See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288888209

Measuring Adolescent Attitudes Toward Classroom Incivility:

Exploring Differences Between Intentional and Unintentional
Incivility

Article  in  Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment · December 2015

DOI: 10.1177/0734282915623446

CITATIONS READS

18 1,031

5 authors, including:

Ann H. Farrell Natalie Spadafora

Brock University McMaster University
40 PUBLICATIONS   364 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   115 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Zopito Marini Anthony A. Volk

Brock University Brock University
48 PUBLICATIONS   2,092 CITATIONS    108 PUBLICATIONS   3,656 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

"Transdisciplinarity and Child and Youth Studies: what are the links?" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anthony A. Volk on 15 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

623446
research-article2015
JPAXXX10.1177/0734282915623446Journal of Psychoeducational AssessmentFarrell et al.

Article
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
2016, Vol. 34(6) 577­–588
Measuring Adolescent Attitudes © The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
Toward Classroom Incivility: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734282915623446
Exploring Differences Between jpa.sagepub.com

Intentional and Unintentional

Incivility

Ann H. Farrell1, Daniel A. Provenzano1, Natalie Spadafora1,

Zopito A. Marini1, and Anthony A. Volk1

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop a scale that measures adolescents’ attitudes toward
classroom incivility and determine whether items would reveal subscales. A sample of 549
adolescents between ages 11 and 18 (53.1% boys; Mage = 13.90, SD = 1.41) completed items
written to measure attitudes toward classroom incivility. An exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) was used on one half of the randomly split sample and a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) on the remainder. Results from both analyses suggested that two factors representing
unintentional and intentional incivility might be the best factor solution. In addition, evidence
for concurrent validity was found in correlations with four additional scales. Results suggest
that attitudes toward classroom incivility are heterogeneous and that adolescence may be an
important developmental period to address this construct. Future studies should continue
psychometrically developing this scale and exploring this measure with additional antisocial
beliefs and behaviors.

Keywords
classroom incivility, intentional, unintentional, adolescence, scale development

Introduction
The decline of civility in the classroom has recently been a concern in education (Bjorklund &
Rehling, 2009). Civility is defined as “polite behaviours that maintain social harmony, or demon-
strate respect for the humanity of an individual, important in maintaining a society” (Wilkins,
Caldarella, Crook-Lyon, & Young, 2010, p. 37). To conceptualize civility, two aspects must be
examined. The “civic” aspect focuses on citizenship (i.e., being aware of the others’ well-being)
and the “civil” aspect focuses on creating “learning relationships” to ensure others’ well-being
(Marini, Polihronis, & Blackwell, 2010). The opposite of civility, however, is incivility, which is

1Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:
Ann H. Farrell, Department of Psychology, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, Ontario,
Canada L2A3A1.
Email: af08tl@brocku.ca

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BROCK UNIV on August 15, 2016

578 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 34(6)

the focus of this article. Andersson and Pearson (1999) defined incivility as “low intensity, devi-
ant behavior with ambiguous intent to cause harm” (p. 457). These uncivil attitudes and actions
include a general disregard for others (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Furthermore, what differen-
tiates incivility from other antisocial behaviors such as aggression and bullying are the aspects of
low intensity and ambiguous intent.

Multidimensional Model of Incivility

To better understand the concept of incivility, a clearer distinction should be made between acts
and methods of incivility. Marini (2009) described the major continuums of incivility: the form
(ranging from indirect to direct) and function (ranging from reactive to proactive). Indirect inci-
vility would be negative actions carried out covertly, whereas direct incivility would be imple-
mented overtly (Marini, 2009). On the opposing continuum, proactive incivility includes uncivil
actions used to attain a resource (i.e., stealing notes), whereas reactive incivility includes uncivil
actions used as retaliation (Marini, 2009). Thus, incivility encompasses both attitudinal and
behavioral aspects.
Along with these distinctions, incivility can also be conceptualized as being intentional or
unintentional. Intentionally uncivil actions are planned with a clear intent to harm, similar to
proactive incivility (Marini et al., 2010). An example includes spreading rumors about a class-
mate (Marini, 2009), as this action is done with intent to hurt that individual. Unintentional inci-
vility is done through inattention or thoughtlessness, rather than with intent to harm (Marini
et al., 2010). An example includes checking your email during class, as this is done without
intentions to harm but could be perceived as disrespectful.
Research has generally focused on higher intensity antisocial behaviors such as aggression
instead of lower intensity behaviors such as incivility (Eggertson, 2011; Lim, Cortina, & Magley,
2008). However, antisocial attitudes and forms of aggression should be examined to see if they
have similar origins (Marini, 2007). In addition, research on incivility primarily focuses on adult
workplace incivility or college classroom incivility. Within the workplace, incivility can affect
the attitudes and behaviors of employees (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Pearson & Porath, 2005).
Considering the negative outcomes associated with workplace incivility and the lack of research
on incivility among younger samples, the present study will focus on adolescent classroom
incivility.

Classroom In/Civility
Adolescence may be a crucial time to address incivility before behaviors become more serious.
Thus, it is increasingly important to focus on classroom incivility as it may affect both academic
and personal development (Marini, 2009). Feldmann (2001) defined classroom incivility as “any
action that interferes with a harmonious and cooperative learning atmosphere” (p. 137).
Classroom incivility has the potential to disrupt the learning environment and teaching capabili-
ties of the institution (Feldmann, 2001). Educators may often ignore uncivil behaviors to have
more instructional time and may believe these behaviors may disappear on their own. However,
not addressing uncivil behaviors may signal to students that these behaviors are acceptable,
which may encourage repetition (Feldmann, 2001). Therefore, it is important to understand ado-
lescent attitudes about uncivil behaviors to understand the origins.
Boice (1996) found classroom incivility was common, where two thirds of classes showed
such behaviors. Thus, it is important to address classroom incivility as there are many asso-
ciated negative outcomes. For instance, a short-term consequence includes limited class
engagement, whereas a long-term outcome includes not reaching educational goals (Hirschy
& Braxton, 2004). Moreover, incivility may reduce student commitment to current and

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BROCK UNIV on August 15, 2016

Farrell et al. 579

post-secondary education (Hirschy & Braxton, 2004). Therefore, it is important to address

this phenomenon during adolescence, a period when social ties are forming and community
building is fundamental (Schaefer, 1995). Furthermore, addressing these behaviors early
may prevent development of more serious antisociality in post-secondary institutions or in
the workplace (Boice, 1996).

Previous Measures of Classroom Incivility

To explore incivility, a valid and reliable measure relevant for adolescents is needed. Although
research suggests classroom incivility has increased, there are limited measures that exist to
examine adolescent thoughts on incivility (Wilkins et al., 2010). One known measure created by
Indiana University (Royce, 2000) assesses faculty perceptions of classroom incivility. In this
measure, faculty members are asked what behaviors they consider to be uncivil, the frequency,
and associated demographics (Royce, 2000). Thus, this measure does not assess students’ percep-
tions of incivility and targets older university students. However, several researchers have
adapted this scale to assess university students’ perceptions.
For example, a study by Nordstrom, Bartels, and Bucy (2009) adapted the Indiana University
(Royce, 2000) survey to assess college students’ perceptions of incivility. This scale included
items about negative (i.e., using cell phones in class) and positive or neutral (i.e., raising hands
in class) classroom behaviors. Students were asked the appropriateness and frequency in
engagement of each behavior. Similarly, researchers have developed scales on student percep-
tions of classroom incivility by creating 10 (Boice, 1996) to more than 20 (Al Kandari, 2011;
Bjorklund & Rehling, 2009) items compiled from existing research (e.g., Caboni, Hirschy, &
Best, 2004). All studies asked students to rate how uncivil they thought each item was. According
to Boice (1996), the most commonly reported uncivil behaviors by students included starting
class early, stopping class late, and disruptive students. Furthermore, the study found that as
classroom incivility increased, students were more likely to engage in additional disruptive
behaviors and were less involved in learning. Taken together, these studies demonstrate that
although a few measures of classroom incivility exist, they measure the attitudes of students in
college and university instead of middle and high school. These young adults are developmen-
tally different from adolescents. Furthermore, the structure of classrooms and lessons are differ-
ent for colleges and universities, in comparison with middle and high schools. Therefore, it is
evident that a scale is needed to measure similar uncivil attitudes with items that are relevant
specifically for adolescents.

