26 (0.14)

Step 2 B (b)

Job stress Step 3 B (b) -0.00 (-0.02) -0.18 (-0.11) 0.04 (0.19) -0.06 (-0.08) -0.19* (-0.29) 0.28 (0.17) 0.06 (0.06) .18** .01 .20

Results of Moderated Regression Analyses Examining Organizational Support as a Moderator: Work Sample

Table 3

354 MINER ET AL.

INCIVILITY AND SUPPORT

355

2

6 Low OS High OS

1

0.5

Job satisfaction

Physical illness

7 1.5

Low OS

5

High OS 4 3 2

0

1

Low

High

Low

Incivility

High Incivility

Figure 2. Organizational support (OS) as a moderator of workplace incivility and physical illness, and workplace incivility and job satisfaction in the work sample.

organizational support. However, for those who felt they had lower organizational support, higher levels of incivility were associated with higher physical illness (B = .26, b = .25, SE = .21, p = .08) and lower job satisfaction (B = -.89, b = -.37, SE = .17, p < .001). These interactions accounted for an additional 5% of the variance in job satisfaction and 9% of the variance in respondents’ reported level of physical illness. In sum, and generally consistent with the hypotheses, workplace incivility was negatively related to job satisfaction and positively related to job stress. Further, workplace incivility was more strongly related to lower job satisfaction and more job stress for employees who reported having less emotional support, compared to those who perceived they had higher levels of emotional support. In addition, level of incivility was more strongly related to physical illness and less satisfaction with their job for employees who felt less supported by their work organization than those who reported more organizational support. Together, these results suggest that relational resources may buffer the negative consequences associated with experiencing workplace incivility. Study 2: Student Sample The goals of the second study were twofold. First, as Study 1 was the first study (to our knowledge) to examine social support as a moderator of the effects of organizational incivility, we wanted to examine whether the pattern of relationships we observed in Study 1 would replicate in another setting. Thus, to determine the generalizability of the results of Study 1, Study 2 examined incivility in the academic context. Second, because previous research has focused on general incivility, we sought to investigate whether the predicted relationships would hold for a more specific type of incivility: gendered incivility.

356

MINER ET AL.

Like general incivility, gendered incivility reflects low-intensity, discourteous behavior that also has an ambiguous intent to harm the target (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). The primary difference between the two is that gendered incivility is explicitly linked to the target’s gender, making the cause (but not the intent) of the incivility less ambiguous. That is, the target must attribute the offensive behavior on the part of the perpetrator as being related to his or her membership in a specific gender group. As such, gendered incivility taps into Cortina’s (2008) conceptualization of selective incivility, which disproportionately targets devalued social group members. Gendered incivility is the experience of low-intensity hassles—specifically, rude or discourteous treatment—that the individual perceives to be because of his or her gender; that is, it is a form of gender-based mistreatment that is explicitly attributable to one’s gender group. Gendered incivility can be distinguished from sexual and gender harassment in that it does not reflect sexualized mistreatment or assess experiences in which the individual’s gender group itself is disparaged (Fitzgerald, 1996). Further, theoretically, gendered incivility also differs from gender discrimination, which occurs when people of a particular gender are placed at a disadvantage (e.g., scholarships, access to resources, pay), compared to others with comparable levels of ability (Dipboye & Halverson, 2004). Gendered incivility overlaps with these constructs in that they are all forms of gender-based mistreatment that may result in similar outcomes for the target (Cortina, 2008; Lim & Cortina, 2005). However, because gendered incivility is perceived by the target to be attributed to one’s membership in a particular gender group, it builds on research examining subtle forms of gender mistreatment in which the cause may be more ambiguous to the target.

Method Participants and Procedure Participants in this study were 210 undergraduate students (157 females, 53 males; M age = 19.9 years, SD = 3.1) who were recruited from psychology courses at a large university in the midwestern United States through the psychology human subjects research pool. The participants were told that the study was about “their attitudes and beliefs on a number of topics.” Surveys were completed either in groups in a research laboratory (20%) or individually online (80%). The students received course credit for their participation. Laboratory paper-and-pencil and online data were combined, as other research has suggested that surveys administered using these two formats provide equivalent data (Chuah, Drasgow, & Roberts, 2006).

INCIVILITY AND SUPPORT

357

With regard to ethnicity, 49% of participants self-identified as White, 21% as Black or African American, 16% as Asian or Asian American, 7% as Hispanic or Latino, 1% as Native American, 5% as Multiracial or “Other,” and 2% did not report their race. In terms of year in school, 30% of participants were first-year students, 34% were in their second year, 20% were in their third year, 11% were in their fourth year, and 5% were in their fifth year or beyond (1 participant did not indicate year in school).

Measures The present survey included a number of multi-item scales. Most relevant to the current study were measures of depression and life satisfaction; emotional and organizational support; and experiences of gendered incivility. Survey construction focused on minimizing response bias and utilizing valid and reliable measures. Scale scores were computed by taking the mean of items (after reverse-coding items, as necessary). Final scale scores reflect higher levels of the underlying construct. Gendered incivility. We measured gender-based incivility using 1 item that was created for the present study and 10 items that were selected from a version of Harrell’s (1994) Daily Racist Hassles Scale that was adapted to refer to experiences of gender-related hassles. Participants rated the frequency with which they had experienced negative treatment by their classmates, instructors, or advisors in the past year on a 6-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 5 (once a week or more). Items selected from the original 23-item scale were those that represent the type of low-intensity, disrespectful, rude, or condescending behavior that characterizes uncivil behavior (see the Appendix for a list of the items). The full scale has been reported to have high reliability for racial hassles (a = .90; Sellers & Shelton, 2003) and gender hassles (a = .91; Roberts, Settles, & Jellison, 2008). Cronbach’s alpha for the 11-item scale that was used in the present study was .93. Emotional support. We assessed perceptions of emotional support with the same five-item version of the ISSB (Barrera et al., 1981) that we used in Study 1. Internal consistency reliability for this measure in Study 2 was .86. Perceived organizational support. The three-item measure of POS that we used in Study 1 was used again in Study 2 (Eisenberger et al., 2002). For this study, the organization referred to in the items was the students’ university. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale in Study 2 was .88. Depression. We measured depressive symptomatology with the Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). Participants rated 20 statements on the frequency with which they had felt or

358 MINER ET AL. behaved that way in the past week (e.g., “I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing,” “I felt sad”) on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (rarely or none of the time) to 4 (most or all of the time). This scale has been shown to be internally reliable (a = .85 in a general population sample; Radloff, 1977) and correlates with other scales of depressive symptomatology (Hann, Winter, & Jacobsen, 1999; Radloff, 1977). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale in the present study was .89. Life satisfaction. We measured participants’ feelings about life with the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). The participants rated five items that ask about their general life satisfaction (e.g., “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal,” “If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing”) on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This scale has been shown to be internally consistent (a = .87) and unidimensional (Diener et al., 1985). It also correlates positively with other self-report measures of subjective well-being and interviewer ratings of life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985; Pavot & Diener, 1993); and negatively with measures of distress, depression, and negative affect (Pavot & Diener, 1993). Internal consistency reliability for this scale in the present study was .85. Control variables. Participants were asked to respond to two demographic variables. They reported their age (in years) and their sex (0 = male, 1 = female). Results Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics for all of the Study 2 variables. Because gendered incivility was positively skewed, it was transformed using a Table 4 Means and Intercorrelations for Study Variables: Study 2 Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Gender incivility Emotional support Organizational support Depression Life satisfaction Age Sex

Note. Sex: 0 = male, 1 = female. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

0.51 2.63 3.82 1.84 4.74 19.86 0.75

0.53 0.92 1.30 0.51 1.24 3.09 -0.44

— .07 -.12† .30** -.14† -.13† .12

— .22** -.16* .37** -.17* .18*

— -.15* .20** -.06 .08

— -.55** -.15* .02

— -.18* .06

— -.11

INCIVILITY AND SUPPORT

359

square-root computation to normalize scores. This transformed version of the variable was used in all analyses.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis We also examined possible common method bias in Study 2. Using confirmatory factor analysis, we compared the fit of a one-factor (common method) model with a five-factor model in which the items of the predictor (gendered incivility), moderators (emotional support and organizational support), and criterion variables (life satisfaction and depression) were set to load on their hypothesized latent factor using LISREL 8.72. The results show that the data fit the five-factor model significantly better, c2(892) = 1658.24, c2/df = 1.86, than a one-factor common method bias model, c2(902) = 3456.02, c2/df = 3.83; Dc2(10) = 1797.79, p < .001, suggesting that common method bias was not a major concern in Study 2.

