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 Results showed that state hostility mediated the link from workplace incivility to increased angry and withdrawn marital behaviors at home.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.

It's not you, it's them: Social influences on trust propensity and trust dynamics

“…Workplace unfairness explained 34.6% of the variance in the within‐person slopes between citizenship received and state trust propensity. To test the conditional indirect effect in Hypothesis 8, we followed the same approach as in our indirect effects analysis but replaced the first‐stage coefficient (from citizenship received to state trust propensity) with simple slope values at high and low workplace unfairness (Preacher, Zyphur, & Zhang, ; see also Lim, Ilies, Koopman, Christoforou, & Arvey, ). The magnitude of the conditional indirect effect was larger at high levels of workplace unfairness (.02, 95% CI [.007, .048]) than at low levels (.01, 95% CI [–.005, .027]).…”

“…Hypothesized coefficients are bolded. Controlling for the previous-day assessment of criteria constructs allows us to interpret our results as a change in that criteria from the previous day (e.g., state trust propensity is positively associated with a change in coworker trustworthiness from the previous day; Johnson et al, 2014;Scott & Barnes, 2011 To test the conditional indirect effect in Hypothesis 8, we followed the same approach as in our indirect effects analysis but replaced the first-stage coefficient (from citizenship received to state trust propensity) with simple slope values at high and low workplace unfairness (Preacher, Zyphur, & Zhang, 2010; see also Lim, Ilies, Koopman, Christoforou, & Arvey, 2016). The magnitude of the conditional indirect effect was larger at high levels of workplace unfairness (.02, 95% CI [.007, .048]) than at low levels (.01, 95% CI [-.005, .027]).…”

Stuck between a rock and a hard place: Contrasting upward and downward effects of leaders’ ingratiation

“…with simple slopes at high and low values of the moderator (Lim et al, 2018). Our results-depicted in .…”

“…Specifically, we estimated the sampling distribution of the first (leaders’ upward ingratiation → LLX quality) and second (LLX quality → boss ratings of promotability; leaders’ job satisfaction) stage coefficients using a Monte Carlo simulation with 20,000 iterations. We then used these values to create the sampling distribution and bias‐corrected confidence intervals of the indirect effects (for similar, see Lanaj, Johnson, & Barnes, ; Lim, Ilies, Koopman, Christoforou, & Arvey, ; see also Preacher & Hayes, ). As shown in Table , both Hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported.…”

“…As depicted in Figure , the relationship between leaders’ upward ingratiation and leader–subordinate LMX quality is positive, albeit nonsignificant, when subordinate ratings of the leader's political skill is high ( simple slope = .32, p > .05) but strongly negative when perceptions of political skill is low ( simple slope = –.65, p < .05). To test for conditional indirect effects (i.e., moderated mediation) from leaders’ upward ingratiation to the three subordinate‐level outcomes through LMX quality, depending on subordinate perceptions of leaders’ political skill, we followed the same approach as our analyses for assessing indirect effects but replaced the first stage coefficient (leaders’ upward ingratiation → LMX quality) with simple slopes at high and low values of the moderator (Lim et al., ). Our results—depicted in Table —show that the indirect effect from leaders’ upward ingratiation to subordinates’ task performance is negative and significant when political skill is low ( indirect effect = –.11, 95% CI [–.266, –.022]) but nonsignificant when political skill is high ( indirect effect = .05, 95% CI [–.001, .172]).…”