Current Study
Most research on attitudes on incivility has been conducted on young adults in post-secondary
institutions or adults in the workplace. Although these scales may be valid and reliable for their
target sample, the items may not be developmentally relevant to incivility specifically for adoles-
cents in a secondary school classroom. To our knowledge, there are no scales that measure ado-
lescents’ attitudes toward classroom incivility. As a result, there were two main goals of the
present study: (a) develop a Classroom Incivility scale with items that are relevant to adolescents’
attitudes and (b) determine whether subscales of incivility would emerge in this scale. We hypoth-
esized that subscales would emerge based on behavior intentionality (i.e., intentional or uninten-
tional). Finally, to provide evidence for concurrent validity, we correlated emerging subscales of
incivility with three measures of antisociality (antisocial beliefs, friend antisociality, and conduct
problems) and a measure of prosocial behavior. We predicted significant positive correlations
between all types of incivility and measures of antisociality and a significant negative correlation
between incivility and prosocial behavior.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BROCK UNIV on August 15, 2016

580 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 34(6)

Method
Participants
Adolescents between the ages of 11 and 18 (N = 549, 53.1% boys; Mage = 13.90, SD = 1.41) were
recruited from extracurricular activities in Southern Ontario, including sports teams and youth
groups. Participants were recruited for a larger study on adolescent relationships. Self-reported
ethnicities included Caucasian (70.9%), Asian (2.9%), Hispanic (1.8%), African-Canadian
(1.8%), Mixed (1.8%), Indigenous peoples (1.1%), and Other (9.0%). The remainder did not
report ethnicity (10.7%). For self-reported perceptions of socioeconomic status (SES), the major-
ity of adolescents reported his or her family to be “about the same” (66.4%) in wealth as the
average Canadian, whereas fewer reported “more rich” (21.4%) and “less rich” (10.9%). The
remainder (1.3%) did not report SES.
A subsample of participants completed measures for scales added during a later phase of data
collection, which were used to assess concurrent validity. These subsamples include antisocial
beliefs (n = 278, 51.1% girls; Mage = 13.79, SD = 1.34), friend antisociality (n = 191, 51.8% boys;
Mage = 13.92, SD = 1.49), conduct problems (n = 313, 53.4% boys; Mage = 13.87, SD = 1.34), and
prosocial behavior (n = 319, 52.0% boys; Mage = 13.79, SD = 1.32).

Measures
Incivility.  Questionnaires were presented in random order. Participants completed 11 items written
to measure a variety of attitudes toward incivility relevant to adolescents. Items were selected from
a pool of 20 items written for previous work on developing an Adolescent Classroom Incivility
scale (Marini, 2007). Although this study was unpublished, we narrowed down the number of items
we thought were most relevant to reduce the length of the scale. The questionnaire asked, “Please
circle the answer that best describes your belief about each of the following situations.” A sample
item for unintentional incivility is “Packing up books before a lesson is over.” A sample item for
intentional incivility is “Calling a classmate names because they did not agree with your opinion.”
Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = definitely wrong to 5 = definitely okay).

Antisocial beliefs.  Participants completed a modified 11-item version of the Attitudinal Intolerance of
Deviance Scale (α = .86; Jessor, Van Den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa, & Turbin, 1995). The questionnaire
asked to check the box that best fit how wrong they thought it was to behave in the way described in
each item. A sample item includes, “To take little things that don’t belong to you.” Items were rated
on a 5-point scale (1 = very wrong to 5 = not at all wrong). An average score was computed.

Friend antisociality.  Participants completed a modified seven-item version of the Delinquent Peer
Exposure Scale (α = .82; Mazerolle & Maahs, 2000). Participants were asked how many of their
friends have engaged in delinquent activities. A sample item includes, “Skipped school without
an excuse?” Items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = none of them to 5 = all of them). An average
score was computed.

Conduct problems.  Participants completed a five-item version of the Conduct Problems subscale
of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (α = .40; Goodman, Meltzer, & Bailey, 1998),
which asked to check the box that best described their opinion for each statement. A sample item
includes, “I get very angry and often lose my temper.” Items were rated on a 3-point scale (0 =
not true to 2 = certainly true). An average score was computed.

Prosocial behavior.  Participants completed a five-item version of the Prosocial Behavior subscale
of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (α = .60; Goodman et al., 1998), which asked to

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BROCK UNIV on August 15, 2016

Farrell et al. 581

check the box that best described their opinion for each statement. A sample item includes, “I try
to be nice to people and care about their feelings.” Items were rated on a 3-point scale (0 = not
true to 2 = certainly true). An average score was computed.

Procedure
After university ethics approval, extracurricular activity leaders were contacted for consent to
approach adolescents. Once consent was obtained, the researchers went to the activities and
invited adolescents to participate in a study on adolescent relationships. Interested participants
were given two envelopes: one with a parental consent form and the second with an assent form
and questionnaires. Participants were informed that both forms needed signatures for question-
naires to be used and to complete the questionnaires in private. Approximately 1 week later,
researchers returned, collected completed packages, and debriefed participants. Participants were
given C$15 in compensation.