Hypothesis Testing We tested the hypotheses with four hierarchical multiple regressions. In each analysis, control variables (age and sex) were entered on the first step, gendered incivility and support (either emotional or organizational) were entered on the second step, and the two-way Gendered Incivility ¥ Support interaction (Gendered Incivility ¥ Emotional Support or Gendered Incivility ¥ Organizational Support) was entered on the third step. Depression and life satisfaction were the criterion variables in the analyses. The predictor variables were centered prior to multiplicatively computing interaction terms (Aiken & West, 1991).3 Table 5 presents the results of the two multiple regressions examining emotional support as a moderator. After controlling for age and sex, there were significant main effects for emotional support and gendered incivility on both depression and life satisfaction, which accounted for 14% and 15%, respectively, of the variance in these outcomes. Individuals who perceived that they had more emotional support reported less depression and more life 3 We also tested whether sex interacted with the other predictors, although we did not hypothesize such relationships. To test whether there were three-way interactions between sex, gendered incivility, and social support (emotional or organizational), we performed a second set of multiple regression analyses predicting depression and life satisfaction. In these analyses, two-way (Sex ¥ Gendered Incivility, Sex ¥ Support, Gendered Incivility ¥ Support) and threeway interaction terms were included. In all analyses, none of the two-way interactions or the three-way interactions with sex were significant.

.16** .14 15.61**

-0.02* (-0.13) 0.03 (0.03) -0.12** (-0.22) 0.31** (0.32)

-0.02† (0.14) 0.03 (0.02)

.02 .02 2.04

Step 2 B (b)

Step 1 B (b) -0.02 (-0.10) 0.04 (0.04) -0.14** (-0.25) 0.31** (0.32) -0.22** (-0.20) .20** .04 8.83

Step 3 B (b)

.04* .04 3.57*

-0.07* (-0.18) 0.11 (0.04)

Step 1 B (b)

Note. ES = emotional support; GI = gendered incivility. Sex: 0 = male, 1 = female. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Age Sex ES GI ES ¥ GI Total R2 R 2D Fchange

Variable

Depression

.19** .15 17.88**

-0.06* (-0.15) -0.01 (-0.01) 0.49** (0.36) -0.44** (-0.19)

Step 2 B (b)

Satisfaction with life Step 3 B (b) -0.08** (-0.19) -0.03 (-0.01) 0.54** (0.40) -0.45** (-0.19) 0.63** (0.23) .24** .05 12.69*

Results of Moderated Regression Analyses Examining Emotional Support as a Moderator: Student Sample

Table 5

360 MINER ET AL.

INCIVILITY AND SUPPORT

7

3 Low ES High ES 2

Satisfaction with life

Depression

4

361

6 5 Low ES

4

High ES

3 2 1

1

Low

Low

High

Gendered incivility

High

Gendered incivility

Figure 3. Emotional support as a moderator of gendered incivility and depression, and gendered incivility and life satisfaction in the student sample.

Satisfaction with life

7 6 5 Low OS

4

High OS

3 2 1

Low

High

Gendered incivility

Figure 4. Organizational support (OS) as a moderator of gendered incivility and life satisfaction in the student sample.

satisfaction. In addition, those who experienced more gendered incivility reported more depressive symptoms and less satisfaction with life, thus supporting Hypothesis 1. The interaction between emotional support and gendered incivility, entered on Step 3, accounted for a significant increase in the variance in both depression (4%) and life satisfaction (5%). To examine the nature of the relationships, the interactions were graphed (see Figures 3 and 4), and simple slope analyses were conducted in the same manner as in Study 1. As predicted in Hypothesis 2, for those individuals with lower perceived emotional support, higher gendered incivility was related to significantly higher levels of depression (B = .51, b = .53, SE = .09, p < .01); and significantly lower levels of life satisfaction (B = -1.03, b = -.44, SE = .22, p < .01). However, for those individuals who felt they had higher levels of emotional support, level of gendered incivility was unrelated to both

362

MINER ET AL.

