Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Happy But Uncivil? Examining When and Why Positive Affect Leads to Incivility

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the interactive effects of positive affect and perspective-taking on workplace incivility and family incivility, through moral disengagement. We draw from broaden-and-build and moral disengagement theories to suggest a potential negative consequence of positive affect. Specifically, we argue that positive affect increases incivility toward coworkers and spouses through moral disengagement among employees with low, but not high perspective-taking. Data from two time-lagged field studies and one online experiment provide support for our hypotheses. These findings suggest that the beneficial effects of positive feelings are not universal, and the fostering of positive feelings at work might have unintended negative consequences, namely moral disengagement, and increased incivility at work and at home. Implications for theory and research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We conducted a post-hoc analysis by controlling for psychological distress because it has conceptual and empirical overlap with negative affect (r = 0.740; Watson et al. 1988) and has been found to be positively related to interpersonal deviance (Restubog et al. 2011). This variable was measured with the Brief Symptom Inventory (Derogatis and Spencer 1983). Study findings were not affected when psychological distress was included in the analyses as a control variable. Please see Appendix 1 Table 7 for details.

  2. We included direct effects of perspective-taking on the incivility outcomes in the path model (and of course on moral disengagement).

  3. Please see Appendix 2 Table 8 for details.

  4. We conducted a post-hoc analysis by adding negative affect as a control variable and the results were very similar. The interaction between positive affect and perspective-taking was significant in predicting moral disengagement (b = − 0.280, p < 0.05). When perspective-taking was low, positive affect positively predicted moral disengagement (b = 0.517, p < 0.05); when perspective-taking was high, however, the relationship was negative but not statistically significant (b = − 0.063, p = 0.76). Negative affect was measured with the 10-item Negative Affect Schedule (Watson et al. 1988).

  5. As in Study 1, the effects of perspective-taking on the outcomes were included in the path analysis.

References

  • Adams, G. A., & Webster, J. R. (2013). Emotional regulation as a mediator between interpersonal mistreatment and distress. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 697–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alter, A., & Forgas, J. P. (2007). On being happy but fearing failure: The effects of mood on self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 947–954.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit-for-tat? The spiralling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines & L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol (1, pp. 45–103). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the preparation of inhumanities. Personal and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of Social Psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Social Methods & Research, 16, 78–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, G., & Andersson, L. (2005). Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 78, 595–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect system has parallel and integrative processing components: Form follows function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 839–855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlo, G., Mestre, M. V., Samper, P., Tur, A., & Armenta, B. E. (2010). Feelings or cognitions? Moral cognitions and emotions as longitudinal predictors of prosocial and aggressive behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 872–877.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. (2003). Pleasure as a sign you can attend to something else: Placing positive feelings within a general model of affect. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 241–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., Ferris, D. L., Kwan, H. K., Yan, M., Zhou, M., & Hong, Y. (2013). Self-love’s lost labor: A self-enhancement model of workplace incivility. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1199–1219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claybourn, M. (2011). Relationships between moral disengagement, work characteristics and workplace harassment. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 1882–1889.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1261–1303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2009). Patterns and profiles of responses to incivility in the workplace. Journal of Occupational and Health Psychology, 14, 272–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility at the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, R. J. (1993). The neuropsychology of emotion and affective style. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotion (pp. 143–154). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multi-dimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derogatis, L. R., & Spencer, P. M. (1983). The brief symptom inventory: Administration, scoring, and procedure manual—I. Baltimore: Clinical Psychometric Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 374–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, M. K., Aquino, K., Tepper, B. J., Reed, A., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2005). Moral disengagement and social identification: When does being similar result in harm doing? Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii.

