Emotional Mechanisms Linking Incivility at Work to Aggression and Withdrawal at Home: An Experience-Sampling Study

Abstract

We report an experience-sampling study examining the spillover of workplace incivility on employees’ home lives. Specifically, we test a moderated mediation model whereby discrete emotions transmit the effects of workplace incivility to specific family behaviors at home. Fifty full-time employees from southeast Asia provided 363 observations over a 10-day period on workplace incivility and various emotional states. Daily reports of employees’ marital behaviors were provided by the spouses each evening. Results showed that state hostility mediated the link from workplace incivility to increased angry and withdrawn marital behaviors at home. Also, trait hostility served as a moderator such that the relationship between workplace incivility and hostile emotions was stronger for employees with high trait hostility.

Keywords

deviant/counterproductive behavior affect/emotions work family conflict/management hierarchical linear modeling (HLM)/multilevel

Past research has demonstrated that the effects of what employees do and experience at work are not limited to the physical and psychological confines of the workplace but have rather important effects on employees’ feelings and behaviors experienced and enacted in the family domain (e.g., Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). However, some important questions remain. What specific types of discrete or daily work demands and experiences have effects that spill over onto employees’ family lives? And how do such spillover processes operate on a day to day basis?

There is research showing that quantitative task demands (i.e., workload, work hours, time pressure) have stressful effects on workers that spill over the work-family boundary (e.g., Ilies, Schwind, Wagner, et al., 2007). However, less work has examined the spillover effects of interpersonal stressors from work to family. Among the various forms of harmful interpersonal behaviors that can occur at work, workplace incivility, defined as low-intensity interpersonal mistreatment enacted with ambiguous intent to harm the target (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), has received increased attention over the past decade (Hershcovis, 2011). Research has revealed that the experience of incivility is associated with decreased job satisfaction, psychological well-being, physical well-being, and affective commitment, as well as increased turnover intent (e.g., Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Lim & Cortina, 2005). What is not known is whether workplace incivility affects employees’ functioning in their family roles, which—we argue—should be included in any comprehensive treatment of employee well-being (see Ilies, Schwind, & Heller, 2007).

Conceptually, the influence of workplace incivility on employee well-being is thought to occur via a stress-response mechanism by eliciting negative emotional reactions, which in turn affect both psychological and physical aspects of well-being (Bunk & Magley, 2013; Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008). In this article, we extend this theory by proposing a dynamic model of displaced responses to workplace incivility that considers employees’ emotional responses to day-to-day fluctuation in experiences of incivility and the consequences for employees’ behavior at home. Following previous theorizing and research on the topic (Repetti, 1989; Schulz, Cowan, Cowan, & Brennan, 2004), we focus on angry and withdrawn behaviors because of the importance of these behaviors for individuals’ functioning in their family roles. Such behaviors have been shown to reflect an individual’s inability to regulate negative emotions in marital interactions, which are warning signs of couples who are likely to become dissatisfied with their marriage and separate in future years (Gottman & Levenson, 1992).

Drawing on theory and research on differential emotions (Frijda, 1986; Izard 1991; Roseman, Wiest, & Swartz, 1994), the appraisal tendency framework (Lerner & Keltner, 2000), and spillover theory (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000), we hypothesize that employees will experience heightened feelings of hostility on days when they experience high levels of incivility at work, and these hostile emotions will have spillover effects on what employees do at home. We also consider the role of personality dispositions by proposing that trait hostility (Watson, 2000; Watson & Clark, 1994) will exacerbate the hostile emotional reactions to experiences of incivility.

Intended Contribution

In sum, this article seeks to make four key contributions to the existing literature. First, existing research on incivility has neglected the potential impact of incivility on the family domain, and we attempt to address this gap by examining the spillover process of incivility outcomes across the work-family boundary. Second, past studies have relied primarily on cross-sectional surveys to capture summary perceptions of incivility experiences and outcomes at a single point in time. By utilizing an intraindividual design, we were able to assess employees’ reactions during the same day when incivility was experienced, thus allowing us to examine the links between incivility and its outcomes on a day-to-day basis. Third, we respond to calls for considering discrete emotions in organizational behavior research, as opposed to only examining broad affective states such a positive and negative affect (Brief & Weiss, 2002; Gooty, Gavin, & Ashkanasy, 2009) by examining discrete emotional reactions as potential mediating mechanisms that link interpersonal stressors at work to actual behaviors in the family context. This allows us to examine specific underlying affective mechanisms that drive the behavioral outcomes of incivility across the work-family boundary. Finally, we build on personality theories that highlight the need to examine person-situation interactions (e.g., Mischel & Shoda, 1995) by studying the role of individual dispositional traits in affecting the incivility-outcome relationships. Specifically, we examine trait hostility as a potential moderator that can affect both immediate and displaced reactions to incivility experienced at work.

In the following sections, we begin by providing a brief overview of the definitions of workplace incivility and existing research that examined outcomes of incivility. Next, we discuss the rationale for studying hostile emotions as an outcome to incivility, followed by the need to examine individuals’ dispositional emotionality (trait hostility) as a potential moderator of such emotional responses to incivility. We then propose the mechanisms that link hostile emotions to the behavioral outcomes of incivility.

Theoretical Background and Hypothesized Relationships

Workplace incivility is a subtle form of interpersonal mistreatment. Uncivil behaviors are typically rude or discourteous behaviors that violate workplace norms of respect (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), for example, insulting remarks, addressing others in unprofessional terms, and the use of a condescending tone. While uncivil behaviors display a lack of regard for others, they are differentiated from other forms of mistreatment such as social undermining (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002) or workplace aggression (Baron, 2004) due to the ambiguity of intent. In other words, it is not always clear to the target, observers, or the instigator that the uncivil behavior carries a malicious intent to harm the target. Another characteristic of workplace incivility is its low intensity and generalized nature. It is thus distinct from sexual aggression or workplace violence (Baron, 2004), because it does not involve sexual or physical forms of assault.

Despite its low intensity, an increasing number of studies have shown that workplace incivility is prevalent in organizations across different industries and cultures (e.g., Cortina et al., 2001; Cortina & Magley, 2009; Lim & Lee, 2011). These studies revealed that employees who experienced workplace incivility tend to experience adverse effects such as lower job satisfaction, higher intent to quit, as well as poorer psychological and physical well-being (e.g., Cortina et al., 2001; Lim et al., 2008). Andersson and Pearson (1999) also argued that uncivil behaviors should not be ignored as they could potentially spiral into increasingly intense aggressive behaviors. In addition, Lim et al. (2008) found that workplace incivility could permeate the workgroup climate and indirectly affect other members in the same workgroup. Such research suggests that workplace incivility can have serious consequences for the individual and is also potentially harmful to others who are in close proximity to the targets.

