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

Jason Matthew Kain

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of The requirements for the degree of Master of Industrial/Organizational Psychology August 2008 Committee Steve Jex, Advisor Mike Zickar Eric Dubow

ii ABSTRACT

Steve Jex, Advisor

The current study tested the influence of equity sensitivity on the relationship between experienced and perpetrated incivility and health outcomes (affective well-being and depression). More specifically, it was hypothesized that entitlement would moderate the relationship between both experienced and perpetrated incivility and affective well-being and depression. Due to measurement limitations with the Equity Sensitivity Instrument (ESI), a new measure, the Equity Sensitivity Questionnaire (ESQ) was developed and tested to use in this study. Data was collected from 225 university employees in 179 departments. Results indicated that people who are more highly entitled tend to experience more incivility. Additionally, people who experience more incivility tend to have lower levels of affective well-being. Results also showed that people who experience more incivility also tend to engage in perpetrated incivility more frequently. Moderator hypotheses were not supported using either the ESQ or ESI.

iii

I dedicate this thesis to those who lost their life in the Virginia Tech massacre on April 16, 2007. In particular, I would like to name Ryan Clark and Maxine Turner, who were close friends with my sister. I would also like to name Leslie Sherman, who was raised in my home town of Springfield, VA. It is my hope that the wonderful lives these people lived will be remembered forever, and that researchers will continue doing work on incivility in an effort to one day eliminate needless violence.

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge my advisor Dr. Steve Jex. Without his guidance, I would not have been able to complete this paper. I would also like to thank him for being patient with me, and for helping me grow and develop as a researcher. Additionally, I would like to thank Mike Zickar and Eric Dubow for their helpful feedback, and for asking hard questions to help ensure this paper was as well written as possible. I would also like to thank my family for their support throughout the process. I would like to thank my grandfather Bernard Kain for offering me a home away from home, for always being optimistic, and for teaching me that life can be fun and challenging no matter what happens. I would also like to thank my parents and sister for their unconditional love and support throughout the graduate school process. Finally, I would like to thank my friends Kimberly and Tony Laurene, Jesse Erdheim, Heather Forrester, Alina Foo, Sarah Peterson, and Byron Jose for being there for me throughout this process. I could not have done this without their friendship and unconditional support.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION...............................................................................1 Potential Causes of Incivility .......................................................................2 Negative Effects of Workplace Incivility ....................................................4 The Incivility Spiral .................................................................................5 The Influence of Gender and Organizational Power ...................................6 Equity Sensitivity.........................................................................................8 The Current Study........................................................................................13 CHAPTER II: Methods..........................................................................................................18 Participants...........................................................................................................18 Materials.. ........................................................................................................18 Procedure.. .......................................................................................................21 CHAPTER III: Results ..........................................................................................................23 Descriptive Statistics........................................................................................23 Main Effects.....................................................................................................24 Moderated Hypothesis.. ...................................................................................25 CHAPTER IV: Discussion ....................................................................................................29 Strengths/Limitations......................................................................................31 Ideas for Future Research.. .............................................................................32 Practical Implications......................................................................................34 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................35

vi APPENDIX A. Results for the development of the Equity Sensitivity Questionnaire ........56 Introduction.............................................................................................................56 Method ............................................................................................57 Participants..................................................................................................57 Materials .........................................................................................57 Procedure ........................................................................................58 Results.............................................................................................58 Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for the Entitled Sub-Dimension ...............60 Means and Standard Deviations for the Entitled Sub-Dimension........61 Scree Plot for Entitled Sub-Dimension ................................................................62 Equity Sensitivity Questionnaire .............................................................................63 APPENDIX B. Equity Sensitivity Instrument .........................................................................66 APPENDIX C. Experienced Workplace Incivility Scale ........................................................67 APPENDIX D. Instigated Workplace Incivility Scale .............................................................68 APPENDIX E. Job-related Affective Well-being Scale...........................................................69 APPENDIX F. The Depression Scale.......................................................................................70 APPENDIX G. PANAS................71

vii LIST OF FIGURES/TABLES Figure/Table 1 2 3 Bivariate Correlations Descriptive Statistics.................................................................................................. 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....... 5 Results of Moderated Multiple Regression: Interaction Between Experienced Incivility and ESQ Entitlement. Depression is the Outcome Variable.................... 6 Results of Moderated Multiple Regression: Interaction Between Experienced Incivility and ESI Entitlement. Depression is the Outcome Variable ....... 7 Results of Moderated Multiple Regression: Interaction Between Experienced Incivility and ESQ Entitlement. Perpetrated Incivility is the Outcome Variable ...... 8 Results of Moderated Multiple Regression: Interaction Between Experienced Incivility and ESI Entitlement. Perpetrated Incivility is the Outcome Variable .......... 51 50 49 48 47 Page 44 45

viii 9 Results of Moderated Multiple Regression: Interaction Between Perpetrated Incivility and ESQ Entitlement. Affective Well-Being is the Outcome Variable ....... 10 Results of Moderated Multiple Regression: Interaction Between Perpetrated Incivility and ESI Entitlement. Affective Well-Being is the Outcome Variable ....... 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 53 52

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Discourteous behaviors in the workplace such as rude comments, thoughtless acts, and negative gestures are becoming more prevalent (Blau & Anderson, 2005; Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Johnson & Indivik, 2001). This type of behavior is known as workplace deviance, and can result in harm to both the individuals in an organization, and the organization itself (Robinson & Bennett, 2005). Workplace deviance can range from mild behavior such as ignoring someone to more severe behaviors such as violence. Andersson and Pearson (1999) defined mild workplace deviance behaviors as workplace incivility. More specifically, workplace incivility is low intensity behavior with ambiguous intent to harm in violation of the workplace norms for respect (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p.456). Often times people who are highly emotionally reactive (sensitive to insults, easily offended, perceiving threats in seemingly innocent exchanges) are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of incivility (Blau & Andersson, 2005). Examples of workplace incivility include ignoring a colleague, spreading rumors, writing disrespectful E-mails to co-workers, or addressing someone unprofessionally. Incivility has been shown to lead to a wide variety of negative consequences including lower levels of affective well-being and higher levels of depression (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001). In addition to perceiving higher rates of incivility, emotionally reactive people have also been shown to perceive equity differently (Huseman, Hatman, & Miles, 1987; King & Miles, 1994). Adams (1965) proposed that people desire an equal ratio between effort and rewards among their colleagues; when people do not perceive an equal ratio,

2 they restore equity by changing their own effort and rewards or the efforts and rewards of the people they compare themselves to. Adams (1965) also mentioned that there might be individual differences in the way people perceive equity. Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles (1987), built the preference component into equity theory by developing the concept of equity sensitivity. Equity sensitivity explains that the individual differences in 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

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

4 for impersonal interactions and makes people less nervous about saying negative things about colleagues (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2005). Negative Effects of Workplace Incivility In a poll reported by one study on incivility, 90 percent of respondents believed that incivility was a problem and 75 percent believed that it was getting worse (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). Even though incivility is low-intensity, it diminishes the effectiveness of the target and co-workers around them. For example, one-half of victims in the poll indicated that they wasted time thinking about the perpetrator and one-fourth of them reported wasting time avoiding the perpetrator (Pearson et al, 2000). In addition to decreasing effectiveness, incivility also leads to poorer health among employees. There are generally three attributions victims make about the causes of incivility that can result in different health outcomes; that the incivility is caused by their own actions because they are the only victim, the incivility is caused by the perpetrator because he/she is engaging in incivility behaviors towards multiple people, and the incivility is caused by the organization because there are multiple perpetrators and victims (Bowling & Beehr, 2006). If victims blame themselves for the incivility, they usually have increased levels of depression and decreased self-esteem (Bowling & Beehr, 2006). When victims attribute the cause of the incivility to the perpetrator, they experience perceptions of unfairness or interactional injustice. As a result of these perceptions, victims feel ignored, withdraw from, distanced, depressed, and moody (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001). When the victims are blaming the organization for incivility occurring in the workplace, it is not uncommon to see mass participation in incivility throughout the