  • Ferguson, M. (2012). You cannot leave it at the office: Spillover and crossover of coworker incivility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 571–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fida, R., Paciello, M., Tramontano, C., Fontaine, R. G., Barbaranelli, C., & Farnese, M. L. (2015). An integrative approach to understanding counterproductive work behavior: The roles of stressors, negative emotions, and moral disengagement. Journal of Business Ethics. 130, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgas, J. P. (1998). On being happy and mistaken? Mood effects on the fundamental attribution error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 318–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgas, J. P. (1999a). Feeling and speaking: Mood effects on verbal communication strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 850–863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgas, J. P. (1999b). On feeling good and being rude: Affective influences on language use and request formulations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 928–939.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgas, J. P. (2014). On the downside of feeling good: Evidence for the motivational, cognitive and behavioral disadvantages of positive affect? In J. Gruber & J. T. Moskowitz (Eds.), Positive emotion: Integrating the light sides and dark sides (pp. 301–322). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgas, J. P., Goldenberg, L., & Unkelbach, C. (2009). Can bad weather improve your memory? A field study of mood effects on memory in a real-life setting. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 254–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foulk, T. A., Lanaj, K., Tu, M., Erez, A., & Archambeau, L. (2018). Heavy is the head that wears the crown: An actor-center approach to daily psychological power, abusive leader behavior, and perceived incivility. Academy of Management Journal, 61, 661–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gable, P. A., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2008). Approach-motivated positive affect reduces breadth of attention. Psychological Science, 19, 476–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, A. D., & Ku, G. (2004). The effects of perspective-taking on prejudice: The moderating role of self-evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 594–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, 109–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galper, R. E. (1976). Turning observers into actors: Differential causal attributions as a function of “empathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 328–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 445–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, J., Mauss, I. B., & Tamir, M. (2011). A dark side of happiness? How, when, and why happiness is not always good. Perspective on Psychological Science, 6, 222–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henle, C. A. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 247–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsh, J. B., Galinsky, A., & Zhong, C. (2011). Drunk, powerful, and in the dark: How general processes of disinhibition produce both prosocial and antisocial behavior. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 415–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilies, R., Aw, S. S. Y., & Pluut, H. (2015). Intraindividual models of employee well- being: What have we learned and where do we go from here? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 827–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isen, A. M. (2000). Positive affect and decision making. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 417–435). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R. (1980). The unmeasured variables problem in path analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 415–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th edn.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamm, C., Batson, C. D., & Decety, J. (2007). The neural substrate of human empathy: effects of perspective taking and cognitive appraisal. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 42–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim, S., & Tai, K. (2014). Family incivility and job performance: A moderated mediation model of psychological distress and core self-evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 351–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y. C., Yu, C., & Yi, C. C. (2014). The effects of positive affect, person-job fit, and well-being on job performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 42, 1537–1548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., Song, Y., Koopmann, J., Wang, M., Chang, C.-H. D., & Shi, J. (2017). Eating your feelings? Testing a model of employees’ work-related stressors, sleep quality, and unhealthy eating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 1237–1258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mai, K. M., Ellis, A. P. J., & Welsh, D. T. (2015). The grey side of creativity: Exploring the role of activation in the link between creative personality and unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 76–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, A. G., Stuewig, J., & Tangney, J. P. (2014). Can perspective-taking reduce crime? Examining a pathway through empathic-concern and guilt-proneness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1659–1667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matta, F. K., Scott, B., Colquitt, J., Koopman, J., & Passantino, L. (2017). Is consistently unfair better than sporadically fair? An investigation of justice variability and stress. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 743–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 633–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, L. L., & Semmer, N. K. (2013). Lack of reciprocity, narcissism, anger, and instigated workplace incivility: A moderated mediation model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 461–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mensch, B. S., & Kandel, D. B. (1988). Do job conditions influence the use of drugs? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 29, 169–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, C. (2008). Moral disengagement in processes of organizational corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 129–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, C. (2015). Moral disengagement. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 199–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65, 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (8 edn.). Los Angeles: Muthen & Muthen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naquin, C. E., Kurtzberg, T. R., & Belkin, L. Y. (2010). The finer points of lying online: E-mail versus pen and paper. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 387–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. K., & Axtell, C. M. (2001). Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and outcomes of employee perspective taking. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1085–1100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, C., & Porath, C. (2009). The cost of bad behavior: How incivility is damaging your business and what to do about it. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piff, P. K., Dietze, P., Feinberg, M., Stancato, D. M., & Keltner, D. (2015). Awe, the small self, and the prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 883–899.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91, 115–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2010, July). Monte Carlo method for assessing multilevel Mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects in 1-1-1 multilevel models [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org/.

  • Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2011). When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 713–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, S. J., Dang, C. T., Yam, K. C., & Leavitt, K. (2014). The role of moral knowledge in everyday immorality: What does it matter if I know what is right? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123, 124–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1988). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S57–S88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, T. A. A., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32, 951–990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tugade, M., Fredrickson, B. L., & Barrett, L. F. (2004). Psychological resilience and positive emotional granularity: Examining the benefits of positive emotions on coping and health. Journal of Personality, 72, 1161–1190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Jaarsveld, D. D., Walker, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). The role of job demands and emotional exhaustion in the relationship between customer and employee incivility. Journal of Management, 36, 1486–1504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Ames: University of Iowa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 820–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, D. T., Ordóñez, L. D., Snyder, D. G., & Christian, M. S. (2015). The slippery slope: How small ethical transgressions pave the way for larger future transgressions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 114–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yam, K. C., Klotz, A. C., He, W., & Reynolds, S. (2017). From good soldiers to psychologically entitled: Examining when and why citizenship behavior leads to deviance. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 373–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yam, K. C., Reynolds, S., & Hirsh, J. B. (2014). The hungry thief: Physiological deprivation and its effect on unethical conduct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125, 123–133.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific Grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NUS Business School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Remus Ilies, Cathy Yang Guo, Sandy Lim & Kai Chi Yam

  2. Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

    Xinxin Li

Authors
  1. Remus Ilies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cathy Yang Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sandy Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kai Chi Yam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xinxin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cathy Yang Guo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 7.

Table 7 Path analysis results controlling for psychological distress (study 1)
Full size table

Appendix 2

See Table 8.

Table 8 Path analysis results without control variables (study 1)
Full size table

Appendix 3

See Table 9.

Table 9 Moderated regression analysis without control variables (study 2)
Full size table

Appendix 4

See Table 10.

Table 10 Path analysis results without control variables (study 3)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ilies, R., Guo, C.Y., Lim, S. et al. Happy But Uncivil? Examining When and Why Positive Affect Leads to Incivility. J Bus Ethics 165, 595–614 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-04097-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-04097-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation