Workplace Incivility and Counterproductive Work Behavior: Moderating Role of Emotional Intelligence

Received 21 Apr, 2011

Accepted 10 Oct, 2013

Published 31 Dec, 2013

The present study was conducted to examine the moderating role of emotional intelligence in the relationship between workplace incivility and counterproductive work behavior (abuse, production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal behavior). A total of one hundred and sixty university teachers completed measures of emotional intelligence, workplace incivility, and counterproductive work behavior in seven public and private sector universities of Pakistan. Moderated multiple regression analyses were employed to test the interaction between workplace incivility and emotional intelligence on five facets of counterproductive work behavior. Results showed that there was a positive relationship between incivility and counterproductive work behavior and negative relationship between emotional intelligence and counterproductive work behavior. The interaction of workplace incivility and emotional intelligence explained a significant portion of variance in five facets of counterproductive work behavior. Emotional intelligence emerged as a significant moderator between workplace incivility and counterproductive work behavior. Keeping in view the strong and positive relationship between workplace incivility and counterproductive work behavior, training on both etiquette and emotional intelligence had been recommended for employees.

Workplace deviant behaviors have remained the focus of researchers’ attention for many years. These behaviors have been studied from different perspectives: both as outcome variable and predictor variable (Bruursema, 2004; Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006). Workplace deviant behaviors, on one hand, spoil the organizational environment and on the other, lower the morale of the employees (Hoel, Einarsen, & Cooper, 2003; Keashly & Jagatic, 2003). Initially, research regarding workplace deviance has been limited to different types of mistreatment such as harassment, bullying, aggression, and injustice (e.g., Chen & Spector, 1992). However, recently incivility has gained the attention of management researchers (e.g., Anderson & Pearson, 1999; Lim & Cortina, 2005; Penney & Spector, 2005).

Anderson and Pearson (1999) defined incivility as ‘‘low intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are regarded as characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others” (p. 457). Incivility is somehow less intense than aggression but it is more prevalent in the organizations (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). The most common uncivil behaviors include demeaning, derogatory, and condescending comments, indifference to worker’s opinion, ignoring a coworker, and browbeating (Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001). Although incivility is at the low end of the workplace mistreatment continuum, but it may not be ignored or overlooked because of the devastating results that it brings along to the organization (Vickers, 2006).

Researchers have found workplace incivility to be negatively related to productivity and job satisfaction, and positively associated with absenteeism, tardiness, and turnover intentions (Lim & Cortina, 2005; Penney & Spector, 2005). According to some researchers, workplace incivility leads to more violent and aggressive behaviors (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Neuman & Baron, 1997; Pearson et al., 2000; Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001). Andersson and Pearson (1999) have also argued that incivility can draw a similar reaction from other party or lead to more serious behaviors. It may lead to an escalating spiral where one act of incivility can provoke more serious acts on the part of the other party. Such situations would lead to extreme forms of counterproductive work behaviors, which may result in aggression or violence.

There are some studies that have focused on the link between incivility and counterproductive work behaviors (CWB; Penney & Spector, 2005; Roberts, 2012) but none of the studies, to the best of our knowledge, have tried to unearth the moderating role of emotional intelligence on this link. The current study aimed to fill this gap by testing the moderating role of emotional intelligence in the incivility and CWB relationship in the Pakistani context. Moreover, of the studies conducted in the higher education arena, had focused mainly on students or administrative staff (see Caza & Cortina, 2007). This study, however, has focused on teaching faculty in higher education institutions of Pakistan.

