Cogent Social Sciences

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oass20

Customer incivility, employee emotional

exhaustion, and job embeddedness relationship
in the Indonesian hospitality sector: The socio-
economic status perspective

Deni Gustiawan, Noermijati, Siti Aisjah & Nur Khusniyah Indrawati

To cite this article: Deni Gustiawan, Noermijati, Siti Aisjah & Nur Khusniyah Indrawati (2023)
Customer incivility, employee emotional exhaustion, and job embeddedness relationship
in the Indonesian hospitality sector: The socio-economic status perspective, Cogent Social
Sciences, 9:1, 2178613, DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613

© 2023 The Author(s). This open access

article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Published online: 20 Feb 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1633

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oass20
Gustiawan et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2178613
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613
Received: 05 November 2022
Accepted: 06 February 2023
*Corresponding author: Deni
Gustiawan, Department of
Management, Faculty of Economics
and Business, Universitas Brawijaya,
Malang, Indonesia
E-mail: denigustiawan@student.ub.ac.id
Reviewing editor:
Ana Maria Lopez Narbona, University
of Malaga: Universidad de Malaga,
Spain
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
SOCIOLOGY | RESEARCH ARTICLE
Customer incivility, employee emotional
exhaustion, and job embeddedness relationship
in the Indonesian hospitality sector: The
socio-economic status perspective
Deni Gustiawan1*, Noermijati1, Siti Aisjah1 and Nur Khusniyah Indrawati1
Abstract: This study explores the impact of customer incivility on frontline
employees’ job embeddedness in the Indonesian hospitality sector. We also inves­
tigate whether emotional exhaustion prevalence mediated, and socio-economic
status (SES) moderated the link between customer incivility, emotional exhaustion,
and job embeddedness. Data were collected in two stages using an online survey of
192 employees from the hospitality sector in Indonesia. We tested a moderated
mediation model using Hayes’ Macro PROCESS version 4.0. Results confirmed that
frontline service employees with high levels of uncivil consumer behavior experience
have high emotional exhaustion tendencies and low job embeddedness. The find­
ings also reveal that emotional exhaustion partially mediates the relationship
between customer incivility and job embeddedness. Moreover, SES mitigates the
impact of customer incivility on emotional exhaustion and job embeddedness.
A lower level of SES triggers a more substantial effect of customer incivility on
exhaustion, whereas a higher SES can reduce the effect of customer incivility on job
embeddedness.
Subjects: Asian Studies; Cultural Studies; Hotel Management; Social Work; Social
Psychology; Mental Health
Keywords: customer incivility; emotional exhaustion; socio-economic status; job
embeddedness; hospitality industry
1. Introduction
The denial of acting politely to others is a phenomenon that occurs in almost all societies and has
contributed to the deteriorating harmonious interpersonal relationships between individuals and
groups in the last two decades (Porath & Pearson, 2012). Since first popularized by Andersson and
Pearson (1999), workplace incivility has become a topic of interest for researchers and academics
worldwide. A distinctive feature of workplace incivility is that it is subtle, ambiguous, and passive,
and sometimes there is no clear intention to harm the victim (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). The
PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
Since workplace incivility (co-workers and superiors) has been widely studied can reduce job embedd­
edness, this study focuses explicitly on incivility from customers, which is relatively rarely studied.
Moreover, we reveal socio-economic status as a complementary explanation for the relationship
between customer incivility, emotional exhaustion, and job embeddedness. This study also offers an
alternative perspective to explore how the combinations of different SES may predispose employees to
attitudes and behaviors in Asian cultures when they become victims of uncivilized behavior from
consumers.
© 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Page 1 of 16
Gustiawan et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2178613
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613

term “ambiguous” refers to the perpetrator’s unclear purpose, which leads to such behaviors
receiving little attention from company leaders; this is considered only a difference in perception
and misunderstanding (Cahyadi, Hendryadi, Mappadang et al., 2021). However, over the last ten
years, researchers and practitioners have increasingly begun to believe that incivility harms both
victims and organizations (Jelavić et al., 2021). Initially, incivility from coworkers/supervisors
attracted more attention, but researchers have recently begun studying the effects of uncivil
customer behavior, especially in the hospitality sector (Alola et al., 2019; Baker & Kim, 2020;
Boukis et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2020; Sliter et al., 2012; Walker et al., 2014). It is essential to
learn from the hospitality industry because employees in this sector are frequently trained to
prioritize “customer satisfaction” or that “customer is the king” so that they can continue to deal
politely with rude customers (Han et al., 2016; Sliter et al., 2012).

The current study has studied the effect of customer incivility on service employees’ attitudes
and behaviors; however, there are still limited to a few issues that need to be clarified. For
example, customer incivility can drain psychological resources, including burnout, emotional
exhaustion, and psychological well-being (Alola et al., 2019; Baker & Kim, 2020; Kim & Qu, 2019;
Shin, Hur et al., 2022). Moreover, it also affects employee turnover intentions and service perfor­
mance (Alola et al., 2019; Cheng et al., 2020). On the other hand, job embeddedness reflects
a person’s strength to maintain their current job compared to quitting (Crossley et al., 2007;
Mitchell et al., 2001). The role of job embeddedness in the hospitality industry is also increasingly
vital in line with the company’s efforts to reduce high employee turnover in this sector. Although
both customer incivility and job embeddedness are burgeoning in hospitality research, the linkage
between these concepts has never been explored in the existing literature. Hence, our study
bridges the gap in customer incivility-job embeddedness relationships in the hospitality sector.

Second, through the moderating and mediating mechanisms, we open space to understand the
relationship model between uncivil customer behavior, employees’ emotional exhaustion, and job
embeddedness. For example, frontline employees’ exposure to uncivil behavior is positively related
to emotional fatigue and exhaustion (Alola et al., 2019; Baker & Kim, 2020; Kim & Qu, 2019; Shin,
Hur et al., 2022). Meanwhile, the relationship between emotional exhaustion and job embedded­
ness has also been explored (Dogantekin et al., 2022; Karatepe et al., 2019). Drawing conservation
of resource (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 2001) and affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996),
we replicate and expand on previous studies by examining the intermediate role of emotional
exhaustion in the customer incivility and job embeddedness relationship.

Third, studies on workplace incivility have highlighted the critical role of power differentiation
(Cortina & Magley, 2009; Loh et al., 2021; Peltokorpi & Ramaswami, 2021; Porath & Pearson, 2012).
For example, Cortina and Magley (2009) found that victims of incivility experienced more severe
when the perpetrator had higher status. Similarly, Porath and Pearson (2012) specifically explored
the status differences between perpetrators and victims that could influence employees to
respond to experiences of incivility with anger, fear, and sadness. In short, status played
a crucial role in victims’ responses to anger, fear, and sadness. Since the differentiation of power
plays a significant role in incivility studies, we propose that social-economic status may also
explain the victim of workplace incivility response in Asia.

The present study responds to Ghosh’s (2017) call to explore workplace incivility from a social
identity perspective. Ghosh argues that social identity plays a vital role in social interaction in the
Asian community. It can be a framework to explain the differences in the responses to workplace
incivility, including how this situation can foster psychological distress and employee turnover
(Ghosh, 2017). Instead, we used a different approach with the proposed social-economic status
(SES) to explore employee responses to uncivil behavior from outside the organization (customers).
SES is an individual’s view of themselves at the socio-economic level (Easterbrook et al., 2020;
Sainz et al., 2021). According to Adler et al. (2000), SES refers to income, occupation, and education
level to classify their position between the top and bottom of the ladder. Previous researchers have

Page 2 of 16
Gustiawan et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2178613
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613

Figure 1. Research model. Emotional

exhaustion

Customer Job embeddedness

incivility

SES

extensively used SES as a framework that can differentiate individual responses to stressor
situations. For instance, several researchers have linked levels of SES with well-being (Sainz
et al., 2021) and health problems, stress, and depression (Effati-Daryani et al., 2020; Götz et al.,
2018; Vinkers et al., 2020). Thus, the present study provides new insights into differences in SES
and how it may affect employee responses to customer incivility behavior on emotional exhaus­
tion and job embeddedness, particularly in Asia.

2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses

In this study, we use the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 2001), affective events theory
(Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), and Hofstede’s national culture theory to provide a theoretical
explanation of the proposed model (see, Figure 1). According to the COR theory, individuals
maintain, protect, and build resources (Hobfoll, 2001). These resources can be objects, personal
characteristics, conditions, or energy. In other words, when a person experiences stress at work,
they tend to avoid further stress to maintain their resources. Because a person’s available
resources, including emotional ones, are limited, exhausting one’s resources to the point where
they are no longer sufficient to cope with workplace stressors (i.e., workplace incivility), triggers
emotional exhaustion and psychological distress (Hobfoll, 2001). The COR theory is commonly used
as a theoretical basis to explain how workplace incivility affects job satisfaction, stress, and
emotional exhaustion (Anjum et al., 2020; Cortina et al., 2001; Hur et al., 2016; Loh et al., 2021).

Following Walker et al. (2014), we devised AET to add to the COR theory to explain the effect of
customer incivility on employee attitudes and behaviors. Briefly, the AET provides a logical frame­
work to explain the formation of negative emotions caused by perceived incivility events in the
workplace. For example, customer behavior that violates a sense of respect can trigger affective
and emotional reactions during the incident (Weiss & Beal, 2005). However, the affective and
emotional responses that arise from a positive or negative event depend on personal interpreta­
tion. In other words, other employees may react differently to consumer behavior that can be
considered rude by an employee. Similarly, Pearson et al. (2001) stated that perceived workplace
incivility could have a negative psychological impact on employees in the form of them being
“depressed” and “emotionally hurt.”

2.1. Customer incivility, emotional exhaustion, and job embeddedness

In the context of a work environment, “uncivil behavior” is a violation of workplace norms
encouraging mutual respect and cooperation (Pearson et al., 2001). These norms can originate
in society, workplace traditions, and various cultures (in the form of formal and informal organiza­
tional policies, rules, and applicable procedures). As a universal norm, recognized standards such
as “treating others the way you would like to be treated by others” play a role in perceptions of
civility. Workplace incivility violates such norms (Pearson et al., 2001). In this study, we use the
concept of incivility, which is sourced from customers in the hospitality sector in Indonesia.
Workplace incivility includes workplace mistreatment (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), which may
be inflicted by coworkers, superiors, or customers (Sliter et al., 2012). The researchers were initially
more interested in the issue of incivility originating from coworkers or superiors (Cahyadi,
Hendryadi, Mappadang et al., 2021; Cortina et al., 2001; Ghosh, 2017; Rahim & Cosby, 2016;

Page 3 of 16
Gustiawan et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2178613
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613

Welbourne et al., 2020). However, in more recent studies, attention has begun to focus on incivility
related to customers. Although customer incivility in their various behaviors when interacting with
front-line employees does not seem to be a problem (Walker et al., 2014), the consequences on
employee attitudes and behavior have recently been getting attention.

In their theory, Maslach and Jackson (1984) divided burnout into three dimensions: emotional
exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment. Emotional exhaustion refers to the
fatigue experienced by individuals in an organization because of social interactions, which causes
emotional exhaustion due to the inability of individuals to manage such demands. The other two
dimensions are depersonalization, which refers to a loss of feeling at work, and the third involves
attempts to diminish personal achievements, because of this an individual loses the motivation to
attain competencies and make accomplishments. Compared to the other two dimensions, emo­
tional exhaustion has been studied more because it is considered a core feature of burnout
(Schaufeli et al., 2009), and the experience of emotional exhaustion is often perceived as “burnout”
(Schaufeli et al., 2009). Therefore, when exploring psychological reactions to workplace incivility, in
this study, we consider only emotional exhaustion. Previous researchers have portrayed perceived
incivility from consumers can drain the psychological resources of front-line employees (Boukis
et al., 2020) and service performance (Cheng et al., 2020). Moreover, perceived customer incivility
is also related to burnout, emotional exhaustion, psychological well-being, and employee turnover
intentions (Alola et al., 2019; Baker & Kim, 2020; Kim & Qu, 2019; Shin, Lee et al., 2022). Thus, the
first proposed hypothesis is as follows.

H1: Customer incivility positively influences employees’ levels of emotional exhaustion.

Job embeddedness was introduced by Mitchell et al. (2001) as a “higher-order aggregate of forces
for retention.” Job embeddedness has received attention from academics and practitioners
because of its uniqueness in explaining one’s strength to stay in the organization (as opposed to
the concept of turnover intention). Mitchell et al. (2001) outlined three dimensions of embedded­
ness using a positive psychological perspective: links, fit, and sacrifice. “Links” refers to the social
bonds developed and maintained by individuals, groups, and teams, both within and outside the
work environment (Mitchell et al., 2001). “Fit” refers to employees’ association, affinity, or compat­
ibility with the organization or community where they work (Mitchell et al., 2001). Lastly, “sacrifice”
refers to the material or emotional losses encountered by employees at the organizational and
community levels when they decide to resign from their jobs (Mitchell et al., 2001).