5 organization, which decreases productivity, satisfaction, cooperation, and collaboration on a larger scale (Bies, 2000; Bies & Moag, 1986; Pearson et al, 2001). Any of the multiple forms of the three attributions of incivility over a repeated time period can lead to poor interpersonal relationships at work, higher levels of negative affect, absenteeism, reduced commitment, anxiety, depression, burnout, decreased productivity, stealing from the organization, and turnover (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Pearson et al, 2000). There are also costs of incivility associated with being a perpetrator. For example, if the perpetrator is working on a team project with the victim and the performance of each person is dependent on each other, the decreased performance of the victim also hurts the performance of the perpetrator (Pearson & Porath, 2001). Any time the perpetrator spends hurting the victim is time away from the tasks they are supposed to be performing, but usually the amount of time is trivial. Also, the victims have a tendency to avoid the perpetrator, which decreases necessary contact in a context where they need to work as a team (Pearson & Porath, 2001). The Incivility Spiral It is not uncommon for victims to respond to incivility by becoming perpetrators themselves. For starters, Andersson and Pearson (1999) point out that violence in the workplace is usually due to a series of escalating incivility episodes rather than just spontaneous acts of violence. For example, one-fourth of incivility perpetrators were reported making threats to their targets, and in response it was not uncommon for victims to report stealing items from the perpetrator (Pearson et al, 2000). A series of incivility episodes starts when someone breeches the norms of respect causing the person on the receiving end of the breech to perceive a violation of interactional injustice (Bies &

6 Moag, 1986). Interactional justice is when people perceive that communication norms have been violated (Cropanzano & Byrne, 2001). Employees who are highly emotionally reactive tend to be more likely to see behaviors as violations of interactional injustice. Emotionally reactive employees see more violations of interactional injustice because they tend to inflate the severity of their interpretations of actions that might be uncivil, and they perceive these actions as an attack on their attributes and social identity (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). When initial actions of incivility are seen as unprovoked and interpreted as stronger than they were intended to be, the victim will sometimes choose to engage in more severe actions to get revenge on the perpetrator. Andersson and Pearson (1999) referred to these types of interactions as incivility spirals. If incivility spirals escalate far enough, they reach what is referred to as a tipping point at which employees become aggressive and even violent towards each other (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). An example of an incivility spiral with a tipping point would begin with worker A ignoring worker B, who responds by insulting worker A over a period of time. In return, worker A would become increasingly frustrated and retaliate by stealing from worker B, which results in worker B retaliating by destroying property belonging to working A (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). If incivility spirals escalate too far and for too long, they can lead to more severe forms of workplace deviance such as violence (Andersson et al, 1999). The Influence of Gender and Organizational Power Although men and women are equally as likely to be targets of incivility, male targets tend to respond more aggressively than female targets toward the perpetrator of

7 the incivility (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994. For example, male targets are more likely to respond to incivility by withholding information and attempting to ruin the perpetrators reputation, whereas women are more likely to avoid the perpetrator. Males often times attempt to ruin the reputation of the perpetrator by telling their subordinates and other colleagues about what the perpetrator is doing to them (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2005). Male interactions of incivility are more likely to produce incivility spirals that can actually lead to violent actions (Neuman & Barron, 1998). For females, experienced incivility is often closely linked to sexual harassment (Lim & Cortina, 2005). The similarity in incivility and sexual harassment that links them together is the idea that in both forms of mistreatment, the perpetrator is attempting to debase their victim and increase their social advantage and dominance. Although both incivility and sexual harassment are associated with negative mood, cognitive distraction, fear, decreased productivity, anxiety, depression, and turnover, these outcomes are increased in severity when sexual harassment and incivility co-occur (Lim & Cortina, 2005). Victims of workplace incivility are also more likely to be individuals in positions of lower power (Aquino, Galperin, & Bennett, 2004; Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Lim & Cortina, 2005; Pearson, 2000). People with higher status and more resources are more resistant to workplace incivility. People of lower status are more defensive of their status, and do not necessarily have the resources to resist the incivility (Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001). When they perceive a threat to their status, they feel shame and are more likely to retaliate against the person who caused

8 them problems (Aquino, Galperin, & Bennett, 2004). People frequently targeted are reported being younger, single, female, and or ethnic minority. When employees engaging in intentional workplace incivility behaviors are supervisors, the behavior is known as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000). Abusive supervision is a 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 coworkers (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

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.

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).

11 Age has been shown to influence how people perceive equity in that children under 13 do not conform to the rules of equity ratios. Children do not conform because they are using other standards such as needs to base their equity decisions or because they are not cognitively developed enough to calculate equity ratios (Hook & Cook, 1979). Gender has been consistently shown to influence how people perceive equity in that females are more likely to reward themselves less and work harder for the same output as males (Austin & McGinn, 1977; Callihan, Levy & Messe, 1979; Major, McFarlin, & Gagnon, 1984). People who are high on Machiavellianism value gaining the most even when they do not have to work for it, but those high in the protestant work ethic and self-esteem tend to value working hard for their money (Greenburg, 1979). People with a higher interpersonal orientation are interested and reactive to the needs of others but people with a low interpersonal orientation are more concerned with economic gain than with the needs of others (Swap & Rubin, 1983). Also, individual differences in whether or not employees view ambiguous job elements as incomes or as outcomes effect their perceived income to outcome ratio. People who see ambiguous job elements as outcomes will tend to try and compensate for the outcome by putting in more effort (Huseman et al, 1987). Employees who see ambiguous job elements as incomes will have higher expectations for their outcomes. Based on demographic and personality variables, people seek out situations that match their internal standards for equity. The concept of equity sensitivity is based on the idea that there are individual differences in the ways people perceive and respond to equity, and that these preferences are influenced by characteristics such as nationality, age and sex, protestant work ethic, Machiavellianism, and self-esteem, (Huseman et al, 1987; King et al, 1994). Equity

12 sensitivity explains individual differences in equity in terms of three sub-dimensions: benevolent, equity sensitive, and entitled employees. Employees who are highly benevolent prefer their ratio of inputs to outputs to be lower than others (Huseman et al, 1987). Individuals who are more highly benevolent prefer this equity ratio because of one of three reasons: They are cooperative and want the organization to do well, they experience other peoples emotions vicariously and want to help them out, or they are concerned with their own self-interest and want social approval and to improve their own image (Huseman et al, 1987). Employees who are highly equity sensitive prefer for their ratio of inputs and outputs to be equal to others. They generally prefer this equity ratio because they feel distress when they are under-rewarded and guilt when they are over-rewarded. Employees who are highly entitled have higher standards which lead to preferring a greater output relative to others (Huseman et al, 1987). In general, people who are highly entitled are higher in negative affect, have a higher sensitivity to differences in rewards, are more emotionally reactive, and are willing to lie or cheat or receive the highest reward (Huseman et al, 1987; King, Miles, & Day, 1994; Mudrack, Mason, & Stepanski, 1999). People who are highly entitled prefer an equity ratio in their favor for three reasons: A change in cultural values after World War II that promoted getting ahead while doing as little as possible, an overly permissive parenting style that promotes receiving instead of giving, and the fact that we live in an age of anxiety where the future is uncertain encouraging some people to get as much as they can while they can (Huseman, Hatman, & Miles, 1987). King, Miles, and Day (1993) modified the idea of equity sensitivity by changing the idea of preferring to be under-rewarded or over-rewarded to tolerating it. According

