஽ Academy of Management Review 2008, Vol. 33, No. 1, 55–75.

UNSEEN INJUSTICE: INCIVILITY AS MODERN DISCRIMINATION IN ORGANIZATIONS

LILIA M. CORTINA University of Michigan

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

Recent years have seen increasing scholar- social, and organizational antecedents. An inte- ship on subtle, nonphysical manifestations of gration of these two bodies of literature then interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace, in- supports the proposition that incivility can con- cluding general incivility. This term encom- stitute a particularly insidious, behavioral man- passes low-intensity conduct that lacks a clear ifestation of modern/contemporary/covert sex- intent to harm but nevertheless violates social ism and racism. The result is a multilevel model norms and injures targeted employees (Anders- of incivility as modern discrimination in organi- son & Pearson, 1999; Cortina, Magley, Williams, zations. In the latter half of the paper, I address & Langhout, 2001). In this paper I extend the implications of this “selective incivility” model notion of incivility by examining it through for research, policy, and practice in organiza- lenses of gender and race. The central argument tions. The following definition of workplace dis- is that incivility, in some cases, is not “general” crimination frames this work: “Unfair employ- at all but instead represents contemporary man- ment discrimination [occurs] when persons in a ifestations of gender and racial bias in the work- ‘social category’...areputatadisadvantage in place. That is, with the rise of taboos, policies, the workplace relative to other groups with com- and laws prohibiting discrimination against parable potential or proven success” (Dipboye & specific social groups, blatant intentions and Halverson, 2004: 131). efforts to alienate women and minorities from This article’s novel contributions are fourfold. organizational life are no longer tolerated. How- First, by building bridges with social psycholog- ever, one can mask discrimination (even without ical scholarship on discrimination, I extend the realizing it) behind everyday acts of incivility organizational literature on antisocial work be- and still maintain an unbiased image. This havior to address issues of race and gender. would be consistent with research demonstrat- Most studies of workplace aggression, deviance, ing that prejudices persist in covert forms within bullying, and so forth to date have focused al- society in general (e.g., Dovidio & Gaertner, most exclusively on “general” conduct irrespec- 1998) and within organizations in particular tive of social categories, without recognizing (e.g., Brief, Dietz, Cohen, Pugh, & Vaslow, 2000). that antisocial work behavior may often reflect I begin the article with a recap of theory and bias against members of undervalued social findings from research on workplace incivility. groups. A second contribution of the present Next is an in-depth review of theories of modern work is to the social psychology literature. A discrimination, focusing on cognitive, affective, common criticism of social psychology (e.g., Fiske, 2000) is that research on “discrimination” and “intergroup conflict” has addressed atti- Portions of this paper were presented in April 2004 at the tudes and affect in great detail, often to the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Chicago. Many thanks to Kim Lonsway, Abby neglect of action. Attitudes, stereotypes, and Stewart, and Arzu Wasti for their valuable comments on ideologies are certainly important, but a com- earlier versions. plete understanding of intergroup relations re-

55 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. 56 Academy of Management Review January quires attention to intergroup behavior. The cur- and I surveyed employees in a range of work rent article does just that by bringing to light the settings; the incidence rates we uncovered illus- specific behavioral experience of selective inci- trate the ubiquity of this phenomenon. For ex- vility. The few psychologists who have looked at ample, 71 percent of a court employee sample actual discriminatory conduct have generally (Cortina et al., 2001), 75 percent of a university focused on “formal discrimination”—for exam- employee sample (Cortina & Magley, 2007), and ple, unfair selection decisions (e.g., Brief et al., 79 percent of a law enforcement sample (Cor- 2000; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000). In contrast, I tina, Lonsway, & Magley, 2004) reported that take an in-depth look at a form of “interpersonal they had encountered some form of uncivil con- discrimination,” which Hebl, Foster, Mannix, duct at work in recent years. Other researchers and Dovidio define as “nonverbal, paraverbal, have reported similarly high rates of related and...verbal behaviors that occur in social in- workplace behaviors: for example, “generalized teractions” (2002: 816); this represents a third harassment”—75 percent (Einarsen & Raknes, contribution of the present article. Finally, I in- 1997); “generalized workplace harassment”—64 tegrate concepts from organizational and social percent (Rospenda, 2002); and “rude or disre- psychology, management science, and the law spectful treatment”—67 percent (Neuman, 2004). to propose fruitful new directions for research The proliferation of incivility in the workplace and practice in cases of selective incivility in has very real, very negative consequences for the workplace. employees, workgroups, and organizations. Barling and colleagues (Barling et al., 1996; Barling, Rogers, & Kelloway, 2001) have theo- WORKPLACE INCIVILITY: DEFINITION, rized that experiences of abusive behaviors at INCIDENCE, AND IMPACT work lead to negative mood, cognitive distrac- Andersson and Pearson define workplace in- tion, fear, and perceived injustice. Others (e.g., civility as “low intensity deviant behavior with Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001; ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004) have added dam- of workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil aged social identity and anger to this list. These behaviors are characteristically rude and dis- cognitive and affective reactions, in turn, ad- courteous, displaying a lack of regard for oth- versely influence targets’ occupational, psycho- ers” (1999: 457). They conceptualize this as a spe- logical, and physical health. Some have cific form of employee deviance (Robinson & proposed that these negative consequences ex- Bennett, 1995), which, in turn, represents a sub- tend beyond the targeted employee to affect by- set of antisocial employee behavior (Giacolone standers, workgroups, and whole organizations & Greenberg, 1997). When unambiguous inten- (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Miner-Rubino & tions and expectations to harm the target or Cortina, 2004). organization are present, definitions of incivility Data are emerging to support theories that overlap with psychological aggression (e.g., although incivility may be subtle, its effects are Baron, 2004; Neuman, 2004). However, incivility not. Empirical research suggests that employees differs from psychological aggression when be- targeted with uncivil behavior experience haviors lack clear, conscious intentionality. greater job stress and dissatisfaction, lower cre- That is, although incivility may occasionally ativity, cognitive distraction, and psychological have visibly injurious objectives, it can often be distress. Possibly in an attempt to dampen the attributed to other factors, such as the instiga- increased stressfulness of work, targets also use tor’s ignorance, oversight, or personality; intent, more substances. Moreover, incivility disrupts whether present or not, is ambiguous to one or employee relationships and derails cooperation, more of the parties involved (Andersson & Pear- rending the social fabric of the workgroup. Per- son, 1999; Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001). sonnel targeted with pervasive incivility ulti- However, workplace incivility, by definition, is mately lose commitment to their organizations completely distinct from physical aggression and exit at higher rates (Cortina et al., 2001, 2002; and violence (e.g., VandenBos & Bulatao, 1996). Lim & Cortina, 2004; Pearson, Andersson, & Incivility is perhaps one of the most pervasive Porath, 2000; Pearson et al., 2001; Pearson & forms of antisocial behavior in the workplace. Porath, 2004; Richman et al., 1999; Rospenda, To assess incivility prevalence, my colleagues 2002). Even employees who merely observe un- 2008 Cortina 57 civil treatment (e.g., toward colleagues) show rassment, and racial harassment share certain lower job satisfaction and commitment and features, all entailing behaving in an antisocial greater job burnout and turnover intentions; way; degrading, offending, or intimidating tar- such observer effects emerge even while con- gets; and violating standards of interpersonal re- trolling for negative affectivity, so they cannot spect. In addition, similar motivations may drive be attributed to a negative dispositional stance these different forms of abuse, such as instigators’ making observers more attuned to negative pursuit of social power/dominance, disregard for stimuli in their environments (Miner-Rubino & authority and norms, desire for valued resources, Cortina, 2006). These adverse individual and self-presentational goals, and value differences collective consequences have financial implica- with the target (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; tions for employers, who must absorb the costs Buchanan, 2005; Cleveland & Kerst, 1993; Deitch et of employee distraction and discontentment, job al., 2004; James, Lovato, & Khoo, 1994; Lim & Cor- accidents, substance abuse, sick leave, work tina, 2005; O’Leary-Kelly, Paetzold, & Griffin, 2000; team conflict, productivity decline, and turnover. Pearson & Porath, 2004; Sanchez & Brock, 1996; Explaining how such a “low-grade” phenome- Schneider, Hitlan, & Radhakrishnan, 2000; Thacker non as incivility can have such widespread con- & Ferris, 1991). sequences, my colleagues and I (Cortina & Mag- In addition, perhaps incivility, sexual harass- ley, 2004; Cortina et al., 2001) have asserted that ment, and racial harassment are, at times, one many uncivil work behaviors fall into the category and the same. This may seem illogical, given of daily hassles—that is, routine nuisances of ev- that incivility is facially neutral by definition. eryday life (e.g., Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, That is, “generally” uncivil behaviors have no 1984). Daily hassles lack the drama and intensity overt reference to gender, race, or other social of major life events. Nevertheless, chronic, low-key category. This nevertheless does not rule out the stressors that repeat over time can “wear down” possibility that incivility sometimes represents an individual, both psychologically and physi- covert manifestations of gender and racial bias cally (e.g., Wheaton, 1997). Moreover, targeted em- in the workplace. The theory advanced in this ployees may have difficulty developing effective article will elucidate this possibility. Such selec- means of coping with and controlling such ambig- tive incivility could be one mechanism by which uous phenomena. Hopelessness and resignation gender and racial disparities persist in organi- may result (Deitch et al., 2004). Following Richman zations, despite concerted legislative, judicial, and colleagues’ (1996; Rospenda, 2002) reasoning, and organizational efforts to eradicate bias. personnel might also find interpersonal hostility highly unexpected and unnecessary in the work CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES ON environment (in contrast to task-based stressors, DISCRIMINATION which might seem more routine and therefore more tolerable in that context). For all of these The last four decades have seen sweeping reasons, daily interpersonal stressors at work can changes in antidiscrimination laws, practices, accumulate to have a greater impact on psycho- and ideologies in the United States. Owing to logical and health outcomes than major time- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and re- limited disturbances (e.g., Cortina & Magley, 2004; lated reforms, blatant employment discrimina- Cortina et al., 2001; Deitch et al., 2004; Lazarus, tion based on gender and race (among other 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). factors) has become illegal. Women and people In sum, prior research has laid important foun- of color now enjoy much greater access to occu- dations in defining incivility, delineating its im- pational and economic opportunities than in the pact, and articulating its relationship to other cat- past. Along with these tangible changes, atti- egories of generalized hostility in the workplace. tudes toward women’s paid employment, and Questions remain about how incivility relates to white attitudes toward ethnic minorities, have specific forms of workplace mistreatment, such as become more positive, tolerant, and accepting. that based on sex and race.1 Incivility, sexual ha-

age, disability status, and so on. The theory elaborated in this paper focuses primarily on gender and race; however, 1 Of course, workplace mistreatment can be based on similar arguments could be developed for other character- other social dimensions as well, such as sexual orientation, istics that divide and stigmatize individuals. 58 Academy of Management Review January