Data Analysis
After missing data and plausible values were assessed, the sample was randomly split in half. For
the first half, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring with promax
rotation (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Norris & Lecavalier, 2010; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013) was
conducted with the 11 items using SPSS 22 software. We decided to conduct an EFA first because
our study was exploratory in nature, and to our knowledge, no studies exist on developing ado-
lescents’ attitudes toward incivility. Therefore, we did not specify the number of factors in our
model. We used a promax rotation as we expected subscales would be oblique. We used multiple
oblique rotations and found that all yielded similar factor solutions and loadings. Item loadings
were assessed to determine which factor each item should be assigned to, and items with poor
loadings were excluded. EFA was then rerun with remaining items to determine whether the
number of factors and loadings changed as a result of the exclusion.
Following the EFA, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 22 soft-
ware on the second half of the randomly split sample. The CFA was conducted to determine
whether our hypothesis that subscales based on intentionality would be supported and to see
whether results similar to the EFA would be found. Therefore, we assigned the items to two fac-
tors based on the item loadings from the EFA. Finally, to assess concurrent validity, composite
scores of the two subscales were created and correlated with antisocial beliefs, friend antisocial-
ity, conduct problems, and prosocial behavior for a subsample of participants who had completed
these four scales.

Results
Preliminary Analyses
Assessment of missing data revealed that three items had one missing case, two items had two
missing cases, four items had three missing cases, and two items had 100 missing cases.
Expectation–Maximization (EM) Estimated Statistics with a criterion of p < .05 revealed that the
data may not be missing completely at random, χ2(127) = 174.10, p = .004, although there were
no age and sex differences. Missing data were likely due to the fact that the two items with the
most number of missing cases were added to the questionnaires at a later point in the data collec-
tion. Missing cases were not replaced to prevent any biases. Pairwise deletions were used for
subsequent analyses, reducing the sample size to 247 for the EFA and 246 for the CFA. All
descriptive values were plausible (see Tables 1 and 2). Six items had univariate outliers outside

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BROCK UNIV on August 15, 2016

582 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 34(6)

Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics, Factor Loadings, Communalities (h2), and Percentage of Variance for
EFA With Promax Rotation on Final Incivility Items.

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 H2 n M (SD)

Posting nasty notes 0.86 –0.21 0.74 247 1.27 (0.75)
Calling classmate names 0.78 0.04 0.60 247 1.28 (0.68)
Fighting with student 0.77 0.02 0.59 247 1.41 (0.84)
Spreading rumors 0.69 –0.02 0.48 199 1.47 (0.86)
Making fun of classmate 0.57 0.22 0.32 247 1.59 (0.87)
Eating during class –0.04 0.77 0.59 247 3.06 (1.17)
Packing up books –0.31 0.72 0.52 247 2.55 (1.28)
Online during a lesson 0.08 0.69 0.48 247 2.38 (1.31)
Sending a text in class 0.04 0.66 0.43 247 1.98 (1.14)
Sleeping in class 0.26 0.56 0.31 246 1.80 (1.04)
  Percentage of variance 42.03 11.41  

Note. Loadings more than 0.45 (20% variance) are bolded to facilitate interpretation. EFA = exploratory factor
analysis; Factor 1 = intentional incivility; Factor 2 = unintentional incivility.

Table 2.  Descriptive Statistics and Standardized Factor Loadings for CFA on Final Incivility Items (N = 246).

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 M (SD)

Posting nasty notes 0.77 1.22 (0.63)
Spreading rumors 0.88 1.30 (0.64)
Calling classmate names 0.75 1.39 (0.74)
Fighting with student 0.80 1.39 (0.83)
Making fun of classmate 0.68 1.60 (0.94)
Packing up books 0.53 3.04 (1.26)
Eating during class 0.70 2.36 (1.22)
Sending a text in class 0.74 2.34 (1.32)
Online during a lesson 0.80 1.89 (1.10)
Sleeping in class 0.76 1.76 (1.08)

Note. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; Factor 1 = intentional incivility; Factor 2 = unintentional incivility.

of the |3.29| cutoff for standardized scores (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013), and there were three
multivariate outliers outside the χ2(10) = 29.59 cutoff. However, outliers were expected as some
items measuring incivility are often considered more antisocial than other items. Therefore, all
outliers were kept in subsequent analyses. Interitem correlations ranged from small to moderate
(.16-.65), reflecting no issues with multicollinearity. All items met the assumptions of multivari-
ate normality and linearity.

EFA
After conducting an EFA with promax rotation on the 11 items, we decided on a two-factor solu-
tion, which accounted for 52.72% of the variance in incivility. We decided on this solution
because two factors had eigenvalues that were greater than 1, and the greatest jump in eigenval-
ues occurred after Factors 2 and 3. After exploring the items and loadings on the pattern matrix
and using a cutoff value of 0.45 (20% variance; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013), the first factor
reflected intentional incivility and consisted of five items. The second factor reflected uninten-
tional incivility and consisted of six items. Both factors had good internal-consistency

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BROCK UNIV on August 15, 2016

Farrell et al. 583

reliabilities (intentional: α = .86, unintentional: α = .84) and a large correlation between the two
factors (r = .59). After exploring the structure matrix, one item representing unintentional incivil-
ity had relatively equal correlations to both factors, despite a higher loading on unintentional. To
maximize the differences of the two factors and maintain consistency in the number of items for
each factor, a second EFA was conducted after removing this item.
The second EFA with 10 items demonstrated a similar factor solution with the greatest jump in
eigenvalue after Factor 2, and therefore, we retained two factors accounting for 53.44% of vari-
ance. After exploring the items and loadings on the pattern matrix, the first factor reflected unin-
tentional incivility, whereas the second factor reflected intentional incivility. Both factors consisted
of the same items as in the first EFA. After removing the one item, the internal-consistency reli-
ability for unintentional incivility was still good (α = .82). There was also still a large correlation
between the two factors (r = .56). See Table 1 for rotated loadings on factors, communalities, and
percentage of variance. Average scores for each factor revealed plausible means and standard
deviations (intentional: M = 1.43, SD = 0.67; unintentional: M = 2.35, SD = 0.91).

CFA
Based on the results of the EFA, we tested how well the items loaded onto a two-factor solution,
where five items loaded on each factor and the two factors were allowed to correlate. The results
indicated a poor model fit when assessing model chi-square, χ2(34) = 64.274, p = .001. However,
a significant model chi-square is often found in larger sample sizes, and therefore, other fit indi-
ces should be explored to determine model fit (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Examining these
additional fit indices using Tabachnick and Fidell’s (2013) criteria indicated good model fit. The
relative chi-square using a cutoff of <0.20 indicated good model fit (χ2/df = 1.890). Using a cutoff
of >0.95, both the goodness of fit index (GFI = 0.952) and the comparative fit index (CFI =
0.975), demonstrated good model fits. Finally, the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) using a cutoff of ≤0.60 indicated good model fit (RMSEA = .06, 90% CI = [0.41,
0.81]). Therefore, our hypothesized two-factor model was supported by our observed data. Both
factors had good internal-consistency reliabilities (intentional: α = .87, unintentional: α = .83),
and there was a high correlation between the two factors (r = .69). All standardized factor load-
ings were larger than 0.53, indicating large loadings (see Table 2). Average scores for each factor
revealed plausible means and standard deviations (intentional: M = 1.40, SD = 0.64; uninten-
tional: M = 2.28, SD = 0.93).
See the appendix for a list of the final items for each subscale. In summary, two factors repre-
senting intentional and unintentional incivility, with five items each, may be the best solution.

Concurrent Validity
Subscales of incivility revealed moderate correlations with measures of antisociality and small cor-
relations with prosocial behavior. For antisocial beliefs, the correlations with unintentional and inten-
tional incivility were .57 and .43 (ps < .001, n = 278), respectively. For friend antisociality, the
correlations with unintentional and intentional incivility were .50 and .49 (ps < .001, n = 191), respec-
tively. For conduct problems, the correlations with unintentional and intentional incivility were .35
and .29 (ps < .001, n = 313), respectively. For prosocial behavior, the correlations with unintentional
and intentional incivility were −.19 (p = .001) and −.22 (p < .001, n = 319), respectively.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to develop a scale to measure adolescents’ attitudes on different
types of classroom incivility. As hypothesized, the EFA and CFA indicated subscales of incivility

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BROCK UNIV on August 15, 2016

584 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 34(6)

based on the function of the behavior (i.e., intentional and unintentional) with similar sizes of
item loadings, means, standard deviations, and correlations between the two subscales. These
results support previous studies that suggested incivility can be conceptualized along a contin-
uum of intentionality (e.g., Hunt & Marini, 2012). Previous research on incivility has conceptual-
ized the behavior in a number of different ways. However, we believe that the intentional facet of
incivility from our scale overlaps with Hunt and Marini’s (2012) proactive facet of their
Multidimensional Model, given that both intentional and proactive behaviors are deliberately
meant to harm others (i.e., spreading rumors about a classmate you dislike). By demonstrating
that our scale measures attitudes on different subtypes of classroom incivility, it may help pro-
vide a better understanding of how this construct can be conceptualized.
Factors did not emerge based on the form of the behavior, suggesting that the items had more
commonalities based on attitudes of intentionality. Perhaps both intentional and unintentional
incivilities may share multiple forms of behavior with the same function (Marini, 2009). For
example, intentional incivility can be both direct (i.e., fighting with a student) and indirect (i.e.,
spreading rumors). In addition, the correlation between the two subtypes was moderate in size,
suggesting that although attitudes on intentional and unintentional subtypes may share an overlap
in incivility, they may still have independent factors, reflecting differences in function of the
behaviors.
Furthermore, based on the item mean ratings for both the EFA and CFA, intentional incivility
was more positively skewed. In other words, adolescents rated the intentional items to be more
uncivil than the unintentional items. This further reflects previous research suggesting that incivil-
ity should be thought of as a continuum ranging from low (i.e., cell phone ringing or packing up
books before class is over) to high intensity (i.e., insults or threats made toward other students;
Marini et al., 2010). Specifically, low intensity uncivil behaviors are considered minor occur-
rences, whereas high intensity behaviors are considered more serious, especially if safety becomes
an issue (Marini, 2009). Although we did not measure frequency, perhaps the acceptability of
minor occurrences may reflect the high frequency of these behaviors found in previous studies
(e.g., Boice, 1996) in comparison with more serious behaviors that may occur less frequently.
Finally, the significant correlations between both subtypes of incivility with antisocial beliefs,
friend antisociality, conduct problems, and prosocial behavior provide evidence for concurrent
validity. As expected, both types of incivility revealed positive moderate correlations with other
antisocial variables and negative small correlations with prosocial behavior. However, it is
important to note that the Cronbach’s alphas for conduct problems and prosocial behavior were
unusually low for the well-established Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, and therefore,
the results should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, these correlations provided evidence
for concurrent validity.

Implications
Theory. The findings have implications for the conceptualization of incivility. Developing a
Classroom Incivility scale to measure the attitudes toward different subtypes of incivility demon-
strates adolescents can think of an uncivil behavior as being both intentional and unintentional.
Previous research has suggested the heterogeneity of uncivil behaviors, ranging from low to high
intensity, active to passive, and part of a Multidimensional In/Civility Identification Model (Hunt
& Marini, 2012). In addition to these dimensions, our scale provides support for a continuum
ranging from unintentional to intentional.
Furthermore, Marini (2007) has suggested a conceptual link between incivility and other anti-
social behaviors. Behaviors exhibited in both classroom incivility and bullying may originate
from similar cognitive and emotional structures including problems forming healthy relation-
ships (Marini, Dane, & Kennedy, 2010; Marini, Polihronis, Dane, & Volk, 2010). This suggests

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BROCK UNIV on August 15, 2016

Farrell et al. 585

attitudes on classroom incivility may be a potential precursor to more serious antisocial behav-
iors, such as bullying, harassment, or aggression (Eggertson, 2011; Lim et al., 2008; Marini,
2007). Therefore, future studies looking at the link between incivility and antisocial behaviors
may want to make distinctions based on intentionality.

Practice.  The findings also have implications for interventions. General interventions may want
to focus on reducing less severe uncivil behaviors earlier in adolescence to prevent more severe
antisocial behaviors later in development (Wilkins et al., 2010). One of the most effective meth-
ods previously found may be fostering a classroom environment that promotes civility (Wilkins
et al., 2010). However, general interventions may treat incivility as a homogeneous behavior.
Considering our results on the subtypes, a general intervention may not be the most effective
method for adolescents. In fact, previous research has found antibullying interventions to be
largely ineffective (e.g., Ttofi & Farrington, 2011), which may in part be due to treating bullying
as a homogeneous behavior (Volk, Camilleri, Dane, & Marini, 2012). If incivility and bullying
are conceptually linked, then interventions may also want to treat incivility as a heterogeneous
behavior.
For more specific strategies, Marini (2009) suggested that types of uncivil classroom behav-
iors may first need to be distinguished. Disruptive behaviors can arise from students who are
unaware of the rules and expected classroom norms (i.e., unintentional incivility) or can arise
from students trying to harm others (i.e., intentional incivility). Because there is a distinction
between the different types of disruptive behavior, interventions can be tailored specifically to
the needs of those students who fall into one of those subtypes.
According to Feldmann (2001), for students who lack the knowledge of appropriate classroom
behavior, teachers can take a proactive approach. For example, at the beginning of a school year,
teachers can outline the expectations with a syllabus that includes course instructions and objec-
tives. Feldmann also suggests that throughout the school year, teachers can foster classroom
civility by maintaining an open dialogue with students. Meanwhile, for students who participate
in uncivil behaviors to harm others, Feldmann suggests that teachers can take an educative
approach. For example, Marini (2009) suggested that after a transgression, teachers could calmly
discuss civility individually with that student and also remind the class about the importance of
harmonious relationships. In addition, teachers can get support from other faculty at the school
in promoting civility. For example, Feldmann suggests if a teacher is having difficulty addressing
a student, they may ask another faculty member for assistance. Thus, all faculty members may
help encourage a positive school climate.
Although school faculty plays an important role in establishing classroom civility, students
may also contribute. Uncivil attitudes and actions can disrupt students’ concentration on school-
work (Hirschy & Braxton, 2004). By encouraging students to take responsibility for their own
learning, they may be more focused on their schoolwork, which could reduce their inclination to
engage in uncivil behaviors (Lewis, 2001). These strategies demonstrate how students and fac-
ulty can work together to maintain classroom civility.

Limitations and Future Directions for Research

There were a few limitations that could be addressed in future research. First, self-report mea-
sures were used to obtain intentional and unintentional incivility, and thus, results are limited to
adolescent perceptions of classroom incivility. However, this is a first step at developing an
Adolescent Classroom Incivility scale. Future studies may want to adapt such items to measure
the observations of peers or teachers as have been done with college students (Royce, 2000).
Items may also be adapted to measure incivility in younger samples in elementary school to
investigate their attitudes on incivility, which may allow for earlier interventions.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BROCK UNIV on August 15, 2016

586 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 34(6)

A second limitation was that we assessed beliefs on incivility as opposed to the frequency of
uncivil behaviors. Thus, we were not able to determine the prevalence of classroom incivility. It
is possible that the factor structure of incivility may be different for behaviors in comparison with
attitudes. However, exploring perceptions of what is considered an uncivil behavior is the first
step in addressing them (Peter, 2011). Future studies may want to incorporate frequency with this
scale to compare factor structures.
A third limitation was that we know the subtypes of incivility, but are not yet sure what they
are related to. Future studies should explore this measure in the context of additional individual
differences and antisocial behaviors. This may help reveal which factors contribute to incivility
or how it may be linked to more serious antisocial behavior. For example, as has already been
done with other antisocial behaviors such as bullying (e.g., Book, Volk, & Hosker, 2012), future
studies may investigate personality traits that may be related to uncivil behaviors.
Seeing as this is the first study on the “Attitude Toward Classroom In/Civility Scale,” there are
several future directions for psychometric evaluation and development. First, several studies can
examine validity. Considering that we found evidence for concurrent validity, future studies may
want to explore predictive validity with other scales of classroom incivility, or additional scales
of antisociality, such as aggression or bullying. In addition, researchers may look at convergent
and discriminant validity by developing observer reports, such as peer or teacher reports. Second,
researchers may want to look at the reliability in other adolescent samples. For instance, research-
ers may want to replicate our exploratory study with the other samples to determine whether
subscales based on intentionality emerge.
In summary, in this study, we developed a Classroom Incivility scale for adolescents and
revealed two subscales: Intentional and Unintentional. This suggests that adolescent incivil-
ity is heterogeneous, and future studies should explore how these subtypes differentially
associate with both individual- and social-level factors, as well as other types of antisocial
behaviors.

Appendix
Attitudes Toward Classroom In/Civility Questionnaire
Final list of items for Incivility scale broken down by unintentional and intentional incivility:
Unintentional incivility
1. Packing books up before a lesson is over
2. Sending text messaging or notes during class
3. Reading, going online, or playing a game during a lesson
4. Eating lunch during class
5. Sleeping in class
Intentional incivility
1. Making fun of a classmate who answered a question wrong
2. Posting nasty notes on bulletin boards about a classmate
3. Calling a classmate names because they did not agree with your opinion
4. Spreading rumors about or try to exclude a classmate you dislike
5. Fighting with another student in class (physical or verbal)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BROCK UNIV on August 15, 2016

Farrell et al. 587

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Al Kandari, N. (2011). The level of student incivility: The need of a policy to regulate college student inci-
vility. College Student Journal, 45, 257-268.
Andersson, L., & Pearson, C. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiralling effect of incivility in the workplace.
Academy of Management Review, 24, 452-471.
Bjorklund, W., & Rehling, D. L. (2009). Student perceptions of classroom incivility. College Teaching,
58, 15-18.
Boice, R. (1996). Classroom incivilities. Research in Higher Education, 37, 453-485.
Book, A., Volk, A. A., & Hosker, A. (2012). Adolescent bullying and personality: An adaptive approach.
Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 218-223.
Caboni, T. C., Hirschy, A. S., & Best, J. R. (2004). Student norms of classroom decorum. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 99, 59-66.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommenda-
tions for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7).
Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf
Eggertson, L. (2011). Targeted: The impact of bullying and what needs to be done to eliminate it. Canadian
Nurse, 107, 16-20.
Feldmann, L. J. (2001). Classroom civility is another of our instructor responsibilities. College Teaching,
49, 137-140.
Goodman, R., Meltzer, H., & Bailey, V. (1998). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A pilot study
on the validity of the self-report version. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 7, 125-130.
Hirschy, A. S., & Braxton, J. M. (2004). Effects of student classroom incivilities on students. New Directions
for Teaching & Learning, 99, 67-76.
Hunt, C., & Marini, Z. A. (2012). Incivility in the practice environment: A practice from clinical nursing
teachers. Nurse Education in Practice, 12, 366-370.
Jessor, R., Van Den Bos, J., Vanderryn, J., Costa, F. M., & Turbin, M. S. (1995). Protective factors in adolescent
problem behavior: Moderator effects and developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 31, 923-933.
Lewis, R. (2001). Classroom discipline and student responsibility: The students’ view. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 17, 307-319.
Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and
health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95-107.
Marini, Z. A. (2007). The Academic In/Civility Questionnaire (AI/CQ-V.1): Assessing intentional and
unintentional in/civility (Unpublished manuscript). Department of Child and Youth Studies, Brock
University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.
Marini, Z. A. (2009). The thin line between civility and incivility: Fostering reflection and self-awareness to
create a civil learning community. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 2, 61-67.
Marini, Z. A., Dane, A., & Kennedy, R. (2010). Multiple pathways to bullying: Tailoring educational
practices to variations in students’ temperament and brain function. In M. Ferrari & L. Vuletic (Eds.),
Developmental interplay of mind, brain, and education: Essays in honour of Robbie Case (pp. 257-291).
New York, NY: Springer.
Marini, Z. A., Polihronis, C., & Blackwell, W. (2010). Academic in/civility: Co-constructing the foundation
for a civil learning community. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 3, 89-93.
Marini, Z. A., Polihronis, C., Dane, A., & Volk, A. (2010, June). Towards the development of a civil
learning community: Differentiating between intentional and unintentional in/civility. Poster ses-
sion presented at the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (STLHE) 30th Annual
Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mazerolle, P., & Maahs, J. (2000). General strain and delinquency: An alternative examination of condi-
tioning influences. Justice Quarterly, 17, 753-778.
Nordstrom, C. R., Bartels, L. K., & Bucy, J. (2009). Predicting and curbing classroom incivility in higher
education. College Student Journal, 43, 74-85.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BROCK UNIV on August 15, 2016

588 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 34(6)

Norris, M., & Lecavalier, L. (2010). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in developmental
disability psychological research. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 8-20.
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.
Peter, E. (2011). Fostering social justice: The possibilities of a socially connected model of moral agency.
Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 43, 11-17.
Royce, A. P. (2000). A survey on academic incivility at Indiana University: Preliminary report. Bloomington:
Center for Survey Research, Indiana University.
Schaefer, L. (1995). Reinventing civility. NAMTA Journal, 20, 138-147.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A
systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27-56.
Volk, A. A., Camilleri, J. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2012). Is adolescent bullying an evolutionary
adaptation? Aggressive Behavior, 38, 222-238.
Wilkins, K., Caldarella, P., Crook-Lyon, R., & Young, K. R. (2010). Implications of civility for children
and adolescents: A review of the literature. Issues in Religion and Psychotherapy, 33, 37-45.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at BROCK UNIV on August 15, 2016

View publication stats