13 to this modification, people who are highly benevolent do not prefer, enjoy, or perceive being under-rewarded as equitable, but they have a much higher tolerance for being under-rewarded than people who are highly equity sensitive or highly entitled. For example, employees who are highly benevolent do not prefer to be under-rewarded and may even feel distress when they are, but because they have a higher tolerance for being under-rewarded than highly equity sensitive or entitled employees they are much less likely to taken action to restore equity. Employees who are highly entitled are more tolerant towards being over-rewarded and less tolerant towards being under-rewarded than equity sensitive or benevolent employees (King et al, 1993). Equity sensitivity has been studied in a variety of contexts including personality (Huseman et al, 1987; Konovsky & Organ, 1996; Miles, Hatfield, & Huseman, 1994; Mudrack, Mason, & Stepanski, 1999), teamwork (Bing & Burroughs, 2001; Colquitt, 2004), leadership, cross-culturally (Allen Takeda, & White, 2005; Ambrose & Kulick, 1999; Fok, Hartman, Villere, & Friebert, 1996; VanDierendock, Shaufeli, & Sixma, 1994; Weick, Bougon, & Maruyama, 1976; Yamaguchi, 2003), organizational justice (Blakely, Andrews, & Moorman, 2005; Colquitt, 2005), and reactions to inputs/outputs (Allen & White, 2002; Miles et al, 1989; Shore, 2004) The Current Study People who are highly entitled, and people who are victims and perpetrators of incivility are both emotionally reactive, perceive lower levels of organizational injustice, and engage in deviant behaviors (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Blakely et al, 2005; Colquitt, 2005; Huseman et al, 1987; King et al, 1994; Pearson et al, 2001). In fact, Mudrack, Mason, and Stepanski (1999) even outline the fact that employees who are

14 highly entitled are more likely to engage in deviant behavior such as lying and cheating. Because of these similarities, equity sensitivity and incivility should be related to each other, but no current research to date has focused on how they might be related. The purpose of the proposed study is to establish the relationship between equity sensitivity and workplace incivility. Because employees who are highly entitled and employees who rate themselves higher in experienced and perpetrated incivility tend to be emotionally reactive (having a higher sensitivity to behavior that might be considered insulting or unclear), are generally higher in negative affect (Blau et al, 2005; Andersson et al, 1999; Hunter et al, 2007; Huseman et al, 1987; King et al, 1994) and are willing to engage in deviant behavior (Bowling et al, 2006; Blau et al, 2005; Huseman et al, 1987; King et al, 1994; Mudrack et al, 1999), they should be more likely to experience and perpetrate incivility. Hypothesis 1a: High levels of entitlement will be related to higher amounts of perceived experienced incivility Hypothesis 1b: High levels of entitlement will be related to higher amounts of perceived perpetrated incivility Past studies have shown that high levels of psychological strain such as anxiety and depression are associated with workplace incivility (Blau & Andersson, 2005; Cortina & Magley, 2001; Johnson & Indivik, 2001; Rossi, Perrewe, & Sauter, 2006). Because of these past findings, higher levels of experienced incivility should lead to higher levels of depression and lower levels of affective well-being. Hypothesis 2a: Employees who have higher levels of experienced incivility will report higher levels of depression.

15 Hypothesis 2b: Employees who have higher levels of experienced incivility will report lower levels of affective well-being. Often times perpetrators of incivility (Andersson et al, 1999) are attempting to protect their social identity, especially when they are retaliating, so levels of perpetrated incivility should be related to lower levels of depression and higher levels of affective well-being. Hypothesis 3a: Employees who have higher levels of perpetrated incivility will report lower levels of depression. Hypothesis 3b: Employees who have higher levels of perpetrated incivility will report higher levels of well-being. According to the incivility spiral, people who experience incivility often times reciprocate in order to protect their social identity (Andersson et al, 1999; Hunter et al, 2007). It is expected that this research finding will be replicated in the current study Hypothesis 4: Higher levels of experienced incivility will be significantly positively related to higher levels of perpetrated incivility. Both higher levels of entitlement and incivility have been associated with higher levels of negative affect and having a higher sensitivity to behavior that might be considered insulting or unclear (Andersson et al, 1999; Cortina et al, 2001; Huseman et al, 1987; King et al, 1994); Because of these similarities, levels of entitlement should influence the relationship between incivility and its negative outcomes such as depression and lower levels of affective well-being. Hypothesis 5a: The relationship between incivility and affective well-being will be moderated by the entitlement dimension of equity sensitivity. More

16 specifically, the relationships between incivility and affective well-being will be strongest among employees who report high levels of entitlement and weakest among employees who report low levels of entitlement. For employees who report moderate levels of entitlement, the relationship should be moderate. Hypothesis 5b: The relationship between incivility and depression will be moderated by the entitlement dimension of equity sensitivity. More specifically, the relationships between incivility and depression will be strongest for employees who report higher levels of entitlement and weakest among employees who report low levels of entitlement. For employees who report moderate levels of entitlement, the relationship should be moderate. Past research on the incivility spiral indicates that people who experience incivility often times retaliate and become perpetrators themselves (Andersson et al, 1999; Hunter, Penney, Raghurum, Ugaz, & Malka, 2007). What happens is emotionally reactive victims tend to perceive more behaviors as uncivil and as an attack on their social identity; In order to protect that social identity they retaliate (Andersson et al, 1999; Hunter et al, 2007). The result of the retaliation is that the original perpetrator retaliates back and the incivility spiral begins (Andersson et al, 1999; Hunter et al, 2007). As noted earlier, people who are highly entitled also tend to be more emotionally reactive (likely to perceive interpersonal interactions as insulting) and are likely to engage in deviant behaviors such as lying and cheating to restore equity (Huseman et al, 1989; Mudrack at al, 1999). Because people who are highly entitled, as well as perpetrators of incivility, are more likely to retaliate against behavior they perceive to be insulting in order to restore their social identity and/or equity (Andersson

17 et al, 1999; Hunter et al, 2007; Mudrack et al, 1999), higher levels of entitlement should influence the relationship between perpetrated incivility and affective well-being and depression Hypothesis 6a: The relationship between experienced incivility and perpetrated incivility will be moderated by the entitlement dimension of equity sensitivity. More specifically, the relationships between experienced incivility and perpetrated incivility will be strongest among employees who report high levels of entitlement and weakest among employees who report low levels of entitlement. For employees who report moderate levels of entitlement, the relationship should be moderate. Hypothesis 6b: The relationship between perpetrated incivility and affective wellbeing will be moderated by the entitlement dimension of equity sensitivity. More specifically, the relationships between perpetrated incivility and affective well-being will be strongest among employees who report high levels of entitlement and weakest among employees who report low levels of entitlement. For employees who report moderate levels of entitlement, the relationships should be moderate. Hypothesis 6c: The relationship between perpetrated incivility and depression will be moderated by the entitlement dimension of equity sensitivity. More specifically, the relationships between perpetrated incivility and depression will be strongest among employees who report higher levels of entitled and weakest among employees who report low levels of entitlement. For employees who report moderate levels of entitlement, the relationship should be moderate.

18 CHAPTER II: METHODS Participants The sample for the current study was recruited from faculty and staff at a midwestern University. In order to participate, each subject must have been currently employed by the University. The sample included 225 university employees. Participants were between the age of 19 and 68 and the sample was 23.8% male and 68.2% female. 193 different job titles from 179 different departments were included with Secretaries (N=38), Directors (N=22), Associate professors (N=10), Managers (N=12), and Janitors (N=11) being the most frequent participants. Materials One instrument used to measure the entitled dimension of equity sensitivity was the Equity Sensitivity Instrument (ESI) (King & Miles, 1994). The entire Equity Sensitivity Instrument is contained in appendix B. The other measure used for equity sensitivity, the Equity Preference Questionnaire (Sauley et al, 2000) was not used because research notes that the only study to ever use it was its development study and it has been criticized for measuring alternative constructs (Foot et al, 2006). The Equity Sensitivity Instrument is a five item measure in which each item contains one benevolent statement and one entitled statement. Examples of questions include It would be more important for me to A) help others or B) Look out for my own good. Participants are asked to allocate 10 points between the two statements for every item. Entitled scores were calculated by tabulating the amount of points allocated to the entitlement dimension of each question and dividing by the number of questions.

19 For the current study, the entitled dimension of equity sensitivity was also measured with the newly developed Equity Sensitivity Questionnaire (ESQ). Foot and Harmon (2006) noted problems in the current equity sensitivity measures that were serious enough to warrant developing a new measure such as sample dependent cut scores and tapping into alternative constructs. A new measure known as the Equity Sensitivity Questionnaire was developed for the current study to address these issues. Information on the development of the ESQ is contained in appendix A. The Equity Sensitivity Questionnaire (ESQ) is a 13 item questionnaire on equity sensitivity with 4 items designed to measure the benevolent sub-dimension, 5 items designed to measure the equity sensitive sub-dimension, and 4 items designed to measure the entitlement sub-dimension. Respondents are asked to indicate on a 5 point likert scale ranging from 1(least) to 5(most) how consistent the item is with their attitudes towards work/employment. An example of a benevolent question is I do not mind giving more to the organization than I get back in return, an example of an equity sensitive question is I should receive and contribute to the organization equally, and an example of an entitled question is I 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, coworker, other employee) done the following to you in the past year 1) Put you down or act condescending toward you 2) paid little attention to statements you make and show little interest in your opinion 3) Made rude or demeaning remarks about you 4) addressed

20 you in unprofessional terms either privately or publicly 5) Ignored or excluded you from professional camaraderie 6) Doubted your judgment in a matter over which you have responsibility 7) Made unwanted attempts to draw you into personal matters. On the likert scale, 1=hardly ever (once every few months or less), 2= rarely (about once a month), 3= sometimes (at least once a week), and 4=frequently (at least once a day). Perpetrated incivility was measured using the Instigated Workplace Incivility Scale (WIS) (Blau & Anderson, 2005). The entire Instigated Workplace Incivility Scale is contained in appendix D. The Instigated Workplace Incivility Scale a seven item scale on a 4 point likert scale. The scale asks the following question: How often have you exhibited the following behaviors in the past year to someone at 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

21 are My job made me feel annoyed, my job made me feel anxious, and my job made me feel frustrated. Depression was measured using the Depression Scale (Quinn & Shephard, 1974). The entire Depression Scale is contained in appendix F. The Depression Scale is a scale asking participants about their experiences with 20 depression symptoms at work during the previous 30 days. Some of the symptoms items reported on include I get tired for no reason, I am more irritable than usual and I feel downhearted, blue, and sad. Participants rank these items on a 1-4 likert scale. The scores from the 20 scores are summed up and converted into percentages by the SDS index. Percentages under 50 are considered not depressed, 50-59 is considered mild depression, 60-69 is moderate depression, and 70 or above is considered severe depression. Negative affect was measured using The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) The entire PANAS is contained in appendix G. The PANAS is an instrument that assessing positive and negative affect by listing a number of words such as upset and asking participants to rate how they feel at the present moment on a likert scale of 1-5. The likert scale ranges from very slightly or not at all (1) to extremely (5). The instrument is divided into two parts: one assessing 10 positive words such as proud and one assessing 10 negative words such as distressed. Procedure For participants, faculty members were recruited by E-mail. E-mails were sent to 93 department heads with a request for the E-mail to be forwarded to their faculty members. If the faculty were interested in participating, they responded to the E-mail. After receiving the E-mail indicating interest, the researcher E-mailed the consent form

22 along with copies of the surveys to the faculty member. Faculty members either returned their survey through E-mail or through campus mail. Only ten faculty members responded from eight departments. Three faculty members responded from the consumer science department, and one faculty member from the psychology, history, popular culture, college of health and human services, sociology, 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.

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

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 <.01, F <.01, p =.99), so hypothesis 1b was not supported. For analysis using the ESI, higher levels of entitlement did not predict higher levels of experienced incivility (R =.01, F = 2.43, p =.12), so hypothesis 1a was not supported. Also, higher levels of ESI entitlement did not predict higher levels of perpetrated incivility (R =.01, F = 1.26, p =.26), so hypothesis 1b was not supported. Hypothesis 2a tested whether higher levels of experienced incivility predict lower levels of depression. Higher levels of experienced incivility did not predict lower levels of depression (R =.01, F =1.05, p =.31), so hypothesis 2a was not supported. Hypothesis 2b tested whether higher levels of experienced incivility would predict lower levels of affective well-being. Higher levels of experienced incivility did predict higher levels of affective well-being, so hypothesis 2b was supported (R =.02, F =4.61, p =.03). Hypothesis 3a tested whether higher levels of perpetrated incivility predict lower levels of depression. Higher levels of perpetrated incivility did not lead to lower levels of

25 depression (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 <.01), so hypothesis 4 was supported. Moderated Hypotheses Hypotheses 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, and 6c were tested using hierarchical moderated multiple regression (Cohen & Cohen, 1988). Negative affect, age, and gender were entered as control variables because past studies indicated these variables can influence levels of perceived incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001; Lim & Cortina, 2005; Pearson et al., 2000; Pearson et al., 2001). Hypothesis 5a tested whether entitlement moderated the relationship between experienced incivility and affective well-being. For the ESQ, there was a significant main effect for the experienced incivility (R =.02, F =4.20, p =.04) but not for entitlement (R <.01, F <.01, p =.99) on affective well-being. The interaction between experienced incivility and entitlement in predicting affective well-being was not significant (R=.01, F =2.52, p =.14), so hypothesis 5a was not supported. Standardized coefficients are presented in table 3. For analysis using the ESI, there was a significant main effect for the experienced incivility (R =.02, F =4.20, p =.04) but not for entitlement (R <.01, F <.01, p =.49) on affective well-being. The interaction

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 <.01, F =.35, p =.56) on depression. The interaction between entitlement and experienced incivility in predicting depression was not significant (R =.02, F =1.70, p =.20), so hypothesis 5b was not supported. Standardized coefficients are presented in table 5. For analysis using the ESI, there was also no main effect for experienced incivility (R =.01, F =1.36, p =.24) or entitlement (R <.01, F =.41, p =.52). The interaction between experienced incivility and entitlement in predicting depression was not significant (R =.02, F =3.93, p=.06), so hypothesis 5a was not supported. Standardized coefficients are presented in table 6. There were negligible differences in the way entitlement influenced the relationship between incivility and depression. In other words, there were negligible differences in the way entitlement influenced the relationship between experienced incivility and depression for both the ESQ and ESI. Hypothesis 6a tested whether entitlement moderated the relationship between experienced and perpetrated incivility. For analysis using the ESQ, there was a significant main effect for experienced incivility (R =.12, F =29.32, p<.01) but not for entitlement (R <.01, F =1.23, p=.27) on perpetrated incivility. The interaction

27 between experienced incivility and entitlement in predicting perpetrated incivility was not significant (R <.01, F =.42, p=.52), so hypothesis 6a was not supported. Standardized coefficients are presented in table 7. There were negligible differences in the way entitlement influenced the relationship between experienced incivility and perpetrated incivility. For analysis using the ESI, there was a significant main effect for experienced incivility (R =.12, F =29.32, p<.01) but not for entitlement (R <.01, F =.84, p=.36) on perpetrated incivility. The interaction between experienced incivility and entitlement in predicting perpetrated incivility was also not significant (R <.01, F <.01, p=.99), so hypothesis 6a was not supported. Standardized coefficients are presented in table 8. In other words, there were negligible differences in the way entitlement influenced the relationship between experienced incivility and perpetrated incivility for both the ESQ and ESI. Hypothesis 6b tested whether entitlement moderated the relationship between perpetrated incivility and affective well-being. Analysis using the ESQ found no main effects for perpetrated incivility (R =.02, F =3.37, p =.06) or entitlement (R <.01, F =.19, p =.67) on affective well-being. The interaction between entitlement and perpetrated incivility in predicting affective well-being was not significant (R <.01, F =.11, p =.75), so hypothesis 6b was not supported. Standardized coefficients are presented in table 9. There were negligible differences in the way entitlement influenced the relationship between perpetrated incivility and affective well-being. For analysis using the ESI, there were no main effects for perpetrated incivility (R =.02, F =3.37, p =.06) or entitlement (R <.01, F =.39, p =.53) on affective well-being. The interaction between perpetrated incivility and entitlement in predicting affective well-

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 <.01, F =.69, p =.41) on depression. The interaction between entitlement and perpetrated incivility in predicting depression was not significant (R <.01, F =.38, p =.54), so hypothesis 6c was not supported. Standardized coefficients are presented in table 11. Analysis using the ESI found no main effects for perpetrated incivility (R =.01, F =.89, p =.40) or entitlement (R <.01, F =.35, p =.56) on depression. The interaction between entitlement and perpetrated incivility in predicting depression was significant (R <.01, F =.60, p =.44), so hypothesis 6c was not supported. Standardized coefficients are presented in table 12. In other words, there were negligible differences in the way entitlement influenced the relationship between perpetrated incivility and depression for both the ESQ and ESI.

