UNSEEN INJUSTICE: INCIVILITY AS MODERN DISCRIMINATION … · 2017. 9. 7. · egories of generalized hostility in the workplace. Questions remain about how incivility relates to specific

UNSEEN INJUSTICE: INCIVILITY AS MODERNDISCRIMINATION IN ORGANIZATIONS

LILIA M. CORTINAUniversity of Michigan

This article advances a theory of incivility as a veiled manifestation of sexism andracism in organizations. To support this argument, I draw from social psychologicalresearch on modern discrimination. The result is a multilevel model of selectiveincivility, with determinants at the level of the person, organization, and society.Selective incivility could be one mechanism by which gender and racial disparitiespersist in American organizations, despite concerted efforts to eradicate bias. I dis-cuss scientific and practical implications.

Recent years have seen increasing scholar-ship on subtle, nonphysical manifestations ofinterpersonal mistreatment in the workplace, in-cluding general incivility. This term encom-passes low-intensity conduct that lacks a clearintent to harm but nevertheless violates socialnorms and injures targeted employees (Anders-son & Pearson, 1999; Cortina, Magley, Williams,& Langhout, 2001). In this paper I extend thenotion of incivility by examining it throughlenses of gender and race. The central argumentis that incivility, in some cases, is not “general”at all but instead represents contemporary man-ifestations of gender and racial bias in the work-place. That is, with the rise of taboos, policies,and laws prohibiting discrimination againstspecific social groups, blatant intentions andefforts to alienate women and minorities fromorganizational life are no longer tolerated. How-ever, one can mask discrimination (even withoutrealizing it) behind everyday acts of incivilityand still maintain an unbiased image. Thiswould be consistent with research demonstrat-ing that prejudices persist in covert forms withinsociety in general (e.g., Dovidio & Gaertner,1998) and within organizations in particular(e.g., Brief, Dietz, Cohen, Pugh, & Vaslow, 2000).

I begin the article with a recap of theory andfindings from research on workplace incivility.Next is an in-depth review of theories of moderndiscrimination, focusing on cognitive, affective,

social, and organizational antecedents. An inte-gration of these two bodies of literature thensupports the proposition that incivility can con-stitute a particularly insidious, behavioral man-ifestation of modern/contemporary/covert sex-ism and racism. The result is a multilevel modelof incivility as modern discrimination in organi-zations. In the latter half of the paper, I addressimplications of this “selective incivility” modelfor research, policy, and practice in organiza-tions. The following definition of workplace dis-crimination frames this work: “Unfair employ-ment discrimination [occurs] when persons in a‘social category’ . . . are put at a disadvantage inthe workplace relative to other groups with com-parable potential or proven success” (Dipboye &Halverson, 2004: 131).

This article’s novel contributions are fourfold.First, by building bridges with social psycholog-ical scholarship on discrimination, I extend theorganizational literature on antisocial work be-havior to address issues of race and gender.Most studies of workplace aggression, deviance,bullying, and so forth to date have focused al-most exclusively on “general” conduct irrespec-tive of social categories, without recognizingthat antisocial work behavior may often reflectbias against members of undervalued socialgroups. A second contribution of the presentwork is to the social psychology literature. Acommon criticism of social psychology (e.g.,Fiske, 2000) is that research on “discrimination”and “intergroup conflict” has addressed atti-tudes and affect in great detail, often to theneglect of action. Attitudes, stereotypes, andideologies are certainly important, but a com-plete understanding of intergroup relations re-

Portions of this paper were presented in April 2004 at theannual meeting of the Society for Industrial-OrganizationalPsychology, Chicago. Many thanks to Kim Lonsway, AbbyStewart, and Arzu Wasti for their valuable comments onearlier versions.

� Academy of Management Review2008, Vol. 33, No. 1, 55–75.

55Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyrightholder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

quires attention to intergroup behavior. The cur-rent article does just that by bringing to light thespecific behavioral experience of selective inci-vility. The few psychologists who have looked atactual discriminatory conduct have generallyfocused on “formal discrimination”—for exam-ple, unfair selection decisions (e.g., Brief et al.,2000; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000). In contrast, Itake an in-depth look at a form of “interpersonaldiscrimination,” which Hebl, Foster, Mannix,and Dovidio define as “nonverbal, paraverbal,and . . . verbal behaviors that occur in social in-teractions” (2002: 816); this represents a thirdcontribution of the present article. Finally, I in-tegrate concepts from organizational and socialpsychology, management science, and the lawto propose fruitful new directions for researchand practice in cases of selective incivility inthe workplace.

WORKPLACE INCIVILITY: DEFINITION,INCIDENCE, AND IMPACT

Andersson and Pearson define workplace in-civility as “low intensity deviant behavior withambiguous intent to harm the target, in violationof workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivilbehaviors are characteristically rude and dis-courteous, displaying a lack of regard for oth-ers” (1999: 457). They conceptualize this as a spe-cific form of employee deviance (Robinson &Bennett, 1995), which, in turn, represents a sub-set of antisocial employee behavior (Giacolone& Greenberg, 1997). When unambiguous inten-tions and expectations to harm the target ororganization are present, definitions of incivilityoverlap with psychological aggression (e.g.,Baron, 2004; Neuman, 2004). However, incivilitydiffers from psychological aggression when be-haviors lack clear, conscious intentionality.That is, although incivility may occasionallyhave visibly injurious objectives, it can often beattributed to other factors, such as the instiga-tor’s ignorance, oversight, or personality; intent,whether present or not, is ambiguous to one ormore of the parties involved (Andersson & Pear-son, 1999; Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001).However, workplace incivility, by definition, iscompletely distinct from physical aggressionand violence (e.g., VandenBos & Bulatao, 1996).

Incivility is perhaps one of the most pervasiveforms of antisocial behavior in the workplace.To assess incivility prevalence, my colleagues

and I surveyed employees in a range of worksettings; the incidence rates we uncovered illus-trate the ubiquity of this phenomenon. For ex-ample, 71 percent of a court employee sample(Cortina et al., 2001), 75 percent of a universityemployee sample (Cortina & Magley, 2007), and79 percent of a law enforcement sample (Cor-tina, Lonsway, & Magley, 2004) reported thatthey had encountered some form of uncivil con-duct at work in recent years. Other researchershave reported similarly high rates of relatedworkplace behaviors: for example, “generalizedharassment”—75 percent (Einarsen & Raknes,1997); “generalized workplace harassment”—64percent (Rospenda, 2002); and “rude or disre-spectful treatment”—67 percent (Neuman, 2004).

The proliferation of incivility in the workplacehas very real, very negative consequences foremployees, workgroups, and organizations.Barling and colleagues (Barling et al., 1996;Barling, Rogers, & Kelloway, 2001) have theo-rized that experiences of abusive behaviors atwork lead to negative mood, cognitive distrac-tion, fear, and perceived injustice. Others (e.g.,Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001;Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004) have added dam-aged social identity and anger to this list. Thesecognitive and affective reactions, in turn, ad-versely influence targets’ occupational, psycho-logical, and physical health. Some haveproposed that these negative consequences ex-tend beyond the targeted employee to affect by-standers, workgroups, and whole organizations(Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Miner-Rubino &Cortina, 2004).

Data are emerging to support theories thatalthough incivility may be subtle, its effects arenot. Empirical research suggests that employeestargeted with uncivil behavior experiencegreater job stress and dissatisfaction, lower cre-ativity, cognitive distraction, and psychologicaldistress. Possibly in an attempt to dampen theincreased stressfulness of work, targets also usemore substances. Moreover, incivility disruptsemployee relationships and derails cooperation,rending the social fabric of the workgroup. Per-sonnel targeted with pervasive incivility ulti-mately lose commitment to their organizationsand exit at higher rates (Cortina et al., 2001, 2002;Lim & Cortina, 2004; Pearson, Andersson, &Porath, 2000; Pearson et al., 2001; Pearson &Porath, 2004; Richman et al., 1999; Rospenda,2002). Even employees who merely observe un-

56 JanuaryAcademy of Management Review

civil treatment (e.g., toward colleagues) showlower job satisfaction and commitment andgreater job burnout and turnover intentions;such observer effects emerge even while con-trolling for negative affectivity, so they cannotbe attributed to a negative dispositional stancemaking observers more attuned to negativestimuli in their environments (Miner-Rubino &Cortina, 2006). These adverse individual andcollective consequences have financial implica-tions for employers, who must absorb the costsof employee distraction and discontentment, jobaccidents, substance abuse, sick leave, workteam conflict, productivity decline, and turnover.

Explaining how such a “low-grade” phenome-non as incivility can have such widespread con-sequences, my colleagues and I (Cortina & Mag-ley, 2004; Cortina et al., 2001) have asserted thatmany uncivil work behaviors fall into the categoryof daily hassles—that is, routine nuisances of ev-eryday life (e.g., Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman,1984). Daily hassles lack the drama and intensityof major life events. Nevertheless, chronic, low-keystressors that repeat over time can “wear down”an individual, both psychologically and physi-cally (e.g., Wheaton, 1997). Moreover, targeted em-ployees may have difficulty developing effectivemeans of coping with and controlling such ambig-uous phenomena. Hopelessness and resignationmay result (Deitch et al., 2004). Following Richmanand colleagues’ (1996; Rospenda, 2002) reasoning,personnel might also find interpersonal hostilityhighly unexpected and unnecessary in the workenvironment (in contrast to task-based stressors,which might seem more routine and thereforemore tolerable in that context). For all of thesereasons, daily interpersonal stressors at work canaccumulate to have a greater impact on psycho-logical and health outcomes than major time-limited disturbances (e.g., Cortina & Magley, 2004;Cortina et al., 2001; Deitch et al., 2004; Lazarus,1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

In sum, prior research has laid important foun-dations in defining incivility, delineating its im-pact, and articulating its relationship to other cat-egories of generalized hostility in the workplace.Questions remain about how incivility relates tospecific forms of workplace mistreatment, such asthat based on sex and race.1 Incivility, sexual ha-

rassment, and racial harassment share certainfeatures, all entailing behaving in an antisocialway; degrading, offending, or intimidating tar-gets; and violating standards of interpersonal re-spect. In addition, similar motivations may drivethese different forms of abuse, such as instigators’pursuit of social power/dominance, disregard forauthority and norms, desire for valued resources,self-presentational goals, and value differenceswith the target (Andersson & Pearson, 1999;Buchanan, 2005; Cleveland & Kerst, 1993; Deitch etal., 2004; James, Lovato, & Khoo, 1994; Lim & Cor-tina, 2005; O’Leary-Kelly, Paetzold, & Griffin, 2000;Pearson & Porath, 2004; Sanchez & Brock, 1996;Schneider, Hitlan, & Radhakrishnan, 2000; Thacker& Ferris, 1991).

In addition, perhaps incivility, sexual harass-ment, and racial harassment are, at times, oneand the same. This may seem illogical, giventhat incivility is facially neutral by definition.That is, “generally” uncivil behaviors have noovert reference to gender, race, or other socialcategory. This nevertheless does not rule out thepossibility that incivility sometimes representscovert manifestations of gender and racial biasin the workplace. The theory advanced in thisarticle will elucidate this possibility. Such selec-tive incivility could be one mechanism by whichgender and racial disparities persist in organi-zations, despite concerted legislative, judicial,and organizational efforts to eradicate bias.

CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES ONDISCRIMINATION

The last four decades have seen sweepingchanges in antidiscrimination laws, practices,and ideologies in the United States. Owing toTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and re-lated reforms, blatant employment discrimina-tion based on gender and race (among otherfactors) has become illegal. Women and peopleof color now enjoy much greater access to occu-pational and economic opportunities than in thepast. Along with these tangible changes, atti-tudes toward women’s paid employment, andwhite attitudes toward ethnic minorities, havebecome more positive, tolerant, and accepting.

1 Of course, workplace mistreatment can be based onother social dimensions as well, such as sexual orientation,

age, disability status, and so on. The theory elaborated inthis paper focuses primarily on gender and race; however,similar arguments could be developed for other character-istics that divide and stigmatize individuals.

2008 57Cortina

Public expression of sexist and racist beliefshas undergone a radical decline (Benokraitis,1997; Brief & Barsky, 2000; Brief et al., 1997, 2000;Brief & Hayes, 1997; Dipboye & Halverson, 2004;Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; Dovidio, Gaertner, &Bachman, 2001; Operario & Fiske, 1998; Swim,Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995; Tougas, Brown,Beaton, & Joly, 1995). The importance of thesechanges cannot be overstated.

In spite of progress, gender and racial dispar-ities endure in American organizations, particu-larly at the highest levels, where power is mostconcentrated (e.g., Benokraitis, 1997; Brief et al.,1997; Brief & Hayes, 1997; Pettigrew & Martin,1987; Valian, 1998). This is true across a range ofindustries, from the military to the federal gov-ernment to the Fortune 500 (Dovidio, Gaertner, &Bachman, 2001). According to Census and De-partment of Labor statistics, women and ethnic/racial minorities still receive less pay, facegreater unemployment, and work in lower-status jobs than their white male counterparts;this remains true even after controlling for edu-cation, experience, and skill level (Brief et al.,1997; Dipboye & Halverson, 2004). In 2002 theEqual Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC) received 84,442 complaints of employ-ment discrimination; two out of every three al-legations were based on either gender or race(U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-sion, 2003). Illustrating the striking persistenceof these forms of bias, Benokraitis (1997) notedthat, in the mid 1990s, white men constitutedone-third of the U.S. population. At the sametime, they made up “85% of tenured professors,85% of partners in law firms, 80% of the U.S.House of Representatives, 90% of the U.S. Sen-ate, 95% of Fortune 500 CEOs . . . and 100% of allUS presidents” (1997: 5).

One might wonder how discrimination couldbe so robust against several decades of legal,organizational, and attitudinal reform. Somesuggest that these changes may have been ef-fective in reducing blatant or “old-fashioned”discrimination, but subtle discrimination liveson in the world of work (e.g., Benokraitis, 1997;Brief & Barsky, 2000; Brief, Buttram, Elliott,Reizenstein, & McCline, 1995; Deitch et al., 2004;Dipboye & Halverson, 2004). In fact, contempo-rary antifemale and antiminority bias is some-times so ambiguous that instigators are un-aware of its discriminatory nature, and theytypically have rational, nondiscriminatory ex-

planations for their conduct. As Dipboye andHalverson explain, “Much of today’s discrimina-tion takes a more subtle form and has slippedout of the light into the dark side of the organi-zation” (2004: 132).

The ambiguity inherent in subtle discrimina-tion makes it particularly difficult for targetsand managers to recognize, much less control.Meyerson and Fletcher compellingly summarizethis situation as it relates to gender:

As we enter the year 2000, the glass ceiling re-mains. What will it take to finally shatter it? Nota revolution . . . the women’s movement [once]used radical rhetoric and legal action to drive outovert discrimination, but most of the barriers thatpersist today are insidious—a revolution couldn’tfind them to blast away. Rather, gender discrim-ination now is so deeply embedded in organiza-tional life as to be virtually indiscernible. Eventhe women who feel its impact are often hard-pressed to know what hit them (2000: 127).

Similar arguments can be made for persistentbut subtle racial bias in the workplace. Theglass ceiling holds strong in contemporary or-ganizations, impeding women and employees ofcolor from advancing to the same levels and atthe same rates as their white male contempo-raries. Moreover, “glass walls” keep women andminorities confined to certain occupational cat-egories (Brief & Barsky, 2000; Rowe, 1990). Theseconcealed barriers likely take many forms, oneof which may be selective incivility. Theories ofmodern discrimination explain how and whythis might be the case.

To account for persistent gender and racialinequalities in the United States, social psychol-ogists have identified various forms of moderndiscrimination. In the realm of race relations,these concepts include aversive racism (Dovidio& Gaertner, 1998; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986), sym-bolic racism (Sears, 1988, 1998), and modern rac-ism (Brief et al., 2000; McConahay, 1986; Mc-Conahay & Hough, 1976). The gender biasliterature refers to similar phenomena, such asmodern sexism (Swim, Scott, Sechrist, Campbell,& Stangor, 1995), neosexism (Tougas et al., 1995),and contemporary sexism (Jackson, Esses, &Burris, 2001). Although each conceptualization ofcontemporary discrimination is slightly differ-ent, the mythologies behind the behaviors arewell-represented by McConahay’s depiction ofmodern racism against blacks:

The principal tenets of modern racism are these:(1) Discrimination is a thing of the past because


Blacks now have the freedom to compete in themarketplace and to enjoy those things they canafford. (2) Blacks are pushing too hard, too fast,and into places where they are not wanted. (3)These tactics and demands are unfair. (4) There-fore, recent gains are undeserved and the pres-tige granting institutions of society are givingBlacks more attention and the concomitant statusthan they deserve (1986: 92–93).

Modern racists see these views as empiricalfact rather than opinion or racist ideology. Infact, they ostensibly endorse egalitarian values,publicly condemn racism, and strongly identifythemselves as nonprejudiced. This explicit re-jection of overt bias—combined with implicitantiminority (or antifemale) beliefs—yields sub-tle, often unintentional and unconscious formsof discrimination. However, to maintain an egal-itarian identity, modern racists only engage indiscrimination when there is a plausible, non-racial (or nongendered) explanation for the dif-ferential treatment—for instance, a businessjustification. Absent a reasonable, nonpreju-diced rationale for disparate conduct, discrimi-nation does not manifest (Brief et al., 1995, 1997,2000; James, Brief, Dietz, & Cohen, 2001; Mc-Conahay, 1986; McConahay & Hough, 1976). Thisallows the would-be instigators to protect them-selves from charges of racism.

Contemporary forms of bias are distinct from“old-fashioned” sexism and racism, character-ized by blatant antipathy, beliefs that womenand people of color are inherently inferior, en-dorsement of pejorative stereotypes, and sup-port for open acts of discrimination. Such anti-quated beliefs and overtly discriminatoryconduct are becoming less and less common(Brief et al., 1997; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; Mc-Conahay, 1986; McConahay & Hough, 1976;Sears, 1988, 1998; Swim et al., 1995; Tougas et al.,1995). For this reason, scholars are beginning torecognize that

singular attention to major discriminatory acts inthe workplace is insufficient for explaining theexperience of discrimination many minoritymembers experience on the job, and may be anincreasingly inadequate research focus in the fu-ture as the social and political landscape shiftstoward newer forms of racism and discrimination(Deitch et al., 2003: 1300–1301).

Different theories have emerged about the de-velopmental history of modern discrimination.One is that this “second-generation” form ofbias has recently arisen to replace old-fash-

ioned sexism and racism, now deemed undesir-able and, at times, unlawful (Benokraitis & Fea-gin, 1995; Brief et al., 1997; Forbes, Adams-Curtis,& White, 2004; Pettigrew & Martin, 1987; Tougaset al., 1995). A second argument is that prejudicehas had a long history in our society, persistingover time in different manifestations, as affectedby each sociohistorical moment. An elaboratedversion of this hypothesis is that negative atti-tudes toward women and ethnic minorities havecontinued despite social pressure to renounceprejudice; rather than going away, the negativeattitudes become stored in memory and changefrom explicit to implicit (Dovidio, Gaertner,Kawakami, & Hodson, 2002). A final possibility isthat subtle, unintentional, unconscious forms ofdiscrimination are not new; what may be new istheir visibility, now that blatant discriminationno longer overshadows them. Regardless oftheir developmental trajectory, prejudice anddiscrimination seem to be alive and well in thecontemporary American workplace.

Research has identified various factors thatfuel discrimination, including cognition, affect,and the organizational and societal context.Some of these same driving forces could alsounderlie discriminatory forms of workplace in-civility, so here I highlight studies of each cate-gory of antecedent. The resulting model followsrecent multilevel trends in the organizationalsciences (e.g., Klein & Kozlowski, 2000), attend-ing to influences at the level of the individual,the organization, and society. The review belowis intended to be illustrative rather than exhaus-tive—to demonstrate how scholarship on biasand discrimination can inform science and prac-tice related to incivility in organizations. Figure1 displays a conceptual model of the ideas thatfollow.

Person-Level Explanations

Research on modern discrimination has pri-marily attended to intraindividual cognitive andaffective events that drive a person to discrimi-nate.

Cognition. Theories of social cognition lie atthe heart of the literature on modern discrimina-tion, which focuses in particular on categoriza-tion and stereotyping. Social categorization re-fers to the cognitive process by which our mindsplace people into social categories based onsalient cues, such as gender, race, and age. This

2008 59Cortina

is argued to be a natural, automatic, and oftenunconscious process. This process has variousbenefits: easing the cognitive burden, simplify-ing perception and judgment, and helping usmake sense of an intricate social environment.Without social categorization, the complexity ofperson perception would be overwhelming (e.g.,Devine & Monteith, 1999; Dovidio, Gaertner, &Bachman, 2001; Fiske, 2000; Jones, 2002; Operario& Fiske, 1998; Stone, Stone, & Dipboye, 1992).

Categorization of a person into a particulargroup often triggers stereotypes—that is, preva-lent and overgeneralized knowledge, beliefs,and expectancies about members of that socialcategory (e.g., Hilton & von Hipple, 1996; Jones,2002; Miller & Turnbull, 1986; Stone et al., 1992).In short, stereotypes are the “cultural baggage”that social categories carry (Operario & Fiske,1998: 40). They allow perceivers to understand(often inaccurately) and make predictions aboutothers, averting the onerous task of learningin-depth details about each individual encoun-tered. Indeed, we tend not to seek further per-sonal information after placing someone into asocial category, instead basing impression for-mation largely on stereotypes associated withthat category (e.g., Operario & Fiske, 1998; Stoneet al., 1992).

Stereotypes come in explicit and implicit va-rieties. Explicit stereotypes operate at the con-

scious level and occur with intention, effort,awareness, and control. Attitudes and stereo-types can also be implicit, however, occurringunintentionally, unconsciously, and effortlessly(e.g., Banaji & Dasgupta, 1998; Baron & Banaji,2006; Devine, 1989; Devine & Monteith, 1999;Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Jones, 2002; Valian,1998). The implicit variant of stereotyping is par-ticularly implicated in modern discrimination.That is, a modern sexist or racist unknowinglyapplies negative stereotypes to women and peo-ple of color, which can lead the stereotyper tomistreat members of these social groups. How-ever, the mistreatment only arises in situationswhen there is a plausible, nonprejudiced expla-nation for the behavior so that the instigator canmaintain a nondiscriminatory self-image.

Stereotypes of outgroup members can also be“ambivalent,” containing both positive and neg-ative elements. That is, they need not reflectuniform antipathy or contempt. Across years ofstereotyping research (e.g., Allport, 1954; Fiske,Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Glick & Fiske, 1999,2001), scholars have identified two core stereo-type dimensions: warmth and competence.Some groups are the object of benevolent orpaternalistic stereotypes, being perceived aswarm but generally incompetent; these includehousewives, the elderly, and the disabled. Oth-ers, in contrast, are seen as low in warmth but

FIGURE 1Integrated Model of Incivility As Modern Discrimination in Organizations


(overly) high in competence, so they are targetedwith a more hostile, envious stereotype; thesegroups include black professionals, careerwomen, and Asians. Hostility toward these “en-vied” outgroups becomes amplified when theyachieve success, status, and power, posing acompetitive threat to the ingroup.

Affect. Some scholars claim that, compared tostereotypic cognition, prejudice is the better pre-dictor of discriminatory behavior (Fiske, 2000).Prejudice refers specifically to an affective reac-tion to people solely because of their member-ship in a specific social category. Particularlyrelevant are the categories of ingroup and out-group. That is, social categorization processeslead all people to categorize others as “one ofus” versus “one of them.” This gives rise to pos-itive affective biases toward ingroup members,coupled with negative feelings toward individ-uals in the outgroup (Fiske, 2002; Jones, 2002;Operario & Fiske, 1998).

The negative affect toward the outgroup cantake different forms, not simply amounting to ahomogeneous feeling of contempt. For example,research by Fiske and colleagues (2002) hasshown that people tend to feel “paternalisticprejudice” toward groups stereotyped as warmbut incompetent; this prejudice entails a strongsense of pity, without admiration or envy.Groups stereotyped as cold but competent con-jure up the opposite emotional profile: envy andadmiration, but little pity. Regarding these lat-ter findings, Fiske et al. wrote that “admirationfor high-competence out-groups . . . coexistedwith envy, suggesting a volatile mix of emotionsthat could create hostility when groups feelthreatened” (2002: 897).

Diffuse, unconscious antifemale and antimi-nority feelings are thought to underlie moderndiscrimination (McConahay, 1986; McConahay &Hough, 1976; Sears, 1988, 1998; Swim et al., 1995;Tougas et al., 1995). Dovidio, Gaertner, andBachman (2001) have emphasized the subtlety ofthese negative emotions in aversive racists, whoexperience mild fear, disgust, uneasiness, andindifference when they encounter ethnic minor-ities. This contrasts with “the open flame of ra-cial hatred” that fuels traditional racism (2001:419). In addition, Jackson and colleagues (2001:49) have shown that an important component ofcontemporary sexism is greater feelings of es-teem (i.e., respect) for men than women—a dif-ferential, affective “gut reaction” to social

groups. Because this visceral response towardmembers of particular social groups is outsideconscious awareness and control, modern sex-ists and racists can maintain a nonprejudicedself-concept.

Situational Explanations

A complete understanding of workplace dis-crimination requires attention to the surround-ing context—at the level of both the immediateorganization and the larger society. These con-texts provide the proximal and distal backdropsof discriminatory cognitions, emotions, and be-haviors in the workplace. The shaded, concen-tric ovals surrounding the model in Figure 1convey the pervasive influence of context on allaspects of this process. In social psychologicalresearch on modern discrimination, scholarshave, to some extent, discussed the societal con-text, so this review of situational factors beginsthere. Next will come the workplace context,which is discussed more in the organizationalsciences.

Societal context. All organizations operatewithin a larger society/culture, which certainlyaffects the unfolding of discrimination. Histori-cally speaking, racism and sexism have a longtradition in American history, and people tend tointernalize the values and beliefs of their cul-ture. Not long ago in this country, women weredenied the right to vote, own property, and ma-triculate in many institutions of higher educa-tion; employers could openly fire or refuse tohire women solely on the basis of their gender.Likewise, “the periods of slavery and Jim Crowforced African Americans, unlike any other eth-nic group, into a legalized second-class citizen-ship for over 300 years” (Sears, 1998: 79). OtherU.S. ethnic minority groups have also encoun-tered oppression in policies of mass internment,forced expulsion from their homelands, discrim-inatory immigration practices, and antimiscege-nation laws (Operario & Fiske, 1998).

Although many of these overt discriminatorypractices have since been abandoned, the struc-ture of society remains such that men andwhites tend to occupy different social roles thanwomen (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Eagly & Wood,1999) and ethnic minorities (Dovidio, Gaertner, &Bachman, 2001; Sears, 1998), which helps to sus-tain stereotypes. Moreover, people growing upin the United States still encounter stereotypic

2008 61Cortina

imagery in cartoons, books, films, and other cul-tural media (Brief & Barsky, 2000; Fiske, 2002;Operario & Fiske, 1998). This social heritagemaintains prejudice against women and peopleof color. It also follows individuals into theirplaces of work: “Employees come to the organi-zation with heavy cultural and social baggageobtained from interactions in other social con-texts” (Scott, 1992: 20).

The structure of society also perpetuates un-equal distributions of power, and asymmetricalpower combined with prejudice sets the stagefor oppression. Powerful people often seek topreserve the status quo in order to bolster theirown status, maintain access to valued re-sources, and increase personal and collectiveself-esteem (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Bachman,2001; Fiske, 1993, 2000, 2001, 2002; Jones, 2002;Operario & Fiske, 1998; Tajfel & Turner, 1986).Power also gives individuals at the top of thesocial structure the tools to translate their bi-ases into discriminatory conduct. With respectto race, Operario and Fiske argue that “preju-dice alone does not determine racism; everyonehas prejudices, because all people prefer theirgroup over others. History and society conferpower to certain groups, granting them exces-sive ability to exercise their prejudice” (1998: 49).In contrast, powerlessness necessitates depen-dence on and acquiescence to the demands ofthe powerful (Fiske, 1993; Jones, 2002; Operario &Fiske, 1998). These social structural forces pro-vide prime conditions for discrimination tothrive, in ways both blatant and subtle.

Organizational context. Turning now to themore immediate context, the organizational en-vironment should play an important role in ei-ther enabling or inhibiting discrimination. It isalso a level of context that seems particularlymalleable—more so than the social structuralcontext, given the difficulties inherent in effect-ing change at the broad societal level. However,social psychologists have largely ignored theworkplace in studies of modern discrimination.The focus of this review therefore now switchesto field research in organizational psychology.This literature suggests that several features ofthe work environment are especially relevant todiscrimination: policy, leadership, and groupnorms.

Many U.S. organizations presently have poli-cies that reflect Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of1964—protecting certain classes of employees

(including women and personnel of color) fromdiscrimination or harassment based on socialcategory membership. Numerous scholars, how-ever, emphasize that a good policy is necessarybut not sufficient to inhibit discriminatory andantisocial work behavior; consistent enforce-ment of that policy is paramount (e.g., O’Leary-Kelly et al., 2000; Riger, 1991; Williams, Fitzger-ald, & Drasgow, 1999). To implement policieseffectively, strong leaders must be present.

Leaders set the tone for the entire organiza-tion, and employees look to them for cues aboutwhat constitutes acceptable conduct. Organiza-tions tend to have fewer problems with (blatant)discrimination when their authority figures es-tablish clear expectations for respectful behav-ior, model nondiscriminatory values and con-duct, take discrimination complaints seriously,and sanction those who discriminate. Argu-ments and evidence supporting this claim haveemerged particularly in studies of sexual ha-rassment (e.g., Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gel-fand, & Magley, 1997; Hulin, Fitzgerald, & Dras-gow, 1996; O’Leary-Kelly et al., 2000; Pryor,Giedd, & Williams, 1995; Williams et al., 1999). Ina similar vein, organizational authorities cansend messages to employees that either pro-mote or inhibit racial discrimination (Brief et al.,1995, 1997, 2000).

Another feature of the organizational contextthat can influence discrimination is its local so-cial norms (Dipboye & Halverson, 2004). Theneed for belonging and acceptance by ingroupmembers is a powerful motivator for human be-havior (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Fiske,2000), including organizational behavior (Wil-liams, 1998; Williams & Sommer, 1997). In fact,personnel often work in groups or teams, facingpressure to conform to group norms. Even with-out a formal “team” structure, many organiza-tions foster a psychological sense of community,and informal social norms arise (Heller, 1989;Pretty & MacCarthy, 1991; Sarason, 1974). Groupnorms “not only define reality for group mem-bers but also communicate how members canobtain the approval and avoid the criticisms offellow group members” (Dipboye & Halverson,2004: 145). As a result of these group processes,people adapt their cognitions, emotions, and be-haviors to fit better into the social world of work.Thus, when coworkers convey expectations foror model biased behavior, an employee is morelikely to follow suit and engage in discrimina-


tion (Brief et al., 2000; Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly,1998).

Person-Situation Interactional Explanations

With a few exceptions, the organizational con-text literature reviewed above focuses primarilyon overt discrimination. Drawing on Dipboyeand Halverson’s (2004) reasoning, we find thatthe picture becomes more complicated when weconsider how the organizational environmentmight influence covert discrimination. The orga-nization’s implicit or explicit support for dis-crimination (as indicated by lax enforcement orabsence of a nondiscrimination policy, permis-sive leader behavior, and sexist or racist norms)could create an immediate social context thatpromotes discriminatory conduct. However, em-ployees bring their own personal convictionsand affective tendencies to that context. The re-sult is a person-by-situation interaction that de-termines whether or not discriminatory behavioroccurs and, if it does, whether it is overt versuscovert and implicit versus explicit. Figure 2 sum-marizes how person and situation factors jointlyinfluence discriminatory behavior.

As Figure 2 demonstrates, when we cross theorganizational context and individual tenden-cies, (at least) four different behavioral possibil-ities emerge. The lower left quadrant representsthe ideal situation: a nonbiased individualworks for an organization that, likewise, does

not permit biased conduct; that employee willlikely not discriminate against women and mi-norities. Even if the employee unconsciouslyendorses negative beliefs or feelings towardfemale or minority coworkers, a strong antidis-criminatory context should prevent that per-son from acting on his or her implicit biases(Brief et al., 2000).

The opposite situation appears in the upperright quadrant: when a biased employee worksfor a bias-tolerant company, the likelihood ofovert discrimination (e.g., sexual and racial ha-rassment) is high. This employee may be fullyaware of and open about the biased nature ofhis or her conduct, and the organization does notmotivate the individual to restrain his or herprejudices.

Note that in both of these situations the indi-vidual’s approach (pro or con) to bias is in linewith that of the organizational environment. Adifferent picture emerges in the case of individ-uals whose feelings and beliefs about discrimi-nation are in conflict with those advanced bythe organization (Dipboye & Halverson, 2004).This disconnect fosters ideal conditions for co-vert discrimination.

The lower right quadrant of Figure 2 portraysa situation in which a biased employee worksfor an organization that deters discriminatoryconduct. Motivation to avoid sanctions, to re-main in the organization, and to fit in with theworkgroup could inhibit the employee from ex-

FIGURE 2Person-by-Organization Influences on Discriminatory Behavior

2008 63Cortina

pressing visible bias (i.e., no blatant sexual orracial harassment). However, these organization-al influences might only drive discrimination“underground.” In other words, in lieu of open,overt acts of hostility, the employee may expresspersonal biases against female coworkers andcolleagues of color covertly (Dipboye & Halver-son, 2004). Concealing discrimination in thisway could be a conscious choice on the part ofthe employee.

The upper left quadrant applies to two differ-ent types of employees, although the behavioraloutcome is the same. In one situation an em-ployee with no implicit or explicit biasesagainst women and minorities works for an or-ganization in which there is pressure (e.g., frompeers) to engage in sexist or racist behavior.Assuming that the employee is motivated to re-main with the organization (e.g., for financial orprofessional reasons), the conflict between theindividual and the immediate context may yielddiscrimination that is quite subtle. That is, theperson is ideologically opposed to sexism andracism and therefore unlikely to engage know-ingly in overtly discriminatory behavior. Thisperson, however, spends forty (or more) hoursper week working in an antifemale and/or anti-minority climate. His or her fundamental needfor belonging, acceptance, and security couldfoster covert discrimination against womenand/or colleagues of color, as a means of “fittingin” in the discriminatory environment. The bi-ased conduct would need to be subtle and ra-tionalizable, and perhaps even unconscious, forthe employee to maintain an unbiased self-image.

A second possibility for the upper left quad-rant is that an employee self-identifies as non-prejudiced but implicitly harbors negativethoughts and feelings toward women or peopleof color. This person also works in a context thatis in some way antifemale or antiminority. Thisenvironment permits and perhaps even encour-ages the employee to act on implicit biases, butexplicit discrimination (e.g., sexual or racial ha-rassment) would be aversive to his or her egal-itarian identity. Instead of overtly discriminat-ing against undervalued social groups, theemployee could disproportionately target themwith negative behavior that is too subtle andfacially neutral to appear biased. This antiso-cial conduct would be a concealed, uninten-

tional, unconscious form of discrimination (Dip-boye & Halverson, 2004).

WORKPLACE INCIVILITY AS MODERNDISCRIMINATION

How might social psychological concepts ofmodern/covert/aversive discrimination informour understanding of incivility in the work-place? These theories suggest different paths toselective incivility. In one case reasonable, for-ward-thinking, tolerant employees unknowinglytarget women and minorities with dispropor-tionate incivility, despite being explicitly op-posed to sexism and racism. That is, the employ-ees’ implicitly stereotypic attitudes, preferencefor ingroup members, motivation to maintain so-cial power, and so forth could give rise to subtlebiases against the outgroup. Lax antidiscrimi-nation policies, permissive leadership behavior,and antisocial models in the workplace couldset the stage for employees to act on those bi-ases. Cultural traditions of sexism, racism, andasymmetrical power compound the situation.These instigators might have plausible, nonra-cial, and nongendered explanations for the un-civil conduct (e.g., “I didn’t see you,” “I’m havinga bad day,” “I thought you were done speak-ing”)—explanations that they themselves be-lieve.

In other cases selective incivility might not beso innocent, because “some people may be par-ticularly motivated to think in stereotypic waysand may use controlled processing to promotestereotype use” (Devine & Monteith, 1999: 356,note 1). For example, an employee may con-sciously experience blatant antipathy towardwomen and minorities and make no attempt toprevent it from influencing his or her behaviortoward coworkers, but may hide prejudice be-hind the guise of “general” incivility. This at-tempt at concealment may be particularly likelyif a biased employee works in an organizationwith strong nondiscrimination policies andnorms, enforced by strong leaders. Overt disre-spect (e.g., harassment) of women and minori-ties would not be tolerated in such a context, sothe employee must find more discreet and ra-tionalizable methods of expressing bias; selec-tive incivility is one means toward this end. Thatis, bias may emerge in the form of low-leveldeviance that, absent any overtly sexist or racistcontent, can be attributed to something less ob-


jectionable than prejudice (e.g., instigator over-sight, personality, work overload). In this exam-ple the employee can explain the conduct in away that has nothing to do with gender or race,but this would be a deceitful “cover-up” for bias.

A third scenario could be that an employeehas strong egalitarian values, both explicit andimplicit, but works alongside coworkers who ex-press sexism and racism on a regular basis. Theemployee is caught in a quandary: not goingalong with the biased conduct could lead toostracism from the peer group, which constitutesa significant part of the employee’s social world,but participating in blatantly biased behaviorwould be antithetical to the employee’s valuesand, thus, highly aversive. One means of solv-ing this dilemma would be to target women andpeople of color with subtle disrespect—that is,incivility. The discriminatory nature of this con-duct would fit in with group norms, and thelow-level (possibly unconscious) nature of thedeviance might be tolerable for the instigator,who prides him or herself on being nonsexistand nonracist.

Given the theories and scenarios reviewedabove, I propose that incivility is not always an“equal opportunity” form of antisocial work be-havior. Specifically, in many organizationswomen and ethnic minority employees likelyexperience more uncivil treatment than menand whites. This should be especially true fororganizations that lack strong nondiscrimina-tion policies, have leaders who turn a blind eyeto (or even model) antifemale and antiminorityconduct, and employ individuals who openly ex-press bias.

In many cases disproportionate incivility to-ward women and people of color would likelycomprise the most ambiguous forms of disre-spectful conduct (e.g., interrupting an employee,failing to include an employee in professionalcamaraderie, ignoring an employee). These sub-tle behaviors could be attributed to many factorsother than race or gender (e.g., instigator over-sight, target hypersensitivity), making it partic-ularly difficult to label them as discriminatory.They are thus means by which personnel canmistreat women and people of color while main-taining a nonprejudiced image to themselvesand others. The apparent neutrality of this be-havior could avert disciplinary actions relatedto Title VII violation.

It could be, however, that more transparentforms of incivility (e.g., rumor spreading, accu-sations of incompetence, anger outbursts) wouldnot show intergroup differences. These behav-iors, when targeted at female and minority em-ployees disproportionately, might be perceivedas sexist or racist, which would be aversive tothe instigator’s egalitarian self-concept. Thismight also trigger organizational or legal sanc-tions. Therefore, it makes sense that many insti-gators (those who want to avoid penalties orlabels as sexist/racist) would refrain from bla-tant forms of discriminatory disrespect.

This profile of findings would be highly con-sistent with modern understandings of discrim-ination. For example, aversive racism theory(e.g., Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; Dovidio, Gaert-ner, & Bachman, 2001; Dovidio, Gaertner, Nie-mann, & Snider, 2001) suggests that discrimina-tion will not emerge in situations where thediscriminatory nature of the conduct is appar-ent, either to the instigator or others. This isbecause “aversive racists” consciously endorsevalues of egalitarianism and justice and con-demn prejudice both internally and externally.However, these same individuals implicitly har-bor negative emotions and cognitions towardminorities, driving them to discriminate in sub-tle or rationalizable ways. That is, they discrim-inate (1) when the biased nature of the behavioris not obvious or (2) when a negative responsecan be attributed to something other than race.Both of these descriptions fit many manifesta-tions of workplace incivility.

From the target’s perspective, who would bemost at risk for selective incivility? According totheories of ambivalent stereotyping (e.g., Fiskeet al., 2002; Glick & Fiske, 1999, 2001) and inter-group competition (e.g., Jackman, 1994), the mostvulnerable might be professionally and eco-nomically successful women and minorities—those who are perceived as highly competentand advancing in ways that threaten the domi-nant majority. This is based on research show-ing that successful outgroups, such as black pro-fessionals, Asians, career women, businesswomen, and feminists, are often stereotyped as(too) competent, ambitious, and hardworkingand, at the same time, interpersonally unpleas-ant and cold. This can trigger admiration tosome extent, but also envy and hostile competi-tion from the dominant majority. Again, though,to avoid appearances of racism and sexism, the

2008 65Cortina

hostility may often take a disguised form, suchas selective incivility.

EVIDENCE FROM THE TARGET’SPERSPECTIVE

The theories reviewed above explain forcesthat may promote incivility as a covert form ofmodern discrimination against undervalued so-cial groups. But is there any empirical evidenceto this effect? With workplace incivility being anew area of inquiry, the empirical record on thistopic remains limited. Several studies do, how-ever, suggest that gender bias may underliesome manifestations of incivility. Fewer dataare available on race and incivility, but findingsfrom one study do suggest potential racial bias.

Starting first with incivility as subtle sexism,qualitative data suggest that incivility and gen-der bias are often one and the same. Specifi-cally, my colleagues and I (Cortina et al., 2002)examined the interpersonal experiences of 4,608attorneys practicing in the federal courts. Re-spondents who had indicated any recent en-counter with workplace incivility were asked toprovide brief descriptions of the uncivil conductthat had had the greatest impact on them. Manywomen detailed experiences of incivility thatthey attributed to gender, despite the mistreat-ment not being explicitly gendered on its face.Some of the behaviors described representedmore overt, active, direct forms of disrespect:

Male judges and attorneys tend to cut short, ig-nore, or exclude female attorneys.

There is still a big gap in how women attorneysare treated by male attorneys: extremely aggres-sive behavior in depositions; failure to listen; re-peated interruptions in all contexts.

A court clerk apparently did not believe that Iwas an attorney even though I had been sitting atcounsel table for two weeks of the trial. Hetreated me rudely and kept me from getting ex-hibits in order in a document-intensive case. Ibelieve this occurred because I am a young-looking female.

More often, though, the disproportionately un-civil treatment of women was more subtle, indi-rect, and perhaps unintentional and uncon-scious:

I was plaintiff’s counsel on a motion, but themagistrate spoke exclusively to the male defensecounsel and deferred to him throughout the in-

chamber hearing. Magistrate treated me like Iwasn’t in the room.

The person in charge of the settlement program. . . refused to speak to me in that conference, andwould only address my male co-counsel, eventhough I had identified myself as lead counsel.

The bankruptcy bar . . . is rather small and exclu-sive. To be young and female is to be discountedand ignored and makes it very difficult to estab-lish yourself. I hated my first 5 years of practicebecause of it. Good thing I’m tough.

These previously unpublished quotes illustratehow incivility can represent gender discrimina-tion (and sometimes age discrimination) of aless blatant type. The last examples are consis-tent with the form of bias that Fiske (2002: 125)calls “cool neglect,” or withholding “basic likingand respect” rather than being openly hostile.

The Cortina et al. (2002) study is particularlywell-suited to testing the theory articulatedabove. The participants were female attorneys,who would elicit the “career woman” (and some-times “feminist”) stereotype, which includeshigh competence but low warmth (e.g., Fiske etal., 2002; Glick & Fiske, 1999, 2001). These womenare making inroads into a prestigious profes-sion that was once exclusively the province ofmen. Men, as members of the dominant majori-ty,2 may feel a sense of threat, competition, andhostility toward these outgroup members whoare “encroaching” on their terrain. In somecases men could justify uncivil behavior as partof their job, which mandates “zealous advocacy”for clients. Note, however, that opposing counselwere not the only instigators of incivility inthese narratives, since the rude behavior alsocame from judges, court clerks, and other courtpersonnel. Behavior from these various sourcescannot be attributed to trial strategy or the ad-versarial model of justice.

Corroborating these qualitative findings,quantitative research also suggests gender dif-ferences in the experience of incivility. Specifi-cally, the Cortina et al. (2002) attorney study alsoincluded a survey, in which more women (65percent) than men (47 percent) described recentexperiences of “general incivility” in the context

2 In the year before my colleagues and I (Cortina et al.,2002) collected our data, only 23 percent of all lawyers na-tionwide were women (Eighth Circuit Gender Fairness TaskForce, 1997). Thus, in this profession men clearly remain thedominant majority.


of their work. This gender difference echoes theresults of Bjorkqvist, Osterman, and Hjelt-Back(1994), who reported that 55 percent of femalecompared to 30 percent of male university em-ployees had faced “work harassment” duringthe previous six months. Likewise, in a survey(Cortina et al., 2001) of 1,180 court employees,women described greater frequencies of incivil-ity than did their male colleagues.

The gender differences just reported werebased on composite measures of workplace in-civility, making it difficult to pinpoint whichtypes of incivility are more prone to being dis-criminatory. Extending these findings, my col-leagues and I (Cortina et al., 2004) have providedin-depth evidence of both gender- and race-based disparities in the experience of specificuncivil behaviors. Our results were based onsurvey data from two organizations: (1) a citygovernment in which women have a strongpresence and (2) a law enforcement agency thatemploys sizable numbers of ethnic minorities.With some exceptions, women and ethnic minor-ities reported more frequent encounters withspecific uncivil behaviors at work, compared re-spectively to men and whites. Gender and racialdifferences were particularly large for the mostambiguous behaviors (e.g., “ignored you orfailed to speak to you [e.g., ‘the silent treat-ment‘],” “doubted your judgment on a matterover which you had responsibility,” “withheldinformation that you needed to do your job cor-rectly,” “failed to give you an award or recogni-tion you deserved”). Many of these ambiguousand “withholding” behaviors could be attrib-uted to instigator oversight or target hypersen-sitivity, making it difficult to label them as prej-udiced. These behaviors are thus means bywhich employees may disproportionately tar-get women and minorities with disrespectwhile maintaining a nonprejudiced self-image.

In contrast, we (Cortina et al., 2004) did notfind gender or racial differences in the experi-ence of more blatant or overtly disrespectful be-havior (e.g., “made jokes at your expense,” “re-fused to work with you,” “targeted you withanger outbursts or ‘tempter tantrums’”). Thesebehaviors, when targeted disproportionately atwomen and minorities, could be attributed toprejudice more readily, which could threaten in-stigators’ self-concept and trigger sanctionsfrom the employer or court system. Modern rac-

ists and sexists would likely want to avoid suchoutcomes.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH

These empirical studies support the theory ofselective incivility advanced in this article. Thefindings are preliminary, however, elucidatingonly half of the incivility equation (the target’sperspective) and rarely addressing issues ofrace. Thus, this theory and this evidence raiseintriguing possibilities, to be addressed in fu-ture research on workplace intersections of in-civility, sexism, and racism.

Generally speaking, research related to work-place incivility could benefit from stronger alli-ances with social psychology, and vice versa.Given the richness of social and organizationalscholarship on discrimination, the indepen-dence of these two bodies of literature is strik-ing. Both arenas offer novel concepts that couldbe mutually informative. They also tend to favordifferent paradigms: lab experiments dominatesocial psychological research, whereas surveysare more typical in the organizational sciences.Research informed by multiple conceptual tra-ditions, diverse methodologies, and questions ofboth basic and applied significance could takestudies of workplace incivility (and other dis-criminatory behaviors) down interesting newpaths.

A second recommendation is that organiza-tional researchers of antisocial work behaviorsfollow the model set by social, feminist, andcultural psychology and routinely engage is-sues of gender and race. This includes studies ofnot only incivility but also other forms of “gen-eral” interpersonal mistreatment: bullying(Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper, 1999), aggression(Baron, 2004; Neuman, 2004), interpersonal devi-ance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995), petty tyranny(Ashforth, 1994), social undermining (Duffy, Gan-ster, & Pagon, 2002), organizational retaliationbehavior (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), and counter-productive work behavior (Spector & Fox, 2002).To date, gender and race (and other social iden-tities) have been largely absent from this liter-ature. A few studies, reviewed above, have ad-dressed gender and incivility, but there hasbeen little discussion of incivility and race. In-deed, the neglect of race in the burgeoning lit-erature on antisocial work behavior has per-sisted for much too long, perhaps owing to the

2008 67Cortina

fact that “it has become somewhat taboo to rec-ognize the role of racism in contemporary Amer-ican work organizations” (Brief & Hayes, 1997:100). Importantly, this research should not re-quire targets to have insight into the discrimi-natory nature of the conduct they face, owing tothe inherent ambiguity of uncivil situations(Andersson & Pearson, 1999) and to employees’reluctance to identify as victims of prejudice(Magley, Hulin, Fitzgerald, & DeNardo, 1999).

Beyond targets, the perspective of instigatorsalso deserves further scholarly attention. In fact,tests of the theory summarized in Figure 1 nec-essarily imply an instigator focus. This workwill require innovative methods to avoid prob-lems of socially desirable responding. In partic-ular, research on aversive racism, neosexism,and so on shows that individuals responsible forthese “modern” forms of discrimination stronglyidentify as nonprejudiced. In other words, theysee their own behavior as reasonable, fair, andunbiased, so they would not openly admit todisproportionately targeting female and minor-ity employees with uncivil conduct. It is there-fore critical that we develop unobtrusive tech-niques for assessing selective incivility.

On another front, social psychologists inter-ested in modern discrimination should considerthe negative interpersonal behaviors discussedin the organizational literature (e.g., incivility,aggression, bullying, etc.) as potential behav-ioral vehicles for subtle sexism and racism. Allof these actions appear, at face value, to havenothing to do with social categories, stereo-types, or prejudices. However, as this article il-lustrates, seemingly neutral insensitivity or ag-gression toward persons could, in many cases,serve as a convenient mask for unfair discrimi-nation against socially undervalued persons.Studies of this possibility would help address adeficit that is often lamented in social psychol-ogy: little research in the bias literature directlyassesses discriminatory behavior. This is a ma-jor problem, because “thoughts and feelings donot exclude, oppress, and kill people; behaviordoes” (Fiske, 2000: 312). Selective incivility is aspecific behavior that could be the focus ofnovel social psychological research.

Questions may arise as to what methods maybe most appropriate to launch this line of in-quiry. Scholars interested in the antecedents ofincivility could use the social psychological ex-periment as one research tool, pinpointing the

personal and social conditions under whichindividuals are most likely to disrespect oth-ers—particularly women and people of color.Techniques developed by organizational psy-chologists could also benefit social researchon modern discrimination. Particularly promis-ing for this purpose are new survey methods forassessing implicit motivation and cognition,such as the “conditional reasoning” paradigm(e.g., James, 1998; James & Mazerolle, 2003). Inaddition, organizational and social psycholo-gists could collaboratively translate stereotype-control strategies developed in the laboratoryinto respectful-workplace initiatives, followedby evaluation of those initiatives in actual orga-nizations. Finally, despite some discussion ofsocietal influences on modern discrimination,empirical attention to this topic has beensparse. Cross-cultural methods of studying or-ganizational behavior (e.g., Gelfand, Raver, &Ehrhart, 2002; Schaffer & Riordan, 2003) couldallow us to understand how social structuralforces impinge on bias in multinational organi-zations. These are just a few examples of howsocial and organizational psychologists—andmanagement scholars from other disciplines—could pool their ideas and methodologies to ad-vance research on incivility and discriminationin the modern workplace.

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE

Nonspecific workplace mistreatment—in theabsence of overtly sexual, sexist, or racist con-duct—is not typically regarded as a Title VIIviolation. However, in this article I propose thatemployees may at times be differentially tar-geted with incivility on the basis of their sex orrace, potentially creating disparate work envi-ronments across social groups. At the very least,this could interfere with the recruitment and re-tention of a diverse workforce; at worst, perva-sive patterns of incivility toward protectedclasses of employees could expose the organi-zation to legal liability. For these reasons it iscritical that organizations and policy makers de-velop effective strategies for managing this dis-guised form of workplace discrimination.

Referring again to Figure 1, interventions arepossible for every factor that fuels selective in-civility, at the level of both person and context.Indeed, it is important that both levels be tar-geted, as Figure 2 illustrates. If explicit, internal


bias persists in an individual working in a non-discriminatory context, the person may simplytransmute the bias into covert, rationalizableforms of discrimination. Likewise, an employeewho fundamentally opposes gender and racebias, but who works in discriminatory organiza-tions, may give in to social pressures and dis-criminate covertly. Given that selective incivil-ity has antecedents at multiple levels, it seemsonly logical that attempts to manage it also takea multilevel approach. Below is a discussion ofperson-level interventions, followed by societaland organizational actions.

Person-Level Interventions

To reduce the incidence of selective incivil-ity, some might assume that interventionsshould primarily target the organizationalcontext, with less hope for intrapersonal re-form. However, the social psychology litera-ture is replete with ideas on how to do both:modify the environment so as to influence in-dividual cognition and affect, which could ul-timately inhibit discriminatory behavior.These techniques could potentially be appliedto the management of workplace incivility. Acomplete review of this literature is beyondthe scope of this article, but I highlight severalsegments as an illustration.

The emphasis in stereotype scholarship onunconscious cognitive processes, unintentional-ity, and automaticity may give the false impres-sion that organizational attempts at influencingsocial thought and emotion would be pointless.On the contrary, research shows that it is possi-ble to intervene at the outset of these internalprocesses, manipulating perceivers’ cognitiverepresentations of their social worlds. Socialcategorization may be automatic, but social cat-egory boundaries—and the dimensions aroundwhich they organize—are far from fixed. Thus, itis possible to broaden peoples’ conceptions ofwho belongs to their ingroup. This can fostermore positive, respectful attitudes and behaviortoward individuals formerly perceived as out-group members.

To give a concrete example of this, Gaertnerand Dovidio (2000) developed the common in-group identity model. This intervention shiftsconceptions of social group membership frommany separate groups to a more inclusive, su-perordinate group. Experimental and field stud-

ies support the model, with the superordinateidentity created using a range of strategies (e.g.,spatially integrating people, creating a commongroup name, implementing joint evaluation andreward systems) in a range of settings. The com-mon group identity cultivates greater interde-pendence, cooperation, and respect among indi-viduals who were formerly members of separategroups (e.g., Dovidio, Gaertner, & Bachman,2001; Dovidio, Gaertner, Niemann, & Snider,2001; Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2000;Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000).

Even when gender- or race-based social cate-gorization occurs, it does not always yield ste-reotypic thought, emotion, and behavior. De-spite being natural and automatic, stereotypingis not inevitable—it can occur automatically butdoes not always occur. For instance, people ap-parently do not engage in negative stereotypicthinking when they are motivated to endorse apositive judgment of the target. To demonstratethis, research shows that when an employeereceives a positive evaluation by a member of astereotyped group, the employee is motivated byself-interest to respect that person’s opinion; ste-reotype activation does not occur (e.g., Devine &Monteith, 1999; Erber & Fiske, 1984; Neuberg &Fiske, 1987).

Moreover, when it does occur, stereotype acti-vation does not unavoidably lead to stereotypeapplication. Although a social perceiver mayinitially categorize a person and trigger a ste-reotype, the perceiver can be motivated to re-place this automatic categorical processingwith more controlled, intentional, individuatedprocessing, and this can prevent a discrimina-tory behavioral response. For example, situa-tions that involve high stakes, emphasize theneed for accuracy, hold people accountable fortheir judgments, relax undue time pressures, orrequire cooperation to work toward sharedgoals give rise to individuated processing inlieu of stereotyping (e.g., Devine & Monteith,1999; Dipboye & Halverson, 2004; Fiske, 2000,2001, 2002; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Valian,1998). In addition, learning and self-regulationprocesses can help individuals self-monitor andrecognize situations in which they are suscepti-ble to stereotyped responding; they can theninterrupt stereotypic thinking, even if it is acti-vated, and generate nondiscriminatory behavior(Brief & Barsky, 2000; Monteith, 1993). To quote

2008 69Cortina

Gordon Allport, social perceivers can sometimes“put the brakes on prejudice” (1954: 332).

Situational Interventions

Societal context. Legal frameworks make upan important piece of the fabric that holds civilsociety together. However, one might wonderwhether existing law is relevant to uncivil workbehavior: because a defining feature of incivil-ity is that intentionality is ambiguous, does theabsence of clear discriminatory intent removelegal liability? The issue of intent factors intosome, but not all, legal definitions of discrimi-nation. For example, in McDonnel Douglas Corp.v. Green (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court ruledthat proof of intent to discriminate must bepresent before a behavior can be consideredunlawful intentional discrimination or disparatetreatment. However, in Griggs v. Duke Power Co.(1971), the Supreme Court also ruled that unin-tentional discrimination or adverse impact isalso unlawful. In other words, if an organization-al practice has differential, adverse effects onprotected classes of employees, then that prac-tice may be illegal, even if the effects are unin-tentional. Likewise, the U.S. Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission (1993) has stated thatpractices that have the effect of interfering withwork or creating a hostile work environment forwomen and racial minorities constitute unlaw-ful sexual and racial harassment, respectively,regardless of the employer’s intent. Thus, whenworkplace incivility is disproportionately tar-geted at women and minorities and interfereswith their work and/or contributes to a hostileenvironment, this situation may violate law.

Despite potential legal implications, it is un-clear whether legal grievance mechanismspresent effective solutions to the problem of se-lective incivility. These mechanisms require thetarget to formally complain about the behavior,which may not be a realistic expectation. Em-ployees generally have high thresholds forwhistle-blowing (Miceli & Near, 1992), and iso-lated acts of subtle discrimination may not seem“severe” enough to warrant complaint (Dipboye& Halverson, 2004; Rowe, 1990). As Neumannotes, “How (and to whom) do you report havinghad your feelings hurt, and what reporting sys-tem captures the time you spend ruminatingabout the perceived mistreatment? Furthermore,would you believe that such an incident is seri-

ous enough to merit a formal report?” (2004: 74).Moreover, individual instances of misconductmay not appear discriminatory unless consid-ered in the aggregate (Crosby, 1984; Crosby,Iyer, Clayton, & Downing, 2003; O’Leary-Kelly etal., 2000), particularly compared to conduct tar-geted at men and whites.

Further reducing complaint likelihood, targetsmay experience attributional uncertainty aboutincivility—a low-level behavior that lacks clearintent (Andersson & Pearson, 1999) and has noovertly gendered or racial content (Lim & Cor-tina, 2005). They may have difficulty decidingwhether they are experiencing general incivilityor, rather, discrimination based on their socialcategory membership (Cortina et al., 2002;Schneider et al., 2000). Even if they do suspectdifferential negative treatment, targets may stillhesitate to label their instigators’ behavior asdiscriminatory. This would imply that the insti-gators are prejudiced, which is generally seenas immoral or evil in the current political cli-mate of this country. Thus, accusations of prej-udice could embroil targets in emotionallycharged, painful situations, which they wouldlikely prefer to avoid (Monin & Miller, 2001;Swim et al., 2003). Given the subtlety and attri-butional uncertainty inherent in these situa-tions, it is even less likely that incivility targetswould file discrimination complaints with man-agement.

In the rare cases when employees do comeforward with reports of selective incivility, man-agers (or judges and juries) might not find such“minor,” seemingly neutral misconduct worthyof reprimand. This may be especially true wheninstigators can provide a plausible, nonracial,nongendered account for their behavior. Tomake matters worse, some research suggeststhat people who merely observe one socialgroup (e.g., women) treated less favorably thananother (men) are less likely to perceive thetreatment as discriminatory, compared with per-ceptions of the individuals who are the directtargets of the disparate treatment (Swim et al.,2003). Managers are even further removed frompotentially discriminatory situations— onlyhearing reports about them—so they may beeven less likely to believe that discriminationhas taken place. Moreover, it is difficult to dis-cern discrimination in individual cases; pat-terns of discrimination often emerge only withthe aggregation of multiple incidents across


persons, places, or time (Crosby, 1984; Crosby etal., 2003; O’Leary-Kelly et al., 2000). For all ofthese reasons, traditional, reactive, and legalis-tic approaches to combating blatant discrimina-tion may not be effective for managing subtlebiases in the form of selective incivility.