Public expression of sexist and racist beliefs planations for their conduct. As Dipboye and has undergone a radical decline (Benokraitis, Halverson explain, “Much of today’s discrimina- 1997; Brief & Barsky, 2000; Brief et al., 1997, 2000; tion takes a more subtle form and has slipped Brief & Hayes, 1997; Dipboye & Halverson, 2004; out of the light into the dark side of the organi- Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; Dovidio, Gaertner, & zation” (2004: 132). Bachman, 2001; Operario & Fiske, 1998; Swim, The ambiguity inherent in subtle discrimina- Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995; Tougas, Brown, tion makes it particularly difficult for targets Beaton, & Joly, 1995). The importance of these and managers to recognize, much less control. changes cannot be overstated. Meyerson and Fletcher compellingly summarize In spite of progress, gender and racial dispar- this situation as it relates to gender: ities endure in American organizations, particu- As we enter the year 2000, the glass ceiling re- larly at the highest levels, where power is most mains. What will it take to finally shatter it? Not concentrated (e.g., Benokraitis, 1997; Brief et al., a revolution . . . the women’s movement [once] 1997; Brief & Hayes, 1997; Pettigrew & Martin, used radical rhetoric and legal action to drive out overt discrimination, but most of the barriers that 1987; Valian, 1998). This is true across a range of persist today are insidious—a revolution couldn’t industries, from the military to the federal gov- find them to blast away. Rather, gender discrim- ernment to the Fortune 500 (Dovidio, Gaertner, & ination now is so deeply embedded in organiza- Bachman, 2001). According to Census and De- tional life as to be virtually indiscernible. Even partment of Labor statistics, women and ethnic/ the women who feel its impact are often hard- pressed to know what hit them (2000: 127). racial minorities still receive less pay, face greater unemployment, and work in lower- Similar arguments can be made for persistent status jobs than their white male counterparts; but subtle racial bias in the workplace. The this remains true even after controlling for edu- glass ceiling holds strong in contemporary or- cation, experience, and skill level (Brief et al., ganizations, impeding women and employees of 1997; Dipboye & Halverson, 2004). In 2002 the color from advancing to the same levels and at Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the same rates as their white male contempo- (EEOC) received 84,442 complaints of employ- raries. Moreover, “glass walls” keep women and ment discrimination; two out of every three al- minorities confined to certain occupational cat- legations were based on either gender or race egories (Brief & Barsky, 2000; Rowe, 1990). These (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commis- concealed barriers likely take many forms, one sion, 2003). Illustrating the striking persistence of which may be selective incivility. Theories of of these forms of bias, Benokraitis (1997) noted modern discrimination explain how and why that, in the mid 1990s, white men constituted this might be the case. one-third of the U.S. population. At the same To account for persistent gender and racial time, they made up “85% of tenured professors, inequalities in the United States, social psychol- 85% of partners in law firms, 80% of the U.S. ogists have identified various forms of modern House of Representatives, 90% of the U.S. Sen- discrimination. In the realm of race relations, ate, 95% of Fortune 500 CEOs...and100% of all these concepts include aversive racism (Dovidio US presidents” (1997: 5). & Gaertner, 1998; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986), sym- One might wonder how discrimination could bolic racism (Sears, 1988, 1998), and modern rac- be so robust against several decades of legal, ism (Brief et al., 2000; McConahay, 1986; Mc- organizational, and attitudinal reform. Some Conahay & Hough, 1976). The gender bias suggest that these changes may have been ef- literature refers to similar phenomena, such as fective in reducing blatant or “old-fashioned” modern sexism (Swim, Scott, Sechrist, Campbell, discrimination, but subtle discrimination lives & Stangor, 1995), neosexism (Tougas et al., 1995), on in the world of work (e.g., Benokraitis, 1997; and contemporary sexism (Jackson, Esses, & Brief & Barsky, 2000; Brief, Buttram, Elliott, Burris, 2001). Although each conceptualization of Reizenstein, & McCline, 1995; Deitch et al., 2004; contemporary discrimination is slightly differ- Dipboye & Halverson, 2004). In fact, contempo- ent, the mythologies behind the behaviors are rary antifemale and antiminority bias is some- well-represented by McConahay’s depiction of times so ambiguous that instigators are un- modern racism against blacks: aware of its discriminatory nature, and they The principal tenets of modern racism are these: typically have rational, nondiscriminatory ex- (1) Discrimination is a thing of the past because 2008 Cortina 59

Blacks now have the freedom to compete in the ioned sexism and racism, now deemed undesir- marketplace and to enjoy those things they can able and, at times, unlawful (Benokraitis & Fea- afford. (2) Blacks are pushing too hard, too fast, and into places where they are not wanted. (3) gin, 1995; Brief et al., 1997; Forbes, Adams-Curtis, These tactics and demands are unfair. (4) There- & White, 2004; Pettigrew & Martin, 1987; Tougas fore, recent gains are undeserved and the pres- et al., 1995). A second argument is that prejudice tige granting institutions of society are giving has had a long history in our society, persisting Blacks more attention and the concomitant status over time in different manifestations, as affected than they deserve (1986: 92–93). by each sociohistorical moment. An elaborated Modern racists see these views as empirical version of this hypothesis is that negative atti- fact rather than opinion or racist ideology. In tudes toward women and ethnic minorities have fact, they ostensibly endorse egalitarian values, continued despite social pressure to renounce publicly condemn racism, and strongly identify prejudice; rather than going away, the negative themselves as nonprejudiced. This explicit re- attitudes become stored in memory and change jection of overt bias—combined with implicit from explicit to implicit (Dovidio, Gaertner, antiminority (or antifemale) beliefs—yields sub- Kawakami, & Hodson, 2002). A final possibility is tle, often unintentional and unconscious forms that subtle, unintentional, unconscious forms of of discrimination. However, to maintain an egal- discrimination are not new; what may be new is itarian identity, modern racists only engage in their visibility, now that blatant discrimination discrimination when there is a plausible, non- no longer overshadows them. Regardless of racial (or nongendered) explanation for the dif- their developmental trajectory, prejudice and ferential treatment—for instance, a business discrimination seem to be alive and well in the justification. Absent a reasonable, nonpreju- contemporary American workplace. diced rationale for disparate conduct, discrimi- Research has identified various factors that nation does not manifest (Brief et al., 1995, 1997, fuel discrimination, including cognition, affect, 2000; James, Brief, Dietz, & Cohen, 2001; Mc- and the organizational and societal context. Conahay, 1986; McConahay & Hough, 1976). This Some of these same driving forces could also allows the would-be instigators to protect them- underlie discriminatory forms of workplace in- selves from charges of racism. civility, so here I highlight studies of each cate- Contemporary forms of bias are distinct from gory of antecedent. The resulting model follows “old-fashioned” sexism and racism, character- recent multilevel trends in the organizational ized by blatant antipathy, beliefs that women sciences (e.g., Klein & Kozlowski, 2000), attend- and people of color are inherently inferior, en- ing to influences at the level of the individual, dorsement of pejorative stereotypes, and sup- the organization, and society. The review below port for open acts of discrimination. Such anti- is intended to be illustrative rather than exhaus- quated beliefs and overtly discriminatory tive—to demonstrate how scholarship on bias conduct are becoming less and less common and discrimination can inform science and prac- (Brief et al., 1997; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; Mc- tice related to incivility in organizations. Figure Conahay, 1986; McConahay & Hough, 1976; 1 displays a conceptual model of the ideas that Sears, 1988, 1998; Swim et al., 1995; Tougas et al., follow. 1995). For this reason, scholars are beginning to recognize that Person-Level Explanations singular attention to major discriminatory acts in the workplace is insufficient for explaining the Research on modern discrimination has pri- experience of discrimination many minority marily attended to intraindividual cognitive and members experience on the job, and may be an affective events that drive a person to discrimi- increasingly inadequate research focus in the fu- nate. ture as the social and political landscape shifts Cognition. Theories of social cognition lie at toward newer forms of racism and discrimination (Deitch et al., 2003: 1300–1301). the heart of the literature on modern discrimina- tion, which focuses in particular on categoriza- Different theories have emerged about the de- tion and stereotyping. Social categorization re- velopmental history of modern discrimination. fers to the cognitive process by which our minds One is that this “second-generation” form of place people into social categories based on bias has recently arisen to replace old-fash- salient cues, such as gender, race, and age. This 60 Academy of Management Review January

