Testing A Measure of Instigated Workplace Incivility: Gary Blau and Lynne Andersson

Copyright The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
595
The
British
Psychological
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2005), 78, 595614
q 2005 The British Psychological Society
Society
www.bpsjournals.co.uk
Testing a measure of instigated workplace

incivility
Gary Blau* and Lynne Andersson

Temple University, Philadelphia, USA
Using a sample of 211 working adults, an instigated workplace incivility measure,

distinct from an experienced workplace incivility and general interpersonal deviance
measures, was developed. Correlates of instigated workplace incivility were then tested
using 162 medical technologists over a 4-year time frame. Results indicated that Time 1
measures of distributive justice and job satisfaction were negatively related to instigated
workplace incivility, while a Time 1 measure of work exhaustion was positively related
to such incivility. Furthermore, these three antecedents contributed significantly to
explaining instigated workplace incivility, beyond Time 2 measures of these three
variables. Future research issues, as well as study limitations, are discussed.
The applied literature has many references discussing the recent increase in office
rudeness or workplace incivility (e.g. Buhler, 2003; Fritscher-Porter, 2003; Johnson &
Indvik, 2001; Zauderer, 2002). Speculated reasons for this rise in workplace incivility
include: greater worker diversity leading to more misunderstanding; greater perceived
job insecurity as companies have downsized; greater stress on employees, including
being overworked; and lower general employee job satisfaction, partially as a function of
worker-perceived entitlement (Buhler, 2003; Johnson & Indvik, 2001; Muir, 2000).
While research has begun to examine the perceptions and responses of targets of
workplace incivility (e.g. Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Cortina &
Magley, 2003; Cupach, Huggins, Long, & Metts, 2002; Montgomery, Kane, & Vance,
2004; Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001; Pearson & Porath, 2001), no scholarly
research to date has focused specifically on the factors that might cause instigators to
initiate uncivil behaviours. Our paper addresses this dearth of research, and offers the
first test of a measure of instigated workplace incivility.
The construct of workplace incivility

As interest in deviant workplace behaviour has grown, a distinct stream of research
focused specifically on lesser forms of interpersonal mistreatment in organizations is
* Correspondence should be addressed to Gary Blau, Human Resource Management Department, Temple University FSBM,
384 Speakman Hall, 1810 N. 13th St., Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA (e-mail: gblau@temple.edu).
DOI:10.1348/096317905X26822
596 Gary Blau and Lynne Andersson
emerging (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina & Magley, 2003; Cortina et al., 2001;
Keashly, 1998; Miller, 2000; Montgomery et al., 2004; Pearson et al., 2001). Workplace
incivility, in particular, is gaining recognition as a unique form of interpersonal
mistreatment characterized by ambiguity of intent and violation of workplace norms for
mutual respect. As defined by Andersson and Pearson (1999, p. 457) and adopted by
Cortina and colleagues (Cortina et al., 2001; Cortina & Magley, 2003), workplace
incivility is:
low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of
workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviours are characteristically rude,
discourteous, displaying a lack of respect for others.
Specific examples include making condescending or demeaning comments, ignoring

someone, giving someone the silent treatment, insulting or yelling at someone,
overriding decisions without giving a reason, and addressing someone in unprofessional
terms (Cortina et al., 2001; Johnson & Indvik, 2001; Pearson, Andersson, & Porath,
2000) behaviours that have been neglected in organizational research.
Workplace incivility is thus embedded within the larger construct of workplace
deviant behaviour, defined by Robinson and Bennett (1995, p. 556) as voluntary
behaviour that violates significant organizational norms, and in doing so threatens the
well-being of the organization or its members or both. Robinson and Bennett explain
further that one manifestation of workplace deviance is interpersonal deviance,
behaviour that directly harms individuals within the organization (Bennett & Robinson,
2000; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Their qualitative description and examples of
interpersonal deviance (see Robinson & Bennett, 1995, pp. 812) include behaviours of
high intensity and overt intent to harm the target (i.e. violence), behaviours of moderate
to high intensity and overt intent to harm the target (i.e. aggression), low-intensity
behaviours in which the intent to harm is present but ambiguous to the target or
observers (i.e. some forms of incivility that are inherently aggressive), as well as low-
intensity behaviours without intent to harm but in which the intent is ambiguous
(i.e. other forms of incivility, such as those performed out of ignorance or oversight).
Pearson and her colleagues (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Pearson et al., 2000, 2001)
have examined workplace incivility as a social interaction and explain that an uncivil act
instigated towards another at work can result in different dynamics: it can be non-
reciprocated, reciprocated and not escalate, or escalate into a back and forth exchange
which can result in more deviant behaviour, on rare occasions even culminating in
violence. Furthermore, there can be secondary effects in the workplace through
modelling, for example, if an uncivil exchange between workers A and B prompts
worker C to uncivilly attack worker D. A theoretically rich model of potentially
spiralling and possibly escalating incivility encounters between the instigator (worker A)
and target (worker B) is offered (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 460) and suggests that
the ideal research design would involve tracking interacting employee dyads over time
(Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Pearson et al., 2001).
To date, empirical research has not tested such a model. Empirical research on
workplace incivility has focused primarily on the targets experience of uncivil
behaviours (e.g. Cortina et al., 2001; Cortina & Magley, 2003; Cupach et al., 2002;
Pearson et al., 2001; Pearson & Porath, 2001), and not on the tit-for-tat exchange
described in the applied literature and theorized by Pearson and colleagues.
Accordingly, the only validated measure of workplace incivility is a measure of received
or experienced workplace incivility developed by Cortina and colleagues, a 7-item scale
Instigated workplace incivility 597
that asks respondents how often they have been in a situation where superiors or
co-workers performed a series of low intensity behaviours toward them. Sample items
include paid little attention to your statement or showed little interest in your opinion
and made demeaning or derogatory remarks about you.
The first examination of experienced work incivility using this measure revealed that
71% of a 1,180 public-sector employee sample reported some type of workplace
incivility in the previous 5 years (Cortina et al., 2001). Such experienced workplace
incivility was positively associated with greater perceived psychological distress and
thoughts of quitting, as well as negatively related to key facets of job satisfaction, that is,
work itself, supervisor, co-worker, pay and benefits and promotions. The cross-sectional
nature of the study, however, precluded inferring causality; it is possible that higher
experienced workplace incivility leads to increased job dissatisfaction and distress, or
that higher dissatisfaction and distress leads to increased experienced workplace
incivility. Employees who are unhappy at work for some reason may have a lower, more
sensitive threshold for perceived mistreatment (Locke, 1976). Clearly, experienced
work incivility correlating with negative individual (e.g. withdrawal) and organizational
(e.g. less trust in leaders) outcomes is consistent with the findings of Pearson and
colleagues (2001, p. 1410, Fig. 2).
Instigated workplace incivility as a distinct construct

Given early findings on experienced incivility and the theorized back and forth nature of
the incivility spiral, we propose that instigated incivility is an important and missing
concept in the understanding of workplace incivility. At this time, no separate measure
for instigated workplace incivility exists. To explore the distinctiveness of instigated
workplace incivility, we attempt to disentangle it from the related construct
(and measure) of interpersonal deviance.
Bennett and Robinson (2000) developed a broad measure of workplace deviant
behaviour, from which two factors emerged, organizational deviance and interpersonal
deviance. Within their 7-item interpersonal deviance scale (Bennett & Robinson, 2000,
p. 360), two of the items acted rudely towards someone at work (40%) and made fun
of someone at work (57%) seem consistent with the definition of workplace incivility
(Andersson & Pearson, 1999) as a low-intensity deviant behaviour with ambiguous
intent to harm the target. The participation percentages, that is, percentage of
respondents exhibiting the behaviour at least once in the last year, for the Bennett and
Robinson (2000, p. 354) instrument validation sample, are shown in italicized
parentheses for each item.
The other five items in the Bennett and Robinson (2000) 7-item scale, however,
represent more intense forms of interpersonal deviance: played a mean prank on
someone at work (7%), said something hurtful to someone at work (38%), made an
ethnic, religious or racial remark or joke at work (43%), cursed at someone at work
(30%), and publicly embarrassed someone at work (11%). These behaviours are,
arguably, of moderate intensity and with an overt intent to harm the target, behaviours
usually classified more distinctively as aggression (Neuman & Baron, 1998).
In constructing their interpersonal deviance scale, Bennett and Robinson (2000)
indeed acknowledge that they do not include all possible types of deviant behavior
(2000, p. 358). Their scale neglects to represent the full range of interpersonal deviant
behaviours that the authors describe in their previous work (Robinson & Bennett, 1995,
1997), such as physical assault on the high intensity end of the spectrum and minor
incivilities on the low-intensity end. Interestingly, behaviours of lower intensity and

with ambiguous intent to harm the target such as made an obscene comment at work
and repeated a rumour or gossip about your boss or co-workers were included in their
investigation, but did not get retained as part of the measure after a principal axis factor
analysis (Bennett & Robinson, 2000, p. 353).
Collectively, the preceding arguments lead to our first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. Instigated workplace incivility is distinct from experienced workplace incivility and
interpersonal deviance.
Relationships of correlates to instigated workplace incivility

So why would an employee be uncivil to someone at work? If we ground instigated
workplace incivility within more general deviant work behaviour literature (Giacalone
& Greenberg, 1997), this suggests various correlates to consider, including
organizational justice. Prior research suggests three types of organizational justice
(Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001): distributive justice (perceived fairness
in outcome allocations), procedural justice (perceived fairness of the procedures used
to determine outcome allocations), and interactional justice (perceived fairness of
interpersonal treatment). If employees perceive that they have been treated unfairly,
that is, a lack of justice, they can become upset and motivated to somehow reciprocate
by exhibiting different types of work deviant behaviour including: organizational
retaliatory behaviours such as rule breaking, theft and leaving the organization
(Greenberg, 1993; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), as well as, cyberloafing or misuse of the
internet (Lim, 2002, p. 677). Each of the three types of justice has been significantly
negatively related to deviant behaviours (Lim, 2002; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Moreover,
Andersson and Pearson (1999) predict in their spiralling model that when a target
perceives an incivility he/she will probably have the cognitive experience of
interactional injustice. Collectively, these studies suggest the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. Distributive, procedural and interactional justice will each be negatively related to
instigated workplace incivility.
Prior research suggests that if employees are unhappy at work, they are more likely
to engage in deviant workplace behaviour (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Two work
attitudes for measuring happiness at work are job satisfaction (Locke, 1976) and
affective occupational commitment, which is the emotional attachment to ones
occupation (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993). Prior empirical research has found negative
relationships of job satisfaction to two deviant work behaviours, increasing chronic
lateness and unexcused absence (Blau, 1985; 1994). Affective occupational
commitment has also been found to be negatively related to lateness and absence
(Meyer et al., 1993). Andersson and Pearson (1999) noted that negative work affect
would also increase the probability of an incivility spiral. This suggests the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3. Job satisfaction and affective occupational commitment will each be negatively
related to instigated workplace incivility.
As noted earlier in the Introduction, greater perceived job insecurity and being
overworked were mentioned as general sources for increased workplace incivility
(Buhler, 2003; Muir, 2000). Higher job insecurity and work exhaustion are stressful and
should each lead to greater instigated workplace incivility. Under stress people tend to
lose social skills and are more likely to react, such as being uncivil (Johnson & Indvik,
2001). The threat of permanently losing ones job is probably the most common
definition of job insecurity and is generally very stressful for employees (Greenhalgh &
Rosenblatt, 1984; Kuhnert & Vance, 1992). Lim (1996) found that job insecurity was
positively related to self-reported noncompliant job behaviours (e.g. tardiness, spending
time in idle conversation, putting forth less effort than required). Greenhalgh and
Rosenblatt (1984, p. 444) summarized literature findings on employee reactions to
higher perceived job insecurity which included: reduced work effort, increased
resistance to change and propensity to leave the organization.
Anecdotal evidence presented by Pearson and colleagues (2000) indicates that work
and information overload, leading to intensified feelings of time pressure, is a cause of
increased workplace incivility. Moore (2000, p. 336) has defined work exhaustion as the
depletion of emotional and mental energy needed to meet job demands. From a more
general deviant work behaviour perspective, exhaustion has been found to be
negatively related to employee participation in decision making (Jackson, Schwab, &
Schuler, 1986), and positively related to employee absenteeism (Firth & Britton, 1989)
and turnover intention (Lee & Ashforth, 1996). To summarize, the following additional
hypothesis will be tested:
Hypothesis 4. Job insecurity and work exhaustion will each be positively related to instigated
workplace incivility.
Method
Measure validation sample and procedure
Data were collected in spring 2002 from a sample of 232 working adults employed
across a number of different organizations. Respondents were attending evening
undergraduate or graduate human resource management classes part-time from a
university in the north-eastern part of the United States. Of these 232, complete data
were available for 211 (91%). Occupationally, these 211 respondents indicated that they
were represented as follows: 16% medical/health (e.g. nursing, physical therapy), 19%
technical (e.g. engineering, information technology, financial services), 30% adminis-
trative (e.g. management, advertising, government-related), 7% education (e.g. teaching,
religious, library services), 11% service (e.g. hospitality, sales, real-estate), and 17%
other, in which respondents were asked to fill in their current job title. Job titles
reported included: caretaker, waitress, paralegal secretary, landscaper, psychologist, bar
tender, security officer, and data entry clerk. Other demographic information on the 211
respondents were: 54% were female, 52% were married, 4% indicated they were less
than 21 years old, 50% were 2135 years old, 34% were 3650 years old, and 12% were
5165 years old, and 89% indicated that they worked at least 35 hours/week.
Measures
Experienced workplace incivility
The seven items for this scale were taken from the Cortina et al. (2001, p. 70) Workplace
Incivility Scale. The lead-in phrase was How often someone at work (e.g. supervisor,
co-worker, other employee) has done the following to you in the past year : : :. The
seven items were: put you down or was condescending to you in some way, paid little
attention to a statement you made or showed little interest in your opinion, made
demeaning, rude or derogatory remarks about you, addressed you in unprofessional
terms, either privately or publicly, ignored or excluded you from professional
camaraderie (e.g. social conversation), doubted your judgment in a matter over which
you have responsibility, and made unwanted attempts to draw you into a discussion of
personal matters. A 4-point frequency-based response scale was used, where:
1 hardly ever (once every few months or less), 2 rarely (about once a month),
3 sometimes (at least once a week), and 4 frequently (at least once a day).
Research has shown that the proportion of the scale used in a 4-point response format is
no different than more common 5-, 6- and 7-point formats (Matell & Jacoby, 1972).
Instigated workplace incivility