The rationale behind the focus of current study on university teachers was to reveal the vital role that incivility may play in the higher educational institutions. According to Marchand-Stenhoff (2009), incivility faced by teachers poorly affects the teachers’ ability to teach, as well as, affects students’ learning. According to Clark and Springer (2010), all troublesome acts falling in the category of incivility must be addressed before these behaviors turn into aggression and endanger the healthy academic work environment. It is unfortunate that many stakeholders including faculty members, students, and administrative staff, are unaware of the negative effects of their harmful behavior on others. Moreover, they are not well equipped to handle and/or deal with such kind of problematic situations. Although the main focus of previous researches in this area has been on the class room incivility (instigated by students), the current study focused on the deteriorating effects that incivility may cause even if both the instigators and targets are from the teaching faculty. Incivility in higher educational institutions is, therefore, an important concern that needs to be addressed. The current study was intended to fill this gap by focusing on incivility and CWB as experienced by teaching faculty in the higher education institutions.

Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB)
CWB is basically a voluntary or intentional behavior that could harm the interest of the organization either directly or indirectly by hurting the employees which resultantly reduces their effectiveness (McShane & Glinow, 2005). Spector et al. (2006) has categorized CWB into five facets: (a) abuse; behaviors that can be harmful physically or psychologically. It may include making nasty comments about coworker or reduce the effectiveness of coworker; (b) sabotage; affects the physical property of the organization (i.e. undermining the physical workplace of the organization); (c) production deviance; behaviors that destroy the work process; (d) theft; results from economic need, job dissatisfaction or injustice and can be regarded a form of aggression against the organization (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002; Neuman & Baron, 1997) and; (e) withdrawal; behaviors that reduce the amount of time one works to less than what the organization requires. Sabotage and production deviance has a direct impact while the withdrawal behavior of employees has an indirect impact on the functioning of the organization (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001). Some employees may engage in CWB as emotional reaction or retaliation while others may opt it as a well-planned behavior (Fox & Spector, 2010).

Emotional Intelligence as a Moderator in the Incivility and Counterproductive Work Behavior
Goleman (1995) defined emotional intelligence (EI) as the “abilities such as being able to motivate oneself and persist in the face of frustrations; to control impulse and delay gratification; to regulate one’s moods and keep distress from swamping the ability to think; to empathize and to hope” (p. xii). Hence, it is the ability to manage oneself and one’s relationships in a constructive and mature manner. Many scholars have treated emotional intelligence as a moderator of relationship between different variables including: negative emotions and job insecurity (Jordan & Ashkanasy, 2002), negative emotions and counterproductive work behaviors (Yin, 2010), conscientiousness and performance (Douglas, Frink, & Ferris, 2004), and stress, and burnout (Gorgens-Ekermans & Brand, 2012).

Results of previous studies suggest that EI may serve as a moderator in the link between incivility and CWB. For instance, emotionally intelligent people are more able to control themselves; therefore they are more able to avoid indulging in activities (e.g., deviant behaviors) that may harm their organizations (Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004). Martin, Knopoff, and Beckman (1998) were of the opinion that employees’ EI plays a role in controlling deviant behaviors. Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2000) also found negative relationship between emotional intelligence and employees’ deviant behaviors. They argued that improvement in employees’ emotional intelligence results in a decline in their deviant behaviors. A research conducted by Deshpande (2005) also found that people with high levels of EI consider CWB more unethical than their counterparts. Similarly Khalid et al. (2009) found that emotionally intelligent people aptly control their emotions and are more able to avoid misbehaviors that could harm their organizations. Jung and Yoon (2012) proposed that employees who lack EI are more prone to engage in CWBs. Furthermore, incivility has been discussed as a stressor variable by many scholars (Kern & Grandey, 2009) and emotional intelligence has been identified as one of the major protective factor against the stress (Lopes, Grewal, Cadis, Gall, & Salovey, 2006). In line with above arguments, people with different EI levels respond to and cope with the uncivil environment differently. The severity of their response ultimately determines the degree to which they cause damage to the organization. Thus, we hypothesize that EI will moderate the relationship between workplace incivility and CWB facets. Specifically, the relationship between workplace incivility and the CWB facets will be stronger for individuals low in EI than their counterparts who are high on EI (see Figure 1).

