the relationship between workplace incivility

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORKPLACE INCIVILITY AND STRAIN: EQUITY SENSITIVITY AS A MODERATOR

Jason Matthew Kain

A Thesis

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of

The requirements for the degree of

Master of Industrial/Organizational Psychology

August 2008

Committee

Steve Jex, Advisor

Mike Zickar

Eric Dubow

ii

ABSTRACT

Steve Jex, Advisor

The current study tested the influence of equity sensitivity on the relationship

between experienced and perpetrated incivility and health outcomes (affective well-being

and depression). More specifically, it was hypothesized that “entitlement” would

moderate the relationship between both experienced and perpetrated incivility and

affective well-being and depression. Due to measurement limitations with the Equity

Sensitivity Instrument (ESI), a new measure, the Equity Sensitivity Questionnaire (ESQ)

was developed and tested to use in this study. Data was collected from 225 university

employees in 179 departments. Results indicated that people who are more highly

“entitled” tend to experience more incivility. Additionally, people who experience more

incivility tend to have lower levels of affective well-being. Results also showed that

people who experience more incivility also tend to engage in perpetrated incivility more

frequently. Moderator hypotheses were not supported using either the ESQ or ESI.

iii

I dedicate this thesis to those who lost their life in the Virginia Tech massacre on

April 16, 2007. In particular, I would like to name Ryan Clark and Maxine Turner, who

were close friends with my sister. I would also like to name Leslie Sherman, who was

raised in my home town of Springfield, VA. It is my hope that the wonderful lives these

people lived will be remembered forever, and that researchers will continue doing work

on incivility in an effort to one day eliminate needless violence.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my advisor Dr. Steve Jex.

Without his guidance, I would not have been able to complete this paper. I would also

like to thank him for being patient with me, and for helping me grow and develop as a

researcher. Additionally, I would like to thank Mike Zickar and Eric Dubow for their

helpful feedback, and for asking hard questions to help ensure this paper was as well

written as possible. I would also like to thank my family for their support throughout the

process. I would like to thank my grandfather Bernard Kain for offering me a home

away from home, for always being optimistic, and for teaching me that life can be fun

and challenging no matter what happens. I would also like to thank my parents and sister

for their unconditional love and support throughout the graduate school process. Finally,

I would like to thank my friends Kimberly and Tony Laurene, Jesse Erdheim, Heather

Forrester, Alina Foo, Sarah Peterson, and Byron Jose for being there for me throughout

this process. I could not have done this without their friendship and unconditional

support.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION...............................................................................……………1

Potential Causes of Incivility .......................................................................……………2

Negative Effects of Workplace Incivility ....................................................……………4

The “Incivility Spiral” .................................................................................……………5

The Influence of Gender and Organizational Power ...................................……………6

Equity Sensitivity.........................................................................................……………8

The Current Study........................................................................................……………13

CHAPTER II: Methods..........................................................................................................……18

Participants…...........................................................................................................……18

Materials…….. ........................................................................................................……18

Procedure…….. .......................................................................................................……21

CHAPTER III: Results ..........................................................................................................……23

Descriptive Statistics……........................................................................................……23

Main Effects…….....................................................................................................……24

Moderated Hypothesis…….. ...................................................................................……25

CHAPTER IV: Discussion ....................................................................................................……29

Strengths/Limitations……......................................................................................……31

Ideas for Future Research…….. .............................................................................……32

Practical Implications……......................................................................................……34

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................……35

vi

APPENDIX A. Results for the development of the Equity Sensitivity Questionnaire ........……56

Introduction.............................................................................................................…56

Method ........................................................................................……………….…...57

Participants..............................................................................................……….…...57

Materials .....................................................................................……………….…...57

Procedure ....................................................................................……………….…...58

Results.........................................................................................……………….…...58

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for the “Entitled” Sub-Dimension ...........……….…...60

Means and Standard Deviations for the “Entitled” Sub-Dimension....………….…...61

Scree Plot for “Entitled” Sub-Dimension .............................................................…...62

Equity Sensitivity Questionnaire ..........................................................................…...63

APPENDIX B. Equity Sensitivity Instrument ......................................................................…...66

APPENDIX C. Experienced Workplace Incivility Scale .....................................................…...67

APPENDIX D. Instigated Workplace Incivility Scale ..........................................................…...68

APPENDIX E. Job-related Affective Well-being Scale........................................................…...69

APPENDIX F. The Depression Scale....................................................................................…...70

APPENDIX G. PANAS……………………………………………………….………...............71

vii

LIST OF FIGURES/TABLES

Figure/Table Page

1 Bivariate Correlations ……………………………………………………………… 44

2 Descriptive Statistics.................................................................................................. 45

3 Results of Moderated Multiple Regression: Interaction Between Experienced

Incivility and ESQ “Entitlement”. Affective Well-Being is the Outcome

Variable ….................................................................................................................. 46


Incivility and ESI “Entitlement”. Affective Well-Being is the Outcome

Variable…………………………………………………………………………....... 47


Incivility and ESQ “Entitlement”. Depression is the Outcome

Variable………………………………………………………………….................... 48


Incivility and ESI “Entitlement”. Depression is the Outcome

Variable ………….………………………………………………………………...... 49


Incivility and ESQ “Entitlement”. Perpetrated Incivility is the Outcome

Variable …………………………………………………………………………...... 50


Incivility and ESI “Entitlement”. Perpetrated Incivility is the Outcome

Variable ……………………………………………………………………….......... 51

viii

9 Results of Moderated Multiple Regression: Interaction Between Perpetrated

Incivility and ESQ “Entitlement”. Affective Well-Being is the Outcome

Variable …………………………………………………………………………....... 52


Incivility and ESI “Entitlement”. Affective Well-Being is the Outcome

Variable …………………………………………………………………………....... 53


Incivility and ESQ “Entitlement”. Depression is the Outcome

Variable …………........................................................................................................ 54


Incivility and ESI “Entitlement”. Depression is the Outcome

Variable …................................................................................................................... 55

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Discourteous behaviors in the workplace such as rude comments, thoughtless acts,

and negative gestures are becoming more prevalent (Blau & Anderson, 2005; Andersson

& Pearson, 1999; Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Johnson & Indivik,

2001). This type of behavior is known as workplace deviance, and can result in harm to

both the individuals in an organization, and the organization itself (Robinson & Bennett,

2005). Workplace deviance can range from mild behavior such as ignoring someone to

more severe behaviors such as violence.

Andersson and Pearson (1999) defined mild workplace deviance behaviors as

workplace incivility. More specifically, workplace incivility is “low intensity behavior

with ambiguous intent to harm in violation of the workplace norms for respect”

(Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p.456). Often times people who are highly emotionally

reactive (sensitive to insults, easily offended, perceiving threats in seemingly innocent

exchanges) are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of incivility (Blau &

Andersson, 2005). Examples of workplace incivility include ignoring a colleague,

spreading rumors, writing disrespectful E-mails to co-workers, or addressing someone

unprofessionally. Incivility has been shown to lead to a wide variety of negative

consequences including lower levels of affective well-being and higher levels of

depression (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001).

In addition to perceiving higher rates of incivility, emotionally reactive people

have also been shown to perceive equity differently (Huseman, Hatman, & Miles, 1987;

King & Miles, 1994). Adams (1965) proposed that people desire an equal ratio between

effort and rewards among their colleagues; when people do not perceive an equal ratio,

2

they restore equity by changing their own effort and rewards or the efforts and rewards of

the people they compare themselves to. Adams (1965) also mentioned that there might

be individual differences in the way people perceive equity. Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles

(1987), built the preference component into equity theory by developing the concept of

equity sensitivity. Equity sensitivity explains that the individual differences in people’s

perceptions of equity that can be measured by three sub-dimensions. More specifically,

some people perceive equity as giving more than they receive (“benevolent”), some

people perceive equity as giving as much as they receive (“equity sensitive”), and some

people perceive equity as receiving more than they give (“entitled”) (Huseman, et al,

1987; King et al, 1994). In general, research shows that people who rate themselves as

more highly “entitled” tend to be more emotionally reactive when they perceive they are

not receiving the largest reward for their effort relative to others (Huseman et al, 1987;

King et al, 1994).

Although it has been shown that perpetrators and victims of incivility as well as

people who are more highly “entitled” have characteristics such as emotional reactivity in

common (Anderrson et al, 1999; Blau et al, 2005; Cortina et al, 2001; Huseman et al,

1987; King et al, 1994), no research to date has examined the relationship between equity

sensitivity and incivility. The purpose of the current study is to examine how

“entitlement” influences the relationship between incivility and both affective well-being

and depression.

Potential causes of incivility

People’s temperament can make them more prone to be both victims and

perpetrators of incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Blau & Andersson, 2005). For

3

example, individuals with a low ability to self-regulate can be impulsive and are more

likely to use verbal slurs and coercive actions when they experience incivility (Andersson

& Pearson, 1999). Also, people who are highly emotionally reactive are more likely to

commit acts of incivility because they are more sensitive to insults, more likely to

experience violations of interactional injustice, and experience higher levels of negative

affect (Blau & Andersson, 2005).

In addition to temperament, Pearson, Andersson, and Porath (2005) outline many

environmental factors that lead to perceived incivility such as less company loyalty, low

retention, short-term profitability, and informality. These environmental factors lead to

less confidence and trust among workers, resulting in employees who are much more

concerned with meeting their own needs than the needs of their colleagues (Pearson,

Andersson, & Porath, 2005). In addition, organizational cultures are becoming more

informal, which is making uncivil actions more tolerable. For example, Andersson and

Pearson (1999) point out that in more formal cultures, management enforces regulations

for employees to regulate their speech, exhibit emotional restraint, and keep a

professional demeanor by keeping information about employee’s private lives outside the

company. When companies create informal cultures, there is more ambiguity about what

is considered acceptable interpersonal interaction, which can make incivility more

tolerable.

Other factors leading to increased incivility include change initiative such as

downsizing, contract labor, freelancing, outsourcing, and job hopping (Blau & Anderson,

2005). These pressures have led to less job security which may make employees angry,

tense, and fearful (Andersson et al, 1999). In addition, technology such as E-mail allows

4

for impersonal interactions and makes people less nervous about saying negative things

about colleagues (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2005).

Negative Effects of Workplace Incivility

In a poll reported by one study on incivility, 90 percent of respondents believed

that incivility was a problem and 75 percent believed that it was getting worse (Pearson,

Andersson, & Porath, 2000). Even though incivility is low-intensity, it diminishes the

effectiveness of the target and co-workers around them. For example, one-half of victims

in the poll indicated that they wasted time thinking about the perpetrator and one-fourth

of them reported wasting time avoiding the perpetrator (Pearson et al, 2000).