As opposed to selecting individual relevant items from a more general scale to create an
instigated work incivility scale, another measurement approach is to flip the perspective
and repeat the general content of the seven items in the previously mentioned Cortina
et al. (2001) experienced Workplace Incivility Scale. The general lead-in phrase is now:
How often have you exhibited the following behaviours in the past year to someone at
work : : :. A year time frame should be easier for a respondent to reply to (Johns, 1994)
than the longer 5-year period used by Cortina and colleagues. This general measurement
approach of flipping the perspective has been successfully used (Gutek, Searle, & Klepa,
1991) in creating family interfering with work (e.g. My supervisors/peers dislike how
often I am preoccupied with my personal life while at work) versus work interfering
with family (e.g. My family/friends dislike how often I am preoccupied with my work
while at home) scales.
Therefore, a 7-item measure was used. The lead-in phrase was How often have you
exhibited the following behaviours in the past year to someone at work (e.g. co-worker,
other employee, supervisor)?. These seven items were: put down others or were
condescending to them in some way, paid little attention to a statement made by
someone or showed little interest in their opinion, made demeaning, rude or
derogatory remarks about someone, addressed someone in unprofessional terms either
privately or publicly, ignored or excluded someone from professional camaraderie
(e.g. social conversation), doubted someones judgment in a matter over which they
had responsibility, and made unwanted attempts to draw someone into a discussion of
personal matters. The same 4-point response scale as for instigated workplace incivility
was used.
Interpersonal deviance
The 7-item measure from Bennett and Robinson (2000), as described above, was used.
Following Bennett and Robinson (2000), the lead-in phrase was How often have you
engaged in each of these behaviours in the last year?. The same 4-point response scale as
for instigated and experienced workplace incivility was used.
Primary sample and procedure

This sample is part of a longitudinal study on the career paths of recently graduated
medical technologists (MTs) by the Board of Registry of the American Society for Clinical
Pathololgy (ASCP). MTs work in a laboratory in a variety of health-related settings
(e.g. hospitals, independent laboratories). They are responsible for the accurate
performance of tests (e.g. analysing blood, urine, and tissue samples, growing cultures)
that help to determine the presence/absence of disease. The requirement for entry into
medical technology is a baccalaureate degree and clinical education in a programme
accredited by the National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Sciences.
Within this longitudinal study, surveys measuring different variables were collected
from a sample of MTs across different organizations for 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and
2002. Surveys were mailed out in the spring following the year in question. For example,
MTs were asked in the spring, 1999 about variables measured in 1998, in the spring,
2000 about variables measured in 1999, in the spring, 2001 about variables measured in
2000, and so on. Surveys were sent to individuals home addresses. In 1998, 553 of 1,156
(48%) MTs returned their surveys containing demographic (e.g. gender, age, years in
field, marital status, education level), and organizational justice data. In 1999, 509 of
1,156 (44%) surveys containing demographic, job satisfaction, job insecurity and work
exhaustion items were voluntarily returned. In 2000, 506 out of 1,156 (44%) MTs
returned their surveys containing demographic and affective occupational commitment
data. In 2001, 501 out of 1,156 (43%) MTs returned their surveys containing
demographic and job insecurity data. Finally, in 2002, 451 out of 1,156 (39%) MTs
returned their survey containing demographic, organizational justice, job satisfaction,
work exhaustion, affective occupational commitment, and instigated workplace
incivility data.
Although there were 451 repeat-respondents across the five surveys, using
respondent social security number, complete data were available for only 162 MTs. Such
a reduction in sample size over a 5-year time frame is not uncommon (Winefield &
Tiggerman, 1990). There are several reasons for this sample size reduction, including
respondents not answering all survey items, need for respondents to stay with the same
organization over the time frame (to better assess, organizational justice, work
exhaustion, job satisfaction, job insecurity variables), and respondents being asked not
to respond to study variables if they were not currently employed in the laboratory that
year.
A demographic comparison on gender, age, years in field, marital status, and
education level for the 162 complete-data MT sample to the 391 (553162) remaining
MTs showed no significant demographic differences. A 1998 breakdown of the sample
of 162 MTs showed that their median age was 30, ranging from 26 to 60 years; 80% were
female; their median years in the field was 6, with a range from 3 to 26 years; 67% were
married, and 95% had a baccalaureate degree, with 5% having an advanced degree.
By 2002, these demographics either remained stable or increased as expected (e.g. age,
years in the field). Population demographics collected by the ASCP in 2000 on 73, 471 MTs
showed that 82% were female and that the median age was 43 years. Thus the sample
studied here is representative for gender but is younger.
Measures
Instigated workplace incivility
Instigated workplace incivility data were collected for 2002 in the spring of 2003.
The same seven instigated workplace incivility items collected from the measure
validation sample were collected from the MTs. The same 4-point frequency response
scale was also used.
For the remaining multi-item scales listed below, it is indicated when fewer items
than the full original scale were used, due to survey length constraints. Items used were
selected based on the strength of their original scale factor loadings. Unless indicated
otherwise, all multi-item scales used the following 4-point response scale: 1 strongly
disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree, and 4 strongly agree.
Organizational justice
Organizational justice data were collected for 1998 and 2002, using 12 items, four each
for distributive, procedural and interactional justice. For distributive justice, a 4-item
measure based on Price and Muellers (1986) 6-item measure was used. A sample item is:
my organization rewards me fairly considering the stresses and strains of my job. For
procedural justice, a 4-item measure based on Niehoff and Moormans (1993) 6-item
measure was used. A sample item is: job decisions are applied consistently by
management across all affected employees. For interactional justice, a 4-item measure
also based on a 6-item measure by Niehoff and Moorman was used. A sample item is:
when making a decision affecting me, my supervisor treats me with dignity and
respect.
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction data were collected for 1999 and 2002 using the 15-item Job Diagnostic
Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Items asked about different facets of job
satisfaction, for example, salary, co-workers, supervisor, job challenge, job security, and
were summed to create an overall measure. A 4-point response scale was used for these
items, where 1 very dissatisfied, 2 dissatisfied, 3 satisfied, and 4 very
satisfied.
Job insecurity
Job insecurity data were collected for 1999 and 2001, using a 7-item measure. These
items focus on permanently losing ones job, and are based on prior work by Ashford,
Lee, and Bobko (1989); Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) and Kuhnert and Vance
(1992). Sample items are: I am worried about my overall job security, and I am
concerned about losing my job next year.
Work exhaustion
Work exhaustion data were collected for 1999 and 2002. Consistent with Moores
(2000) definition of work exhaustion, seven items were measured. Items were generally
adapted from the 10-item Gillespie-Numerof Burnout Inventory (Seltzer & Numerof,
1988). Survey constraints necessitated using a shorter version. Sample items include:
my job has me at the end of my rope, and I am disillusioned with my work. The same
4-point frequency-based response scale as for Work Incivility was used, where
1 hardly ever (once every few months or less) to 4 frequently (at least once a
day).
Affective occupational commitment

