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

net/publication/267753624

Ethnicity and Cultural Values as Predictors of the Occurrence and Impact of

Experienced Workplace Incivility

Article in Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · November 2014

DOI: 10.1037/a0038277 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
71 2,834

3 authors:

Jennifer L. Welbourne Ashwini Gangadharan

University of Texas - Pan American Kutztown University
29 PUBLICATIONS 957 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 165 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ana Marcie Sariol

University of South Dakota
12 PUBLICATIONS 312 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jennifer L. Welbourne on 02 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Occupational Health Psychology © 2014 American Psychological Association
2015, Vol. 20, No. 2, 205–217 1076-8998/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038277

Ethnicity and Cultural Values as Predictors of the Occurrence and Impact

of Experienced Workplace Incivility
Jennifer L. Welbourne, Ashwini Gangadharan, and Ana M. Sariol
University of Texas–Pan American

Workplace incivility is a subtle type of deviant work behavior that is low in intensity and violates workplace
norms of respect. Past research demonstrates the harmful impact of incivility on work attitudes and employee
wellbeing; however, little is known about how incivility is experienced by individuals of different ethnicities
and cultural orientations. In the current study, we compared the amount and impact of workplace incivility that
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

was experienced by Hispanic and white, non-Hispanic employees. Further, we examined whether cultural
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

dimensions of vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism moderated the relationships between
workplace incivility and work and health outcomes. A sample of 262 university employees (50% Hispanic;
63% female) provided self-reports of experienced incivility, burnout, job satisfaction, and cultural values.
Although male Hispanic employees experienced more incivility, female Hispanic employees experienced less
incivility than non-Hispanic employees of the same gender. Hispanic employees displayed greater resilience
against the impact of incivility on job satisfaction and burnout, compared with non-Hispanic employees.
Additionally, employees with strong horizontal collectivism values (emphasizing sociability) were more
resilient against the impact of incivility on burnout, whereas employees with strong horizontal individualism
values (emphasizing self-reliance) were more susceptible to burnout and dissatisfaction when faced with
incivility. These findings suggest that employees’ ethnicity and cultural values may increase or decrease their
vulnerability to the impact of incivility at work.

Keywords: collectivism, culture, individualism, workplace incivility

Scholars have recently identified the importance of investigating
subtle forms of deviant behaviors in the workplace (Cortina, 2008).
Workplace incivility, described as “low-intensity deviant behavior
with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace
norms for mutual respect” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 457),
includes behaviors such as excluding a colleague from an important
meeting, speaking condescendingly to someone, or addressing some-
one unprofessionally. Despite its subtle nature, the negative conse-
quences of incivility on employees’ job attitudes (Cortina, Magley,
Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008) and
mental and physical health (Lim et al., 2008) have been established.
These impacts can be understood through a stressor-strain framework
in which incivility is conceptualized as a chronic, low-intensity stres-
sor (e.g., Cortina et al., 2001; Cortina, 2008).
Despite well-documented impacts of incivility on work attitudes
and behaviors, there is a paucity of research exploring how em-
ployees of different ethnicities, with unique cultural values, en-
This article was published Online First November 3, 2014.
Jennifer L. Welbourne, Ashwini Gangadharan, and Ana M. Sariol,
Department of Management, University of Texas–Pan American.
Ashwini Gangadharan is now affiliated with the Department of Business
Administration, Kutztown University.
We thank Paul Sale for providing support for our data collection process
and Celina Esparza for her assistance in survey administration.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jennifer
L. Welbourne, Department of Management, 1201 West University Drive,
University of Texas–Pan American, Edinburg, TX 78539. E-mail:
welbournjl@utpa.edu
counter and respond to incivility at work. We suggest that exam-
ining incivility through a wider ethnic and cultural lens will inform
research and practice. First, because cultural values play a key role
in shaping our perceptions (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis,
1995), they may influence how incivility is perceived. Because
uncivil behaviors are subtle and of ambiguous intent, targets’
perceptions affect how incivility is interpreted (Pearson & Porath,
2005, p. 9). Second, as highlighted in Selective Incivility Theory
(Cortina, 2008; Cortina, Kabat-Farr, Leskinen, Huerta, & Magley,
2013), members of ethnic minorities may be especially likely to
encounter incivility, due to thinly veiled prejudiced attitudes in the
workplace. Finally, both ethnicity and cultural values have been
linked to how people cope with and respond to stressors (Chun,
Moos, & Cronkite, 2009; Montoro-Rodriguez & Gallagher-
Thompson, 2010); thus, incivility as a stressor may differentially
impact employees with different cultural backgrounds.
In particular, we propose that greater understanding of how
Hispanic and white, non-Hispanic employees differ in their expe-
riences and response to workplace incivility will broaden theoret-
ical knowledge of incivility and its practical implications. Individ-
uals of Hispanic origin, defined as those who indicate their origin
as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American1
1
Although each of these Hispanic subcultures has its own unique
characteristics (Marin & Marin, 1991; Romero, 2004), they also share
some core cultural values and experiences (Gallo et al., 2009; Hofstede,
1980; Sabogal et al., 1987; Stone-Romero, Stone, & Salas, 2003), suggest-
ing that the variability within this category does not negate the value of
identifying and studying broader characteristics of Hispanic culture (Ro-
mero, 2004).

205
 206 WELBOURNE, GANGADHARAN, AND SARIOL
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2010), are expected to comprise one of every
three U.S. residents by 2060 (www.census.gov). Drawing from
Selective Incivility Theory (Cortina, 2008; Cortina et al., 2013),
Hispanics, as a growing ethnic minority within the United States
may be expected to encounter higher levels of workplace incivility
than white, non-Hispanic employees.
Additionally, we suggest that distinctions in cultural values
between Hispanic and white, non-Hispanic employees may con-
tribute to differential resilience to incivility. Certain shared values
have been found to emerge among individuals who have been
socialized as Hispanic2 (e.g., Gallo, Penedo, Espinosa, de los
Monteros, & Arguellos, 2009; Hofstede, 1980; Sabogal et al.,
1987; Stone-Romero, Stone, & Salas, 2003). In particular, two
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
cultural values recognized to contribute to resilience, specifically,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
values stressing interpersonal functioning (Plant & Sachs-
Ericsson, 2004) and family (Menselson et al., 2008; Organista,
Organista, & Kurasaki, 2003), are emphasized within Hispanic
culture (Cuéllar, Arnold, & Gonzalez, 1995; Gallo et al., 2009),
potentially providing a source of resilience to incivility at work. In
contrast, white, non-Hispanic employees are more likely to focus
on independence of the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), rather
than on connections to others; we suggest that this may reduce their
resources (e.g., social support) for effectively managing interpersonal
stressors (see Chun et al., 2009), thereby lessening their resilience
to the impacts of incivility.
To address these issues, we explored the roles of ethnicity and
cultural values in relation experienced workplace incivility. The
goals of this research were to examine whether Hispanic and white
non-Hispanic employees differ in the amount of incivility that they
experience at work and their resilience to the impact of incivility
on job dissatisfaction and burnout, and whether cultural values
moderate the relationship between incivility, job satisfaction, and
burnout. In the following sections we review the theoretical back-
ground and basis for our hypotheses.
Workplace Incivility and Cultural Influences
Workplace incivility is characterized by its violation of norms of
respect and courtesy, low intensity, and ambiguous intent (Ander-
sson & Pearson, 1999; Pearson et al., 2000, 2001). Between 70%
to 96% of employees from various industries report experiencing
incivility in recent years (Cortina et al., 2001; Cortina & Magley,
2009; Pearson & Porath, 2009).
Targets of workplace incivility frequently report lowered job
satisfaction (Cortina et al., 2001; Lim et al., 2008; Penney &
Spector, 2005; Miner-Rubino & Reed, 2010) and greater intentions
to quit (Cortina et al., 2001; Lim et al., 2008; Miner-Rubino &
Reed, 2010; Pearson et al., 2000, 2001). Additionally, incivility
has been linked to poorer psychological health (Cortina et al.,
2001; Lim et al., 2008) and burnout (Miner-Rubino & Reed,
2010), and indirectly to physical health through the psychological
distress it causes (Lim et al., 2008).
Studies examining workplace incivility have tended to focus on
the experiences of White, non-Hispanic employees from predom-
inately individualistic cultures. However, two recent studies ex-
plore this phenomenon through a broader cultural scope. Liu, Chi,
Friedman, and Tsai (2009) examined the relationship between
cultural values and instigation of incivility among employees from
collectivistic (Taiwan) and individualistic (United States) cultures,
finding that collectivistic cultural values were associated with
reduced initiation of incivility. Lim and Lee (2011), however,
found that more than 90% of a sample of Singaporean workers
experienced incivility, which affected their work–life conflict,
psychological distress, and satisfaction with supervisors and co-
workers, suggesting that incivility is not only an individualistic
phenomenon.
Although these initial studies yield promising insights into the
experience of workplace incivility across cultures, we note several
issues that warrant future investigation. First, we suggest that there
is a need for research to more directly compare the prevalence and
impact of incivility across cultures or ethnic groups. Additionally,
while Liu et al. (2009) examine how individualistic and collectiv-
istic values relate to instigation of incivility, the relevance of these
values for employees who are targets of uncivil behavior warrants
further attention. Finally, as both studies focused on Asian em-
ployees, there is a need for greater understanding of how incivility
is experienced by members of other ethnic groups, such as His-
panic employees.
In the following sections, we examine how ethnicity and cultural
dimensions of individualism– collectivism may relate to the prev-
alence and impact of experienced incivility at work. We first use
Selective Incivility Theory (Cortina, 2008; Cortina et al., 2013) as
a framework for proposing differences in the prevalence of inci-
vility between Hispanic and non-Hispanic employees. Second, we
draw on resilience theory (Richardson, 2002) and research on
protective cultural factors (Mendelsohn et al.; Plant & Sachs-
Ericsson, 2004; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2011) to suggest that the
impact of incivility on job satisfaction and burnout is weakened for
Hispanic employees and strengthened for white, non-Hispanic
employees. Finally, we discuss the broader cultural dimension of
individualism– collectivism (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1995) as a
potential moderator of the relationships between incivility and job
satisfaction and burnout.
Prevalence of Incivility Among Hispanic
and White Non-Hispanic Employees
According to Selective Incivility Theory (Cortina, 2008; Cortina
et al., 2013), incivility, particularly that which is subtle and am-
biguous, may selectively target ethnic minorities (as well as wom-
en); thus, incivility aimed at these groups can be viewed as a form
of modern discrimination reflecting subtle prejudices. Cortina
(2008; Cortina et al., 2013) suggests that in today’s workplace,
which prohibits more blatant forms of racism and sexism, the
ambiguity of uncivil behaviors allows instigators to express subtle
prejudices in ways that escape detection, because of the ease with
which uncivil behaviors can be attributed to factors other than
gender or race. Cortina (2008; Cortina et al, 2013) further proposes
that when ethnicity and gender intersect (e.g., an employee is both
female and a member of an ethnic minority), a type of “double
jeopardy” (Beal, 1970; Epstein, 1973) occurs, such that the em-
ployee will be at heightened risk for experiencing incivility.
2
Stone-Romero et al. (2003) assert that Hispanics within the United
States frequently retain these traditional cultural values, such as collectiv-
ism, emphasis on family, and motivation to maintain positive interpersonal
relationships (Hofstede, 1980), rather than fully assimilating to the pre-
dominant culture within the United States.
 CULTURE AND WORKPLACE INCIVILITY
Although support for Selective Incivility Theory has been found
among samples of female employees (Cortina et al., 2001; Cortina
et al., 2002; Cortina et al., 2013) and African American employees
(Cortina et al., 2013), the question of whether Hispanic employees,
and in particular, Hispanic women, experience higher levels of
incivility than non-Hispanic employees has yet to be examined.
However, studies have demonstrated that Hispanic employees
experience other differential treatment in comparison to white,
non-Hispanic employees in the workplace (e.g., Cianni & Rom-
berger, 1995; Dreher & Cox, 1996). Further, because we concep-
tualize incivility as a stressor, we note that the broader stress
literature finds that members of ethnic minorities are likely to
experience heightened levels of stressors (Farley, Galves, Dickin-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
son, & Perez, 2005; Rodriguez-Calcagno & Brewer, 2005), in part
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
due to heightened discrimination faced by these groups (Clark,
Anderson, Clark, & Williams, 1999; James, 1994). Based on the
previous theory and research, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 1: Hispanic Employees will report higher levels of
experienced incivility than non-Hispanic employees.
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between ethnicity and experi-
enced incivility will be moderated by gender, such that His-
panic women will report the highest levels of incivility.
Cultural Resilience and Incivility
We draw from the resilience literature to explain how ethnicity
and cultural values might affect how individuals cope with inci-
vility and its negative impacts. Resilience can be understood as a
positive adaptation to stress (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Tugade &
Fredrickson, 2004; Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013; Richardson, 2002).
Richardson (2002) suggests that individuals may develop protec-
tive factors from social, ecological, and spiritual sources, which
enable them to overcome stressors. Culture can be a source of
resilience that protects individuals against the negative impacts of
stressors. In particular, scholars suggest that the values or coping
styles associated with certain cultures may provide a protective
influence with regard to the health impacts of stressors (Case &
Robinson, 2003; Garcia Coll, Akerman, & Cicchetti, 2000;
Menselson et al., 2008; Palloni & Morenoff, 2001; Umaña-Taylor
et al., 2011) and have called for additional research on the adaptive
aspects of culture under conditions of stress or risk (Garcia Coll et
al., 2000). In particular, cultural emphases on sociability and
family may contribute to resilience in overcoming stressors. Re-
searchers have posited that cultures that emphasize strong inter-
personal functioning have increased resilience against the mental
health impacts of stressors (Menselson et al., 2008; Plant & Sachs-
Ericsson, 2004). Similarly, cultural values that promote attachment
and loyalty to family can provide increased social support to buffer
against the impact of stressors on mental health (Gil-Rivas et al.,
2003; Menselson et al., 2008; Organista et al., 2003).
Although these constructs are not specific to (or characteristic of
all) individuals of Hispanic ethnicity, research suggests that values
focusing on sociability and family tend to be emphasized within
Hispanic culture. For instance, the importance of sociability is
highlighted in the Hispanic values of personalismo (Cuéllar, Ar-
nold, & Maldonado, 1995) and simpatía (Gallo et al., 2009);
personalismo reflects a drive to relate to others in a warm, personal
way (Cuéllar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995), whereas simpatía
207
encompasses a motivation to maintain pleasant, conflict-free as-
sociations with others (Gallo et al., 2009). Familism, a value
promoting attachment and loyalty to family (Schwartz, 2007), is
also identified as a core value within Hispanic culture, that is fairly
robust across different Hispanic subcultures, generations, and lev-
els of acculturation.
In contrast, white, non-Hispanic cultural values tend to highlight
independence from others, rather than connection with others
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991); thus, there is less emphasis on the
importance of interpersonal functioning (Plant & Sachs-Ericsson,
2004) and family (Sabogal et al., 1987). As a result, white, non-
Hispanic employees may be less likely to experience the resilience
that has been associated with these qualities. Additionally, a cul-
tural emphasis on independence from others may be isolating
(Singelis et al., 1995) and result in less social support (Chun et al.,
2009), potentially decreasing resilience to stressors, such as inci-
vility.
Although growing research supports that aspects of culture may
provide resilience against the impact of stressors, there has been
little investigation of these culturally specific protective mecha-
nisms within the domain of occupational stress. Here we examine
them in relation to workplace incivility, which has been concep-
tualized as a low-grade occupational stressor (Cortina, 2008; Cor-
tina & Magley, 2009; Cortina et al., 2001). Because the cultural
values held by Hispanic individuals are expected to provide more
resilience against stressors than those held by white, non-Hispanic
individuals, we propose that incivility will be less strongly related
to burnout and low job satisfaction for Hispanic employees than
for white non-Hispanic employees.
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between workplace incivility
and (a) burnout and (b) job satisfaction is moderated by
ethnicity, such that the relationship between these variables is
weaker among Hispanic than white non-Hispanic employees.
Individualism–Collectivism and Experienced Incivility
The aspects of culture (interpersonal functioning, focus on fam-
ily) identified as contributing to resilience in face of stressors are
ones that are generally valued in collectivistic and de-emphasized
in individualistic cultural traditions (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
The individualism– collectivism dimension represents one of the
most fundamental distinctions made between cultures. Collectiv-
ists tend to have interdependent self-construals; they view them-
selves in terms of relationships with others, and are influenced by
social norms and a desire for group harmony (Hofstede, 1980;
Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis, 1995). Both family integrity (e.g.,
agreement with statements such as children should live at home
with their parents until they get married) and sociability are
encompassed within collectivistic values (Triandis et al., 1986;
Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao, & Sinha, 1995). In contrast, indi-
vidualists tend to have independent self-construals; they view
themselves as unique and autonomous from others, and are influ-
enced by personal goals and preferences (Hofstede, 1980; Singelis
et al., 1995; Triandis, 1995). Individualistic values center on
competition, self-reliance, and distance from one’s in-groups (Sin-
gelis et al., 1995).
The United States and Western European countries are typically
characterized as individualistic cultures (Hofstede, 1980), whereas
 208 WELBOURNE, GANGADHARAN, AND SARIOL
Asian, Latin American, and African cultures tend to demonstrate higher
levels of collectivism (Hofstede, 1980). Although there are cross-
cultural differences in individualism and collectivism, these values
also show considerable variation within any given culture (Trian-
dis, 1994). For example, although Hispanic cultures in general are
based in stronger collectivistic roots than Anglo-American cultures
(Gomez, 2003; Marin & Triandis, 1985), there is still a great deal
of variability in the degree to which individuals within each culture
endorse collectivistic and individualistic values. The recognition
that these values coexist in every culture and that individuals
within a particular culture can be arrayed along these cultural
dimensions (Triandis et al., 1998) leads us to suggest that (regard-
less of ethnicity) the degree to which individuals adhere to collec-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tivistic and individualistic cultural values will influence their re-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
silience to experienced incivility at work.
Vertical and Horizontal Dimensions of
Individualism–Collectivism
Scholars have proposed that different varieties of collectivism
and individualism may exist, and therefore, a simple dichotomy is
not capable of fully capturing the complexity of these values
(Shavitt, Lalwani, Zhang, & Torelli, 2006; Singelis et al., 1995;
Triandis, 1995; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Accordingly, Triandis
(1995) distinguished between vertical and horizontal varieties of
individualism and collectivism, creating a four-category typology
that includes vertical individualism (VI), horizontal individualism
(HI), vertical collectivism (VC), and horizontal collectivism (HC).
Although both types of individualism focus on independence of
the self from others, VI emphasizes status and competition to
distinguish oneself from others, whereas HI emphasizes autonomy
through unique characteristics and self-reliance. Similarly, al-
though both types of collectivism are characterized by interdepen-
dence with others, vertical collectivists embrace status differences
within their in-groups, with value placed on self-sacrifice and
compliance to one’s in-group, whereas horizontal collectivists
emphasize sociability in an “equal status” framework.
There is growing consensus with regard to the value of applying
this more fine-tuned framework of horizontal-vertical dimensions
of individualism– collectivism to understand cultural influences on
behavior and perception (see Nelson & Shavitt, 2002; Sivadas,
Bruvold, & Nelson, 2008; Singelis et al., 1995; Shavitt et al.,
2006). Singelis et al. (1995) suggest that vertical-horizontal dis-
tinctions may be especially significant for understanding how
people respond to and manage interpersonal conflicts. Accord-
ingly, we propose that use of this distinction may be particularly
relevant to understanding the way that targets manage and respond
to workplace incivility. In the following section, we develop
specific hypotheses regarding the degree to which horizontal and
vertical dimensions of individualism– collectivism provide a
source of resilience in overcoming incivility.
Vertical–Horizontal Dimensions of Collectivism
and Resilience to Incivility
HC has been characterized by an emphasis on sociability, co-
operation, and maintaining caring relationships (Shavitt et al.,
2006). This parallels cultural emphases on interpersonal relation-
ships that have been purported to contribute to resilience in the
face of stressors (Menselson et al., 2008; Plant & Sachs-Ericsson,
2004). Additionally, Triandis and Gelfand (1998) suggest that HC
values, because of their emphasis on developing caring bonds with
others, may be associated with receiving greater social support.
Social support has been demonstrated as an effective buffer against
a wide range of stressors (Cortina, 2004; Van Emmerik, 2002);
further, both emotional and organizational social support have
been linked to improved functioning in the face of workplace
incivility (Miner, Settles, Pratt-Hyatt, & Brady, 2012). Therefore,
we suggest that employees with strong HC values may demon-
strate greater resilience against the impact of incivility on burnout
and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4: The relationship between workplace incivility
and (a) burnout and (b) job satisfaction will be moderated by
levels of HC, such that the relationship between these vari-
ables will be weaker for employees who endorse high levels of
HC values.
Whereas HC emphasizes sociability and interdependence, VC
emphasizes conformity and deference to one’s ingroup (Singelis et
al., 1995; Shavitt et al., 2006). Both theoretically and empirically,
VC has been linked to familism. Conceptually, both VC and
familism share an emphasis on the prioritization of family over self
(Schwartz, 2007). VC correlates with familism scores (Schwartz,
2007) and is often operationalized through items which measure
sacrifice to family (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998; Singelis et al.,
1995). As previously discussed, strong family bonds can be a
source of resilience against stressors (Gil-Rivas et al., 2003; Hol-
leran & Waller, 2003; Menselson et al., 2008; Organista et al.,
2003; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2011). Further, VC values are based in
an acceptance of inequalities and expectations that one should
sacrifice personal goals for the good of one’s group (Singelis et al.,
1995). Employees who hold this combination of beliefs may be
more likely to tolerate or accept uncivil behavior from workgroup
members for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of their
group. Therefore, we predict that VC values will weaken the
impact of incivility on burnout and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 5: The relationship between workplace incivility
and (a) burnout and (b) job satisfaction will be moderated by
levels of VC, such that the relationship between these vari-
ables will be weaker for employees who endorse high levels of
VC values.
Vertical–Horizontal Dimensions of Individualism
and Resilience to Incivility
Whereas collectivistic cultural values are linked to interdepen-
dence, individualistic cultural values are associated with indepen-
dence (Hofstede, 1980; Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis, 1995).
Because individualism focuses on autonomy, this cultural value
may be associated with a lack of social resources in times of stress
(Chun et al., 2009). In particular, Singelis and colleagues (1995)
suggest that HI’s emphasis on self-reliance and “doing one’s own
thing” may carry a risk of social isolation. We propose that this
may exacerbate the impact of interpersonal stressors, such as
workplace incivility, such that individuals with HI values may
have fewer social resources to turn to for support when facing
these challenges. Further, we suggest that the alienation associated
 CULTURE AND WORKPLACE INCIVILITY
with incivility (e.g., Vickers, 2006) may be compounded for em-
ployees who are already experiencing greater social isolation,
because of their HI cultural values. Based on these arguments, we
propose that strong HI values will strengthen the negative impact
of incivility on burnout and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 6: The relationship between workplace incivility
and (a) burnout and (b) job satisfaction will be moderated by
levels of HI, such that the relationship between these variables
will be stronger for employees who endorse high levels of HI
values.
Although VI shares with HI an emphasis on independence, it
focuses primarily on competitive values and has not been explic-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
itly linked to values of self-reliance that might be associated with
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
social isolation. Further, although it shares with VC an emphasis
on acceptance of inequalities, VI does not encompass values of
family integrity proposed to provide protective influences of VC.
Therefore, we do not expect this dimension of individualism to
either strengthen or weaken the relationship of incivility with job
satisfaction and burnout. Although we do not make specific pre-
dictions for VI, we will test its moderating role in an exploratory
way.
Method
Participants
Data were collected from faculty and staff at a public university
located in the southern United States near the border of Mexico. A
total of 266 faculty and staff completed an anonymous online
survey. Four respondents with missing data on primary outcome
measures were removed from the sample and excluded from data
analysis. Our final sample included 262 employees (63% female)
comprising 42% faculty/instructors, 24% executive staff, 28%
technical, clerical, and service staff, and 6% who indicated other
types of university positions. The average age of the participants
was 44.9 years (SD ⫽ 11.8), and the average tenure of the
participants in their current position was 8.4 years (SD ⫽ 8.5).
Our sample of faculty and staff respondents comprised 132
Hispanic employees (50%), 108 white non-Hispanic employees
(41%), 13 Asian employees (5%), and 3 Black/African American
employees (1%). This varied across job type, such that the major-
ity of faculty in our sample were white, non-Hispanic (65%),
whereas the majority of staff in our sample were Hispanic (70%).
More specifically, faculty respondents were composed of 65%
white, non-Hispanic, 25% Hispanic, 9% Asian, and 1% Black/
African American employees, and staff respondents were com-
posed of 27% white, non-Hispanic, 70% Hispanic, 1.5% Asian,
and 1.5% Black/African American employees. This sample is
generally consistent with the demographics of the university at
which we collected our data: the faculty is made up of 46% white,
non-Hispanic, 35% Hispanic, 9% Asian, and 2% Black/African
American employees, and the university staff is composed of 13%
white non-Hispanic, 83% Hispanic, 2% Asian, and 1% Black/
African American employees. We note that the ethnic/racial di-
versity in our sample, as well as within the university as a whole,
is greater than that found in the broader community. The popula-
tion of the county in which this university is located is 90.7%
209
Hispanic, 7.5% white non-Hispanic, 1.1% Asian, .8% Black/Afri-
can American, .5% American Indian or Alaskan Native, and .4%
indicating two or more races (quickfacts.census.gov). Data that we
collected to assess the acculturation of Hispanic respondents3
indicated that 26% of the Hispanic respondents in our sample were
strongly assimilated to the United States culture (based on their
classification on the Brief Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican
Americans (ARSMA)-II (Bauman, 2005), whereas 72% were clas-
sified as “bicultural” or holding aspects of both cultures.
Procedure
Participants were invited to participate in this research via
e-mails sent to faculty and staff university listservs. Employees
received an initial e-mail requesting their participation in an anon-
ymous survey on workplace attitudes and behaviors; the e-mail
informed them that they would receive a link to the survey in the
upcoming weeks. Two weeks later, they received another e-mail
which contained the link to the survey with instructions for com-
pletion. Two weeks later, a reminder e-mail was sent containing
the link to the survey. The survey assessed participants’ responses
on workplace incivility, burnout, and job satisfaction, as well as
vertical and horizontal dimensions of individualism and collectiv-
ism.
Measures
Workplace incivility. Workplace incivility was measured
with the 7-item Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS) (Cortina et al.,
2001). Cronbach’s alpha in the current sample indicated a reliabil-
ity of 0.94. Sample items include Have you been in a situation
where any of your superiors or coworkers ignored or excluded you
from professional camaraderie? and Have you ever been in a
situation where any of your superiors or coworkers paid little
attention to your statement or showed little interest in your opin-
ion? Participants were asked to think about the last 6 months at
their job when responding to these items, and to indicate the
frequency of these events using a 7 point scale ranging from never
to very frequently.
Job satisfaction. We assessed Job satisfaction using a 6-item
version of the Brayfield and Rothe (1951) overall job satisfaction
measure. The measure contains six items, with response options on
a 7-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Cronbach’s alpha for the sample was 0.90. Sample items include I
feel fairly well satisfied with my present job and Most days I am
enthusiastic about my work.
Burnout. We assessed burnout using a 21-item burnout scale
developed by Pines and Aronson (1988) to measure elements of
physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion at work. The Cron-
bach’s alpha for burnout was 0.97. Participants indicated the
frequency (on a 7-point scale ranging from never to always) with
which they experienced feelings such as rejected, and trapped.
Responses were collected with 7-point Likert scales, ranging from
never to always.
Individualism/Collectivism. We assessed cultural values of
individualism and collectivism using the 16-item scale developed
3
Because the items of Brief ARSMA-II are specifically designed to
assess acculturation among Mexican American individuals, it was admin-
istered only to participants who indicated Hispanic ethnicity.
 210 WELBOURNE, GANGADHARAN, AND SARIOL
by Triandis and Gelfand (1998). Consistent with Triandis and
Gelfand (1998), horizontal and vertical dimensions of individual
and collectivism were assessed. HC (4 items; ␣ ⫽ .70) included
statements such as To me, pleasure is spending time with others
and I feel good when I cooperate with others. VC (4 items; ␣ ⫽
.78) contained items such as Family members should stick to-
gether, no matter what sacrifices are required and It is my duty to
take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want.
For HI (4 items; ␣ ⫽ .82), sample items included I rely on myself
most of the time; I rarely rely on others and I’d rather depend on
myself than others. Finally, VI (4 items; ␣ ⫽ .67) included state-
ments such as Competition is the law of nature and It is important
that I do my job better than others. All items were rated on 7-point
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Demographic variables. Participants reported their gender,
age, and ethnicity. They were also asked to indicate the type of job
they held (selecting from categories of professor, associate profes-
sor, assistant professor, lecturer/instructor, executive/administra-
tive staff, technical staff, clerical/secretarial staff, service/mainte-
nance staff, or other) and the length of time they had been
employed in that position.
Acculturation. Participants who self-identified as Hispanic
were additionally asked to complete the Brief ARSMA-II (Bau-
man, 2005), a measure of acculturation that has been shown to
demonstrate adequate reliability and validity (Bauman, 2005). This
scale is a shortened version of the ARSMA-II (Cuéllar, Arnold, &
Maldonado, 1995), which was a refinement of the ARSMA (Cuel-
lar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980); both of these scales are among the most
frequently used measures to assess acculturation among Hispanic
populations in the United States (Thomson & Hoffman-Goetz,
2009). The Brief ARSMA-II is aimed at assessing acculturation of
Mexican American persons (although it also has some applicabil-
ity for other Hispanic groups; Cuéllar, Arnold, & Maldonado,
1995); therefore, it was a good fit for measuring acculturation of
Hispanic participants in our region at the border of Mexico. The
Brief ARSMA-II contains two subscales to assess Mexican Ori-
entation (6 items) and Anglo Orientation (6 items) of respondents
as orthogonal constructs. Items are measured on a 5-point scale
(not at all to extremely often/nearly always) with a focus on
language use and preferences (e.g., I speak English; I enjoy speak-
ing Spanish), media preferences (e.g., I enjoy English language
movies; I enjoy reading in Spanish), and social interaction (e.g.,
My friends are Anglo). Subscale scores are combined to compute
an overall acculturation score, which is classified at 5 levels
ranging from highly assimilated to maintaining traditional cultural
values from one’s country of origin.
Results
Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and reliability co-
efficients for all variables were computed (see Table 1). Composite
scores were created for all variables containing multiple items. The
Cronbach’s alpha for the VI scale (␣ ⫽ .67) was slightly lower
than accepted standards. All other scales demonstrated acceptable
reliability. We conducted Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) and
moderated hierarchical regression analyses to test our hypotheses.
Because our first set of research questions (H1–H3) focused spe-
cifically on comparison of Hispanic and white, non-Hispanic em-
ployees, participants who self-identified as a member of another
ethnic group (n ⫽ 16) or chose not to report their ethnicity (n ⫽ 6)
were excluded from those analyses. For all other analyses that we
report, the full data set was used.
Ethnicity and Amount of Experienced Incivility
We predicted that Hispanic employees would experience greater
levels of incivility than white Non-Hispanic employees (H1), and
that this effect would be moderated by gender such that female
Hispanic employees would experience the highest level of incivil-
ity (H2). We tested these hypotheses by conducting an Analysis of
Covariance (ANCOVA) in which we controlled for job type. Job
type was controlled for in the analysis,4 because it was associated
with the amount of incivility that employees experienced (F ⫽
4.29, p ⬍ .05). The ANCOVA indicated no main effects of gender
[Females: M ⫽ 2.3; Males: M ⫽ 2.5; F(1, 227) ⫽ 2.49, ns] or
ethnicity [Non-Hispanics: M ⫽ 2.3; Hispanics: M ⫽ 2.4; F(1,
227) ⫽ 1.79, ns] on the amount of incivility experienced by
employees. A statistically significant interaction, F(1, 227) ⫽
10.04, p ⫽ .01, between gender and ethnicity on incivility indi-
cated that among males, Hispanic employees (M ⫽ 2.6) experi-
enced more incivility than non-Hispanic employees (M ⫽ 2.0),
F(1, 83) ⫽ 4.93, p ⫽ .03, whereas, among females, Hispanic
employees experienced less incivility (M ⫽ 2.3) than non-Hispanic
employees (M ⫽ 2.8), F(1, 147) ⫽ 4.39, p ⫽ .04. Thus, Hypoth-
eses 1 and 2 were not supported.
Does Ethnicity Moderate the Impact of Incivility on
Burnout and Job Satisfaction?
We predicted that employees of Hispanic ethnicity would ex-
perience a weaker association between incivility and burnout
(H3a) and job satisfaction (H3b) than White, Non-Hispanic em-
ployees. We conducted moderated regression analyses (Aiken &
West, 1991) to examine our hypotheses regarding the role of
ethnicity in moderating the impact of incivility on job satisfaction
and burnout (see Table 2). Because of the meaningful interaction
of ethnicity and gender on incivility found in the previous analysis,
we also included gender in our tests of the current hypotheses.
Following Aiken and West (1991), all predictor variables were
transformed into standardized z scores, and interaction terms were
computed. Main effects of experienced incivility, ethnicity, and
gender were entered into the regression in Step 1. In the second
step, two-way interaction terms between ethnicity, gender, and
incivility were entered into the regression. For all statistically
significant interaction effects, means were estimated and plotted at
high (⫹1 SD) and low (⫺1 SD) levels of each of the terms of the
interaction, and simple slope analyses were computed to interpret
the interaction.
Consistent with prior research, incivility predicted lower job
satisfaction (␤ ⫽ ⫺.72, p ⫽ .002) and greater burnout (␤ ⫽ .92,
p ⬍ .01). Supporting Hypothesis 3, the relationship between inci-
vility and job satisfaction was moderated by ethnicity (␤ ⫽ .13,
p ⬍ .05), with the pattern of this interaction (See Figure 1)
indicating that the negative relationship between incivility and job
4
We note that the same pattern of results and statistical significance was
found when we computed this analysis without the inclusion of job type as
a covariate.
 CULTURE AND WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 211

Table 1
Means, Standard deviations, Internal Consistency Reliability, and Intercorrelations

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Job satisfaction 5.48 1.41 .90

2. Burnout 2.84 1.11 ⫺.58ⴱⴱ .97
3. Incivility 2.47 1.40 ⫺.42ⴱⴱ .62ⴱⴱ .94
4. Horizontal individualism 5.50 1.11 ⫺.11 .08 .03 .82
5. Vertical individualism 3.56 1.13 .02 .05 .02 .30ⴱⴱ .67
6. Horizontal collectivism 5.71 .74 .08 ⫺.19ⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱ .02 ⫺.18ⴱ .70
7. Vertical collectivism 5.15 1.22 .01 ⫺.07 ⫺.19ⴱⴱ ⫺.02 .15ⴱ .31ⴱ .78
Note. Coefficient alpha reliabilities are displayed in the diagonal.
ⴱ
Correlation is significant at p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ Correlation is significant at p ⬍ .01.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

satisfaction was stronger for non-Hispanic employees (␤ ⫽ ⫺.49)
than for Hispanic employees (␤ ⫽ ⫺.30). The interaction between
incivility and ethnicity on burnout approached statistical signifi-
cance (␤ ⫽ ⫺.10, p ⫽ .056), with the pattern of the interaction (see
Figure 2) indicating that the relationship between incivility and
burnout was slightly stronger for non-Hispanic (␤ ⫽ .71) than
Hispanic participants (␤ ⫽ .57). Gender did not moderate these
relationships.
Do Cultural Values Buffer the Impact of Incivility on
Burnout and Job Satisfaction?
t tests indicated that Hispanic participants scored higher than
white non-Hispanic participants on HC, t(235) ⫽ ⫺2.12, p ⬍ .05;
M ⫽ 5.8 vs. 5.4 and VC, t(235) ⫽ ⫺5.83, p ⬍ .01; M ⫽ 5.6 vs.
4.7. We conducted moderated hierarchical regression analyses
(Aiken & West, 1991) to examine our hypotheses regarding the
role of cultural values in buffering the impact of incivility on job
satisfaction and burnout (see Table 3). All predictor variables were
transformed into standardized z-scores, and interaction terms were
computed. Main effects of experienced incivility, HI, HC, VI, and
VC were entered into the regression in Step 1. In the second step,
the two-way interaction terms between incivility and each cultural
value (e.g., Incivility ⫻ HC; Incivility ⫻ VC; etc.) were entered
into the regression. For all statistically significant interaction ef-
fects, means were estimated and plotted at high (⫹1 SD) and low
Table 2
Moderated Regression Results With Job Satisfaction and
Burnout as Dependent Variables
(⫺1 SD) levels of each of the terms of the interaction, and simple
slope analyses were computed to interpret the interaction.
HC moderated the impact of incivility on burnout (␤ ⫽ ⫺.15,
p ⬍ .01). The plotted interaction (See Figure 3) shows that the
relationship between incivility and burnout was weaker among
employees with high HC values (␤ ⫽ .53, p ⬍ .01), as compared
with employees with low HC values (␤ ⫽ .83, p ⬍ .01). These
findings support Hypothesis 4a, suggesting that HC values buffer
the impact of incivility on burnout. However, HC did not moderate
the relationship between incivility and job satisfaction (␤ ⫽ .03,
ns); thus, Hypothesis 4b was not supported. VC did not moderate
the relationship between incivility and job satisfaction (␤ ⫽ ⫺.02,
ns) or the relationship between incivility and burnout (␤ ⫽ .04, ns),
suggesting that this cultural value does not increase resilience
against the impact of incivility. Thus, Hypothesis 5 was not sup-
ported.
HI values moderated the relationship between incivility and job
satisfaction (␤ ⫽ ⫺.20, p ⬍ .01) and the relationship between
incivility and burnout (␤ ⫽ .18, p ⬍ .01). The plotted interaction
(See Figure 4) shows that employees with high HI values experi-
ence a stronger negative relationship (␤ ⫽ ⫺.82, p ⬍ .01) between
incivility and job satisfaction than employees who score lower on
HI (␤ ⫽ ⫺.25, p ⬍ .06). Similarly, Figure 5 demonstrates that
employees with high HI cultural values experience a stronger
relationship between incivility and burnout (␤ ⫽ .89, p ⬍ .01) than
employees who score lower on HI (␤ ⫽ .48, p ⬍ .01). Thus, in
support of Hypothesis 6, these results suggest that the cultural
value of HI strengthens the negative impacts associated with

Dependent variables
Job satisfaction Burnout
Predictors Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Ethnicity ⫺.08 .23 ⫺.02 ⫺.36⫹

Incivility ⫺.37ⴱⴱ ⫺.72ⴱⴱ .61ⴱⴱ .92ⴱⴱ
Gender .10 .13ⴱ .00 ⫺.03
Incivility ⫻ Ethnicity .13ⴱ ⫺.10⫹
Incivility ⫻ Gender .32 ⫺.29
Gender ⫻ Ethnicity ⫺.30 .33
R2 .15 .17 .38 .40
⌬R2 .15ⴱⴱ .02⫹ .38ⴱⴱ .02⫹
Note. Standardized regression coefficients are displayed.
⫹
p ⬍ .06. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. Figure 1. Interaction of incivility and ethnicity on job satisfaction.
 212 WELBOURNE, GANGADHARAN, AND SARIOL

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

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Figure 2. Interaction of incivility and ethnicity on burnout.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

interpret and respond to uncivil behavior at work. In this research,

incivility. As expected, VI did not moderate the relationships we compared the prevalence and impact of incivility experienced
between incivility and job satisfaction (␤ ⫽ .05, ns); however, by Hispanic and white non-Hispanic employees. Additionally, we
unexpectedly, the effect of VI as a moderator of incivility and examined whether cultural values of horizontal and vertical indi-
burnout approached significance (␤ ⫽ ⫺.11, p ⫽ .06). As plotted vidualism and collectivism moderated the relationship between
in Figure 6, employees with high VI values demonstrated a slightly incivility, burnout, and job satisfaction. We explore our findings
weaker relationship between incivility and burnout (␤ ⫽ .57, p ⬍ below.
.01), compared with employees with low VI scores (␤ ⫽ .80, p ⬍
.01). Prevalence of Workplace Incivility Among Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic Employees
Discussion
In contrast to our predictions based in Selective Incivility The-
The goal of this research was to investigate ethnicity and cul- ory (Cortina, 2008; Cortina et al, 2013), there was no main effect
tural values in relation to workplace incivility, a subtle form of of ethnicity on experienced incivility, contradicting prior research
workplace mistreatment often conceptualized as an occupational that suggests Hispanic individuals are at higher risk for stressful
stressor (Cortina, 2008). Past research recognizes the role of eth- events as a result of discrimination (Farley et al., 2005; Rodriguez-
nicity and culture in shaping perceptions (Markus & Kitayama, Calcagno & Brewer, 2005). This finding might be interpreted in
1991; Triandis, 1995), as well as responses to stressors (Chun et light of the value of simpatía that characterizes Hispanic culture.
al., 2009; Montoro-Rodriguez & Gallagher-Thompson, 2010), Placing value on interacting with others in a congenial way may
suggesting the value of examining incivility within a broader reduce conflict in interpersonal relationships (Stone-Romero et al.,
cultural context. Further, increased diversity in the United States 2003), therefore reducing experiences of incivility. Further, the
workforce (Toossi, 2012) underscores the need for better under- direction of the interactive effect of ethnicity and gender on
standing of how members of various ethnic and cultural groups incivility was opposite to our prediction, such that Hispanic fe-
males reported experiencing less (rather than more) incivility,
compared with white, non-Hispanic females or Hispanic males.
Table 3 This result contradicts Selective Incivility Theory (Cortina, 2008;
Moderated Regression Results With Job Satisfaction and Cortina et al., 2013), as well as previous studies that provided
Burnout as Dependent Variables support for the double jeopardy hypothesis (Buchanan & Fitzger-
Dependent variables
Job satisfaction Burnout
Predictors Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
ⴱ ⴱⴱ
HI ⫺.15 ⫺.18 .08 .11ⴱ
VI .10 .13ⴱ ⫺.01 ⫺.05
HC .10 .10 ⫺.14ⴱ ⫺.14ⴱ
VC ⫺.10 ⫺.12 .09 .09
Incivility ⫺.38ⴱⴱ ⫺.37ⴱⴱ .61ⴱⴱ .60ⴱⴱ
Incivility ⫻ HI ⫺.20ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ
Incivility ⫻ HC .03 ⫺.15ⴱ
Incivility ⫻ VI .05 ⫺.11⫹
Incivility ⫻ VC ⫺.02 .04
R2 .17 .20 .40 .44
⌬R2 .17ⴱⴱ .03ⴱ .40ⴱⴱ .04ⴱⴱ
Note. Standardized regression coefficients are displayed. Figure 4. Interaction of incivility and horizontal individualism on job
⫹
p ⬍ .06. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. satisfaction.
 CULTURE AND WORKPLACE INCIVILITY 213

ployees of different ethnic backgrounds may respond differently to

an uncivil work environment.
Although the current research focused on differences in resil-
ience attributable to cultural values, we recognize that other factors
might also contribute to reduced impact of incivility on satisfaction
and burnout among Hispanic employees. For example, Hispanic
participants may experience (at work or in general) greater expo-
sure to stressors, particularly related to discrimination; as a result,
they may have developed more effective coping responses for
handling uncivil behaviors. Indeed, Raver and Nishii (2010) pro-
pose that increased exposure to multiple forms of mistreatment
may result in adaptation to the mistreatment resulting in weakened
outcomes. Additionally, participants may have varied in how they
Figure 5. Interaction of incivility and horizontal individualism on burn-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

attributed uncivil behavior. For instance, Hispanic participants

out.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

may have been more likely to relate the incivility that they expe-
rienced to their ethnicity, compared with non-Hispanic white par-
ald, 2008; Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Barnum, Liden, & DiTomaso, ticipants, potentially impacting their responses to incivility. Al-
1995); however, it is consistent with a recent study (Raver & though these factors were not assessed here, they are valuable
Nishii, 2010) that found no evidence of double jeopardy for directions for future work.
general workplace harassment.
Although these findings may indeed reflect actual differences in Cultural Values and Resilience to Incivility
incivility directed at these targets, alternatively, they may reflect
To better understand the role of specific cultural values in
differences in targets’ perceptions of incivility (i.e., female His-
buffering or exacerbating the impacts of incivility, we examined
panic employees may have a higher threshold for perceiving
whether vertical and horizontal dimensions of collectivism and
incivility). For example, Lim and Lee (2011) suggest that cultural
individualism moderated the relationships between incivility and
differences in the salience of gender power differences may con-
job satisfaction and burnout. Our results suggest that HC values,
tribute to their finding that females reported less incivility than
which emphasize sociability and warm interpersonal relationships
males in a sample of Singaporean employees. Specifically, within
(Shavitt et al., 2006), increase resilience to burnout associated with
this culture, males may expect more respectful treatment and
incivility. We suggest that HC values may be protective against
therefore have lower thresholds for incivility. This explanation
burnout, because they facilitate the formation of strong social
may also be relevant to the current study, as Hispanic culture is
support networks (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Previous work
characterized as adhering to strong gender roles (Cuéllar, Arnold,
demonstrates beneficial effects of emotional support in the context
& Gonzalez, 1995). We suggest that future research examine more
of incivility (Miner et al., 2012).
directly whether different thresholds for incivility are associated
Interestingly, protective aspects of HC did not extend to job
with ethnicity and whether instigators of incivility are less likely to
satisfaction. To interpret this result, we suggest that job satisfac-
direct incivility at targets that are Hispanic and female.
tion may be more closely aligned with individualistic than collec-
tivistic cultural values. Defining oneself through attitudes and
Ethnicity and Resilience to Incivility traits is characteristic of individualistic cultural orientations. How-
As predicted, Hispanic employees, compared with White non- ever, persons with collectivistic orientations tend to define them-
Hispanic employees, experienced less burnout and reduction in job selves through relationships and group memberships, rather than
satisfaction in response to incivility. The greater resilience expe- personal attitudes and traits (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998); thus, job
rienced by Hispanic employees compared with white, non- satisfaction, as an attitude toward one’s job, may not be as relevant
Hispanic employees in our study is consistent with studies that of an outcome for them. This interpretation is consistent with our
have reported protective cultural influences associated with values
focused on social functioning and family (Case & Robinson, 2003;
Garcia Coll et al., 2000; Menselson et al., 2008; Palloni & More-
noff, 2001; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2011). These values are empha-
sized within Hispanic culture (Cuéllar, Arnold, & Gonzalez, 1995;
Gallo et al., 2009; Plant & Sachs-Ericsson, 2004), potentially
contributing to greater resilience against incivility, whereas white,
non-Hispanic participants are more likely to hold values focusing
on independence and autonomy (Markus & Kitayama, 1991),
which are less likely to provide (and may even reduce) resilience
to incivility’s impact. The current study is one of the first to
investigate culturally specific protective mechanisms within the
domain of occupational stress and in relation to work-related
outcomes such as job satisfaction, Further, these findings extend
the workplace incivility literature by providing evidence that em- Figure 6. Interaction of incivility and vertical individualism on burnout.
 214 WELBOURNE, GANGADHARAN, AND SARIOL
finding that individualistic values (specifically, HI) moderated the
relationship between incivility and job satisfaction, whereas col-
lectivistic values did not. Given that past research (e.g., Case &
Robinson, 2003; Garcia Coll et al., 2000; Menselson et al., 2008;
Palloni & Morenoff, 2001; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2011) has pri-
marily focused on cultural resilience in relation to physical and
mental health impacts, we suggest that researchers further inves-
tigate the degree to which protective benefits of HC generalize to
work outcomes.
VC values emphasize acceptance of status differences, as well
as compliance and sacrifice to one’s ingroup (Shavitt et al., 2006;
Singelis et al., 1995). VC has been linked conceptually and em-
pirically to the cultural dimension of familism (Schwartz, 2007;
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Triandis & Gelfand, 1998), which has been shown to provide
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
resilience in response to stressors. Contrary to prediction, VC
values did not weaken the impact of incivility on burnout or job
satisfaction. One reason may be that whereas we based our hy-
potheses on the protective benefits associated with familism, many
studies have operationalized familism in terms of family warmth
and support (e.g., Gil-Rivas et al., 2003; Holleran & Waller, 2003;
Umaña-Taylor et al., 2011). In contrast, VC emphasizes elements
of duty and sacrifice (e.g., to family). These particular components
of familism may not provide the same type of protection when
facing stressors. Alternatively, the protective influence of family-
related cultural values may not extend to the subtle workplace
stressors examined here. For instance, Lim and Lee (2011) found
that perceived family support did not buffer Singaporean employ-
ees against the impact of incivility, but instead appeared to exac-
erbate its negative consequences for employees.
Individuals with strong HI values experienced a greater associ-
ation between incivility, burnout, and reduced job satisfaction.
Consistent with our predictions, this suggests that employees who
endorse HI values, which emphasize self-reliance and indepen-
dence (Singelis et al., 1995), are more vulnerable to the negative
strains associated with workplace incivility. We suggest that this is
attributable to the combination of experiencing a potentially iso-
lating phenomenon [incivility] (Vickers, 2006) while at the same
time holding cultural values that may place one at risk for greater
social isolation (Singelis et al., 1995). Future research might test
more directly whether individuals with HI values are less likely to
obtain social support when facing incivility.
Interestingly, our analyses show a nonsignificant trend (p ⫽ .06)
of VI values, which emphasize status and competition (Singelis et
al., 1995), buffering the impact of incivility on burnout. Why
might individuals who value status and competition be less likely
to experience burnout when targeted by incivility at work? One
possibility is that they may be more accepting of incivility, if they
see uncivil acts as simply part of a competitive playing field at
work, or a way to get ahead. Although the current study focuses
specifically on subtle workplace deviance, we encourage future
work to further explore the potential for protective cultural mech-
anisms within individualistic cultures.
Overall, our findings suggest that vertical and horizontal dimen-
sions of individualism and collectivism relate uniquely to incivility
and its associated outcomes. In general, we found that horizontal
dimensions were most crucial to buffering or strengthening the
relationship between incivility and work and health outcomes; we
attribute this to the fact that these cultural values relate more
directly to the presence or absence of support networks (Triandis
& Gelfand, 1998). Additionally, Chen and colleagues (1997) pro-
pose that horizontal dimensions are more relevant to explaining
interpersonal phenomenon (e.g., incivility5), whereas vertical di-
mensions are more appropriate for research on intergroup phenom-
enon; this may also account for the differential effects for hori-
zontal and vertical dimensions found here. More broadly, this
pattern of results underscores the importance of examining vertical
and horizontal dimensions of individualism and collectivism sep-
arately, as argued by previous researchers.
Practical Implications
Our results suggest that Hispanic males and non-Hispanic fe-
males were especially likely to experience incivility at their jobs.
Thus, we encourage managers to be aware that members of these
groups may be particularly likely to be targeted by incivility and to
consider appropriate interventions at both the individual and or-
ganizational levels. Given the differential effects between the
groups examined here, we suggest that discussions of culture,
ethnicity, and gender may enhance the effectiveness of employee
trainings or interventions designed to curb incivility. Our findings
also demonstrate that employees with different cultural values may
vary in their vulnerability to incivility. Specifically, employees
from individualistic cultures who hold values associated with
self-reliance (HI) may be more susceptible to the negative impacts
of incivility on their job attitudes and wellbeing. Awareness of this
will allow employers to be more attuned to the needs of employees
whose cultural values may place them at greater risk for these
impacts. In particular, organizations might consider providing ad-
ditional support networks for these employees, given that their
values of self-reliance might be isolating for them if they experi-
ence incivility. Additionally, the finding that individuals with
strong HC values experienced less burnout when faced with inci-
vility suggests that organizations focus on fostering employee
values that emphasize sociability and interconnection with others.
Limitations and Future Directions
Although this study provides initial insights into how cultural
values and ethnicity relate to incivility, it has limitations. Cross-
sectional data limit our ability to infer causality in the relationships
examined here. Additionally, the use of single-source, self-report
methodology increases the threat of common method variance.
However, because incivility and cultural values are experienced
directly by the respondent and not always observable by others, we
believe they are most appropriately assessed through self-report,
rather than by more objective measures or observer ratings. Ad-
ditionally, because interaction effects are less likely to be artifacts
of common method variance (Evans, 1985; Siemsen, Roth, &
Oliveira, 2010), we suggest that the moderating effects of ethnicity
and culture found here cannot be fully accounted for in this way.
Our sample focused solely on university employees and was
limited to a single workplace. However, because academia has
been identified as an occupation in which employees are likely to
encounter incivility (Morrissette, 2001), we suggest that this was
5
Although incivility may be selectively targeted based on group mem-
bership, we note here that more broadly, incivility is considered an inter-
personal stressor.
 CULTURE AND WORKPLACE INCIVILITY
an appropriate setting for our research. Further, although our work
aimed to increase understanding of how Hispanic and white,
non-Hispanic employees differ in their experience of incivility, our
sample lacked representation of other ethnic groups. As noted
earlier, values emphasizing relationships and family are not unique
to persons of Hispanic origin; in particular, similar values emerge
in African and Asian cultures (Schwartz et al., 2010). Thus, it will
be informative to examine the buffering effects of cultural values
within other ethnic groups.
It is possible that the location in which we conducted our
research influenced our findings. In contrast to other locations
within the United States, individuals of Hispanic ethnicity are a
numeric majority (rather than a minority) in the border region in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
which we collected our data (www.census.gov). This may have
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
affected intergroup relationships, potentially reducing selective
incivility targeted at Hispanic employees. However, because in-
creased incivility was reported by male Hispanic employees (in
spite of being a majority in the population), we suggest that the
research context cannot fully account for these results. Being in a
location where the majority of the population is Hispanic may also
strengthen the degree to which Hispanic employees hold values
that are traditionally emphasized within their culture. In this case,
the effects of cultural resilience that are observed within this
sample may be stronger than in another research context. Finally,
because of proximity to Mexico, it is likely that a majority of our
Hispanic participants were of Mexican background (although we
did not directly assess country of origin). As a result, our research
does not acknowledge the variability that may occur across differ-
ent Hispanic subcultures. We suggest that future research take a
more nuanced approach to examine whether employees coming
from different Hispanic subcultures (e.g., Central American, Cu-
ban, etc.) have differential experiences of workplace incivility.
Conclusion
In spite of increased diversity in the workforce, there has been
sparse attention to ethnicity and cultural values in the experience
of workplace incivility. The current study sheds light on how
ethnicity and cultural values relate to the incidence of workplace
incivility and its impact on work attitudes and wellbeing. These
findings highlight the value in examining workplace incivility
through a broader cultural lens in order to better understand
employees’ vulnerability and resilience to workplace incivility.
References
Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Andersson, L., & Pearson, C. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of
incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 425–
471.
Barnum, P., Liden, R. C., & DiTomaso, N. (1995). Double jeopardy for
women and minorities: Pay differences with age. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 38, 863– 880. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256749
Bauman, S. (2005). The reliability and validity of the Brief Acculturation
Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II for children and adolescents.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 426 – 441. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0739986305281423
Beal, F. M. (1970). Double jeopardy: To be black and female. Detroit, MI:
Radical Education Project.
215
Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeop-
ardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 426 – 436.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.426
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
h0055617
Buchanan, N. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2008). Effects of racial and sexual
harassment on work and the psychological well-being of African Amer-
ican women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 137–151.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.13.2.137
Case, M. H., & Robinson, W. L. (2003). Interventions with ethnic minority
populations: The legacy and promise of community psychology. In G.
Bernal, J. E. Trimble, A. K. Burlew, & F. T. L. Leong (Eds.), Handbook
of racial and ethnic minority psychology (pp. 573–590). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412976008.n29
Chen, C., Meindl, J., & Hunt, R. (1997). Testing the effects of vertical and
horizontal collectivism: A study of reward allocation preferences in
China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 44 –70. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0022022197281003
Chun, C., Moos, R., & Cronkite, R. (2009). Culture: A fundamental context
for the stress and coping paradigm. In P. Wong & L. Wong (Eds.),
Handbook of multicultural perspectives on stress and coping (Interna-
tional and Cultural Psychology) (pp. 29 –53). New York, NY: Springer.
Cianni, M., & Romberger, B. (1995). Perceived racial, gender, and ethnic
differences in access to developmental experiences. Group & Organi-
zation Management, 20, 440 – 459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1059601195204004
Clark, R., Anderson, N. B., Clark, V. R., & Williams, D. R. (1999). Racism
as a stressor for African Americans. A biopsychosocial model. American
Psychologist, 54, 805– 816. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.10
.805
Cortina, L. M. (2004). Hispanic perspectives on sexual harassment and
social support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 570 –
584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262854
Cortina, L. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in
organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 33, 55–75. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.27745097
Cortina, L., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E., Huerta, M., & Magley, V.
(2013). Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organiza-
tions. Journal of Management, 39, 1579 –1605. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0149206311418835
Cortina, L. M., Lonsway, K. L., Magley, V. J., Freeman, L. V., Col-
linsworth, L. L., Hunter, M., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). What’s gender
got to do with it? Incivility in the federal courts. Law & Social Inquiry,
27, 235–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2002.tb00804.x
Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2009). Patterns and profiles of response
to incivility in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-
ogy, 14, 272–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014934
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001).
Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology, 6, 64 – 80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-
8998.6.1.64
Cuéllar, I., Arnold, B., & Gonzalez, G. (1995). Cognitive referents of accul-
turation: Assessment of cultural constructs in Mexican Americans. Journal
of Community Psychology, 23, 339 –356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-
6629(199510)23:4⬍339::AID-JCOP2290230406⬎3.0.CO;2-7
Cuéllar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating
Scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA
scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275–304. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/07399863950173001
Cuellar, I., Harris, L., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale for
Mexican American normal and clinical populations. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 2, 199 –217.
 216 WELBOURNE, GANGADHARAN, AND SARIOL
Dreher, G. F., & Cox, T. H., Jr. (1996). Race, gender, and opportunity: A
study of compensation attainment and the establishment of mentoring
relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 297–308. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.297
Epstein, C. F. (1973). Black and female: The double whammy. Psychology
Today, 3, 57– 61, 89.
Evans, D. S. (1985). Entrepreneurial Choice and Success. Washington,
DC: U. S. Small Business Administration.
Farley, T., Galves, A., Dickinson, L. M., & Perez, M. J. (2005). Stress,
coping, and health: A comparison of Mexican immigrants, Mexican-
Americans, and non-Hispanic whites. Journal of Immigrant Health, 7,
213–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10903-005-3678-5
Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological resilience - A review and
critique of definitions, concepts and theory. European Psychologist, 18,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
12–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000124
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Gallo, L. C., Penedo, F. J., Espinosa de los Monteros, K., & Arguelles, W.
(2009). Resiliency in the face of disadvantage: Do Hispanic cultural
characteristics protect health outcomes? Journal of Personality, 77,
1707–1746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00598.x
Garcia Coll, C., Akerman, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). Cultural influences
on developmental processes and outcomes: Implications for the study of
development and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology,
12, 333–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400003059
Gil-Rivas, V., Greenberger, E., Chen, C., & Montero y López-Lena, M.
(2003). Understanding depressed mood in the context of a family-
oriented culture. Adolescence, 38, 93–109.
Gomez. (2003). The relationship between acculturation, individualism/
collectivism, and job attribute preferences for Hispanic MBAs. Journal
of Management Studies, 40, 1089 –1105.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in
work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holleran, L. K., & Waller, M. A. (2003). Sources of resilience among
Chicano/a youth: Forging identities in the borderlands. Child & Adoles-
cent Social Work Journal, 20, 335–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:
1026043828866
James, K. (1994). Social identity, work stress, and minority workers’
health. In G. P. Keita & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Job stress in a changing
workforce: Investigating gender, diversity and family issues (pp. 127–
145). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup
incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 95–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.95
Lim, S., & Lee, A. (2011). Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace
incivility: Does family support help? Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 16, 95–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021726
Liu, W., Chi, S., Friedman, R., & Tsai, M. (2009). Explaining incivility in
the workplace: The effects of personality and culture. Negotiation and
Conflict Management Research, 2, 164 –184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1750-4716.2009.00035.x
Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Impli-
cations for interventions and social policies. Development and Psycho-
pathology, 12, 857– 885. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400004156
Marin, G., & Marin, B. V. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Marin, G., & Triandis, H. (1985). Allocentrism as an important character-
istic of the behavior of Latin Americans and Hispanics. In R. Diaz-
Guerrero (Ed.), Cross-cultural and national studies of social psychology
(pp. 85–114). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 –
253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Menselson, T., Rehkopf, D. H., & Kubzansky, L. D. (2008). Depression
among Latinos in the United States: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 355–366. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-006X.76.3.355
Miner, K., Settles, I., Pratt-Hyatt, J., & Brady, C. (2012). Experiencing
incivility in organizations: The buffering effects of emotional and orga-
nizational support. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 340 –372.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00891.x
Miner-Rubino, K., & Reed, W. (2010). Testing a moderated mediational
model of workplace incivility: The roles of organizational trust and
group regard. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 3148 –3168.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00695.x
Montoro-Rodriguez, J., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. (2009). The role of
resources and appraisals in predicting burden among Latina and non-
Hispanic white female caregivers: A test of an expanded socio-cultural
model of stress and coping. Aging & Mental Health, 13, 648 – 658.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13607860802534658
Morrissette, P. J. (2001). Reducing incivility in the university/college
classroom. IEJLL: International Electronic Journal for Leadership in
Learning, 5.
Nelson, M., & Shavitt, S. (2002). Horizontal and vertical individualism and
achievement values: A multimethod examination of Denmark and the
United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 439 – 458.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033005001
Organista, P. B., Organista, K. C., & Kurasaki, K. (2003). The relationship
between acculturation and ethnic minority health. In K. M. Chun, P. B.
Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, mea-
surement and applied research (pp. 139 –161). Washington, DC: Amer-
ican Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10472-010
Palloni, A., & Morenoff, J. D. (2001). Interpreting the paradoxical in the
hispanic paradox: Demographic and epidemiologic approaches. Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences, 954, 140 –174. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb02751.x
Pearson, C., Andersson, L., & Porath, C. (2000). Assessing and attacking
workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 123–137. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00019-X
Pearson, C., Andersson, L., & Wegner, J. (2001). When workers flout
convention: A study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54,
1387–1419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00187267015411001
Pearson, C., & Porath, C. (2005). On the nature, consequences and reme-
dies of workplace incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. The
Academy of Management Executive, 19, 7–18.
Pearson, C., & Porath, C. (2009). The cost of bad behavior: How incivility
ruins your business- and what you can do about it. New York, NY:
Portfolio.
Penney, L., & Spector, P. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproduc-
tive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777–796. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/job.336
Pines, A., & Aronson, E. (1988). Career burnout: Causes and cures. New
York, NY: Free Press.
Plant, E. A., & Sachs-Ericsson, N. (2004). Racial and ethnic differences in
depression: The roles of social support and meeting basic needs. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 41–52. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-006X.72.1.41
Raver, J. L., & Nishii, L. H. (2010). Once, twice, or three times as harmful?
Ethnic harassment, gender harassment, and generalized workplace ha-
rassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 236 –254. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0018377
Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 307–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
jclp.10020
Rodriguez-Calcagno, M., & Brewer, E. (2005). Job stress among Hispanic
professionals. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 504 –516.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739986305280691
 CULTURE AND WORKPLACE INCIVILITY
Romero, E. (2004). Latin American leadership: El Patron and El Lider
moderno. Cross Cultural Management, 11, 25–37. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/13527600410797828
Sabogal, F., Marin, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., Marin, B. V., & Perez-Stable,
E. J. (1987). Hispanic familism and acculturation: What changes and
what doesn’t? Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 397– 412.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/07399863870094003
Schwartz, S. J. (2007). The applicability of familism to diverse ethnic
groups: A preliminary study. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147,
101–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.147.2.101-118
Schwartz, S. J., Weisskirch, R. S., Hurley, E. A., Zamboanga, B. L., Park, I. J.,
Kim, S. Y., . . . Greene, A. D. (2010). Communalism, familism, and filial
piety: Are they birds of a collectivist feather? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 16, 548 –560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021370
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Shavitt, S., Lalwani, A., Zhang, J., & Torelli, C. (2006). The horizontal/
vertical distinction in cross-cultural consumer research. Journal of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Consumer Psychology, 16, 325–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15327663jcp1604_3
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in
regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Orga-
nizational Research Methods, 13, 456 – 476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1094428109351241
Singelis, T., Triandis, H., Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, M. (1995). Horizontal
and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical
and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of
Comparative Social Science, 29, 240 –275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
106939719502900302
Sivadas, E., Bruvold, N., & Nelson, M. (2008). A reduced version of the
horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-
country assessment. Journal of Business Research, 61, 201–210. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.016
Stone-Romero, E. F., Stone, D. L., & Salas, E. (2003). The influence of
culture on role conceptions and role behavior in organisations. Applied
Psychology, 52, 328 –362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00139
Thomson, M. D., & Hoffman-Goetz, L. (2009). Defining and measuring
acculturation: A systematic review of public health studies with His-
panic populations in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 69,
983–991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.05.011
Toossi, M. (2012). Labor force projections to 2020: A more slowly
growing workforce. Monthly Labor Review, 43– 64.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!
Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available
online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be
notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!
View publication stats
217
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. New York, NY:
Simon & Schuster.
Triandis, H. C., Botempo, R., Betancourt, H., Bond, M., Leung, K., Bernes,
A., . . . de Montmollin, G. (1986). The measurement of etic and emic
aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 38, 257–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00049538608259013
Triandis, H., Chan, D., Bhawuk, D., Iwao, S., & Sinha, J. (1995).
Multimethod probes of allocentrism and idiocentrism. International
Journal of Psychology, 30, 461– 480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00207599508246580
Triandis, H. C., Chen, X. P., & Chan, D. K. S. (1998). Scenarios for the
measurement of collectivism and individualism. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 29, 275–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0022022198292001
Triandis, H., & Gelfand, M. (1998). Converging measurement of horizon-
tal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74, 118 –128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.74.1.118
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use
positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 320 –333. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.320
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Updegraff, K. A., & Gonzales-Backen, M. A. (2011).
Mexican-origin adolescent mothers’ stressors and psychosocial func-
tioning: Examining ethnic identity affirmation and familism as moder-
ators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 140 –157. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10964-010-9511-z
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Overview of race and hispanic origin: 2010.
Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02
.pdf
Van Emmerik, H. (2002). Gender differences in the effects of coping
assistance on the reduction of burnout in academic staff. Work & Stress,
16, 251–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267837021000034593
Vickers, M. (2006). Writing what’s relevant: Workplace incivility in public
administration- A wolf in sheep’s clothing. Administrative Theory &
Praxis, 28, 69 – 88.
Received February 6, 2014
Revision received September 8, 2014
Accepted September 11, 2014 䡲