Organizational context. To create respectful,incivility-free work environments, it would be-hoove organizations to look beyond traditionalmethods of achieving and managing diversity;in particular, the reactive complaint mechanismmay have limited utility. Proactive, preventa-tive, and educational approaches seem morepromising instead. For example, in the interestof incivility prevention, senior management canmodel appropriate, respectful workplace behav-ior and clearly state expectations of civility inmission statements or policy manuals. Refer-ence checks for prospective employees can in-clude questions about interpersonal behavior.All new employees should receive educationabout civility expectations, and employees at alllevels could undergo interpersonal skills train-ing. When incivilities do arise, instigatorsshould be sanctioned swiftly, justly, and consis-tently (Pearson et al., 2000; Pearson & Porath,2004).

Given the links to gender and race theorizedin this article, I would also recommend that ef-forts to prevent incivility dovetail with those ad-dressing overt discrimination (e.g., sexual andracial harassment). For example, organizationalprocedures, policies, and practices to set normsof civility could explicitly discuss equitable re-spect toward women and men and members ofdifferent ethnic groups (as well as employeeswho are young and old, gay and straight, etc.).Leaders should emphasize that unacceptablediscrimination includes not just overt acts ofmisoygyny and bigotry but also subtle devalu-ation and exclusion of social minorities. Theintended effect should be a broadening of em-ployees’ construals of what it means to be non-prejudiced (Brief & Barsky, 2000). Organizationalinterventions should also incorporate solutionsfrom the social psychology literature on stereo-typing and prejudice, detailed above. This sortof combined strategy would provide a more ef-ficient and effective means of combating antiso-cial work behavior, which has many behavioralfaces (general, gendered, raced, etc.). Relatedtraining programs might then attract broaderaudiences, being relevant to all employees (re-

gardless of gender or ethnicity) and avoidingresistance met by interventions that exclusivelytarget gender discrimination, racial discrimina-tion, and so forth (Cortina et al., 2002; Lim &Cortina, 2005; Podgor, 1996). As Brief et al. note,“The forces driving discrimination in the work-place are many, and any legitimate attempt tocombat discrimination must be multifaceted”(1997: 68).

CONCLUSION

This article integrates the literature on work-place incivility with that addressing modernsexism and racism. The resulting concept—selective incivility—is almost certainly morepervasive than blatant discrimination and ha-rassment in the workplace. Incivility is also, bydefinition, more insidious, taking hold in suchan ambiguous and stealthy manner that it isdifficult to identify, manage, and prevent. Thisspeaks to the need for particular vigilance aboutissues of “general” incivility, which may not beso general after all. More research on the nature,causes, and consequences of this workplacephenomenon will bring us closer to being ableto combat it effectively. And, to the delight ofmany, perhaps this ongoing work will ulti-mately add a crack to the proverbial glass ceil-ing.

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. 1999. Tit for tat? Thespiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academyof Management Review, 24: 452–471.

Ashforth, B. 1994. Petty tyranny in organizations. HumanRelations, 47: 755–778.

Banaji, M. R., & Dasgupta, N. 1998. The consciousness ofsocial beliefs: A program of research on stereotypingand prejudice. In V. Y. Yzerbt, G. Lories, & B. Dardenne(Eds.), Metacognition: Cognitive and social dimensions:157–170. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barling, J., Dekker, I., Loughlin, C., Kelloway, E., Fullagar, C.,& Johnson, D. 1996. Prediction and replication of theorganizational and personal consequences of work-place sexual harassment. Journal of Managerial Psy-chology, 11: 4–25.

Barling, J., Rogers, A., & Kelloway, E. 2001. Behind closeddoors: In-home workers’ experience of sexual harass-ment and workplace violence. Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology, 6: 255–269.

2008 71Cortina

Baron, R. A. 2004. Workplace aggression and violence: In-sights from basic research. In R. W. Griffin & A. M.O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational be-havior: 23–61. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baron, S. B., & Banaji, M. R. 2006. The development of implicitattitudes: Evidence of race evaluations from ages 6 and10 and adulthood. Psychological Science, 17: 53–58.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. 1995. The need to belong:Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamentalhuman motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497–529.

Benokraitis, N. V. 1997. Sex discrimination in the 21st century.In N. V. Benokraitis (Ed.), Subtle sexism: Current practiceand prospects for change: 5–33. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Benokraitis, N. V., & Feagin, J. R. 1995. Modern sexism (2nded.). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Hjelt-Back, M. 1994. Aggres-sion among university employees. Aggressive Behavior,20: 173–184.

Brief, A. P., & Barsky, A. 2000. Establishing a climate fordiversity: The inhibition of prejudiced reactions in theworkplace. Research in Personnel and Human ResourcesManagement, 19: 91–129.

Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., Elliott, J. D., Reizenstein, R. M., &McCline, R. L. 1995. Releasing the beast: A study ofcompliance with orders to use race as a selection crite-rion. Journal of Social Issues, 51: 177–193.

Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., Reizenstein, R. M., Pugh, S. D., Cal-lahan, J. D., McCline, R. L., & Vaslow, J. B. 1997. Beyondgood intentions: The next steps toward racial equality inthe American workplace. Academy of Management Ex-ecutive, 11(4): 59–72.

Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow,J. B. 2000. Just doing business: Modern racism and obe-dience to authority as explanations for employment dis-crimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-sion Processes, 81: 72–97.

Brief, A. P., & Hayes, E. L. 1997. The continuing “Americandilemma”: Studying racism in organizations. Trends inOrganizational Behavior, 4: 89–105.

Buchanan, N. T. 2005. The nexus of race and gender domi-nation: The racialized sexual harassment of AfricanAmerican women. In P. Morgan & J. Gruber (Eds.), In thecompany of men: Re-discovering the links between sex-ual harassment and male domination: 294–320. Boston:Northeastern University Press.

Cleveland, J., & Kerst, M. 1993. Sexual harassment and per-ceptions of power: An underarticulated relationship.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42: 49–67.

Cortina, L. M., Lonsway, K. A., & Magley, V. J. 2004. Recon-ceptualizing workplace incivility through the lenses ofgender and race. Paper presented at the annual meetingof the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology,Chicago.

Cortina, L. M., Lonsway, K. L., Magley, V. J., Freeman,L. V., Collinsworth, L. L., Hunter, M., & Fitzgerald,L. F. 2002. What’s gender got to do with it? Incivility inthe federal courts. Law and Social Inquiry, 27: 235–270.

Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. 2007. Patterns and profiles ofresponse to incivility in organizations. Working paper,University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout,R. D. 2001. Incivility in the workplace: Incidence andimpact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6:64–80.

Crosby, F. J. 1984. The denial of personal discrimination.American Behavioral Scientist, 27: 371–386.

Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., & Downing, R. A. 2003.Affirmative action: Psychological data and the policydebates. American Psychologist, 58: 93–115.

Deitch, E. A., Barsky, A., Butz, R. M., Brief, A. P., Chan, S., &Bradley, J. C. 2003. Subtle yet significant: The existenceand impact of everyday racial discrimination in theworkplace. Human Relations, 56: 1299–1324.

Devine, P. G. 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: The automaticand controlled components. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 56: 5–18.

Devine, P. G., & Monteith, M. J. 1999. Automaticity and controlin stereotyping. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology; 339 –360. NewYork: Guilford Press.

Dipboye, R. L., & Halverson, S. K. 2004. Subtle (and not sosubtle) discrimination in organizations. In R. W. Griffin& A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organiza-tional behavior: 131–158. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. 1998. On the nature of con-temporary prejudice: The causes, consequences, andchallenges of aversive racism. In J. L. Eberhardt &S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem andthe response: 3–32. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. 2000. Aversive racism andselection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Sci-ence, 11: 315–319.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Bachman, B. A. 2001. Racialbias in organizations: The role of group processes andits causes and cures. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups atwork: Theory and research: 415–444. Mahwah, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum Associates.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Kawakami, K., & Hodson, G.2002. Why can’t we just get along? Interpersonal biasesand interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity and EthnicMinority Psychology, 8(2): 88–102.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Niemann, Y. F., & Snider, K.2001. Racial, ethnic, and cultural differences in respond-ing to distinctiveness and discrimination on campus:Stigma and common group identity. Journal of SocialIssues, 57: 167–188.

Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. 2000. Reducingcontemporary prejudice: Combating explicit and im-plicit bias at the individual and intergroup level. InS. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination:137–163. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. 2002. Social under-mining in the workplace. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 45: 331–351.


Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. 1984. Gender stereotypes stemfrom the distribution of women and men into socialroles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46:735–754.

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. 1999. The origins of sex differencesin human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus socialroles. American Psychologist, 54: 408–423.

Eighth Circuit Gender Fairness Task Force. 1997. Final re-port and recommendations of the Eighth Circuit GenderFairness Task Force. Creighton Law Review, 31(1): 1–181.

Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. I. 1997. Harassment in the work-place and the victimization of men. Violence and Vic-tims, 12: 247–263.

Erber, R., & Fiske, S. T. 1984. Outcome dependency and at-tention to inconsistent information. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 47: 709–726.

Fiske, S. T. 1993. Controlling other people: The impact ofpower on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48: 621–628.

Fiske, S. T. 2000. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discriminationat the seam between the centuries: Evolution, culture,mind, and brain. European Journal of Social Psychology,30: 299–322.

Fiske, S. T. 2001. Effects of power on bias: Power explainsand maintains individual, group, and societal dispari-ties. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Use and abuseof power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corrup-tion: 181–193. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Fiske, S. T. 2002. What we know now about bias and inter-group conflict, the problem of the century. Current Di-rections in Psychological Science, 11: 123–128.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. M. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. 2002. A modelof (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence andwarmth respectively follow from perceived status andcompetition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 82: 878–902.

Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., &Magley, V. J. 1997. The antecedents and consequences ofsexual harassment in organizations: A test of an inte-grated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 578–589.

Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., & White, K. B. 2004. First-and second-generation measures of sexism, rape mythsand related beliefs, and hostility toward women. Vio-lence Against Women, 10: 236–261.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. 1986. The aversive form ofracism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice,discrimination, and racism: 61–89. Orlando, FL: Aca-demic Press.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. 2000. Reducing intergroupbias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia:Psychology Press.

Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., & Ehrhart, K. H. 2002. Methodolog-ical issues in cross-cultural organizational research. InS. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods inindustrial and organizational psychology: 216–246. Mal-den, MA: Blackwell.

Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. 1997. Antisocial behavior inorganizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. 1999. Sexism and other “isms”: Inter-dependence, status, and the ambivalent content of ste-reotypes. In W. B. Swann, Jr., J. H. Langlois, & L. A. Gil-bert (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society:The gender science of Janet Taylor Spence: 192–221.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. 2001. An ambivalent alliance: Hostileand benevolent sexism as contemporary justificationsfor gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56: 109–118.

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. 1995. Implicit social cog-nition: Attitudes, self-esteeem, and stereotypes. Psycho-logical Review, 102: 4–27.

Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 401, U.S. 424 (1971).

Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. 2002.Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field studyof bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 28: 815–825.

Heller, K. 1989. The return to community. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 17: 1–16.

Hilton, J. L., & von Hipple, W. 1996. Stereotypes. AnnualReview of Psychology, 47: 237–271.

Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. 1999. Workplace bully-ing. International Review of Industrial and Organiza-tional Psychology, 14: 195–223.

Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. 1996. Organiza-tional influences on sexual harassment. In M. Stockdale(Ed.), Sexual harassment in the workplace: Perspectives,frontiers, and response strategies: 127–150. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Jackman, M. R. 1994. Paternalism and conflict in gender,class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of Califor-nia Press.

Jackson, L. M., Esses, V. M., & Burris, C. T. 2001. Contempo-rary sexism and discrimination: The importance of re-spect for men and women. Personality and Social Psy-chology Bulletin, 27: 48–61.

James, E. H., Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., & Cohen, R. R. 2001. Preju-dice matters: Understanding the reaction of whites toaffirmative action programs targeted to benefit blacks.Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1120–1128.

James, K., Lovato, C., & Khoo, G. 1994. Social identity corre-lates of minority workers’ health. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 37: 383–396.

James, L. R. 1998. Measurement of personality via condi-tional reasoning. Organizational Research Methods, 1:131–163.

James, L. R., & Mazerolle, M. D. 2003. Personality in workorganizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jones, M. 2002. Social psychology of prejudice. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2000. Multilevel theory,research, and methods in organizations: Foundations,

2008 73Cortina

extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lazarus, R. S. 1999. Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. NewYork: Springer.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, appraisal, andcoping. New York: Springer.

Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. 2004. A multi-level model of incivilityin the workplace. Paper presented at the annual meet-ing of the Academy of Management, New Orleans.

Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. 2005. Interpersonal mistreatment inthe workplace: The interface and outcomes of generalincivility and sexual harassment. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 90: 483–496.

Magley, V. J., Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & DeNardo, M.1999. The outcomes of self-labeling sexual harassment.Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 390–402.

McConahay, J. B. 1986. Modern racism, ambivalence, and themodern racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner(Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: 91–125. Or-lando, FL: Academic Press.

McConahay, J. B., & Hough, J. C. 1976. Symbolic racism.Journal of Social Issues, 32: 23–45.

McDonnel Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

Meyerson, D. E., & Fletcher, J. K. 2000. A modest manifesto forshattering the glass ceiling. Harvard Business Review,78(1): 127–136.

Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. 1992. Blowing the whistle: Theorganizational and legal implications for companiesand employees. New York: Lexington Books.

Miller, D. T., & Turnbull, W. 1986. Expectancies and interper-sonal processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 37: 233–256.

Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. 2004. Working in a contextof hostility toward women: Implications for employees’well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,9: 107–122.

Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. 2006. Observed incivilitytoward women at work: The role of organizational jus-tice. Paper presented at the APA/NIOSH Work, Stressand Health Conference, Miami.

Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. 2001. Moral credentials and theexpression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 81: 33–43.

Monteith, M. J. 1993. Self-regulation of prejudiced responses:Implications for progress in prejudice reduction efforts.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65: 469–485.

Neuberg, S. L., & Fiske, S. T. 1987. Motivational influences onimpression formation: Outcome dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 53: 431–444.

Neuman, J. H. 2004. Injustice, stress, and aggression in orga-nizations. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.),The dark side of organizational behavior: 62–102. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Paetzold, R. L., & Griffin, R. W. 2000.

Sexual harassment as aggressive behavior: An actor-based perspective. Academy of Management Review,25: 372–388.

Operario, D., & Fiske, S. T. 1998. Racism equals power plusprejudice: A social psychological equation for racialoppression. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Con-fronting racism: The problem and the response: 33–53.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. 2000. Assess-ing and attacking workplace incivility. OrganizationalDynamics, 29(2): 123–137.

Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Wegner, J. W. 2001. Whenworkers flout convention: A study of workplace incivil-ity. Human Relations, 54: 1387–1419.

Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. 2004. On incivility, its impact,and directions for future research. In R. W. Griffin &A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organization-al behavior: 403–425. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Martin, J. 1987. Shaping the organizationalcontext for black American inclusion. Journal of SocialIssues, 43: 41–78.

Podgor, E. 1996. Lawyer professionalism in a gendered soci-ety. South Carolina Law Review, 47: 323–348.

Pretty, G. H., & McCarthy, M. 1991. Exploring psychologicalsense of community among women and men of the cor-poration. Journal of Community Psychology, 19: 1351–1361.

Pryor, J. B., Giedd, J. L., & Williams, K. B. 1995. A socialpsychological model for predicting sexual harassment.Journal of Social Issues, 51: 69–84.

Richman, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., Nawyn, S. J., Flaherty,J. A., Fendrich, M., Drum, M., & Johnson, T. P. 1999. Sexualharassment and generalized workplace abuse: Preva-lence and mental health correlates. American Journal ofPublic Health, 89: 358–363.

Riger, S. 1991. Gender dilemmas in sexual harassment pol-icies and procedures. American Psychologist, 46: 497–505.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. 1995. A typology of deviantworkplace behaviors: A multidimensional scalingstudy. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 555–572.

Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. 1998. Monkey see,monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antiso-cial behavior of employees. Academy of ManagementJournal, 41: 658–672.

Rospenda, K. 2002. Workplace harassment, services utiliza-tion, and drinking outcomes. Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology, 7: 141–155.

Rowe, M. P. 1990. Barriers to equality: The power of subtlediscrimination to maintain unequal opportunity. Em-ployee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 3: 153–163.

Sanchez, J. I., & Brock, P. 1996. Outcomes of perceived dis-crimination among Hispanic employees: Is diversitymanagement a luxury or a necessity? Academy of Man-agement Journal, 39: 704–719.

Sarason, S. B. 1974. The psychological sense of community:


Prospects for a community psychology. Cambridge, MA:Brookline Books.

Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. 2003. A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research. Or-ganizational Research Methods, 6: 169–215.

Schneider, K. T., Hitlan, R. T., & Radhakrishnan, P. 2000. Anexamination of the nature and correlates of ethnic ha-rassment experiences in multiple contexts. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 85: 3–12.

Scott, W. R. 1992. Organizations: Rational, natural, and opensystems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Sears, D. O. 1988. Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor(Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy: 53–84.New York: Plenum Press.

Sears, D. O. 1988. Racism and politics in the United States. InJ. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism:The problem and the response: 76–100. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. 1997. Retaliation in the work-place: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interac-tional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 434–443.

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. 2002. An emotion-centered model ofvoluntary work behavior: Some parallels between coun-terproductive work behavior and organizational citizen-ship behavior. Human Resource Management Review,12: 269–292.

Stone, E. F., Stone, D. L., & Dipboye, R. L. 1992. Stigmas inorganizations: Race, handicaps, and physical unattrac-tiveness. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research inindustrial/organizational psychology: 385–457. Oxford:North-Holland.

Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. 1995.Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern preju-dices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68:199–214.

Swim, J. K., Scott, E. D., Sechrist, G. B., Campbell, B., &Stangor, C. 2003. The role of intent and harm in judg-ments of prejudice and discrimination. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 84: 944–959.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1986. The social identity theory ofintergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.),Psychology of intergroup relations: 7–24. Chicago: Nel-son-Hall.

Thacker, R. A., & Ferris, G. R. 1991. Understanding sexualharassment in the workplace: The influence of powerand politics within the dyadic interaction of harasserand target. Human Resource Management Review, 1:23–37.

Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. 1995. Neosex-ism: Plus ca change, plus c’est pareil. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 21: 842–849.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Guide-lines on harassment based on race, color, religion, gen-der, national origin, age, or disability. 58 Fed. Reg.51,266. Washington, DC: U.S. Equal Employment Oppor-tunity Commission.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 2003.Charge statistics FY 1992 through FY 2002. Washington,DC: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Valian, V. 1998. Why so slow? The advancement of women.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

VandenBos, G. R., & Bulatao, E. Q. 1996. Violence on the job:Identifying risks and developing solutions. Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Wheaton, B. 1997. The nature of chronic stress. In B. H. Gott-lieb (Ed.), Coping with chronic stress: 43–74. New York:Plenum Press.

Williams, J. H., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. 1999. Theeffects of organizational practices on sexual harass-ment and individual outcomes in the military. MilitaryPsychology, 11: 303–328.

Williams, K. D. 1998. Social exclusion. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.),Aversive interpersonal behaviors: 133–170. New York:Plenum Press.

Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. 1997. Social exclusion bycoworkers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensa-tion? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23:693–706.

Lilia M. Cortina ([email protected]) is an associate professor of psychology and wom-en’s studies at the University of Michigan. She received her Ph.D. in psychology fromthe University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research addresses victimizationand gender in organizations, focusing in particular on employee experiences ofincivility and sexual harassment.

2008 75Cortina

Documents

UNSEEN INJUSTICE: INCIVILITY AS MODERN DISCRIMINATION … · 2017. 9. 7. · egories of generalized hostility in the workplace. Questions remain about how incivility relates to specific