Affective occupational commitment data were collected for 2000 and 2002, using
Meyer et al.s (1993) 6-item measure. Since Meyer et al. used nurses in their study, the
occupational referent was changed here to medical technologists (MTs). Sample items
include: I am proud to be in the field of medical technology, and I like being a medical
technologist.
Results
Measure validation sample
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was done to look at the dimensionality of the tested
measures. An initial three-factor extraction solution satisfied the Kaiser (1970) criterion
of resulting factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. A varimax rotation was used to
create more independent factors (Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986). Factor item retention
was subjected to the following criteria: the scale item must have a factor loading of at
least .50, and the difference between the two highest loadings across factors for an item
must be at least .20 (Nunnally, 1978; Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994). The results
are shown in Table 1. As Table 1 shows, given the pattern of loadings, the first factor
represents instigated workplace incivility (Items 8 to 14), the second factor represents
experienced workplace incivility (Items 1 to 7), and the third factor represents
interpersonal deviance (Items 15 to 21). All items, except 10, made demeaning, rude
or derogatory remarks about someone, loaded cleanly on one factor. Item 10 violated
the .20 loading difference, and loaded on both the instigated work incivility and
interpersonal deviance factors. However, if we use the criterion of .40 alone as
representing a significant factor loading (Ford et al., 1986), then there are four items
with double loading problems, that is, 8, 10, 15, and 21.
Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were also used on this sample to test for H1, that
is, the distinctiveness of instigated workplace incivility from experienced workplace
incivility and interpersonal deviance (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). The results, across
different models, are shown in Table 2. Significant improvement is seen in going from
one factor (overall deviance) to two factors (interpersonal deviance, work incivility) to
three factors (instigated workplace incivility, experienced workplace incivility,
interpersonal deviance). There is a significant decrease in chi-squared values in going
from one to two to three factors. Adequate fit is indicated when the fit indices are at least
.90 and the root mean square measures are less than .08 (Bentler, 1990; Browne &
Cudek, 1993). These statistics for the three-factor model indicate an accept fit and
support the distinctiveness of instigated workplace incivility from experienced
workplace incivility and interpersonal deviance. A four-factor model, creating a fourth
factor consisting of the above mentioned four items with cross-loadings of at least .40,
did not result in a significant decrease in chi-squared values and there were minimal
changes in the fit indices. Therefore, the three-factor model is the best fit for the data.
However, given the initial criterion violation of Item 10, that is, less than .20 difference
in loadings, this item was removed in subsequent analyses. Thus, a 6-item measure for
instigated workplace incivility was used in subsequent analyses.
The scale reliabilities were: .89 for instigated workplace incivility, .88 for
experienced workplace incivility, and .80 for interpersonal deviance. The means and
standard deviations were: instigated incivility 1.45 and 0.48, experienced incivility
1.80 and .41, and interpersonal deviance 1.26 and 0.37. As might be expected based
on perceptual defence and attribution (Zuckerman, 1979), individuals are more likely to
perceive experiencing than instigating workplace incivility. The correlation
between instigated and experienced workplace incivility across respondents was .20.
The correlation between instigated workplace incivility and interpersonal deviance was
.40. The correlation between experienced workplace incivility and interpersonal
deviance was .27. Overall, these results provide support for Hypothesis 1 and indicate
that instigated workplace incivility is distinct from experienced workplace incivility and
interpersonal deviance.
Table 1. Factor analysis of experienced work incivility, instigated work incivility and interpersonal
deviance items
Factora
Item 1 2 3
How often someone at work has done the following to you during
the past year
1. Put you down or was condescending to you in some way .20 .70 .31
2. Paid little attention to a statement you made or showed .28 .63 .16
little interest in their opinion
3. Made demeaning, rude or derogatory remarks about you .22 .78 .13
4. Addressed you in unprofessional terms, either privately .37 .60 .10
or publicly
5. Ignored or excluded you from professional camaraderie .21 .54 .23
(e.g. social conversation)
6. Doubted your judgment in a matter over which you have .19 .52 .25
responsibility
7. Made unwanted attempts to draw you into a discussion .30 .56 .09
of personal matters
How often you have exhibited the following behaviours in the past
year to someone at work
8. Put down others or were condescending to them .61 .11 .40
in some way
9. Paid little attention to a statement made by someone .67 .16 .32
or showed little interest in their opinion
10. Made demeaning, rude or derogatory remarks about .54 .08 .44
someone
11. Addressed someone in unprofessional terms either .58 .07 .28
privately or publicly
12. Ignored or excluded someone from professional .51 .10 .25
camaraderie (e.g. social conversation)
13. Doubted someones judgment in a matter over which .73 .18 .20
they have responsibility
14. Made unwanted attempts to draw someone into a .72 .12 .23
discussion of personal matters
How often you have engaged in each of these behaviours in the last year
15. Made fun of someone at work .41 .03 .63
16. Said something hurtful to someone at work .30 .14 .55
17. Made an ethnic, religious or racial remark or joke .27 .06 .65
at work
18. Cursed at someone at work .20 .05 .59
19. Publicly embarrassed someone at work .25 .04 .64
20. Played a mean prank on someone at work .28 .10 .66
21. Acted rudely towards someone at work .43 .07 .70
N 211.
Eigenvalue 3.05 2.57 3.57
Percentage Variance Explained 15% 12% 17%
a
Boldface indicates primary factor loadings and loadings with a differential of at least .20 across
factors, underlined loading is at least .40
Table 2. Overall fit indices for instigated and experienced workplace incivility and interpersonal
deviance factors for the validation sample
Modela x2 df CFI AGFI RMSR RMSEA
1 factor 849.71* 168 .722 .698 .131 .176

