Temperamental Differences and Classroom Incivility: Exploring the Role of Individual Differences

Abstract

Incivility involves rude, discourteous, and disrespectful attitudes and behaviours. The present study examined how various temperament traits were related to beliefs of classroom incivility among adolescents. The sample comprised of 222 adolescents (120 boys) between the ages of 12 and 17 (M_age = 14.07, SD = 1.54) who were recruited from various extracurricular clubs and sports teams in Southern Ontario. Both intentional and unintentional incivility were examined through separate hierarchical multiple regressions. Lower Effortful Control and lower Frustration significantly predicted unintentional incivility. In addition, lower Affiliation and lower Effortful Control significantly predicted intentional incivility. The results are discussed highlighting practical implications in educational settings, as well as suggestions for future research on incivility, given its potential associations with more negative antisocial behaviours. The results suggest that although there may be shared temperament traits of adolescents who take part in classroom incivility, a disposition for specific subtypes may differ based on the specific temperament characteristics of adolescents.

Keywords

classroom incivility intentional unintentional temperament adolescence

Introduction

Incivility is a growing problem among students in elementary school, high school, and college/university (Moore, 2012). Andersson and Pearson (1999) define incivility as a “low intensity, deviant behaviour with ambiguous intent to cause harm” (p. 457). In other words, incivility involves rude, discourteous, and disrespectful attitudes and behaviours (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). The rise of uncivil behaviours in educational settings may be a reflection of a much larger problem (Moore, 2012) concerning the decline of courteous and polite behaviours and interactions between people in society (Bjorklund & Rehling, 2009). It may be important to first examine incivility in the classroom considering education plays a significant role in developing civil individuals who can then promote a civil society (Boyer, 1990). Illuminating the underpinnings of incivility will enable more effective interventions aimed at reducing further uncivil behaviour within society.

Promoting appropriate classroom behaviour often centers on controlling or mitigating student incivilities because uncivil behaviours may harm and/or disrupt the classroom environment, making it more difficult for students to learn (Feldmann, 2001; Hirschy & Braxton, 2004). In addition, students have indicated their dislike of disruptive classroom behaviour, preferring a positive and harmonious learning atmosphere (Benton, 2007). However, uncivil behaviours that occur in the classroom are typically reported from the perspective of teachers and faculty instead of students (Carbone, 1999). To better understand classroom incivility, it may be beneficial to examine the perspective of students (Bjorklund & Rehling, 2009). We thought it would be logical to investigate incivility from the perspective of students who are surrounded by uncivil attitudes and behaviours in the classroom. In addition, we were interested in factors that may contribute to classroom incivility, particularly individual differences, such as temperament.

There are a number of potential explanations for incivility. Braxton and Bayer (1999) have suggested that academic incivility may result from poor parenting, exposure to violence, and poor preparation of students for the rigor of post-secondary education. Furthermore, according to Clark (2008a, b), nursing students reported that heightened stress, working too hard, and trying to meet the demands of family, work, and school might lead to student incivility. Finally, students with a strong sense of academic entitlement may contribute to incivility in college or university (Nordstrom, Bartels, & Bucy, 2009) as these individuals may be more aggressive, pushy, and demanding with others (Cain, Romanelli, & Smith, 2012). While these explanations were applied to incivility at the post-secondary level, they may also be applied to high school incivility with the exception of poor secondary school preparation for post-secondary school.

However, there has been limited research on incivility in adolescence. Research on university incivility represents a developmental group in the literature that can be drawn on to make inferences on adolescent incivility. Considering developmental and demographic differences between university students and high school students (e.g., socioeconomic status; Walpole, 2003), further study is needed to better understand how this issue may be affecting students specifically at the high school level. A recent study by Farrell, Provenzano, Spadafora, Marini, and Volk (2015) on adolescent attitudes towards incivility showed that students at this developmental level were able to think about uncivil behaviour as being both intentional and unintentional actions. The present study attempts to build on this idea by examining what individual differences are associated with incivility. Specifically, we investigated which individual differences may be affecting adolescents’ attitudes towards both intentional and unintentional classroom incivility.

Classroom Incivility

Classroom incivility refers to attitudes and/or behaviours that “interfere with a harmonious and cooperative learning atmosphere in the classroom” (Feldmann, 2001, p. 137). Feldmann (2001) has grouped uncivil classroom attitudes and behaviours into four categories. The first category reflects annoyances in the classroom (e.g., texting and talking on the phone) that may go unnoticed by other students but do have a small impact insofar as they may begin to slowly erode the learning environment (Feldmann, 2001). The second category involves classroom terrorism, which directly interferes with the instructor’s ability to teach and the student’s ability to learn (e.g., speaking off topic during class discussions). The third category concerns intimidating the instructor (e.g., providing unwarranted, negative feedback on course evaluations; Feldmann, 2001). The final category involves engaging in violent or threatening behaviours towards other students (e.g., physically attacking others; Feldmann, 2001). Taken together, classroom incivility appears to pose a serious threat to a positive learning environment, and thus needs to be addressed. Adolescence may be a key developmental period during which to address uncivil attitudes and behaviours before they potentially become more serious antisocial behaviours in adulthood (Schaefer, 1995). Instructors and educators may want to specifically target classroom incivility for several reasons.

Classroom incivility has been found to occur in two thirds of classrooms (Boice, 1996), thus representing a prevalent and pressing issue. Short-term consequences of incivility include disrupting the learning environment and poorer student engagement, while long-term consequences include students not reaching their overall education goals (Hirschy & Braxton, 2004). By choosing to not properly address incivility in the classroom and hoping that it will go away on its own, students are given the message that these types of behaviours are acceptable, which may encourage repetition and escalation of such behaviours (Feldmann, 2001). It is important to address these behaviours before they develop into potentially more serious antisocial attitudes and behaviours, such as aggression and bullying (Boice, 1996).