Hostile Emotions as an Outcome of Workplace Incivility

Theories of chronic stress (Gottlieb, 1997; Hepburn, Loughlin, & Barling, 1997; Wheaton, 1997) and daily hassles (DeLongis, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1988; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) have been used by researchers to explain the adverse effects of incivility. These theories argue that persistent stressors over an extended period of time can accumulate to create “wear and tear” on the mind and body, ultimately resulting in mental and physical health problems. Thus experiences of incivility are similar to daily hassles that build up over time to exert a negative impact on the well-being of the affected individuals. This also implies that the outcomes might only be evident after repeated exposure to incivility over a period of time.

While such theories are useful in explaining the long term impact of incivility, we believe that the negative effects of incivility can be immediate and become evident during the day the incivility was experienced. In particular, employees who encounter uncivil behaviors at work are likely to experience negative emotional reactions that affect how they feel throughout the day after the incident. Weiss and Cropanzano’s (1996) Affective Events Theory postulated that employees experience discrete emotional states in response to specific events in the work environment. These emotional reactions in turn influence their attitudes and behaviors in the workplace. Similarly, we argue that exposure to incivility in the workplace is likely to trigger negative emotions, and such reactions are important determinants of more distal behavioral outcomes.

In particular, we propose that state hostility (a subcomponent of negative affect) is a key emotional reaction to incivility at work. State hostility refers to a physiological state of arousal that involves feelings of anger and irritation in response to others’ actions (Averill, 1982; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Common factors that contribute to such emotions in the workplace include interpersonal conflicts (Glomb, 2002); not being able to proceed with one’s goal attainment (Fox & Spector, 1999; Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987); and experiencing situational frustrations, insults, and unfair treatment (Fitness, 2000; Folger & Cropanzano, 1998; Neuman & Baron, 2005; Rupp & Spencer, 2006). Researchers have suggested that feelings of anger or hostility have an evolutionary basis as they are triggered automatically when one faces acts that violate moral codes or human values (Goldman, Slaughter, Schmit, Wiley, & Brooks, 2008). In line with this argument, we believe that the experience of incivility is likely to evoke feelings of hostility among the targets because uncivil behaviors violate basic human norms of respect. This is consistent with Lim and Cortina’s (2005) conceptualization of incivility as a generalized form of interpersonal mistreatment that shows a lack of regard for the welfare of others. Supporting this argument, findings from a recent cross-sectional survey suggest that angry emotions might be one of the most common responses to the experience of incivility at work (Bunk & Magley, 2013). In our study, we sought to establish the immediacy of such hostile emotional reactions by assessing experiences of incivility and emotions on a daily basis. We predict:

Hypothesis 1: There will be a positive within-individual day-to-day relationship between workplace incivility and hostile emotions.

The first hypothesis concerns employees’ specific emotional states of hostility, following the experience of incivility at work. Although for most individuals, workplace incivility, as a negative work experience, should induce negative emotions such as hostility, there is theory and research suggesting that individuals’ dispositions influence their general emotional sensitivity to the experience of incivility (Bunk & Magley, 2011). Therefore, we consider the role of individuals’ dispositional emotionality in influencing responses to experienced incivility at work. The focus here is on trait hostility, which represents individuals’ dispositional tendency to experience feelings of anger, scorn, and annoyance (Watson, 2000).

Bunk and Magley (2011) suggest that certain individuals are likely to be more sensitive to interpersonal interactions and, thus, react more strongly to mistreatment in the workplace than others. We extend these arguments to propose that trait hostility is an important dispositional factor that influence individuals’ sensitivity to workplace incivility. Individuals with high trait hostility have a tendency to appraise others as untrustworthy and likely sources of provocation (T. W. Smith, 1992). Thus, they are more likely to search the environment for social threat cues, perceive such cues more quickly, and devote more attention to them (Guyll & Madon, 2003). As a result of this hostile cognitive schema, they are more likely to experience angry reactions to ambiguous social situations (e.g., Allred & Smith, 1991; Dill, Anderson, Anderson, & Deuser, 1997; Pope, Smith, & Rhodewalt, 1990). Building on this research, we argue that employees with high trait hostility are likely to be more sensitive to uncivil workplace encounters and experience stronger hostile feelings than those with low trait hostility. Specifically, we predict:

Hypothesis 2: Trait hostility will moderate the within-individual relationship between workplace incivility and daily hostility, such that the relationship will be stronger for employees with high trait hostility than those with low trait hostility.

Linking Hostile Emotions to Family Behaviors

It is our contention that experiencing the specific emotions of hostility has important consequences for employees’ behaviors in their family role. Differential emotions theory specifies that basic emotions such as joy or anger are discrete and differentiated from each other qualitatively (Izard, 1991). A situation triggers a discrete emotion that functions as a neurobiological system that organizes and motivates specific behaviors or “modes of action readiness” (Frijda, 1986; Izard, 2009). For example, when one experiences anger in reaction to a threat, a “fight” (rather than “flight”) response ensues. Consistent with theory, Roseman et al. (1994) found that individuals who recalled anger experiences tended to think about how unfair things were and felt like yelling, hitting, and getting back at someone.

Extending such theories, the appraisal tendency framework (Lerner & Keltner, 2000) suggests that responses to such specific emotions are likely to persist beyond the situation that initially caused the emotions. Specifically, each emotion triggers a tendency to process future situations in a way that is consistent with the appraisal theme that elicited that particular emotion (Lerner & Keltner, 2001). For example, upon experiencing anger, which is associated with the appraisal that others are accountable for negative events (C. A. Smith & Lazarus, 1993), one is likely to appraise subsequent events as being the fault of others and respond with aggressive behavior.

In line with such theory and research, we propose that when employees experience hostile feelings at work, they are likely to bring home the associated appraisal and action tendencies and be inclined to blame events on their spouses and become aggressive as a result. Researchers have long argued that work and family are not independent domains as they contain permeable boundaries that allow the spillover of experiences between work and family (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Pleck, 1977). Indeed, spillover theory suggests that work and family experiences are positively related (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000), and researchers have argued that the transfer of emotions (in particular, negative emotions) across the work-family boundaries is largely responsible for such an association (Williams & Alliger, 1994). For example, Ilies, Schwind, Wagner, and colleagues (2007) showed that workload was associated with increased negative affect at work, which predicted negative affect at home. However, studies investigating work-family spillover effects have tended to focus on general emotions such as positive or negative affect (e.g., Ilies, Schwind, Wagner, et al., 2007; Rothbard, 2001) and did not examine whether specific marital behaviors (such as aggression) are linked to specific emotions (such as hostility) experienced at work. Our current study helps address this gap by testing whether hostile emotions experienced at work can have a spillover effect on specific behaviors in the family domain.

Since hostile emotions tend to be associated with “fight” or aggressive responses, we do not expect that they will be associated with other marital behaviors such as “flight” or withdrawal responses. Consistent with this rationale, Roseman et al. (1994) found that individuals who recalled experiences of anger were not more likely to report withdrawal tendencies such as feeling like running away and withdrawing to a safe place, compared to those who did not recall such experiences. Thus, drawing on research on differential emotions (Frijda, 1986; Izard, 1991; Roseman et al., 1994), the appraisal tendency framework (Lerner & Keltner, 2000), and work-family spillover (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000), we predict:

Hypothesis 3: There will be a positive within-individual day-to-day relationship (a) between hostile emotions and angry family behaviors (b) but not between hostile emotions and withdrawn family behaviors.