2 factors 603.89* 167 .857 .804 .093 .101
3 factors 477.38* 165 .939 .906 .045 .072
4 factors 469.89 162 .941 .907 .043 .069
a
x2 chi-squared, df degrees of freedom; CFI comparative fit index; AGFI adjusted
goodness of fit index; RMSR root mean square residual; RMSEA root mean square error of
approximation.
*
p , :05, significant decrease in chi-squared value.
Primary sample missing data

Given the amount of missing data, logistic regression was done to see whether
respondent attrition was affecting the primary sample study results (Goodman & Blum,
1996). The dependent variable was remaining versus leaving the sample, and all study
variables constituted the independent variables in the logistic regression. Results
indicated that none of the study variables were significantly related to remaining versus
leaving the sample. This suggests that the data are missing at random and subject
attrition did not affect the study results (Goodman & Blum, 1996).
Main results
Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations for the primary sample study
variables are shown in Table 3. Means are given based on the 4-point response scales.
Repeated variables were stable over time frame measured. Scale reliabilities were at least
.70 (Nunnally, 1978). The bottom table row shows that all the variables also measured in
2002 were significantly related to instigated workplace incivility. Cross-sectional self-
report method bias is of concern when interpreting these results. True antecedents of
instigated workplace incivility are those variables measured before 2002. Of these, 1998
distributive and procedural justice, and 1999 job satisfaction were negatively related to
2002 instigated workplace incivility. Only 1999 work exhaustion was positively related
to 2002 instigated workplace incivility, but neither 1999 nor 2001 job insecurity were.
To further test the impact of pre-2002 antecedents on 2002 instigated workplace
incivility, hierarchical regression analysis was done, testing for the impact of the Time 1
antecedent on incivility beyond the 2002 same variable correlate. The results are shown
in Table 4. As indicated, 1998 distributive justice, 1999 job satisfaction, and 1999 work
exhaustion had a significant impact on 2002 instigated workplace incivility beyond the
2002 same variable correlate (distributive justice, job satisfaction and work exhaustion).
However, neither procedural or interactional justice, nor affective occupational
commitment did.
Finally, a path analysis was done for pre-2002 antecedents of 2002 instigated
workplace incivility. Path analysis was done to further test variable relationships in one
overall model, and determine the overall variance accounted for in instigated workplace
incivility (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). The fit statistics and significant path coefficients
are shown in Fig. 1. The fit statistics suggest an adequate overall fit, using the guidelines
discussed previously (Bentler, 1990; Browne & Cudek, 1993). The significant
path coefficients are consistent with the significant correlations found in Table 2.
606
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations for primary sample study variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Distributive justice, 98a 2.22 0.53 (.85)b

2. Procedural justice, 98 2.24 0.59 .54 (.88)
3. Interactional justice, 98 2.73 0.56 .38 .49 (.84)
4. Job satisfaction, 99 2.68 0.45 .36 .37 .38 (.90)
Gary Blau and Lynne Andersson

5. Job insecurity, 99 2.07 0.71 2 .15 2 .24 2.14 2 .53 (.92)
6. Work exhaustion, 99 2.05 0.60 2 .28 2 .26 2.21 2 .41 .22 (.84)
7. Affective occupational 2.72 0.52 .29 .24 .25 .46 2 .33 2.40 (.89)
commitment, 00
8. Job insecurity, 01 1.99 0.69 2 .07 2 .18 2.04 2 .34 .56 .22 2 .06 (.90)
9. Distributive justice, 02 2.35 0.74 .48 .33 .24 .36 2 .20 2.16 .31 2 .11 (.87)
10. Procedural justice, 02 2.31 0.60 .30 .52 .25 .32 2 .23 2.21 .20 2 .31 .48 (.90)
11. Interactional justice, 02 2.79 0.58 .21 .30 .46 .35 2 .22 2.27 .16 2 .30 .29 .49 (.85)
12. Job satisfaction, 02 2.88 0.45 .25 .24 .17 .41 2 .28 2.31 .32 2 .26 .47 .45 .55 (.91)
13. Work exhaustion, 02 2.01 0.66 2 .19 2 .24 2.14 2 .29 .17 .52 2 .31 .18 2.44 2 .37 2.42 2 .50 (.82)
14. Affective occupational 2.78 0.50 .20 .19 .13 .40 2 .25 2.32 .63 2 .08 .20 .30 .33 .53 2 .39 (.88)
commitment, 02
15. Instigated workplace 1.55 0.64 2 .20 2 .21 2.13 2 .32 .12 .35 2 .13 .12 2.28 2 .36 2.41 2 .47 .49 2.31 (.91)
incivility, 02
Note. N 162; r . :15, p , :05; r . :20, p , :01 (two-tailed).

a
98 1998; 99 1999; 00 2000; 01 2001; 02 2002.
b
internal consistency (in parentheses).
Table 4. Hierarchical regression testing for the impact of the Time1 antecedent on instigated
workplace incivility beyond the 2002 same variable correlate
2002 Same variable Time 1 Adjusted Change in Significant

correlate antecedent B R2 R2 F
Distributive justice, 02a Distributive justice, 98 2.27** .07**

2.13* .09** .02* 2.62*
Procedural justice, 02 Procedural justice, 98 2.36** .13**
2.05 .13** .00 0.66
Interactional justice, 02 Interactional justice, 98 2.40** .16**
2.07 .16** .00 0.43
Job satisfaction, 02 Job satisfaction, 99 2.47** .22**
2.15* .24** .02* 3.31*
Work exhaustion, 02 Work exhaustion, 99 .48** .23**
.14* .25** .02* 3.15*
Affective occupational Affective occupational 2.33** .11**
commitment, 02 commitment, 00
2.10 .12** .01 1.69
Note. N 162. *p , :05; **p , :01 (two-tailed).

