Description
Assignment #1
Literature Review ? 20%
Individual
A literature review assignment is a broad-ranging, critical view of the literature on a
particular topic. A literature review analysis the most relevant literature in a
respective field of study. The selection of literature is the preliminary step and is
also considered a difficult one. It?s analysis as well as formats gives university
students difficulty. The aim of this assignments is to demonstration your ability to
convey information in a written form about a specific area of research.
The Task
For this assignment you must choose a minimum of 4 of the published articles on
Brightspace and interpret and critically evaluate in a formal literature review. You
will be looking to compare viewpoints, arguments and identify gaps in the
knowledge. Your submission should range from 4-6 pages (not including cover page
and references). APA guidelines required.
Here are some things to think about:
-what are the common themes?
-compare and contrast the various findings, arguments, theories and methodologies
in the literature
-what do the authors agree or disagree about? What are the major areas of
disagreement, controversy or debate?
-Critique the literature; synthesis and evaluate the research, do not just describe or
report it. Look for any assumptions or bias in the literature.
The Structure
Like any academic document a literature review also follows a definite structure,
adhering to which is fundamental for your literature to get evaluated. It consists of
an introduction, body and conclusion. The introduction and conclusion are selfexplanatory; however, the body basically deals with the analysis. The analysis can
be done in many ways such as chronological, thematic, or historical.
Marking Rubric
Criteria
Organization
You can do better!
The review was
minimally organized
and writing was
difficult to follow
throughout.
Competent
The review was
suitably organized
considering the
contents of the
selected articles.
Distinguished
The review was
organized using
subheadings. The
review was suitably
organized considering
the contents of the
(0)
Introduction
Introduction is
missing
(0)
(1)
selected articles.
(2)
Good description of Outstanding
the specific topic and introduction. Clearly
relevance. Provides a outlines what will be
good idea of what
argued in the
will be argued in the literature review and
literature review
shows depth and
(1)
thought.
(2)
The findings of
The findings of
The findings/results
Findings
articles were
articles were
of articles were
mentioned with little compared, contrasted thoughtfully
and or no comparison and/or connected to compared, contrasted
or connection to each each other.
and/or connected to
other.
each other.
(7)
(3)
(10)
Conclusion is missing The conclusion
The conclusion of the
Conclusion
summarized key
review summarized
points.
the knowledge found
from this review and
related the knowledge
gain.
(1)
(0)
(2)
Works cited were not Citations within text In-text citations and
Citations and
listed for in-text
and in reference list reference list citations
References APA
citations or works
were include with
were complete and
cited included
some formatting
properly formatted in
resources not
problems
APA style.
mentioned in the
report (0)
(1)
(2)
There was an
There were no
Communicates in a There were many
grammatical, spelling
manner expected of grammatical, spelling occasional
and/or
punctuation
grammatical,
spelling
and/or punctuation
an undergraduateerrors that distracted and/or punctuation errors and transitional
level student.
the reader from the error that did not
phrases were used to
content of the
distract the reader.
guide the reader
writing.
throughout the text.
(1)
(2)
(0)
Work & Stress
An International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/twst20
Daily effects of face-to-face and cyber incivility via
sadness, anger and fear
Karen Niven, Catherine Connolly, Christopher B. Stride & Samuel Farley
To cite this article: Karen Niven, Catherine Connolly, Christopher B. Stride & Samuel Farley
(2021): Daily effects of face-to-face and cyber incivility via sadness, anger and fear, Work & Stress,
DOI: 10.1080/02678373.2021.1976882
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2021.1976882
Published online: 16 Sep 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 147
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=twst20
WORK & STRESS
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2021.1976882
Daily e?ects of face-to-face and cyber incivility via sadness,
anger and fear
Karen Nivena, Catherine Connollya, Christopher B. Strideb and Samuel Farleyc
a
Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; bShe?eld University
Management School, University of She?eld, She?eld, UK; cLeeds University Business School, University of
Leeds, Leeds, UK
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
Many workers are subjected to incidents of rudeness and ignorance
at work. Emerging evidence suggests that exposure to such
incivility has an immediate impact on people?s well-being and
commitment. In this article we contribute to this nascent area of
enquiry by investigating the role of discrete emotions in
explaining how exposure to incivility translates into detrimental
daily consequences, and by examining whether the role of
emotions varies depending on whether incivilities occur during
face-to-face versus online interactions. In a diary study of 69
workers, we ?nd that face-to-face incivility has a pronounced
daily impact on workers? exhaustion and turnover intention, and
that this impact is mediated by increased feelings of sadness and
anger, but not fear. In contrast, cyber incivility only a?ects
workers? emotional exhaustion as a result of increases in sadness.
Our ?ndings provide insight into the mechanisms of daily e?ects
of workplace incivility and the divergent daily e?ects of face-toface versus cyber incivility.
Received 12 August 2020
Accepted 1 September 2021
KEYWORDS
Incivility; cyber incivility;
discrete emotions; anger;
sadness; fear
As much as 96% of the workforce is estimated to have been directly exposed to workplace
incivility (Porath & Pearson, 2012), that is, low intensity deviant interpersonal behaviours, such as putting someone down and ignoring someone, that are typically at
least somewhat ambiguous in terms of intent to harm (Cortina et al., 2001). Not only
is incivility highly prevalent within the workplace, but it also has substantial detrimental
consequences for those who are exposed to it. For example, an emerging body of evidence
demonstrates the deleterious e?ects of incivility on employees? daily well-being and commitment to their organisations (e.g. Zhou et al., 2015), which over time can lead to behavioural issues, including enactment of counterproductive work behaviours, such as
retaliation or withdrawal in the form of absence or organisational exit (e.g. Pearson
et al., 2000). Although research is clear that exposure to incivility is harmful for
workers, less is known about why it translates into poorer daily outcomes. That is,
why does exposure to acts of mild rudeness that may not even be intentionally uncivil
lead to people feeling emotionally exhausted and thinking about leaving their jobs by
the end of the workday? This question is important, because the pathways through
CONTACT Karen Niven
[email protected]
? 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2
K. NIVEN ET AL.
which incivility transmits its daily e?ects may extend to explaining the longer-term
impact of incivility and thereby suggest promising avenues for intervention.
Incivility does not only occur when we interact with others face-to-face within organisations. It can also occur during technology-mediated interactions, a phenomenon
referred to as ?cyber incivility.? The burgeoning literature on this topic suggests that
cyber incivility also has substantial daily negative e?ects on people (e.g. Yuan et al.,
2020), and the prevalence of cyber incivility might be expected to grow, as employees
are increasingly using technology to communicate with their colleagues, particularly
since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic (Brynjolfsson et al., 2020). Research on
cyber mistreatment emphasises that the online environment changes how people communicate and how others interpret their communications (Farley et al., 2016). Yet we
know surprisingly little about the relative e?ects of face-to-face and cyber incivility,
and whether they stimulate daily e?ects via the same pathways.
In this article, we focus on emotion as the key pathway through which incivility
transmits e?ects on daily emotional exhaustion and the intention to quit one?s job.
Speci?cally, we explore three discrete emotions: sadness, anger and fear. According
to a?ective events theory, emotions are feeling states experienced in relation to workplace events that shape job-related well-being and attitudes (Weiss & Cropanzano,
1996). Prior studies have identi?ed incivility as a salient workplace event that elicits
intense emotional responses (e.g. Bunk & Magley, 2013), but research on the potential
mechanistic role of emotion in explaining the e?ects of incivility is underdeveloped.
We present a diary study that seeks to advance this area of research, in which we
assessed workers? daily experiences of incivility, emotion, and the outcomes of interest,
over a month-long period.
Our study contributes a more comprehensive and robust understanding of why incivility has negative daily e?ects on well-being and commitment. While previous studies
have linked incivility to emotion, they have either studied single emotions (e.g. Lim
et al., 2018) or relied on retrospective study designs (e.g. Porath & Pearson, 2012). By
studying three discrete emotions, and examining their e?ects simultaneously, we can
provide a clearer picture of which emotions determine the daily e?ects of incivility.
This is important because emotions are prompted by distinctive patterns of appraisals
of the events in one?s work environment (Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994), meaning that not
all negative emotions may be of equal salience. Moreover, by using a daily diary study
design, our research aligns with conceptualisations of incivility as a daily hassle (Sliter
et al., 2010). As Gabriel et al. (2019) argue, questions about connections between
events (e.g. incivility) and states (e.g. emotion, feelings of exhaustion) are intraindividual
in nature, meaning that between-persons designs, such as one-o? surveys, involve misalignment between theory and operationalisation. Diary designs further avoid issues of
retrospective recall in which people may struggle to accurately remember speci?c
instances or their recollections may become biased.