Linking Workplace Incivility to Family Behaviors

Studies on high-risk occupations (e.g., police officers) and aggression in intimate relationships have shown that general stress at work (or other nonfamily domains) were associated with partner abuse (Gershon, Barocas, Canton, Li, & Vlahov, 2009; Langer, Lawrence, & Barry, 2008). Other research has also revealed that task-related stressors such as workload, work hours, and time pressure have been associated with negative affect at home (e.g., Ilies, Schwind, Wagner, et al., 2007; Williams & Alliger, 1994), burnout and emotional exhaustion (e.g., Leiter & Durup, 1996; Thompson, Kirk, & Brown, 2005), and marital aggression and withdrawal (e.g., Repetti, 1989; Schultz et al., 2004). However, the mechanism through which such effects operate is unclear. While factors such as emotional exhaustion and general affect have been postulated to mediate the links between task-related stressors and family outcomes, the evidence has been inconsistent (Ilies, Schwind, Wagner, et al., 2007; Rothbard, 2001; Thompson, Kirk, & Brown, 2005). Compared to task-related stressors, fewer studies have examined the potential spillover effects of interpersonal stressors from work to family. Repetti (1993) reported that both workload and negative social interactions at work were associated with negative mood, and Story and Repetti (2006) found that negative mood mediated the effect of task and interpersonal work stressors on marital behaviors for wives, but not for husbands. Overall, these studies suggest that affect might play a role in mediating the link between work stressors and family behaviors, but it is unclear which specific emotion (beyond general affect or mood) drives the spillover process, particularly when it pertains to interpersonal stressors such as workplace incivility.

Following the conceptual and empirical evidence reviewed above, we argue that workplace incivility is likely to be associated with behaviors in the family domain due to the hostile emotions that develop in reaction to incivility at work. Building on Hypotheses 1 and 3, we propose:

Hypothesis 4: The within-individual day-to-day relationship between incivility and angry family behaviors will be mediated by hostile emotions.

In other words, we hypothesized that days when employees experience more workplace incivility will be characterized by an increased level of hostile emotions compared to days when employees experience less incivility. We also hypothesized that employees higher in trait hostility will be more sensitive to the experience of workplace incivility and, thus, will show stronger links between incivility and the experience of hostile emotions (a cross-level moderating effect). Furthermore, following theory and research on the differential effects of emotions, we expected hostile emotions to predict angry family behaviors but not withdrawn behaviors. Accordingly, we expected the relationship between incivility and angry family behavior to be mediated by hostile emotions and predict:

Hypothesis 5: Trait hostility will moderate the mediated relationship between workplace incivility and angry family behaviors via hostile emotions.

In what follows, we describe an experience-sampling study designed to test these hypotheses.

Method

Sample and Procedure

We sent a recruitment email to full-time employees of a large public institution in southeast Asia, inviting the employees and their spouses to participate in our study. Initially, 71 employees responded to our recruitment and completed a sign-up survey. Eight of these employees were excluded from the final sample for insufficient data (i.e., not participating in the daily survey, completing the surveys while not at work, or responding to the daily surveys out of order). Of the remaining 63 employees, 56 also had their spouses agree to participate (89%). The average age of the employees was 39.1 years (SD = 8.3), and 38 of the employees were women (72%).

The data from employees was collected through online surveys hosted by Qualtrics.com. For a period of 10 working days (two work weeks; Reis & Wheeler, 1991), employees completed a survey upon arriving at work as well as another in midafternoon. The first daily survey (Time 1) contained a measure assessing the extent to which the employee was feeling hostile at that point in the day (to be used as a control in the analysis). The midafternoon survey (Time 2), sent several hours later, contained a measure of the extent to which the employee had experienced incivility while at work that day, as well as the same measure of hostility. Each evening (Time 3), the employee’s spouse completed a measure of the extent to which, that evening, the employee had engaged in withdrawn and angry family behaviors at home. The spouse responses were provided on paper-and-pencil surveys that were placed in individual envelopes, marked with day and time stamps by the spouses, and mailed directly to the researchers. After listwise deletion of cases for which we did not have a morning, afternoon, and evening spousal response, our final sample was 50 employees and their spouses (out of 56 possible; 89%) who provided 363 participant-day observations over 10 days (out of 560 possible; 65%).

Measures

Workplace incivility

We measured the extent to which participants experienced incivility at work in the afternoon survey using the 7-item scale developed by Cortina et al. (2001), adapted for daily experience. Participants were instructed to answer the items based on their experiences with superiors or coworkers at work today (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). An example item is “put you down or act condescending to you.” Coefficient alpha for the scale, averaged over each day of the data collection, was .97.

Daily hostility

This emotional state was measured twice each day: once in the morning survey and once in the afternoon survey. We measured this emotional state as to how the participants felt “right now” using the items “hostile” and “irritable” (1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = extremely much) drawn from the PANAS-X¹ (Watson & Clark, 1994; Watson et al., 1988). These items were chosen following recent research on emotion that suggests that not all negative emotional states are synonymous with the behavioral inhibition system (Gray, 1990; Watson, 2009); instead, these items reflect emotional states characteristic of the approach system (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009). Coefficient alpha for these scales, averaged over each day of the data collection, was .79 for both the morning and afternoon measurements.

Angry and withdrawn marital behaviors

The employee’s spouse reported the extent to which the employee engaged in angry and withdrawn marital behaviors at home each evening using the 12- and 9-item scales provided by Schulz et al. (2004) in their daily study (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Example items for angry marital behaviors include “my spouse/partner complained about things I did or things I did not do” and “my spouse/partner took out his/her frustrations on me.” Example items for withdrawn marital behaviors include “my spouse avoided talking about problems he/she and I were having” and “my spouse/partner wanted to be alone.” Coefficient alpha for the scales, averaged over each day of the data collection, was .97 for angry marital behavior and .84 for withdrawn marital behavior.

Trait hostility

We measured the employee’s trait level of hostility in the one-time survey that was completed upon signing up for the study. Participants were asked to rate how they tend to feel, in general (1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = extremely much) using the same two items as in the daily portion of the study. Coefficient alpha for this scale was .68.

Control variables

In addition to hostile emotions reported in the morning survey, we controlled for three additional emotional states so as to rule them out as potential explanations for the relationship between hostility and marital behaviors. Specifically, using the PANAS-X (Watson & Clark, 1994), we created measures for general distress (using the items “upset” and “distressed”; alpha = .78), guilt (using the items “guilty” and “ashamed”; alpha = .81), and fear (using the items “scared,” “nervous,” “jittery,” and “afraid”; alpha = .89). Participants received the same instructions and scale anchors as they did when completing the measure of daily hostility. To rule out task stressors as an alternative explanation for our hypothesized effects of incivility, we also included a measure of job demands (alpha = .84; Ilies, Schwind, Wagner, et al., 2007) that was collected concurrently with incivility. Participants received similar instructions as they did for the incivility measure and used the same scale anchors. A sample item is “I have too much work to do.”