29 CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION The purpose of the present study was to examine how the entitlement subdimension of equity sensitivity influences the relationship between experienced and perpetrated incivility and affective well-being and depression. Due to some of the limitations past research has pointed out on the measurement of equity sensitivity (Foote & Harman, 2006), the equity sensitivity questionnaire was developed for use in this study. Results found a significant positive relationship between ESQ entitlement and experienced incivility, a significant negative relationship between experienced incivility and affective well-being, and a significant positive relationship between experienced and perpetrated incivility. Significant main effects were also found for these same relationships in the moderated regression analysis. None of the interactive hypotheses were supported. The significant main effects are consistent with the patterns of behavior associated with incivility that was proposed by Andersson and Pearson (1999). Both People who are highly entitled and people who experience high levels of incivility tend to be emotionally reactive (sensitive to insults, easily offended, perceiving threats in seemingly innocent exchanges) (Andersson et al, 1999; Huseman et al, 1987; Hunter et al, 2007), so it comes as no surprise that people who are more highly entitled tend to experience more incivility. According to the incivility spiral, when emotionally reactive individuals experience incivility, they have lower levels of affective well-being and strong feelings of negative affect because they feel like their social identity has been threatened (Andersson et al, 1999; Hunter et al, 2007). These lower levels of affective well-being and increased feelings of negative affect often times motivate victims of

30 incivility to reciprocate (Andersson et al, 1999; Hunter et al, 2007). These findings were supported in the current study because higher levels of experienced incivility predicted higher levels of perpetrated incivility. One reason that could explain why the moderated hypotheses were not significant is that depression and affective well-being may not be the most appropriate dependent variables for this type of relationship. Depression and affective well-being were chosen as dependent variables for the current study because past research has shown that they are outcomes of incivility (Andersson et al, 1999; Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Cortina et al, 2001; Pearson et al, 2001). However, entitlement did not moderate the relationship between incivility and affective well-being and depression. Perhaps depression and affective well-being were not significant because theoretically they may not have been appropriate outcomes for the current study. More specifically, people who are more highly entitled tend to be more emotionally reactive in situations where they do not receive the highest output (Huseman et al, 1987; King et al, 1984); Emotionally reactive people are more likely to perceive incivility because they are more sensitive to insults, more likely to experience violations of interactional injustice, and experience higher levels of negative affect (Blau & Andersson, 2005). Based on these findings from past research, perhaps variables such as interactional justice, anger, negative affect, and frustration would have been more appropriate dependent variables than depression and affective well-being. Another reason that could help to explain why most of the hypotheses were not supported is social desirability. Social desirability is defined as a tendency for the participant to choose responses that are considered more socially desirable by society

31 regardless of what is asked or how true their response actually is (Crowne & Marlow, 1964; Spector, 1987; Thomas & Killman, 1975). In the current study, low means for negative affect (M=1.45), experienced incivility (M=1.81), perpetrated incivility (M=2.31), and ESQ entitlement (M=1.94) suggest that social desirability may have influenced participants responses to these items. Past research indicates that social desirability can be a suppressor variable that actually hides relationships between variables, especially in likert scales such as the ESQ (Ganster, Hennessey, & Luthans, 1983). Although it 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 crosssectional, 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

32 fact that there is variability in the correlations and the averages of the scales are not above average indicates that there is limited to no inflation due to common method variance. Also, as mentioned earlier, responses to the ESQ and ESI may have been influenced by social desirability, which may have masked some potentially significant relationships (Crowne et al, 1965; Ganster et al,1983; Spector, 1987; Thomas et al, 1975). However, the strengths of the study are the fact that the demographics indicate diversity of people and professions, which limits the weakness due to range restriction. In addition, equity sensitivity, depression, affective well-being, and incivility are individuals perceptions, and therefore self-report is an appropriate measure of these variables despite the potential limitations. Ideas for Future Research Because the incivility spiral happens over time (Andersson et al, 1999; Hunter et al, 2007), it would be highly beneficial to conduct future research on incivility longitudinally. More specifically, future research could test to see if the finding in the current study that higher levels of entitlement predicts higher levels of experienced incivility, higher levels of experienced incivility predicts lower levels of affective wellbeing, and higher levels of experienced incivility predicts higher levels of perpetrated incivility is stable over time. Additionally, past research indicates that both highly entitled individuals as well as people who experience and are perpetrators are higher in negative affect, strongly emotionally reactive, and more likely to perceive violations of interactional justice (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Blakely et al, 2005; Blau & Andersson, 2005; Bowling et al, 2006; Cortina et al, 2001; Huseman et al, 1987; King et al, 1984). That being said,

33 future studies should focus on different dependent variables such as interactional justice and negative affect. More specifically, future studies could test whether entitlement moderates the relationship between both experienced and perpetrated incivility and interactional justice and negative affect. These relationships should be tested longitudinally to establish causation and figure out whether or not variables such as interactional justice and negative affect influence the incivility spiral As mentioned earlier, social desirability can be a suppressor variable that actually hides relationships between variables, especially in likert scales such as the ESQ (Crowne et al, 1964; Ganster et al, 1983; Thomas et al, 1975). One suggestion for future research is to control for social desirability when measuring variables such as entitlement or perpetrated incivility. That being said, it might be beneficial to replicate this study in the future with social desirability as a control variable to test whether some of the relationships were suppressed by social desirability. Future research could also focus on finding the distribution of entitled employees or perpetrators of incivility in the general working population. More specifically, the reason that the means were so low for the entitled and perpetrated incivility measures may be because the distribution of these types of employees in the general population is not normal. Future research could be conducted to find out what the distribution of highly entitled employees and perpetrators of incivility are in the general population. Regarding the problem of distributions of highly entitled people or perpetrators of incivility in the current study, this study could be repeated with these populations over-sampled in an effort to isolate how these characteristics influence variables such as affective well-being and depression.

34 Practical Implications The current study provides some evidence that higher levels of experienced incivility are related to higher levels of perpetrated incivility. Additionally, people who are more highly entitled tend to experience more incivility. People experiencing more levels of incivility also had lower levels of affective well-being. The current study also found that entitlement does not moderate the relationship between experienced and perpetrated incivility and affective well-being and depression. Because entitlement has a significant relationship with experienced incivility and because experienced and perpetrated incivility clearly has an impact on employees, employers should be cognizant of the negative impacts of entitlement and incivility and attempt to minimize it. One suggestion for minimizing entitlement and incivility would be to develop assessment to screen for highly entitled employees and perpetrators of incivility in the selection process. Another suggestion for minimizing incivility is maximizing interactional justice by respecting the organizational norms for interpersonal respect (Cropanzano et al, 2001). Because incivility is a consequence of perceived violations of interactional justice (Andersson et al, 1999), maximizing interactional justice should successfully reduce incivility as well as the negative consequences that result from incivility.

35 REFERENCES Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berdowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press Allen, R. S., Takeda, M., & White, C. S. (2005). Cross-cultural equity sensitivity: A test of differences between the United States and Japan. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(8), 641-662. Allen, R. S., & White, C. S. (2002). Equity sensitivity theory: A test of responses to two types of under-reward situations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 14(4), 435-451. Ambrose, M. L. & Kulick, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research of the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 231-292. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review,24(3), 452-471. Aquino, K., Galperin, B. L., & Bennett, R. J. (2004). Social status and aggressiveness as moderators of the relationship between interactional justice and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(5), 1001-1029. Austin, W. & McGinn, M. C. (1977). Sex differences in choice of distribution rules. Journal of Personality, 45(3), 379-394. Bandura, 1969. Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Barron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161-173.

36 Bennett, R. J. & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development ofa measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communications criteria of fairness. In R. Lewicki & B. Sheppard (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol.1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bies, R. J. (2000). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89-118). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Bing, M. N. & Burroughs, S. N. (2001). The predictive and interactive effects of equity sensitivity in teamwork-oriented organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 271-290. Blakely, G. L, Andrew, M. C. & Mooreman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2) 259-273. Blau, G. & Andersson, L. (2005). Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 595-614. Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victims perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 998-1012. Callahan-Levy, C. M., & Messe, L. A. (1979). Sex differences in the allocation of pay. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 433-446.

37 Clark, O. L., Burnfield, J. L., Barger, P. B., Broadfoot, A., & Yugo, J. E. (in prep). Outcomes of abusive supervision: The mediating role of organization-based selfesteem. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regressiuon/correlation for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Elbaum Associates, Publishers. Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Does the justice of the one interact with the justice of the team? Reactions to procedural justice in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 633-646. Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & ODriscoll, P.O. (2001). Organizational Stress: A Review and Critique of Theory, Research, and Application. London: Sage Publications. Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64-80. Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J.,Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64-80. Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164-209. Crowne, D., & Marlow, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York: Wiley Fok, L. Y., Hartman, S. J. Patti, A. L. & Razek, J. R. (1999). The relationship between equity sensitivity, growth needs strength, organizational citizenship behavior, and

38 perceived outcomes in the quality environment: A study of accounting professionals. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(1), 99-120. Fok, L.Y., Hartman, S. J., Villere, M. F., Freibert, R. C. (1996). A study of the impact of cross-cultural differences on perceptions of equity and organizational citizenship behaviors, International Journal of Management, 13, 3-14. Foote, D. A. & Harmon, S. (2006). Measuring equity sensitivity. Journal of Management Psychology, 21(2), 90-108. Ganster, D. C., Hennessey, H. W., & Luthans, F. (1983). Social desirability response effects: Three alternative models. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 321331. Greenburg, J. (1979). Protestant ethic endorsement and the fairness of equity inputs. Journal of Research and Personality, 13, 81-90. Hinken, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104-121. Hook, J. G., & Cook, T. D. (1979). Equity theory and the cognitive ability of children. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 429-445. Hunter, E. M., Penney, L. M., Raghuram, A., Ugaz, A., & Malka, A. A. (2007). A qualitative investigation of escalating aggression within the service encounter. Poster presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York, NY. Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. The Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222-234.

39 Jex, S. M. & Elacqua, T. C. (1999). Self-esteem as a moderator: A comparison of global and organization-based measures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 71-81. Johnson, P. R. & Indvik, J. (2001). Slings and arrows of rudeness: Incivility in the workplace. Journal of Management Development, 20(8), 705-713. Kickel, J. & Lester, S. W. (2001). Broken promises: Equity sensitivity as a moderator between psychological contract breech and employee attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(2), 191-217. King, W. C., & Miles, E. W. (1994). The measurement of equity sensitivity. Journal of Occupationa land Organizational Psychology, 67, 133-142. King, W., Miles, E., & Day, D. D. (1993). A test and refinement of the equity sensitivity construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14,( 4), 301-317. Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253266. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Fairness in Social Relationships. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Lim, S. & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 483-496. Major, B., & McFarlin, D. B., & Gagnon, D. (1984). Overworked and overpaid: On the nature of gender differences in personal entitlement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1399-1412.

40 Miles, E. W., Hatfield, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. (1989). The equity sensitivity construct: Potential implications for worker performance. Journal of Management, 15(4), 581-588. Miles, E. W., Hatfield, J. D., & Huseman, R. C. (1994). Equity sensitivity and outcome importance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 585-596. Mudrack, P. E., Mason, S. E., & Stepanski, K. M. (1999). Equity sensitivity and business ethics. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 539-560. Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 394-419. 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), 13871419. Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). Workplace incivility. In S. Fox, & P. E. Spector (Ed.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets, (pp. 177-201). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

41 Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2001, August). Effects of incivility on the target: Fight, flee or take care of me? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC. Penny, L. M. & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777-796. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. Quinn, R.P., & Shephard, L. (1974). The 1972-1973 quality of employment survey. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, University of Michigan. Sauley, K. S., & Bediean, A. G. (2000). Equity sensitivity: Construction of a measure and examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Management, 26(5), 885910 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.

42 Shore, T., & Strauss, J. (2006). Leader responsiveness, equity sensitivity, and employee attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(2), 227-241. Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 438-443. Stoner, J. & Perrewe, P. L. (2006). Consequences of depressed mood at work: The importance of supportive superiors. In A. M. Rossi, P. L. Perrewe, & S. L. Sauter (Ed.), Stress and Quality of Working Life, (pp. 87-100). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing. Swap, W. C., & Rubin, J. Z. (1983). Measurement of interpersonal orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 208-219. Tang, T. L., & Smith-Brandon, V. L. (2001). From welfare to work: The endorsement of the money ethic and the work ethic among welfare recipients, welfare recipients in training programs, and employed past welfare recipients. Public Personnel Management, 30(2), 241-260. Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190. Thomas, K. W., & Killman, R. H. (1975). The social desirability variable in organizational research: An alternative explanation for reported findings. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 741-752.

43 Van DierenDonck, D., Shaufeli, W. B., & Sixma, H. J. (1994). Burnout from general practitioners: A perspective from equity theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 32-65. Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Using the Jobrelated Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 219-230. Vogt, P. W. (2007). Quantitative Research Methods for Professionals. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Watson, D., Clark, L.A. and Tellegen, A. (1988), Development and validation of a brief measure of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-70. Weick, K.E., Bougon, M. E., & Maruyama, G. (1976). The equity context. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 32-65. Yamaguchi, I. (2003). The relationships among individual differences, needs, and equity sensitivity. Journal of Management Psychology, 18(4), 324-344.

44 Table 1 Bivariate correlations Variables 1) Age 2) Sex 3) Negative affect 4)Experienced Incivility 5) Perpetrated incivility 6) ESQentitled 7) ESIentitled 8) Affective well-being 9) Depression 1) ___ .06 -.07 -.10 .03 -.04 -.01 -.04 .01 ___ -.10 <.01 .04 ___ .19** .39** ___ .41** .23** .06 ___ .02 .05 ___ .26** .05 .06 ___ -.03 -.03 ___ .24** ___ 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9)

-.18** .14** .02 <-.01 <-.01 -.05 .25** -.12

-.20** .22** .06 .02

Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

45 Table 2 Descriptive statistics Variables 1) Age 2) Sex 3) Negative affect 4)Experienced Incivility 5) Perpetrated incivility 6) ESQ entitled 7) ESI entitled 8) Affective Well-Being 9) Depression 1.45 1.81 2.31 1.94 3.71 2.75 2.91 .62 .70 1.22 1.51 1.35 .34 .39 Mean 44.67 SD 11.08 Possible Range 18-70 1-2 1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5 0-10 1-5 1-5 Observed range 19-68 1-2 1-4.9 1-5 1-5 1-4 0-7.25 1-4 1-4 .90 .76 .77 .82 .80 .72 .86 Cronbachs alpha

46

Table 3 Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between experienced incivility and ESQ entitlement. Affective well-being is the outcome variable Variable Step 1. Age Sex Negative Affect Step 2. Experienced Incivility Step 3. ESQ Entitlement Step 4. Experienced Incivility x ESQ Entitlement .01 .10 .06 <.01 .09 <.01 .02* .09 .08 R .06* R .06 B <.01 <.01 -.14

Note. N=229; R is not adjusted; Regression weights are unstandardized; * p < 0.05 (2-tailed)

