Patterns and Profiles of Response to Incivility in the Workplace Lilia M. Cortina University of Michigan Vicki J. Magley University of Connecticut The authors draw on stress and coping theory to understand patterns of individual response to workplace incivility. According to data from 3 employee samples, incivility tended to trigger mildly negative appraisals, which could theoretically differentiate incivility from other categories of antisocial work behavior. Employees experiencing frequent and varied incivility from powerful instigators generally appraised their uncivil encounters more negatively. They responded to this stressor using a multifaceted array of coping strategies, which entailed support seeking, detach- ment, minimization, prosocial conflict avoidance, and assertive conflict avoidance. These coping reactions depended on the target’s appraisal of the situation, the situation’s duration, and the organizational position and power of both target and instigator. Implications for organizational science and practice are discussed. Keywords: incivility, antisocial work behavior, stress, coping, appraisal Workplace incivility may be subtle, but its effects are not: Empirical research suggests that employees targeted with uncivil behavior show greater job stress, cognitive distraction, psychological distress, as well as lower job satisfaction and creativity. Per- sonnel targeted with pervasive incivility ultimately leave their organizations at higher rates (Cortina et al., 2002; Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008; Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000; Pearson, Andersson, & Wegner, 2001). To reduce these negative conse- quences, organizations must be vigilant about inci- vility: preventing it where possible and, when it oc- curs, understanding what follows so that effective interventions can be designed. This understanding must include employee responses to uncivil conduct. The primary goals of the current study were two- fold. First, we sought to shed light on the nature of two employee responses to workplace incivility: ap- praisal and coping. Despite an increasing literature on the antecedents and consequences of incivility, we know little about internal, psychological reactions to this behavior or the general manner by which targets of the behavior manage their experiences. Hence, in the current study, we aimed to provide a descriptive picture of how individuals appraise and cope with incivility across three fairly different contexts of work. A second goal of this study was to understand factors that fuel these employee responses, that is, what makes a person appraise uncivil conduct as more or less stressful, and what determines his or her choice of how to react? Answers to these questions can advance both theory and practice in this domain. To develop hypotheses, we drew from research on not only incivility but also the related constructs of workplace abuse, injustice, harassment, and bullying. Theoretical Background on Workplace Incivility In their seminal scholarship on workplace incivil- ity, Andersson and Pearson (1999, p. 457) defined this construct as “low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behav- iors are characteristically rude and discourteous, dis- playing a lack of regard for others.” Examples in- clude interruption, use of a condescending tone, and unprofessional terms of address. Incivility is both related to and distinct from other antisocial work behaviors. It is a broader construct than bullying, which is often defined as involving a power imbal- ance and occurring at least once per week for at least Lilia M. Cortina, Departments of Psychology and Wom- en’s Studies, University of Michigan; Vicki J. Magley, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut. We are grateful to the following individuals for their contributions to the larger projects behind this research: Louise F. Fitzgerald, Leslie V. Freeman, Kimberly A. Lon- sway, Regina Day Langhout, Jill Hunter-Williams, and members of our respective research labs at the universities of Michigan and Connecticut. Thanks also to Jose ´ Cortina, Abby Stewart, and Arzu Wasti for their valuable comments on a version of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Lilia M. Cortina, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 530 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1043. E-mail: lilia@umich.edu Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2009, Vol. 14, No. 3, 272–288 © 2009 American Psychological Association 1076-8998/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0014934 272