depression (B = .10, b = .11, SE = .09, ns) and life satisfaction (B = .14, b = .06, SE = .22, ns). Table 6 presents the multiple regression results with organizational support as a moderator. Controlling for age and sex on Step 1, organizational support and gendered incivility accounted for significant increases in the amount of variance in depression (14%) and life satisfaction (8%). As with emotional support, perceptions of more organizational support were related to less depression and more life satisfaction. Higher levels of gendered incivility were again related to more depression and less satisfaction with life, consistent with our first prediction. The Organizational Support ¥ Gendered Incivility interaction entered on Step 3 was significant for life satisfaction (accounting for an additional 2% of the variance), but not for depression. The significant interaction was graphed (see Figure 4), and simple slopes were again calculated. Consistent with the findings for emotional support, the results indicate that there was no relationship between level of gendered incivility and life satisfaction for those with perceptions of higher organizational support (B = -.12, b = -.05, SE = .22, ns). However, for those who felt they had lower organizational support, higher levels of gendered incivility were associated with lower satisfaction with life (B = -.91, b = -.39, SE = .26, p < .01). This finding partially supports Hypothesis 3, as organizational support did not moderate the relationship between incivility and depression.

General Discussion Organizational researchers have recently begun to examine how uncivil behavior in organizations affects those who experience it. Research has shown that being a target of workplace incivility is associated with a number of negative outcomes, such as declines in job satisfaction, increases in psychological distress, and a higher frequency of physical illness (e.g., Cortina et al., 2001). Although there is now a documented link between experiencing incivility and well-being detriments, little research has examined these relationships in non-work samples, or the factors that may buffer the negative effects of experiencing incivility. Consistent with the literature and our first hypothesis, the results across both of our studies show that incivility was related to negative outcomes (i.e., declines in job and life satisfaction, increases in job stress and depression). However, incivility was not directly related to lower physical health as predicted. Further, we found this pattern across two disparate organizational contexts and for two types of incivility (i.e., general and gendered). These results demonstrate that despite the fact that incivility is characterized by low-intensity behavior, it can have important implications for targets’

.16** .14 16.02**

-0.02† (-0.11) 0.01 (0.01) -0.09** (-0.22) 0.32** (0.33)

-0.02† (0.14) 0.03 (0.02)

.02 .02 2.04

Step 2 B (b)

Step 1 B (b) -0.02† (-0.12) 0.01 (0.01) -0.09** (-0.24) 0.33** (0.35) -0.07 (-0.09) .17** .01 1.73

Step 3 B (b)

.04* .04 3.57*

-0.07* (-0.18) 0.11 (0.04)

Step 1 B (b)

Note. OS = organizational support; GI = gendered incivility. Sex: 0 = male, 1 = female. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Age Sex OS GI OS ¥ GI Total R2 R 2D Fchange

Variable

Depression

.11** .08 8.07**

-0.08** (-0.19) 0.12 (0.04) 0.20** (0.22) -0.47** (-0.20)

Step 2 B (b)

Step 3 B (b) -0.07** (-0.18) 0.13 (0.05) 0.24** (0.25) -0.52** (-0.22) 0.30* (0.15) .13** .02 4.83*

Satisfaction with Life

Results of Moderated Regression Analyses Examining Organizational Support as a Moderator: Student Sample

Table 6

INCIVILITY AND SUPPORT

363

364 MINER ET AL. well-being. Given these findings, there is an essential need for researchers to identify ways in which to attenuate the negative effects of organizational incivility. Our research addresses this need by proposing that social support is one factor that may buffer the negative effects of organizational incivility. Based on the buffering hypothesis of social support proposed by Cohen and Wills (1985), we argued that organizational members who feel socially supported— both emotionally and organizationally—may be less affected by incivility. Our hypotheses regarding the buffering effect of relational resources were generally supported, across two types of organizations and for two types of incivility. In Study 1, we found that employees who had experienced higher levels of incivility reported lower job satisfaction and more stress at work when they felt less emotionally supported. Employees also reported a higher frequency of physical illness and less satisfaction with their jobs when they perceived their work organization as less supportive. Employees who felt emotionally and organizationally supported did not report such consequences when they experienced higher levels of incivility. In Study 2, we found that students who felt less emotionally supported showed higher depression and lower life satisfaction when they experienced gendered incivility. Similarly, the negative effect of gendered incivility on life satisfaction was stronger for students who felt that they had less support from their academic organization. As in Study 1, for students who felt emotionally and organizationally supported, there was no relationship between experiences of uncivil behavior and well-being. Together, our studies suggest that more socially supported individuals may not feel the negative consequences of experiencing even subtle, everyday mistreatment to the same degree as their less supported counterparts. This attenuation may result because social support decreases the extent to which incivility is perceived as stressful or may weaken the link between responses to the stressful event (e.g., loss of self-esteem) and well-being (Cohen & Wills, 1985). With the present studies, we also advanced prior research by examining two types of incivility: general and gendered. We observed a similar pattern of relationships across both incivility measures. Both were related to negative outcomes, and these relationships were buffered by emotional and organizational support. This is important because although both measures assess incivility, they also vary in the degree to which targets are able to assign cause for the mistreatment. Because the general incivility scale does not require the target to report on mistreatment based on a specific factor (e.g., one’s gender), it captures mistreatment that may come from many causes, such as some personal characteristic of the target or the perpetrator (e.g., sex, race,