Hypotheses

1.	Emotional intelligence will moderate the relationship between workplace incivility and abuse
2.	Emotional intelligence will moderate the relationship between workplace incivility and production deviance
3.	Emotional intelligence will moderate the relationship between workplace incivility and sabotage
4.	Emotional intelligence will moderate the relationship workplace incivility and theft
5.	Emotional intelligence will moderate the relationship between workplace incivility and withdrawal

Fig. 1: Research Model

METHOD

Sample
We used non probability convenience sampling method in order to obtain the appropriate number of respondents for this study. A total of 250 questionnaires were distributed (in three private and four public sector universities) and 160 responses were obtained (64% response rate). The sample comprised of 73 women and 87 men, having an average age of 35.04 years (SD = 8.20). Of the overall sample, 65 were from private universities and the rest were from public universities. Sample consisted of faculty members having qualifications of Masters (n = 74), MS (n = 70), and Ph.D. (n = 16). Years of experience ranged from 2-20 years, with an average of 8.7 years.

Measures
Uncivil Workplace Behavior Questionnaire. The Uncivil Workplace Behavior Questionnaire (UWBQ; Martine & Hine, 2005) was a 17-item multi-dimensional instrument assessing four different facets of workplace incivility: gossiping, hostility, exclusionary behavior, and privacy invasion. Participants were asked to rate how often they experienced particular uncivil workplace behavior (from their supervisors or co-workers) on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Never (1) to Very Often (5). Sample items were Talked about you behind your back, Gossiped behind your back, and Raised their voice while speaking to you. We used an aggregate score for the 17-item UWBQ scale. Higher scores indicated experience of more frequent uncivil behaviors from supervisor or co-workers. Martine and Hine (2005) reported that coefficient alpha for the UWBQ was .92 and in this study, the coefficient alpha for the overall UWBQ was .93.

Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist. The Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C; Spector et al., 2006) is a multi-dimensional instrument assessing five basic dimensions of counterproductive work behavior: Abuse (9 items), production deviance (3 items), sabotage (3 items), theft (5 items), and withdrawal (4 items). Participants were asked to rate how often they committed or engaged in various counterproductive workplace behaviors on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Never (1) to Everyday (5). Sample items were Came to work late without permission, Left work earlier than you were allowed, and Ignored someone at work. Spector et al. (2006) reported excellent reliability and validity for the CWB-C. In this study the coefficient alphas for abuse, production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal were .96, .76, .81, .60, and .78, respectively. In the current study, we were interested in finding the relationships of incivility and EI with five facets of CWB-C, therefore, we calculated and employed aggregate scores for each of the five facets of CWB-C separately.

Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale. The 16 item Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS; Wong & Law, 2002) was a multi-dimensional EI scale which assessed four conceptually related EI skills: Self-Emotion Appraisal (SEA; 4 items), Others Emotion Appraisal (OEA; 4 items), Use of Emotion (UOE; 4 items), and Regulation of Emotion (ROE; 4 items). Participants indicated the extent of their agreement with each statement on a 7-point Likert scale strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Sample items were I really understand what I feel, I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others, and I am a self-motivated person. The WLEIS has demonstrated excellent reliability and validity (Cronabach alpha = .92; Wong & Law, 2002). In this study the coefficient alpha for overall scale was .89. Previous researches (e.g., Karim, 2010), found support for the second factor structure of WLEIS, therefore, in the current study, we calculated and used an aggregate score for the 16-item WLEIS.

Procedure
Teachers from seven universities in Pakistan formed the population from which the sample was selected. Permissions were obtained from the administrative heads of these universities to approach the teachers during office hours. Participants were informed about the objectives of the study and were assured about anonymity and confidentiality of their responses.

RESULTS

Correlations among emotional intelligence, workplace incivility, and various types of counterproductive work behaviors were tabulated. As shown in Table 1, workplace incivility was significantly related to all five dimensions of CWB-C: Abuse, production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal. Similarly, EI was significantly correlated with all five dimensions of CWB-C: Abuse, production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal. Finally, EI was significantly correlated with workplace incivility.

Table 1:	Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Variables of the Study (N=160)
Note. EI = Emotional Intelligence *p < .05, **p < .01

Hierarchical Regression Analysis
Various researches have indicated that age and gender are significantly related with CWB, whereas tenure is non-significantly related with CWB (e.g., Cohen, Panter, & Turan, 2013). Therefore, we controlled for age, gender, and organization. In line with Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003) recommendations, we conducted five separate moderated multiple regression analyses to test the interaction between workplace incivility and EI on five facets of CWB-C: Abuse, production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal. In the first step, gender, age, and organization were entered as control variables. In the second step, the main effects of workplace incivility and EI were regressed on the five facets of CWB. In the final step, the cross-product term representing the interaction of workplace incivility and EI was regressed on the dependent variable. In line with Frazier, Tix, & Barron’s (2004) recommendations, we first computed the standardized scores for predictors and then we created a new variable for interaction term by multiplying standardized scores for predictors. An interaction is established when the interaction term significantly predicts the outcome variables after controlling for the influence of main effects alone.

First, it was expected that EI would moderate the relationship between workplace incivility and abuse. Specifically, the relationship between workplace incivility and abuse was expected to be stronger for individuals low in EI than for individuals high in EI.

Table 2:	Summary of Hierarchical Regressions for Variables Predicting Abuse, Production Deviance, Sabotage Theft, and Withdrawal
Note. EI = Emotional Intelligence; df (6, 153) *p < .05, **p < .01

As evidenced in Table 2, the main effects of workplace incivility and EI entered in the second step accounted for a significant amount of variance beyond the demographic variables (ΔR² = .16, p < .01). Within this block, workplace incivility demonstrated a positive (β = .13, p < .01) relationship with abuse, while EI exhibited a negative relationship (β = -.17, p < .01). The workplace incivility X EI interaction was significant (β = -.18, p < .01) and explained incremental variance (ΔR² = .06, p < .01) in the final step. A second moderated multiple regression analysis was conducted to assess the workplace incivility X EI interaction on production deviance. It was expected that the relationship between workplace incivility and production deviance would be stronger for individuals low in EI than for individuals high in EI. Entering the main effect variables (workplace incivility and EI) into the equation in step 2 showed that workplace incivility positively predicted production deviance (β = .16, p < .01), while EI negative predicted production deviance (β = -.17, p < .01). Finally, the interaction of workplace incivility and EI explained a significant portion of the variance in production deviance (ΔR² = .03, p < .01).

Third, we predicted that EI would moderate the relationship between workplace incivility and sabotage. As shown in Table 2, the main effects of workplace incivility and EI (step 2) accounted for a significant amount of variance beyond the demographic variables (ΔR² = .13, p < .01). Within this block, workplace incivility demonstrated a positive (β = .12, p < .05) relationship with sabotage, while EI exhibited a negative relationship (β = -.17, p < .01). The workplace incivility X EI interaction effect entered in the third step was significant (β = -.20, p < .01) and explained incremental sabotage variance (ΔR² = .07, p < .01).

A fourth moderated multiple regression analysis was conducted to assess the workplace incivility X EI interaction on theft. As shown in table 2, the main effects of workplace incivility and EI entered in the second step accounted for a significant amount of variance beyond the demographic variables (ΔR² = .14, p < .01). Both workplace incivility and EI significantly predicted the theft (β = .16, p < .01 and β = -.16, p < .01, respectively). In step 3, the workplace incivility X EI interaction was significant (β = -.17, p < .01). The interaction term accounted for a significant amount of variance in theft beyond the main effects of workplace incivility and EI (ΔR² = .05, p < .01).

A fifth and final moderated multiple regression analysis was conducted to assess the incivility X EI interaction on withdrawal. In the second step of analysis, workplace incivility positively predicted withdrawal (β = .31, p < .01), while EI negatively predicted withdrawal (β = -.18, p < .01). The main effects accounted for a significant amount of variance in withdrawal beyond demographic variables (ΔR² = .30, p < .01). Finally, in step 3, the interaction of workplace incivility and EI was significant (β = -.12, p <.05), and explained a significant amount of variance in withdrawal beyond the main effects of workplace incivility and EI (ΔR² = .07, p < .01).

