kain jason matthew
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
1/79
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 ofThe requirements for the degree of
Master of Industrial/Organizational Psychology
August 2008
Committee
Steve Jex, Advisor
Mike Zickar
Eric Dubow
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
2/79
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.
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
3/79
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.
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
4/79
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.
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
5/79
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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
6/79
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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
7/79
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
4 Results of Moderated Multiple Regression: Interaction Between Experienced
Incivility and ESI Entitlement. Affective Well-Being is the Outcome
Variable....... 47
5 Results of Moderated Multiple Regression: Interaction Between Experienced
Incivility and ESQ Entitlement. Depression is the Outcome
Variable.................... 48
6 Results of Moderated Multiple Regression: Interaction Between Experienced
Incivility and ESI Entitlement. Depression is the Outcome
Variable ....... 49
7 Results of Moderated Multiple Regression: Interaction Between Experienced
Incivility and ESQ Entitlement. Perpetrated Incivility is the Outcome
Variable ...... 50
8 Results of Moderated Multiple Regression: Interaction Between Experienced
Incivility and ESI Entitlement. Perpetrated Incivility is the Outcome
Variable .......... 51
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
8/79
viii
9 Results of Moderated Multiple Regression: Interaction Between Perpetrated
Incivility and ESQ Entitlement. Affective Well-Being is the Outcome
Variable ....... 52
10 Results of Moderated Multiple Regression: Interaction Between Perpetrated
Incivility and ESI Entitlement. Affective Well-Being is the Outcome
Variable ....... 53
11 Results of Moderated Multiple Regression: Interaction Between Perpetrated
Incivility and ESQ Entitlement. Depression is the Outcome
Variable ........................................................................................................ 54
12 Results of Moderated Multiple Regression: Interaction Between Perpetrated
Incivility and ESI Entitlement. Depression is the Outcome
Variable ................................................................................................................... 55
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
9/79
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,
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
10/79
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 peoples
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
Peoples temperament can make them more prone to be both victims and
perpetrators of incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Blau & Andersson, 2005). For
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
11/79
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 employees 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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
12/79
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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
13/79
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 &
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
14/79
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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
15/79
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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
16/79
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 subordinates 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 someones
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
17/79
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
peoples 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.
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
18/79
10
When an employees 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 employees 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 peoples 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 peoples needs and the equality rule states that rewards should be distributed equally
regardless of peoples 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).
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
19/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
20/79
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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
21/79
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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
22/79
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.
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
23/79
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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
24/79
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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
25/79
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.
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
26/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
27/79
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 dont 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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
28/79
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 work1) 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 peoples 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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
29/79
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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
30/79
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, womens 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.
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
31/79
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. Cronbachs alpha for the four ESQ items was .82.
Cronbachs alpha for the five items used to assess entitlement on the ESI was .65. Item 3
was not included in the analysis, which increased Cronbachs 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, cronbachs alpha ranged from .76 to .90. Although the correlations were
significant, all hypotheses were reported using regression because variables that influence
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
32/79
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 (R=.03, F= 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 (R
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
33/79
25
depression (R=.01, F=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 (R=.01, F=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 (R=.11, F=26.97,p
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
34/79
26
between experienced incivility and entitlement in predicting affective well-being was
not significant (R=.01, F=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 (R=.01, F=1.51,p =.22) or entitlement (R
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
35/79
27
between experienced incivility and entitlement in predicting perpetrated incivility was
not significant (R
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
36/79
28
being was also not significant (R=.02, F=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 (R=.01, F=.89,p =.40) or entitlement (R
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
37/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
38/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
39/79
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 hasnt 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 Pearsons (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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
40/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
41/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
42/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
43/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
44/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
45/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
46/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
47/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
48/79
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.
ONeal, 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.
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
49/79
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=Searchhttp://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=Searchhttp://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=Searchhttp://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=Searchhttp://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=Searchhttp://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 -
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
50/79
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.
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
51/79
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.
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
52/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
53/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
54/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
55/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
56/79
48
Table 5
Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between experienced incivility and
ESQ entitlement. Depression is the outcome variable
Variable R R B
Step 1.
Age
Sex
Negative Affect
.02 .02
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
57/79
49
Table 6
Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between experienced incivility and
ESI entitlement. Depression is the outcome variable
Variable R R B
Step 1.
Age
Sex
Negative Affect
.02 .02
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
58/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
59/79
51
Table 8
Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between experienced incivility and
ESI entitlement. Perpetrated incivility is the outcome variable
Variable R R B
Step 1.
Age
Sex
Negative Affect
.15* .15
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
60/79
52
Table 9
Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between perpetrated incivility and
ESQ entitlement. Affective well-being is the outcome variable
Variable R R B
Step 1.
Age
Sex
Negative Affect
.06* .06
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
61/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
62/79
54
Table 11
Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between perpetrated incivility and
ESQ entitlement. Depression is the outcome variable
Variable R R B
Step 1.
Age
Sex
Negative Affect
.02 .02
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
63/79
55
Table 12
Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between perpetrated incivility and
ESI entitlement. Depression is the outcome variable
Variable R R B
Step 1.
Age
Sex
Negative Affect
.02 .02
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
64/79
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 Cronbachs 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; Oneill & Mone, 1998; Shore,
2004).
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
65/79
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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
66/79
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
dont 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.
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
67/79
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.
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
68/79
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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
69/79
61
Appendix A table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for the Entitled Sub-DimensionQuestions Sub-scale Mean Standard
Deviation
N
1) Workers who put in the sameeffort should be rewarded equally
Equitysensitive
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 rewardsas I do
Equity
sensitive
3.93 1.07 229
6) I dont mind putting lots of efforttowards 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
Benevolent 3.38 1.03 229
8) I dont mind being rewarded thesmallest for my efforts as long as I
have helped my co-workers
Benevolent 3.03 1.07 229
9) I can tolerate receiving a small
reward for my effort as long as it is in
the best interest of the company
Benevolent 3.12 1.05 229
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 dont mind receiving a large
reward for a small amount of effort
Entitled 2.02 1.02 229
12) I dont mind receiving more than
I give to the company
Entitled 2.03 1.00 229
13) I dont mind receiving a largereward even when I do not deserve it
Entitled 1.93 1.03 229
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
70/79
62
Appendix A figure 1
Scree Plot for the ESQ Entitled Sub-Dimension
13121110987654321
Factor Number
4
3
2
1
0
Eigen
value
Scree Plot
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
71/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
72/79
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 5should 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 dont 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 dont 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 5of my own needs equally
26) It wouldnt bother me to receive a
larger reward than others who put in the 1 2 3 4 5
same effort
27) I dont mind putting lots of effort 1 2 3 4 5
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
73/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
74/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
75/79
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 inthe 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 interestin 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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
76/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
77/79
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
78/79
70
Appendix F
The Depression Scale
How often do you feel this way at work? Please circle the answer using the scaleprovided.
1=Very slightly 2=A little 3=Moderately4=Quite a lot 5=Extremely
1) I feel downhearted and blue 1 2 3 4 52) I get tired for no reason 1 2 3 4 5
3) I find myself restless and cant keep still 1 2 3 4 5
4) I find it easy to do the things I used to do 1 2 3 4 55) 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 57) I find it easy to make decisions 1 2 3 4 5
8) I am more irritable than usual 1 2 3 4 59) 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
-
7/28/2019 Kain Jason Matthew
79/79
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. Usethe following scale to record your answers.
1 2 3 4 5very 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