Incivility as a potential precursor to bullying may be especially concerning as a theoretical overlap between the two has been proposed (Marini, 2007). Both classroom incivility and bullying may stem from antisocial mechanisms based prominently on the lack of emotional structures, resulting in difficulty forming healthy relationships (Marini, Dane, & Kennedy, 2010; Marini, Polihronis, Dane, & Volk, 2010). It is possible then that attitudes towards classroom incivility may be a potential precursor to more serious antisocial behaviours, such as aggression or bullying (Eggertson, 2011; Marini, 2007).

Overlap Between Incivility and Bullying

Incivility and bullying are both disruptive behaviours (Felblinger, 2009) that appear to operate at different levels of intensity but may stem from similar antisocial roots (Marini, 2007). Feldmann (2001) reported that incivility stems from at least one of three factors: a need to have power over others, a need to procure something valuable, and a need to respond when feeling frustrated regarding a situation that is uncertain. The first two of Feldmann’s (2001) factors appear to be similar to some of the components that make up bullying. For example, bullying involves a power imbalance whereby one individual has power over the other, and is a goal-directed behaviour whereby individuals bully others to achieve something (Volk, Dane, & Marini, 2014). Marini (2007) has suggested that utilizing research on bullying may offer insight into studying incivility. That is, different intensities of failing to get along with other people and form social relationships may come from similar cognitive and emotional structures shared by both incivility and bullying (Marini, Dane, Bosacki, & YLC-CURA, 2006; Pepler, Jiang, Craig, & Connolly, 2008).

Furthermore, individuals may engage in different forms of incivility that resemble bullying. For instance, indirect incivility can be characterized by covert negative attitudes and actions that are concealed, while direct incivility can be characterized by overt negative attitudes and actions expressed or carried out in plain view (Marini et al., 2010c). Similarly, bullying can be dichotomized into direct and indirect forms as well (Byers, Caltabiano, & Caltabiano, 2011). Direct (overt) forms involve physical and verbal bullying (e.g., pushing, hitting, threats, name calling; van der Wal, de Wit, & Hirasing, 2003), while indirect (covert) forms involve relational bullying (e.g., gossiping, social exclusion; Rigby, 1994). This behavioural overlap suggests that incivility may benefit from early interventions similar to the ones that are aimed at reducing bullying (Craig, Pepler, & Blais, 2007). There appears to be a potential similarity between incivility and bullying, but additional research is needed to empirically test the link between the two. To further establish the connection between incivility and bullying, a deeper conceptualization of incivility should first be established.

Towards a Systematic Understanding of the Subtypes of Incivility

Marini, Polihronis, and Blackwell (2010) suggest that when thinking about incivility, it is important to consider both attitudes and behaviours. Uncivil attitudes and behaviours may exist on a continuum ranging from lower intensity (i.e., arriving late to class; Alberts, Hazen, & Theobald, 2010) to higher intensity (i.e., harassment; Burke, Karl, Peluchette, & Evans, 2014), active to passive attitudes and behaviours (Berger, 2000), or simply disruptive behaviours (i.e., talking in class) to more severe and potentially dangerous behaviours (i.e., threatening classmates; Marini, Polihronis, & Blackwell, 2010). The different continuums reflect the severity of uncivil attitudes and acts.

To categorize the different continuums into subtypes of incivility, Marini (2009) examined the form (direct vs. indirect) and the function (reactive vs. proactive) of incivility. A recent study that developed a scale to measure uncivil attitudes in the classroom among adolescents found additional support for subscales of incivility reflecting the function on a continuum ranging from intentional to unintentional attitudes (Farrell et al., 2015). Subscales emerged for intentional incivility, which involve planned behaviours with a clear intent to harm other individuals (e.g., name calling), and unintentional incivility, which are behaviours caused by inattention or thoughtlessness (e.g., packing up books before a lesson is over; Marini, 2009; Marini et al., 2010c). While previous research has focused mostly on uncivil behaviours (e.g., Blau & Andersson, 2005; Boice, 1996; Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Laschinger, Leiter, Day, & Gilin, 2009), an examination of uncivil attitudes may be just as important, considering that attitudes can affect behaviours (Olson & Stone, 2005). That is, having uncivil attitudes may eventually lead to engaging in uncivil behaviours. Thus, it may be logical to test the empirical link between temperament and attitudes first as a starting point, before moving onto behaviours. Therefore, in this study we were interested in investigating the association between temperament traits and uncivil attitudes, specifically how temperament may affect uncivil attitudes in the classroom.

Previous studies have examined how personality factors may contribute to individuals who engage in incivility (e.g., Nordstrom et al., 2009) and which temperament traits may be associated with adult incivility (e.g., Andersson & Pearson, 1999). However, no studies have empirically tested how individual factors in temperament may contribute to incivility in adolescents.

Temperament and Incivility

Temperament is defined as individual differences in both self-regulation and reactivity that are affected through a variety of factors, including biology and maturation, combined with one’s experience (Rothbart & Derryberry, 1981). Self-regulation involves controlling behaviours and emotions, while reactivity involves the speed and intensity of a response (Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans, 2000; Rothbart & Bates, 2006). Posner and Rothbart (2000) describe temperament development as the maturation of regulatory systems. Rothbart (1989) suggested that developmental change could affect reactive and regulatory processes in a number of ways, whereas earlier temperament theory focused on stability over the life span of an individual (e.g., Buss & Plomin, 1975). In other words, temperament should be expected to undergo some degree of change as children develop and gather new understandings of the world around them (Putnam & Stifter, 2008; Saklofske, Joyce, Sulkowski, & Climie, 2013). Therefore, it is important to investigate temperament specifically during adolescence, as it may be developmentally different than during childhood or adulthood.