FIGURE 1 Integrated Model of Incivility As Modern Discrimination in Organizations

is argued to be a natural, automatic, and often scious level and occur with intention, effort, unconscious process. This process has various awareness, and control. Attitudes and stereo- benefits: easing the cognitive burden, simplify- types can also be implicit, however, occurring ing perception and judgment, and helping us unintentionally, unconsciously, and effortlessly make sense of an intricate social environment. (e.g., Banaji & Dasgupta, 1998; Baron & Banaji, Without social categorization, the complexity of 2006; Devine, 1989; Devine & Monteith, 1999; person perception would be overwhelming (e.g., Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Jones, 2002; Valian, Devine & Monteith, 1999; Dovidio, Gaertner, & 1998). The implicit variant of stereotyping is par- Bachman, 2001; Fiske, 2000; Jones, 2002; Operario ticularly implicated in modern discrimination. & Fiske, 1998; Stone, Stone, & Dipboye, 1992). That is, a modern sexist or racist unknowingly Categorization of a person into a particular applies negative stereotypes to women and peo- group often triggers stereotypes—that is, preva- ple of color, which can lead the stereotyper to lent and overgeneralized knowledge, beliefs, mistreat members of these social groups. How- and expectancies about members of that social ever, the mistreatment only arises in situations category (e.g., Hilton & von Hipple, 1996; Jones, when there is a plausible, nonprejudiced expla- 2002; Miller & Turnbull, 1986; Stone et al., 1992). nation for the behavior so that the instigator can In short, stereotypes are the “cultural baggage” maintain a nondiscriminatory self-image. that social categories carry (Operario & Fiske, Stereotypes of outgroup members can also be 1998: 40). They allow perceivers to understand “ambivalent,” containing both positive and neg- (often inaccurately) and make predictions about ative elements. That is, they need not reflect others, averting the onerous task of learning uniform antipathy or contempt. Across years of in-depth details about each individual encoun- stereotyping research (e.g., Allport, 1954; Fiske, tered. Indeed, we tend not to seek further per- Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Glick & Fiske, 1999, sonal information after placing someone into a 2001), scholars have identified two core stereo- social category, instead basing impression for- type dimensions: warmth and competence. mation largely on stereotypes associated with Some groups are the object of benevolent or that category (e.g., Operario & Fiske, 1998; Stone paternalistic stereotypes, being perceived as et al., 1992). warm but generally incompetent; these include Stereotypes come in explicit and implicit va- housewives, the elderly, and the disabled. Oth- rieties. Explicit stereotypes operate at the con- ers, in contrast, are seen as low in warmth but 2008 Cortina 61

(overly) high in competence, so they are targeted groups. Because this visceral response toward with a more hostile, envious stereotype; these members of particular social groups is outside groups include black professionals, career conscious awareness and control, modern sex- women, and Asians. Hostility toward these “en- ists and racists can maintain a nonprejudiced vied” outgroups becomes amplified when they self-concept. achieve success, status, and power, posing a competitive threat to the ingroup. Situational Explanations Affect. Some scholars claim that, compared to stereotypic cognition, prejudice is the better pre- A complete understanding of workplace dis- dictor of discriminatory behavior (Fiske, 2000). crimination requires attention to the surround- Prejudice refers specifically to an affective reac- ing context—at the level of both the immediate tion to people solely because of their member- organization and the larger society. These con- ship in a specific social category. Particularly texts provide the proximal and distal backdrops relevant are the categories of ingroup and out- of discriminatory cognitions, emotions, and be- group. That is, social categorization processes haviors in the workplace. The shaded, concen- lead all people to categorize others as “one of tric ovals surrounding the model in Figure 1 us” versus “one of them.” This gives rise to pos- convey the pervasive influence of context on all itive affective biases toward ingroup members, aspects of this process. In social psychological coupled with negative feelings toward individ- research on modern discrimination, scholars uals in the outgroup (Fiske, 2002; Jones, 2002; have, to some extent, discussed the societal con- Operario & Fiske, 1998). text, so this review of situational factors begins The negative affect toward the outgroup can there. Next will come the workplace context, take different forms, not simply amounting to a which is discussed more in the organizational homogeneous feeling of contempt. For example, sciences. research by Fiske and colleagues (2002) has Societal context. All organizations operate shown that people tend to feel “paternalistic within a larger society/culture, which certainly prejudice” toward groups stereotyped as warm affects the unfolding of discrimination. Histori- but incompetent; this prejudice entails a strong cally speaking, racism and sexism have a long sense of pity, without admiration or envy. tradition in American history, and people tend to Groups stereotyped as cold but competent con- internalize the values and beliefs of their cul- jure up the opposite emotional profile: envy and ture. Not long ago in this country, women were admiration, but little pity. Regarding these lat- denied the right to vote, own property, and ma- ter findings, Fiske et al. wrote that “admiration triculate in many institutions of higher educa- for high-competence out-groups . . . coexisted tion; employers could openly fire or refuse to with envy, suggesting a volatile mix of emotions hire women solely on the basis of their gender. that could create hostility when groups feel Likewise, “the periods of slavery and Jim Crow threatened” (2002: 897). forced African Americans, unlike any other eth- Diffuse, unconscious antifemale and antimi- nic group, into a legalized second-class citizen- nority feelings are thought to underlie modern ship for over 300 years” (Sears, 1998: 79). Other discrimination (McConahay, 1986; McConahay & U.S. ethnic minority groups have also encoun- Hough, 1976; Sears, 1988, 1998; Swim et al., 1995; tered oppression in policies of mass internment, Tougas et al., 1995). Dovidio, Gaertner, and forced expulsion from their homelands, discrim- Bachman (2001) have emphasized the subtlety of inatory immigration practices, and antimiscege- these negative emotions in aversive racists, who nation laws (Operario & Fiske, 1998). experience mild fear, disgust, uneasiness, and Although many of these overt discriminatory indifference when they encounter ethnic minor- practices have since been abandoned, the struc- ities. This contrasts with “the open flame of ra- ture of society remains such that men and cial hatred” that fuels traditional racism (2001: whites tend to occupy different social roles than 419). In addition, Jackson and colleagues (2001: women (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Eagly & Wood, 49) have shown that an important component of 1999) and ethnic minorities (Dovidio, Gaertner, & contemporary sexism is greater feelings of es- Bachman, 2001; Sears, 1998), which helps to sus- teem (i.e., respect) for men than women—a dif- tain stereotypes. Moreover, people growing up ferential, affective “gut reaction” to social in the United States still encounter stereotypic 62 Academy of Management Review January imagery in cartoons, books, films, and other cul- (including women and personnel of color) from tural media (Brief & Barsky, 2000; Fiske, 2002; discrimination or harassment based on social Operario & Fiske, 1998). This social heritage category membership. Numerous scholars, how- maintains prejudice against women and people ever, emphasize that a good policy is necessary of color. It also follows individuals into their but not sufficient to inhibit discriminatory and places of work: “Employees come to the organi- antisocial work behavior; consistent enforce- zation with heavy cultural and social baggage ment of that policy is paramount (e.g., O’Leary- obtained from interactions in other social con- Kelly et al., 2000; Riger, 1991; Williams, Fitzger- texts” (Scott, 1992: 20). ald, & Drasgow, 1999). To implement policies The structure of society also perpetuates un- effectively, strong leaders must be present. equal distributions of power, and asymmetrical Leaders set the tone for the entire organiza- power combined with prejudice sets the stage tion, and employees look to them for cues about for oppression. Powerful people often seek to what constitutes acceptable conduct. Organiza- preserve the status quo in order to bolster their tions tend to have fewer problems with (blatant) own status, maintain access to valued re- discrimination when their authority figures es- sources, and increase personal and collective tablish clear expectations for respectful behav- self-esteem (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Bachman, ior, model nondiscriminatory values and con- 2001; Fiske, 1993, 2000, 2001, 2002; Jones, 2002; duct, take discrimination complaints seriously, Operario & Fiske, 1998; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). and sanction those who discriminate. Argu- Power also gives individuals at the top of the ments and evidence supporting this claim have social structure the tools to translate their bi- emerged particularly in studies of sexual ha- ases into discriminatory conduct. With respect rassment (e.g., Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gel- to race, Operario and Fiske argue that “preju- fand, & Magley, 1997; Hulin, Fitzgerald, & Dras- dice alone does not determine racism; everyone gow, 1996; O’Leary-Kelly et al., 2000; Pryor, has prejudices, because all people prefer their Giedd, & Williams, 1995; Williams et al., 1999). In group over others. History and society confer a similar vein, organizational authorities can power to certain groups, granting them exces- send messages to employees that either pro- sive ability to exercise their prejudice” (1998: 49). mote or inhibit racial discrimination (Brief et al., In contrast, powerlessness necessitates depen- 1995, 1997, 2000). dence on and acquiescence to the demands of Another feature of the organizational context the powerful (Fiske, 1993; Jones, 2002; Operario & that can influence discrimination is its local so- Fiske, 1998). These social structural forces pro- cial norms (Dipboye & Halverson, 2004). The vide prime conditions for discrimination to need for belonging and acceptance by ingroup thrive, in ways both blatant and subtle. members is a powerful motivator for human be- Organizational context. Turning now to the havior (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Fiske, more immediate context, the organizational en- 2000), including organizational behavior (Wil- vironment should play an important role in ei- liams, 1998; Williams & Sommer, 1997). In fact, ther enabling or inhibiting discrimination. It is personnel often work in groups or teams, facing also a level of context that seems particularly pressure to conform to group norms. Even with- malleable—more so than the social structural out a formal “team” structure, many organiza- context, given the difficulties inherent in effect- tions foster a psychological sense of community, ing change at the broad societal level. However, and informal social norms arise (Heller, 1989; social psychologists have largely ignored the Pretty & MacCarthy, 1991; Sarason, 1974). Group workplace in studies of modern discrimination. norms “not only define reality for group mem- The focus of this review therefore now switches bers but also communicate how members can to field research in organizational psychology. obtain the approval and avoid the criticisms of This literature suggests that several features of fellow group members” (Dipboye & Halverson, the work environment are especially relevant to 2004: 145). As a result of these group processes, discrimination: policy, leadership, and group people adapt their cognitions, emotions, and be- norms. haviors to fit better into the social world of work. Many U.S. organizations presently have poli- Thus, when coworkers convey expectations for cies that reflect Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of or model biased behavior, an employee is more 1964—protecting certain classes of employees likely to follow suit and engage in discrimina- 2008 Cortina 63 tion (Brief et al., 2000; Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, not permit biased conduct; that employee will 1998). likely not discriminate against women and mi- norities. Even if the employee unconsciously endorses negative beliefs or feelings toward Person-Situation Interactional Explanations female or minority coworkers, a strong antidis- With a few exceptions, the organizational con- criminatory context should prevent that per- text literature reviewed above focuses primarily son from acting on his or her implicit biases on overt discrimination. Drawing on Dipboye (Brief et al., 2000). and Halverson’s (2004) reasoning, we find that The opposite situation appears in the upper the picture becomes more complicated when we right quadrant: when a biased employee works consider how the organizational environment for a bias-tolerant company, the likelihood of might influence covert discrimination. The orga- overt discrimination (e.g., sexual and racial ha- nization’s implicit or explicit support for dis- rassment) is high. This employee may be fully crimination (as indicated by lax enforcement or aware of and open about the biased nature of absence of a nondiscrimination policy, permis- his or her conduct, and the organization does not sive leader behavior, and sexist or racist norms) motivate the individual to restrain his or her could create an immediate social context that prejudices. promotes discriminatory conduct. However, em- Note that in both of these situations the indi- ployees bring their own personal convictions vidual’s approach (pro or con) to bias is in line and affective tendencies to that context. The re- with that of the organizational environment. A sult is a person-by-situation interaction that de- different picture emerges in the case of individ- termines whether or not discriminatory behavior uals whose feelings and beliefs about discrimi- occurs and, if it does, whether it is overt versus nation are in conflict with those advanced by covert and implicit versus explicit. Figure 2 sum- the organization (Dipboye & Halverson, 2004). marizes how person and situation factors jointly This disconnect fosters ideal conditions for co- influence discriminatory behavior. vert discrimination. As Figure 2 demonstrates, when we cross the The lower right quadrant of Figure 2 portrays organizational context and individual tenden- a situation in which a biased employee works cies, (at least) four different behavioral possibil- for an organization that deters discriminatory ities emerge. The lower left quadrant represents conduct. Motivation to avoid sanctions, to re- the ideal situation: a nonbiased individual main in the organization, and to fit in with the works for an organization that, likewise, does workgroup could inhibit the employee from ex-

FIGURE 2 Person-by-Organization Influences on Discriminatory Behavior 64 Academy of Management Review January pressing visible bias (i.e., no blatant sexual or tional, unconscious form of discrimination (Dip- racial harassment). However, these organization- boye & Halverson, 2004). al influences might only drive discrimination “underground.” In other words, in lieu of open, WORKPLACE INCIVILITY AS MODERN overt acts of hostility, the employee may express DISCRIMINATION personal biases against female coworkers and colleagues of color covertly (Dipboye & Halver- How might social psychological concepts of son, 2004). Concealing discrimination in this modern/covert/aversive discrimination inform way could be a conscious choice on the part of our understanding of incivility in the work- the employee. place? These theories suggest different paths to The upper left quadrant applies to two differ- selective incivility. In one case reasonable, for- ent types of employees, although the behavioral ward-thinking, tolerant employees unknowingly outcome is the same. In one situation an em- target women and minorities with dispropor- ployee with no implicit or explicit biases tionate incivility, despite being explicitly op- against women and minorities works for an or- posed to sexism and racism. That is, the employ- ganization in which there is pressure (e.g., from ees’ implicitly stereotypic attitudes, preference peers) to engage in sexist or racist behavior. for ingroup members, motivation to maintain so- Assuming that the employee is motivated to re- cial power, and so forth could give rise to subtle main with the organization (e.g., for financial or biases against the outgroup. Lax antidiscrimi- professional reasons), the conflict between the nation policies, permissive leadership behavior, individual and the immediate context may yield and antisocial models in the workplace could set the stage for employees to act on those bi- discrimination that is quite subtle. That is, the ases. Cultural traditions of sexism, racism, and person is ideologically opposed to sexism and asymmetrical power compound the situation. racism and therefore unlikely to engage know- These instigators might have plausible, nonra- ingly in overtly discriminatory behavior. This cial, and nongendered explanations for the un- person, however, spends forty (or more) hours civil conduct (e.g., “I didn’t see you,” “I’m having per week working in an antifemale and/or anti- a bad day,” “I thought you were done speak- minority climate. His or her fundamental need ing”)—explanations that they themselves be- for belonging, acceptance, and security could lieve. foster covert discrimination against women In other cases selective incivility might not be and/or colleagues of color, as a means of “fitting so innocent, because “some people may be par- in” in the discriminatory environment. The bi- ticularly motivated to think in stereotypic ways ased conduct would need to be subtle and ra- and may use controlled processing to promote tionalizable, and perhaps even unconscious, for stereotype use” (Devine & Monteith, 1999: 356, the employee to maintain an unbiased self- note 1). For example, an employee may con- image. sciously experience blatant antipathy toward A second possibility for the upper left quad- women and minorities and make no attempt to rant is that an employee self-identifies as non- prevent it from influencing his or her behavior prejudiced but implicitly harbors negative toward coworkers, but may hide prejudice be- thoughts and feelings toward women or people hind the guise of “general” incivility. This at- of color. This person also works in a context that tempt at concealment may be particularly likely is in some way antifemale or antiminority. This if a biased employee works in an organization environment permits and perhaps even encour- with strong nondiscrimination policies and ages the employee to act on implicit biases, but norms, enforced by strong leaders. Overt disre- explicit discrimination (e.g., sexual or racial ha- spect (e.g., harassment) of women and minori- rassment) would be aversive to his or her egal- ties would not be tolerated in such a context, so itarian identity. Instead of overtly discriminat- the employee must find more discreet and ra- ing against undervalued social groups, the tionalizable methods of expressing bias; selec- employee could disproportionately target them tive incivility is one means toward this end. That with negative behavior that is too subtle and is, bias may emerge in the form of low-level facially neutral to appear biased. This antiso- deviance that, absent any overtly sexist or racist cial conduct would be a concealed, uninten- content, can be attributed to something less ob- 2008 Cortina 65 jectionable than prejudice (e.g., instigator over- It could be, however, that more transparent sight, personality, work overload). In this exam- forms of incivility (e.g., rumor spreading, accu- ple the employee can explain the conduct in a sations of incompetence, anger outbursts) would way that has nothing to do with gender or race, not show intergroup differences. These behav- but this would be a deceitful “cover-up” for bias. iors, when targeted at female and minority em- A third scenario could be that an employee ployees disproportionately, might be perceived has strong egalitarian values, both explicit and as sexist or racist, which would be aversive to implicit, but works alongside coworkers who ex- the instigator’s egalitarian self-concept. This press sexism and racism on a regular basis. The might also trigger organizational or legal sanc- employee is caught in a quandary: not going tions. Therefore, it makes sense that many insti- along with the biased conduct could lead to gators (those who want to avoid penalties or ostracism from the peer group, which constitutes labels as sexist/racist) would refrain from bla- a significant part of the employee’s social world, tant forms of discriminatory disrespect. but participating in blatantly biased behavior This profile of findings would be highly con- would be antithetical to the employee’s values sistent with modern understandings of discrim- and, thus, highly aversive. One means of solv- ination. For example, aversive racism theory ing this dilemma would be to target women and (e.g., Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; Dovidio, Gaert- people of color with subtle disrespect—that is, ner, & Bachman, 2001; Dovidio, Gaertner, Nie- incivility. The discriminatory nature of this con- mann, & Snider, 2001) suggests that discrimina- duct would fit in with group norms, and the tion will not emerge in situations where the low-level (possibly unconscious) nature of the discriminatory nature of the conduct is appar- ent, either to the instigator or others. This is deviance might be tolerable for the instigator, because “aversive racists” consciously endorse who prides him or herself on being nonsexist values of egalitarianism and justice and con- and nonracist. demn prejudice both internally and externally. Given the theories and scenarios reviewed However, these same individuals implicitly har- above, I propose that incivility is not always an bor negative emotions and cognitions toward “equal opportunity” form of antisocial work be- minorities, driving them to discriminate in sub- havior. Specifically, in many organizations tle or rationalizable ways. That is, they discrim- women and ethnic minority employees likely inate (1) when the biased nature of the behavior experience more uncivil treatment than men is not obvious or (2) when a negative response and whites. This should be especially true for can be attributed to something other than race. organizations that lack strong nondiscrimina- Both of these descriptions fit many manifesta- tion policies, have leaders who turn a blind eye tions of workplace incivility. to (or even model) antifemale and antiminority From the target’s perspective, who would be conduct, and employ individuals who openly ex- most at risk for selective incivility? According to press bias. theories of ambivalent stereotyping (e.g., Fiske In many cases disproportionate incivility to- et al., 2002; Glick & Fiske, 1999, 2001) and inter- ward women and people of color would likely group competition (e.g., Jackman, 1994), the most comprise the most ambiguous forms of disre- vulnerable might be professionally and eco- spectful conduct (e.g., interrupting an employee, nomically successful women and minorities— failing to include an employee in professional those who are perceived as highly competent camaraderie, ignoring an employee). These sub- and advancing in ways that threaten the domi- tle behaviors could be attributed to many factors nant majority. This is based on research show- other than race or gender (e.g., instigator over- ing that successful outgroups, such as black pro- sight, target hypersensitivity), making it partic- fessionals, Asians, career women, business ularly difficult to label them as discriminatory. women, and feminists, are often stereotyped as They are thus means by which personnel can (too) competent, ambitious, and hardworking mistreat women and people of color while main- and, at the same time, interpersonally unpleas- taining a nonprejudiced image to themselves ant and cold. This can trigger admiration to and others. The apparent neutrality of this be- some extent, but also envy and hostile competi- havior could avert disciplinary actions related tion from the dominant majority. Again, though, to Title VII violation. to avoid appearances of racism and sexism, the 66 Academy of Management Review January hostility may often take a disguised form, such chamber hearing. Magistrate treated me like I as selective incivility. wasn’t in the room. The person in charge of the settlement program . . . refused to speak to me in that conference, and EVIDENCE FROM THE TARGET’S would only address my male co-counsel, even though I had identified myself as lead counsel. PERSPECTIVE The bankruptcy bar...israther small and exclu- The theories reviewed above explain forces sive. To be young and female is to be discounted that may promote incivility as a covert form of and ignored and makes it very difficult to estab- modern discrimination against undervalued so- lish yourself. I hated my first 5 years of practice cial groups. But is there any empirical evidence because of it. Good thing I’m tough. to this effect? With workplace incivility being a These previously unpublished quotes illustrate new area of inquiry, the empirical record on this how incivility can represent gender discrimina- topic remains limited. Several studies do, how- tion (and sometimes age discrimination) of a ever, suggest that gender bias may underlie less blatant type. The last examples are consis- some manifestations of incivility. Fewer data tent with the form of bias that Fiske (2002: 125) are available on race and incivility, but findings calls “cool neglect,” or withholding “basic liking from one study do suggest potential racial bias. and respect” rather than being openly hostile. Starting first with incivility as subtle sexism, The Cortina et al. (2002) study is particularly qualitative data suggest that incivility and gen- well-suited to testing the theory articulated der bias are often one and the same. Specifi- above. The participants were female attorneys, cally, my colleagues and I (Cortina et al., 2002) who would elicit the “career woman” (and some- examined the interpersonal experiences of 4,608 times “feminist”) stereotype, which includes attorneys practicing in the federal courts. Re- high competence but low warmth (e.g., Fiske et spondents who had indicated any recent en- al., 2002; Glick & Fiske, 1999, 2001). These women counter with workplace incivility were asked to are making inroads into a prestigious profes- provide brief descriptions of the uncivil conduct sion that was once exclusively the province of that had had the greatest impact on them. Many men. Men, as members of the dominant majori- women detailed experiences of incivility that ty,2 may feel a sense of threat, competition, and they attributed to gender, despite the mistreat- hostility toward these outgroup members who ment not being explicitly gendered on its face. are “encroaching” on their terrain. In some Some of the behaviors described represented cases men could justify uncivil behavior as part more overt, active, direct forms of disrespect: of their job, which mandates “zealous advocacy” Male judges and attorneys tend to cut short, ig- for clients. Note, however, that opposing counsel nore, or exclude female attorneys. were not the only instigators of incivility in these narratives, since the rude behavior also There is still a big gap in how women attorneys are treated by male attorneys: extremely aggres- came from judges, court clerks, and other court sive behavior in depositions; failure to listen; re- personnel. Behavior from these various sources peated interruptions in all contexts. cannot be attributed to trial strategy or the ad- A court clerk apparently did not believe that I versarial model of justice. was an attorney even though I had been sitting at Corroborating these qualitative findings, counsel table for two weeks of the trial. He quantitative research also suggests gender dif- treated me rudely and kept me from getting ex- ferences in the experience of incivility. Specifi- hibits in order in a document-intensive case. I cally, the Cortina et al. (2002) attorney study also believe this occurred because I am a young- looking female. included a survey, in which more women (65 percent) than men (47 percent) described recent More often, though, the disproportionately un- experiences of “general incivility” in the context civil treatment of women was more subtle, indi- rect, and perhaps unintentional and uncon- scious: 2 In the year before my colleagues and I (Cortina et al., 2002) collected our data, only 23 percent of all lawyers na- I was plaintiff’s counsel on a motion, but the tionwide were women (Eighth Circuit Gender Fairness Task magistrate spoke exclusively to the male defense Force, 1997). Thus, in this profession men clearly remain the counsel and deferred to him throughout the in- dominant majority. 2008 Cortina 67 of their work. This gender difference echoes the ists and sexists would likely want to avoid such results of Bjo¨rkqvist, O¨ sterman, and Hjelt-Ba¨ck outcomes. (1994), who reported that 55 percent of female compared to 30 percent of male university em- NEW DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH ployees had faced “work harassment” during the previous six months. Likewise, in a survey These empirical studies support the theory of (Cortina et al., 2001) of 1,180 court employees, selective incivility advanced in this article. The women described greater frequencies of incivil- findings are preliminary, however, elucidating ity than did their male colleagues. only half of the incivility equation (the target’s The gender differences just reported were perspective) and rarely addressing issues of based on composite measures of workplace in- race. Thus, this theory and this evidence raise civility, making it difficult to pinpoint which intriguing possibilities, to be addressed in fu- types of incivility are more prone to being dis- ture research on workplace intersections of in- criminatory. Extending these findings, my col- civility, sexism, and racism. leagues and I (Cortina et al., 2004) have provided Generally speaking, research related to work- in-depth evidence of both gender- and race- place incivility could benefit from stronger alli- based disparities in the experience of specific ances with social psychology, and vice versa. uncivil behaviors. Our results were based on Given the richness of social and organizational survey data from two organizations: (1) a city scholarship on discrimination, the indepen- government in which women have a strong dence of these two bodies of literature is strik- presence and (2) a law enforcement agency that ing. Both arenas offer novel concepts that could employs sizable numbers of ethnic minorities. be mutually informative. They also tend to favor With some exceptions, women and ethnic minor- different paradigms: lab experiments dominate ities reported more frequent encounters with social psychological research, whereas surveys specific uncivil behaviors at work, compared re- are more typical in the organizational sciences. spectively to men and whites. Gender and racial Research informed by multiple conceptual tra- differences were particularly large for the most ditions, diverse methodologies, and questions of ambiguous behaviors (e.g., “ignored you or both basic and applied significance could take failed to speak to you [e.g., ‘the silent treat- studies of workplace incivility (and other dis- ment‘],” “doubted your judgment on a matter criminatory behaviors) down interesting new over which you had responsibility,” “withheld paths. information that you needed to do your job cor- A second recommendation is that organiza- rectly,” “failed to give you an award or recogni- tional researchers of antisocial work behaviors tion you deserved”). Many of these ambiguous follow the model set by social, feminist, and and “withholding” behaviors could be attrib- cultural psychology and routinely engage is- uted to instigator oversight or target hypersen- sues of gender and race. This includes studies of sitivity, making it difficult to label them as prej- not only incivility but also other forms of “gen- udiced. These behaviors are thus means by eral” interpersonal mistreatment: bullying which employees may disproportionately tar- (Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper, 1999), aggression get women and minorities with disrespect (Baron, 2004; Neuman, 2004), interpersonal devi- while maintaining a nonprejudiced self- ance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995), petty tyranny image. (Ashforth, 1994), social undermining (Duffy, Gan- In contrast, we (Cortina et al., 2004) did not ster, & Pagon, 2002), organizational retaliation find gender or racial differences in the experi- behavior (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), and counter- ence of more blatant or overtly disrespectful be- productive work behavior (Spector & Fox, 2002). havior (e.g., “made jokes at your expense,” “re- To date, gender and race (and other social iden- fused to work with you,” “targeted you with tities) have been largely absent from this liter- anger outbursts or ‘tempter tantrums’”). These ature. A few studies, reviewed above, have ad- behaviors, when targeted disproportionately at dressed gender and incivility, but there has women and minorities, could be attributed to been little discussion of incivility and race. In- prejudice more readily, which could threaten in- deed, the neglect of race in the burgeoning lit- stigators’ self-concept and trigger sanctions erature on antisocial work behavior has per- from the employer or court system. Modern rac- sisted for much too long, perhaps owing to the 68 Academy of Management Review January fact that “it has become somewhat taboo to rec- personal and social conditions under which ognize the role of racism in contemporary Amer- individuals are most likely to disrespect oth- ican work organizations” (Brief & Hayes, 1997: ers—particularly women and people of color. 100). Importantly, this research should not re- Techniques developed by organizational psy- quire targets to have insight into the discrimi- chologists could also benefit social research natory nature of the conduct they face, owing to on modern discrimination. Particularly promis- the inherent ambiguity of uncivil situations ing for this purpose are new survey methods for (Andersson & Pearson, 1999) and to employees’ assessing implicit motivation and cognition, reluctance to identify as victims of prejudice such as the “conditional reasoning” paradigm (Magley, Hulin, Fitzgerald, & DeNardo, 1999). (e.g., James, 1998; James & Mazerolle, 2003). In Beyond targets, the perspective of instigators addition, organizational and social psycholo- also deserves further scholarly attention. In fact, gists could collaboratively translate stereotype- tests of the theory summarized in Figure 1 nec- control strategies developed in the laboratory essarily imply an instigator focus. This work into respectful-workplace initiatives, followed will require innovative methods to avoid prob- by evaluation of those initiatives in actual orga- lems of socially desirable responding. In partic- nizations. Finally, despite some discussion of ular, research on aversive racism, neosexism, societal influences on modern discrimination, and so on shows that individuals responsible for empirical attention to this topic has been these “modern” forms of discrimination strongly sparse. Cross-cultural methods of studying or- identify as nonprejudiced. In other words, they ganizational behavior (e.g., Gelfand, Raver, & see their own behavior as reasonable, fair, and Ehrhart, 2002; Schaffer & Riordan, 2003) could unbiased, so they would not openly admit to allow us to understand how social structural disproportionately targeting female and minor- forces impinge on bias in multinational organi- ity employees with uncivil conduct. It is there- zations. These are just a few examples of how fore critical that we develop unobtrusive tech- social and organizational psychologists—and niques for assessing selective incivility. management scholars from other disciplines— On another front, social psychologists inter- could pool their ideas and methodologies to ad- ested in modern discrimination should consider vance research on incivility and discrimination the negative interpersonal behaviors discussed in the modern workplace. in the organizational literature (e.g., incivility, aggression, bullying, etc.) as potential behav- IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE ioral vehicles for subtle sexism and racism. All of these actions appear, at face value, to have Nonspecific workplace mistreatment—in the nothing to do with social categories, stereo- absence of overtly sexual, sexist, or racist con- types, or prejudices. However, as this article il- duct—is not typically regarded as a Title VII lustrates, seemingly neutral insensitivity or ag- violation. However, in this article I propose that gression toward persons could, in many cases, employees may at times be differentially tar- serve as a convenient mask for unfair discrimi- geted with incivility on the basis of their sex or nation against socially undervalued persons. race, potentially creating disparate work envi- Studies of this possibility would help address a ronments across social groups. At the very least, deficit that is often lamented in social psychol- this could interfere with the recruitment and re- ogy: little research in the bias literature directly tention of a diverse workforce; at worst, perva- assesses discriminatory behavior. This is a ma- sive patterns of incivility toward protected jor problem, because “thoughts and feelings do classes of employees could expose the organi- not exclude, oppress, and kill people; behavior zation to legal liability. For these reasons it is does” (Fiske, 2000: 312). Selective incivility is a critical that organizations and policy makers de- specific behavior that could be the focus of velop effective strategies for managing this dis- novel social psychological research. guised form of workplace discrimination. Questions may arise as to what methods may Referring again to Figure 1, interventions are be most appropriate to launch this line of in- possible for every factor that fuels selective in- quiry. Scholars interested in the antecedents of civility, at the level of both person and context. incivility could use the social psychological ex- Indeed, it is important that both levels be tar- periment as one research tool, pinpointing the geted, as Figure 2 illustrates. If explicit, internal 2008 Cortina 69 bias persists in an individual working in a non- ies support the model, with the superordinate discriminatory context, the person may simply identity created using a range of strategies (e.g., transmute the bias into covert, rationalizable spatially integrating people, creating a common forms of discrimination. Likewise, an employee group name, implementing joint evaluation and who fundamentally opposes gender and race reward systems) in a range of settings. The com- bias, but who works in discriminatory organiza- mon group identity cultivates greater interde- tions, may give in to social pressures and dis- pendence, cooperation, and respect among indi- criminate covertly. Given that selective incivil- viduals who were formerly members of separate ity has antecedents at multiple levels, it seems groups (e.g., Dovidio, Gaertner, & Bachman, only logical that attempts to manage it also take 2001; Dovidio, Gaertner, Niemann, & Snider, a multilevel approach. Below is a discussion of 2001; Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2000; person-level interventions, followed by societal Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). and organizational actions. Even when gender- or race-based social cate- gorization occurs, it does not always yield ste- Person-Level Interventions reotypic thought, emotion, and behavior. De- spite being natural and automatic, stereotyping To reduce the incidence of selective incivil- is not inevitable—it can occur automatically but ity, some might assume that interventions does not always occur. For instance, people ap- should primarily target the organizational parently do not engage in negative stereotypic context, with less hope for intrapersonal re- thinking when they are motivated to endorse a form. However, the social psychology litera- positive judgment of the target. To demonstrate ture is replete with ideas on how to do both: this, research shows that when an employee modify the environment so as to influence in- receives a positive evaluation by a member of a dividual cognition and affect, which could ul- stereotyped group, the employee is motivated by timately inhibit discriminatory behavior. self-interest to respect that person’s opinion; ste- These techniques could potentially be applied reotype activation does not occur (e.g., Devine & to the management of workplace incivility. A Monteith, 1999; Erber & Fiske, 1984; Neuberg & complete review of this literature is beyond Fiske, 1987). the scope of this article, but I highlight several Moreover, when it does occur, stereotype acti- segments as an illustration. vation does not unavoidably lead to stereotype The emphasis in stereotype scholarship on unconscious cognitive processes, unintentional- application. Although a social perceiver may ity, and automaticity may give the false impres- initially categorize a person and trigger a ste- sion that organizational attempts at influencing reotype, the perceiver can be motivated to re- social thought and emotion would be pointless. place this automatic categorical processing On the contrary, research shows that it is possi- with more controlled, intentional, individuated ble to intervene at the outset of these internal processing, and this can prevent a discrimina- processes, manipulating perceivers’ cognitive tory behavioral response. For example, situa- representations of their social worlds. Social tions that involve high stakes, emphasize the categorization may be automatic, but social cat- need for accuracy, hold people accountable for egory boundaries—and the dimensions around their judgments, relax undue time pressures, or which they organize—are far from fixed. Thus, it require cooperation to work toward shared is possible to broaden peoples’ conceptions of goals give rise to individuated processing in who belongs to their ingroup. This can foster lieu of stereotyping (e.g., Devine & Monteith, more positive, respectful attitudes and behavior 1999; Dipboye & Halverson, 2004; Fiske, 2000, toward individuals formerly perceived as out- 2001, 2002; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Valian, group members. 1998). In addition, learning and self-regulation To give a concrete example of this, Gaertner processes can help individuals self-monitor and and Dovidio (2000) developed the common in- recognize situations in which they are suscepti- group identity model. This intervention shifts ble to stereotyped responding; they can then conceptions of social group membership from interrupt stereotypic thinking, even if it is acti- many separate groups to a more inclusive, su- vated, and generate nondiscriminatory behavior perordinate group. Experimental and field stud- (Brief & Barsky, 2000; Monteith, 1993). To quote 70 Academy of Management Review January

Gordon Allport, social perceivers can sometimes ous enough to merit a formal report?” (2004: 74). “put the brakes on prejudice” (1954: 332). Moreover, individual instances of misconduct may not appear discriminatory unless consid- ered in the aggregate (Crosby, 1984; Crosby, Situational Interventions Iyer, Clayton, & Downing, 2003; O’Leary-Kelly et Societal context. Legal frameworks make up al., 2000), particularly compared to conduct tar- an important piece of the fabric that holds civil geted at men and whites. society together. However, one might wonder Further reducing complaint likelihood, targets whether existing law is relevant to uncivil work may experience attributional uncertainty about behavior: because a defining feature of incivil- incivility—a low-level behavior that lacks clear ity is that intentionality is ambiguous, does the intent (Andersson & Pearson, 1999) and has no absence of clear discriminatory intent remove overtly gendered or racial content (Lim & Cor- legal liability? The issue of intent factors into tina, 2005). They may have difficulty deciding some, but not all, legal definitions of discrimi- whether they are experiencing general incivility nation. For example, in McDonnel Douglas Corp. or, rather, discrimination based on their social v. Green (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled category membership (Cortina et al., 2002; that proof of intent to discriminate must be Schneider et al., 2000). Even if they do suspect present before a behavior can be considered differential negative treatment, targets may still unlawful intentional discrimination or disparate hesitate to label their instigators’ behavior as treatment. However, in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. discriminatory. This would imply that the insti- (1971), the Supreme Court also ruled that unin- gators are prejudiced, which is generally seen tentional discrimination or adverse impact is as immoral or evil in the current political cli- also unlawful. In other words, if an organization- mate of this country. Thus, accusations of prej- al practice has differential, adverse effects on udice could embroil targets in emotionally protected classes of employees, then that prac- charged, painful situations, which they would tice may be illegal, even if the effects are unin- likely prefer to avoid (Monin & Miller, 2001; tentional. Likewise, the U.S. Equal Employment Swim et al., 2003). Given the subtlety and attri- Opportunity Commission (1993) has stated that butional uncertainty inherent in these situa- practices that have the effect of interfering with tions, it is even less likely that incivility targets work or creating a hostile work environment for would file discrimination complaints with man- women and racial minorities constitute unlaw- agement. ful sexual and racial harassment, respectively, In the rare cases when employees do come regardless of the employer’s intent. Thus, when forward with reports of selective incivility, man- workplace incivility is disproportionately tar- agers (or judges and juries) might not find such geted at women and minorities and interferes “minor,” seemingly neutral misconduct worthy with their work and/or contributes to a hostile of reprimand. This may be especially true when environment, this situation may violate law. instigators can provide a plausible, nonracial, Despite potential legal implications, it is un- nongendered account for their behavior. To clear whether legal grievance mechanisms make matters worse, some research suggests present effective solutions to the problem of se- that people who merely observe one social lective incivility. These mechanisms require the group (e.g., women) treated less favorably than target to formally complain about the behavior, another (men) are less likely to perceive the which may not be a realistic expectation. Em- treatment as discriminatory, compared with per- ployees generally have high thresholds for ceptions of the individuals who are the direct whistle-blowing (Miceli & Near, 1992), and iso- targets of the disparate treatment (Swim et al., lated acts of subtle discrimination may not seem 2003). Managers are even further removed from “severe” enough to warrant complaint (Dipboye potentially discriminatory situations—only & Halverson, 2004; Rowe, 1990). As Neuman hearing reports about them—so they may be notes, “How (and to whom) do you report having even less likely to believe that discrimination had your feelings hurt, and what reporting sys- has taken place. Moreover, it is difficult to dis- tem captures the time you spend ruminating cern discrimination in individual cases; pat- about the perceived mistreatment? Furthermore, terns of discrimination often emerge only with would you believe that such an incident is seri- the aggregation of multiple incidents across 2008 Cortina 71 persons, places, or time (Crosby, 1984; Crosby et gardless of gender or ethnicity) and avoiding al., 2003; O’Leary-Kelly et al., 2000). For all of resistance met by interventions that exclusively these reasons, traditional, reactive, and legalis- target gender discrimination, racial discrimina- tic approaches to combating blatant discrimina- tion, and so forth (Cortina et al., 2002; Lim & tion may not be effective for managing subtle Cortina, 2005; Podgor, 1996). As Brief et al. note, biases in the form of selective incivility. “The forces driving discrimination in the work- Organizational context. To create respectful, place are many, and any legitimate attempt to incivility-free work environments, it would be- combat discrimination must be multifaceted” hoove organizations to look beyond traditional (1997: 68). methods of achieving and managing diversity; in particular, the reactive complaint mechanism may have limited utility. Proactive, preventa- CONCLUSION tive, and educational approaches seem more This article integrates the literature on work- promising instead. For example, in the interest place incivility with that addressing modern of incivility prevention, senior management can sexism and racism. The resulting concept— model appropriate, respectful workplace behav- selective incivility—is almost certainly more ior and clearly state expectations of civility in pervasive than blatant discrimination and ha- mission statements or policy manuals. Refer- rassment in the workplace. Incivility is also, by ence checks for prospective employees can in- definition, more insidious, taking hold in such clude questions about interpersonal behavior. an ambiguous and stealthy manner that it is All new employees should receive education difficult to identify, manage, and prevent. This about civility expectations, and employees at all speaks to the need for particular vigilance about levels could undergo interpersonal skills train- issues of “general” incivility, which may not be ing. When incivilities do arise, instigators so general after all. More research on the nature, should be sanctioned swiftly, justly, and consis- causes, and consequences of this workplace tently (Pearson et al., 2000; Pearson & Porath, phenomenon will bring us closer to being able 2004). to combat it effectively. And, to the delight of Given the links to gender and race theorized many, perhaps this ongoing work will ulti- in this article, I would also recommend that ef- mately add a crack to the proverbial glass ceil- forts to prevent incivility dovetail with those ad- ing. dressing overt discrimination (e.g., sexual and racial harassment). For example, organizational procedures, policies, and practices to set norms REFERENCES of civility could explicitly discuss equitable re- spect toward women and men and members of Allport, G. W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. different ethnic groups (as well as employees who are young and old, gay and straight, etc.). Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. 1999. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy Leaders should emphasize that unacceptable of Management Review, 24: 452–471. discrimination includes not just overt acts of Ashforth, B. 1994. Petty tyranny in organizations. Human misoygyny and bigotry but also subtle devalu- Relations, 47: 755–778. ation and exclusion of social minorities. The Banaji, M. R., & Dasgupta, N. 1998. The consciousness of intended effect should be a broadening of em- social beliefs: A program of research on stereotyping ployees’ construals of what it means to be non- and prejudice. In V. Y. Yzerbt, G. Lories, & B. Dardenne prejudiced (Brief & Barsky, 2000). Organizational (Eds.), Metacognition: Cognitive and social dimensions: interventions should also incorporate solutions 157–170. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. from the social psychology literature on stereo- Barling, J., Dekker, I., Loughlin, C., Kelloway, E., Fullagar, C., typing and prejudice, detailed above. This sort & Johnson, D. 1996. Prediction and replication of the of combined strategy would provide a more ef- organizational and personal consequences of work- place sexual harassment. Journal of Managerial Psy- ficient and effective means of combating antiso- chology, 11: 4–25. cial work behavior, which has many behavioral Barling, J., Rogers, A., & Kelloway, E. 2001. Behind closed faces (general, gendered, raced, etc.). Related doors: In-home workers’ experience of sexual harass- training programs might then attract broader ment and workplace violence. Journal of Occupational audiences, being relevant to all employees (re- Health Psychology, 6: 255–269. 72 Academy of Management Review January

Baron, R. A. 2004. Workplace aggression and violence: In- Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. 2007. Patterns and profiles of sights from basic research. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. response to incivility in organizations. Working paper, O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational be- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. havior: 23–61. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, Baron, S. B., & Banaji, M. R. 2006. The development of implicit R. D. 2001. Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and attitudes: Evidence of race evaluations from ages 6 and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6: 10 and adulthood. Psychological Science, 17: 53–58. 64–80. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. 1995. The need to belong: Crosby, F. J. 1984. The denial of personal discrimination. Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental American Behavioral Scientist, 27: 371–386. human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497–529. Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., & Downing, R. A. 2003. Benokraitis, N. V. 1997. Sex discrimination in the 21st century. Affirmative action: Psychological data and the policy In N. V. Benokraitis (Ed.), Subtle sexism: Current practice debates. American Psychologist, 58: 93–115. and prospects for change: 5–33. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Deitch, E. A., Barsky, A., Butz, R. M., Brief, A. P., Chan, S., & Bradley, J. C. 2003. Subtle yet significant: The existence Benokraitis, N. V., & Feagin, J. R. 1995. Modern sexism (2nd and impact of everyday racial discrimination in the ed.). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. workplace. Human Relations, 56: 1299–1324. ¨ Bjo¨rkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Hjelt-Ba¨ ck, M. 1994. Aggres- Devine, P. G. 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: The automatic sion among university employees. Aggressive Behavior, and controlled components. Journal of Personality and 20: 173–184. Social Psychology, 56: 5–18. Brief, A. P., & Barsky, A. 2000. Establishing a climate for Devine, P. G., & Monteith, M. J. 1999. Automaticity and control diversity: The inhibition of prejudiced reactions in the in stereotyping. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual- workplace. Research in Personnel and Human Resources process theories in social psychology; 339–360. New Management, 19: 91–129. York: Guilford Press. Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., Elliott, J. D., Reizenstein, R. M., & Dipboye, R. L., & Halverson, S. K. 2004. Subtle (and not so McCline, R. L. 1995. Releasing the beast: A study of subtle) discrimination in organizations. In R. W. Griffin compliance with orders to use race as a selection crite- & A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organiza- rion. Journal of Social Issues, 51: 177–193. tional behavior: 131–158. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., Reizenstein, R. M., Pugh, S. D., Cal- Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. 1998. On the nature of con- lahan, J. D., McCline, R. L., & Vaslow, J. B. 1997. Beyond temporary prejudice: The causes, consequences, and good intentions: The next steps toward racial equality in challenges of aversive racism. In J. L. Eberhardt & the American workplace. Academy of Management Ex- S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and ecutive, 11(4): 59–72. the response: 3–32. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow, Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. 2000. Aversive racism and J. B. 2000. Just doing business: Modern racism and obe- selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Sci- dience to authority as explanations for employment dis- crimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci- ence, 11: 315–319. sion Processes, 81: 72–97. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Bachman, B. A. 2001. Racial Brief, A. P., & Hayes, E. L. 1997. The continuing “American bias in organizations: The role of group processes and dilemma”: Studying racism in organizations. Trends in its causes and cures. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at Organizational Behavior, 4: 89–105. work: Theory and research: 415–444. Mahwah, NJ: Law- rence Erlbaum Associates. Buchanan, N. T. 2005. The nexus of race and gender domi- nation: The racialized sexual harassment of African Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Kawakami, K., & Hodson, G. American women. In P. Morgan & J. Gruber (Eds.), In the 2002. Why can’t we just get along? Interpersonal biases company of men: Re-discovering the links between sex- and interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic ual harassment and male domination: 294–320. Boston: Minority Psychology, 8(2): 88–102. Northeastern University Press. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Niemann, Y. F., & Snider, K. Cleveland, J., & Kerst, M. 1993. Sexual harassment and per- 2001. Racial, ethnic, and cultural differences in respond- ceptions of power: An underarticulated relationship. ing to distinctiveness and discrimination on campus: Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42: 49–67. Stigma and common group identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57: 167–188. Cortina, L. M., Lonsway, K. A., & Magley, V. J. 2004. Recon- ceptualizing workplace incivility through the lenses of Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. 2000. Reducing gender and race. Paper presented at the annual meeting contemporary prejudice: Combating explicit and im- of the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology, plicit bias at the individual and intergroup level. In Chicago. S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: 137–163. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cortina, L. M., Lonsway, K. L., Magley, V. J., Freeman, L. V., Collinsworth, L. L., Hunter, M., & Fitzgerald, Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. 2002. Social under- L. F. 2002. What’s gender got to do with it? Incivility in mining in the workplace. Academy of Management Jour- the federal courts. Law and Social Inquiry, 27: 235–270. nal, 45: 331–351. 2008 Cortina 73

Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. 1984. Gender stereotypes stem Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. 1997. Antisocial behavior in from the distribution of women and men into social organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46: Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. 1999. Sexism and other “isms”: Inter- 735–754. dependence, status, and the ambivalent content of ste- Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. 1999. The origins of sex differences reotypes. In W. B. Swann, Jr., J. H. Langlois, & L. A. Gil- in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social bert (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: roles. American Psychologist, 54: 408–423. The gender science of Janet Taylor Spence: 192–221. Eighth Circuit Gender Fairness Task Force. 1997. Final re- Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. port and recommendations of the Eighth Circuit Gender Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. 2001. An ambivalent alliance: Hostile Fairness Task Force. Creighton Law Review, 31(1): 1–181. and benevolent sexism as contemporary justifications Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. I. 1997. Harassment in the work- for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56: 109– place and the victimization of men. Violence and Vic- 118. tims, 12: 247–263. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. 1995. Implicit social cog- Erber, R., & Fiske, S. T. 1984. Outcome dependency and at- nition: Attitudes, self-esteeem, and stereotypes. Psycho- tention to inconsistent information. Journal of Personal- logical Review, 102: 4–27. ity and Social Psychology, 47: 709–726. Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 401, U.S. 424 (1971). Fiske, S. T. 1993. Controlling other people: The impact of Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. 2002. power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48: 621– Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field study 628. of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Fiske, S. T. 2000. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination Social Psychology Bulletin, 28: 815–825. at the seam between the centuries: Evolution, culture, Heller, K. 1989. The return to community. American Journal of mind, and brain. European Journal of Social Psychology, Community Psychology, 17: 1–16. 30: 299–322. Hilton, J. L., & von Hipple, W. 1996. Stereotypes. Annual Fiske, S. T. 2001. Effects of power on bias: Power explains Review of Psychology, 47: 237–271. and maintains individual, group, and societal dispari- ties. In A. Y. Lee-Chai & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Use and abuse Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. 1999. Workplace bully- of power: Multiple perspectives on the causes of corrup- ing. International Review of Industrial and Organiza- tion: 181–193. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. tional Psychology, 14: 195–223. Fiske, S. T. 2002. What we know now about bias and inter- Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. 1996. Organiza- group conflict, the problem of the century. Current Di- tional influences on sexual harassment. In M. Stockdale rections in Psychological Science, 11: 123–128. (Ed.), Sexual harassment in the workplace: Perspectives, frontiers, and response strategies: 127–150. Thousand Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. M. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. 2002. A model Oaks, CA: Sage. of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and Jackman, M. R. 1994. Paternalism and conflict in gender, competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of Califor- ogy, 82: 878–902. nia Press. Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Jackson, L. M., Esses, V. M., & Burris, C. T. 2001. Contempo- Magley, V. J. 1997. The antecedents and consequences of rary sexism and discrimination: The importance of re- sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an inte- spect for men and women. Personality and Social Psy- grated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 578– chology Bulletin, 27: 48–61. 589. James, E. H., Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., & Cohen, R. R. 2001. Preju- Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., & White, K. B. 2004. First- dice matters: Understanding the reaction of whites to and second-generation measures of sexism, rape myths affirmative action programs targeted to benefit blacks. and related beliefs, and hostility toward women. Vio- Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1120–1128. lence Against Women, 10: 236–261. James, K., Lovato, C., & Khoo, G. 1994. Social identity corre- Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. 1986. The aversive form of lates of minority workers’ health. Academy of Manage- racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, ment Journal, 37: 383–396. discrimination, and racism: 61–89. Orlando, FL: Aca- James, L. R. 1998. Measurement of personality via condi- demic Press. tional reasoning. Organizational Research Methods, 1: Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. 2000. Reducing intergroup 131–163. bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia: James, L. R., & Mazerolle, M. D. 2003. Personality in work Psychology Press. organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., & Ehrhart, K. H. 2002. Methodolog- Jones, M. 2002. Social psychology of prejudice. Upper Saddle ical issues in cross-cultural organizational research. In River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology: 216–246. Mal- Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2000. Multilevel theory, den, MA: Blackwell. research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, 74 Academy of Management Review January

extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey- Sexual harassment as aggressive behavior: An actor- Bass. based perspective. Academy of Management Review, Lazarus, R. S. 1999. Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New 25: 372–388. York: Springer. Operario, D., & Fiske, S. T. 1998. Racism equals power plus Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, appraisal, and prejudice: A social psychological equation for racial coping. New York: Springer. oppression. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Con- fronting racism: The problem and the response: 33–53. Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. 2004. A multi-level model of incivility Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. in the workplace. Paper presented at the annual meet- ing of the Academy of Management, New Orleans. Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. 2000. Assess- ing and attacking workplace incivility. Organizational Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. 2005. Interpersonal mistreatment in Dynamics, 29(2): 123–137. the workplace: The interface and outcomes of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Wegner, J. W. 2001. When Psychology, 90: 483–496. workers flout convention: A study of workplace incivil- ity. Human Relations, 54: 1387–1419. Magley, V. J., Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & DeNardo, M. 1999. The outcomes of self-labeling sexual harassment. Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. 2004. On incivility, its impact, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 390–402. and directions for future research. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organization- McConahay, J. B. 1986. Modern racism, ambivalence, and the al behavior: 403–425. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. modern racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: 91–125. Or- Pettigrew, T. F., & Martin, J. 1987. Shaping the organizational lando, FL: Academic Press. context for black American inclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 43: 41–78. McConahay, J. B., & Hough, J. C. 1976. Symbolic racism. Journal of Social Issues, 32: 23–45. Podgor, E. 1996. Lawyer professionalism in a gendered soci- ety. South Carolina Law Review, 47: 323–348. McDonnel Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Pretty, G. H., & McCarthy, M. 1991. Exploring psychological Meyerson, D. E., & Fletcher, J. K. 2000. A modest manifesto for sense of community among women and men of the cor- shattering the glass ceiling. Harvard Business Review, poration. Journal of Community Psychology, 19: 1351– 78(1): 127–136. 1361. Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. 1992. Blowing the whistle: The Pryor, J. B., Giedd, J. L., & Williams, K. B. 1995. A social organizational and legal implications for companies and employees. New York: Lexington Books. psychological model for predicting sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51: 69–84. Miller, D. T., & Turnbull, W. 1986. Expectancies and interper- sonal processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 37: 233– Richman, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., Nawyn, S. J., Flaherty, 256. J. A., Fendrich, M., Drum, M., & Johnson, T. P. 1999. Sexual harassment and generalized workplace abuse: Preva- Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. 2004. Working in a context lence and mental health correlates. American Journal of of hostility toward women: Implications for employees’ Public Health, 89: 358–363. well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9: 107–122. Riger, S. 1991. Gender dilemmas in sexual harassment pol- icies and procedures. American Psychologist, 46: 497– Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. 2006. Observed incivility 505. toward women at work: The role of organizational jus- tice. Paper presented at the APA/NIOSH Work, Stress Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. 1995. A typology of deviant and Health Conference, Miami. workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 555–572. Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. 2001. Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and So- Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. 1998. Monkey see, cial Psychology, 81: 33–43. monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antiso- cial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Monteith, M. J. 1993. Self-regulation of prejudiced responses: Journal, 41: 658–672. Implications for progress in prejudice reduction efforts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65: 469– Rospenda, K. 2002. Workplace harassment, services utiliza- 485. tion, and drinking outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7: 141–155. Neuberg, S. L., & Fiske, S. T. 1987. Motivational influences on impression formation: Outcome dependency, accuracy- Rowe, M. P. 1990. Barriers to equality: The power of subtle driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of discrimination to maintain unequal opportunity. Em- Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 431–444. ployee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 3: 153–163. Neuman, J. H. 2004. Injustice, stress, and aggression in orga- Sanchez, J. I., & Brock, P. 1996. Outcomes of perceived dis- nizations. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), crimination among Hispanic employees: Is diversity The dark side of organizational behavior: 62–102. San management a luxury or a necessity? Academy of Man- Francisco: Jossey-Bass. agement Journal, 39: 704–719. O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Paetzold, R. L., & Griffin, R. W. 2000. Sarason, S. B. 1974. The psychological sense of community: 2008 Cortina 75

Prospects for a community psychology. Cambridge, MA: Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1986. The social identity theory of Brookline Books. intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. 2003. A review of cross- Psychology of intergroup relations: 7–24. Chicago: Nel- cultural methodologies for organizational research. Or- son-Hall. ganizational Research Methods, 6: 169–215. Thacker, R. A., & Ferris, G. R. 1991. Understanding sexual Schneider, K. T., Hitlan, R. T., & Radhakrishnan, P. 2000. An harassment in the workplace: The influence of power examination of the nature and correlates of ethnic ha- and politics within the dyadic interaction of harasser rassment experiences in multiple contexts. Journal of and target. Human Resource Management Review, 1: Applied Psychology, 85: 3–12. 23–37. Scott, W. R. 1992. Organizations: Rational, natural, and open Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. 1995. Neosex- systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ism: Plus c¸a change, plus c’est pareil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21: 842–849. Sears, D. O. 1988. Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy: 53–84. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Guide- New York: Plenum Press. lines on harassment based on race, color, religion, gen- der, national origin, age, or disability. 58 Fed. Reg. Sears, D. O. 1988. Racism and politics in the United States. In 51,266. Washington, DC: U.S. Equal Employment Oppor- J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the response: 76–100. Thousand Oaks, tunity Commission. CA: Sage. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 2003. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. 1997. Retaliation in the work- Charge statistics FY 1992 through FY 2002. Washington, place: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interac- DC: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. tional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 434– Valian, V. 1998. Why so slow? The advancement of women. 443. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. 2002. An emotion-centered model of VandenBos, G. R., & Bulatao, E. Q. 1996. Violence on the job: voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between coun- Identifying risks and developing solutions. Washington, terproductive work behavior and organizational citizen- DC: American Psychological Association. ship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12: 269–292. Wheaton, B. 1997. The nature of chronic stress. In B. H. Gott- lieb (Ed.), Coping with chronic stress: 43–74. New York: Stone, E. F., Stone, D. L., & Dipboye, R. L. 1992. Stigmas in Plenum Press. organizations: Race, handicaps, and physical unattrac- tiveness. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research in Williams, J. H., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. 1999. The industrial/organizational psychology: 385–457. Oxford: effects of organizational practices on sexual harass- North-Holland. ment and individual outcomes in the military. Military Psychology, 11: 303–328. Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. 1995. Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern preju- Williams, K. D. 1998. Social exclusion. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), dices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68: Aversive interpersonal behaviors: 133–170. New York: 199–214. Plenum Press. Swim, J. K., Scott, E. D., Sechrist, G. B., Campbell, B., & Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. 1997. Social exclusion by Stangor, C. 2003. The role of intent and harm in judg- coworkers: Does rejection lead to loafing or compensa- ments of prejudice and discrimination. Journal of Per- tion? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23: sonality and Social Psychology, 84: 944–959. 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 from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research addresses victimization and gender in organizations, focusing in particular on employee experiences of incivility and sexual harassment.