Results

Analysis

Due to the multilevel, nested nature of our data (i.e., daily observations nested within individuals), we utilized random coefficient modeling (estimation of random intercepts and slopes) with a multilevel path analysis with Mplus 7.11 to test the within-individual relationships we hypothesized, as well as our cross-level interaction. All Level 1 predictors were centered around each person’s mean (i.e., group-mean centering; Enders & Tofighi, 2007; Hofmann & Gavin, 1998), and the Level 2 cross-level moderator was grand-mean centered (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). This approach eliminates all interindividual variance from the predictor scores (i.e., each individual’s deviations have a mean of zero and there is no between-individual variance among null scores). Therefore, the resulting estimates provided by these analyses reflect strictly intraindividual variation (e.g., Ilies, Schwind, Wagner, et al., 2007). Random effects were estimated for all Level 1 relationships, and we allowed the disturbances between angry and withdrawn marital behaviors to covary (Kline, 2005). As expected, this term was significant (.05, p < .05).

The use of a multilevel path analysis was ideal as it allowed us to implement a simultaneous test of our study hypotheses while also modeling the covariance between the random slopes of the paths comprising the indirect effect when testing for mediation and moderated mediation (Bauer, Preacher, & Gil, 2006). However, scholars recently suggested that this covariance not be modeled if it is not significant, as its inclusion can have implications for parameter estimation and the interpretation of the indirect effect (Tofighi, West, & Mackinnon, 2013). We calculated confidence intervals for our mediation and moderation hypotheses with and without this covariance, and our conclusions were unchanged. Because the covariance for both indirect effects was not significant, we followed the recommendation to exclude them in the final model and we report results accordingly. To test these hypotheses, we followed recent recommendations from Preacher, Zyphur, and Zhang (2010) to conduct a parametric bootstrap utilizing the estimated coefficients from the analysis (see Lanaj, Johnson, & Barnes, 2014; Wang et al., 2013). This approach involves estimating the sampling distribution for both the first- and second-stage coefficients using a Monte Carlo simulation with 20,000 replications. The magnitude of the indirect effect was calculated for each replication, and these values were sorted to create the empirical sampling distribution for the magnitude of the indirect effect. A bias-corrected confidence interval was calculated for the indirect effect by locating endpoints that corresponded to the boundary of a 95% confidence interval (see also Preacher & Hayes, 2004). To test for moderated mediation, we followed the above approach; however, the magnitude of the first stage of the indirect effect was calculated as conditional on the effect of trait hostility on the relationship between incivility and daily hostility (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007).

Model Controls

We utilized several control variables in our analysis. First, as discussed above, we controlled for a morning report of the employees’ hostile emotions as a predictor of each endogenous variable. The use of this variable as a control is ideal for this analysis as it allows us to rule out prior affective states as a potential confound for the relationship between incivility and hostile emotions (e.g., Spector & Brannick, 2011), and this modeling technique also permits interpretation of this relationship as representing a change in the employee’s emotional state as a result of experiencing incivility (Glomb, Bhave, Miner, & Wall, 2011; Scott & Barnes, 2011; Scott, Barnes, & Wagner, 2012). By examining the relationships in this manner, we are able to partially alleviate concerns over the causal direction of our hypotheses (Scott & Barnes, 2011).

Second, we controlled for three additional emotional states: general distress, guilt, and fear. Because these were assessed concurrently with our measure of daily hostility, we allowed these emotions to covary with the disturbance term for daily hostility (results were unchanged if these emotions were instead modeled as predictors of hostility), and each was modeled with random effects as predictors of both withdrawn and angry marital behaviors.

Third, we controlled for job demands and modeled this construct using random effects as a predictor of both daily hostilty as well as marital behavior.

Finally, recent within-individual investigations of affective fluctuation have noted that individuals may be likely to experience linear and cyclical trends in emotions and behavior (Beal, Trougakos, Weiss, & Dalal, 2013; Trougakos, Beal, Green, & Weiss, 2008). Accounting for these patterns can be important because seemingly random fluctuations in an individual’s affective state could potentially be explained by these predictable ebbs and flows (Beal & Ghandour, 2011). We therefore implemented a recommended strategy in our model of controlling for periodic ebbs and flows according to a linear trend and a cyclical trend. Specifically, following Beal and Ghandour (2011), we included an extra variable in our model to account for the day of the week (to control for a linear growth trend in our responses), as well as the sine and cosine of the day to account for cyclical variation in the emotional and behavior responses (specifically modeling a period of one week; see also Trougakos, Hideg, Cheng, & Beal, 2014). As recommended by Beal and Ghandour (2011), these terms were specified to have random coefficient effects as well, to allow for unique individual variation. Ultimately, the results of our model were unchanged whether these terms were included or excluded. However, one of these terms was significant, and so, to present a conservative test of our hypotheses, we report results with these factors included as predictors of each endogenous variable.

Tests of Hypotheses

In Table 1, we present the proportion of variance in our Level 1 constructs that is present at the within-individual level (Bliese, 2000). As can be seen, the within-individual variance in our Level 1 constructs ranged between 18% and 50%. Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations between the study variables. Before testing our hypotheses, we evaluated the overall fit of our model. However, while our hypotheses were tested using random effects, fit statistics for multilevel models can only be obtained with fixed effects models, thus necessitating the exclusion of the cross-level relationships for this analysis (Muthen & Muthen, 1998-2012). Accordingly, we modeled our within-individual relationships, including all control variables, as discussed above. This model exhibited acceptable fit to the data (χ² = 6.73, df = 4, comparative fit index [CFI] = 1.00, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .04, standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .01), and this conclusion does not change if all control variables are excluded from the analysis.

Table 1

Percentage of Within-Individual Variance Among Daily Variables

Construct	Within-Individual Variance (e²)	Between-Individual Variance (r²)	Percentage of Within-Individual Variance
Incivility	.11	.50	18%
Hostility (morning)	.16	.26	38%
Hostility (afternoon)	.17	.29	37%
General distress	.26	.32	45%
Guilt	.08	.14	37%
Fear	.14	.22	39%
Job demands	.14	.14	50%
Withdrawn marital behavior	.21	.26	45%
Angry marital behavior	.14	.26	35%

Note: The percentage of variance within-individuals was calculated as e²/(e² + r²).