Rothbart’s Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire–Revised (EATQ-R; Capaldi & Rothbart, 1992; Ellis & Rothbart, 2001) is a well-known and widely used scale to measure differences in temperament among adolescents (Rothbart & Bates, 2006). There are four main dimensions of the EATQ-R: Surgency, Effortful Control, Negative Affect, and Affiliation. Surgency involves seeking high levels of pleasure, while having low levels of fear and shyness (Ellis & Rothbart, 2001). Effortful Control involves behavioural and emotional regulation, as well as inhibition control (the ability to hold back inappropriate responses) and the ability to focus and direct attention (Henderson & Wachs, 2007). Negative Affect involves characteristics of irritability and frustration (Ellis & Rothbart, 2001; Henderson & Wachs, 2007). Finally, Affiliation involves experiencing emotional traits such as grief and empathy, while having a sincere concern for the well-being of others (Evans & Rothbart, 2007). Research suggests that some of these temperament factors may be associated with incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999).

While to our knowledge no study has investigated attitudes towards incivility in relation to temperament in an adolescent sample, Andersson and Pearson (1999) conducted a study examining which temperament characteristics were associated with incivility among adults. The researchers found that individuals with a “hot” temperament were more likely to behave in uncivil ways. Individuals who had a “hot” temperament were lower in self-regulation, easily offended, and less likely to join group trends. It can be argued that these traits characterize lower Effortful Control and higher Negative Affect (Capaldi & Rothbart, 1992; Ellis & Rothbart, 2001). This study suggests that adult individuals who are more likely to use uncivil behaviours may also possess specific temperament characteristics. Extending these findings, one could argue that similar individual differences may also be found for adolescents.

In addition, there are several studies on temperament and adolescent aggression or bullying. Considering both aggression and incivility as antisocial behaviours, even though aggression may be higher in intensity, studies on temperament and aggression may suggest some links between temperament and incivility. Several studies have found that children and adolescents who have lower regulation, including emotional regulation, were more likely to use direct and/or reactive aggression (Dane & Marini, 2014; Frick & Morris, 2004; Vitaro, Brendgen, & Tremblay, 2002). These findings suggest that adolescents engaging in direct or reactive aggression may be lower in regulation both at the cognitive conscious level (i.e., lower Effortful Control) and at a reactive unconscious or emotional level (i.e., higher Frustration; Dane & Marini, 2014; Vitaro et al., 2002) or higher negative emotionality (Vitaro, Barker, Boivin, Brendgen, & Tremblay, 2006).

Similar to aggression, incivility has previously been distinguished on a continuum of direct and indirect attitudes and behaviours. Unintentional incivility is characterized by thoughtless behaviours that are often direct and visible (Marini, 2009). Thus, it is possible that attitudes higher in unintentional incivility may be associated with lower Effortful Control and higher Frustration. As unintentional incivility is characterized by thoughtless behaviour, it is possible that adolescents who rate higher on unintentional incivility may not be concerned about being discourteous to others (i.e., lower Effortful Control). It appears that these students are unable or unwilling to suppress pre-potent response such as pleasing their own desires. In other words, these adolescents are unlikely to be concerned that their actions are considered rude, if it means attaining their own immediate goals. For example, adolescents may believe sending a text message during class is reasonable if they want to do it, even if it means disrupting a lesson.

Studies on temperament and adolescent aggression also have some implications for intentional incivility. Researchers have found that adolescents who are callous or unempathic engaged in more proactive, indirect aggression than adolescents higher in these traits (Barry et al., 2007; Marini, Dane, & Kennedy, 2010). These traits characterize lower Affiliation (Frick & Morris, 2004; Nigg, 2006). In addition, higher Effortful Control has previously been associated with goal-oriented aggression (Dane & Marini, 2014). There are several similarities between proactive and indirect aggression with intentional incivility, particularly with goal orientation that can be accomplished through covert behaviours. Therefore, it is possible that higher attitudes in intentional incivility will also be associated with lower Affiliation and higher Effortful Control. For instance, adolescents using uncivil behaviours intentionally to harm others may be higher in Effortful Control to successfully plan and execute their goals. Furthermore, adolescents who use uncivil behaviours may be lower in Affiliation if they are not empathic even though they are knowingly causing harm to others. These adolescents may spread rumours to hurt someone they do not like, without any remorse for the victim. As a result of these studies, we hypothesize that unintentional and intentional incivilities will be differentially associated with the temperament traits.

Current Study

Most research on classroom incivility has been carried out on young adults in post-secondary institutions or on adults in the workplace. Considering the lack of research on classroom incivility among adolescents and its potential relationship to individual differences, the main goal of this study was to explore the link between temperamental differences and incivility among adolescents. We predicted that a different combination of traits would have significant associations with intentional and unintentional incivility, such that higher Frustration and lower Effortful Control would be associated with unintentional incivility, while higher Effortful Control and lower Affiliation would be associated with intentional incivility.

Method

Participants

The sample was comprised of 222 adolescents (120 boys) between the ages of 12 and 17 (M_age = 14.07, SD = 1.54). These adolescents were recruited from extracurricular clubs and sports teams, located in Southern Ontario. The majority of participants reported their socioeconomic status to be “about the same” as the average Canadian family (69.4%), while fewer reported to be “more rich” (17.6%) or less rich (12.2%). The remaining participants did not provide a response (0.9%). The present sample was predominantly Caucasian (63.1%), other self-reported ethnicities included Asian (3.6%), Hispanic (2.2%), African Canadian (2.2%), Mixed (0.9%), and Indigenous peoples (1.8%). The other participants either reported “Other” (15.8%) or did not report an ethnicity (10.4%). This sample is similar to the overall population of this particular area of Southern Ontario (Statistics Canada, 2006).

Measures

Adolescents in the present study were a part of a larger study focusing on adolescent relationships. Participants completed a variety of questionnaires, including a Temperament scale and a scale of Incivility. All questionnaires were presented in a random order.

Incivility

A self-report, 10-item scale measuring intentionally and unintentionally uncivil attitudes was administered (Adolescent Attitudes Toward Classroom In/Civility Questionnaire; Farrell et al., 2015). Participants rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (definitely wrong) to 5 (definitely okay). Five items comprised the Intentional Incivility subscale (α = .86). A sample item includes “calling a classmate names because they did not agree with your opinion.” Five items comprised the Unintentional Incivility subscale (α = .83). A sample item includes “packing up books before a lesson is over.” This is the only scale to our knowledge that measures adolescent attitudes towards classroom incivility. It is a recently developed scale that shows good internal consistency, reliability, and concurrent validity. Both subscales have previously been moderately correlated with antisocial beliefs, friend antisociality, conduct problems, reflecting convergent validity. Both subscales also had small inverse correlation with prosocial behaviour.

Temperament

A modified 44-item version of the EATQ-R was administered with four factors (Capaldi & Rothbart, 1992; Ellis & Rothbart, 2001). Effortful Control comprised of Attention (α = .67), Activation Control (α = .76), and Inhibitory Control (α = .69), with a sample item “It is easy for me to really concentrate on homework problems.” Surgency comprised of High Intensity Pleasure (α = .71), Low Levels of Shyness (α = .82), and Low Levels of Fear (α = .65) with a sample item “I think it would be exciting to move to a new city.” Affiliativeness comprised of Affiliation (α = .75), Perceptual Sensitivity (α = .71), Pleasure Sensitivity (α = .78), with a sample item “I want to be able to share my private thoughts with someone else.” Finally, Negative Affect comprised of Frustration (α = .70), with a sample item “It bothers me when I try to make a phone call and the line is busy.”

Procedure

After receiving ethical approval, coaches/leaders of various sports teams/clubs were contacted to recruit participants. Researchers visited the various extracurricular clubs/sports teams to invite adolescents to participate in the study. Those who were interested in participating were given two envelopes: one with parental information and consent form, and the other containing an adolescent assent form, as well as the package of questionnaires. The following week, the researcher returned to the clubs to collect completed questionnaire packages, as well as to provide debriefing. The completion rate of the present study was 85%. Adolescents received $15 as compensation for participating in the study.

Data Analysis

First, missing data and plausible values were assessed for the items. Next, the assumptions were evaluated at the univariate and multivariate levels. Finally, two hierarchical multiple regressions were used, entering age and sex as the covariates in Step 1, and the four temperament dimensions as the predictor variables in Step 2. The dependent variables for the two regressions were unintentional and intentional incivility, respectively. After exploring univariate normality, we found that intentional incivility was positively skewed. This distribution was expected for intentional incivility and has previously been found (Farrell et al., 2015), and reflects adolescent perceptions that intentional incivility is more intense, antisocial, and uncivil in comparison with unintentional incivility. As expected, we found more people at the lower end of the scale. A log transformation was conducted, which improved the skewness. Thus, subsequent analyses used the log-transformed intentional incivility.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

A missing value analysis using EM Estimated Statistics revealed that one participant was missing for all temperament dimensions, and therefore, data were missing completely at random, χ² (2) = .154, p = .926. This participant was omitted from subsequent analyses. Next, Kolmogorov–Smirnov test of normality revealed that all four temperament dimensions met the assumption of normality (all p > .001; see Table 1 for means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations for Temperament Factors and Intentional and Unintentional Incivility.

Variable	N	M (SD)	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Age	222	14.07 (1.54)	.04	.15*	.12	−.32***	−.18**	.40***	.18**
2. Sex^a	221	—	—	.11	.26***	.08	−.30***	−.08	−.33***
3. Frustration	221	3.49 (0.69)		—	.24***	−.19**	−.22**	−.07	−.11
4. Affiliation	221	3.71 (0.71)				.18**	−.04	−.12	−.31***
5. EC	221	3.34 (0.50)				—	.18**	−.32***	−.31***
6. Surgency	221	3.29 (0.60)					—	.04	.05
7. Unintentional incivility	222	2.56 (0.91)						—	.61***
8. Intentional incivility	222	0.13 (0.16)							—

Note. EC = Effortful Control.

Sex was coded as 1 = boy, 2 = girl.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Correlations

All significant correlations were small to moderate in size. Age was significantly negatively correlated with Effortful Control and Surgency, and significantly positively correlated with unintentional and intentional incivility. Being a girl was significantly correlated with Affiliation, while being a boy was significantly correlated with Surgency and intentional incivility. Frustration was significantly positively correlated with Affiliation, and significantly negatively correlated with Effortful Control and Surgency. Affiliation was positively correlated with Effortful Control and negatively correlated with intentional incivility. Effortful Control was significantly negatively correlated with unintentional and intentional incivility. Finally, unintentional and intentional incivility was significantly positively correlated.

Hierarchical Multiple Regressions

Unintentional incivility

Results demonstrated no issues with multicollinearity as indicated by the Variance Inflation Factor and Tolerance statistics (Field, 2013; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Partial regression plots revealed that the assumption of linearity was met. Durbin–Watson statistic also revealed independent errors. Scatterplots of the standardized residuals and predicted values demonstrated that the assumption of homoscedasticity was met. While there was one multivariate outlier, regressions run with and without the outlier demonstrated similar trends, and therefore, the outlier was kept to retain original data.

The first step of the model with age and sex accounted for 16.9% of the variance in unintentional incivility, F(2, 218) = 22.20, p < .001 (see Table 2). Age was significant (p < .001) with older adolescents scoring higher on the Incivility scale. In Step 2, the addition of the four temperament traits in the model accounted for 25.0% of variance in unintentional incivility, F(6, 214) = 11.90, p < .001. The significant predictors were lower Effortful Control (p = .001) and lower Frustration (p = .050).