In addition to decreasing effectiveness, incivility also leads to poorer health

among employees. There are generally three attributions victims make about the causes

of incivility that can result in different health outcomes; that the incivility is caused by

their own actions because they are the only victim, the incivility is caused by the

perpetrator because he/she is engaging in incivility behaviors towards multiple people,

and the incivility is caused by the organization because there are multiple perpetrators

and victims (Bowling & Beehr, 2006). If victims blame themselves for the incivility,

they usually have increased levels of depression and decreased self-esteem (Bowling &

Beehr, 2006). When victims attribute the cause of the incivility to the perpetrator, they

experience perceptions of unfairness or interactional injustice. As a result of these

perceptions, victims feel ignored, withdraw from, distanced, depressed, and moody

(Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001).

When the victims are blaming the organization for incivility occurring in the

workplace, it is not uncommon to see mass participation in incivility throughout the

5

organization, which decreases productivity, satisfaction, cooperation, and collaboration

on a larger scale (Bies, 2000; Bies & Moag, 1986; Pearson et al, 2001). Any of the

multiple forms of the three attributions of incivility over a repeated time period can lead

to poor interpersonal relationships at work, higher levels of negative affect, absenteeism,

reduced commitment, anxiety, depression, burnout, decreased productivity, stealing from

the organization, and turnover (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Pearson et al, 2000).

There are also costs of incivility associated with being a perpetrator. For

example, if the perpetrator is working on a team project with the victim and the

performance of each person is dependent on each other, the decreased performance of the

victim also hurts the performance of the perpetrator (Pearson & Porath, 2001). Any time

the perpetrator spends hurting the victim is time away from the tasks they are supposed to

be performing, but usually the amount of time is trivial. Also, the victims have a

tendency to avoid the perpetrator, which decreases necessary contact in a context where

they need to work as a team (Pearson & Porath, 2001).

The “Incivility Spiral”

It is not uncommon for victims to respond to incivility by becoming perpetrators

themselves. For starters, Andersson and Pearson (1999) point out that violence in the

workplace is usually due to a series of escalating incivility episodes rather than just

spontaneous acts of violence. For example, one-fourth of incivility perpetrators were

reported making threats to their targets, and in response it was not uncommon for victims

to report stealing items from the perpetrator (Pearson et al, 2000). A series of incivility

episodes starts when someone breeches the norms of respect causing the person on the

receiving end of the breech to perceive a violation of interactional injustice (Bies &

6

Moag, 1986). Interactional justice is when people perceive that communication norms

have been violated (Cropanzano & Byrne, 2001). Employees who are highly emotionally

reactive tend to be more likely to see behaviors as violations of interactional injustice.

Emotionally reactive employees see more violations of interactional injustice because

they tend to inflate the severity of their interpretations of actions that might be uncivil,

and they perceive these actions as an attack on their attributes and social identity

(Andersson & Pearson, 1999).

When initial actions of incivility are seen as unprovoked and interpreted as

stronger than they were intended to be, the victim will sometimes choose to engage in

more severe actions to get revenge on the perpetrator. Andersson and Pearson (1999)

referred to these types of interactions as “incivility spirals”. If “incivility spirals” escalate

far enough, they reach what is referred to as a “tipping point” at which employees

become aggressive and even violent towards each other (Andersson & Pearson, 1999).

An example of an incivility spiral with a tipping point would begin with worker A

ignoring worker B, who responds by insulting worker A over a period of time. In return,

worker A would become increasingly frustrated and retaliate by stealing from worker B,

which results in worker B retaliating by destroying property belonging to working A

(Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). If “incivility spirals” escalate too far and for too

long, they can lead to more severe forms of workplace deviance such as violence

(Andersson et al, 1999).

The Influence of Gender and Organizational Power

Although men and women are equally as likely to be targets of incivility, male

targets tend to respond more aggressively than female targets toward the perpetrator of

7

the incivility (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994. For example, male targets are more likely to

respond to incivility by withholding information and attempting to ruin the perpetrators’

reputation, whereas women are more likely to avoid the perpetrator. Males often times

attempt to ruin the reputation of the perpetrator by telling their subordinates and other

colleagues about what the perpetrator is doing to them (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath,

2005). Male interactions of incivility are more likely to produce incivility spirals that

can actually lead to violent actions (Neuman & Barron, 1998).

For females, experienced incivility is often closely linked to sexual harassment

(Lim & Cortina, 2005). The similarity in incivility and sexual harassment that links them

together is the idea that in both forms of mistreatment, the perpetrator is attempting to

debase their victim and increase their social advantage and dominance. Although both

incivility and sexual harassment are associated with negative mood, cognitive distraction,

fear, decreased productivity, anxiety, depression, and turnover, these outcomes are

increased in severity when sexual harassment and incivility co-occur (Lim & Cortina,

2005).

Victims of workplace incivility are also more likely to be individuals in positions

of lower power (Aquino, Galperin, & Bennett, 2004; Cortina, Magley, Williams, &

Langhout, 2001; Lim & Cortina, 2005; Pearson, 2000). People with higher status and

more resources are more resistant to workplace incivility. People of lower status are

more defensive of their status, and do not necessarily have the resources to resist the

incivility (Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001). When they perceive a threat to their

status, they feel shame and are more likely to retaliate against the person who caused

8

them problems (Aquino, Galperin, & Bennett, 2004). People frequently targeted are

reported being younger, single, female, and or ethnic minority.

When employees engaging in intentional workplace incivility behaviors are

supervisors, the behavior is known as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000). Abusive

supervision is a subordinate’s perception of the extent to which their supervisors engage

in hostile behaviors towards them like lying, coercion, public criticism, and rudeness,

(Tepper, 2000). Higher levels of abusive supervision lead to lower organizational based

self-esteem, which is the extent to which employees have their job-based needs satisfied.

Abusive supervision and incivility, lead to many consequences for the victims

including higher levels of psychological strain, decreased work effort, and avoiding co-

workers (Blau & Andersson, 2005; Cortina & Magley, 2001; Johnson & Indivik, 2001;

Stoner & Perrewe, 2006). Abusive supervision has also been linked to lower job

satisfaction and commitment, and higher levels of counterproductive behavior and

turnover (Cox, 1991). Although abusive supervision and incivility share many of the

same consequences, abusive supervision is a different construct that was not included in

the study.

Equity Sensitivity

One of the motivational theories that could help explain why people engage in

discourteous behavior is equity theory. Equity theory states that people compare the ratio

of their efforts and their rewards to the perceived ratio of referent others and experience

tension when these ratios are not equal (Adams, 1965). People are motivated to decrease

the tension by changing their own effort, changing the referent other they compare

themselves to, or influencing the efforts of referent others. For example, if someone’s

9

inputs are greater than their output, they may ask for more rewards, decrease their effort,

change their referent other, or try to decrease the reward of their referent other. If

people’s outputs are greater than their inputs, they feel guilt and may work harder to even

the ratio or change their referent other. Adams (1965) initial definition of equity theory

stated that one reason employees might engage in deviant acts involves individual

differences in the perception of equity, but did not elaborate on what these individual

differences and their antecedents and consequences were.

One area that helped to build a greater understanding of equity theory is

organizational justice (Cropanzano, et al, 2001). Organizational justice addresses

whether or not members of the organization feel they are being treated fairly. There are

three events that are judged in terms of fairness: Outcomes, process, and personal

interactions. Distributive justice is when people judge the fairness of outcomes,

procedural justice is when people judge processes, and interactional justice and

informational justice is when people judge interactions. Judgments of interactional

justice as based on respectfulness of communication with supervisors and fellow

employees and judgments of informational justice are based on how well supervisors

justify their decisions to employees.

Perceptions of injustice can partially be explained by equity theory (Cropanzano

et al, 2001). For example, when an employees’ referent other is making more money

than them for the same amount of work, they may perceive the situation as a violation of

distributive justice (Cropanzano et al, 2001). When an employee must go through three

interviews to get a promotion whereas their referent other gets one without any

interviews, the employee may perceive the situation as a violation of procedural justice.

10

When an employee’s boss gives more attention, assistance, and praise to his or her

referent other for doing the same amount and quality of work, the employee may perceive

the situation as a violation of interactional justice. When an employee’s boss makes a

decision to promote an employees referent other instead of them and does not explain

why, the employee would perceive the situation as a violation of informational justice.

Although violations of justice can partially be explained by equity theory, equity

theory does not completely explain people’s differences in preferences and tolerance of

inequity. To build a preference component into equity theory, Huseman, Hatfield, and

Miles (1987) took equity theory one step further by introducing the construct of equity

sensitivity. Equity sensitivity is based on the notion that not all people conform equally

to the norms of the equity theory. For example, Leventhal (1976) outlined three different

norms for reward distribution rules: The contribution (equity) rule, the needs rule, and the

equality rule. The contribution, or equity rule conforms to equity theory but the needs

and equality rules do not. The needs rule states that rewards should be distributed based

on people’s needs and the equality rule states that rewards should be distributed equally

regardless of people’s inputs.

Due to demographic and personality variables, people do not necessarily conform

to the contribution (equity) rule. Demographic variables such as nationality, age and sex,

and personality traits such as the protestant work ethic, Machiavellianism, self-esteem,

and interpersonal orientation all influence the equity rules that people endorse (Huseman

Hatfield, & Miles, 1987). Nationality has been shown to influence how people perceive

equity in that when Dutch employees were compared to American employees, the

Americans were more concerned with self-gain (Weick, Bougon, & Maruyama, 1976).

11

Age has been shown to influence how people perceive equity in that children under 13 do

not conform to the rules of equity ratios. Children do not conform because they are using

other standards such as needs to base their equity decisions or because they are not

cognitively developed enough to calculate equity ratios (Hook & Cook, 1979). Gender

has been consistently shown to influence how people perceive equity in that females are

more likely to reward themselves less and work harder for the same output as males

(Austin & McGinn, 1977; Callihan, Levy & Messe, 1979; Major, McFarlin, & Gagnon,

1984). People who are high on Machiavellianism value gaining the most even when they

do not have to work for it, but those high in the protestant work ethic and self-esteem

tend to value working hard for their money (Greenburg, 1979). People with a higher

interpersonal orientation are interested and reactive to the needs of others but people with

a low interpersonal orientation are more concerned with economic gain than with the

needs of others (Swap & Rubin, 1983). Also, individual differences in whether or not

employees view ambiguous job elements as incomes or as outcomes effect their

perceived income to outcome ratio. People who see ambiguous job elements as outcomes

will tend to try and compensate for the outcome by putting in more effort (Huseman et al,

1987). Employees who see ambiguous job elements as incomes will have higher

expectations for their outcomes. Based on demographic and personality variables, people

seek out situations that match their internal standards for equity.

