Happy But Uncivil? Examining When and Why Positive Affect Leads to Incivility
In this paper, we examine the interactive effects of positive affect and perspective-taking on workplace incivility and family incivility, through moral disengagement. We draw from broaden-and-build and moral disengagement theories to suggest a potential negative consequence of positive affect. Specifically, we argue that positive affect increases incivility toward coworkers and spouses through moral disengagement among employees with low, but not high perspective-taking. Data from two time-lagged field studies and one online experiment provide support for our hypotheses. These findings suggest that the beneficial effects of positive feelings are not universal, and the fostering of positive feelings at work might have unintended negative consequences, namely moral disengagement, and increased incivility at work and at home. Implications for theory and research are discussed.
KeywordsPositive affect Moral disengagement Workplace incivility Family incivility Perspective-taking
This research did not receive any specific Grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines & L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol (1, pp. 45–103). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of Social Psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Davidson, R. J. (1993). The neuropsychology of emotion and affective style. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotion (pp. 143–154). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.Google Scholar
- Derogatis, L. R., & Spencer, P. M. (1983). The brief symptom inventory: Administration, scoring, and procedure manual—I. Baltimore: Clinical Psychometric Research.Google Scholar
- Duffy, M. K., Aquino, K., Tepper, B. J., Reed, A., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2005). Moral disengagement and social identification: When does being similar result in harm doing? Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
- Fida, R., Paciello, M., Tramontano, C., Fontaine, R. G., Barbaranelli, C., & Farnese, M. L. (2015). An integrative approach to understanding counterproductive work behavior: The roles of stressors, negative emotions, and moral disengagement. Journal of Business Ethics. 130, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Forgas, J. P. (2014). On the downside of feeling good: Evidence for the motivational, cognitive and behavioral disadvantages of positive affect? In J. Gruber & J. T. Moskowitz (Eds.), Positive emotion: Integrating the light sides and dark sides (pp. 301–322). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Henle, C. A. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 247–263.Google Scholar
- Isen, A. M. (2000). Positive affect and decision making. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 417–435). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th edn.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (8 edn.). Los Angeles: Muthen & Muthen.Google Scholar
- Parker, S. K., & Axtell, C. M. (2001). Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and outcomes of employee perspective taking. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1085–1100.Google Scholar
- Pearson, C., & Porath, C. (2009). The cost of bad behavior: How incivility is damaging your business and what to do about it. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
- Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91, 115–121.Google Scholar
- Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2010, July). Monte Carlo method for assessing multilevel Mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects in 1-1-1 multilevel models [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org/.
- Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
- Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1988). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658–672.Google Scholar
- Snijders, T. A. A., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Ames: University of Iowa.Google Scholar