Although existing studies have not explicitly explored the relationship between customer
incivility and job embeddedness, we argue that this relationship may exist based on the assump­
tions of COR theory. Using the COR theory, we postulate that incivility will reduce job embedded­
ness because employees will reduce links (take distance from perpetrators); they will facilitate
direct contact with perpetrators and lose interest in engaging with social relationships at work, as
well as reduce social cohesion (Reisig & Cancino, 2004) and interaction avoidance (Peltokorpi,
2019). In the same vein, individuals who receive inappropriate/disrespectful treatment in their
work environment experience disturbances in social relations (Hobfoll, 2001). In other words,
individuals who experience a victim of uncivil behavior will question whether they are “fit” with
the current organizational environment. As a final result, the combination of fit and high sacrifice
as the overall concept of job embeddedness (Mitchell et al., 2001) will weaken along with high
customer incivility. Thus, we suspect that workplace incivility is directly and negatively related to
job embeddedness. Therefore, the next proposed hypothesis is as follows:

H2: Customer incivility negatively influences employees’ levels of job embeddedness.

Page 4 of 16
Gustiawan et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2178613
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613

The COR theory and AET can be used as theoretical foundations to explain the relationship
between emotional exhaustion and job embeddedness. The emotional exhaustion suffered by
someone being treated disrespectfully at work triggers other behaviors, such as avoidance
(Cortina et al., 2001; Sliter et al., 2012) and reduced engagement (Tricahyadinata et al., 2020).
In other words, to protect their emotional resources, individuals reduce their fit and links and
reconsider their organizational membership. In addition, efforts to overcome stressors from dis­
respectful treatment reduce motivation (Hur et al., 2016). Similarly, employees who are emotion­
ally exhausted by workplace incivility may experience reduced engagement and intrinsic
motivation to work, and they may increase avoidance-related behaviors to protect themselves
against further depletion of their emotional resources. Correspondingly, previous researchers have
documented the fact that emotional exhaustion is related to job embeddedness (Karatepe et al.,
2019). Because of the relationship between workplace incivility and emotional exhaustion to job
embeddedness, it is also necessary to explore the mediating role of emotional exhaustion in the
effect of customer incivility on job embeddedness. Past research has also confirmed the existence
of a mediating effect of emotional exhaustion on the link between workplace incivility and job
satisfaction. Emotional exhaustion has also been proven to mediate the relationship between
abusive supervision and job performance (Shin, Hur et al., 2022). Based on this argument, the
subsequent two proposed hypotheses are as follows.

H3: Emotional exhaustion negatively influences employees’ levels of job embeddedness.

H4: Emotional exhaustion mediates the relationship between customer incivility and job
embeddedness.

2.2. The different responses to customer incivility based on social economics status
In Asian societies, which are generally collectivist and have high power distance and masculine
characteristics (i.e., Japan, China, India, and Indonesia), social interaction patterns are strongly
influenced by identity-based interactions (Ghosh, 2017; Hofstede et al., 2005). Consequently, social
status significantly affects how victims of workplace incivility respond to these unpleasant experi­
ences. For instance, Ghosh (2017) highlights that social-cultural status, including religion, caste,
and class, causes the powerlessness of uncivil victims when they are treated inappropriately by
individuals from the upper class. In contrast, researchers in Western countries focus more on the
status of the job hierarchy (Cortina & Magley, 2009; Mullen et al., 2018), where the power relation
between the perpetrator and the victim causes a higher level of severity in the victim of incivility
(Jungert & Holm, 2022). In other words, victims may perpetuate their victimizations by tolerating
uncivil behaviors from groups with higher social status. Apart from differences in power relations
sources originating from the power hierarchy within the organization or society, groups at the
bottom line experience a higher level of severity because they do not have the power to fight back,
so silence may be the best choice (Lam & Xu, 2019).

SES is a self-assessment of individuals about their position in the context of the economic level.
Existing studies have consistently reported that a high level of SES is positively related to well-
being (Navarro-Carrillo et al., 2020; Sainz et al., 2021; Tan et al., 2020). Similarly, low SES has been
reported to be associated with higher levels of psychological distress and depression when faced
with stressful situations (Effati-Daryani et al., 2020; Götz et al., 2018; Sainz et al., 2021; Vinkers
et al., 2020). Although no studies specifically investigate workplace incivility from the SES perspec­
tive, it might be related to how it influences a person’s emotional exhaustion and job embedded­
ness. Based on the idea that the level of SES can affect how individuals respond to various
situations (Sainz et al., 2021), we expected that a person’s SES level would make them different
in responding to uncivil behavior from customers towards them. In line with the COR theory,
individuals with low resources do not have sufficient strength to cope with workplace stressors

Page 5 of 16
Gustiawan et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2178613
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613

(i.e., customer incivility), triggering higher emotional exhaustion and psychological distress
(Hobfoll, 2001; Sainz et al., 2021).

The COR assumption mentioned above is in line with the service context where the customer is
considered the “king” so that they have higher power and control. Thus, employees will tend to
hold back and avoid confrontation (Cortina & Magley, 2009; Ghosh, 2017). Consequently, this
powerlessness will lead to higher exhaustion, especially in the low SES group. Furthermore, we
also propose that SES also plays a role in influencing the relationship between customer incivility
and job embeddedness. In this relationship between customer incivility and job embeddedness, we
argue that a high level of SES can neutralize the effect of unpleasant behavior on job embedded­
ness. According to the COR assumption, a high level of SES needs to be maintained and preserved
by employees. In other words, employees at the top level of SES will still be embedded with the
job/organization even though they experience uncivil behavior from consumers. This argument is
in line with Perreault et al. (2017) were found that full-time employees were more able to cope
with stressors than their part-time counterparts. Moreover, SES was also found to be associated
with coping strategies in dealing with deviant behavior (Markova & Nikitskaya, 2017). Recently,
researchers (Effati-Daryani et al., 2020; Khademian et al., 2021; Rehman et al., 2021) also found
different effects of stressors induced by COVID-19, in which individuals who report high levels of
economic status tend to have low levels of stress and depression. Based on these arguments, we
propose two hypotheses:

H5: SES moderates the effects of workplace incivility on emotional exhaustion

H6: SES moderates the effects of workplace incivility on job embeddedness

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants and procedure

This study conducted a field study on frontline service employees in several hotels in Jakarta,
Indonesia. Data collection consisted of two phases, each of which was completed at different
times. The research team provided a unique code and separate notes on the questionnaire to
identify the respondents to facilitate the data collection process for phases 1 and 2. The first phase
of this study was conducted in December 2021; respondents were asked to provide biographical
information, customer incivility, and SES. Phase 2 was conducted in April 2022; respondents
answered questions related to emotional exhaustion and job embeddedness. After obtaining
permits from management, 214 respondents at six hotels in Jakarta filled out a paper-based
questionnaire. After discarding 22 incomplete questionnaires, 192 were used in the present study.
Table 1 presents the respondents’ demographic characteristics.