The concept of equity sensitivity is based on the idea that there are individual

differences in the ways people perceive and respond to equity, and that these preferences

are influenced by characteristics such as nationality, age and sex, protestant work ethic,

Machiavellianism, and self-esteem, (Huseman et al, 1987; King et al, 1994). Equity

12

sensitivity explains individual differences in equity in terms of three sub-dimensions:

“benevolent”, “equity sensitive”, and “entitled” employees. Employees who are highly

“benevolent” prefer their ratio of inputs to outputs to be lower than others (Huseman et

al, 1987). Individuals who are more highly “benevolent” prefer this equity ratio because

of one of three reasons: They are cooperative and want the organization to do well, they

experience other peoples’ emotions vicariously and want to help them out, or they are

concerned with their own self-interest and want social approval and to improve their own

image (Huseman et al, 1987). Employees who are highly “equity sensitive” prefer for

their ratio of inputs and outputs to be equal to others. They generally prefer this equity

ratio because they feel distress when they are under-rewarded and guilt when they are

over-rewarded. Employees who are highly “entitled” have higher standards which lead

to preferring a greater output relative to others (Huseman et al, 1987). In general, people

who are highly “entitled” are higher in negative affect, have a higher sensitivity to

differences in rewards, are more emotionally reactive, and are willing to lie or cheat or

receive the highest reward (Huseman et al, 1987; King, Miles, & Day, 1994; Mudrack,

Mason, & Stepanski, 1999). People who are highly “entitled” prefer an equity ratio in

their favor for three reasons: A change in cultural values after World War II that

promoted getting ahead while doing as little as possible, an overly permissive parenting

style that promotes receiving instead of giving, and the fact that we live in an “age of

anxiety” where the future is uncertain encouraging some people to get as much as they

can while they can (Huseman, Hatman, & Miles, 1987).

King, Miles, and Day (1993) modified the idea of equity sensitivity by changing

the idea of preferring to be under-rewarded or over-rewarded to tolerating it. According

13

to this modification, people who are highly “benevolent” do not prefer, enjoy, or perceive

being under-rewarded as equitable, but they have a much higher tolerance for being

under-rewarded than people who are highly “equity sensitive” or highly “entitled”. For

example, employees who are highly “benevolent” do not prefer to be under-rewarded and

may even feel distress when they are, but because they have a higher tolerance for being

under-rewarded than highly “equity sensitive” or “entitled” employees they are much less

likely to taken action to restore equity. Employees who are highly “entitled” are more

tolerant towards being over-rewarded and less tolerant towards being under-rewarded

than “equity sensitive” or “benevolent” employees (King et al, 1993).

Equity sensitivity has been studied in a variety of contexts including personality

(Huseman et al, 1987; Konovsky & Organ, 1996; Miles, Hatfield, & Huseman, 1994;

Mudrack, Mason, & Stepanski, 1999), teamwork (Bing & Burroughs, 2001; Colquitt,

2004), leadership, cross-culturally (Allen Takeda, & White, 2005; Ambrose & Kulick,

1999; Fok, Hartman, Villere, & Friebert, 1996; VanDierendock, Shaufeli, & Sixma,

1994; Weick, Bougon, & Maruyama, 1976; Yamaguchi, 2003), organizational justice

(Blakely, Andrews, & Moorman, 2005; Colquitt, 2005), and reactions to inputs/outputs

(Allen & White, 2002; Miles et al, 1989; Shore, 2004)

The Current Study

People who are highly “entitled”, and people who are victims and perpetrators of

incivility are both emotionally reactive, perceive lower levels of organizational injustice,

and engage in deviant behaviors (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Blakely et al, 2005;

Colquitt, 2005; Huseman et al, 1987; King et al, 1994; Pearson et al, 2001). In fact,

Mudrack, Mason, and Stepanski (1999) even outline the fact that employees who are

14

highly “entitled” are more likely to engage in deviant behavior such as lying and

cheating. Because of these similarities, equity sensitivity and incivility should be related

to each other, but no current research to date has focused on how they might be related.

The purpose of the proposed study is to establish the relationship between equity

sensitivity and workplace incivility.

Because employees who are highly “entitled” and employees who rate themselves

higher in experienced and perpetrated incivility tend to be emotionally reactive (having a

higher sensitivity to behavior that might be considered insulting or unclear), are generally

higher in negative affect (Blau et al, 2005; Andersson et al, 1999; Hunter et al, 2007;

Huseman et al, 1987; King et al, 1994) and are willing to engage in deviant behavior

(Bowling et al, 2006; Blau et al, 2005; Huseman et al, 1987; King et al, 1994; Mudrack et

al, 1999), they should be more likely to experience and perpetrate incivility.

Hypothesis 1a: High levels of “entitlement” will be related to higher amounts of

perceived experienced incivility

Hypothesis 1b: High levels of “entitlement” will be related to higher amounts of

perceived perpetrated incivility

Past studies have shown that high levels of psychological strain such as anxiety

and depression are associated with workplace incivility (Blau & Andersson, 2005;

Cortina & Magley, 2001; Johnson & Indivik, 2001; Rossi, Perrewe, & Sauter, 2006).

Because of these past findings, higher levels of experienced incivility should lead to

higher levels of depression and lower levels of affective well-being.

Hypothesis 2a: Employees who have higher levels of experienced incivility will

report higher levels of depression.

15

Hypothesis 2b: Employees who have higher levels of experienced incivility will

report lower levels of affective well-being.

Often times perpetrators of incivility (Andersson et al, 1999) are attempting to

protect their social identity, especially when they are retaliating, so levels of perpetrated

incivility should be related to lower levels of depression and higher levels of affective

well-being.

Hypothesis 3a: Employees who have higher levels of perpetrated incivility will

report lower levels of depression.

Hypothesis 3b: Employees who have higher levels of perpetrated incivility will

report higher levels of well-being.

According to the “incivility spiral”, people who experience incivility often times

reciprocate in order to protect their social identity (Andersson et al, 1999; Hunter et al,

2007). It is expected that this research finding will be replicated in the current study

Hypothesis 4: Higher levels of experienced incivility will be significantly

positively related to higher levels of perpetrated incivility.

Both higher levels of “entitlement” and incivility have been associated with

higher levels of negative affect and having a higher sensitivity to behavior that might be

considered insulting or unclear (Andersson et al, 1999; Cortina et al, 2001; Huseman et

al, 1987; King et al, 1994); Because of these similarities, levels of “entitlement” should

influence the relationship between incivility and its negative outcomes such as depression

and lower levels of affective well-being.

Hypothesis 5a: The relationship between incivility and affective well-being will

be moderated by the “entitlement” dimension of equity sensitivity. More

16

specifically, the relationships between incivility and affective well-being will be

strongest among employees who report high levels of “entitlement” and weakest

among employees who report low levels of “entitlement”. For employees who

report moderate levels of “entitlement”, the relationship should be moderate.

Hypothesis 5b: The relationship between incivility and depression will be

moderated by the “entitlement” dimension of equity sensitivity. More

specifically, the relationships between incivility and depression will be strongest

for employees who report higher levels of “entitlement” and weakest among

employees who report low levels of “entitlement”. For employees who report

moderate levels of “entitlement”, the relationship should be moderate.

Past research on the “incivility spiral” indicates that people who experience

incivility often times retaliate and become perpetrators themselves (Andersson et al,

1999; Hunter, Penney, Raghurum, Ugaz, & Malka, 2007). What happens is emotionally

reactive victims tend to perceive more behaviors as uncivil and as an attack on their

social identity; In order to protect that social identity they retaliate (Andersson et al,

1999; Hunter et al, 2007). The result of the retaliation is that the original perpetrator

retaliates back and the “incivility spiral” begins (Andersson et al, 1999; Hunter et al,

2007). As noted earlier, people who are highly “entitled” also tend to be more

emotionally reactive (likely to perceive interpersonal interactions as insulting) and are

likely to engage in deviant behaviors such as lying and cheating to restore equity

(Huseman et al, 1989; Mudrack at al, 1999). Because people who are highly “entitled”,

as well as perpetrators of incivility, are more likely to retaliate against behavior they

perceive to be insulting in order to restore their social identity and/or equity (Andersson

17

et al, 1999; Hunter et al, 2007; Mudrack et al, 1999), higher levels of “entitlement”

should influence the relationship between perpetrated incivility and affective well-being

and depression

Hypothesis 6a: The relationship between experienced incivility and perpetrated

incivility will be moderated by the “entitlement” dimension of equity sensitivity.

More specifically, the relationships between experienced incivility and

perpetrated incivility will be strongest among employees who report high levels

of “entitlement” and weakest among employees who report low levels of

“entitlement”. For employees who report moderate levels of “entitlement”, the

relationship should be moderate.

Hypothesis 6b: The relationship between perpetrated incivility and affective well-

being will be moderated by the “entitlement” dimension of equity sensitivity.

More specifically, the relationships between perpetrated incivility and affective

well-being will be strongest among employees who report high levels of

“entitlement” and weakest among employees who report low levels of

“entitlement”. For employees who report moderate levels of “entitlement”, the

relationships should be moderate.

Hypothesis 6c: The relationship between perpetrated incivility and depression will

be moderated by the “entitlement” dimension of equity sensitivity. More

specifically, the relationships between perpetrated incivility and depression will

be strongest among employees who report higher levels of “entitled” and weakest

among employees who report low levels of “entitlement”. For employees who

report moderate levels of “entitlement”, the relationship should be moderate.

18

CHAPTER II: METHODS

Participants

The sample for the current study was recruited from faculty and staff at a mid-

western University. In order to participate, each subject must have been currently

employed by the University. The sample included 225 university employees.

Participants were between the age of 19 and 68 and the sample was 23.8% male and

68.2% female. 193 different job titles from 179 different departments were included with

Secretaries (N=38), Directors (N=22), Associate professors (N=10), Managers (N=12),

and Janitors (N=11) being the most frequent participants.

Materials

One instrument used to measure the “entitled” dimension of equity sensitivity was

the Equity Sensitivity Instrument (ESI) (King & Miles, 1994). The entire Equity

Sensitivity Instrument is contained in appendix B. The other measure used for equity

sensitivity, the Equity Preference Questionnaire (Sauley et al, 2000) was not used

because research notes that the only study to ever use it was its development study and it

has been criticized for measuring alternative constructs (Foot et al, 2006). The Equity

Sensitivity Instrument is a five item measure in which each item contains one

“benevolent” statement and one “entitled” statement. Examples of questions include “It

would be more important for me to A) help others or B) Look out for my own good”.

Participants are asked to allocate 10 points between the two statements for every item.

“Entitled” scores were calculated by tabulating the amount of points allocated to the

entitlement dimension of each question and dividing by the number of questions.

19

For the current study, the “entitled” dimension of equity sensitivity was also

measured with the newly developed Equity Sensitivity Questionnaire (ESQ). Foot and

Harmon (2006) noted problems in the current equity sensitivity measures that were

serious enough to warrant developing a new measure such as sample dependent cut

scores and tapping into alternative constructs. A new measure known as the Equity

Sensitivity Questionnaire was developed for the current study to address these issues.

Information on the development of the ESQ is contained in appendix A. The Equity

Sensitivity Questionnaire (ESQ) is a 13 item questionnaire on equity sensitivity with 4

items designed to measure the “benevolent” sub-dimension, 5 items designed to measure

the “equity sensitive” sub-dimension, and 4 items designed to measure the “entitlement”

sub-dimension. Respondents are asked to indicate on a 5 point likert scale ranging from

1(least) to 5(most) how consistent the item is with their attitudes towards

work/employment. An example of a “benevolent” question is “I do not mind giving

more to the organization than I get back in return”, an example of an “equity sensitive”

question is “I should receive and contribute to the organization equally”, and an example

of an “entitled” question is “I don’t mind receiving more than I give to the organization”.

Experienced incivility was measured with the Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS)

(Cortina et al., 2001). The entire Workplace Incivility Scale is contained in appendix C.

The Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS) is a seven item scale on a 4 point likert scale. The

scale asks the following question: How often has someone at work (supervisor, co-

worker, other employee) done the following to you in the past year …1) Put you down or

act condescending toward you 2) paid little attention to statements you make and show

little interest in your opinion 3) Made rude or demeaning remarks about you 4) addressed

20

you in unprofessional terms either privately or publicly 5) Ignored or excluded you from

professional camaraderie 6) Doubted your judgment in a matter over which you have

responsibility 7) Made unwanted attempts to draw you into personal matters. On the

likert scale, 1=hardly ever (once every few months or less), 2= rarely (about once a

month), 3= sometimes (at least once a week), and 4=frequently (at least once a day).

Perpetrated incivility was measured using the Instigated Workplace Incivility

Scale (WIS) (Blau & Anderson, 2005). The entire Instigated Workplace Incivility Scale

is contained in appendix D. The Instigated Workplace Incivility Scale a seven item scale

on a 4 point likert scale. The scale asks the following question: How often have you

exhibited the following behaviors in the past year to someone at work…1) Put you down

or act condescending towards you 2) paid little attention to statements you make and

show little interest in your opinion 3) Made rude or demeaning remarks about you 4)

addressed you in unprofessional terms either privately or publicly 5) Ignored or excluded

you from professional camaraderie 6) Doubted your judgment in a matter over which you

have responsibility 7) Made unwanted attempts to draw you into personal matters. On

the likert scale, 1=hardly ever (once every few months or less), 2= rarely (about once a

month), 3= sometimes (at least once a week), and 4=frequently (at least once a day).

Affective well-being was measured using the Job Related Affective Well-Being

Scale (JAWS) (Van Katwyk, Fox, Spector, & Kelloway, 2000). The entire JAWS is

contained in appendix E. The JAWS is a 30 item scale that assesses people’s affective

feelings towards their job. Items are scored on a 1-5 likert scale with the anchors of

never, rarely, sometimes, quite often, and extremely often or always. Some sample items

21

are “My job made me feel annoyed”, “my job made me feel anxious”, and “my job made

me feel frustrated”.

Depression was measured using the Depression Scale (Quinn & Shephard, 1974).

The entire Depression Scale is contained in appendix F. The Depression Scale is a scale

asking participants about their experiences with 20 depression symptoms at work during

the previous 30 days. Some of the symptoms items reported on include “I get tired for no

reason,” “I am more irritable than usual” and “I feel downhearted, blue, and sad.”

Participants rank these items on a 1-4 likert scale. The scores from the 20 scores are

summed up and converted into percentages by the “SDS” index. Percentages under 50

are considered not depressed, 50-59 is considered mild depression, 60-69 is moderate

depression, and 70 or above is considered severe depression.

Negative affect was measured using The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule

(PANAS) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) The entire PANAS is contained in

appendix G. The PANAS is an instrument that assessing positive and negative affect by

listing a number of words such as “upset” and asking participants to rate how they feel at

the present moment on a likert scale of 1-5. The likert scale ranges from very slightly or

not at all (1) to extremely (5). The instrument is divided into two parts: one assessing 10

positive words such as “proud” and one assessing 10 negative words such as “distressed”.

Procedure

For participants, faculty members were recruited by E-mail. E-mails were sent to

93 department heads with a request for the E-mail to be forwarded to their faculty

members. If the faculty were interested in participating, they responded to the E-mail.

After receiving the E-mail indicating interest, the researcher E-mailed the consent form

22

along with copies of the surveys to the faculty member. Faculty members either returned

their survey through E-mail or through campus mail. Only ten faculty members

responded from eight departments. Three faculty members responded from the consumer

science department, and one faculty member from the psychology, history, popular

culture, college of health and human services, sociology, women’s studies, and human

services departments responded. It is unknown whether all of the department heads

actually chose to forward the E-mail so for the faculty the response rate is unknown. For

University staff, the surveys and consent form were mailed out through campus mail to

1200 staff members with a return envelope. People interested in participating filled out

the survey, signed the consent form, put the documents in the return envelope, and mailed

the envelope back to the researcher. In total, 201 staff members participated, which

yielded approximately a 17% response rate.

23

CHAPTER III: RESULTS

Results were analyzed using both the newly developed Equity Sensitivity

Questionnaire (ESQ) and the Equity Sensitivity Instrument (ESI) to examine where there

would be differences in results. Cronbach’s alpha for the four ESQ items was .82.

Cronbach’s alpha for the five items used to assess entitlement on the ESI was .65. Item 3

was not included in the analysis, which increased Cronbach’s alpha to .80. For all

hypothesis, age, gender, and negative affect were used as control variables because past

research indicates these variables influence both equity sensitivity and experienced and

perpetrated incivility (Allen Takeda, & White, 2005; Ambrose & Kulick, 1999;

Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001; Fok, Hartman, Villere, & Friebert,

1996; Huseman et al, 1987; Lim & Cortina, 2005; Pearson et al., 2000; Pearson et al.,

2001; VanDierendock, Shaufeli, & Sixma, 1994; Weick, Bougon, & Maruyama, 1976;

Yamaguchi, 2003).

Descriptive Statistics

Bivariate correlations are presented in Table 1 and descriptive statistics are

presented in table 2. As can be seen in table 1, there were significant correlations

between ESQ “entitlement” and experienced incivility (r= .23), experienced incivility and

affective well-being (r=-.20), experienced incivility and perpetrated incivility (r=.41), and

perpetrated incivility and affective well-being (r=.22). There was some range restriction

for the negative affect (M=1.45, SD=.62), experienced incivility (M=1.81, SD=.70),

perpetrated incivility (M=2.31, SD=1.22), and ESQ entitled (M=1.94,SD=1.51) scales.

For all scales, cronbach’s alpha ranged from .76 to .90. Although the correlations were

significant, all hypotheses were reported using regression because variables that influence

24

incivility and “entitlement such as age, gender, and negative affect could be controlled

for (Allen Takeda et al, 2005; Ambrose et al, 1999; Andersson et al, 1999; Cortina et al.,

2001; Fok, et al, 1996; Huseman et al, 1987; Lim et al, 2005; Pearson et al., 2000;

Pearson et al., 2001; VanDierendock, et al, 1994; Weick, et al, 1976; Yamaguchi, 2003).

Main Effects

Hypothesis 1a tested whether higher levels of “entitlement” predicted higher

levels of experienced incivility. For analysis using the ESQ, “entitlement” significantly

predicted experienced incivility (ΔR² =.03, ΔF = 6.35, p =.01), supporting hypothesis 1a.

Hypothesis 1b tested whether or not higher levels of “entitlement” predicted higher levels

of perpetrated incivility. Higher levels of ESQ “entitlement” did not predict higher levels

of perpetrated incivility (ΔR² <.01, ΔF <.01, p =.99), so hypothesis 1b was not supported.

For analysis using the ESI, higher levels of “entitlement” did not predict higher levels of

experienced incivility (ΔR² =.01, ΔF = 2.43, p =.12), so hypothesis 1a was not supported.

Also, higher levels of ESI entitlement did not predict higher levels of perpetrated

incivility (ΔR² =.01, ΔF = 1.26, p =.26), so hypothesis 1b was not supported.

Hypothesis 2a tested whether higher levels of experienced incivility predict lower

levels of depression. Higher levels of experienced incivility did not predict lower levels

of depression (ΔR² =.01, ΔF =1.05, p =.31), so hypothesis 2a was not supported.

Hypothesis 2b tested whether higher levels of experienced incivility would predict lower

levels of affective well-being. Higher levels of experienced incivility did predict higher

levels of affective well-being, so hypothesis 2b was supported (ΔR² =.02, ΔF =4.61, p

=.03). Hypothesis 3a tested whether higher levels of perpetrated incivility predict lower

levels of depression. Higher levels of perpetrated incivility did not lead to lower levels of

25

depression (ΔR² =.01, ΔF =1.55, p =.22), so hypothesis 3a was not supported.

Hypothesis 3b tested whether higher levels of perpetrated incivility predict higher levels

of affective well-being. Higher levels of perpetrated incivility did not predict lower

levels of affective well-being, so hypothesis 3b was not supported (ΔR² =.01, ΔF =1.75, p

=.19). Hypothesis 4 tested whether higher levels of experienced incivility predict higher

levels of perpetrated incivility. Higher levels of experienced incivility did predict higher

levels of perpetrated incivility (ΔR² =.11, ΔF =26.97, p <.01), so hypothesis 4 was

supported.

Moderated Hypotheses

Hypotheses 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, and 6c were tested using hierarchical moderated

multiple regression (Cohen & Cohen, 1988). Negative affect, age, and gender were

entered as control variables because past studies indicated these variables can influence

levels of perceived incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001; Lim &

Cortina, 2005; Pearson et al., 2000; Pearson et al., 2001).

Hypothesis 5a tested whether “entitlement” moderated the relationship between

experienced incivility and affective well-being. For the ESQ, there was a significant

main effect for the experienced incivility (ΔR² =.02, ΔF =4.20, p =.04) but not for

“entitlement” (ΔR² <.01, ΔF <.01, p =.99) on affective well-being. The interaction

between experienced incivility and “entitlement” in predicting affective well-being was

not significant (ΔR²=.01, ΔF =2.52, p =.14), so hypothesis 5a was not supported.