47 Table 4 Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between experienced incivility and ESI entitlement. Affective well-being is the outcome variable Variable Step 1. Age Sex Negative Affect Step 2. Experienced Incivility Step 3. ESI Entitlement Step 4. Experienced Incivility x ESI Entitlement .01 .10 .03 <.01 .09 -.01 .02* .09 .08 R .06* R .06 B <.01 <.01 -.14

Note. N=229; R is not adjusted; Regression weights are unstandardized; * p < 0.05 (2-tailed)

48 Table 5 Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between experienced incivility and ESQ entitlement. Depression is the outcome variable Variable Step 1. Age Sex Negative Affect Step 2. Experienced Incivility Step 3. ESQ Entitlement Step 4. .02 .03 <.01 .03 .02 .01 .02 .05 R .02 R .02 B <.01 <.01 -.08

Experienced Incivility x .06 ESQ Entitlement Note. N=229; R is not adjusted; Regression weights are unstandardized; * p < 0.05 (2-tailed)

49 Table 6 Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between experienced incivility and ESI entitlement. Depression is the outcome variable Variable Step 1. Age Sex Negative Affect Step 2. Experienced Incivility Step 3. ESI Entitlement Step 4. Experienced Incivility x ESI Entitlement .02 .05 .05 <.01 .03 -.01 .01 .02 .05 R .02 R .02 B <.01 <.01 -.08

Note. N=229; R is not adjusted; Regression weights are unstandardized; * p < 0.05 (2-tailed)

50 Table 7 Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between experienced incivility and ESQ entitlement. Perpetrated incivility is the outcome variable Variable Step 1. Age Sex Negative Affect Step 2. Experienced Incivility Step 3. ESQ Entitlement Step 4. Experienced Incivility x ESQ Entitlement <.01 .28 -.08 <.01 .27 -.10 .12* .27 .54 R .15* R .15 B <.01 <.01 .66

Note. N=229; R is not adjusted; Regression weights are unstandardized; * p < 0.05 (2-tailed)

51 Table 8 Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between experienced incivility and ESI entitlement. Perpetrated incivility is the outcome variable Variable Step 1. Age Sex Negative Affect Step 2. Experienced Incivility Step 3. ESI Entitlement Step 4. Experienced Incivility x ESI Entitlement <.01 .27 <.01 <.01 .27 .05 .12* .27 .54 R .15* R .15 B <.01 <.01 .66

Note. N=229; R is not adjusted; Regression weights are unstandardized; * p < 0.05 (2-tailed)

52 Table 9 Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between perpetrated incivility and ESQ entitlement. Affective well-being is the outcome variable Variable Step 1. Age Sex Negative Affect Step 2. Perpetrated Incivility Step 3. ESQ Entitlement Step 4. Perpetrated Incivility x ESQ Entitlement <.01 .08 -.01 <.01 .08 .01 .02 .08 .05 R .06* R .06 B <.01 <.01 -.14

Note. N=229; R is not adjusted; Regression weights are unstandardized; * p < 0.05 (2-tailed)

53 Table 10 Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between perpetrated incivility and ESI entitlement. Affective well-being is the outcome variable Variable Step 1. Age Sex Negative Affect Step 2. Perpetrated Incivility Step 3. ESI Entitlement Step 4. Perpetrated Incivility x ESI Entitlement
Note. N=229; R is not adjusted; Regression weights are unstandardized; * p < 0.05 (2-tailed)

R .06*

R .06

B <.01 <.01 -.14

.02

.08 .05

<.01

.08

-.01

.02

.10

.03

54 Table 11 Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between perpetrated incivility and ESQ entitlement. Depression is the outcome variable Variable Step 1. Age Sex Negative Affect Step 2. Perpetrated Incivility Step 3. ESQ Entitlement Step 4. Perpetrated Incivility x ESQ Entitlement <.01 .03 .02 <.01 .03 .03 .01 .02 .03 R .02 R .02 B <.01 <.01 -.08

Note. N=229; R is not adjusted; Regression weights are unstandardized; * p < 0.05 (2-tailed)

55 Table 12 Results of moderated multiple regression: Interaction between perpetrated incivility and ESI entitlement. Depression is the outcome variable Variable Step 1. Age Sex Negative Affect Step 2. Perpetrated Incivility Step 3. ESI Entitlement Step 4. Perpetrated Incivility x ESI Entitlement <.01 .03 .02 <.01 .03 -.01 .01 .02 .03 R .02 R .02 B <.01 <.01 -.08

Note. N=229; R is not adjusted; Regression weights are unstandardized; * p < 0.05 (2-tailed)

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).

57 In order to modify the instrument, the construct was reexamined and a series of questions was generated on a 1-5 likert scale (See appendix B). The new instrument was created using a likert scale in order to make the measurement more precise because the range allows for assessing specific information as well as composite scores (Vogt, 2007). Since problems with the Equity Sensitivity Instrument and Equity Preference Questionnaire have been noted (Foot et al, 2006), the purpose of the first study was to generate and test a list of items for a new measure of equity sensitivity that was used in the current study. Method Participants The sample for the current study was recruited through classes at a mid-western University. In order to participate, each subject must currently be enrolled at the University. The sample included 266 participants with ages ranging from 18 to 44 (M=19.5). 133 participants were freshman, 80 were sophomores, 28 were juniors, and 7 were seniors. There were 193 females and 73 males. Forty-six different majors were represented with education (32), psychology (24), and business (24) representing the most. Materials The Equity Sensitivity Questionnaire (ESQ) was initially tested as a 37 item questionnaire on equity sensitivity with 8 items designed to measure the benevolent sub-dimension, 19 items designed to measure the equity sensitive sub-dimension, and 10 items designed to measure the entitlement sub-dimension. Respondents are asked to indicate on a 5 point likert scale ranging from 1(least) to 5(most) how consistent the item

58 is with their attitudes towards work/employment. Examples of questions designed to measure each sub-dimension include I do not mind giving more to the organization than I get back in return, I should receive and contribute to the organization equally, and I 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.

59 The Dimensionality of the ESQ was also tested using a principal axis factor analysis. The scree plot, presented in figure 1, indicates that three factors were extracted. The first factor extracted had an eigenvalue of 3.53 and accounted for 24.47% of the variance, the second factor extracted had an eigenvalue of 2.61 and accounted for an additional 16.21% of the variance, and the third factor extracted had an eigenvalue of 2 and accounted for an additional 13.12% of the variance.

60 Appendix A table 1 Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for the Entitled Sub-Dimension

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .50 .48 .83 .51 -.03 -.13 -.11 -.07 -.04 .15 -.02 -.-58 .57 .65 .53 .05 -.15 -.17 -.12 -.05 .15 .09 -.01 .65 .66 .17 <.01 -.14 .07 -.14 0 -.09 -.07 .54 -.05 -.15 -.13 -.13 -.04 .07 -.13 -.22 .32 .16 -.05 -11 -.33 -.17 -.12 -.11 .67 .45 .69 -.21 -.07 -.13 -.22 .51 .67 -.11 -.10 -.14 .02 .37 -.05 -.11 -.08 -.04 -.28 -.02 -.18 .03 .41 .33 .28 .57 .47 .46 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

61 Appendix A table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for the Entitled Sub-Dimension Sub-scale Mean Standard Deviation 4.05 3.39 3.67 3.82 3.93 2.96 .94 1.19 1.07 .98 1.07 1.21 229 229 229 229 229 229

Questions

1) Workers who put in the same Equity effort should be rewarded equally sensitive 2) My efforts and rewards should be Equity equal to my co-workers sensitive 3) People who receive the same Equity rewards as I do should work equally sensitive as hard 4) When I exert the same effort as Equity other workers, I should be rewarded sensitive equally 5) I should work equally as hard as Equity people who receive the same rewards sensitive as I do 6) I dont mind putting lots of effort Benevolent towards company goals even when I receive a smaller reward than I deserve 7) As long as it is in the best interest Benevolent of the company and my co-workers, I can tolerate receiving low rewards 8) I dont mind being rewarded the Benevolent smallest for my efforts as long as I have helped my co-workers 9) I can tolerate receiving a small Benevolent reward for my effort as long as it is in the best interest of the company 10) It does not bother me when I am Entitled over-rewarded for my effort compared to my co-workers 11) I dont mind receiving a large Entitled reward for a small amount of effort 12) I dont mind receiving more than Entitled I give to the company 13) I dont mind receiving a large Entitled reward even when I do not deserve it

3.38 3.03 3.12 1.91 2.02 2.03 1.93

1.03 1.07 1.05 1.06 1.02 1.00 1.03

229 229 229 229 229 229 229

62 Appendix A figure 1 Scree Plot for the ESQ Entitled Sub-Dimension

Scree Plot

Eigenvalue

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Factor Number

63

Equity Sensitivity Questionnaire

Please respond to these items consistent with your attitude towards work/employment. Choose the answer most consistent with your view. 1=Least 2=Somewhat 3=Moderately 1 4=Frequent 2 3 5=Most 4 5

1) In an ideal working situation, people receiving equal rewards also exert equal amounts of effort towards work tasks
2) I dont mind giving more to the organization than I get back in return 3) My rewards should be equal to co-workers who put in the same effort 4) I feel anger when I am not given the reward I deserve 5) In the fairest working situation, people

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

putting in the same effort should be rewarded equally

6) Im happy to help others even when they do not help me back 7) When I help out my co-workers, I expect them to help me back in the same way 8) I enjoy receiving more rewards for my effort from the organization than I deserve 9) I do not mind being rewarded the smallest for my effort as long as Ive helped my co-workers 10) I should receive and contribute to the company equally 11) It does not bother me when I am over-rewarded for my effort compared to my co-workers 12) I can tolerate receiving lower rewards for my effort than I deserve 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

64

13) I feel distress when my efforts are larger than my rewards

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

14) Workers who put in the same effort should be rewarded equally
15) I feel distress when I do not receive the largest reward for my effort relative to my co-workers 16) I can tolerate receiving a small reward for my effort as long as it is in the best interest of the company. 17) My efforts and rewards should

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

be equal to my co-workers
18) I dont mind receiving a large reward for a small amount of effort

19) I expect to be rewarded equally to those who put in the same effort as I do
20) I feel guilt when my rewards are larger than my efforts 21) I dont mind receiving more than I give to the company 22) When I help others, I am tolerant when they do not help me back. 23) I should receive the same rewards

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

as others who put in the same effort as I have

24) I am most satisfied when I receive larger rewards for my effort from the company than my co-workers 25) I should help out my co-workers and take care of my own needs equally 26) It wouldnt bother me to receive a larger reward than others who put in the same effort 27) I dont mind putting lots of effort 1 2 3 4 5

65
toward company goals even when I receive a smaller reward than I deserve 28) It bothers me when my rewards are not exactly equal to co-workers who put in the same effort 29) After receiving a large reward I do not feel the need to increase my effort 30) I am most satisfied when my efforts and 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 5

rewards are the same as my co-workers

31) I feel distressed when I do not receive a larger reward than my co-workers 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5

32) People who receive the same rewards as I do should work equally as hard
33) As long as it is in the best interest of the company and my co-workers, I can tolerate receiving low rewards 34) I feel guilt when I am given a larger reward than I deserve

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

35) When I exert the same effort as other, workers, I should be rewarded equally
36) I dont mind receiving a large reward even when I do not deserve it 37) I should work equally as hard as people who

receive the same rewards as I do

66 Appendix B Equity Sensitivity Instrument The questions below ask what you would for your relationships to be with any organization for which you might work. On each question, divide 10 points between the two choices (choice A and choice B) by giving the most points to the choice that is most like you and the fewest points to the choice that is the least like you. You can if youd like, give the same amount of points to each choice (For example, 5 points to choice A and 5 points to choice B). And you can use zeros if youd like. Just make sure to allocate all 10 points per question between each pair of possible responses. In any organization I work for: 1) It would be more important for me to: _____A. Get from the organization _____B. Give to the organization 2) It would be more important for me to: _____A. Help others _____B. Watch out for my own good 3) I would be more concerned about: _____A. What I received from the organization _____B. What I contributed to the organization 4) The hard work I do should: _____A. Benefit the organization _____B. Benefit me 5) My personal philosophy in dealing with the organization would be: _____A. If I dont look out for myself, nobody else will _____B. Its better for me to give than to receive

67

Appendix C Experienced Workplace Incivility Scale Please indicate on a scale of 1-5 often someone at work has done the following to you in the past year: 1) Put you down or was condescending to you in some way 2) Paid little attention to a statement you made or showed little interest in your opinion 3) Made demeaning, rude, or derogatory remarks about you 4) Addressed you in unprofessional , terms, either publicly or privately 5) Ignored or excluded you from professional camaraderie (e.g. social conversation) 6) Doubted your judgment over a matter in which you have responsibility 7) Made unwanted attempts to draw you into a discussion of personal matters 1 2 3 4 5

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

68 Appendix D Instigated Workplace Incivility Scale Please indicate on a scale of 1-5 often you have exhibited the following behaviors to someone at work in the past year: 1) Put down others or was condescending to them in some way 2) Paid little attention to a statement someone made or showed little interest in their opinion 3) Made demeaning, rude, or derogatory remarks about someone 4) Addressed someone in unprofessional terms, either publicly or privately 5) Ignored or excluded someone from professional camaraderie (e.g. social conversation) 6) Doubted someones judgment over a matter in which they had responsibility 7) Made unwanted attempts to draw someone into a discussion of personal matters 1 2 3 4 5

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

69 Appendix E Job-related Affective Well-being Scale, JAWS Below are a number of statements that describe different emotions that a job can make a person feel. Please indicate the amount to which any part of your job (e.g., the work, coworkers, supervisor, clients, pay) has made you feel that emotion in the past 30 days. Never Rarely Sometimes Quite ofter Extremely often Please check one response for each item that best indicates how often you've experienced each emotion at work over the past 30 days.

1. My job made me feel at ease 2. My job made me feel angry 3. My job made me feel annoyed 4. My job made me feel anxious 5. My job made me feel bored 6. My job made me feel cheerful 7. My job made me feel calm 8. My job made me feel confused 9. My job made me feel content 10. My job made me feel depressed 11. My job made me feel disgusted 12. My job made me feel discouraged 13. My job made me feel elated 14. My job made me feel energetic 15. My job made me feel excited 16. My job made me feel ecstatic 17. My job made me feel enthusiastic 18. My job made me feel frightened 19. My job made me feel frustrated 20. My job made me feel furious 21. My job made me feel gloomy 22. My job made me feel fatigued 23. My job made me feel happy 24. My job made me feel intimidated 25. My job made me feel inspired 26. My job made me feel miserable 27. My job made me feel pleased 28. My job made me feel proud 29. My job made me feel satisfied 30. My job made me feel relaxed

70

Appendix F The Depression Scale How often do you feel this way at work? Please circle the answer using the scale provided. 1=Very slightly 4=Quite a lot 2=A little 3=Moderately 5=Extremely 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

1) I feel downhearted and blue 2) I get tired for no reason 3) I find myself restless and cant keep still 4) I find it easy to do the things I used to do 5) My mind is as clear as it used to be 6) I feel hopeful about the future 7) I find it easy to make decisions 8) I am more irritable than usual 9) I still enjoy the things I used to 10) I feel that I am useful and needed

71 Appendix G PANAS This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that word. Indicate to what extent you feel this way right now, that is, at the present moment. Use the following scale to record your answers. 1 very slightly Or not at all _____ interested _____ distressed _____ excited _____ upset _____ strong _____ guilty _____ scared _____ hostile _____ enthusiastic _____ proud 2 a little 3 moderately 4 quit a bit 5 extremely

_____ irritable _____ alert _____ ashamed _____ inspired _____ nervous _____ determined _____ attentive _____ jittery _____ active _____ afraid