Table 2.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Unintentional Incivility With Temperament.

Predictors	B	SE	β	95% CI	sr ²
Step 1
Sex^a	−.181	0.113	−.099	[−0.403, 0.042]
Age	.239***	0.037	.403	[0.166, 0.311]	.162
R ²	16.90
F	22.20
Step 2
Sex	−.014	0.118	−.007	[−0.246, 0.219]
Age	.224***	0.038	.378	[0.149, 0.299]	.122
Frustration	−.166*	0.084	−.126	[−0.332, 0.000]	.014
Affiliation	−.111	0.085	−.086	[−0.277, 0.056]
Effortful Control	−.419**	0.120	−.231	[−0.656, −0.182]	.042
Surgency	.185	0.099	.121	[−0.011, 0.380]
R ²	25.00
F	11.90

Note. ΔR² = .081 (p < .001) for Step 2. CI = confidence interval.

Sex was coded as 1 = boy, 2 = girl.

p = .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Intentional incivility

Results demonstrated no issues with multicollinearity as indicated by the variance inflation factor and tolerance statistics (Field, 2013; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Partial regression plots revealed that the assumption of linearity was met. Durbin–Watson statistic also revealed independent errors. Scatterplots of the standardized residuals and predicted values demonstrated that the assumption of homoscedasticity was met. Finally, there were no multivariate outliers.

The first step of the model with age and sex accounted for 14.5% of the variance in intentional incivility, F(2, 218) = 18.44, p < .001 (see Table 3). Age was significant (p < .001) with older adolescents scoring higher on the Incivility scale. Sex was also significant (p = .003), with boys scoring higher on the scale. In Step 2, the addition of the four temperament traits in the model accounted for 23.4% of variance in unintentional incivility, F(6, 214) = 12.18, p < .001. The significant predictors were lower Affiliation (p = .002) and lower Effortful Control (p = .002).

Table 3.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Intentional Incivility With Temperament.

Predictors	B	SE	β	95% CI	sr ²
Step 1
Sex^a	−.111***	0.021	−.338	[−0.151, −0.070]	.114
Age	.020**	0.007	.189	[0.007, 0.033]	.035
R²	14.50
F	18.44
Step 2
Sex	−.082***	0.021	−.250	[−0.124, −0.040]	.052
Age	.017*	0.007	.156	[0.003, 0.030]	.021
Frustration	−.022	0.015	−.093	[−0.052, 0.008]
Affiliation	−.047**	0.015	−.205	[−0.077, −0.018]	.034
Effortful Control	−.073**	0.021	−.225	[−0.115, −0.031]	.040
Surgency	.005	0.018	.018	[−0.030, 0.040]
R²	25.50
F	12.18

Note. ΔR² = .110 (p < .001) for Step 2. CI = confidence interval.

Sex was coded as 1 = boy, 2 = girl.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

Considering the lack of studies on classroom incivility and individual differences among adolescents, the purpose of this study was to explore the link between adolescent temperament and classroom intentional and unintentional incivility. As predicted, we found that the two subtypes of incivility were predicted by a different combination of temperament traits on Rothbart’s EATQ-R.

For unintentional incivility, one of the temperament predictors was expected. The association with lower Effortful Control was anticipated as the low end of this temperament trait is characterized by poorer emotion regulation, including the inability to restrain inappropriate responses (Grist & McCord, 2010; Henderson & Wachs, 2007). Similarly, unintentional incivility is characterized by carelessness or thoughtlessness, including inattention to one’s own behaviours as well as others (Marini, 2009; Marini et al., 2010b). Furthermore, Andersson and Pearson (1999) proposed that specific adult temperament traits characterized by poor self-regulation might be associated with incivility. While this review paper was specific to workplace incivility, it may still be applicable to adolescent incivility. Therefore, it is logical that an adolescent who is lower in Effortful Control would rate higher on the Unintentional Incivility scale.

Unexpectedly, while Frustration was a significant predictor of unintentional incivility, it was the opposite direction of our hypothesis. The association with lower Frustration suggests that unintentional incivility may not be a reactive response at an unconscious or emotional level. It is worth noting that this finding is opposite to results of previous studies involving reactive and direct aggression (but not bullying; for example, Dane & Marini, 2014; Frick & Morris, 2004; Vitaro et al., 2002), suggesting that unintentional incivility is a unique construct separate from emotional or impulsive reactive aggression. Instead, unintentional incivility may be characterized by being unconcerned with others, thereby using uncivil behaviours in a careless manner. This is in line with our finding between lower Effortful Control and unintentional incivility. The combination of lower Frustration and lower Effortful Control suggests that adolescents higher in unintentionally uncivil attitudes may be more careless and disengaged within the broader social context. This is evident in items measuring unintentional incivility in the Attitudes Toward Classroom In/Civility Questionnaire such as “packing books up before a lesson is over.” Such an item reflects a lack of attentiveness to the rest of the class, as opposed to an impulsive, reactive behaviour. However, considering the small effect size of the association with lower Frustration, future studies with different and larger samples may confirm whether Frustration is a significant negative predictor of unintentional incivility.

For intentional incivility, the association between lower Affiliation was expected. This is because the higher end of Affiliation is characterized by desiring close connections with others, including higher empathy and emotionality towards others (Evans & Rothbart, 2007). However, intentional incivility is comprised of purposefully engaging in rude behaviours to harm others (Marini, 2009; Marini et al., 2010b). Adolescents who rate higher on the Intentional Incivility scale are likely unconcerned with building emotional connections with others, and may not care about the impact of their uncivil beliefs and behaviours towards others.

The association between intentional incivility and Effortful Control was the opposite of what we expected. While the association between lower self-regulation and incivility has previously been suggested (e.g., Andersson & Pearson, 1999), we hypothesized that this would only be found for unintentional incivility. Instead, we predicted that higher Effortful Control would be associated with intentional incivility. However, lower Effortful Control was a significant predictor of intentional incivility. While at first this was unexpected, there are several potential explanations for this finding. The lower end of this temperament trait is associated with poorer inhibition control (Grist & McCord, 2010; Henderson & Wachs, 2007; Shiner & DeYoung, 2013). Therefore, adolescents who believe in or engage in intentionally uncivil behaviours may have the desire to harm others. However, it is possible that these behaviours may not necessarily be carefully or strategically planned. In addition, the subscales of Incivility we used were based on intentional versus unintentional behaviours, and therefore we do not know the reasoning behind the intentional ratings. For instance, we do not know whether adolescents rated high on the intentional incivility items to hurt others for impulsive reactive reasons or for strategic, proactive reasons as intentional behaviours could be both reactive and proactive. Nevertheless, the results of the regressions suggest that the subtypes of incivility are differentially associated with temperament traits on the EATQ-R.

Implications

Theory

The significant temperament predictors suggest several implications for the conceptualization of adolescent classroom incivility. The unique predictors for unintentional and intentional incivility, Frustration and Affiliation, respectively, suggest that incivility may be heterogeneous. Unintentional incivility may be associated with lower reactivity and thoughtlessness towards others. However, intentional incivility may be associated with a lack of empathy towards others, where they are intentionally engaging in these behaviours without regard for the impact on others. These unique predictors provide further support for conceptualizing and measuring incivility based on the dimension of intentionality. A recent study (Farrell et al., 2015) developed a newer scale of classroom incivility based on intentional versus unintentional incivility, as opposed to direct versus indirect uncivil behaviours. Accordingly, this study demonstrates that it is important to distinguish between subtypes of incivility based on intent to harm others when investigating individual differences associated with classroom incivility.

In addition to the divergent temperamental predictors, this study has several implications regarding the common predictor of lower Effortful Control. This shared predictor reveals that while the subtypes of incivility may stem from different temperament traits, they also share a commonality in traits related to self-regulation of emotions or behaviour. Thus, this may be the trait that makes the subtypes both “uncivil.” In fact, we found a moderate correlation between the two subtypes of incivility, further suggesting that the subtypes have convergences as well as divergences. These results highlight the need for future research to distinguish the similarities and differences in the subtypes of incivility to make preventive efforts most effective.

Practice

The results indicate that when addressing classroom incivility, adolescents’ temperaments should be taken into consideration, along with the specific type of incivility. Previous studies suggest that when addressing unintentional incivility, educators should determine whether these behaviours are resulting from a lack of awareness or care for classroom rules (Feldmann, 2001; Marini, 2009). If so, researchers should proactively outline classroom and course expectations not only at the beginning of the year but also continuously throughout the year. Our results suggest that when practicing these methods, educators could tailor these practices to key temperament characteristics. For instance, considering the association between lower Frustration and lower Effortful Control, educators could encourage behavioural regulation by keeping open discussions about why specific behaviours are disruptive and uncivil (Feldmann, 2001). For intentional incivility, researchers suggest an educative approach, where teachers can discuss the importance of building positive respectful classroom relationships (Feldmann, 2001; Marini, 2009). This would help target the lower Affiliation associated with intentional incivility.

Finally, some researchers suggest encouraging students to take responsibility for their own actions. Teachers can first encourage students to focus on educational goals. More specifically, Kaplan, Gheen, and Midgley (2002) suggest that encouraging students to develop mastery goals (e.g., set goals to learn course material or skills), as opposed to performance goals (e.g., set goals to demonstrate ability and compared with other people’s performance), may be an effective way to reduce disruptive classroom behaviours. By encouraging mastery goals, adolescents may monitor their own behaviours to master skills and material taught in class, which may reduce the opportunity to carelessly engage in unintentional incivility. Similarly, by encouraging intrinsic learning, which may include active participation among students, it may reduce adolescents’ opportunities to compete with or intentionally hurt classmates to achieve performance goals. Some researchers suggest that self-management strategies such as these previous examples are more effective in reducing disruptive behaviours when compared with intensive methods that enforce rule following (Hoff & DuPaul, 1998). Both educators and students may take an active role in promoting and practicing classroom incivility before they become more serious antisocial behaviours. Similar to some antibullying efforts (e.g., O’Connell, Pepler, & Craig, 1999), reducing incivility may require a whole-school approach that involves teachers, students, and school administrators.

Limitations and Future Directions for Research

While the findings are promising, there are limitations to this study. Our findings had small to moderate effect sizes, suggesting that beyond temperament, there may be other factors that may account for differences in incivility. Studies suggest that incivility may be a precursor to more serious antisocial behaviours, such as bullying, and therefore these two constructs may have similar roots regarding individual differences and cognitions (Marini, 2007). Future studies may want to explore additional factors contributing to the subtypes of incivility. The association of the subtypes of incivility with other individual differences, such as personality factors, or with other antisocial behaviours, such as bullying, should be investigated. In addition, considering we were unable to differentiate whether intentionally uncivil attitudes were reactive or proactive, future studies may want to determine whether intentional incivility is a goal-directed behaviour, similar to bullying.

In addition, we used self-reports to measure both temperament and incivility. It is worth emphasizing that we measured thoughts on incivility, as opposed to engaging in uncivil behaviours. As a result, we are limited towards adolescent perceptions of their own temperament and uncivil beliefs. It is possible that adolescents who have uncivil beliefs may not necessarily have the same temperaments as individuals who frequently engage in incivility. Future studies may want to use observer or peer reports on both temperament and the frequency of uncivil behaviours to determine whether associations similar to this study are found. Nevertheless, the EATQ-R self-report is a well-validated Temperament scale, and the Classroom In/Civility Questionnaire is, to our knowledge, the only Classroom Incivility scale that measures intentional and unintentional incivility among adolescents.

An additional limitation of our study is our sample. It was taken from a region that is predominantly Caucasian and middle class; and therefore future studies may look to examine other populations to see if attitudes towards intentional and unintentional incivility were similar to the sample of the present study. Finally, we examined temperament and incivility specifically in an adolescent sample. We do not know the origins of the association between temperament and classroom incivility in younger samples. Therefore, future studies may do well to investigate longitudinally the association between temperament and classroom incivility starting from elementary school. This may help reveal whether similar associations are found in younger samples, or whether the associations differ starting at adolescence as this is the time of transformation and expansion with regard to social networks and relationships (Collins & Laursen, 2004). This may also help address and prevent incivility earlier in the life span.

Conclusion

In summary, in this study, we found that intentional and unintentional incivilities were predicted by both convergent and divergent temperament traits. As a result, this suggests that while the subtypes share a core tendency for classroom incivility, the preference for specific subtypes may differ based on the specific temperament characteristics of adolescents.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Natalie Spadafora, MA, BEd, recently completed her master of arts in the Department of Child and Youth Studies at Brock University. Her research focuses on adolescent bullying from an evolutionary perspective, examining variables that affect this unique social dynamic.

Ann H. Farrell, MA, is a PhD student in the Department of Psychology at Brock University. Her area of research focuses on adolescent development, including bullying and individual differences from an ecological perspective.

Daniel A. Provenzano, BA, is a master’s student in the Department of Child and Youth Studies at Brock University. His research interests include adolescent development, focusing on bullying and individual differences in personality.

Zopito A. Marini, PhD, is a developmental and educational psychologist and a full professor of Child and Youth Studies. He has received a Brock Chancellor’s Chair for Teaching Excellence to continue his investigation of in/civility in the classroom. In 2010, he was awarded the prestigious 3M National Teaching Fellowship.

Anthony A. Volk, PhD, is a developmental psychologist interested in the area of parenting and child development, and an associate professor in the Department of Child and Youth Studies at Brock University. His overall research interests are to gain an evolutionary, neurological, medical, cultural, social, and historical understanding of why parents do what they do, as well as examining adolescent relationships.

References

Alberts

H. C.

Hazen

H. D.

Theobald

R. B.

(2010). Classroom incivilities: The challenge of interactions between college students and instructors in the US. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34, 439-462.

Andersson

L. M.

Pearson

C. M.

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

Barry

T. D.

Thompson

Barry

C. T.

Lochman

J. E.

Adler

Hill

(2007). The importance of narcissism in predicting proactive and reactive aggression in moderately to highly aggressive children. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 185-197.

Benton

T. H.

(2007). Remedial civility training. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(36), 73.

Berger

B. A.

(2000). Incivility. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 64, 445-450.

Bjorklund

W. L.

Rehling

D. L.

(2009). Student perceptions of classroom incivility. College Teaching, 58, 15-18.

Blau

Andersson

(2005). Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 595-614.

Boice

(1996). Classroom incivilities. Research in Higher Education, 37, 453-486.

Boyer

(1990). Campus life: In search of community. Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press.

10.

Braxton

J. M.

Bayer

A. E.

(1999). Faculty misconduct in collegiate teaching. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.

11.

Burke

L. A.

Karl

Peluchette

Evans

W. R.

(2014). Student incivility: A domain review. Journal of Management Education, 38, 160-191.

12.

Byers

D. L.

Caltabiano

N. J.

Caltabiano

M. L.

(2011). Teachers’ attitudes towards overt and covert bullying, and perceived efficacy to intervene. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(11), 105-119.

13.

Cain

Romanelli

Smith

K. M.

(2012). Academic entitlement in pharmacy education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(10), Article 189.

14.

Capaldi

D. M.

Rothbart

M. K.

(1992). Development and validation of an early adolescent temperament measure. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 12, 153-173.

15.

Carbone

(1999). Students behaving badly in large classes. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 77, 35-43.

16.

Clark

C. M.

(2008a). The dance of incivility in nursing education as described by nursing faculty and students. Advances in Nursing Science, 31(4), E37-E54.

17.

Clark

C. M.

(2008b). Faculty and student assessment and experience with incivility in nursing education: A national perspective. Journal of Nursing Education, 47, 458-465.

18.

Collins

W. A.

Laursen

(2004). Changing relationships, changing youth interpersonal contexts of adolescent development. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 55-62.

19.

Cortina

L. M.

Magley

V. J.

Williams

J. H.

Langhout

R. D.

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

20.

Craig

Pepler

Blais

(2007). Responding to bullying what works? School Psychology International, 28, 465-477.

21.

Dane

A. V.

Marini

Z. A.

(2014). Overt and relational forms of reactive aggression in adolescents: Relations with temperamental reactivity and self-regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 60, 60-66.

22.

Eggertson

(2011). Targeted: The impact of bullying and what needs to be done to eliminate it. Canadian Nurse, 107, 16-20.

23.

Ellis

L. K.

Rothbart

M. K.

(2001, April). Revision of the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire. Poster presented at the 2001 Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

24.

Evans

D. E.

Rothbart

M. K.

(2007). Developing a model for adult temperament. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 868-888.

25.

Farrell

A. H.

Provenzano

D. A.

Spadafora

Marini

Z. A.

Volk

A. A.

(2015). Measuring adolescent attitudes in incivility: Exploring differences between intentional and unintentional incivility. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 0734282915623446.

26.

Felblinger

D. M.

(2009). Bullying, incivility, and disruptive behaviours in the healthcare setting: Identification, impact, and intervention. Frontiers of Health Services Management, 25(4), 13-23.

27.

Feldmann

L. J.

(2001). Classroom civility is another of our instructor responsibilities. College Teaching, 49, 137-140.

28.

Field

(2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London, England: Sage.

29.