Standardized coefficients are presented in table 3. For analysis using the ESI, there was a

significant main effect for the experienced incivility (ΔR² =.02, ΔF =4.20, p =.04) but not

for “entitlement” (ΔR² <.01, ΔF <.01, p =.49) on affective well-being. The interaction

26

between experienced incivility and “entitlement” in predicting affective well-being was

not significant (ΔR² =.01, ΔF =1.23, p=.270), so hypothesis 5a was not supported.

Standardized coefficients are presented in table 4. In other words, there were negligible

differences in the way “entitlement” influenced the relationship between experienced

incivility and affective well-being for both the ESQ and the ESI.

Hypothesis 5b tested whether “entitlement” moderated the relationship between

experienced incivility and depression. Analysis using the ESQ found no main effects for

experienced incivility (ΔR² =.01, ΔF =1.51, p =.22) or “entitlement” (ΔR² <.01, ΔF =.35,

p =.56) on depression. The interaction between “entitlement” and experienced incivility

in predicting depression was not significant (ΔR² =.02, ΔF =1.70, p =.20), so hypothesis

5b was not supported. Standardized coefficients are presented in table 5. For analysis

using the ESI, there was also no main effect for experienced incivility (ΔR² =.01, ΔF

=1.36, p =.24) or “entitlement” (ΔR² <.01, ΔF =.41, p =.52). The interaction between

experienced incivility and “entitlement” in predicting depression was not significant (ΔR²

=.02, ΔF =3.93, p=.06), so hypothesis 5a was not supported. Standardized coefficients

are presented in table 6. There were negligible differences in the way “entitlement”

influenced the relationship between incivility and depression. In other words, there were

negligible differences in the way “entitlement” influenced the relationship between

experienced incivility and depression for both the ESQ and ESI.

Hypothesis 6a tested whether “entitlement” moderated the relationship between

experienced and perpetrated incivility. For analysis using the ESQ, there was a

significant main effect for experienced incivility (ΔR² =.12, ΔF =29.32, p<.01) but not for

“entitlement” (ΔR² <.01, ΔF =1.23, p=.27) on perpetrated incivility. The interaction

27

between experienced incivility and “entitlement” in predicting perpetrated incivility was

not significant (ΔR² <.01, ΔF =.42, p=.52), so hypothesis 6a was not supported.

Standardized coefficients are presented in table 7. There were negligible differences in

the way “entitlement” influenced the relationship between experienced incivility and

perpetrated incivility. For analysis using the ESI, there was a significant main effect for

experienced incivility (ΔR² =.12, ΔF =29.32, p<.01) but not for “entitlement (ΔR² <.01,

ΔF =.84, p=.36) on perpetrated incivility. The interaction between experienced incivility

and “entitlement” in predicting perpetrated incivility was also not significant (ΔR² <.01,

ΔF <.01, p=.99), so hypothesis 6a was not supported. Standardized coefficients are

presented in table 8. In other words, there were negligible differences in the way

“entitlement” influenced the relationship between experienced incivility and perpetrated

incivility for both the ESQ and ESI.

Hypothesis 6b tested whether “entitlement” moderated the relationship between

perpetrated incivility and affective well-being. Analysis using the ESQ found no main

effects for perpetrated incivility (ΔR² =.02, ΔF =3.37, p =.06) or “entitlement” (ΔR² <.01,

ΔF =.19, p =.67) on affective well-being. The interaction between “entitlement” and

perpetrated incivility in predicting affective well-being was not significant (ΔR² <.01, ΔF

=.11, p =.75), so hypothesis 6b was not supported. Standardized coefficients are

presented in table 9. There were negligible differences in the way “entitlement”

influenced the relationship between perpetrated incivility and affective well-being. For

analysis using the ESI, there were no main effects for perpetrated incivility (ΔR² =.02, ΔF

=3.37, p =.06) or “entitlement” (ΔR² <.01, ΔF =.39, p =.53) on affective well-being. The

interaction between perpetrated incivility and “entitlement” in predicting affective well-

28

being was also not significant (ΔR² =.02, ΔF =3.68, p=.06), so hypothesis 6b was not

supported. Standardized coefficients are presented in table 10. In other words, there were

negligible differences in the way “entitlement” influenced the relationship between

perpetrated incivility and affective well-being for both the ESQ and ESI.

Hypothesis 6c tested whether “entitlement” moderated the relationship between

perpetrated incivility and depression. Analysis using the ESQ found no main effect of

perpetrated incivility (ΔR² =.01, ΔF =.89, p =.40) or “entitlement” (ΔR² <.01, ΔF =.69, p

=.41) on depression. The interaction between “entitlement” and perpetrated incivility in

predicting depression was not significant (ΔR² <.01, ΔF =.38, p =.54), so hypothesis 6c

was not supported. Standardized coefficients are presented in table 11. Analysis using the

ESI found no main effects for perpetrated incivility (ΔR² =.01, ΔF =.89, p =.40) or

“entitlement” (ΔR² <.01, ΔF =.35, p =.56) on depression. The interaction between

“entitlement” and perpetrated incivility in predicting depression was significant (ΔR²

<.01, ΔF =.60, p =.44), so hypothesis 6c was not supported. Standardized coefficients are

presented in table 12. In other words, there were negligible differences in the way

“entitlement” influenced the relationship between perpetrated incivility and depression

for both the ESQ and ESI.

29

CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION

The purpose of the present study was to examine how the “entitlement” sub-

dimension of equity sensitivity influences the relationship between experienced and

perpetrated incivility and affective well-being and depression. Due to some of the

limitations past research has pointed out on the measurement of equity sensitivity (Foote

& Harman, 2006), the equity sensitivity questionnaire was developed for use in this

study. Results found a significant positive relationship between ESQ “entitlement” and

experienced incivility, a significant negative relationship between experienced incivility

and affective well-being, and a significant positive relationship between experienced and

perpetrated incivility. Significant main effects were also found for these same

relationships in the moderated regression analysis. None of the interactive hypotheses

were supported.

The significant main effects are consistent with the patterns of behavior

associated with incivility that was proposed by Andersson and Pearson (1999). Both

People who are highly “entitled” and people who experience high levels of incivility tend

to be emotionally reactive (sensitive to insults, easily offended, perceiving threats in

seemingly innocent exchanges) (Andersson et al, 1999; Huseman et al, 1987; Hunter et

al, 2007), so it comes as no surprise that people who are more highly “entitled” tend to

experience more incivility. According to the “incivility spiral”, when emotionally

reactive individuals experience incivility, they have lower levels of affective well-being

and strong feelings of negative affect because they feel like their social identity has been

threatened (Andersson et al, 1999; Hunter et al, 2007). These lower levels of affective

well-being and increased feelings of negative affect often times motivate victims of

30

incivility to reciprocate (Andersson et al, 1999; Hunter et al, 2007). These findings were

supported in the current study because higher levels of experienced incivility predicted

higher levels of perpetrated incivility.

One reason that could explain why the moderated hypotheses were not significant

is that depression and affective well-being may not be the most appropriate dependent

variables for this type of relationship. Depression and affective well-being were chosen

as dependent variables for the current study because past research has shown that they are

outcomes of incivility (Andersson et al, 1999; Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Cortina et al,

2001; Pearson et al, 2001). However, “entitlement” did not moderate the relationship

between incivility and affective well-being and depression. Perhaps depression and

affective well-being were not significant because theoretically they may not have been

appropriate outcomes for the current study. More specifically, people who are more

highly “entitled” tend to be more emotionally reactive in situations where they do not

receive the highest output (Huseman et al, 1987; King et al, 1984); Emotionally reactive

people are more likely to perceive incivility because they are more sensitive to insults,

more likely to experience violations of interactional injustice, and experience higher

levels of negative affect (Blau & Andersson, 2005). Based on these findings from past

research, perhaps variables such as interactional justice, anger, negative affect, and

frustration would have been more appropriate dependent variables than depression and

affective well-being.

Another reason that could help to explain why most of the hypotheses were not

supported is social desirability. Social desirability is defined as a tendency for the

participant to choose responses that are considered more socially desirable by society

31

regardless of what is asked or how true their response actually is (Crowne & Marlow,

1964; Spector, 1987; Thomas & Killman, 1975). In the current study, low means for

negative affect (M=1.45), experienced incivility (M=1.81), perpetrated incivility

(M=2.31), and ESQ “entitlement” (M=1.94) suggest that social desirability may have

influenced participants’ responses to these items. Past research indicates that social

desirability can be a suppressor variable that actually hides relationships between

variables, especially in likert scales such as the ESQ (Ganster, Hennessey, & Luthans,

1983).

Although it hasn’t been examined in the literature, an additional possible

explanation for the findings of the current study may be that there are not equal

proportions of people who are more “benevolent”, “equity sensitive”, “entitled” or people

who experience and perpetrate incivility. More specifically, many of the current

participants may not have considered themselves to be more highly “entitled” or

perpetrators of incivility, which would explain the low reported means on these variables.

Strengths/Limitations of the Current Study

One major limitation to the current study is the fact that the data was cross-

sectional, which raises concern about the causality of the relationships found in the

current study. Andersson and Pearson’s (1999) “incivility spiral” indicates that victims

become perpetrators over time. Although a significant relationship between experienced

and perpetrated incivility was found in the current study, these findings would have been

much stronger if the data was collected longitudinally. Another limitation was the use of

self-report measures, which can lead to response inflation due to common method

variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Spector, 1987). However, the

32

fact that there is variability in the correlations and the averages of the scales are not above

average indicates that there is limited to no inflation due to common method variance.

Also, as mentioned earlier, responses to the ESQ and ESI may have been influenced by

social desirability, which may have masked some potentially significant relationships

(Crowne et al, 1965; Ganster et al,1983; Spector, 1987; Thomas et al, 1975). However,

the strengths of the study are the fact that the demographics indicate diversity of people

and professions, which limits the weakness due to range restriction. In addition, equity

sensitivity, depression, affective well-being, and incivility are individuals’ perceptions,

and therefore self-report is an appropriate measure of these variables despite the potential

limitations.

Ideas for Future Research

Because the “incivility spiral” happens over time (Andersson et al, 1999; Hunter

et al, 2007), it would be highly beneficial to conduct future research on incivility

longitudinally. More specifically, future research could test to see if the finding in the

current study that higher levels of “entitlement” predicts higher levels of experienced

incivility, higher levels of experienced incivility predicts lower levels of affective well-

being, and higher levels of experienced incivility predicts higher levels of perpetrated

incivility is stable over time.

