Emotional and Behavioral Responses to Workplace Incivility and the Impact of Hierarchical Status

By Christine L. Porath, Christine M. Pearson. 2012

292 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a0f5eb45a20aa9d4619ae6479f5e909c343bffd9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Witnessing wrongdoing: the effects of observer power on incivility intervention in the workplace (2017, background): “This might help explain why researchers have begun to turn their attention to observers as important actors in the dynamics of workplace incivility (e.g., Chui & Dietz, 2014; Mitchell, Vogel, & Folger, 2015; Porath & Pearson, 2012; Reich & Hershcovis, 2015).”
The emotional aftermath of incivility: anger, guilt, and the role of organizational commitment (2016, background): “Bunk and Magley (2013) found incivility frequency correlates with anger, r .42, p .01 and Porath and Pearson (2012) reported a similar relationship, r .32, p .01.”
Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research (2016, methodology): “…2004), the group identity lens model (Kern & Grandey, 2009), social exchange theory (Cameron & Webster, 2011; Scott et al., 2013), appraisal theory (Porath & Pearson, 2012), the emotion-centered model of work behavior (Sakurai & Jex, 2012), the Dollard–Miller model of aggression (Taylor &…”
Developing and Testing a Dynamic Model of Workplace Incivility Change (2017, background): “Stress theory (Lazarus, 1999) and indirect empirical evidence (e.g., Cortina & Magley, 2009; Porath & Pearson, 2012) suggest that targets of incivility may vary in how they cognitively appraise these negative incidents as they occur over time.”
The spillover effects of coworker, supervisor, and outsider workplace incivility on work‐to‐family conflict: A weekly diary design (2019, background): “…of workplace incivility is unpleasant and interferes with employees' goals for successfully completing work tasks or maintaining important professional relationships (Porath & Pearson, 2012), it can potentially deplete employees' important resources such as time, energy, and social relations.”
Researching Rudeness: The Past, Present, and Future of the Science of Incivility (2017, background): “Further, these processes may work together to predict employees’ coping strategies, like support seeking, conflict avoidance, aggression, assertion, and absenteeism (Cortina & Magley, 2009; Porath & Pearson, 2012).”
Episodes of incivility between subordinates and supervisors: Examining the role of self‐control and time with an interaction‐record diary study. (2015, background): “Supervisors are frequently sources of incivility (e.g., Johnson & Indvik, 2001; Porath & Pearson, 2012).”