Frick

P. J.

Morris

A. S.

(2004). Temperament and developmental pathways to conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 33, 54-68.

30.

Grist

C. L.

McCord

D. M.

(2010). Individual differences in preschool children: Temperament or personality? Infant and Child Development, 19, 264-274.

31.

Henderson

H. A.

Wachs

T. D.

(2007). Temperament theory and the study of cognition emotion interactions across development. Developmental Review, 27, 396-427.

32.

Hirschy

Braxton

(2004). Effects of student classroom incivilities on students. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 99, 67-76.

33.

Hoff

K. E.

DuPaul

G. J.

(1998). Reducing disruptive behaviour in general education classrooms: The use of self-management strategies. School Psychology Review, 27, 290-303.

34.

Kaplan

Gheen

Midgley

(2002). Classroom goal structure and student disruptive behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 191-211.

35.

Laschinger

H. K.

Leiter

Day

Gilin

(2009). Workplace empowerment, incivility, and burnout: Impact on staff nurse recruitment and retention outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management, 17, 302-311.

36.

Marini

Z. A.

(2007). The Academic In/Civility Questionnaire (AI/CQ-V.1): Assessing intentional and unintentional in/civility. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Child and Youth Studies, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.

37.

Marini

Z. A.

(2009). The thin line between civility and incivility: Fostering reflection and self-awareness to create a civil learning community. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 2, 61-67.

38.

Marini

Z. A.

Dane

Bosacki

, & The Youth Lifestyle Choices Community University Research Alliance (YLC-CURA). (2006). Direct and indirect bully-victims: Differential psychosocial risk factors associated with adolescents involved in bullying and victimization. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 551-569.

39.

Marini

Z. A.

Dane

Kennedy

(2010a). Multiple pathways to bullying: Tailoring educational practices to variations in students’ temperament and brain function. In Ferrari

Vuletic

(Eds.), The developmental relations between mind, brain, and education: Essays in honor of Robbie case (pp. 257-291). New York, NY: Springer.

40.

Marini

Z. A.

Polihronis

Blackwell

(2010b). Academic in/civility: Co-constructing the foundation for a civil learning community. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 3, 89-93.

41.

Marini

Z. A.

Polihronis

Dane

Volk

A. A.

(2010c, June). Towards the development of a civil learning community: Differentiating between intentional and unintentional in/civility. Poster presented at the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (STLHE) 30th Annual Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

42.

Moore

(2012). A challenge for social studies educators: Increasing civility in schools and society by modeling civic virtues. The Social Studies, 103, 140-148.

43.

Nigg

J. T.

(2006). Temperament and developmental psychopathology. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 47, 395-422.

44.

Nordstrom

C. R.

Bartels

L. K.

Bucy

(2009). Predicting and curbing classroom incivility in higher education. College Student Journal, 43, 74-85.

45.

O’Connell

Pepler

Craig

(1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437-452.

46.

Olson

J. M.

Stone

(2005). The Influence of behavior on attitudes. In Albarracin

Johnson

B.T.

Zanna

M.P.

(Eds.), The hand book of attitudes (pp. 223-271). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

47.

Pepler

Jiang

Craig

Connolly

(2008). Developmental trajectories of bullying and associated factors. Child Development, 79, 325-338.

48.

Posner

M. I.

Rothbart

M. K.

(2000). Developing mechanisms of self-regulation. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 427-441.

49.

Putnam

S. P.

Stifter

C. A.

(2008). Reactivity and regulation: The impact of Mary Rothbart on the study of temperament. Infant and Child Development, 17, 311-320.

50.

Rigby

(1994). Psychosocial functioning in families of Australian adolescent schoolchildren involved in bully/victim problems. Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 173-187.

51.

Rothbart

M. K.

(1989). Temperament and development. Temperament in Childhood, 187-247.

52.

Rothbart

M. K.

Ahadi

S. A.

Evans

D. E.

(2000). Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 122.

53.

Rothbart

M. K.

Bates

J. E.

(2006). Temperament. (In Damon

Lerner

Eisenberg

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3, pp. 99-166).

54.

Rothbart

M. K.

Derryberry

(1981). Development of individual differences in temperament. In Lamb

M. E.

Brown

A. L.

(Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 37-86). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

55.

Saklofske

D. H.

Joyce

D. K.

Sulkowski

M. L.

Climie

E. A.

(2013). Models for personality assessment of children and adolescents. In Saklofske

D. H.

Reynolds

C. R.

Schwean

V. L.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of child psychological assessment (pp. 348-365). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

56.

Schaefer

(1995). Reinventing civility. The North American Montessori Teachers’ Association Journal, 20, 138-147.

57.

Shiner

R. L.

DeYoung

C. G.

(2013). The structure of temperament and personality traits: A developmental perspective. In Zelazo

P. D.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental psychology, vol. 2: Self and other, 113-141. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

58.

Statistics Canada. (2006). Population by selected ethnic origins, by census metropolitan areas (2006 Census) (St. Catharines-Niagara). Retrieved from: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/index-eng.cfm

59.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

60.

van der Wal

M. F.

de Wit

C. A.

Hirasing

R. A

. (2003). Psychosocial health among young victims and offenders of direct and indirect bullying. Pediatrics, 111, 1312-1317.

61.

Vitaro

Barker

E. D.

Boivin

Brendgen

Tremblay

R. E.

(2006). Do early difficult temperament and harsh parenting differentially predict reactive and proactive aggression? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 681-691.

62.

Vitaro

Brendgen

Tremblay

R. E.

(2002). Reactively and proactively aggressive children: Antecedent and subsequent characteristics. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 43, 495-505.

63.

Volk

A. A.

Dane

A. V.

Marini

(2014). What is bullying? A theoretical redefinition. Developmental Review, 34, 327-343.

64.

Walpole

(2003). Socioeconomic status and college: How SES affects college experiences and outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 27, 45-47.