Additionally, past research indicates that both highly “entitled” individuals as

well as people who experience and are perpetrators are higher in negative affect, strongly

emotionally reactive, and more likely to perceive violations of interactional justice

(Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Blakely et al, 2005; Blau & Andersson, 2005; Bowling et

al, 2006; Cortina et al, 2001; Huseman et al, 1987; King et al, 1984). That being said,

33

future studies should focus on different dependent variables such as interactional justice

and negative affect. More specifically, future studies could test whether “entitlement”

moderates the relationship between both experienced and perpetrated incivility and

interactional justice and negative affect. These relationships should be tested

longitudinally to establish causation and figure out whether or not variables such as

interactional justice and negative affect influence the “incivility spiral”

As mentioned earlier, social desirability can be a suppressor variable that actually

hides relationships between variables, especially in likert scales such as the ESQ (Crowne

et al, 1964; Ganster et al, 1983; Thomas et al, 1975). One suggestion for future research

is to control for social desirability when measuring variables such as “entitlement” or

perpetrated incivility. That being said, it might be beneficial to replicate this study in the

future with social desirability as a control variable to test whether some of the

relationships were suppressed by social desirability.

Future research could also focus on finding the distribution of “entitled”

employees or perpetrators of incivility in the general working population. More

specifically, the reason that the means were so low for the “entitled” and perpetrated

incivility measures may be because the distribution of these types of employees in the

general population is not normal. Future research could be conducted to find out what

the distribution of highly “entitled” employees and perpetrators of incivility are in the

general population. Regarding the problem of distributions of highly “entitled” people

or perpetrators of incivility in the current study, this study could be repeated with these

populations over-sampled in an effort to isolate how these characteristics influence

variables such as affective well-being and depression.

34

Practical Implications

The current study provides some evidence that higher levels of experienced

incivility are related to higher levels of perpetrated incivility. Additionally, people who

are more highly “entitled” tend to experience more incivility. People experiencing more

levels of incivility also had lower levels of affective well-being. The current study also

found that “entitlement” does not moderate the relationship between experienced and

perpetrated incivility and affective well-being and depression.

Because “entitlement” has a significant relationship with experienced incivility

and because experienced and perpetrated incivility clearly has an impact on employees,

employers should be cognizant of the negative impacts of “entitlement” and incivility and

attempt to minimize it. One suggestion for minimizing “entitlement” and incivility

would be to develop assessment to screen for highly “entitled” employees and

perpetrators of incivility in the selection process. Another suggestion for minimizing

incivility is maximizing interactional justice by respecting the organizational norms for

interpersonal respect (Cropanzano et al, 2001). Because incivility is a consequence of

perceived violations of interactional justice (Andersson et al, 1999), maximizing

interactional justice should successfully reduce incivility as well as the negative

consequences that result from incivility.

35

REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berdowitz (Ed.), Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic

Press

Allen, R. S., Takeda, M., & White, C. S. (2005). Cross-cultural equity sensitivity: A test

of differences between the United States and Japan. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 20(8), 641-662.

Allen, R. S., & White, C. S. (2002). Equity sensitivity theory: A test of responses to two

types of under-reward situations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 14(4), 435-451.

Ambrose, M. L. & Kulick, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research of

the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 231-292.

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.

Aquino, K., Galperin, B. L., & Bennett, R. J. (2004). Social status and aggressiveness as

moderators of the relationship between interactional justice and workplace

deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(5), 1001-1029.

Austin, W. & McGinn, M. C. (1977). Sex differences in choice of distribution rules.

Journal of Personality, 45(3), 379-394.

Bandura, 1969. Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston.

Barron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression:

Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior,

22, 161-173.

36

Bennett, R. J. & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development ofa measure of workplace

deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communications criteria of

fairness. In R. Lewicki & B. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in

organizations (Vol.1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bies, R. J. (2000). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg &

R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89-118). Palo Alto,

CA: Stanford University Press.

Bing, M. N. & Burroughs, S. N. (2001). The predictive and interactive effects of equity

sensitivity in teamwork-oriented organizations. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 22, 271-290.

Blakely, G. L, Andrew, M. C. & Mooreman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of

equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and

organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2)

259-273.

Blau, G. & Andersson, L. (2005). Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 595-614.

Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s

perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91, 998-1012.

Callahan-Levy, C. M., & Messe, L. A. (1979). Sex differences in the allocation of pay.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 433-446.

37

Clark, O. L., Burnfield, J. L., Barger, P. B., Broadfoot, A., & Yugo, J. E. (in prep).

Outcomes of abusive supervision: The mediating role of organization-based self-

esteem.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regressiuon/correlation for the

behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Elbaum Associates, Publishers.

Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Does the justice of the one interact with the justice of the team?

Reactions to procedural justice in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4),

633-646.

Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & O’Driscoll, P.O. (2001). Organizational Stress: A Review

and Critique of Theory, Research, and Application. London: Sage Publications.

Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and

impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64-80.

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.

Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues,

fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164-209.

Crowne, D., & Marlow, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative

dependence. New York: Wiley

Fok, L. Y., Hartman, S. J. Patti, A. L. & Razek, J. R. (1999). The relationship between

equity sensitivity, growth needs strength, organizational citizenship behavior, and

http://0-olc3.ohiolink.edu.maurice.bgsu.edu/bin/gate.exe?f=toc&state=rj1nu3.16.3&expr=ALL&p_s_ALL=%28Journal-of-Occupational-Health-Psychology%29.JNBR.&p_op_ALL=ADJ&a_search=Search

38

perceived outcomes in the quality environment: A study of accounting

professionals. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(1), 99-120.

Fok, L.Y., Hartman, S. J., Villere, M. F., Freibert, R. C. (1996). A study of the impact of

cross-cultural differences on perceptions of equity and organizational citizenship

behaviors, International Journal of Management, 13, 3-14.

Foote, D. A. & Harmon, S. (2006). Measuring equity sensitivity. Journal of Management

Psychology, 21(2), 90-108.

Ganster, D. C., Hennessey, H. W., & Luthans, F. (1983). Social desirability response

effects: Three alternative models. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 321-

331.

Greenburg, J. (1979). Protestant ethic endorsement and the fairness of equity inputs.

Journal of Research and Personality, 13, 81-90.

Hinken, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey

questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104-121.

Hook, J. G., & Cook, T. D. (1979). Equity theory and the cognitive ability of children.

Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 429-445.

Hunter, E. M., Penney, L. M., Raghuram, A., Ugaz, A., & Malka, A. A. (2007). A

qualitative investigation of escalating aggression within the service encounter.

Poster presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New

York, NY.

Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity

theory: The equity sensitivity construct. The Academy of Management Review,

12(2), 222-234.

39

Jex, S. M. & Elacqua, T. C. (1999). Self-esteem as a moderator: A comparison of global

and organization-based measures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 72, 71-81.

Johnson, P. R. & Indvik, J. (2001). Slings and arrows of rudeness: Incivility in the

workplace. Journal of Management Development, 20(8), 705-713.

Kickel, J. & Lester, S. W. (2001). Broken promises: Equity sensitivity as a moderator

between psychological contract breech and employee attitudes and behavior.

Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(2), 191-217.

King, W. C., & Miles, E. W. (1994). The measurement of equity sensitivity. Journal of

Occupationa land Organizational Psychology, 67, 133-142.

King, W., Miles, E., & Day, D. D. (1993). A test and refinement of the equity sensitivity

construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14,( 4), 301-317.

Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253-

266.

Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Fairness in Social Relationships. Morristown, NJ: General

Learning Press.

Lim, S. & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The

interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 90(3), 483-496.

Major, B., & McFarlin, D. B., & Gagnon, D. (1984). Overworked and overpaid: On the

nature of gender differences in personal entitlement. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 47(6), 1399-1412.

40

Miles, E. W., Hatfield, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. (1989). The equity sensitivity construct:

Potential implications for worker performance. Journal of Management, 15(4),

581-588.

Miles, E. W., Hatfield, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. (1994). Equity sensitivity and outcome

importance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 585-596.

Mudrack, P. E., Mason, S. E., & Stepanski, K. M. (1999). Equity sensitivity and business

ethics. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 539-560.

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression:

Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets.

Journal of Management, 24, 394-419.

O’Neal, B. S. & Mone, M. A. (1998). Investigating equity sensitivity as a moderator of

relations between self-efficacy and workplace attitudes. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83(5), 805-816.

Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attacking

workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29(2), 123-137.

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.

Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). Workplace incivility. In S.

Fox, & P. E. Spector (Ed.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of

actors and targets, (pp. 177-201). Washington DC: American Psychological

Association.

41

Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2001, August). Effects of incivility on the target: Fight,

flee or take care of “me”? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy

of Management, Washington, DC.

Penny, L. M. & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work

behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity, Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 26, 777-796.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common

method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and

recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Quinn, R.P., & Shephard, L. (1974). The 1972-1973 quality of employment survey. Ann

Arbor: Survey Research Center, University of Michigan.

Sauley, K. S., & Bediean, A. G. (2000). Equity sensitivity: Construction of a measure and

examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Management, 26(5), 885-

910

Schat, A. C. & Kelloway, K. E. (2003). Reducing the adverse consequences of workplace

aggression and violence: The buffering effects of organizational support, 8(2),

110-122.

Schaubroeck, J., Jones, J. R., & Xie, J. L. (2001). Individual differences in utilizing

control to cope with job demands: Effects of susceptibility to infectious disease.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 265-278.

Shore, T. H. (2004). Equity sensitivity theory: Do we all want more than we deserve?

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(7), 722-728.

http://0-olc3.ohiolink.edu.maurice.bgsu.edu/bin/gate.exe?f=toc&state=rj1nu3.23.1&expr=ALL&p_s_ALL=%28Journal-of-Organizational-Behavior%29.JNBR.&p_op_ALL=ADJ&a_search=Search

http://0-olc3.ohiolink.edu.maurice.bgsu.edu/bin/gate.exe?f=toc&state=rj1nu3.23.1&expr=ALL&p_s_ALL=%28Journal-of-Organizational-Behavior%29.JNBR.&p_op_ALL=ADJ&a_search=Search

http://0-olc3.ohiolink.edu.maurice.bgsu.edu/bin/gate.exe?f=toc&state=rj1nu3.31.1&expr=ALL&p_s_ALL=%28Journal-of-Management%29.JNBR.&p_op_ALL=ADJ&a_search=Search

42

Shore, T., & Strauss, J. (2006). Leader responsiveness, equity sensitivity, and employee

attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(2), 227-241.

Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and

perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied

Psychology, 72(3), 438-443.

Stoner, J. & Perrewe, P. L. (2006). Consequences of depressed mood at work: The

importance of supportive superiors. In A. M. Rossi, P. L. Perrewe, & S. L. Sauter

(Ed.), Stress and Quality of Working Life, (pp. 87-100). Greenwich, Connecticut:

Information Age Publishing.

Swap, W. C., & Rubin, J. Z. (1983). Measurement of interpersonal orientation. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 208-219.

Tang, T. L., & Smith-Brandon, V. L. (2001). From welfare to work: The endorsement of

the money ethic and the work ethic among welfare recipients, welfare recipients

in training programs, and employed past welfare recipients. Public Personnel

Management, 30(2), 241-260.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management

Journal, 43(2), 178-190.

Thomas, K. W., & Killman, R. H. (1975). The social desirability variable in

organizational research: An alternative explanation for reported findings.

Academy of Management Journal, 18, 741-752.

43

Van DierenDonck, D., Shaufeli, W. B., & Sixma, H. J. (1994). Burnout from general

practitioners: A perspective from equity theory. Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance, 15, 32-65.

Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Using the Job-

related Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to

work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 219-230.

Vogt, P. W. (2007). Quantitative Research Methods for Professionals. Boston: Pearson

Education, Inc.

Watson, D., Clark, L.A. and Tellegen, A. (1988), “Development and validation of a brief

measure of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales”, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-70.

Weick, K.E., Bougon, M. E., & Maruyama, G. (1976). The equity context.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 32-65.

Yamaguchi, I. (2003). The relationships among individual differences, needs, and equity

sensitivity. Journal of Management Psychology, 18(4), 324-344.

44

Table 1

Bivariate correlations

Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Variables 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9)

1) Age ___

2) Sex .06 ___

3) Negative affect

-.07 -.10 ___

4)Experienced Incivility

-.10 <.01 .19** ___

5) Perpetrated incivility

.03 .04 .39** .41** ___

6) ESQentitled -.04 -.18** .14** .23** .02 ___

7) ESIentitled -.01 .02 -.05 .06 .05 .26** ___

8) Affective well-being

-.04 <-.01 .25** -.20** .22** .05 -.03 ___

9) Depression .01 <-.01 -.12 .06 .02 .06 -.03 .24** ___

45

Table 2

Descriptive statistics

Variables Mean SD Possible Range

Observed range

Cronbach’s alpha

1) Age 44.67 11.08 18-70 19-68

2) Sex

1-2 1-2

3) Negative affect 1.45 .62 1-5 1-4.9 .90 4)Experienced Incivility 1.81 .70 1-5 1-5 .76 5) Perpetrated incivility 2.31 1.22 1-5 1-5 .77 6) ESQ “entitled” 1.94 1.51 1-5 1-4 .82

7) ESI “entitled” 3.71 1.35 0-10 0-7.25 .80

8) Affective Well-Being 2.75 .34 1-5 1-4 .72

9) Depression 2.91 .39 1-5 1-4 .86

46

Table 3

Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between experienced incivility and

ESQ “entitlement”. Affective well-being is the outcome variable

Variable Δ R ² R ² B Step 1.

Age

Sex

Negative Affect

.06*

.06 <.01 <.01 -.14

Step 2. Experienced Incivility

.02* .09

.08

Step 3. ESQ “Entitlement”

<.01 .09 <.01

Step 4. Experienced Incivility x ESQ “Entitlement”

.01 .10 .06

Note. N=229; Δ R ² is not adjusted; Regression weights are unstandardized; * p < 0.05 (2-tailed)

47

Table 4


ESI “entitlement”. Affective well-being is the outcome variable


Age

Sex

Negative Affect

.06* .06 <.01 <.01 -.14


.02* .09 .08

Step 3. ESI “Entitlement”

<.01 .09 -.01

Step 4. Experienced Incivility x ESI “Entitlement”

.01 .10 .03


48

Table 5


ESQ “entitlement”. Depression is the outcome variable


Age

Sex

Negative Affect

.02 .02 <.01 <.01 -.08


.01 .02 .05


<.01 .03 .02


.02 .03 .06


49

Table 6


ESI “entitlement”. Depression is the outcome variable


Age

Sex

Negative Affect

.02

.02 <.01 <.01 -.08


.01

.02 .05


<.01

.03 -.01


.02

.05 .05


50

Table 7


ESQ “entitlement”. Perpetrated incivility is the outcome variable


Age

Sex

Negative Affect

.15* .15 <.01 <.01 .66


.12* .27 .54


<.01 .27 -.10


<.01 .28 -.08


51

Table 8


ESI “entitlement”. Perpetrated incivility is the outcome variable


Age

Sex

Negative Affect

.15* .15 <.01 <.01 .66


.12* .27 .54


<.01 .27 .05


<.01 .27 <.01


52

Table 9

Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between perpetrated incivility and

ESQ “entitlement”. Affective well-being is the outcome variable


Age

Sex

Negative Affect

.06* .06 <.01 <.01 -.14

Step 2. Perpetrated Incivility

.02 .08 .05


<.01 .08 .01

Step 4. Perpetrated Incivility x ESQ “Entitlement”

<.01 .08 -.01


53

Table 10


ESI “entitlement”. Affective well-being is the outcome variable


Age

Sex

Negative Affect

.06* .06 <.01 <.01 -.14


.02 .08 .05


<.01 .08 -.01

Step 4. Perpetrated Incivility x ESI “Entitlement”

.02 .10 .03


54

Table 11


ESQ “entitlement”. Depression is the outcome variable


Age

Sex

Negative Affect

.02

.02 <.01 <.01 -.08


.01 .02 .03


<.01 .03 .03

Step 4. Perpetrated Incivility x ESQ “Entitlement”

<.01 .03 .02


55

Table 12


ESI entitlement. Depression is the outcome variable


Age

Sex

Negative Affect

.02

.02 <.01 <.01 -.08


.01 .02 .03


<.01 .03 -.01

Step 4. Perpetrated Incivility x ESI “Entitlement”

<.01 .03 .02


56

Appendix A

Results for the development of the Equity Sensitivity Questionnaire

Introduction

There are two primary instruments used to measure equity sensitivity: The Equity

Sensitivity Instrument (ESI) (Huseman et al, 1987) and the Equity Preference

Questionnaire (EPQ) (Sauley & Bediean, 2000). When Foote and Harman (2006)

examined these two primary instruments for measuring equity sensitivity, they found

serious flaws with both measures. The ESI is a forced-choice inventory where

participants are given a “benevolent” statement and an “entitlement” statement and asked

to allocate 10 points to each statement. It is scored using breaking points from the means

and standard deviations of the groups. The problem with basing breaking points on the

sample is that if the sample is strongly skewed, then people could be falsely classified

(Foote et al, 2006). The problem with the EPQ is that a factor analysis indicated it was

multidimensional and only one dimension was supported as measuring equity sensitivity

(Foote et al, 2006). In addition, the EPQ yields different results when given to groups of

students vs. non-students (Foote et al, 2006). Foote and Harman (2006) conclude that the

EQP is not a valid measure, but the ESI can be modified to compensate for its

shortcomings in past studies because Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable (.79) when they

tested it and has been consistently acceptable in past studies using the instrument

(Blakely, Andrews, & Moorman, 2005; Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1989; Huseman et

al, 1985; King & Miles, 1994; King, Miles, & Day, 1993; O’neill & Mone, 1998; Shore,

2004).

57

In order to modify the instrument, the construct was reexamined and a series of

questions was generated on a 1-5 likert scale (See appendix B). The new instrument was

created using a likert scale in order to make the measurement more precise because the

range allows for assessing specific information as well as composite scores (Vogt, 2007).

Since problems with the Equity Sensitivity Instrument and Equity Preference

Questionnaire have been noted (Foot et al, 2006), the purpose of the first study was to

generate and test a list of items for a new measure of equity sensitivity that was used in

the current study.

Method

Participants

The sample for the current study was recruited through classes at a mid-western

University. In order to participate, each subject must currently be enrolled at the

University. The sample included 266 participants with ages ranging from 18 to 44

(M=19.5). 133 participants were freshman, 80 were sophomores, 28 were juniors, and 7

were seniors. There were 193 females and 73 males. Forty-six different majors were

represented with education (32), psychology (24), and business (24) representing the

most.

Materials

The Equity Sensitivity Questionnaire (ESQ) was initially tested as a 37 item

questionnaire on equity sensitivity with 8 items designed to measure the “benevolent”

sub-dimension, 19 items designed to measure the equity sensitive sub-dimension, and 10

items designed to measure the “entitlement” sub-dimension. Respondents are asked to

indicate on a 5 point likert scale ranging from 1(least) to 5(most) how consistent the item

58

is with their attitudes towards work/employment. Examples of questions designed to

measure each sub-dimension include “I do not mind giving more to the organization than

I get back in return”, “I should receive and contribute to the organization equally”, and “I

don’t mind receiving more than I give to the organization”.

Procedure

Initially, items were generated by two researchers based on reading past literature

on how the equity sensitivity construct was defined. After generating the items, 5 experts

reviewed the items and judged whether or not they properly represented the construct.

After the judges came to a consensus on which items were good, a pilot study was

conducted and the data was analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis.

Results

Item-total correlations are presented in table 1 and mean and standard deviations

for each question are presented in table 2. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted

and results indicate a good fit for the three factor model (Chi Square = 966.956, df=492).

The fit indices met acceptable criteria (Bentler-Bonnett normed fit index; NFI=.9,

standardized RMR=.05, root mean squared error of adjustment; RMSEA = .06). In order

to obtain this fit, a number of items were deleted from the initial instrument presented

below. The items retained in the CFA model for the “benevolent” sub-factor include

items 9, 16, 27, and 33. The items retained for the “equity sensitive” sub-factor include

items 14, 17, 32, 35, and 37. The items retained for the “entitled” sub-factor include

items 11, 18, 21, and 36. The results for the current study using “entitlement” were

conducted using these four items.

59

The Dimensionality of the ESQ was also tested using a principal axis factor

analysis. The scree plot, presented in figure 1, indicates that three factors were extracted.

The first factor extracted had an eigenvalue of 3.53 and accounted for 24.47% of the

variance, the second factor extracted had an eigenvalue of 2.61 and accounted for an

additional 16.21% of the variance, and the third factor extracted had an eigenvalue of 2

and accounted for an additional 13.12% of the variance.

60

Appendix A table 1

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for the “Entitled” Sub-Dimension

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1

2 .50

3 .48 .57

4 .83 .65 .65

5 .51 .53 .66 .54

6 -.03 .05 .17 -.05 .32

7 -.13 -.15 <.01 -.15 .16 .67

8 -.11 -.17 -.14 -.13 -.05 .45 .51

9 -.07 -.12 .07 -.13 -11 .69 .67 .37

10 -.04 -.05 -.14 -.04 -.33 -.21 -.11 -.05 -.28

11 .15 .15 0 .07 -.17 -.07 -.10 -.11 -.02 .41

12 -.02 .09 -.09 -.13 -.12 -.13 -.14 -.08 -.18 .33 .57

13 -.-58 -.01 -.07 -.22 -.11 -.22 .02 -.04 .03 .28 .47 .46

61

Appendix A table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for the Entitled Sub-Dimension

Questions Sub-scale Mean Standard Deviation

N

1) Workers who put in the same effort should be rewarded equally

Equity sensitive

4.05 .94 229

2) My efforts and rewards should be equal to my co-workers

Equity sensitive

3.39 1.19 229

3) People who receive the same rewards as I do should work equally as hard

Equity sensitive

3.67 1.07 229

4) When I exert the same effort as other workers, I should be rewarded equally

Equity sensitive

3.82 .98 229

5) I should work equally as hard as people who receive the same rewards as I do

Equity sensitive

3.93 1.07 229

6) I don’t mind putting lots of effort towards company goals even when I receive a smaller reward than I deserve

Benevolent 2.96 1.21 229

7) As long as it is in the best interest of the company and my co-workers, I can tolerate receiving low rewards


8) I don’t mind being rewarded the smallest for my efforts as long as I have helped my co-workers


9) I can tolerate receiving a small reward for my effort as long as it is in the best interest of the company


10) It does not bother me when I am over-rewarded for my effort compared to my co-workers

Entitled 1.91 1.06 229

11) I don’t mind receiving a large reward for a small amount of effort

Entitled 2.02 1.02 229

12) I don’t mind receiving more than I give to the company

Entitled 2.03 1.00 229

13) I don’t mind receiving a large reward even when I do not deserve it

Entitled 1.93 1.03 229

62

Appendix A figure 1 Scree Plot for the ESQ “Entitled” Sub-Dimension

13121110987654321

Factor Number

4

3

2

1

0

Eige

nval

ue

Scree Plot

63

Equity Sensitivity Questionnaire Please respond to these items consistent with your attitude towards work/employment. Choose the answer most consistent with your view. 1=Least 2=Somewhat 3=Moderately 4=Frequent 5=Most 1) In an ideal working situation, people 1 2 3 4 5 receiving equal rewards also exert equal amounts of effort towards work tasks 2) I don’t mind giving more to the organization than I get back in return 1 2 3 4 5 3) My rewards should be equal to co-workers 1 2 3 4 5 who put in the same effort 4) I feel anger when I am not given 1 2 3 4 5 the reward I deserve 5) In the fairest working situation, people 1 2 3 4 5 putting in the same effort should be rewarded equally 6) I’m happy to help others even when they do not help me back 1 2 3 4 5 7) When I help out my co-workers, I expect them 1 2 3 4 5 to help me back in the same way 8) I enjoy receiving more rewards for my 1 2 3 4 5 effort from the organization than I deserve 9) I do not mind being rewarded the smallest for my effort as long as I’ve helped my 1 2 3 4 5 co-workers 10) I should receive and contribute to the 1 2 3 4 5 company equally 11) It does not bother me when I am 1 2 3 4 5 over-rewarded for my effort compared to my co-workers 12) I can tolerate receiving lower rewards for my effort than I deserve 1 2 3 4 5

64

13) I feel distress when my efforts are larger 1 2 3 4 5 than my rewards 14) Workers who put in the same effort 1 2 3 4 5 should be rewarded equally 15) I feel distress when I do not receive the 1 2 3 4 5 largest reward for my effort relative to my co-workers 16) I can tolerate receiving a small reward 1 2 3 4 5 for my effort as long as it is in the best interest of the company. 17) My efforts and rewards should 1 2 3 4 5 be equal to my co-workers 18) I don’t mind receiving a large reward for a small 1 2 3 4 5 amount of effort 19) I expect to be rewarded equally to those who 1 2 3 4 5 put in the same effort as I do 20) I feel guilt when my rewards are larger 1 2 3 4 5 than my efforts 21) I don’t mind receiving more than I give to the company 1 2 3 4 5 22) When I help others, I am tolerant 1 2 3 4 5 when they do not help me back. 23) I should receive the same rewards 1 2 3 4 5 as others who put in the same effort as I have 24) I am most satisfied when I receive larger 1 2 3 4 5 rewards for my effort from the company than my co-workers 25) I should help out my co-workers and take care 1 2 3 4 5 of my own needs equally 26) It wouldn’t bother me to receive a larger reward than others who put in the 1 2 3 4 5 same effort 27) I don’t mind putting lots of effort 1 2 3 4 5

65

toward company goals even when I receive a smaller reward than I deserve 28) It bothers me when my rewards are not exactly 1 2 3 4 5 equal to co-workers who put in the same effort 29) After receiving a large reward 1 2 3 4 5 I do not feel the need to increase my effort 30) I am most satisfied when my efforts and 1 2 3 4 5 rewards are the same as my co-workers 31) I feel distressed when I do not receive a 1 2 3 4 5 larger reward than my co-workers 32) People who receive the same rewards 1 2 3 4 5 as I do should work equally as hard 33) As long as it is in the best interest of the 1 2 3 4 5 company and my co-workers, I can tolerate receiving low rewards 34) I feel guilt when I am given a larger 1 2 3 4 5 reward than I deserve 35) When I exert the same effort as other, 1 2 3 4 5 workers, I should be rewarded equally 36) I don’t mind receiving a large reward even 1 2 3 4 5 when I do not deserve it 37) I should work equally as hard as people who 1 2 3 4 5 receive the same rewards as I do

66

Appendix B

Equity Sensitivity Instrument The questions below ask what you would for your relationships to be with any organization for which you might work. On each question, divide 10 points between the two choices (choice A and choice B) by giving the most points to the choice that is most like you and the fewest points to the choice that is the least like you. You can if you’d like, give the same amount of points to each choice (For example, 5 points to choice A and 5 points to choice B). And you can use zeros if you’d like. Just make sure to allocate all 10 points per question between each pair of possible responses. In any organization I work for: 1) It would be more important for me to: _____A. Get from the organization _____B. Give to the organization 2) It would be more important for me to: _____A. Help others _____B. Watch out for my own good 3) I would be more concerned about: _____A. What I received from the organization _____B. What I contributed to the organization 4) The hard work I do should: _____A. Benefit the organization _____B. Benefit me 5) My personal philosophy in dealing with the organization would be: _____A. If I don’t look out for myself, nobody else will _____B. It’s better for me to give than to receive

67

Appendix C

Experienced Workplace Incivility Scale

Please indicate on a scale of 1-5 often someone at work has done the following to you in the past year:

1) Put you down or was 1 2 3 4 5 condescending to you in some

way 2) Paid little attention to a statement 1 2 3 4 5 you made or showed little interest in your opinion

3) Made demeaning, rude, or 1 2 3 4 5

derogatory remarks about you

4) Addressed you in unprofessional , 1 2 3 4 5 terms, either publicly or privately

5) Ignored or excluded you from 1 2 3 4 5 professional camaraderie (e.g. social conversation)

6) Doubted your judgment over a matter 1 2 3 4 5

in which you have responsibility

7) Made unwanted attempts to draw 1 2 3 4 5 you into a discussion of personal matters

68

Appendix D

Instigated Workplace Incivility Scale Please indicate on a scale of 1-5 often you have exhibited the following behaviors to someone at work in the past year:

1) Put down others or was 1 2 3 4 5 condescending to them in some

way 2) Paid little attention to a statement 1 2 3 4 5 someone made or showed little interest in their opinion

3) Made demeaning, rude, or 1 2 3 4 5

derogatory remarks about someone

4) Addressed someone in unprofessional 1 2 3 4 5 terms, either publicly or privately

5) Ignored or excluded someone from 1 2 3 4 5 professional camaraderie (e.g. social conversation)

6) Doubted someone’s judgment 1 2 3 4 5

over a matter in which they had responsibility

7) Made unwanted attempts to draw 1 2 3 4 5

someone into a discussion of personal matters

69

Appendix E

Job-related Affective Well-being Scale, JAWS

Below are a number of statements that describe different emotions that a job can make a person feel. Please indicate the amount to which any part of your job (e.g., the work, coworkers, supervisor, clients, pay) has made you feel that emotion in the past 30 days. Please check one response for each item that best indicates how often you've experienced each emotion at work over the past 30 days.

Nev

er

Rar

ely

Som

etim

es

Qui

te o

fter

Extre

mel

y of

ten

1. My job made me feel at ease 2. My job made me feel angry 3. My job made me feel annoyed 4. My job made me feel anxious 5. My job made me feel bored 6. My job made me feel cheerful 7. My job made me feel calm 8. My job made me feel confused 9. My job made me feel content 10. My job made me feel depressed 11. My job made me feel disgusted 12. My job made me feel discouraged 13. My job made me feel elated 14. My job made me feel energetic 15. My job made me feel excited 16. My job made me feel ecstatic 17. My job made me feel enthusiastic 18. My job made me feel frightened 19. My job made me feel frustrated 20. My job made me feel furious 21. My job made me feel gloomy 22. My job made me feel fatigued 23. My job made me feel happy 24. My job made me feel intimidated 25. My job made me feel inspired 26. My job made me feel miserable 27. My job made me feel pleased 28. My job made me feel proud 29. My job made me feel satisfied 30. My job made me feel relaxed

70

Appendix F

The Depression Scale

How often do you feel this way at work? Please circle the answer using the scale provided. 1=Very slightly 2=A little 3=Moderately 4=Quite a lot 5=Extremely 1) I feel downhearted and blue 1 2 3 4 5 2) I get tired for no reason 1 2 3 4 5 3) I find myself restless and can’t keep still 1 2 3 4 5 4) I find it easy to do the things I used to do 1 2 3 4 5 5) My mind is as clear as it used to be 1 2 3 4 5 6) I feel hopeful about the future 1 2 3 4 5 7) I find it easy to make decisions 1 2 3 4 5 8) I am more irritable than usual 1 2 3 4 5 9) I still enjoy the things I used to 1 2 3 4 5 10) I feel that I am useful and needed 1 2 3 4 5

71

Appendix G

PANAS This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that word. Indicate to what extent you feel this way right now, that is, at the present moment. Use the following scale to record your answers. 1 2 3 4 5 very slightly a little moderately quit a bit extremely Or not at all _____ interested _____ irritable _____ distressed _____ alert _____ excited _____ ashamed _____ upset _____ inspired _____ strong _____ nervous _____ guilty _____ determined _____ scared _____ attentive _____ hostile _____ jittery _____ enthusiastic _____ active _____ proud _____ afraid

the relationship between workplace incivility

Documents