The respondents included 139 women (42.40 percent) and 53 men (27.60 percent). The majority
of respondents (83.85 percent) were 20–29 years old, and the rest were 30–39 years old (6.25 per­
cent) or more than 40 years old (9.90 percent). The educational background of the respondents
was as follows: 151 had a basic diploma (78.65 percent), 18 had undergraduate or bachelor’s
degrees (9.89 percent), and 23 had completed senior high school (11.98 percent). A total of
81.25 percent (156 respondents) had an employment tenure of fewer than five years, and the
remaining 18.75 percent had worked for more than five years. Finally, 73.96 percent of the
respondents were single, and 26.56 percent were married.

3.2. Measurement
This study uses a scale used by previous research to ensure its validity and reliability. All items
were rated by participants based on a five-point Likert scale based on context (1 = never/
strongly disagree; 5 = always/strongly agree). Customer incivility was measured using a four-

Page 6 of 16
Gustiawan et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2178613
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613

Table 1. Respondent characteristics

Characteristics n Percent
Sex
Female 139 72.40
Male 53 27.60
Age
20–29 years 161 83.85
30–39 years 12 6.25
> 40 years 19 9.90
Education
High School 23 11.98
Diploma 151 78.65
Bachelor 18 9.38
Tenure
< 5 years 156 81.25
> 5 years 36 18.75
Marital Status
Single 142 73.96
Married 51 26.56

item scale developed by Walker et al. (2014). For example: “customer spoke aggressively
toward you” and “customer used a tone when speaking with you.” The emotional exhaustion
scale was adapted from the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach & Jackson, 1984). Some
typical examples included “I feel frustrated by my job” and “I am emotionally drained from
my work.” Job embeddedness was measured using a seven-item scale from the global job
embeddedness scale developed by Crossley et al. (2007). An example of a typical item was “I
feel embedded in this organization.” All scales have met internal consistency with Cronbach
alpha with 0.77, 0.87, and 0.93 for customer incivility, emotional exhaustion, and job embedd­
edness, respectively (see, Table 2).

The SES was measured using the objective SES approach (Adler et al., 2000), which considered
income, occupation, and education level to classify the top and bottom of the ladder in SES.
However, because all the respondents were at the same level (frontline service), we changed
positions with employee status coded: 1 = contract; 2 = permanent. The education level is coded:
1 = senior high school degree, 2 = diploma degree, and 3 = bachelor’s degree. For salary, we
classify employee income into two groups based on the Indonesian government income tax
regulations: 1 = employees who earn less than 4 million rupiahs per month and 2 = employees
who earn more than 4 million rupiahs per month. Following Adler et al. (2000), a composite score
from 3 categories (status, education, and salary) was created to obtain an average score by
standardizing each indicator.

Table 2. Measurement model evaluation

Indicator VIF Cronbach’s AVE
loading Alpha
Customer incivility .77—.88 1.65–2.26 0.77 0.67
Exhaustion .73—.85 1.78–2.49 0.87 0.63
Job embeddedness .76—.87 1.13–2.77 0.93 0.71
Note: VIF = variance inflation factor; AVE = average variance extracted

Page 7 of 16
Gustiawan et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2178613
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations

No Construct Mean S.E 1 2 3 4
1 CIC 2.49 .86 1
2 EX 2.77 .63 .450** 1
3 JE 3.70 .67 −.316** −.306** 1
4 SES 3.22 .80 .276** .351** .031 1
AVE 0.16
Note: S.E = standard error; CIC = customer incivility; EX = emotional exhaustion; JE = job embeddedness; SES = socio-
economic status. ** significance at the 0.01.

Moreover, Table 2 shows that all loading indicators are> 0.70, indicating that all items have good
reliability. The AVEs value > 0.50 for all constructs also shows that all measurement models used
have met convergent validity. Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion is used to assess discriminant
validity in this study by comparing the construct’s AVEs in all constructs with the squared inter-
construct correlation (see, Table 3). Based on these criteria, there is no AVE’s < square of the
correlation between constructs, indicating that discriminant validity has been satisfied (Hair et al.,
2019). Finally, the variance inflation factor (VIF) value is <3, indicating no severe problem with
multicollinearity.

4. Results

4.1. Common method bias and descriptive statistics

This study uses single and self-reported data (employees) to have a common method bias (Podsakoff
et al., 2012). Considering these conditions, we carried out several procedures. First, we conducted
control procedures by taking data at two different times (time-lag) and varying the answer choices on
the questionnaire items (1 = never/strongly disagree; 5 = always/strongly agree). Second, statistical
control is carried out with the Harman single-factor model, where the average variance extracted
(AVE) value is used as a guide to determine whether the data is exposed to common bias. Kock (2017)
explains that AVE < 0.40 indicates that the common method variance (CMV) in the data is not a serious
violation. The results in Table 3 show that the AVE 0.16 is below the cut-off value of 0.40; thus, the
currently used data have no severe CMV violations (see, Table 3).

Table 3 shows the research variables’ means, standard deviations, and correlations. The results
of the descriptive analysis showed that the mean scores for emotional exhaustion, SES, and job
embeddedness were above the midpoint on each scale. Meanwhile, perceived customer incivility
had an average score slightly below the mean of 2.49. Following the results of the correlation
analysis, customer incivility was positively correlated with exhaustion and SES and negatively
correlated with job embeddedness. Meanwhile, emotional exhaustion was negatively correlated
with job embeddedness.

4.2. Hypothesis testing

In this study, we employed hierarchical regression analysis using macro PROCESS version 4.0
(Model 8) developed by Hayes (2017) to test the hypotheses. Table 3 shows that none of the
control variables, such as age, sex, education, job tenure, or marital status, significantly affected
emotional exhaustion and job embeddedness. The first hypothesis examines the relationship
between customer incivility and emotional exhaustion, and the results show a positive and
significant relationship (b = .29, p < .01), thus supporting H1. The second hypothesis shows that
customer incivility was negatively and significantly related to job embeddedness (b = −.21, p < .01),
supporting H2. Similarly, emotional exhaustion in the present study was found to be negatively
and significantly related to job embeddedness (b = −.24, p < .01), supporting H3.

Page 8 of 16
Gustiawan et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2178613
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613

Table 4. Results from the moderated mediation analysis (Model 8)

Variable Emotional exhaustion as dependent Job embeddedness as dependent
variable variable
b se p b se p
Main Effect
Customer .29 .05 .00 −.21 .06 .00
incivility
Emotional − − − −.24 .08 .00
exhaustion
SES .16 .05 .00 .20 .06 .00
Interaction
Interaction −.12 .05 .02 .16 .06 .01
(CIC × SES)
R-sq .28 .19
F-statistics 24.20 11.21
Note: N = 182; CIC = customer incivility; EX = emotional exhaustion; JE = job embeddedness; SES = socio-economic status.

H4 reflects the indirect effect of customer incivility on job embeddedness via emotional exhaus­
tion. As Table 5 shows, the mediation is significant only at lower level of SES. At high-SES levels, the
indirect relationship between customer incivility and job embeddedness was not significant.
Therefore, H4 is not fully supported.

The results of testing the moderating role of SES are shown in Tables 4 and 6. First, as shown in
Table 4, the value of interaction (customer incivility x SES) has a negative effect on exhaustion
(b = −.12, p < .05). Similarly, the interaction effect between customer incivility and SES was also
significant (b = .16, p < .05). Therefore, this result supports H5 and H6. Second, the test results of
the previous interaction hypothesis demonstrate that SES plays a moderating role in customer
incivility–emotional exhaustion and customer incivility–job embeddedness relationships, as
detailed in Table 6. The effect of customer incivility on emotional exhaustion is more significant
at a low SES (b = .39, p < .01); and its effect is reduced at a high-SES (b = .19, p < .01). The findings
suggest that the customer incivility–emotional exhaustion relationship is significant at both low-
and high-SES and that the relationship becomes more substantial at a low-SES.

Furthermore, with a 95 percent bias correction, the relationship between emotional exhaustion
and job embeddedness is insignificant (b = −.08, p > .05) at a high level of SES. Meanwhile, the
effect of emotional exhaustion on job embeddedness becomes significant when the SES is low

Table 5. Conditional indirect effects of workplace incivility on job embeddedness

Indirect Effect CIC–EX—JE 95% CL
(H4)

Effect se LL UL
Low SES (− 1 SD) −.09 .04 −.17 −.02
Average SES (Mean −.07 .03 −.13 −.02
SD)
High SES (+ 1 SD) −.04 .03 −.11 .00
Index of moderated Index = .03; SE = .02; LLCI = .00; ULCI = .08
mediation
Note: N = 192; SES = socio-economic status; CIC = customer incivility; EX = emotional exhaustion; JE = job embedd­
edness; CL, confidence level; LL = lower level; UL = upper level.

Page 9 of 16
Gustiawan et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2178613
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613

Table 6. Conditional effects of the focal predictor at the values of the moderator(s)
Effect se t p LL UL
Interaction 1 Dependent variable: emotional exhaustion 95% CL
(H5)

Low SES (- 1 .39 .07 5.89 .00 .26 .52

SD)
Average SES .29 .05 6.00 .00 .19 .38
(Mean SD)
High SES (+ 1 .19 .06 2.92 .00 .06 .31
SD)
Interaction 2 Dependent variable: job embeddedness 95% CL
(H6)
Low SES (- 1 −.34 .08 −4.23 .00 −.49 −.18
SD)
Average SES −.21 .06 −3.61 .00 −.33 −.10
(Mean SD)
High SES (+ 1 −.08 .07 −1.15 .00 −.23 .06
SD)
Note: SES = socio-economic status; CL = confidence level; LL = lower level; UL = upper level.

(b = −.34, p < .01). These results indicate that the negative effect of customer incivility on job
embeddedness is significant at low-SES levels.

5. Discussion
The main goal of our study is to explore how frontline service employees respond to customers’
uncivil behavior in the hospitality sector. We replicated previous studies to investigate the detri­
mental effect of workplace incivility on work-related attitudes (emotional exhaustion and job
embeddedness). In addition, the present study was intended to explore to what extent the
perceived socio-economic status can distinguish employee responses to uncivil behavior from
consumers. The mediation moderation analysis was applied to 192 frontline service employees.
The results indicated that high levels of perceived customer incivility foster high emotional
exhaustion and decrease job embeddedness. The mediation analysis indicates that emotional
exhaustion also acts as a mediator between customer incivility and job embeddedness.
Furthermore, the results of the study also reveal the vital role of SES in the proposed model. In
general, SES originating from social disparities reinforces customer incivility’s positive and negative
effects on emotional exhaustion and job embeddedness.

The first contribution of this study is that it reveals the relationship between customer incivility
and employees’ job embeddedness which had yet been unexplored by previous researchers. The
results of this study reveal that a high level of perceived customer incivility is associated with
a decrease in employees’ embeddedness in their job/organizations. In the same vein, our study
complements and supports existing studies of perceived customer incivility, which can reduce
service performance (Cheng et al., 2020) and increase turnover intention (Alola et al., 2019) in the
hospitality sector. The findings of this study provide compelling empirical evidence that perceived
uncivil behavior can cause employees to consider whether they are “fit” for their current job; they
also support the assumptions of COR theory and AET. In other words, the accumulation of uncivil
events received by employees over time will reduce their embeddedness in their current job,
particularly in the hospitality sector.

The second contribution to the existing literature is to highlight “how” the link between custo­
mer incivility and job embeddedness is mediated by emotional exhaustion. The results of our study
confirm that perceived customer incivility directly affects job embeddedness or indirectly through

Page 10 of 16
Gustiawan et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2178613
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613

emotional exhaustion. In other words, employees who have high-frequency uncivil experiences
from customers will tend to experience emotional exhaustion, which triggers a decrease in job
embeddedness. Hence, we support COR theory and AET as a framework for explaining how
customer incivility causes emotional exhaustion in employees, which eventually reduces employ­
ees’ level of job embeddedness. The present study extant existing research demonstrating the
relationship between customer incivility, emotional exhaustion, and other work outcomes (Alola
et al., 2019; Baker & Kim, 2020; Kim & Qu, 2019; Shin, Hur et al., 2022), while our research shows
that customer incivility is directly and indirectly proven to affect job embeddedness significantly.
Our findings are consistent with previous studies on the relationship between incivility and emo­
tional exhaustion (Alola et al., 2019; Baker & Kim, 2020; Kim & Qu, 2019; Shin, Hur et al., 2022) and
the link between emotional exhaustion and job embeddedness (Dogantekin et al., 2022; Karatepe
et al., 2019). Thus, the results of our study established an alternative model of the antecedents of
job embeddedness based on the prevalence of emotional exhaustion (a mediator) as a mechanism
for mediating the relationship between customer incivility and job embeddedness.

Third, we introduce SES as a complementary factor affecting how workplace incivility affects
emotional exhaustion and job embeddedness. In the context of victims and perpetrators of
rudeness, differences in status and hierarchy have been discussed (Cortina & Magley, 2009;
Hershcovis et al., 2017; Porath & Pearson, 2012). In this study, we found different roles of SES
where the interaction effect was positive for customer incivility and emotional exhaustion and
negative for customer incivility and job embeddedness. For emotional exhaustion, participants in
the low SES condition suffered more and reported higher emotional exhaustion compared to the
middle and high SES groups when receiving impolite behavior from customers. This pattern of
findings shows that employees who had a low SES level are significantly more exhausted than
those who report SES at a medium or high SES level when they are victims of customer incivility.
This result is reasonable considering that a low level of SES has a lower bargaining position (less
power) in the organization than the group above it, so they perceived more suffering from the
adverse outcomes of customer incivility. In the same vein, in line with the COR assumption, the low
SES group has fewer resources and is no longer sufficient to cope with workplace stressors (i.e.,
customer incivility), triggering higher emotional exhaustion and psychological distress (Hobfoll,
2001; Sainz et al., 2021).

Socioeconomic status also plays an essential role in maintaining employees’ job embeddedness
when they experience high levels of customer incivility. In the second situation, the negative effect
of customer incivility on job embeddedness is significant in the group of employees reporting low
and medium SES and becomes insignificant in a high-SES group. This finding indicates that
employees at high levels of SES have different responses to customer incivility than the other
two groups, particularly regarding job embeddedness. In other words, although employees experi­
ence impolite behavior from customers, their attitude toward remaining in the organization is
relatively stable. Instead, using the job embeddedness perspective, employees who report low and
medium levels of SES are more affected by customer incivility and are more likely to experience
“sacrifice” and reconsider their “fit” with the organization. Moreover, our findings support Ghosh’s
(2017) argument that employees at low social levels tend to experience higher psychological
distress and turnover intention when they become victims of incivility at work.

In short, SES is a personal resource that can influence how individuals define themselves In
short, SES is a personal resource that can influence how individuals define themselves (Easterbrook
et al., 2020; Sainz et al., 2021); these differences in responses based on SES have been extensively
studied in the context of organizational behavior. For instance, individuals with low levels of SES
tend to report lower well-being (Sainz et al., 2021) and are more prone to health problems, stress,
and depression (Effati-Daryani et al., 2020; Götz et al., 2018; Vinkers et al., 2020). SES differences
might be considered further for the observed differences in responses to uncivil behavior on
employees’ emotional exhaustion and job embeddedness. The SES could be an exciting topic for
future studies that can offer new insights; as an alternative perspective from hierarchical status

Page 11 of 16
Gustiawan et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2178613
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613

and socio-cultural levels (Ghosh, 2017; Lam & Xu, 2019) in studying workplace incivility and its
impact on employee work-related behavior, particularly in Asia.

5.1. Practical implications

The present study’s findings are important for managers and organizations in the hospitality sector.
The results show how workplace incivility can increase emotional exhaustion and reduce job embedd­
edness; thus, policymakers must take anticipatory steps to minimize the harmful effects of workplace
incivility. First, the management must identify consumer behavior that can be marked as uncivil
behavior. We recommend conducting an internal survey to identify specific types of behavior that
employees consider disrespectful. Accordingly, management can devise appropriate anticipatory
strategies to reduce potential consumer–employee conflicts. This exploration is essential to determine
the response that employees need to make in the face of impolite behavior from consumers. After the
management has succeeded in classifying various forms of uncivil (for example, physical or verbal,
rude or overtly aggressive words, and other forms), an action plan can be carried out. For example,
a consumer who misbehaves because of the influence of alcohol may lead to a widespread and severe
escalation that requires security measures to be taken.

Second, the management must equip all frontline service employees with cross-cultural ethics of
politeness. Most importantly, before being assigned to the frontline, all service employees could be
trained to recognize and differentiate mild to more uncivil severe behavior (e.g., physical aggres­
sion), which can be responded to differently. Third, management needs to be aware that uncivil
behavior, whatever its form, can cause emotional exhaustion and decrease job embeddedness.
Hence, the management needs to open channels for employees to submit their complaints in
dealing with consumers. In addition, particularly for inexperienced frontline employees, manage­
ment must implement policies to provide assistance and supervision from senior supervisors to
train them in handling situations in the field more effectively.

Finally, the management needs to provide factual support to raise the level of their employees
to a higher level of economic. For example, management can provide scholarship support to young
employees to continue their education at the university level, provide measurable career paths for
all employees, and provide financial rewards that are commensurate with the workload and
results. Increasing self-capacity through motivational training also needs to be considered to
increase employee self-esteem.

5.2. Limitations and suggestions for future research

Although this study offers several important theoretical and practical implications, such as those
for scientific research, we must mention its limitations as a caution for those undertaking future
studies. First, in this study, we used a cross-sectional approach twice and in other groups; however,
using self-reported data from questionnaires may cause a common bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012).
Although the study did not exhibit a common bias according to Harman’s single-factor test, the
conclusion regarding causality should still be interpreted with caution. Therefore, in future studies,
researchers should adopt a longitudinal design to overcome this limitation.

Second, the workplace incivility we investigated came from a single source (customer) to frontline
employees in Indonesia’s hospitality sector. Our study does not consider disrespect from the coworker/
supervisor perspective (Kim & Qu, 2019; Lam & Xu, 2019). Future researchers could integrate incivility
from internal sources (e.g., coworkers) and compare its effects on emotional exhaustion and job
embeddedness with those of internal incivility. Third, the majority of respondents in this study are
men, who may react differently than women in situations involving customer incivility. We recom­
mend that future studies use a more gender-balanced sample or separate data analyses (e.g., multi-
group analysis). Finally, because employee perceptions of workplace incivility differ across cultures
(Eka & Chambers, 2019; Ghosh, 2017), this study may be biased based on a specific society’s social
values and norms. To address this issue, we invite future researchers to compare the results of this
study with those obtained in different cultural contexts.

Page 12 of 16
Gustiawan et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2178613
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613
Funding
The authors received no direct funding for this research.
Author details
Deni Gustiawan1
E-mail: denigustiawan@student.ub.ac.id
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2133-5956
Noermijati1
Siti Aisjah1
Nur Khusniyah Indrawati1
1
Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and
Business, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Citation information
Cite this article as: Customer incivility, employee emo­
tional exhaustion, and job embeddedness relationship in
the Indonesian hospitality sector: The socio-economic
status perspective, Deni Gustiawan, Noermijati, Siti Aisjah
& Nur Khusniyah Indrawati, Cogent Social Sciences (2023),
9: 2178613.
References
Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R.
(2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social
status with psychological and physiological func­
tioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women.
Health Psychology, 19(6), 586–592. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0278-6133.19.6.586
Alola, U. V., Olugbade, O. A., Avci, T., & Öztüren, A. (2019).
Customer incivility and employees’ outcomes in the
hotel: Testing the mediating role of emotional
exhaustion. Tourism Management Perspectives, 29,
9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2018.10.004
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for Tat? The
spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace.
Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202131
Anjum, M. A., Liang, D., Durrani, D. K., & Parvez, A. (2020).
Workplace mistreatment and emotional exhaustion:
The interaction effects of self-compassion. Current
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-
00673-9
Baker, M. A., & Kim, K. (2020). Dealing with customer inci­
vility: The effects of managerial support on employee
psychological well-being and quality-of-life.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 87,
102503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102503
Boukis, A., Koritos, C., Daunt, K. L., & Papastathopoulos, A.
(2020). Effects of customer incivility on frontline
employees and the moderating role of supervisor
leadership style. Tourism Management, 77, 103997.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.103997
Cahyadi, A., Hendryadi, H., & Mappadang, A. (2021).
Workplace and classroom incivility and learning
engagement: The moderating role of locus of control.
International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(1),
4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-021-00071-z
Cheng, B., Dong, Y., Zhou, X., Guo, G., & Peng, Y. (2020).
Does customer incivility undermine employees’ ser­
vice performance? International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 89, 102544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2020.102544
Cortina, L., & Magley, V. (2009). Patterns and profiles of
response to incivility in the workplace. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 14(3), 272–288.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014934
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., &
Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace:
Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 6(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/
1076-8998.6.1.64
Crossley, C. D., Bennett, R. J., Jex, S. M., & Burnfield, J. L.
(2007). Development of a global measure of job
embeddedness and integration into a traditional
model of voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(4), 1031–1042. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-9010.92.4.1031
Dogantekin, A., Secilmis, C., & Karatepe, O. M. (2022).
Qualitative job insecurity, emotional exhaustion and
their effects on hotel employees’ job embeddedness:
The moderating role of perceived organizational
support. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 105, 103270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2022.103270
Easterbrook, M. J., Kuppens, T., & Manstead, A. S. R.
(2020). Socioeconomic status and the structure of
the self-concept. British Journal of Social Psychology,
59(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12334
Effati-Daryani, F., Zarei, S., Mohammadi, A., Hemmati, E.,
Ghasemi Yngyknd, S., & Mirghafourvand, M. (2020).
Depression, stress, anxiety and their predictors in
Iranian pregnant women during the outbreak of
COVID-19. BMC Psychology, 8(1), 99. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s40359-020-00464-8
Eka, N. G. A., & Chambers, D. (2019). Incivility in nursing
education: A systematic literature review. Nurse
Education in Practice, 39, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.nepr.2019.06.004
Ghosh, R. (2017). Workplace Incivility in Asia- how do we
take a socio-cultural perspective? Human Resource
Development International, 20(4), 263–267. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2017.1336692
Götz, S., Hoven, H., Müller, A., Dragano, N., & Wahrendorf, M.
(2018). Age differences in the association between
stressful work and sickness absence among full-time
employed workers: Evidence from the German
socio-economic panel. International Archives of
Occupational and Environmental Health, 91(4), 479–496.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-018-1298-3
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019).
When to use and how to report the results of
PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Han, S. J., Bonn, M. A., & Cho, M. (2016). The relationship
between customer incivility, restaurant frontline ser­
vice employee burnout and turnover intention.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 52,
97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.10.002
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, modera­
tion, and conditional process analysis: A regression-
based approac. Guilford publications.
Hershcovis, M. S., Ogunfowora, B., Reich, T. C., &
Christie, A. M. (2017). Targeted workplace incivility:
The roles of belongingness, embarrassment, and
power. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(7),
1057–1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2183
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community,
and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing
conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology,
50(3), 337–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.
00062
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2005). Cultures
and organizations: Software of the mind (2nd) ed.).
Mcgraw-hill.
Hur, W.-M., Moon, T., & Jun, J.-K. (2016). The effect of
workplace incivility on service employee creativity: The
mediating role of emotional exhaustion and intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Services Marketing, 30(3),
302–315. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-10-2014-0342
Page 13 of 16
Gustiawan et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2178613
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613
Jelavić, S. R., Aleksić, A., & Braje, I. N. (2021). Behind the
curtain: Workplace incivility-individual actors in cul­
tural settings. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(3),
1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031249
Jungert, T., & Holm, K. (2022). Workplace incivility and
bystanders’ helping intentions. International Journal
of Conflict Management, 33(2), 273–290. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJCMA-08-2021-0131
Karatepe, O. M., Kim, T. T., & Lee, G. (2019). Is political skill
really an antidote in the workplace
incivility-emotional exhaustion and outcome rela­
tionship in the hotel industry? Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Management, 40, 40–49. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.06.001
Khademian, F., Delavari, S., Koohjani, Z., & Khademian, Z.
(2021). An investigation of depression, anxiety, and
stress and its relating factors during COVID-19 pan­
demic in Iran. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 275. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10329-3
Kim, H., & Qu, H. (2019). The Effects of Experienced
Customer Incivility on Employees’ Behavior Toward
Customers and Coworkers. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 43(1), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1096348018764583
Kock, N. (2017). Common method bias: a full collinearity
assessment method for PLS-SEM BT - partial least
squares path modeling: Basic concepts, methodolo­
gical issues and applications. In H. Latan & R. Noonan
(Eds.), Partial Least Squares Path Modeling (pp.
245–257). Springer International Publishing. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64069-3_11
Lam, L. W., & Xu, A. J. (2019). Power imbalance and
employee silence: The role of abusive leadership,
power distance orientation, and perceived organisa­
tional politics. Applied Psychology, 68(3), 513–546.
https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12170
Loh, J. M. I., Thorsteinsson, E. B., & Loi, N. M. (2021).
Workplace incivility and work outcomes:
Cross-cultural comparison between Australian and
Singaporean employees. Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources, 59(2), 305–329. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1744-7941.12233
Markova, S., & Nikitskaya, E. (2017). Coping strategies of
adolescents with deviant behaviour. International
Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 22(1), 36–46.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2013.868363
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1984). Burnout in organiza­
tional settings. In Applied Social Psychology Annual
(Vol. 5, pp. 133–153). Sage Publications. https://psy
cnet.apa.org/record/1985-24012-001
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., &
Erez, M. (2001). Why People Stay: Using Job
Embeddedness to Predict Voluntary Turnover.
Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102–1121.
https://doi.org/10.5465/3069391
Mullen, J., Fiset, J., & Rhéaume, A. (2018). Destructive
forms of leadership. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 39(8), 946–961. https://doi.org/
10.1108/LODJ-06-2018-0203
Navarro-Carrillo, G., Alonso-Ferres, M., Moya, M., & Valor-
Segura, I. (2020). Socioeconomic status and psycho­
logical well-being: Revisiting the role of subjective
socioeconomic status. Frontiers in Psychology, 11.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01303
Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Wegner, J. W. (2001).
When workers flout convention: A study of workplace
incivility. Human Relations, 54(11), 1387–1419.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267015411001
Peltokorpi, V. (2019). Abusive supervision and emotional
exhaustion: The moderating role of power distance
orientation and the mediating role of interaction
avoidance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
57(3), 251–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.
12188
Peltokorpi, V., & Ramaswami, A. (2021). Abusive super­
vision and subordinates’ physical and mental health:
The effects of job satisfaction and power distance
orientation. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 32(4), 893–919. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1511617
Perreault, M., Touré, E. H., Perreault, N., & Caron, J. (2017).
Employment status and mental health: mediating
roles of social support and coping strategies.
Psychiatric Quarterly, 88(3), 501–514. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11126-016-9460-0
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2012). Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it.
Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. M. (2012). Emotional and
behavioral responses to workplace incivility and the
impact of hierarchical status. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 42(S1), E326–E357. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.01020.x
Rahim, A., & Cosby, D. (2016). A model of workplace
incivility, job burnout, turnover intentions, and job
performance. Journal of Management Development,
35(10), 1255–1265. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-09-
2015-0138
Rehman, U., Shahnawaz, M. G., Khan, N. H.,
Kharshiing, K. D., Khursheed, M., Gupta, K.,
Kashyap, D., & Uniyal, R. (2021). Depression, Anxiety
and Stress Among Indians in Times of Covid-19
Lockdown. Community Mental Health Journal, 57(1),
42–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-020-00664-x
Reisig, M. D., & Cancino, J. M. (2004). Incivilities in non­
metropolitan communities: The effects of structural
constraints, social conditions, and crime. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 32(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jcrimjus.2003.10.002
Sainz, M., Martínez, R., Moya, M., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., &
Vaes, J. (2021). Lacking socio-economic status
reduces subjective well-being through perceptions of
meta-dehumanization. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 60(2), 470–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjso.12412
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2009).
Burnout: 35 years of research and practice. Career
Development International, 14(3), 204–220. https://
doi.org/10.1108/13620430910966406
Shin, Y., Hur, W.-M., & Hwang, H. (2022). Impacts of customer
incivility and abusive supervision on employee perfor­
mance: A comparative study of the pre- and
post-COVID-19 periods. Service Business, 16(2),
309–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-021-00456-7
Shin, Y., Lee, E. J., & Hur, W.-M. (2022). Supervisor incivi­
lity, job insecurity, and service performance among
flight attendants: The buffering role of co-worker
support. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(6), 901–918.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1905618
Sliter, M., Sliter, K., & Jex, S. (2012). The employee as
a punching bag: The effect of multiple sources of
incivility on employee withdrawal behavior and sales
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33
(1), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.767
Tan, J. J. X., Kraus, M. W., Carpenter, N. C., & Adler, N. E.
(2020). The association between objective and sub­
jective socioeconomic status and subjective
well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological
Bulletin, 146(11), 970–1020. https://doi.org/10.1037/
bul0000258
Page 14 of 16
Gustiawan et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2178613
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613
Tricahyadinata, I., Hendryadi, S., Zainurossalamia, Z. A.,
Riadi, S. S., & Riadi, S. S. (2020). Workplace incivility,
work engagement, and turnover intentions:
Multi-group analysis. Cogent Psychology, 7(1),
1743627. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.
1743627
Vinkers, C. H., van Amelsvoort, T., Bisson, J. I., Branchi, I.,
Cryan, J. F., Domschke, K., Howes, O. D., Manchia, M.,
Pinto, L., de Quervain, D., Schmidt, M. V., & van der
Wee, N. J. A. (2020). Stress resilience during the
coronavirus pandemic. European
Neuropsychopharmacology, 35, 12–16. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2020.05.003
Walker, D. D., van Jaarsveld, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2014).
Exploring the effects of individual customer incivility
encounters on employee incivility: The moderating
roles of entity (in)civility and negative affectivity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 151–161.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034350
Weiss, H. M., & Beal, D. J. (2005). Reflections on Affective
Events Theory. In N. Ashkanasy, W. Zerbe, &
C. E. Härtel (Eds.), The Effect of Affect in
Organizational Settings (Research on Emotion in
Organizations) (pp. 1–21). Emerald Group Publishing
Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1746-9791(05)
01101-6
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events
theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure,
causes and consequences of affective experiences at
work. In B. M. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (pp. 1–74). Elsevier Science/
JAI Press.
Welbourne, J. L., Miranda, G., & Gangadharan, A. (2020).
Effects of employee personality on the relationships
between experienced incivility, emotional exhaus­
tion, and perpetrated incivility. International Journal
of Stress Management, 27(4), 335–345. https://doi.
org/10.1037/str0000160
Page 15 of 16
Gustiawan et al., Cogent Social Sciences (2023), 9: 2178613
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2178613

© 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Cogent Social Sciences (ISSN: 2331-1886) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com

Page 16 of 16