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics of and Correlations Between Study Variables

Variable	M	SD-w	SD-b	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Level 1
1. Incivility (T2)	1.99	.34	.72		−.04	.25*	.16*	.21*	.16*	−.03	.11*	.10
2. Daily hostility (T1)	1.44	.41	.54	.29*		.38*	.28*	.08	.09	.07	.08	.10
3. Daily hostility (T2)	1.49	.43	.57	.30*	.96*		.58*	.24*	.48*	.19*	.13*	.11*
4. General distress (T2)	1.59	.51	.59	.43*	.86*	.87*		.34*	.56*	.34*	.06	.04
5. Guilt (T2)	1.17	.28	.38	.42*	.67*	.66*	.59*		.44*	−.01	.12*	.10
6. Fear (T2)	1.36	.37	.48	.35*	.87*	.83	.83*	.79*		.19*	−.02	−.05
7. Job demands (T2)	3.11	.37	.40	.04	.22	.25	.21	.18	.19		−.05	.01
8. Withdrawn marital behaviors (T3)	2.37	.45	.54	.30*	.25	.31*	.32*	.33*	.33*	.38*		.31*
9. Angry marital behaviors (T3)	1.62	.38	.53	.28*	.25	.23	.32*	.41*	.37*	.05	.58*
Level 2
10. Trait hostility	1.73	—	.76	.23	.48*	.50*	.58*	.32*	.44*	.47*	.45*	.31*

Note: Level 1 N = 363; Level 2 N = 50. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; T3 = Time 3. Means and standard deviations (within- and between-individuals) are provided. Correlations above the diagonal represent group-mean centered relationships between the daily variables at the within-individual level of analysis. Correlations below the diagonal are person-level aggregations of the daily variables and represent relationships at the between-individual level of analysis. Correlations with trait hostility similarly reflect between-individual relationships. General distress, guilt, fear, and job demands were included as controls in our model and were measured in the afternoon.

p < .05.

Table 3 provides the results for all variables included in our multilevel path analytic model. A depiction of our multilevel path analysis is provided in Figure 1 with effect sizes. Hypothesis 1 predicted that, within individuals, daily incivility would be positively associated with feelings of hostility. This hypothesis was supported; γ = .17, p < .05. Moreover, as we discussed, by controlling for morning hostility, this relationship can be interpreted as representing a change in the employee’s emotional state as a result of experiencing incivility. Hypothesis 1 was thus fully supported.

Table 3

Results from Multilevel Path Analysis

	Daily Hostility (Time 2)			Angry Marital Behavior (Time 3)			Withdrawn Marital Behavior (Time 3)
	γ	SE	t	γ	SE	t	γ	SE	t
Between Level
Intercept	1.45*	.07	20.19	1.40*	.10	14.12	2.06*	.11	18.60
Trait Hostility	.38*	.09	4.00	—	—	—	—	—	—
Interaction	.21*	.08	2.73	—	—	—	—	—	—
Within Level
Day	.03	.06	0.56	.13	.09	1.53	−.07	.09	−0.73
Sine	.08	.10	0.74	.20	.14	1.41	−.07	.15	−0.49
Cosine	.04	.05	0.76	.18*	.08	2.44	−.01	.07	−0.14
Daily Hostility (T1)	.28*	.08	3.53	.06	.04	1.66	.00	.06	0.03
Job Demands (T2)	.00	.06	0.08	.01	.08	0.13	−.07	.08	−0.91
General Distress (T2)	.06*	.03	2.46	.01	.07	0.11	.01	.06	0.14
Guilt (T2)	.00	.01	0.44	.02	.07	0.24	.21*	.05	4.23
Fear (T2)	.04*	.02	2.22	−.12	.07	−1.63	−.21	.11	−1.88
Incivility (T2)	.17*	.06	3.02	—	—	—	—	—	—
Daily Hostility (T2)	—	—	—	.14*	.06	2.27	.20*	.07	2.80

Note: Level 1 N = 363; Level 2 N = 50. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; T3 = Time 3. Variables in italics represent our focal study variables; nonitalicized variables are controls. Estimates reflect unstandardized coefficients. “Interaction” reflects the parameter for the cross-level moderation hypothesis. Although we followed common procedures and modeled all parameters with random slopes, results revealed that these slopes did not exhibit significant variance across clusters. However, scholars have noted that this is a relatively low power test (e.g., Mathieu, Aguinis, Culpepper, & Chen, 2012), and so we retained the random slopes for our final analysis. Results were consistent when all slopes were modeled as fixed. Day represents a linear trend variable representing the day of the week. Sine and cosine reflect the trigonometric function of the day of the week, with a period length of one week. We also examined whether including the direct effects of incivility on marital behavior influenced our results; it did not, and so we omitted these paths in our final model. Because they were measured simultaneously, distress, guilt, and fear were allowed to covary with the disturbance of the daily hostility variable.

p < .05.

Figure 1

Results of Multilevel Model

Hypothesis 2 predicted that trait hostility would moderate the relationship between incivility and daily hostility, such that this relationship would be stronger for those individuals higher in trait hostility (i.e. a cross-level moderation). First, although not formally hypothesized, we modeled the direct effect of trait hostility on daily hostility (Cohen et al., 2003); this path was significant (γ = .38, p < .05). In support of Hypothesis 2, the coefficient for the interaction hypothesis was also significant, indicating that the incivility-hostility relationship was stronger for individuals higher in trait hostility; γ = .21, p < .05. The plot of this interaction is shown in Figure 2. In a supplemental analysis, we examined whether trait hostility also moderated the relationships between daily hostility and marital behaviors, however the interaction was not significant on either path.

Figure 2

Cross-Level Moderating Effect of Trait Hostility on the Within-Individual Relationship Between Workplace Incivility and Daily Hostility

Hypothesis 3a predicted that, within-individuals, daily hostility would be significantly associated with angry behaviors at home. In support of this hypothesis, the path from daily hostility to angry marital behaviors was positive and significant (γ = .14, p < .05). However, contrary to our expectations, the path from daily hostility to withdrawn marital behaviors was also significant (γ = .20, p < .05). Although the magnitude of the coefficient for withdrawn marital behaviors is larger than the coefficient for angry marital behaviors, the difference is not significant. Hypothesis 4 predicted that hostility would mediate the relationship between experiencing incivility and angry marital behaviors at home that evening. Following the procedure recommended by Preacher et al. (2010) and recently implemented by Lanaj et al. (2014) and Wang et al. (2013), our results provided support for the hypothesis. The indirect effect for the relationship between incivility and angry marital behaviors was significant at .025 (95% confidence interval: .005, .059). In addition, we also found that the indirect effect for the relationship between incivility and withdrawn marital behaviors was significant at .033 (95% confidence interval: .008, .080).

Finally, we conducted analyses examining whether trait hostility moderates the effects of workplace incivility on family behaviors through hostile emotions (Hypothesis 5). Given that we hypothesized moderating effects of trait hostility on the link between incivility and daily hostility, and daily hostility was hypothesized to mediate the effects of incivility on family behaviors, we examined the moderating role of trait hostility in our mediation model, with the expectation that trait hostility would strengthen the link from workplace incivility to family behaviors. We tested this hypothesis again following the method recommended by Preacher et al. (2010) and recently implemented by Lanaj et al. (2014). Results showed that indirect effects from workplace incivility to both angry and withdrawn marital behaviors were significantly stronger for those individuals high in trait hostility. Specifically, for the relationship between incivility and angry marital behavior, the indirect effect was positive and significant for individuals high in trait hostility (.047; 95% confidence interval: .008, .110) and not significant for individuals low in trait hostility (.002; 95% confidence interval: –.023, .027). Similarly, for the relationship between incivility and withdrawn marital behavior, the indirect effect was positive and significant for individuals high in trait hostility (.064; 95% confidence interval: .014, .149) and was not significant for individuals low in trait hostility (.003; 95% confidence interval: –.032, .035).