We further contribute by expanding the current understanding of the daily e?ects of
incivility in contrasting face-to-face and cyber incivility. With many companies planning
to introduce permanent home-based working in the near future (Shearmur, 2020), the
salience of cyber incivility is set to increase over the coming years. Yet the literature
on face-to-face and cyber incivility have developed quite separately. For example, few
studies have compared the e?ects of both types of incivility, and while there is some
WORK & STRESS
3
early indication that emotions may be relevant to understanding how face-to-face
incivility impacts people, emotions have only been studied as antecedents rather
than consequences of cyber mistreatment, to our knowledge (e.g. Vranjes et al.,
2018). Cortina et al. (2017) suggest that it is critical to build knowledge on how
experiences and e?ects of incivility di?er in the online domain, in order to understand
whether assumptions about uncivil in-person interactions are equally relevant in the
cyber context. We address their call, by examining whether the role of emotions as an
explanatory mechanism in the relationship between incivility and daily outcomes is
comparable for face-to-face and cyber incivility. Developing this understanding will
in turn assist organisations as they look for ways to counteract the impact of faceto-face and cyber incivility.
E?ects of incivility
It has been well-established that persistent exposure to uncivil acts at work over time can
lead to detriments for employees. For instance, in Cortina et al.?s (2001) seminal study,
exposure to incivility over the past ?ve years was associated with psychological distress,
job dissatisfaction, and job withdrawal. However, incivility researchers have increasingly
signalled the importance of understanding the day-to-day e?ects that exposure to incivility can exert on employees (Beattie & Gri?n, 2014). This shift has been stimulated by
claims that, as a low intensity form of deviance, incivility is best seen as a daily hassle
(Sliter et al., 2010), whose e?ects are experienced more intensely in the short-term
(Meier & Spector, 2013), meaning that retrospective surveys might underestimate the
impact of incivility on people?s working lives. Accordingly, a small corpus of evidence
has built up, demonstrating the daily implications of exposure to incivility (e.g. Beattie
& Gri?n, 2014; Hershcovis et al., 2017; Lim et al., 2018; Nicholson & Gri?n, 2015;
Vahle-Hinz et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2015).
While the evidence to date has helped to develop a good understanding of the daily
e?ects of incivility, research so far has yet to comprehensively address the question of
why incivility in?uences employees? daily outcomes. Here, we suggest that exposure to
incivility is likely to stimulate employees? daily negative emotions, which in turn will
increase their levels of emotional exhaustion and intention to quit their jobs. Emotions
are relatively short-term, intense, a?ective reactions that result from appraisals about the
transactions people have with their environment (Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994). The idea that
emotion is a proximate outcome of incivility that is responsible for its downstream consequences is intuitive, given that emotions are commonly conceptualised as mechanisms
explaining why work events shape people?s attitudes and behaviours (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).
Emotions have been considered in relation to workplace incivility in a few prior
studies. Some of these studies (e.g. Kabat-Farr et al., 2018; Porath & Pearson, 2012)
involve participants retrospectively reporting how they felt in relation to a speci?c
single incident of incivility. While those studies provide insight into the types of
emotions that might be experienced, their ?ndings may not give the most accurate
understanding of the real impact of incivility, because retrospective recall biases and
issues of the precision of memory for events from potentially several months ago
might shape how people report on the emotions they experienced in the immediate
4
K. NIVEN ET AL.
aftermath of an event and even on the event itself (Robinson & Clore, 2002). Thus, recollections over long periods of time are unlikely to be true re?ections of people?s experiences and responses at the time. In two other studies, a diary design has been used,
collecting data pertaining to incivility and the emotions experienced in its aftermath,
relatively soon after their occurrence. However, both of these studies captured only
one emotion (hostility in Lim et al., 2018; embarrassment in Hershcovis et al., 2017).
Thus, while there is initial support for the proposition that emotions form a pathway
between exposure to incivility and its daily e?ects, it remains unclear which emotions
are the key drivers of incivility?s e?ects.
Here, we address this lack of clarity over which emotions are most salient in determining the e?ects of incivility by studying multiple emotions simultaneously, focusing in
particular on sadness, anger and fear, each of which is a plausible a?ective response
when a worker is exposed to incivility. Sadness is a low arousal aversive emotion
(Russell, 1980), which originates in response to events that signify loss, where one
expects low coping potential (Smith & Lazarus, 1993). The sense of loss and inability
to cope that characterise sadness might well be evoked when people are exposed to workplace incivility. As a disruption to the normal conventions of social interaction, incivility
may lead to feelings of loss around one?s identity as a valued organisational member who
deserves fair and respectful treatment, one?s self-worth, and one?s perceived status
(Pearson et al., 2001). Feelings of low ability to cope are likely to stem from restrictions
about appropriate conduct in the workplace that may constrain more active coping behaviours, such as retaliation (e.g. Geddes & Callister, 2007). Moreover, the low-intensity
and ambiguous nature of incivility can make it di?cult to cope through social
support, as targets may be reluctant to explain their feelings to others for fear of appearing hypersensitive (Pearson et al., 2000).
Anger is a high physiological arousal aversive emotion (Russell, 1980), characterised
by the appraisal that an injustice has occurred that another person or entity is responsible
for (Smith & Lazarus, 1993). When a person acts uncivilly towards another, for example
by addressing them in a manner that is unprofessional or rude, this shows a lack of regard
and respect for that person?s welfare (Lim & Cortina, 2005). This lack of regard is likely to
be appraised by the target as an interactional injustice, in the sense that it violates norms
of fair treatment (Bies & Moag, 1986). Moreover, the target of such incivility is likely to
blame the instigator for this perceived injustice, because even when intentions are ambiguous people often appraise blame based on the e?ects of behaviour (e.g. in this case,
feeling a?ronted or disrespected; Alicke, 2000). Thus, exposure to incivility might
evoke feelings of anger.
Like anger, fear is a high physiological arousal aversive emotion (Russell, 1980). It
arises in response to events that are appraised as a danger or threat (Smith & Lazarus,
1993). While acts of incivility are lower in intensity compared to other forms of mistreatment, such as physical violence, they might still evoke the appraisal of threat and therefore feelings of fear. According to Porath and Pearson (2012), it is well established that
minor incivilities are a substantial contributor towards fear of crime, because they lead
neighborhood residents to question the e?cacy of forces to maintain public order (e.g.
Taylor & Covington, 1993). Similarly, in workplaces, workers may feel threatened and
therefore fearful when exposed to minor incivilities because these behaviours represent
an erosion of trust in the organisation to maintain order and to protect worker safety.
WORK & STRESS
5
Pearson et al. (2000) also suggest that the subtle and somewhat ambiguous nature of incivility can create a sense of suspense in targets about what might happen next, which can
induce further feelings of threat and fear.
Hypothesis 1. Incivility will increase daily sadness.
Hypothesis 2. Incivility will increase daily anger.
Hypothesis 3. Incivility will increase daily fear.
In turn, feelings of sadness, anger and fear are likely to be responsible for the downstream consequences of incivility. While discrete emotions are thought to be linked to
distinctive patterns of behavioural outcomes (e.g. as per Frijda?s, 1986, action readiness
theory), the impact on a?ective and attitudinal outcomes is often less di?erentiated
(Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Rather, we expect each of sadness, anger and fear to
increase people?s levels of emotional exhaustion and their intention to leave their
organisation.
People usually attempt to minimise unpleasant states like sadness, anger and fear. This
is in part due to the aversive nature of those states, which means that people want to alleviate their experiences of them (Tice et al., 2001), and in part due to the expectations and
requirements of many jobs that these emotions are not appropriate to be displayed
(Grandey, 2000). Attempts to reduce unpleasant emotions are e?ortful, as emotion regulation requires suppressing a spontaneous response (i.e. the original emotion) and overriding it through controlled strategic action (Tice et al., 2001). As such, experiences of
sadness, anger and fear typically result in emotional exhaustion, through the e?ortful
and draining regulation that they prompt (Totterdell et al., 2012).
The experience of unpleasant emotions like sadness, anger and fear is also linked to
having thoughts about leaving one?s organisation. When aversive emotions are experienced, they induce the desire to avoid the source of those emotions (Lopez-Kidwell
et al., 2018) ? in this case, the person who acted uncivilly. However, because the
source of the emotion cannot always be avoided (e.g. if it is one?s manager or team
member or a customer that one is required to serve), the desire to avoid the source of
unpleasant emotion is often experienced more broadly as a desire to avoid the organisation. The desire to avoid the organisation can be manifested behaviourally, such as
through absenteeism, or cognitively, through thinking about and intending to quit
one?s job (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010).
Our arguments above suggest that exposure to incivility will evoke discrete unpleasant
emotions and these emotions will in turn increase detrimental work-related a?ective and
attitudinal consequences. We therefore propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4. There will be an indirect e?ect of incivility on (a) daily emotional exhaustion and (b) daily turnover intention, via sadness.
Hypothesis 5. There will be an indirect e?ect of incivility on (a) daily emotional exhaustion and (b) daily turnover intention, via anger.
Hypothesis 6. There will be an indirect e?ect of incivility on (a) daily emotional exhaustion and (b) daily turnover intention, via fear.
6
K. NIVEN ET AL.
Face-to-face and cyber incivility
Our theorising thus far suggests that exposure to incivility will be associated with daily
increases in the experience of sadness, anger and fear, which in turn will explain why
incivility increases daily emotional exhaustion and turnover intentions. But will this be
true for all types of incivility? A key point of di?erentiation in the incivility literature
is between incivilities that occur during face-to-face encounters versus online interactions. Research focusing on cyber incivility, i.e. ?communicative behavior exhibited
in computer-mediated interactions that violate workplace norms of mutual respect?
(Lim & Teo, 2009, p. 419), shows that incivility that occurs via online channels has
harmful consequences, including on a daily basis (e.g. Park et al., 2018; Park & Haun,
2018). Here, we consider whether the proposed mediated e?ects of incivility on
emotional exhaustion and turnover intention via discrete emotions apply equally to
face-to-face and cyber incivilities.
The nature of the cyber environment is quite di?erent to in-person interactions, containing a lack of supervision and greater anonymity (Cortina et al., 2017). As communication via technology involves a lower capacity to send and observe facial expressions and
body language than in-person communication, and through some online media (e.g.
email) the opportunity for immediate clari?cation is reduced due to asynchronicity,
cyber interactions are also typically more ambiguous (Kock, 2005). Together, these
factors mean that face-to-face and cyber incivilities might be experienced di?erently
and translate into divergent e?ects. On the one hand, the lack of supervision and
greater anonymity inherent in cyber interactions might encourage more frequent or
severe incivilities that provoke a more intense emotional response, compared with inperson incivilities. Greater ambiguity might also mean that targets of online incivilities
are more likely to interpret even benign words as being o?ensive. On the other hand,
the lack of social cues available in most forms of technology-mediated communications
may mean that messages will be relatively duller in emotional tone (Kock, 2005). In contrast, incivilities during face-to-face interactions might be more emotionally impactful,
for example, because they might appear to be more threatening and because the relatively
lower ambiguity may make assignment of blame more straightforward. Thus, it is unclear
whether exposure to cyber incivility will have stronger or weaker daily e?ects on emotion
and, in turn, exhaustion and turnover intention.
Existing empirical research provides limited insight into this issue. To date, emotion
has not been studied as an outcome of cyber incivility. Moreover, very few studies of the
broader e?ects of incivility consider both face-to-face and cyber incivility. Those that do
have relied on student participants (McCarthy et al., 2020; Scisco et al., 2019), or have
applied retrospective survey designs rather than studying daily e?ects (Heischman
et al., 2019), and do not consider mediating variables, such as emotions. This prior
research also reports con?icting patterns of ?ndings. For example, whereas Heischman
et al. (2019) found stronger negative outcomes for face-to-face than cyber incivility,
McCarthy et al. (2020) reported the reverse pattern in one of their studies. Meanwhile,
Scisco et al. (2019) reported no di?erences in e?ects for the majority of the measures
they captured. The mixed pattern of ?ndings in previous research, alongside the competing theoretical perspectives, means that we do not form an a priori hypothesis; instead,
WORK & STRESS
7
we tackle the issue in an exploratory manner by studying the mediated e?ects of face-toface and cyber incivility separately to enable comparisons.
Method
Design and participants
We conducted a diary study using a sample of working adults obtained through a graduate education website of a US university teachers? college. Participants were working in
various industries while also attending graduate school. We asked participants to complete diary entries on a purpose-built app, named the ?incivility tracker,? designed for
use on smartphones. Participants were signalled in the late afternoon every day over a
month-long period and were asked to complete the app survey if they had worked on
that day. Participants received a $30 gift certi?cate in return for their participation.
A total of 81 participants completed the app survey at least once, with the number of
entries they provided varying between 1 and 27. However, as discussed below, our analysis procedure required the presence of lagged daily observations, meaning that some participants were excluded from the analysis based on their reporting patterns. The ?nal
sample included in our analyses therefore comprised 69 participants, who collectively
provided 636 observations. Of the ?nal sample, 80% were male and they had a mean
age of 27 years (SD = 7 years). The distribution of respondents? highest education level
was 7% at Grade School, 45% with an Undergraduate degree, and 48% with a Postgraduate degree. Full-time employees made up 51% of the analysis sample and part-time
employees were the remaining 49%. Occupations of the sample included teachers,
accountants, physical therapists, maintenance personnel, counsellors, consultants,
administrators, and bankers, amongst others.
Measures
The app survey included two measures of workplace incivility, both based on the classic
Cortina et al. (2001) measure, which contains seven items, all describing speci?c uncivil
behaviours, such as ?made demeaning or derogatory remarks about you.? In both cases,
participants were asked to what extent people at work subjected them to each of the seven
behaviours that day, using a 1?5 scale (?not at all? to ?a great extent?). In the ?rst
measure, participants speci?cally referred to behaviours that occurred during face-toface interactions, while in the second they re?ected on online transactions. For both
face-to-face and cyber scales, internal consistency reliability was high (face-to-face: multilevel alpha within subjects = .803, between subjects = .966; multilevel omega within subjects = .835, between subjects = .958; multilevel H within subjects = .848, between
subjects = .974; cyber: multilevel alpha within subjects = .830, between subjects = .969;
multilevel omega within subjects = .855, between subjects = .981; multilevel H within
subjects = .897, between subjects = .999).
Participants then completed three single item measures asking the extent to which
they had experienced the emotions of sadness, anger and fear that day, on a 1?10
scale. Finally, they responded to two single item measures capturing emotional exhaustion and intention to quit, both answered on a 1?10 scale. Speci?cally, they were asked to
8
K. NIVEN ET AL.
indicate ?the extent to which you have felt emotionally exhausted while at work today?
(response scale ranging from ?not at all exhausted? to ?extremely exhausted?), and ?the
extent to which you have intended to quit your job today? (?no intention to quit? to
?strong intention to quit?).
Analysis procedure
Given the multilevel structure of our data, with daily observations (level 1) nested within
participants (level 2), we tested our hypotheses using a sequence of nested multilevel
models, ?tted using Mplus v8 software. In line with our theory and hypotheses, we
focused on the within-person level of analysis, and centred predictor variables around
person mean scores. We began with the unconditional model, in which the variance
of our mediators (sadness, anger and fear) and outcomes (exhaustion and turnover intention) was simply partitioned into within and between subject components. We then
added the lag e?ects, i.e. the previous observation, of these mediators and outcomes as
respective controls for each of them. For each mediator and outcome variable, the
lagged value was the most recent observation from within the previous two days. We
chose to use lagged values from more than one day previously in order to recognise
that participants did not all work on consecutive days of the week, given the high prevalence of part-time workers in the sample ? but restricted them to a maximum of two days
prior to ensure that the emotions, exhaustion and intention to turnover captured would
still be relevant.
Then, to test our hypotheses, we in turn added paths to regress our outcomes directly
upon our predictors, our mediators upon our predictors (testing hypotheses 1, 2 and 3),
and our outcomes on our mediators. To test the signi?cance of the mediated e?ects (i.e.
indirect paths) explicitly (hypotheses 4, 5 and 6) we calculated and tested indirect e?ects
from incivility to exhaustion and turnover intention within the model.
Models were ?tted using maximum likelihood estimation. To assess model improvement as paths were added, we tested the decrease in model deviance, which has a chisquare distribution with degrees of freedom equal to the number of extra parameters
added. When testing model improvement, and the e?ects of predictor and mediator variables, the p < .05 level of statistical signi?cance was applied, with 95% con?dence intervals computed for indirect e?ects using Monte Carlo simulation (Preacher & Selig, 2012).
Results
Table 1 shows the bivariate correlations between study variables at the observation level.
Table 2 gives the relative ?t, variance components, and tests between our competing
models, with the path estimates from our ?nal model given in Table 3. Finally, Table
4 displays the indirect e?ects of our mediation analyses.
Adding paths from both person-mean-centred face-to-face and cyber incivility to
person-mean-centred sadness, anger and fear (Table 2, Model 4) signi?cantly improved
model ?t (? Dev = 22.78 on 6 df, p < .001; within subjects variance explained in sadness =
5.6%; in anger, 9.4%; in fear, 1.5%). As shown in Table 3, the paths between face to face
incivility and anger and sadness were positive and signi?cant (sadness: B = 0.675, p
< .001; anger: B = 1.217, p < .001); however, the path to fear was not signi?cant (B =
Table 1. Standard deviations and intercorrelations between the main study variables at the event-level.
Variables
SD
1. Face-to-face incivility
0.371
2. Cyber incivility
0.293
3. Lag sadness
1.422
4. Sadness
1.418
5.