INCIVILITY AND SUPPORT

365

religion, personality characteristic, status) or some aspect of the organizational culture (e.g., permissiveness of rude behavior, loose structure with fewer social norms). In contrast, gendered incivility specifically assesses experiences of the same type of rude and discourteous behavior, but requires the target to attribute the mistreatment to their gender. Thus, gendered incivility is a more narrow, explicit measure of incivility that may be linked to bias or prejudice on the part of the perpetrator. That our results for gendered incivility were similar to those for general incivility raises some interesting possibilities. One possibility is that general incivility may, in fact, be assessing experiences of selective incivility (which reflect covert discrimination; Cortina, 2008). Alternatively, general and gendered incivility may be distinct constructs for which similar processes and outcomes occur. More research is needed to understand better the intent that underlies incivility, as well as how incivility is perceived by targets.

Future Research There are a number of avenues for future research in this area. Some researchers (e.g., Andersson & Pearson, 1999) have suggested that incivility in organizational settings may escalate into increasingly overt and hostile behaviors, such as discrimination, harassment, or violence. If so, additional studies are needed on ways organizations or individuals can reduce the incidence of incivility before it becomes high-intensity mistreatment. Additionally, as we found similar patterns of relationships for gendered incivility and for general incivility, future studies might investigate target attributions for their mistreatment to determine the most common explanations for uncivil treatment. Studies might also determine whether incivility that is attributed to certain factors is particularly psychologically harmful (e.g., Does incivility lead to less satisfaction with work or life if it is perceived as being about some stable aspect of the target, rather than some aspect of the perpetrator or organization?). Similarly, incivility that is performed by higher status individuals may be particularly distressing and less able to be attenuated by social support. Thus, future research should investigate characteristics of the instigator of incivility, and if relational resources differentially affect targets’ well-being as a function of rude behavior from a coworker or supervisor. Future work might also examine whether the characteristics of the person providing support affect the experience of incivility. In particular, studies could determine whether there are differences in the effect of support from friends versus family members versus acquaintances, or whether social support is more effective when given by same-status individuals (e.g., other

366

MINER ET AL.

students or same-level colleagues) than by higher status individuals (e.g., supervisors or instructors). It seems reasonable that supervisor support, for example, might be especially effective in lessening the negative effects of incivility and other forms of mistreatment at work (Antai-Otong, 2001). Moreover, is it the perception of support that is important in organizational contexts, or the actual receipt of support? Studies that objectively assess received social support (e.g., with daily diary studies) or those utilizing peer reports may be useful in answering this question. Given the relatively homogeneous demographic characteristics of our samples, future research should explore whether our findings will generalize to employees and students of diverse races, regions, cultures, and so forth. For example, individuals who are from collectivistic cultures or are high on collectivism (and, therefore, tend to prefer interdependence and group harmony) may be particularly negatively affected by rudeness when they have few relational resources. In addition, members of some racial minority groups (e.g., African Americans, Hispanics) may be differentially affected by incivility when they do not feel organizationally and emotionally supported. For example, when such individuals are the target of rude behavior and do not feel supported, they may attribute the uncivil treatment to a racist organizational culture.

Study Limitations Like any research, our studies have some limitations. An obvious limitation is the reliance on single-source, self-report data, which could give rise to common method bias (Doty & Glick, 1998; Podsakoff et al., 2003). One way to address this issue is through confirmatory factor analysis (Podsakoff et al., 2003), as we have done in the current research. The results of these tests suggest that common method bias is not responsible for our findings. That not all of the relationships between the predictors and criterion variables were significant (which would be the case if common method variance accounted for the findings) also helps allay concerns that this bias was responsible for our results. Research showing that respondent and coworker reports of deviant workplace behaviors overlap substantially (Fox, Spector, Goh, & Bruursema, 2007) also helps to alleviate concerns about common method variance. Research has documented congruence between adolescents’ and their parents’ reports of social support and psychological distress, suggesting that the relationship between support and distress for young adults reflects more than self-report biases (Cutrona, 1989). Even so, to help deal with this issue in the future, researchers might consider collecting data from multiple

INCIVILITY AND SUPPORT

367

sources, such as supervisors, coworkers, friends, and family members to assess the degree of incivility in the organization and the level of support provided to participants. Researchers might also include measures of negative affectivity and social desirability as covariates in their analyses to help address common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). A second limitation of the present studies is the cross-sectional nature of these data, which renders casual inferences tentative. Thus, we cannot say definitively that feeling socially supported causes individuals to be less negatively affected by experiencing discourteous behavior in their organizations. It may be that dissatisfied individuals see things negatively, and thus are prone to see interpersonal exchanges as uncivil. They may also be less likely to seek out and, therefore, receive social support. Longitudinal research on how social support affects the well-being of victims of violent crime 6 months after the event suggests that support can buffer well-being detriments that occur some time after the incident (Kaniasty & Norris, 1992). In another longitudinal study, Monroe (1983) found that social support mitigated physical and depressive outcomes associated with undesirable life events in a sample of employees of a large corporation. Although the previous longitudinal literature supports our causal theory, this is certainly an area for future research to address. Past research has shown that incivility is common in organizations and can lead to declines in well-being for targets of such behavior. The results of the present studies suggest that feeling emotionally supported and supported by one’s organization may buffer the negative consequences associated with experiencing the low-intensity mistreatment behaviors that comprise incivility. Further, these results were found for both employees and students, and were replicated for general and gendered incivility. As such, the present studies speak to the importance of social support—across organization and incivility type—as a means of protecting individuals psychologically in the face of rude treatment.

References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Allen, S. N., & Bloom, S. L. (1994). Group and family treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 17, 425– 437. 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.

368

MINER ET AL.

Antai-Otong, D. (2001). Critical incident stress debriefing: A health promotion model for workplace violence. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 37, 125–139. Barrera, M., Sandler, I. N., & Ramsay, T. B. (1981). Preliminary development of a scale of social support: Studies on college students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 435–447. Blau, G., & Andersson, L. (2005). Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 595–614. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Cauce, A. M., Hannan, K., & Sargeant, M. (1992). Life stress, social support, and locus of control during early adolescence: Interactive effects. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 787–798. Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2003). Rudeness and status effects during group problem solving: Do they bias evaluations and reduce the likelihood of correct solutions? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 506–523. Chuah, S. C., Drasgow, F., & Roberts, B. W. (2006). Personality assessment: Does the medium matter? No. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 359–376. Cohen, L. H., McGowan, J., Fooskas, S., & Rose, S. (1984). Positive life events and social support and the relationship between life stress and psychological disorder. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 567–587. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357. Cortina, L. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33, 55–75. Cortina, L., Magley, V., Williams, J., & Langhout, R. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64–80. Cutrona, C. E. (1989). Ratings of social support by adolescents and adult informants: Degree of correspondence and prediction of depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 723–730. Denney, D., & O’Beirne, M. (2003). Violence to probation staff: Patterns and managerial responses. Social Policy and Administration, 37, 49–64. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. DiGiulio, J. F. (1995). A more humane workplace: Responding to child welfare workers’ personal losses. Child Welfare, 74, 877–888.

INCIVILITY AND SUPPORT

369

Dipboye, R. L., & Halverson, S. K. (2004). Subtle (and not so subtle) discrimination in organizations. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’LearyKelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 131–158). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Donovan, M., Drasgow, F., & Munson, L. (1998). The Perceptions of Fair Interpersonal Treatment Scale: Development and validation of a measure of interpersonal treatment in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 683–692. Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (1999). Social support, social stressors at work, and depressive symptoms: Testing for main and moderating effects with structural equations in a three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 874–884. Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374–406. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2003). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573. Fenlason, K. J., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Social support and occupational stress: Effects of talking to others. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 157–176. Fitzgerald, L. F. (1996). Sexual harassment: The definition and measurement of a construct. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Sexual harassment on college campuses: Abusing the ivory power (pp. 21–44). Albany, NY: University of New York Press. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., & Bruursema, K. (2007). Does your coworker know what you’re doing? Convergence of self- and peer-reports of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 41–60. Haden, S. C., Scarpa, A., Jones, R. T., & Ollendick, T. H. (2007). Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and injury: The moderating role of perceived social support and coping for young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1187–1198. Hann, D., Winter, K., & Jacobsen, P. (1999). Measurement of depressive symptoms in cancer patients: Evaluation of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 46, 437–443.

370

MINER ET AL.

Harrell, S. P. (1994). The Racism and Life Experience Scales. Unpublished manuscript. Johnson, P., & Indvik, J. (2001). Rudeness at work: Impulse over restraint. Public Personnel Management, 30, 457–465. Kaniasty, K., & Norris, F. (1992). Social support and victims of crime: Matching event, support, and outcome. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 211–241. Kirmeyer, S., & Lin, T. (1987). Social support: Its relationship to observed communication with peers and superiors. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 138–151. Krause, N. (1986). Social support, stress, and well-being among older adults. Journal of Gerontology, 41, 512–519. Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lazarus, R. S., & Launier, R. (1978). Stress-related transactions between persons and environment. In L. A. Pervin & M. Lewis (Eds.), Perspectives in interactional psychology (pp. 287–327). New York: Plenum. Leather, P., Lawrence, C., Beale, D., Cox, T., & Dickson, R. (1998). Exposure to occupational violence and the buffering effects of intraorganizational support. Work and Stress, 12, 161–178. 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. Marks, J. (1996, April 22). The American uncivil wars. U.S. News and World Report, 66–72. Monroe, S. M. (1983). Social support and disorder: Toward and untangling of cause and effect. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 81–96. Neuman, J., & Baron, R. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391–419. Paludi, M., & Paludi, C. (Eds.). (2003). Academic and workplace sexual harassment: A handbook of legal, social science, cultural, and management perspectives. Westport, CT: Praeger. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172. Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L., & Porath, C. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 123–137. Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the nature, consequences, and remedies of workplace incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 7–18. Pennebaker, J. W. (1982). The psychology of physical symptoms. New York: Springer-Verlag.

INCIVILITY AND SUPPORT

371

Piko, B. (1998). Social support and health in adolescence: A factor analytical study. British Journal of Health Psychology, 3, 333–344. Plank, S. B., McDill, E. L., McPartland, J. M., & Jordan, W. J. (2001). Situation and repertoire: Civility, incivility, cursing, and politeness in an urban high school. Teachers College Record, 103, 504–524. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 358–401. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714. Roberts, L. M., Settles, I. H., & Jellison, W. A. (2008). Predicting the strategic identity management of gender and race. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 8, 269–306. Schat, A., & Kelloway, E. (2003). Reducing the adverse consequences of workplace aggression and violence: The buffering effects of organizational support. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 110–122. Sellers, R. M., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1079–1092. Stanton, J. M., Balzer, W. K., Smith, P. C., Parra, L. F., & Ironson G. (2001). A general measure of work stress: The Stress in General Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 866–888. Stokes, J., & Wilson, D. G. (1984). The Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors: Dimensionality, prediction, and gender differences. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 53–69. Swanberg, J., Macke, C., & Logan, T. (2007). Working women making it work: Intimate partner violence, employment, and workplace support. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 292–311. Wasco, S. M., Campbell, R., & Clark, M. (2002). A multiple case study of rape victim advocates’ self-care routines: The influence of organization context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 731–760. Wells, L. (1998). The effects of ethnicity on the quality of student life. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 403–417.

372

MINER ET AL.

Appendix Gendered Incivility Items How often in the past year . . . 1. were you laughed at, made fun of, or taunted by classmates, instructors, or advisors because of your gender? 2. were you left out of conversations or activities by classmates, instructors, or advisors because of your gender? 3. were you mistaken for someone who serves others by classmates, instructors, or advisors because of your gender? 4. were you treated as if you were “stupid,” being “talked down to” by classmates, instructors, or advisors because of your gender? 5. were you treated rudely or disrespectfully by classmates, instructors, or advisors because of your gender? 6. were you accused of something or treated suspiciously by classmates, instructors, or advisors because of your gender? 7. were your ideas or opinions minimized, ignored, or devalued by classmates, instructors, or advisors because of your gender? 8. were you not taken seriously by classmates, instructors, or advisors because of your gender? 9. did classmates, instructors, or advisors avoid you because of your gender? 10. were you ignored, overlooked, or not given service by classmates, instructors, or advisors because of your gender? 11. did a classmate or instructor offer to help you use machinery or equipment because of your gender?