Discussion

Our research extends the current literature on workplace incivility by examining its relationships with outcomes in the family domain, as well as potential mediating and moderating variables that affect the spillover process. Departing from the traditional cross-sectional survey methodology, we were able to assess incivility experiences and their outcomes on a day-to-day basis, thus allowing us to study the immediate influences of uncivil work experiences on employees and their families. We also contribute to the current theoretical frameworks (e.g., Lim et al., 2008) by examining potential behavioral outcomes of incivility (withdrawal and angry behaviors) and the specific affective state (hostile emotions) that drive such behavioral outcomes. In addition, this research provided insights into the role of individual dispositions (trait hostility) in influencing both emotional and behavioral outcomes of workplace incivility.

Supporting our predictions, our findings show that the experience of incivility was positively related to feelings of hostility, which was in turn associated with increased angry family behaviors, as rated by spouses. This suggests that individual emotions do fluctuate on a day-to-day basis in response to incivility at work, and these emotional responses can have consequences even in the home environment. These results are consistent with theories on emotions and work stress that highlight the important role of emotions as more immediate outcomes of work stressors or events (e.g., Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Importantly, we found that the relationships between workplace incivility, hostile emotions, and marital behaviors persist, even after controlling for other emotions (general distress, guilt, and fear) and task-related stressors (job demands). This suggests that hostile emotions play a central role in mediating the relationship between workplace incivility and marital behaviors. It also refines the predictions of the appraisal tendency framework and spillover theory, in that hostility (in contrast to general negative affect or other specific emotions) appears to be the key emotional response to workplace incivility in our study that persists and crosses the work-family boundary to affect family behaviors on a daily basis. It addition, such findings provide support for the incivility spiral discussed by Andersson and Pearson (1999) and suggest that such spirals are not limited to the work context as they can spill over to the family domain.

Interestingly, our results showed that hostility predicted not just angry behaviors but also withdrawn family behaviors. While some past research findings showed no support for an association between withdrawal behaviors and hostile emotions (e.g., Roseman et al., 1994), our results revealed that such behaviors were positively related to feelings of hostility. This is interesting as it suggests that participants might be withdrawing from social interactions at home as an attempt to refrain from venting their anger on the family and hurting them. In fact, it has been argued that individuals may cope with anger using either an “anger-out” or an “anger-in” approach by expressing the emotion through aggression or inhibiting it through withdrawal respectively (e.g., Smits & Kuppens, 2005). Our results appear to support such arguments and suggest that in addition to the anger-out approach, individuals might also rely on the “anger-in” approach, especially when it pertains to one’s loved ones. Furthermore, it is likely that participants might vary in their motivation to regulate their behaviors due to the display rules at home. When individuals are highly motivated to avoid aggressive behaviors at home, they might adopt an anger-in approach, even though their natural tendency is to aggress when they are feeling hostile (as predicted by the appraisal tendency framework). This suggests that it would be useful to take into account the behavioral norms in the family when researchers are investigating the effects of angry work experiences on family behaviors.

In addition, the data supported the moderating role of trait hostility, showing that employees with heightened dispositional hostility reacted more strongly, emotionally, to workplace incivility and also showed a stronger link between experiencing incivility at work and exhibiting negative behaviors at home. Although one could speculate that trait hostility could also potentially moderate the second stage of our mediation model (from hostile emotions to marital behaviors), we believe that this is unlikely to happen as the effect of trait hostility would already have manifested in the first stage (in exacerbating the hostile emotional reaction from experiencing incivility). Indeed, we tested this assumption in our current data, and found that trait hostility did not moderate the link between hostile emotions and marital behaviors. Overall, our findings show that dispositional emotionality is related to individuals’ fluctuations in emotion and behavior (see Watson, 2000) and also predicts individuals’ characteristic patterns of emotional and behavioral responses to incivility, which is consistent with dynamic personality theories (e.g., Mischel & Shoda, 1995).

In sum, our study reveals that the impact of workplace incivility is not restricted to the work context. Given its potential spillover effects on the family domain, there is a need to understand the process by which such negative work experiences affect how employees feel and behave at home. Our research represents the first step towards achieving this aim.

Limitations

This research has several limitations that we believe are important to discuss. This study was conducted with primarily administrative and clerical office workers from southeast Asia, which may limit the generalizability of our findings. Although the experience of incivility, the enactment of angry or withdrawn marital behaviors, and the intervening emotional pathways are likely to operate in a similar manner across individuals regardless of occupation or national origin, we are unable to empirically confirm this assumption with our current data.

Second, experience-sampling studies such as this are often forced to rely on shorter scales to avoid overburdening participants (Uy, Foo, & Aguinis, 2010). While the reliabilities of almost all of our daily measures exceeded the .70 cutoff, the coefficient alpha of trait hostility (.68) did not quite reach that standard. However, reliability is an assessment of the measure’s “freedom from random error” (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994: 213). While the relatively lower reliability reflects the presence of more random error than is ideal in our measurement, random error biases relationships downwards (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Thus, as we find significant relationships for all predictions involving trait hostility, this suggests that our results here are conservative.

Finally, unlike the relationships concerning marital behaviors, several other relationships we evaluate (the links between incivility and hostility) stem from self-report measures, introducing the possibility of same-source effects as an explanation for our findings. Although we cannot definitively rule this out as a potential explanation, our research design allowed us to separate measurements in time with a timing consistent with the temporal precedence necessary for our hypothesized relationships, to evaluate responses over a series of days, and to use an alternate rating source for our proposed behavioral outcomes. Our study was conducted over a series of 10 days, and although the daily measures of incivility and hostility were indeed provided by the same source, we controlled for a prior measure of hostile emotions in all our analyses. This helps to partially alleviate concerns over the causal direction of our hypotheses. Furthermore, as noted, we used spousal ratings for the marital behaviors in a further attempt to alleviate same-source concerns.

Implications and Future Research

We have argued in this research that the effects of incivility in the workplace extend beyond the experiential level for employees, such that they manifest in both measurable emotional states of hostility and observable behaviors enacted in the family environment. This finding contributes to a body of research (e.g., Ilies, Schwind, & Heller, 2007, Ilies, Wilson, & Wagner, 2009) demonstrating that stressors and affective events experienced in the workplace have persistent effects on an employee’s feeling states and important (and often negative) behavioral outcomes at home. We further demonstrated that employees on the receiving end of workplace incivility can enact their emotional and behavioral responses in the home environment, arguing in the process that this occurs in part because of the appraisal tendencies associated with the hostile emotions triggered at work. However, we are unable to explicitly test whether the resulting behavioral enactment is or is not also occurring in the workplace with our data. It is also possible that those who are responding to workplace incivility, behaviorally, in the work environment may have attenuated or muted behavioral responses at home. We recommend that future research examines these alternatives and possibilities by examining employees’ behavioral responses to incivility both at work and at home.

Additionally, this research contributes to the literature on work–family spillover effects and suggests that the experience of incivility (in contrast to more commonly studied task stressors) may have important emotional and behavioral consequences for employees both at work and at home (e.g., Lim & Tai, 2014). There is evidence that such negative effects can be buffered by social support (e.g., Ilies, Johnson, Judge, & Keeney, 2011), which suggests that one way for employees to reduce the displaced negative effects of incivility on the family would be to seek social support from spouses or other family members. Paradoxically, though, our results suggest that when they experience workplace incivility, employees would be less likely to seek social support at home because incivility experiences were associated with withdrawal from one’s family. This suggests that negative experiences at work may not only have direct negative effects on employees’ lives but also decrease the likelihood that employees would engage in successful coping at home. Nonetheless, obtaining support from others at work (e.g., advice on dealing with the situation) may help reduce the emotional consequences of incivility (e.g., Cortina & Magley, 2009) and potentially buffer its spillover effects to the family context.

One factor that may contribute to incivility in the workplace may be the increasingly interdependent nature of work (Grant & Parker, 2009). As work becomes more interdependent, the number of interactions with coworkers increases, and so does the potential for incivility to occur in interpersonal interactions. Future research should investigate whether incivility may indeed be more prevalent in more interdependent jobs, as this would suggest a location for potential organizational intervention to either reduce the prevalence of incivility or increase the emphasis on mutual respect in coworker interactions.

Conclusion

Our research demonstrated that incivility experienced in the workplace is likely to elicit hostile emotions, which in turn influence the enactment of negative behaviors in the family domain. We further demonstrated that some individuals may be more susceptible to experiencing hostile emotions and engaging in negative behaviors as a result of experiencing incivility. Our findings highlight the importance of recent theoretical work that has demonstrated that the experiences employees have at work can spill over to the home environment. This research shows the importance of taking a dynamic approach to the measurement of these relationships, as studying daily intraindividual fluctuations can help to elucidate the psychological mechanisms responsible for the existence of such effects. In a more general sense, our study responds to calls to consider the role of discrete emotions in explaining the behavior of individuals both inside and outside of organizations.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This article was accepted under the editorship of Patrick M. Wright. This research was supported in part by the Singapore Ministry of Education Grant R317-000-100-112. We thank Daniel J. Beal and the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on earlier versions of our article.

Notes

References

Allred

K. D.

Smith

T. W.

1991. Social cognition in cynical hostility. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 15: 399-412.

Andersson

Pearson

1999. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24: 452-471.

Ashforth

B. E.

Kreiner

G. E.

Fugate

2000. All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25: 472-491.

Averill

J. R.

1982. Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Baron

2004. Workplace aggression and violence: Insights from basic research. In Griffin

R. W.

O’Leary-Kelly

A. M.

(Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior: 23-61. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bauer

D. J.

Preacher

K. J.

Gil

K. M.

2006. Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11: 142-163.

Beal

D. J.

Ghandour

2011. Stability, change, and the stability of change in daily workplace affect. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32: 526-546.

Beal

D. J.

Trougakos

J. P.

Weiss

H. M.

Dalal

R. S.

2013. Affect spin and the emotion regulation process at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 593-605.

Bliese

P. D.

2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 349-381. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

10.

Brief

Weiss

2002. Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53: 279-308.

11.

Bunk

J. A.

Magley

V. J.

2011. Sensitivity to interpersonal treatment in the workplace: Scale development and initial validation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84: 395-402.

12.

Bunk

J. A.

Magley

V. J.

2013. The role of appraisals and emotions in understanding experiences of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18: 87-105.

13.

Carver

C. S.

Harmon-Jones

2009. Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135: 183-204.

14.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

15.

Cortina

Magley

2009. Patterns and profiles of response to incivility in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14: 272-288.

16.

Cortina

Magley

Williams

Langhout

2001. Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6: 64-80.

17.

DeLongis

Folkman

Lazarus

1988. The impact of daily stress on health and mood: Psychological and social resources as mediators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 486-495.

18.

Dill

K. E.

Anderson

C. A.

Anderson

K. B.

Deuser

W. E.

1997. Effects of aggressive personality on social expectations and social perceptions. Journal of Research in Personality, 31: 272-292.

19.

Duffy

Ganster

Pagon

2002. Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 331-351.

20.

Eby

Casper

Lockwood

Bordeaux

Brinley

2005. Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66: 124-197.

21.

Edwards

J. R.

Lambert

L. S.

2007. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12: 1-22.

22.

Edwards

J. R.

Rothbard

N. P.

2000. Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25: 178-199.

23.

Enders

C. K.

Tofighi

2007. Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12: 121-138.

24.

Fitness

2000. Anger in the workplace: An emotion script approach to anger episodes between workers and their superiors, co-workers, and subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 147-162.

25.

Folger

Cropanzano

1998. Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

26.

Fox

Spector

P. E.

1999. A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 915-932.

27.

Frijda

1986. The emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

28.

Gabriel

A. S.

Diefendorff

J. M.

Erickson

R. J.

2011. The relations of daily task accomplishment satisfaction with changes in affect: A multilevel study in nurses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 1095-1104.

29.

Gershon

Barocas

Canton

Vlahov

2009. Mental, physical, and behavioral outcomes associated with perceived work stress in police officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36: 275-289.

30.

Glomb

T. M.

2002. Workplace anger and aggression: Informing conceptual models with data from specific encounters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7: 20-36.

31.

Glomb

T. M.

Bhave

D. P.

Miner

A. G.

Wall

2011. Doing good, feeling good: Examining the role of organizational citizenship behaviors in changing mood. Personnel Psychology, 64: 191-223.

32.

Goldman

B. M.

Slaughter

J. E.

Schmit

M. J.

Wiley

J. W.

Brooks

S. M.

2008. Perceptions of discrimination: A multiple needs model perspective. Journal of Management, 34: 952-977.

33.

Gooty

Gavin

Ashkanasy

2009. Emotions research in OB: The challenges that lie ahead. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 833-838.

34.

Gottlieb

1997. Conceptual and measurement issues in the study of coping with chronic stress. In Gottlieb

B. H.

(Ed.), Coping with chronic stress: 3-40. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

35.

Gottman

J. M.

Levenson

R. W.

1992. Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63: 221-233.

36.

Grant

Parker

2009. Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3: 317-375.

37.

Gray

J. A.

1990. Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition & Emotion, 4: 269-288.

38.

Guyll

Madon

2003. Trait hostility: The breadth and specificity of schema effects. Personality and Individual Differences, 34: 681-693.

39.

Hepburn

Loughlin

Barling

1997. Coping with chronic work stress. In Gottlieb

B. H.

(Ed.), Coping with chronic stress: 343-366. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

40.