Interaction Plots
In line with Stone and Hollenbeck (1989) recommendations, we plotted significant workplace incivility X EI interactions across three levels of workplace incivility: at one standard deviation above the mean, at the mean, and at one standard deviation below the mean (see Figures 2 through 6).

Fig. 2: Workplace Incivility X EI interaction on Abuse

Fig. 3: Workplace Incivility X EI interaction on Production Deviance

Fig. 4: Workplace Incivility X EI interaction on Sabotage

Fig. 5: Workplace Incivility X EI interaction on Theft

Fig. 6: Workplace Incivility X EI interaction on Withdrawal

For abuse, the slopes for both the mean EI group, t(156) = 2.77, p < .01; and the low EI group, t(156) = 4.90, p < .01, were significantly different from 0 (Figure 2). For production deviance, the slopes for the mean EI group, t(156) = 3.34, p < .01; and the low EI group t(156) = 4.38, p < .01, were significantly different from 0 (Figure 3). For sabotage, the slopes for the mean EI group, t(156) = 2.49, p < .05; and the low EI group t(156) = 4.52, p < .01, were significantly different from 0 (Figure 4). For theft, the slopes for the mean EI group, t(156) = 3.31, p < .01; and the low EI group t(156) = 4.55, p < .01, were significantly different from 0 (Figure 5). Finally, for the withdrawal, the slopes for the high EI group t(156) = 2.66, p < .01; for the mean EI group, t(156) = 6.13, p < .01; and the low EI group t(156) = 6.08, p < .01, were significantly different from 0 (Figure 6).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study showed that there was a positive relationship between incivility and different facets of CWB. Many scholars have treated workplace incivility as workplace stressor/ deviant behavior and CWB as an emotional response to deal with incivility (see Chen & Spector, 1992; Fox & Spector, 1999). Different people respond to and cope with the uncivil environment differently. The severity of their responses ultimately determines the degree to which they cause damage to the organization.

Among CWB facets, withdrawal behavior was found to be the most prevalent response of the teaching faculty to uncivil treatment. This result supports the findings of the previous researchers who argue that withdrawal is a behavior that employees engage in while dealing with the workplace incivility (Crocker, 2005). They get even by shrinking their responsibilities and duties through late arrival to workplace and taking long breaks. Employees resort to these behaviors in order to avoid confronting worrying situation and accompanying stress (Krischer, Penney, & Hunter, 2010).

Findings of the present study also revealed that production deviance (intentionally working slowly, doing work incorrectly, or neglecting to follow procedures) was the second most prevalent behavior of the teaching faculty. These results confirm the previous researches which assert that employees use production deviance behavior “as a strategy to gain control over stressors and the accompanying negative emotional reactions” (Krischer et al., 2010, p. 155). It has also been found that sabotage and theft (which are high on CWB continuum) were the least preferred CWB responses of the teaching faculty to incivility (see Table 1). This finding suggests that nature of job is also an important factor in selection of CWB responses ranging from more severe to less severe.

From the results of this study, it is clear that EI played an important role in moderating the relationship between incivility and CWB. We found that EI was negatively correlated with CWB. This, in turn, suggests that people high in EI are low on different dimensions of CWB including abuse, production deviance, sabotage, theft and withdrawal compared to their counterparts who are low in EI. People high in EI tend to understand their emotions and control their behaviors in a much better way (Mayer, et al., 2000). Our study also revealed that people with low EI engage in CWB more frequently than their counterparts.

LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

First, the questionnaire was distributed at the peak of the semester due to which the response rate was poor and below expectations. Only 160 participants completed the survey, so it lessens the generalizability of the findings on the overall higher education institutions of Pakistan. Future researchers should increase the sample size to acquire better results. Moreover, the questionnaire was basically a tool of self-evaluation and its results might be influenced by self-bias (Glenn, 2004). It would be more appropriate that, the questionnaires should be distributed to the respondents as well as to their immediate supervisors and colleagues in order to get a better picture of the respondents. Third, in the present study we did not control for educational level, job tenure, job designation, and other related demographics of the sample. It is recommended that future studies should take into account these variables while analyzing the relationships among EI, workplace incivility and CWB behavior. Finally, since causality cannot be inferred with cross-sectional data, it is suggested that future studies would prefer longitudinal data and replicate the findings of the current study.

The variations in teachers’ responses to different facets of CWB suggest a new line of research for future researchers concerning the nature of jobs that employees hold and the facets of CWB that they would prefer to engage in either as planned behavior or as an emotional response to workplace stressor.

IMPLICATIONS

The analysis and conclusions showed a clear picture that the targets of uncivil behaviors produce deviant responses. Given the significant interactive and protective role that EI seems to play, organizations might focus more on promoting better levels of EI at all levels within a higher education institution. Similarly, CWB in its severe forms like sabotage and abuse, as well as in its less severe form like withdrawal behavior has proved to be a costly endeavor to the organizations. Therefore, organizations should pay due consideration to such practices Proper investigations should be carried out and appropriate actions should be taken to cope with such incidents.

Emotional intelligence emerged to have a significant moderating effect in the relationship between incivility and CWB. Since emotional intelligence competencies can be learnt, an implication for organizations can be to conduct regular training programs on EI. Emotional intelligence training may improve the employees’ ability in two ways: to refrain from involving in deviant behaviors; and to deal with the experiences of workplace stressful conditions.

CONCLUSION

This research has examined the relationship between incivility and counterproductive work behavior. The moderating effect of emotional intelligence was also examined in the relationship between CWB and incivility. The relationship between incivility and CWB was found to be positively significant but with varying degrees to the facets of CWB. Among CWB, withdrawal behavior was found to be the most prevalent practice of teaching faculty as response to incivility. Emotional Intelligence was negatively correlated with CWB and workplace incivility. The relationship was found to be negative between emotional Intelligence and Workplace Incivility. Moreover, emotional intelligence moderated the relationship between Incivility and CWB.