a
98 1998; 99 1999; 00 2000; 02 2002.
The error variable in Fig. 1 is enclosed in a circle because it was not measured. The term
error represents random fluctuation in the score of the outcome variable, instigated
workplace incivility, as well as other unmeasured variables, which affect this outcome.
Since this error variable is not measured, a constraint (regression weight of 1) must be
imposed in order to measure it (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). Overall, 20% of the variance
for instigated workplace incivility was accounted for. In sum, the correlation,
hierarchical regression and path analysis results provide partial support for Hypothesis
2, Hypothesis 3, and Hypothesis 4. For Hypothesis 2, only 1998 distributive justice, but
not procedural or interactional justice, had a consistent significant negative impact on
instigated workplace incivility. For Hypothesis 3, 1999 job satisfaction, but not 2000
affective occupational commitment, had a negative impact on workplace incivility. For
Hypothesis 4, 1999 work exhaustion, but not job insecurity, had a positive impact on
instigated workplace incivility.
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study that has found empirical support for a
distinction between experienced versus instigated workplace incivility. Moreover,
instigated workplace incivility was found to be empirically distinct from a scale of
interpersonal deviance comprised predominantly of behaviours that could be termed
aggressive (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). This finding supports the assertion that
instigated workplace incivility is of lesser intensity and is distinguishable from general
interpersonal deviant behaviour (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Robinson & Bennett, 1995).
However, exploratory factor analyses did reveal that one instigated work incivility
item double loaded; this item was removed in subsequent analyses. In addition, several
other items among the instigated workplace incivility and interpersonal deviance
measures had significant cross-loadings (Ford et al., 1986). This apparent domain
overlap among the interpersonal deviance and instigated incivility scales illustrates
Figure 1. Significant Path Coefficients for antecedents of instigated workplace incivility.

Chi squared 4:15, df 4, p :38; CFI :988; AGFI :919; RSMR :017; RMSEA :033.
Andersson and Pearsons (1999) theoretical discernment among the constructs of

aggression and incivility. Andersson and Pearson allow that some uncivil behaviours are
within the realm of aggression (those with intent to harm, but in which the intent is
ambiguous to the target and/or observers), and that some uncivil behaviours lie outside
the realm of aggression (those without intent to harm, but in which the intent is
ambiguous, such as those that occur out of ignorance or oversight). Hence, the items
that had significant cross-loadings put down others or were condescending to them in
some way (instigated incivility), and acted rudely toward someone at work
(interpersonal deviance) represent slightly more intense incivilities that fall into the
realm of aggression. Ideally, the workplace incivility and interpersonal deviance scales
would include accompanying items assessing the instigators intent to harm, providing
additional definitional clarification. We regretfully did not include such items.
These findings also suggest that the distinctiveness of the instigated workplace
incivility scale could be increased by removing the two (slightly more intense) items:
made demeaning, rude or derogatory remarks about someone, and put down others or
were condescending to them in some way. In order to allow for the flip perspectives of
instigated versus experience work incivility to continue to be measured, these two
items should also be removed from the experienced work incivility measure. Consistent
with a focus on low intensity behaviours and ambiguous intent, two new replacement
items could be items such as interrupted you while you were talking (experienced)
versus you interrupted someone while they were talking (instigated), and gossiped
about you behind your back (experienced) versus you gossiped about someone behind
their back (instigated). We believe that this flip scale perspective is important for future
research investigating instigated versus experienced incivility on employee dyads over

time.
In studying some of the antecedents of instigated workplace incivility, this research
offers preliminary insight into how the spiralling of incivility may begin. The experience
of distributive injustice, job dissatisfaction, and work exhaustion are factors that, over
time, might cause an employee, either intentionally or unintentionally, to exhibit rude,
discourteous behaviours in the workplace. These instigated uncivil behaviours, in turn,
may invoke similarly uncivil behaviours in the target. In addition, if a number of
individuals within a workgroup or organization are experiencing negative work
attitudes, the potential for development of an incivility exchange, a secondary spiral, or
escalation of exchanged incivilities to exchanged aggressive behaviours would
seemingly be even greater (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Our efforts provide future
researchers with a tool (measure for instigated workplace incivility) to more completely
examine the spiralling and possible escalation of incivility.
Admittedly, the amount of variance subsequently explained in the instigated
workplace incivility measure was disappointing. Several reasons may account for this.
First, by using only a 4-point frequency response scale for each incivility item, this
reduced the score range for items and the composite scale. Range restriction in a
variable can decrease its correlation with other variables (McNemar, 1969). As noted
earlier, Cortina and colleagues (2001) used a 5-point scale, but only reported the end
points, that is, 0 never, 4 most of the time, with no specific frequency levels.
Giving frequency levels for each response scale anchor should increase measurement
precision (Nunnally, 1978).
Future research should consider using a 7-point frequency response scale for
measuring both instigated and experienced work incivility, that is, 1 never,
2 hardly ever (about once every few months), 3 rarely (about once a month),
4 occasionally (at least several times/month), 5 sometimes (at least once/week),
6 frequently (at least once/day), and 7 very frequently (at least several
times/day). Bennett and Robinson (2000) used a 7-point response scale for their
interpersonal deviance measure, but the highest response was daily, and it is possible
for a respondent to exhibit incivility at least several times/day, especially if it is across
different targets. By using a never response category for these samples, this would have
allowed for calculating participation percentages for each item. A 1-year period, as a
natural work cycle time frame, could be generally recommended for such self-
assessment (Johns, 1994).
Another factor that may help to account for the lower amount of instigated
workplace incivility explained, and the associated weaker results, is the fact that the
sample comprised primarily peer-level, female medical technologists. Workplace
incivility is often instigated by a supervisor or a superior, and males are more likely to
instigate than females (Cortina et al., 2002; Pearson et al., 2000; 2001). Furthermore,
recent research has shown that men and women perceive rude, disrespectful
behaviour differently, with females more likely to deem uncivil behaviours offensive
(Montgomery et al., 2004).
As a related point, interactional justice was not a significant antecedent of instigated
workplace incivility. Even if an employee perceives their supervisor does not treat them
fairly, it will probably be difficult to behave uncivilly towards that supervisor without
any repercussions (Cortina et al., 2001). The 4-year time lag between the interactional
justice and instigated workplace incivility measure may also have contributed to this
non-significant finding. Interactional justice, since it asks an employee about how they
are being interpersonally treated, may be a more dynamic or temporally less stable
construct than procedural or distributional justice (Colquitt et al., 2001).
This leads to speculation on the targets about which the measure validation
respondents were thinking as they responded to the instigated (co-worker,
subordinate?) versus experienced (supervisor, co-worker?) incivility items in the same
survey administration. With validated instigated and experienced workplace incivility
measures, one strategy for future research would be to focus on persons involved in the
same reporting relationships over time, such as supervisor subordinate dyads. As an
example, tracking an instigated uncivil behaviour of a supervisor A towards subordinate
B (including how B experiences this incivility), and then subordinate Bs reaction to this
incivility, that is, reciprocated, non-reciprocated or perhaps a displaced reaction, as B
instigates incivility towards co-worker C (also a direct report to supervisor A). Such a
focus would allow for testing some of the rich potential dynamics noted by Andersson
and Pearson (1999) in their workplace incivility model.
The research design used in this study was longitudinal, allowing for stronger causal
inference (Hinkin, 1995). Second wave or 2002 data were used as a control variable in
each hierarchical regression analysis for the impact of the same-variable first wave data
on 2002 work incivility. The only variable not collected in this manner was job
insecurity, which was collected in 1999 and 2001. Contrary to a study hypothesis, job
insecurity was not related to instigated work incivility at any time. Perhaps the general
current shortage of medical technologists in the health care industry (Ward-Cook &
Tannar, 2001) partially muted the impact of job insecurity, but at the same time
contributed to work exhaustion having a positive impact on instigated workplace
incivility. The robustness of job satisfaction being negatively related to instigated
workplace incivility 3 years later is a strong finding, given that other deviant work
behaviour research has found job satisfaction to generally weaken as a predictor of
absenteeism after 1 year (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998).
Additional variance for instigated work incivility behaviour could have been
accounted for by incorporating more variables in the research design. Employee feelings
of frustration or anger may have been useful to measure, since angrier (Lee & Allen,
2002) as well as more frustrated (Fox & Spector, 1999) employees exhibit greater work
deviant behaviours. Unfortunately, survey length constraints prohibited such additional
measures; however, these variables should be tested in future research.
Neither experienced work incivility nor interpersonal deviance data were gathered
for the primary sample, and instigated work incivility data were only gathered in the last
year of the primary sample study time frame. This research design was based on the
assumptions that only antecedent variables cause instigated workplace incivility
(Andersson & Pearson, 1999), and that experienced workplace incivility leads to
subsequent work outcomes (Pearson et al., 2001). However, there are several design
limitations to acknowledge. We focused solely on the causes of instigated incivility and
neglected to examine theorized outcomes, such as retaliatory behaviours (Giacalone &
Greenberg, 1997). It would have been useful, too, to gather interpersonal deviance data
to compare its antecedents against tested antecedents of instigated incivility. Finally, a
baseline measure of instigated workplace incivility, collected at the beginning of the
primary sample study, would have allowed for change assessment. These represent
directions for future research efforts.
From a human resource and management perspective, the results of this study
reinforce the importance of managers working with their employees to at least
minimize, if not prevent, subordinate feelings of job dissatisfaction, work exhaustion, or
distributive injustice. Unchecked, such feelings and perceptions can lead to increased
employee work deviant behaviour (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997). Constant
communication with employees, such as weekly meetings to quickly identify and deal
with employee concerns, as well as creating avenues for employee appeals concerning
award decisions, can be useful action steps (Bittel & Newstrom, 1990). It is ones
supervisor who is most often in the best position to create a positive work environment
for their immediate employees (Blumberg & Pringle, 1982). Certainly being an
approachable manager (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Cardy, 2001) is important to prevent
unresolved work issues from increasing the likelihood of an employee behaving
uncivilly towards another employee. Such approachability is meant to signal that the
manager wants to hear about any problems immediately, to try and defuse them. Other
company policies such as job rotation, sabbaticals, and proper staffing levels can help to
alleviate work exhaustion and dissatisfaction (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2001).
To conclude, in this age of increasing workforce diversity and work stress, workplace
incivility or office rudeness will continue to be an on-going concern for employers
(Buhler, 2003; Fritscher-Porter, 2003; Pearson et al., 2000). Having separate scales for
measuring instigated versus experienced work incivility will help researchers go
forward to study the theoretically rich model of potentially spiralling and escalating
incivility encounters between employees (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Employee
dyads would be one way to collect and analyse instigated versus experienced work
incivility data (Pearson et al., 2000). One method to track interacting employee dyads
over time, and to record such incivility-related encounters, would be via diary
(Williams, Suls, Alliger, Learner, & Wan, 1991). It is hoped that this study stimulates such
research.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Board of Registry for permission to use the medical technologist data, as
well as Lidia Dobria and Donna Surges Tatum for their help on the development of this
manuscript. The authors also thank the Editor and Reviewers for their help in improving the
quality of this paper.
References
Andersson, L., & Pearson, C. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace.
Academy of Management Review, 24, 452471.
Arbuckle, J., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 users guide. Chicago: SmallWaters Corporation.
Ashford, S., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, causes and consequences of job insecurity:
A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 803829.
Bennett, R., & Robinson, S. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, 349360.
Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,
238246.
Bittel, L., & Newstrom, J. (1990). What every supervisor should know. New York: McGraw Hill.
Blau, G. (1985). Extrinsic, intrinsic, and demographic predictors of various types of withdrawal
behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 442450.
Blau, G. (1994). Developing and testing a taxonomy of lateness behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 959970.
Blumberg, M., & Pringle, M. (1982). The missing opportunity in organizational research: Some
implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review, 7, 560569.
Browne, M., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternate ways of assessing model fit. In K. Bollen & J. Long
(Eds.), Testing structural equations models (pp. 136162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Buhler, P. (2003). Managing in a new millennium. Supervision, 64(4), 2023.
Colquitt, J., Conlon, D., Wesson, M., Porter, C., & Ng, K. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-
analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 425445.
Cortina, L., Magley, V., Williams, J., & Langhout, R. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence
and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 6480.
Cortina, L. M., Lonsway, K. L., Magley, V. J., Freeman, L. V., Collinsworth, L. L., Hunter, M., &
Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). Whats gender got to do with it? Incivility in the federal courts. Law and
Social Inquiry, 27, 235270.
Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following
interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
8(4), 247265.
Cupach, W. R., Huggins, J., Long, L. W., & Metts, S. (2002). Perceptions of impropriety: Role of
embarrassability and perceiver sex. Paper presented at the Western States Communication
Association Annual Convention, Long Beach, CA.
Firth, H., & Britton, P. (1989). Burnout, absence and turnover among British nursing staff. Journal
of Occupational Psychology, 62, 5559.
Ford, J., MacCallum, R., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied
psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291314.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organzational
Behavior, 20, 915931.
Fritscher-Porter, K. (2003). Taming workplace incivility. OfficePro, 63(5), 2225.
Giacalone, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Gomez-Mejia, L., Balkin, D., & Cardy, R. (2001). Managing human resources. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Goodman, J., & Blum, T. (1996). Assessing the non-random sampling effects of subject attrition in
longitudinal research. Journal of Management, 22, 627652.
Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators
of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 54, 81103.
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Towards conceptual clarity. Academy of
Management Review, 9, 438448.
Gutek, B., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work-family
conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 560568.
Hackman, R., & Oldham, G. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied
Harrison, D., & Martocchio, J. (1998). Time for absenteeism: A 20 year review of origins, offshoots,
and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24, 305350.
Hinkin, T. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal
of Management, 21, 967988.
Jackson, S., Schwab, R., & Schuler, R. (1986). Toward an understanding of the burnout
phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 630640.
Johns, G. (1994). How often were you absent? A review of the use of self-reported absence data.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 574591.
Johnson, P., & Indvik, J. (2001). Rudeness at work: Impulse over restraint. Public Personnel
Management, 30(4), 457465.
Kaiser, H. (1970). A second generation of Little-Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401415.
Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and empirical issues. Journal of
Emotional Abuse, 1(1), 85115.
Kuhnert, K., & Vance, R. (1992). Job insecurity and moderators of the relation between job
insecurity and employee adjustment. In J. Quick, L. Murphy, & J. Hurrell (Eds.), Stress and well-
being at work: Assessments and interventions for occupational mental health (pp. 4863).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role
of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131142.
Lee, R., & Ashforth, B. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three
dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123133.
Lim, V. (1996). Job insecurity and its outcomes: Moderating effects of work-based and nonwork
based social support. Human Relations, 49, 171193.
Lim, V. (2002). The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational
justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 675694.
Locke, E. (1976). Nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 12971350). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Matell, M., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert-scale items?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 506509.
McNemar, Q. (1969). Psychological statistics. New York: Wiley.
Meyer, J., Allen, N., & Smith, C. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension
and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
538551.
Miller, R. S. (2000). Breaches of propriety. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive
behaviors in interpersonal relationships (pp. 2958). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Montgomery, K., Kane, K., & Vance, C. M. (2004). Accounting for differences in norms of respect:
A study of assessments of incivility through the lenses of race and gender. Group and
Organization Management, 29(2), 248268.
Moore, J. (2000). Why is this happening? A causal attribution approach to work exhaustion
consequences. Academy of Management Review, 25, 335349.
Muir, C. (2000). Can we all get along? The interpersonal challenge at work. Academy of
Management Executive, 14(4), 143145.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence
concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management,
24, 391419.
Niehoff, B., & Moorman, R. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of
monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal,
36, 527556.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Pearson, C., Andersson, L., & Porath, C. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace incivility.
Organizational Dynamics, 29(2), 123137.
Pearson, C., Andersson, L., & Wegner, J. (2001). When workers flout convention: A study of
workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54, 13871419.
Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2001). Effects of incivility on the target: Fight, flee or take care of
me? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, D.C.
Price, J., & Mueller, C. (1986). Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Robinson, S., & Bennett, R. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-
dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555572.
Seltzer, J., & Numerof, R. (1988). Supervisory leadership and subordinate burnout. Academy of
Management Journal, 31, 439446.
Skarlicki, D., & Folger, J. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural,
and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434443.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J., & Dienesch, R. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct
redefinition, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765802.
Ward-Cook, K., & Tannar, S. (2001). 2000 wage and vacancy survey of medical laboratories.
Laboratory Medicine, 32(3), 124138.
Williams, K., Suls, J., Alliger, G., Learner, S., & Wan, C. (1991). Multiple role juggling and daily
mood states in working mothers: An experience sampling study. Journal of Applied
Winefield, A., & Tiggerman, M. (1990). Employment status and psychological well-being:
A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 455459.
Zauderer, D. (2002). Workplace incivility and the management of human capital. Public Manager,
31(1), 3642.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited: The motivational bias is alive
and well in attribution theory. Journal of Personality, 47, 245287.
Received 7 January 2004; revised version received 2 July 2004

Testing A Measure of Instigated Workplace Incivility: Gary Blau and Lynne Andersson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Testing A Measure of Instigated Workplace Incivility: Gary Blau and Lynne Andersson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright The British Psychological Society

Testing a measure of instigated workplace

Gary Blau* and Lynne Andersson

Using a sample of 211 working adults, an instigated workplace incivility measure,

The construct of workplace incivility

596 Gary Blau and Lynne Andersson

Specific examples include making condescending or demeaning comments, ignoring

Instigated workplace incivility 597

Instigated workplace incivility as a distinct construct

598 Gary Blau and Lynne Andersson

incivilities on the low-intensity end. Interestingly, behaviours of lower intensity and

Relationships of correlates to instigated workplace incivility

Instigated workplace incivility 599

600 Gary Blau and Lynne Andersson

Instigated workplace incivility

Primary sample and procedure

Instigated workplace incivility 601

602 Gary Blau and Lynne Andersson

Affective occupational commitment

Instigated workplace incivility 603

604 Gary Blau and Lynne Andersson

Instigated workplace incivility 605

Modela x2 df CFI AGFI RMSR RMSEA

1 factor 849.71* 168 .722 .698 .131 .176

Primary sample missing data

1. Distributive justice, 98a 2.22 0.53 (.85)b

Gary Blau and Lynne Andersson

Note. N 162; r . :15, p , :05; r . :20, p , :01 (two-tailed).

Instigated workplace incivility 607

2002 Same variable Time 1 Adjusted Change in Significant

Distributive justice, 02a Distributive justice, 98 2.27** .07**

Note. N 162. *p , :05; **p , :01 (two-tailed).

608 Gary Blau and Lynne Andersson

Figure 1. Significant Path Coefficients for antecedents of instigated workplace incivility.

Andersson and Pearsons (1999) theoretical discernment among the constructs of

Instigated workplace incivility 609

research investigating instigated versus experienced incivility on employee dyads over

610 Gary Blau and Lynne Andersson

Instigated workplace incivility 611

612 Gary Blau and Lynne Andersson

Instigated workplace incivility 613

614 Gary Blau and Lynne Andersson

Received 7 January 2004; revised version received 2 July 2004

You might also like

Distributive justice, 02a Distributive justice, 98 2.27 .07