Hershcovis

2011. “Incivility, social undermining, bullying … oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32: 499-519.

41.

Hofmann

D. A.

Gavin

M. B.

1998. Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24: 623-641.

42.

Ilies

Johnson

Judge

Keeney

2011. A within individual study of interpersonal conflict as a work stressor: Dispositional and situational moderators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32: 44-64.

43.

Ilies

Schwind

K. M.

Heller

2007. Employee well-being: A multilevel model linking work and nonwork domains. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16: 326-341.

44.

Ilies

Schwind

Wagner

Johnson

DeRue

Ilgen

2007. When can employees have a family life? The effects of daily workload and affect on work-family conflict and social behaviors at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1368-1379.

45.

Ilies

Wilson

Wagner

2009. The spillover of daily job satisfaction onto employees’ family lives: The facilitating role of work-family integration. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 87-102.

46.

Izard

1991. The psychology of emotions. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

47.

Izard

2009. Emotion theory and research: Highlights, unanswered questions, and emerging issues. Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 1-25.

48.

Judge

Ilies

2004. Affect and job satisfaction: A study of their relationship at work and at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 661-673.

49.

Lanaj

Johnson

R. E.

Barnes

C. M.

2014. Beginning the workday yet already depleted? Consequences of late-night smartphone use and sleep. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124: 11-23.

50.

Kline

R. B.

2005. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

51.

Langer

Lawrence

Barry

2008. Using a vulnerability-stress-adaptation framework to predict physical aggression trajectories in newlywed marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76: 756-768.

52.

Lazarus

Folkman

1984. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

53.

Leiter

M. P.

Durup

M. J.

1996. Work, home, and in-between: A longitudinal study of spillover. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32: 29-47

54.

Lerner

J. S.

Keltner

2000. Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14: 473-493.

55.

Lerner

J. S.

Keltner

2001. Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81: 146-159.

56.

Lim

Cortina

L. M.

2005. Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 483-496.

57.

Lim

Cortina

L. M.

Magley

V. J.

2008. Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 95-107.

58.

Lim

Lee

2011. Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility: Does family support help? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16: 95-111.

59.

Lim

Tai

2014. Family incivility and job performance: A moderated mediation model of psychological distress and core self-evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 351-359.

60.

Mathieu

J. E.

Aguinis

Culpepper

S. A.

Chen

2012. Understanding and estimating the power to detect cross-level interaction effects in multilevel modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5): 951-966.

61.

Mischel

Shoda

1995. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102: 246-268.

62.

Muthen

L. K.

Muthen

B.O.

1998-2012. Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.

63.

Neuman

J. H.

Baron

R. A.

2005. Aggression in the workplace: A social-psychological perspective. In Fox

Spector

P. E.

(Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets: 13-40. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

64.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

1994. Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

65.

Pleck

J. H.

1977. The work-family role system. Social Problems, 24: 417-427.

66.

Pope

M. K.

Smith

T. W.

Rhodewalt

1990. Cognitive, behavioral, and affective correlates of the Cook and Medley Hostility Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54: 501-514.

67.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36: 717-731.

68.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

2007. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42: 185-227.

69.

Preacher

K. J.

Zyphur

M. J.

Zhang

2010. A general multilevel sem framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15: 209-233.

70.

Reis

H. T.

Wheeler

1991. Studying social interaction with the Rochester Interaction Record. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 24: 270-318. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

71.

Repetti

1989. Effects of daily workload on subsequent behavior during marital interaction: The roles of social withdrawal and spouse support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 651-659.

72.

Repetti

R. L.

1993. Short-term effects of occupational stressors on daily mood and health complaints. Health Psychology, 12: 125-131.

73.

Roseman

Wiest

Swartz

1994. Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 206-221.

74.

Rothbard

N. P.

2001. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 655-684.

75.

Rupp

D. E.

Spencer

2006. When customers lash out: The effects of customer interactional injustice on emotional labor and the mediating role of discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 971-978.

76.

Schulz

Cowan

Brennan

2004. Coming home upset: Gender, marital satisfaction, and the daily spillover of workday experience into couple interactions. Journal of Family Psychology, 18: 250-263.

77.

Scott

B. A.

Barnes

C. M.

2011. A multilevel field investigation of emotional labor, affect, work withdrawal, and gender. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 116-136.

78.

Scott

B. A.

Barnes

C. M.

Wagner

D. T.

2012. Chameleonic or consistent? A multilevel investigation of emotional labor variability and self-monitoring. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 905-926.

79.

Shaver

Schwartz

Kirson

O’Connor

1987. Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 1061-1086.

80.

Smith

C. A.

Lazarus

R. S.

1993. Appraisal components, core relational themes, and the emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 7: 233-269.

81.

Smith

T. W.

1992. Hostility and health: Status of a psychosomatic hypothesis. Health Psychology, 11: 139-150.

82.

Smits

D. J. M.

Kuppens

2005. The relations between anger, coping with anger, and aggression, and the BIS/BAS system. Personality and Individual Differences, 39: 783-793.

83.

Spector

P. E.

Brannick

M. T.

2011. Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14: 287-305.

84.

Story

L. B.

Repetti

2006. Daily occupational stressors and marital behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 20: 690-700.

85.

Thompson

B. M.

Kirk

Brown

D. F.

2005. Work based support, emotional exhausation, and spillover of work stress to the family environment: A study of policewomen. Stress and Health, 21: 199-207.

86.

Tofighi

West

S. G.

Mackinnon

D. P.

2013. Multilevel mediation analysis: The effects of omitted variables in the 1-1-1 model. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 66: 290-307.

87.

Trougakos

J. P.

Beal

D. J.

Green

S. G.

Weiss

H. M.

2008. Making the break count: An episodic examination of recovery activities, emotional experiences, and positive affective displays. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 131-146.

88.

Trougakos

J. P.

Hideg

Cheng

B. H.

Beal

D. J.

2014. Lunch breaks unpacked: The role of autonomy as a moderator of recovery during lunch. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 405-421.

89.

M. A.

Foo

M. D.

Aguinis

2010. Using experience sampling methodology to advance entrepreneurship theory and research. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 31-54.

90.

Wang

Liu

S. Q.

Liao

Gong

Y. P.

Kammeyer-Mueller

Shi

J. Q.

2013. Can’t get it out of my mind: Employee rumination after customer mistreatment and negative mood in the next morning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 989-1004.

91.

Watson

2000. Mood and temperament. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

92.

Watson

2009. Locating anger in the hierarchical structure of affect: Comment on Carver and Harmon-Jones (2009). Psychological Bulletin, 135: 205-208.

93.

Watson

Clark

1994. The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.

94.

Watson

Clark

Tellegen

1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 1063-1070.

95.

Weiss

Cropanzano

1996. Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18: 1-74.

96.

Wheaton

1997. The nature of chronic stress. In Gottlieb

B. H.

(Ed.), Coping with chronic stress: 43-73. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

97.

Williams

K. J.

Alliger

G. M.

1994. Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work-family conflict in employed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 837-868.