REFERENCES

1. 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.
2. Bruursema, K. (2004). Leadership style and the link with counterproductive work behavior (CWB): An investigation using the job-stress/CWB model. Master Thesis. University of South Florida, USA.
3. Caza, B. B. , & Cortina, L. M. (2007). From insult to injury: Explaining the impact of incivility. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 335‐350.
4. Chen, P. Y. , & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft, and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 177-184.
5. Clark, C. M. , & Springer, P. J. (2010). Academic nurse leaders’ role in fostering a culture of civility in nursing education. Journal of Nursing Education, 49, 319-325.
6. Cohen, J. , Cohen, P. , West, S. G. , & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
7. Cohen, T. R. , Panter, A. T. , & Turan, N. (2013). Predicting counterproductive work behavior from guilt proneness. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 45-53.
8. 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.
9. Crocker, R. M. (2005). Employee perceptions of managerial civility: Development and validation of a measurement scale. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Auburn University, USA.
10. Deshpande. (2005). The impact of emotional intelligence on counterproductive behaviour in China. Management Research News, 28(5), 75-85.
11. Douglas, C. , Frink, D. D. , & Ferris, G. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence as a moderator of the relationship between conscientiousness and performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(2), 2-13.
12. Fox, S. , & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915-931.
13. Fox, S. , & Spector, P. E. (2010). Instrumental counterproductive behaviour and the theory of planned behaviour: A “cold cognitive” approach to complement “hot affective” theories of CWB. In C. A Schriesheim & L. L. Neider (Eds.), Research in management: The dark side of management (pp. 93-114). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
14. Fox, S. , Spector, P. E. , & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291-309.
15. Frazier, P. A. , Tix, A. P. , & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(2), 115-134.
16. Glenn, G. (2004). Measuring emotional intelligence: Common ground and controversy. New York: Nova Science Publisher, Inc.
17. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
18. Gorgens-Ekermans, G. , & Brand, T. (2012). Emotional intelligence as a moderator in the stress-burnout relationship: a questionnaire study on nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 31(2), 2275-85.
19. Hoel, H. , Einarsen, S. , & Cooper, C. (2003). Organizational effects of bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives on research and practice. London: Taylor & Francis.
20. Jordan, P. J. , & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotional intelligence as a moderator of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 361-372.
21. Jung, H. S. , & Yoon, H. H. (2012). The effects of emotional intelligence on counterproductive work behaviors and organizational citizen behaviors among food and beverage employees in a deluxe hotel. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 369-378.
22. Karim, J. (2010). Examining the factor structure of Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale with the Pakistani general population sample. The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9(1), 32-44.
23. Keashly L. , & Jagatic, K. (2003). By any other name: American perspectives on workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel , D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper, (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives on research and practice. London: Taylor & Francis.
24. Kern, J. H. , & Grandey, A. A. (2009). Customer incivility as a social stressor: The role of race and racial identity for service employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 14(1), 46-47.
25. Khalid, S. A. , Kassim, K. M. , Ismail, M. , Noor, A. N. M. , Rahman, N. A. & Zain, R. S. (2009). Emotional intelligence and organizational citizenship behaviour as antecedents of students’ deviance. The International Journal of Business and Management, 4(7), 117-125.
26. Krischer, M. M. , Penney, L. M. , & Hunter, E. M. (2010). Can counterproductive work behaviors be productive? CWB as emotion-focused coping. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(2), 154-166.
27. Lim, S. , & 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.
28. Lopes, P. N. , Grewal, D. , Kadis, J. , Gall, M. , & Salovey, P. (2006). Evidence that emotional intelligence is related to job performance and affect and attitudes at work. Psicothema, 18, 132-138.
29. Martin, J. , Knopoff, K. , & Beckman, C. (1998). An alternative to bureaucratic impersonality and emotional labor: Bounder emotionality at the Body shop. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 429-469
30. Martin, R. J. , & Hine, D. W. (2005). Development and validation of the uncivil workplace behavior questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), 477-490.
31. Mayer, J. D. , Salovey, P. , & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 396-420). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32. McShane, S. L. , & Glinow, M. A. V. (2005). Organizational behavior (3^rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/ Irwin.
33. Mount, M. , Ilies, R. , & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviours: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59, 591-622.
34. Mustaine, E. E. , & Tewksbury, R. (2002). Workplace theft: An analysis of student-employee offenders and job attitudes. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 111-127.
35. Neuman, J. H. , & Baron, R. A. (1997). Aggression in the workplace. In R. A. Giacalone, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 37-67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
36. Pearson, C. M. , Andersson, L. M. , & Wegner, J. W. (2001). When workers flout convention: A study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 5, 1387-1419.
37. Pearson, C. M. , Andersson, L. M. , & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing an attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 123-137.
38. Penney, L. M. , & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777-796.
39. Petrides, K. V. , Frederickson, N. , & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performance and deviant behavior at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 277-293.
40. Roberts, S. J. (2012). Application of the stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior to incivility. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Retrieved from UMI ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Publication No. AAT 3503620. ProQuest Document ID: 2647195101.
41. Spector, P. E. , Fox, S. , Penney, L. M. , Bruursema, K. , Goh, A. , & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counter productivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446-460.
42. Stone, E. F. & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1989). Clarifying some controversial issues surrounding statistical procedures for detecting moderator variables: Empirical evidence and related matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 3-10.
43. Vickers, M. H. (2006). Writing what’s relevant: Workplace incivility in public administration — a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 28(1), 69-88.
44. Wong, C. S. , & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243-274.
45. Yin, L. C. (2010). Emotional intelligence as a moderator in the relationship between negative emotions and counterproductive work behaviours. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong.