Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100999

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review

Kick me while I’m down: Modeling employee differences of the

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Although research has shown that workplace incivility has a stronger and more enduring impact
Workplace incivility on the health and wellbeing of some employees more than others, there has been little focus on
Attribution theory why this is the case. To address this gap, in this paper, we integrate attribution and conservation
Conservation of resource theory
of resource theories and relevant studies to develop a conceptual model that focuses on explaining
National culture
the relationship between workplace incivility and employees’ health and wellbeing. Our model
Employee health and wellbeing
Equity-deserving employees emphasizes how employees’ attributions about incivility are influenced by the combination of the
Freeze response perceived power of the source of the incivility, employees’ individual resources, and the cultural
value of collectivism of the country in which the employees were raised, and how their attri­
butions may lead to a freeze response, resulting in a downward spiral that impacts their health
and wellbeing. Further, we consider the role of organizational resources in potentially mitigating
the negative consequences of workplace incivility on these employees. By including an example of
the model’s application to equity-deserving employees and considering how employees’ past
experiences impact on the relationship between their attributions about workplace incivility and
their health and wellbeing, our paper challenges underlying assumptions of human resource
management (HRM) frameworks and models used to ensure employee wellbeing.

1. Introduction

Workplace incivility, defined as “low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target” (Andersson & Pearson,
1999, p. 457), is a form of workplace mistreatment that has been gaining considerable attention due to its potentially negative in­
fluence on various employee and organizational outcomes (e.g., Han, Harold, Oh, Kim, & Agolli, 2022). Examples of workplace
incivility include rude or demeaning comments, not giving someone a chance to be heard, giving someone the silent treatment, and/or
insulting or yelling at someone (Blau & Andersson, 2005). Though sharing some similarities in terms of their respective definitions,
Smith and Griffiths (2022, p.283) suggest that workplace incivility is distinct from microaggressions and everyday discrimination in
the sense that the incivility concept focuses on the “violation of workplace norms regarding politeness and respectful behavior”.
Workplace incivility may be instigated by different sources, such as supervisors, colleagues, and clients (e.g., Cortina, Kabat-Farr,
Magley, & Nelson, 2017). Estimates show that as many as 98% of employees across industries in North America have experienced

* Corresponding author at: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Saigon South Campus, Vietnam
E-mail address: Frances.jorgensen@royalroads.ca (F. Jorgensen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100999
Received 17 August 2021; Received in revised form 10 September 2023; Accepted 13 September 2023
Available online 23 September 2023
1053-4822/© 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
F. Jorgensen et al. Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100999

workplace incivility (Porath & Pearson, 2013). Chen et al. (2019) emphasize that workplace incivility is a global problem that must be
addressed by scholars and practitioners alike.
Decades of research (e.g., Chris et al., 2022; He, Walker, Payne, & Miner, 2021; Lim & Cortina, 2005; Lim & Lee, 2011) have
demonstrated an intriguing paradox, that, despite being considered low-intensity, workplace incivility can have serious consequences
on the health and wellbeing of employees. The literature also acknowledges that there are differences in how employees experience
workplace incivility and the consequences it has on them (e.g., Cortina, Kabat-Farr, Leskinen, Huerta, & Magley, 2013; Cortina,
Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Heikkila, 2019; Kabat-Farr, Settles, & Cortina, 2020; Ozturk & Berber, 2022). Scholars (e.g.,
Beattie & Griffin, 2014; Cortina, Hershcovis, & Clancy, 2022; Cortina & Magley, 2009; Marchiondo, Cortina, & Kabat-Farr, 2018;
Schilpzand, De Pater, & Erez, 2016) have addressed the differential impact of workplace incivility on a variety of employee and
organizational outcomes. Interestingly, while these studies do provide some potential explanations for the differences in how em­
ployees experience workplace incivility, they do not address why certain employees might be more likely to perceive an uncivil event
as negative, while others would dismiss the same event. Thus, the research question underpinning our paper is: Why might some
employees be more likely to blame themselves for experienced incivility, and why might the negative impact of experienced workplace incivility
be stronger and more enduring on these employees’ health and wellbeing?
These questions are of increasing importance as organizations become more and more diverse and the corresponding prevalence of
incivility continues to increase (Kabat-Farr et al., 2020; Smith, Hassan, Hatmaker, DeHart-Davis, & Humphrey, 2021). To address this
gap, based on existing literature, we develop a conceptual model (see Fig. 1) that draws primarily on conservation of resource (COR,
Hobfoll, 1989) and attribution theories (Heider, 1958; Kelley & Michela, 1980; Weiner, 1985) to build an understanding of why some
employees make stronger internal attributions (self-blame) in comparison to other employees. Our model emphasizes how employees’
attributions about incivility are influenced by the combination of the perceived power of the source of the incivility, individual re­
sources, and the cultural values of the country in which they were raised (collectivism/individualism), and how their attributions may
lead to a freeze response that can trigger a downward spiral that impacts their health and wellbeing. Both the conservation of resource
and attribution theory are explained in more detail in Section 2.1 and 2.3 of our paper; the freeze response is explained further in
Section 2.5. Further, our model considers how organizational resources may mitigate the relationship between the employees’ at­
tributions of workplace incivility and the employees’ health and wellbeing.
To illustrate our model, we provide an example involving ‘equity-deserving’1 employees, referring to those who identify as
different from mainstream employees in terms of, for instance, their gender, race, immigration status, sexual orientation, disabilities,
and/or religious or cultural observances to illustrate differences in employee responses to experienced incivility. Scholars note that
employees encompassed by this term suffer stronger and more enduring negative consequences of workplace incivility, including
diminished short- and long-term wellbeing and mental and physical health issues (e.g., Berdahl & Raver, 2011; Chan & McAllister,
2014; Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Robinson, Tilford, Branney, & Kinsella, 2014; Zurbrügg & Miner, 2016), but why this occurs is not well
understood. Thus, considering why equity-deserving employees may experience stronger and more enduring negative consequences
from experienced incivility provides the opportunity to apply the model to a specific, relevant, and understudied employee group.
In developing the model and the accompanying propositions, we contribute to the literature in the following ways. First, we build
on current studies attempting to explain the differential impact of workplace incivility on employees by considering the role of at­
tributions and boundary conditions that may influence the way in which an employee makes sense of their experience of workplace
incivility. Attributions, which are naïve explanations individuals make about the causality of their own or others’ behavior that can
influence their attitudes and behaviors (Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1985), are considered especially relevant for studying workplace
incivility as it is, by definition, inherently ambiguous, and therefore how it is understood by the target and thus the potential impact it
can have on them are up for interpretation. Whereas previous research (e.g., Cheng, Dong, Zhou, Guo, & Peng, 2020; Liu, Yu, Chen, &
He, 2020; Schilpzand, Leavitt, & Lim, 2016) emphasizes that employees’ attributions about uncivil behaviors can have an impact on
their behaviors, they do not fully consider why those attributions may vary across different employees. To illustrate this point, we
include an example of how the model can be applied to a specific group of employees—namely, those we refer to as equity-deserving.
There are also studies examining how the source of incivility (e.g., supervisor, co-worker, customer) (e.g., Cheng et al., 2020; Wang
& Chen, 2020) influences employees’ responses to uncivil events, including ones that consider employee attributions (e.g., Beattie &
Griffin, 2014; Marchiondo et al., 2018) and studies that consider the role of individual resources in employees’ responses to workplace
incivility (e.g., Zhou, Yan, Che, & Meier, 2015). Further, the literature includes studies suggesting that national culture may help
explain why employees may respond differently to workplace incivility (e.g., (Gui, Bai, & Wang, 2022; Parker et al., 2020; Schilpzand
et al., 2016). However, again, these studies do not seek to explain why there are differences across groups of employees. Further, none
of these studies address the influence of the source of the incivility, the employee’s individual resources, and cultural values on the
relationship between workplace incivility and (internal) attributions. We argue that it is the combined influence of these conditions on
employee attributions that explain the more serious and enduring negative impact of workplace incivility on some employees’ health
and wellbeing.
Secondly, based on the way people attribute the workplace incivility, influenced by the source of the incivility, the employee’s
individual resources, and the cultural values of the country in which they were raised, we propose that some employees are likely to
exhibit a “freeze” response described as “attentive immobility" (Roelofs, 2017), instead of the fight (retaliation) response posited by
Andersson and Pearson (1999) or the flee response included in Cortina et al. (2022) model.

1
(https://wordpress.kpu.ca/antiracism/2020/11/20/shifting-from-equity-seeking-to-equity-deserving/)

2
F. Jorgensen et al. Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100999

Fig. 1. A conceptual model of the relationship between workplace incivility and health and wellbeing, including the propositions.

Although either the fight or flee response may be enacted by some employees, we argue that employees with diminished individual
resources from negative past experiences during their lifetime will be more likely to respond with a freeze response when they blame
themselves for experienced workplace incivility. While there are some studies linking a freeze response and negative consequences on
health and wellbeing in individuals (e.g., Erchul, 2020; Riskind, Sagliano, Trojano, & Conson, 2016; Schneider, Levin, & Herskovitz,
2022), they are very limited and not related to incivility or employee attributions. Both the conservation of resource and attribution
theory are explained in more detail in Section 2.1 and 2.3 of our paper. The freeze response is explained further in Section 2.5.
Finally, we contribute to the HRM and incivility literature through our novel integration of conservation of resources (COR) and
attribution theories to explain individual differences of the impact of workplace incivility on employees’ health and wellbeing. Existing
studies (e.g., Garcia et al., 2019) linking (COR) and attribution theories focus on performance outcomes and do not consider the
complex and dynamic relationship between workplace incivility, employees’ attributions, their responses, and their health and
wellbeing. This is an important distinction as we concur with, for instance, Guest (2017), who admonishes HRM scholars for overly
prioritizing organizational performance measures over ones that focus solely on employee wellbeing.

2. Theoretical foundation and propositions

2.1. Attributions regarding experienced workplace incivility and health and wellbeing

As mentioned, prior research has demonstrated that workplace incivility negatively affects employees’ health and wellbeing (e.g.,
Cortina, 2008; Cortina et al., 2013; Cortina, Hershcovis, & Clancy, 2022; Kabat-Farr et al., 2020; Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008). Since
this is a well-established relationship, we begin with the assumption that there is a negative relationship between experienced
workplace incivility and employees’ health and wellbeing. Here we consider wellbeing “…multi-demensional, incorporating, for
example, subjective experiences of career and financial wellbeing, and physical, psychological, spiritual and moral experiences” (La
Placa, McNaught, & Knight, 2013, p.119). Thus, our use of the term wellbeing includes variables such as stress and psychological
experiences.
In attempting to explain why workplace incivility has a negative impact on employees, scholars have suggested the role of
employee appraisals. For instance, Cortina and Magley (2009) propose that employees will make appraisals (e.g., if the uncivil event
poses a threat or not) that will then influence their response to the incivility. Building on this work, Cortina, Hershcovis, & Clancy,
2022 developed a conceptual model of employees’ behavioral responses to incivility. Others have adopted another approach, focusing
on how employees make explanations to themselves about the reasons behind experienced workplace incivility. In particular, Beattie
and Griffin (2014) argue that employees who blame themselves for an uncivil event rather than placing blame externally on, for
example, the instigator or the organization, will suffer stronger negative consequences of experienced incivility. Based on a meta-
analysis, Schilpzand et al. (2016) provide support for this line of reasoning, proposing that the magnitude of harm caused by un­
civil behaviors may be a product of the target’s attributions, or the naïve explanations individuals make about the causality of their
own or others’ behavior (Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1985). Marchiondo et al. (2018) address both appraisals (i.e., as an opportunity for
learning, growth) and attributions and whether there might be positive benefits from it. Still, they limit their view of attributions to
perceptions of whether the incivility demonstrates intent to harm or a form of instigator control.
While we are not disputing the value of appraisals (i.e., what is the intent), we argue that shifting the focus to consider employees’
attributions of experienced incivility, rather than their appraisals, provides more nuanced information about the way the target un­
derstands and explains the incivility. According to Weiner (1985), individuals have a need to understand and explain their own and
other behaviors and why events occur in their lives, especially when something unexpected or unwanted happens; hence, they make

3
F. Jorgensen et al. Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100999

attributions about those events (Bohner, Bless, Schwarz, & Strack, 1988; Kelley & Michela, 1980; Perrewé & Zellars, 1999). Hobfoll
(2001) posits that how employees make sense of and interpret (i.e., make attributions about) negative experiences in particular im­
pacts the extent to which they experience stress and the intensity of that response. Attributions can be internal (“I am to blame”) or
external (“I blame the instigator”) and numerous scholars (e.g., Beattie & Griffin, 2014; Chen et al., 2019; Cheng et al., 2020; Garcia
et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2020; Tröster & Van Quaquebeke, 2021) note that employees may blame themselves for experienced
mistreatment or abuse. Beyond incivility research, the literature suggests that internal attributions are linked to depression and other
health concerns (e.g., Seligman, Abramson, Semmel, & Von Baeyer, 1979) when manifested as characterological (“It was because I am
gay”) versus behavioral (i.e., “It was something I did wrong”) self-blame. More specifically, characterological self-blame relates to self-
esteem and is attributed to a source, such as one’s character, which may lead to stronger negative impact on the individual’s mental
health as these are perceived as being outside of one’s control (Janoff-Bulman, 1979; Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983). Other studies
suggest that although attributions about discrimination (e.g., “It happened because I am a person of color”) and self-blame that are
characterological (e.g., “There is something wrong with me I cannot change”) can have deleterious consequences for wellbeing, a
combination of these two attributions can be especially damaging (e.g., Feasel, Dover, Small, & Major, 2022). Here, we extend existing
research and emphasize the role of internal attributions on the relationship between experiencing workplace incivility and employee
health and wellbeing, a pathway that has received minimal attention in prior research. Further, the relationship between internal (self-
blame) attributions and employee health and wellbeing has not been addressed. Accordingly, we formulate our first proposition as
follows:
Proposition 1. Employees’ internal attributions (self-blame) explain the relationship between workplace incivility and employee’s
health and wellbeing.

2.2. Source of incivility

Incivility may come from numerous sources, including one’s supervisor or co-workers (e.g., Lim & Lee, 2011, customers (e.g.,
Arnold & Walsh, 2015; Marchiondo et al., 2015; Sliter & Jones, 2016), or combinations of these (Sliter, Sliter, & Jex, 2012). To date,
there are surprisingly few studies that investigate how the source of the incivility impacts on employee outcomes. Still, there are some
studies that suggest that the negative consequences may be worse when the instigator of the incivility is the employee’s supervisor (e.
g., Alola, Avci, & Ozturen, 2018; Jawahar & Schreurs, 2018; Lim & Lee, 2011). For example, Shin and Hur (2020) conclude that the
negative impact of workplace incivility on employees’ work performance is stronger and more enduring when the instigator is in a
position of power. Similarly, Potipiroon and Ford (2019) report that supervisor incivility has a stronger impact on individual and
organizational outcomes than incivility instigated by other sources. Cortina et al. (2002) and Cortina (2008) also highlighted that
incivility is most likely to occur when there is a power differential and when the instigator engages in uncivil behavior towards those
with less social or formal power, such as in male dominated professions.
Moreover, in a study on witness incivility, Jungert and Holm (2022) demonstrate that the power position of the source of the
incivility is significantly related to assessments of the severity of incivility. In our model, we propose that the perceived power of the
source of the incivility, whether that be a supervisor or another source, will influence the relationship between workplace incivility and
employees’ attributions about the experienced incivility. Thus far these studies do not consider that power may be perceived by the
target in cases where no formal power exists; however, a study by Martinko, Harvey, Sikora, and Douglas (2011) suggests that in­
dividual differences in attribution styles and perceptions of the leader-member exchange may help explain subordinates’ perceptions
of supervisor abuse.
The issue with power may be related to how individuals view themselves in comparison to others. Indeed, Hegtvedt, Thompson,
and Cook (1993) contend that individuals make attributions about a behavior or event based on how they perceive their own identity
relative to the other person involved in an exchange and how they perceive a given behavior/event in a given context. Building on
attribution theory, they further suggest that, lacking specific objective structural characteristics of a situation (e.g., formal power) with
which to base their attributions, individuals will compare themselves in some way to other members of their or another social group.
Expectations they associate with social categorization (e.g., dominant gender or race) may then color their attributions. Responding to
the scarcity of research on the role of perceived power of the instigator, we formulate our next proposition as:
Proposition 2. The source of the incivility will influence the relationship between experienced incivility and internal attribution
such that this relationship will be stronger and more negative if employees perceive the instigator to have more power.

2.3. Individual resources

According to Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, and Westman (2014), resources are defined as anything an individual
perceives as being helpful to them in achieving their goals. Resources can, for example, be objects (e.g., working tools, car), states (e.g.,
self-esteem, confidence, locus of control), conditions (e.g., employment, tenure, seniority), personal characteristics (e.g., skills, per­
sonality, traits), and energies (e.g., time) (see also ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). Conservation of Resources (COR) theory
(Hobfoll, 1989) has been applied in a myriad of contexts within the fields of organizational behavior and HRM (Halbesleben et al.,
2014). Essentially, COR is a stress and motivation theory which argues that individuals strive to protect and obtain the resources that
they value most (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll, Halbesleben, Neveu, & Westman, 2018).
Central to COR is the notion that having more resources to draw upon allows an individual to cope more effectively with stress
(Brouer, Wallace, & Harvey, 2011). In situations where resources are diminished, the ability to cope is reduced. Interestingly, and of

4
F. Jorgensen et al. Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100999

particular relevance in this context, past experiences contribute to personal resources. For example, Boscarino and Adams (2009)
conclude that frequent aversive life experiences such as childhood abuse, trauma, and/or discrimination throughout life are associated
with decreased coping capacity when faced with a current threat. It follows then that decreased coping capacity will lead to negative
outcomes. Still, prior research does not address how diminished individual resources stemming from past negative experiences will
impact on employees’ attributions and make them less able to cope with uncivil events. Therefore, we formulate the following:
Proposition 3. An employee’s individual resources will influence the relationship between experienced incivility and internal at­
tributions (self-blame) so that this relationship will be stronger for those employees who have diminished individual resources from
experienced trauma, abuse, and/or discrimination.

2.4. National cultural values (individualism/collectivism)

One of the antecedents of attributions as identified by Kelley and Michela (1980) involves the beliefs an individual holds. We argue
that the cultural values of the country in which an employee was raised will influence their beliefs about experienced incivility. Culture
can be seen as “a set of beliefs, practices, and symbols that are learned and shared. Together, they form an all-encompassing, integrated
whole that binds people together and shapes their worldview and lifeways” (Nelson & Braff, 2020; p.6). Hofstede (1980) model of
national cultural values has been widely applied to studies on organizations and consists of six main dimensions: power distance,
collectivism/individualism, masculinity/feminism, uncertainty avoidance, short/long term orientation, and indulgence/restraint
(Hofstede, 2011).
In this paper, we focus on the cultural value dimension of collectivism/ individualism as the literature shows that this dimension
both influences the experiences of workplace incivility as well as the formation of attributions, although limited research in both areas
is scant and none exists on the relationship between the two. Still, numerous scholars (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; House, Hanges, Javidan,
Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004) argue that, in countries with high individualism values such as Canada, the US, Australia, the Netherlands
and the United Kingdom, individuals are primarily identified as unique entities who are independent and have control over and take
responsibility for their own actions.
Leiter, Peck, and Gumuchian (2015) note that there are only a few studies specifically addressing the relationship between the
collectivism/individualism dimension and workplace incivility. Of these few, Liu, Chi, Friedman, and Tsai (2009) report that
collectivism is linked with lower perceptions of perceived workplace incivility, which they attribute to different definitions of the
incivility construct. Relatedly, Wu, Zhang, and Chiu (2014) suggest that Chinese employees might be less likely to consider rude
comments or other non-hostile events as uncivil as they are considered common practice, resulting in fewer reports of incivility and less
negative consequences. Similarly, Chen et al. (2019) propose that employees in collectivist cultures such as China may not view rude
comments and non-violent behavior as an intrusion on their personal space the way those from individualist cultures do, and therefore
would not necessarily report such events as uncivil nor experience deleterious impact from them.
In addition, in a study involving Hispanic and non-Hispanic employees, Welbourne, Gangadharan, and Sariol (2015) report that
employees possessing strong collectivist values emphasize sociability and familism—interconnectedness within a family wherein
individuals place particularly high value on one’s family and on providing support to one’s family —were more resilient to workplace
incivility than those with strong individualist values that emphasize reliance, which in turn impacted the relationship between
workplace incivility and burnout. The authors note that these findings may be quite specific to the Hispanic culture, concluding that
“employees’ ethnicity and cultural values may increase or decrease their vulnerability to the impact of incivility at work” (p.205).
Related to the relationship between the cultural value dimensions on the formation of attributions, the general consensus from
cross-cultural studies is that people from individualist cultures tend to attribute the cause (positive and negative) of events internally,
while those in high collectivist cultures, such as India, Turkey, China, and Mexico, strongly believe in interdependence amongst in­
dividuals, and tend to identify themselves strongly with long-lasting group memberships and are more likely to attribute the cause of
events externally (Al-Zahrani & Kaplowitz, 1993; Choi, Nisbett, & Norenzayan, 1999).
Based on the above, we propose that the relationship between workplace incivility and internal attributions (self-blame) is
influenced by the cultural value dimension of collectivism/individualism. To the best of our knowledge, the influence of collectivism
on the relationship between workplace incivility and internal attributions has not been investigated. In our model, we propose that this
relationship is weaker in collectivistic countries as individuals in collectivistic countries are more likely to attribute events externally,
rather than blaming themselves. Therefore, our next proposition is:
Proposition 4. The collectivism of the country in which an employee was raised will influence the relationship between experienced
incivility and the employee’s internal attributions (self-blame) so that this relationship will be weaker for those who were raised in
countries characterized by collectivism.

2.5. Freeze response

In our model, we propose that the combination of perceived power of the source of the incivility, the employee’s individual re­
sources, and the cultural values of the country in which the employee was raised will influence the relationship between workplace
incivility and employees’ attributions of experienced workplace incivility, and that these attributions impact their health and well­
being. We further propose that the mechanism underpinning these relationships pertains to an employee’s response to experienced
workplace incivility. For this, we turn to what is commonly referred to as the “fight or flight” stress model (Cannon, 1929). In this
model, Cannon hypothesized that physical or psychological threats will trigger a behavioral response (attempt to fight the threat or flee

5
F. Jorgensen et al. Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100999

to safety) due to epinephrine secretions from the adrenal medulla. Subsequent development of Cannon’s model by Grey (1988) em­
phasizes that there is a sequence to this stress response that begins with an animal freezing, or a state of hypervigilance and forced
immobility. Thereafter, the target of the threat would attempt to flee or fight if they have the capacity to do so. Together, these stress
responses are referred to as the defense cascade, as they constitute “a continuum of innate, hard-wired, automatically activated defense
behaviors” (Kozlowska, Walker, McLean, & Carrive, 2015). Grey (1988) argues that how long the freeze response lasts and whether it
is followed by attempting to fight the threat or flee from it depends partly on past experiences and learning, and partly on innate
neurological wiring.
When first conceptualizing workplace incivility, Andersson and Pearson (1999) predicted that incivility would be met with
increasingly retaliative actions (i.e., the fight response) that would spiral into aggressive and even violent outcomes. Building on this,
Cortina, Hershcovis, & Clancy, 2022 developed what they refer to as a biobehavioral model that proposes that most employees will
attempt to retreat from the instigator for a variety of reasons (e.g., to avoid conflict with a co-worker) when confronted with an uncivil
event. They suggest that “when a threat seems too formidable, or the fight response too risky or inappropriate, we are more likely to
run away” (p. 742). While they acknowledge the freeze response in which the target becomes hypervigilant but fails to act, they do not
consider it as an alternative response to incivility. We argue this is due to a lack of attention on how workplace incivility impacts
different groups of employees.
There is support for the notion that self-blame (an internal attribution) is associated with freezing in humans who have experienced
abuse or trauma in their past (e.g., Hagenaars, Stins, & Roelofs, 2012; Roelofs, 2017). More specifically Hagenaars et al. (2012) note
that “early aversive events affect automatic stress responses in humans” (p.99). Freezing would be considered an automatic stress
response. Gray and McNaughton (2000) suggest that negative past experiences such as abuse can lead to heightened threat sensitivity,
resulting in a freeze response. These findings are supported by researchers in psychiatry and cognitive psychology (e.g., Kozlowska
et al., 2015; Noordewier, Scheepers, & Hilbert, 2020) who maintain that individuals who have experienced past trauma can develop an
acute stress response so that they are more likely to interpret events that remind them of the past experiences as threatening. Also, a
history of adverse childhood experiences has been shown to increase the likelihood of a freeze response when an adult experiences a
stressful situation (Everly Jr & Lating, 2019). Further, studies (e.g., Moor, Ben-Meir, Golan-Shapira, & Farchi, 2013) have shown that
women may demonstrate a freeze response that prevents them from fighting or fleeing when subjected to sexual assault. Moreover,
relatedly, the term “toxic immobility” has been coined when referring to victims of abuse who lack the capacity to exert force when
attacked (e.g., Marx, Forsyth, Gallup, & Fusé, 2008; Schiewe, 2019).
Studies aimed at exploring this third and mostly ignored aspect of Grey (1988) model, namely the freeze response, as it relates to
incivility are, however, nonexistent. Research on the effect of the freeze response in individuals is quite limited, especially as compared
to that of the fight or flight response (Hagenaars et al., 2012), although some findings (e.g., Hagenaars, Oitzl, & Roelofs, 2014) do
suggest that there can be long-term and negative effects of freezing in response to a (perceived) threat. More specifically, Hagenaars,
Oitzl, and Roelofs (2014) state that freezing is thought to play a significant role in the development of threat-related disorders (e.g.,
post-traumatic stress disorder) and certain phobias.
Our model proposes that some employees may respond to workplace incivility with a freeze response. In particular, when those
who were abused or mistreated as children experience traumatic events or some form of mistreatment as an adult, there appears to be
an additive effect on both their mental and physical health such that even relatively minor symptomology is intensified (Cloitre, 2009;
Follette, Polusny, Bechtle, & Naugle, 1996; Pimlott-Kubiak & Cortina, 2003). We argue that it is not only the past experiences that will
increase the likelihood of a freeze response, but also the combination of diminished resources from those past experiences with an
internal attribution about experienced incivility that will increase this likelihood of a freeze response, as the incivility will exacerbate
the stress response from past experiences. As elaborated earlier in this paper, according to the COR theory, these past experiences can
be considered as individual resources. On this basis, we formulate our next proposition as follows:
Proposition 5. The combination of individual resources (past experiences) and an internal attribution (self-blame) about workplace
incivility increases the likelihood of a freeze response when employees experience workplace incivility.

2.6. The downward spiral

Taken collectively, in our model we argue that the combination of the influence of an employee’s diminished individual resources
and internal attributions increase the likelihood of a freeze response that some employees may be unable to move beyond. Kern and
Grandey (2009) report that past experiences associated with racism appear to be one of the variables that can impact on the severity of
employees’ responses to workplace incivility as it is a recurring event throughout one’s life. The lack of capacity to manage stress
resulting from experienced incivility would then trigger what is referred to as a “resource loss spiral” (Hobfoll, 2001, p. 356) that
would gain momentum and magnitude as more stress and loss occurs (Holmgreen, Tirone, Gerhart, & Hobfoll, 2017). Ultimately the
resource loss spiral may lead to diminished wellbeing (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007). Whereas considerable research supports the
premise that having diminished resources can render employees more vulnerable to stress and stress-related mental and physical
illness, studies addressing the mechanisms by which this occurs or how the impact may worsen over time are rare (Garcia et al., 2019).
Nonetheless, Hobfoll (2014) emphasizes how the accumulation of negative events over longer periods of time impacts on individual
resources, and that individuals respond more stringently to trauma when resources are lost quickly, severely, or repeatedly. Conse­
quently, this loss of resources may form what is referred to as a “resource caravan” (p. 21). The most traumatic resource loss occurs
when basic resources such as safety, calmness, attachment, hope, and the ability to make positive change are threatened or denied
(Hobfoll et al., 2007).

6
F. Jorgensen et al. Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100999

From another perspective, cumulative advantage/disadvantage (CAD) theory (Dannefer, 2003; Merton, 1988; O’Rand, 1996)
proposes that there is an accumulation of advantages and disadvantages (e.g., lack of educational opportunities, poverty) occurring
over an individual’s lifetime that can be associated with mental and physical dissimilarities in adulthood, and that disadvantages
during childhood are compounded by inequalities later in life. Thus, when abuse, trauma, and/or discrimination repeats itself, a more
severe reaction would be expected. Similarly, scholars conducting research on the impact of disadvantage have also applied cumu­
lative inequality theory (Schafer, Shippee, & Ferraro, 2009), which suggests that risks accumulate and exacerbate each other for those
who experience inequality throughout their lives.
The foundation of cumulative inequality theory is that some individuals have fewer resources and are susceptible to greater risks
than others. Racism is often cited as an example of cumulative inequality, as it limits resources that others would have access to. To
emphasize the cumulative and progressive nature of racism experienced in childhood and on into adulthood, Jones et al. (2020)
utilized a life-course perspective (Gee, Walsemann, & Brondolo, 2012) to investigate the impact of racism-related stress on Black
Americans over time. They note that children may demonstrate racism-related stress that aggregates through each developmental
cycle of life and well into adulthood, often intensified as they continue to experience racism at the individual, group, and societal level.
Furthermore, COR theory proposes that how an individual responds to resource losses depends on individual differences and char­
acteristics of the situation itself (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2000).
We propose that someone who has a history of repeated abuse, trauma, and/or discrimination throughout their life might be unable
to move effectively beyond the freeze response when experiencing incivility, and that this will create a downward spiral effect on their
health and wellbeing. Indeed, laboratory studies of animals have shown that rats who had suffered previous stress were not able to
reverse the freezing response (Koseki et al., 2009). Moreover, Kozlowska et al. (2015) note that an acute stress response to a past
trauma may become overactive to the point that they become hypersensitive and experience extreme responses to events that remind
them of the previous event. They conclude that, “unlike animals, which generally are able to restore their standard mode of functioning
once the danger is past, humans often are not, and they may find themselves locked into the same, recurring pattern of response tied in
with the original danger or trauma” (p.263). In a laboratory experiment of adults who had experienced childhood neglect, Schreier
et al. (2020) demonstrated exaggerated signs of physiological stress in participants’ blood tests when exposed to common psychosocial
stressors, and that the subjects were less able to habituate or adapt to repeated exposure to these stressors.
Proposition 6. A downward spiral will be triggered from an employee’s inability to move beyond the freeze response that will have a
negative impact on their health and wellbeing.

2.7. Organizational resources

The ambiguous, insidious nature of workplace incivility, coupled with lack of reporting and escalation to management (Cortina &
Magley, 2009) adds to the complexity of developing appropriate organizational policy and resources to stop the incivility and mitigate
the negative impacts when incivility occurs. Our conceptual model, in addition to explaining why workplace incivility has a stronger
and more lasting effect for some individuals, also includes specific organizational resources as a potential factor in mitigating these
negative effects. We propose that organizational resources may impact at both the individual and more social levels.
Consistent with COR theory, organizational resources serve to replenish depleted personal resources (Cortina, Hershcovis, &
Clancy, 2022), and provide a buffer for the target of incivility, interrupting the downward spiral effect. While the process of building
resources to overcome resource loss takes time, Hobfoll et al. (2018) argue that this process is necessary in order to “counteract loss and
build engagement,” and note that “resource gain spirals do gain in saliency in high-loss settings and conditions, which means that the
motivation to build a resource gain cycle will increase when losses occur and will have higher payoff under high stress conditions”
(p.107). From existing literature, we classify interventions that may replenish personal resources and support the target of incivility as
either cognitive or emotional in their approach. Cognitive approaches assist with processes associated with sense making and skills
development. These cognitive processes support individuals in recognizing the personal impact of workplace incivility and reshaping
their attribution of these events. Training directed at identifying and addressing self-blame (i.e., internal attributions) and helping
those targeted by incivility to re-frame the meaning of what has happened helps to reduce stress, improve confidence, and replenish
personal resources (Beattie & Griffin, 2014).
On the other hand, emotional approaches intervene at the “level of emotional processing,” for example, coaching programs that
build self-efficacy (Kirk & Matsuda, 2011) and resilience (self-efficacy, reflective ability, and self-confidence) (Walsh, Owen, Mustafa,
& Beech, 2020) directly enhance the ability to cope more effectively and alleviate some of the negative impact of workplace incivility
(Al-Hawari, Bani-Melhem, & Quratulain, 2020; Bani-Melhem, 2020). Inexpensive techniques, such as expressive writing interventions
(Kirk & Matsuda, 2011) and daily diaries (Tremmel & Sonnentag, 2018) help release negative emotions, improve wellbeing, and build
capacity to thrive in situations where employees have limited capacity to actually confront the instigator or change the relationship
(Porath, 2016). These methods provide a structured method for personal reflection to enhance the skill building process (Walsh et al.,
2020). Collectively, cognitive and emotional approaches work to buffer the impact of workplace incivility and replenish personal
resources.
Given emerging evidence, we propose that interventions that increase affiliation and build social networks (Cortina, Hershcovis, &
Clancy, 2022) “focused on the relational and inclusive part of work” (p.738) are particularly relevant organizational resources related
to the social level. Efforts to promote inclusion—defined by Cortina, Hershcovis, & Clancy, 2022 as programs that demonstrate that
“employees of all identities are meaningfully supported, integrated, and appreciated within the organization” (p.739)—should activate
the “recruitment of support” behavioral response (p.746). In addition, facilitating avenues to build social support in the workplace

7
F. Jorgensen et al. Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100999

from both co-workers and supervisors can provide an infrastructure for psychosocial and instrumental support (Kram, 1988; Kram &
Isabella, 1985) that help employees adapt to adversity (Jolly, Kong, & Kim, 2020) and create higher levels of psychological safety in
the workplace. Miner, Settles, Pratt-Hyatt, and Brady (2012) report that social support—whether it be encouragement from others,
such as supportive leaders (i.e., emotional support) or employee assistance programs that support the perception that the organization
values the employee (i.e., organizational support)—can serve as a buffer between incivility and its consequences, so that those who
perceive higher levels of social support would be less likely to be negatively affected by incivility. In addition, a study involving
members of the largest union for Canadian postal workers provides evidence that social support from co-workers mediated the
relationship between experienced incivility and employee outcomes such as anxiety and depression (Geldart et al., 2018).
Based on this background we formulate our next proposition as follows:
Proposition 7. Organizational resources that seek to replenish individual resources (cognitive and emotional) and support affilia­
tion, inclusion, and building of social networks to serve as a buffer can interrupt the downward spiral that leads to stronger and more
enduring negative consequences on these employees’ health and wellbeing.
In the next sections of the paper, we apply the model presented here to a specific group of employees to illustrate why experiencing
workplace incivility can have a stronger, more lasting negative impact on health and wellbeing for some groups more than others in the
workplace.

2.8. Applying the model to equity-deserving employees

There are aspects of the model presented with the accompanying propositions that may be especially relevant for the group of
employees we have referred to here as equity-deserving. In particular, whereas equity-deserving individuals may be as likely as any
other employees to be raised in countries characterized as having individualistic cultural values, a study by Crocker and Blanton
(1999) found that people of color were more likely to make internal attributions about negative feedback, which in turn led to higher
degrees of stress. Similarly, other scholars have linked attributions related to race to Black Americans’ mental health (e.g., Assari,
Watkins, & Caldwell, 2015; Chae, Lincoln, & Jackson, 2011). Reyna, Wetherell, Yantis, and Brandt (2014) report that attributions
related to race were positively linked to poor mental health, concluding that discrimination may result in serious psychological distress
for Black Americans.
In addition, research suggests that equity-deserving employees may have access to fewer individual resources stemming from, for
example, educational opportunities and financial support (Baah, Teitelman, & Riegel, 2019; Pickett & Wilkinson, 2015) earlier in life,
which can reduce their capacity for coping with incivility in the workplace. Further, Al-Hawari et al. (2020) report that employees with
lower levels of personal resilience, an individual resource, may be more likely to suffer negative ramifications of workplace incivility.
Ultimately, a resource loss spiral may occur, leading to diminished well-being (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007).
Equity-deserving employees may also be more likely to feel isolated within the workplace, which may further reduce their capacity
to cope with experienced incivility. For instance, a recent study suggests that employees from underrepresented identities may not be
part of the dominant social network so they are unable to take advantage of opportunities for affiliation that would otherwise reduce
stress from experienced incivility (Cortina, Hershcovis, & Clancy, 2022; Lim & Cortina, 2005). Further, these authors propose that
“social and cultural features of an organization can stand in the way of affiliation, especially for employees holding marginalized
identities” (p.1). These conditions may thus reinforce the sense of isolation and alienation these employees feel if they are not part of an
in-group (Vickers, 2006). Also, research has demonstrated that members of equity-deserving groups often perceive themselves, and are
perceived by others, as having less power than employees from in-groups comprised of, for instance, white males (Elliott & Smith,
2004), which may create a barrier for them seeking support that might break the cycle of negative consequences on their health and
wellbeing.
In our model, we also propose that individual resources may be diminished by negative past experiences such as abuse, trauma,
and/or discrimination that can have a negative impact on their health and wellbeing. Hobfoll (2014) posits that loss of resources
(personal, social and/or material) and the absence of resource caravans are the best predictors of the response to trauma, including
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Also, there is considerable research across numerous fields (e.g., medicine, psychology, child
development, education) that indicates that specific groups of equity-deserving individuals are more likely to experience adverse
childhood experiences (ACEs) that are linked with a host of mental and physical ailments later in life (e.g., Berg, Lei, Beach, Simons, &
Simons, 2020; Currie, Copeland, & Metz, 2019; Haelle, 2018). Children are also more likely to make internal attributions about abuse,
which has been linked to mental health issues in adulthood (Cohen & Mannarino, 2002).
In addition, the UNC School of Medicine (2020) warns that traumatic childhood experiences for underrepresented groups, and
perhaps more indigenous peoples and people of color, may lead to chronic adult illnesses that are likely to worsen when these in­
dividuals experience additional trauma as an adult. Hébert, Tremblay, Parent, Daignault, and Piché (2006) notes that those who
suffered early childhood abuse often adopt an avoidance coping style, which can lead to emotional exhaustion, and thus both short-
and long-term negative consequences on employee wellbeing (Cortina & Magley, 2009). Also, Han, Bonn, and Cho (2016) notes that
trauma during childhood can alter an individual’s development over their lifetime, resulting in chronic illness many years after.
Notably, childhood trauma and abuse have been linked to a host of psychological and somatic symptoms and mental and physical
ailments such as anxiety, sleeping and eating disorders, depression, chronic pain and chronic fatigue, and PTSD in equity-deserving
adults (e.g., Andersen & Blosnich, 2013; Balsam, Lehavot, Beadnell, & Circo, 2010; McGeough & Sterzing, 2018).
Diminished individual resources that have a negative impact on health and wellbeing stem not only abuse or trauma, however.
Jones et al. (2020) drew on Gee et al. (2012) life-course perspective, noting that African American children develop racism-related

8
F. Jorgensen et al. Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100999

stress that aggregates through each developmental cycle of life, often intensified as they experience racism at the individual, group,
and societal level and culminating in mental and physical ailments throughout adulthood. Similarly, a meta-analysis conducted by
Paradies et al. (2015) reported that there were significant relationships between racism and poorer mental and physical health, and
that the negative consequences on mental health were stronger for Asian and Latino(a) Americans than for African Americans. Further,
they found that the effect on physical health was significantly stronger for Latino(a) Americans than African Americans. In Canada,
they reported positive relationships between racial discrimination experienced during childhood and adult mental and physical health
of Indigenous peoples.

3. Discussion, implications, limitations and concluding remarks

Understanding why workplace incivility may impact the health and wellbeing of some employees more than others deserves
attention by human resource management (HRM) scholars and practitioners given the challenges created by the increased diversity
within organizations today and the growing focus on building inclusive workplaces (Lee & Kim, 2020). The growth of literature on the
role of inclusion to support employees has been driven by the need to directly address these challenges associated with managing
diversity (Shore, Cleveland, & Sanchez, 2018). Indeed, there is growing awareness that we must develop a greater understanding of the
challenges HRM faces in ensuring the engagement (Kutch, 2017), retention (Jones, Ni, & Wilson, 2009), and perceptions of inclusion of
minorities in the workplace (Parker et al., 2020). The conceptual model proposed here is driven by the same core need—to better
understand and illuminate the complex relationships between employees’ experiences within an organization, and how these expe­
riences impact on their health and wellbeing, and it presents a highly nuanced explanation for this relationship.

3.1. Implications for HRM

As we began theorizing about why the impact of workplace incivility on equity-deserving employees’ health and wellbeing was
stronger and more enduring than for other employees, we were struck by the realization that the HRM models we are most familiar
with all have the same starting point, namely that employees are essentially the same. This assumption also seems to be the case for
models that focus specifically on employee wellbeing (see Guest, 2017, for a review of HRM models targeting employee wellbeing) and
ones “that focus on promoting positive work environments conducive to human flourishing and positive outcomes”, or what is being
referred to as positive HRM (PHRM, Gruman & Budworth, 2022), as they do not acknowledge that there may be significant differences
in the ways employees make sense of their workplace experiences.
Granted, some scholars (e.g., Farndale & Sanders, 2017) have questioned the universality of HRM practices and systems, and
others, including the process model introduced by Bowen and Ostroff (2004) highlight how links between HRM and performance are
influenced by employees’ perceptions of HRM. Still, the only variability in these and other publications relate to the HRM practices and
systems and the way they are implemented. No HRM models, as far as we are aware, consider that at least some employees may enter
an organization with “baggage” that goes beyond traditional demographics and individual differences and how that would influence
how they experience and respond to such an event such as incivility. Clearly, employees are not blank slates as they bring with them
their previous experiences, and the impact of events, particularly from childhood experiences, such that these “imprinting factors”
(Kitt & Sanders, 2021; Marquis & Tilcsik, 2013) impact the way in which they react to subsequent events in the workplace, including
attributions made about HRM. We concur with previous calls by HRM scholars who advocate for greater consideration of past ex­
periences such as the imprinting effect in the HRM literature (Marquis & Tilcsik, 2013; Simsek, Fox, & Heavey, 2015). The model
presented here contributes by emphasizing how an employee’s background may influence the impact of workplace incivility on them.
We admit that we are at least partially guilty of generalizing in the same way that we accuse the larger HRM community of doing in
that the example appears to assume that all equity-deserving individuals have experienced abuse, trauma, and/or discrimination
during their lives. At least as far as abuse and trauma are concerned, this would certainly not be the case, and thus those employees may
not be as likely to make internal attributions about experienced workplace incivility. Further, we acknowledge that adversity during
childhood or throughout life may not diminish individual resources and can instead lead to greater resilience (Masten, 2021; Masten
et al., 2004). We must therefore emphasize that our model and the example we provide are not intended to be “one size fits all.” On the
other hand, we argue that the literature provides ample evidence of the high prevalence of negative past experiences amongst equity-
deserving employees, which justifies our example.
Our goal here is not to suggest that all HRM frameworks should be revised or that a solution is readily available. Instead, we
highlight this paradox to encourage HRM scholars and practitioners to recognize that an ever-growing percentage of employees may
interpret events occurring in the workplace in very different ways that are not well understood in the literature, which would also
apply to the HRM practices and systems implemented by the organization. Indeed, ignoring this reality creates another form of un­
conscious or implicit bias (Wilkie, 2014), compounding the challenges already facing some employees and perpetuating the lack of
understanding of their perspective (for example, not being cognizant that they may have a heightened sensitivity to workplace
incivility). Thus, we argue that it may not be feasible to assume that “the right” HRM model will lead to greater employee wellbeing
without special consideration of these employees. To this end, the conceptual model presented here of the impact of workplace
incivility on certain employees offers a way forward and a nudge towards continuing to build HRM theory that is inclusive and
represents contemporary and future workplaces in its design.
There are other implications for HR professionals that can be drawn from our paper as well. More specifically, HR professionals can
support employees who have experienced workplace incivility in a number of ways. First, HR professionals should be aware of in­
dividual differences in the way employees deal with experienced workplace incivility and how they attribute these experiences. They

9
F. Jorgensen et al. Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100999

should also be aware the employees from different countries may respond in different ways, and that employees differ in their indi­
vidual resources. Second, in case of experienced workplace incivility, HR professionals should try to replenish limited individual
resources by ensuring availability and accessibility to organizational resources (e.g., social networks, coaching or stress management
training).

3.2. Limitations

While our conceptual model is quite comprehensive, it has some limitations. First, we include individual resources twice in the
model (as influencing the relationship between workplace incivility and internal attributions, and as influencing the relationship
between internal attributions and freeze response). The question can then be raised if the influence is stronger for one relationship or
the other; additional research would be needed to address this question. Second, in addition to including collectivism as a context
variable on the higher -country- level, the question can be raised if this model is also dependent on other and/or more context var­
iables, such as the percentage of women in an industry or organization and the gender of the supervisor and top management team. For
instance, Chan-Serafin, Sanders, Wang, and Restubog (2022) reports that the adoption of HR practices for domestic violence is higher
in the case of a female CEO and a higher percentage of females in the top management team.

3.3. Implications for future research

The conceptual model and the propositions outlined here present numerous opportunities for future research streams on workplace
incivility. First, we have proposed that the source of the incivility, individual resources, and national cultural values would influence
employee attributions about experienced workplace incivility, and consequently their responses to experienced incivility, including
any perceived impact on their health and wellbeing. For empirical studies intended to test the propositions, we envision a mixed-
methods study using existing (potentially modified) quantitative measures of workplace incivility (e.g., Blau & Andersson, 2005;
Matthews & Ritter, 2016), employee attributions (e.g., Burton, Taylor, & Barber, 2014), and national culture (e.g., Wagner & Moch,
1986). Survey items could also be included to investigate the organizational resources, the HRM interventions, that we posit might
help replenish employees’ (emotional/cognitive) individual resources, ensure a sense of affiliation/inclusivity and belonging (e.g.,
through social networks), and serve as a buffer to stop the downward spiral and its impact on employee health and wellbeing.
Additionally, it would be necessary to include a qualitative (e.g., open-ended survey questions or interviews) component to the
study to identify negative past experiences (i.e., abuse, trauma and/or discrimination), employees’ perceptions of how these might
impact on their attributions about workplace incivility, and their perceptions of how their attributions have impacted on their health
and wellbeing. In addition, our model illustrates the role of a freeze response in the development of a downward spiral. Future research
should consider the more novel use of experimental designs to study the freeze response, as is the case in other fields that study the
physiological impacts of stressors where images of stressful events, situations, or scenarios are presented in visual form while
measuring physiological responses, through, for instance affective films (e.g., Hagenaars, Roelofs, & Stins, 2014). In this context,
participants could be asked to think of themselves in a range of workplace incivility scenarios and encouraged to feel as if this is
happening to them, with sound debriefing practices.
To be able to test hypotheses resulting from the propositions offered, a large cross-cultural study would be needed. More specif­
ically, the sample size would need to be large enough to provide sufficient responses from those raised in collectivist versus indi­
vidualistic countries and from equity-deserving employees. Given the inherent complexity to a conceptual model, it is not feasible or
suggested that all aspects of the model be tested simultaneously. Instead, a series of studies, perhaps as a larger cohesive project
agenda, could build upon each other.
In conclusion, incivility in the workplace is not going to go away. We may be able to provide guidance for the HRM profession on
how to minimize it, but we also need to recognize that people respond differently and will make sense of uncivil behaviors in different
ways. Researching workplace incivility raises a broader question of how HRM can adapt to adequately acknowledge what people bring
with them and be more capable of providing additional resources to those who may be more vulnerable. The model developed in this
paper is a step in that direction, and future research inspired by the propositions here should bring us closer to being able to provide all
employees a safer workplace.

Author statement

All authors were involved in the conceptualization of the paper. Frances Jorgensen was responsible for writing the original draft.
All authors contributed to writing parts of the manuscript, reviewing and editing. The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution Dr
Cai-Hui (Veronica) Lin made to the conceptualization and development of the original manuscript. She sadly passed away on October
13. 2021 at 40 years of age. Veronica was a very talented scholar and a lovely friend. We miss her dearly.

References

Al-Hawari, M. A., Bani-Melhem, S., & Quratulain, S. (2020). Do frontline employees cope effectively with abusive supervision and customer incivility? Testing the
effect of employee resilience. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(2), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09621-2
Alola, U. V., Avci, T., & Ozturen, A. (2018). Organization sustainability through human resource capital: The impacts of supervisor incivility and self-efficacy.
Sustainability, 10(8), 2610.

10
F. Jorgensen et al. Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100999

Al-Zahrani, S. S. A., & Kaplowitz, S. A. (1993). Attributional biases in individualistic and collectivistic cultures: A comparison of Americans with Saudis. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786780
Andersen, J. P., & Blosnich, J. (2013). Disparities in adverse childhood experiences among sexual minority and heterosexual adults: Results from a multi-state
probability-based sample. PLoS One, 8(1), Article e54691. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054691
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. AMR, 24, 452–471. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amr.1999.2202131
Arnold, K. A., & Walsh, M. M. (2015). Customer incivility and employee well-being: Testing the moderating effects of meaning, perspective taking and
transformational leadership. Work and Stress, 29(4), 362–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1075234
Assari, S., Watkins, D. C., & Caldwell, C. H. (2015). Race attribution modifies the association between daily discrimination and major depressive disorder among
blacks: The role of gender and ethnicity. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 2(2), 200–210.
Baah, F. O., Teitelman, A. M., & Riegel, B. (2019). Marginalization: Conceptualizing patient vulnerabilities in the framework of social determinants of health—An
integrative review. Nursing Inquiry, 26(1), Article e12268.
Balsam, K. F., Lehavot, K., Beadnell, B., & Circo, E. (2010). Childhood abuse and mental health indicators among ethnically diverse lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(4), 459–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018661
Bani-Melhem, S. (2020). What mitigate and exacerbate the influences of customer incivility on frontline employee extra-role behaviour? Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management, 44, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.05.005
Beattie, L., & Griffin, B. (2014). Accounting for within-person differences in how people respond to daily incivility at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 87(3), 625–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12067
Berdahl, J. L., & Raver, J. L. (2011). Sexual harassment. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3. Maintaining, expanding, and
contracting the organization (pp. 641–669). American Psychological Association.
Berg, M. T., Lei, M.-K., Beach, S. R., Simons, R. L., & Simons, L. G. (2020). Childhood adversities as determinants of cardiovascular disease risk and perceived illness
burden in adulthood: Comparing retrospective and prospective self-report measures in a longitudinal sample of African Americans. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 49(6), 1292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01207-z
Blau, G., & Andersson, L. (2005). Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4), 595–614. https://
doi.org/10.1348/096317905X26822
Bohner, G., Bless, H., Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1988). What triggers causal attributions? The impact of valence and subjective probability. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 18(4), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180404
Boscarino, J. A., & Adams, R. E. (2009). PTSD onset and course following the world trade center disaster: Fndings and implications for future research. Social
Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 44(10), 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-009-0011-y
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29
(2), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.12736076
Brouer, R. L., Wallace, A. S., & Harvey, P. (2011). When good resources go bad: The applicability of conservation of resource theory to psychologically entitled
employees. In P. Perrewé, & D. Ganster (Eds.), The role of individual differences in occupational stress and well being (pp. 109–150). Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). A resource perspective on the work–home interface: The work–home resources model. American Psychologist, 67(7),
545. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027974
Burton, J. P., Taylor, S. G., & Barber, L. K. (2014). Understanding internal, external, and relational attributions for abusive supervision. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 35(6), 871–891. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1939
Cannon, W. B. (1929). Bodily changes in pain, hunger, fear and rage: An account of recent research into the function of emotional excitement (2nd ed.). Appleton-Century-
Crofts.
Chae, D. H., Lincoln, K. D., & Jackson, J. S. (2011). Discrimination, attribution, and racial group identification: Implications for psychological distress among black
Americans in the National Survey of American life (2001− 2003). American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81(4), 498–506.
Chan, M. E., & McAllister, D. J. (2014). Abusive supervision through the lens of employee state paranoia. AMR, 39, 44–66. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0419
Chan-Serafin, S., Sanders, K., Wang, L., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2022). The adoption of human resource practices to support employees affected by intimate partner
violence: Women representation in leadership matters. Human Resource Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22157
Chen, Y., Wang, Z., Peng, Y., Geimer, J., Sharp, O., & Jex, S. (2019). The multidimensionality of workplace incivility: Cross-cultural evidence. International Journal of
Stress Management, 26(4), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000116
Cheng, B., Dong, Y., Zhou, X., Guo, G., & Peng, Y. (2020). Does customer incivility undermine employees’ service performance? International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 89, 102544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102544
Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0033-2909.125.1.47
Chris, A. C., Provencher, Y., Fogg, C., Thompson, S. C., Cole, A. L., Okaka, O., … González-Morales, M. G. (2022). A meta-analysis of experienced incivility and its
correlates: Exploring the dual path model of experienced workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 27(3), 317–338. https://doi.org/
10.1037/ocp0000326
Cloitre, M. (2009). Effective psychotherapies for posttraumatic stress disorder: A review and critique. CNS Spectrums, 14(1), 32–43.
Cohen, J. A., & Mannarino, A. P. (2002). Addressing attributions in treating abused children. Child Maltreatment, 7(1), 81–84.
Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amr.2008.27745097
Cortina, L. M., Hershcovis, M. S., & Clancy, K. B. (2022). The embodiment of insult: A theory of biobehavioral response to workplace incivility. Journal of Management,
48(3), 738–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206321989798
Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E. A., Huerta, M., & Magley, V. J. (2013). Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Evidence and impact.
Journal of Management, 39(6), 1579–1605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311418835
Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Magley, V. J., & Nelson, K. (2017). Researching rudeness: The past, present, and future of the science of incivility. Journal of occupational
health psychology, 22(3), 299.
Cortina, L. M., Lonsway, K. A., Magley, V. J., Freeman, L. V., Collinsworth, L. L., Hunter, M., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). What’s gender got to do with it? Incivility in
the federal courts. Law & Social Inquiry, 27(2), 235–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2002.tb00804.x
Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2009). Patterns and profiles of response to incivility in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(3), 272–288.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014934
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6
(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64
Crocker, J., & Blanton, H. (1999). Social inequality and self-esteem: The moderating effects of social comparison, legitimacy, and contingencies of self-esteem. In
T. R. Tyler, R. M. Kramer, & O. P. John (Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp. 171–191). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Currie, C. L., Copeland, J. L., & Metz, G. A. (2019). Childhood racial discrimination and adult allostatic load: The role of indigenous cultural continuity in allostatic
resiliency. Social Science & Medicine, 241, 112564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112564
Dannefer, D. (2003). Cumulative advantage/disadvantage and the life course: Cross-fertilizing age and social science theory. The Journals of Gerontology Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(6), S327–S337. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/58.6.S327
Elliott, J. R., & Smith, R. A. (2004). Race, gender, and workplace power. American Sociological Review, 69(3), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/
000312240406900303

11
F. Jorgensen et al. Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100999

Erchul, A. M. (2020). Military Veteran studenTs Transition to Academic Life with PTSD, Trauma, and Potential for Freezing Response (Publication no. 967). Master’s thesis.
University of North Florida. UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd/967.
Everly, G. S., Jr., & Lating, J. M. (Eds.). (2019). A clinical guide to the treatment of the human stress response (4th ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-
9098-6.
Farndale, E., & Sanders, K. (2017). Conceptualizing HRM system strength through a cross-cultural lens. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28
(1), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1239124
Feasel, S. H., Dover, T. L., Small, P. A., & Major, B. (2022). Effects of discrimination versus self-blame attributions on health: A longitudinal study. Stigma and Health, 7
(3), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000393
Follette, V. M., Polusny, M. A., Bechtle, A. E., & Naugle, A. E. (1996). Cumulative trauma: The impact of child sexual abuse, adult sexual assault, and spouse abuse.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.2490090104
Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2005). Racial/ethnic bullying: Exploring links between bullying and racism in the US workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(3),
438–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.01.002
Garcia, P. R. J. M., Restubog, S. L. D., Lu, V. N., Amarnani, R. K., Wang, L., & Capezio, A. (2019). Attributions of blame for customer mistreatment: Implications for
employees’ service performance and customers’ negative word of mouth. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110, 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jvb.2018.12.001
Gee, G. C., Walsemann, K. M., & Brondolo, E. (2012). A life course perspective on how racism may be related to health inequities. American Journal of Public Health,
102, 967–974. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300666
Geldart, S., Langlois, L., Shannon, H. S., Cortina, L. M., Griffith, L., & Haines, T. (2018). Workplace incivility, psychological distress, and the protective effect of co-
worker support. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 11(2), 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-07-2017-0051
Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). Neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Grey, M. (1988). Stressful life events, absenteeism, and the use of school health services. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 2(3), 121–127.
Gruman, J. A., & Budworth, M. H. (2022). Positive psychology and human resource management: Building an HR architecture to support human flourishing. Human
Resource Management Review, 32(3), 100911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100911
Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 22–38.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12139
Gui, W., Bai, Q., & Wang, L. (2022). Workplace incivility and employees’ personal initiative: A moderated mediation model of emotional exhaustion and meaningful
work. SAGE Open, 12(1), Article 21582440221079899.
Haelle, T. (2018). Childhood trauma and its lifelong health effects more prevalent among minorities. National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/
2018/09/17/648710859/childhood-trauma-and-its-lifelong-health-effects-more-prevalent-among-minorities.
Hagenaars, M. A., Oitzl, M., & Roelofs, K. (2014). Updating freeze: Aligning animal and human research. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 47, 165–176. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.07.021
Hagenaars, M. A., Roelofs, K., & Stins, J. F. (2014). Human freezing in response to affective films. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 27(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10615806.2013.809420
Hagenaars, M. A., Stins, J. F., & Roelofs, K. (2012). Aversive life events enhance human freezing responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1),
98–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024211
Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of
resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1),
93–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.93
Han, S., Harold, C. M., Oh, I. S., Kim, J. K., & Agolli, A. (2022). A meta-analysis integrating 20 years of workplace incivility research: Antecedents, consequences, and
boundary conditions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(3), 497–523. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2568
Han, S. J., Bonn, M. A., & Cho, M. (2016). The relationship between customer incivility, restaurant frontline service employee burnout and turnover intention.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 52, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.10.002
He, Y., Walker, J. M., Payne, S. C., & Miner, K. N. (2021). Explaining the negative impact of workplace incivility on work and non-work outcomes: The roles of
negative rumination and organizational support. Stress and Health, 37(2), 297–309.
Hébert, M., Tremblay, C., Parent, N., Daignault, I. V., & Piché, C. (2006). Correlates of behavioral outcomes in sexually abused children. Journal of Family Violence, 21,
287–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-006-9026-2
Hegtvedt, K. A., Thompson, E. A., & Cook, K. S. (1993). Power and equity: What counts in attributions for exchange outcomes? Social Psychology Quarterly, 56(2),
100–119.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley.
Heikkila, M. (2019). Workplace incivility toward individuals with disabilities, secure attachment style, and mental health: Focus on mediator and moderator effects (publication
no. 4323). Doctoral dissertation. Florida International University. FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/4323.
Hobfoll, S. (2014). Resource caravans and resource caravan passageways: A new paradigm for trauma responding. Intervention, 12(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/
10.1521/psyc.2012.75.3.227
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology,
50, 337–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their
consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640
Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2000). Conservation of resources theory: Application to stress and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook
of organizational behavior (2nd ed., pp. 57–80). Routledge.
Hobfoll, S. E., Watson, P., Bell, C. C., Bryant, R. A., Brymer, M. J., Friedman, M. J., … Ursano, R. J. (2007). Five essential elements of immediate and mid–term mass
trauma intervention: Empirical evidence. Psychiatry, 70(4), 283–315. https://doi.org/10.1521/psyc.2007.70.4.283
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-
0919.1014
Holmgreen, L., Tirone, V., Gerhart, J., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2017). Conservation of resources theory: Resource caravans and passageways in health contexts. In
C. L. Cooper, & J. C. Quick (Eds.), The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and practice (pp. 443–457). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10),
1798–1809. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1798
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Frieze, I. H. (1983). A theoretical perspective for understanding reactions to victimization. Journal of Social Issues, 39(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1540-4560.1983.tb00138.x
Jawahar, I. M., & Schreurs, B. (2018). Supervisor incivility and how it affects subordinates’ performance: a matter of trust. Personnel Review, 47(3), 709–726.
Jolly, P. M., Kong, D. T., & Kim, K. Y. (2020). Social support at work: An integrative review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42, 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/
job.2485
Jones, J. R., Ni, J., & Wilson, D. C. (2009). Comparative effects of race/ethnicity and employee engagement on withdrawal behavior. Journal of Managerial Issues, 21
(2), 195–215. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40604643.

12
F. Jorgensen et al. Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100999

Jones, S. C. T., Anderson, R. E., Gaskin-Wasson, A. L., Sawyer, B. A., Applewhite, K., & Metzger, I. W. (2020). From “crib to coffin”: Navigating coping from racism-
related stress throughout the lifespan of black Americans. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 90(2), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000430
Jungert, T., & Holm, K. (2022). Workplace incivility and bystanders’ helping intentions. International Journal of Conflict Management, 33(2), 273–290.
Kabat-Farr, D., Settles, I. H., & Cortina, L. M. (2020). Selective incivility: An insidious form of discrimination in organizations. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An
International Journal, 39(3), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-09-2019-0239
Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 457–501.
Kern, J. H., & Grandey, A. A. (2009). Customer incivility as a social stressor: The role of race and racial identity for service employees. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 14(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012684
Kirk, D. S., & Matsuda, M. (2011). Legal cynicism, collective efficacy, and the ecology of arrest. Criminology, 49(2), 443–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
9125.2011.00226.x
Kitt, A., & Sanders, K. (2021). Non-work antecedents of the HR process: Towards a multi-level model. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2021(1).
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.11158abstract
Koseki, H., Matsumoto, M., Togashi, H., Miura, Y., Fukushima, K., & Yoshioka, M. (2009). Alteration of synaptic transmission in the hippocampal-mPFC pathway
during extinction trials of context-dependent fear memory in juvenile rat stress models. Synapse, 63(9), 805–813. https://doi.org/10.1002/syn.20657
Kozlowska, K., Walker, P., McLean, L., & Carrive, P. (2015). Fear and the defense cascade: Clinical implications and management. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 23(4),
263–287. https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0000000000000065
Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. University Press of America.
Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 110–132.
https://doi.org/10.5465/256064
Kutch, B. M. (2017). Employee engagement and marginalized populations. Doctoral dissertation. In Public Administration Dissertations and Final Research Papers.
Portland State University http://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/23367.
La Placa, V., McNaught, A., & Knight, A. (2013). Discourse on wellbeing in research and practice. International Journal of Wellbeing, 3(1), 116–125. https://doi.org/
10.5502/ijw.v3i1.7
Lee, H. W., & Kim, E. (2020). Workforce diversity and firm performance: Relational coordination as a mediator and structural empowerment and multisource feedback
as moderators. Human Resource Management, 59(1), 5–23.
Leiter, M. P., Peck, E., & Gumuchian, S. (2015). Workplace incivility and its implications for wellbeing. In P. L. Perrewé, J. R. B. Halbesleben, & C. C. Rosen (Eds.), 13.
Mistreatment in organizations (research in occupational stress and well being) (pp. 107–135). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-
355520150000013004.
Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(3), 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.483
Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 95–107.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.95
Lim, S., & Lee, A. (2011). Work and nonwork outcomes of workplace incivility: Does family support help? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(1), 95.
Liu, C. E., Yu, S., Chen, Y., & He, W. (2020). Supervision incivility and employee psychological safety in the workplace. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 17(3), 840. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030840
Liu, W., Chi, S.-C., Friedman, R., & Tsai, M.-H. (2009). Explaining incivility in the workplace: The effects of personality and culture. Negotiation and Conflict
Management Research, 2(2), 164–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2009.00035.x
Marchiondo, L. A., Cortina, L. M., & Kabat-Farr, D. (2018). Attributions and appraisals of workplace incivility: Finding light on the dark side? Applied Psychology, 67
(3), 369–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12127
Marchiondo, L. A., Cortina, L. M., Shannon, H. S., Haines, T., Geldart, S., & Griffith, L. (2015). Service with a smile meets customer with a snarl: Implications for
worker wellbeing. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Bullies in the workplace: Seeing and stopping adults who abuse their co-workers and employees (pp. 149–174). Praeger.
Marquis, C., & Tilcsik, A. (2013). Imprinting: Toward a multilevel theory. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 195–245. https://doi.org/10.5465/
19416520.2013.766076
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Sikora, D., & Douglas, S. C. (2011). Perceptions of abusive supervision: The role of subordinates’ attribution styles. The Leadership
Quarterly, 22(4), 751–764.
Marx, B. P., Forsyth, J. P., Gallup, G. G., & Fusé, T. (2008). Tonic immobility as an evolved predator defense: Implications for sexual assault survivors. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 15(1), 74.
Masten, A. S. (2021). Resilience in developmental systems. In M. Ungar (Ed.), Multisystemic resilience: Adaptation and transformation in contexts of change (pp. 113–134).
Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190095888.001.0001.
Masten, A. S., Burt, K. B., Roisman, G. I., Obradovic, J., Long, J. D., & Tellegen, A. (2004). Resources and resilience in the transition to adulthood: Continuity and
change. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 1071–1094. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579404040143
Matthews, R. A., & Ritter, K. J. (2016). A concise, content valid, gender invariant measure of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(3),
352–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000017
McGeough, B. L., & Sterzing, P. R. (2018). A systematic review of family victimization experiences among sexual minority youth. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 39,
491–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-018-0523-x
Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79(4), 606–623.
Miner, K. N., Settles, I. H., Pratt-Hyatt, J. S., & Brady, C. C. (2012). Experiencing incivility in organizations: The buffering effects of emotional and organizational
support. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(2), 340–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00891.x
Moor, A., Ben-Meir, E., Golan-Shapira, D., & Farchi, M. (2013). Rape: A trauma of paralyzing dehumanization. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 22(10),
1051–1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2013.848965
Nelson, K., & Braff, L. (2020). Introduction to anthropology. In N. Brown, T. McIlwraith, & L. Tubelle de González (Eds.), Perspectives: An open introduction to cultural
anthropology (2nd ed., pp. 3–28). American Anthropological Association.
Noordewier, M. K., Scheepers, D. T., & Hilbert, L. P. (2020). Freezing in response to social threat: A replication. Psychological Research, 84, 1890–1896. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00426-019-01203-4
O’Rand, A. M. (1996). The precious and the precocious: Understanding cumulative disadvantage and cumulative advantage over the life course. The Gerontologist, 36
(2), 230–238. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/36.2.230
Ozturk, M. B., & Berber, A. (2022). Racialised professionals’ experiences of selective incivility in organisations: A multi-level analysis of subtle racism. Human
Relations, 75(2), 213–239. https://doi.org/10.25384/SAGE.c.5996117.v1
Paradies, Y., Ben, J., Denson, N., Elias, A., Priest, N., Pieterse, A., … Gee, G. (2015). Racism as a determinant of health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS
One, 10(9), Article e0138511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138511
Parker, N., Galimore, J., Jalali-Farahani, N., Malkani, A., Shepard, K., & Kiefer, V. (2020). Inclusive work: Marginalized populations in the workforce of the future. August
17. Deloitte Insights https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/technology-and-the-future-of-work/future-of-the-workforce-vulnerable-populations.html.
Perrewé, P. L., & Zellars, K. L. (1999). An examination of attributions and emotions in the transactional approach to the organizational stress process. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20(5), 739–752. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199909)20:5<739::AID-JOB1949>3.0.CO;2-C
Pickett, K. E., & Wilkinson, R. G. (2015). The ethical and policy implications of research on income inequality and child wellbeing. Pediatrics, 135(Supplement 2),
S39–S47. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-3549E
Pimlott-Kubiak, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2003). Gender, victimization, and outcomes: Reconceptualizing risk. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(3), 528–539.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.3.528

13
F. Jorgensen et al. Human Resource Management Review 34 (2024) 100999

Porath, C. (2016). The hidden toll of workplace incivility. McKinsey Quarterly. December http://dln.jaipuria.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2900/1/The-
hidden-toll-of-workplace-incivility-Dec-2016.pdf.
Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91(1–2), 114–121.
Potipiroon, W., & Ford, M. T. (2019). Relational costs of status: Can the relationship between supervisor incivility, perceived support, and follower outcomes be
exacerbated? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(4), 873–896.
Reyna, C., Wetherell, G., Yantis, C., & Brandt, M. J. (2014). Attributions for sexual orientation vs. stereotypes: How beliefs about value violations account for
attribution effects on anti-gay discrimination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(4), 289–302.
Riskind, J. H., Sagliano, L., Trojano, L., & Conson, M. (2016). Dysfunctional freezing responses to approaching stimuli in persons with a looming cognitive style for
physical threats. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 521. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00521
Robinson, M., Tilford, S., Branney, P., & Kinsella, K. (2014). Championing mental health at work: Emerging practice from innovative projects in the UK. Health
Promotion International, 29(3), 583–595. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/das074
Roelofs, K. (2017). Freeze for action: Neurobiological mechanisms in animal and human freezing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences,
372(1718), 20160206. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0206
Schafer, M. H., Shippee, T. P., & Ferraro, K. F. (2009). When does disadvantage not accumulate? Toward a sociological conceptualization of resilience. Schweizerische
Zeitschrift fur Soziologie. Revue suisse de sociologie, 35(2), 231.
Schiewe, M. (2019). Tonic immobility: The fear-freeze response as a forgotten factor in sexual assault laws. DePaul Journal of Women, Gender & the Law, 8, 1.
Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37,
S57–S88. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1976
Schilpzand, P., Leavitt, K., & Lim, S. (2016). Incivility hates company: Shared incivility attenuates rumination, stress, and psychological withdrawal by reducing self-
blame. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 133, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.02.001
Schneider, G., Levin, L., & Herskovitz, M. (2022). Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures: Are they a freeze reaction? Epilepsy & Behavior, 129, 108655. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.yebeh.2022.108655
Schreier, H. M., Kuras, Y. I., McInnis, C. M., Thoma, M. V., St Pierre, D. G., Hanlin, L., … Rohleder, N. (2020). Childhood physical neglect is associated with
exaggerated systemic and intracellular inflammatory responses to repeated psychosocial stress in adulthood. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 504. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00504
Seligman, M. E., Abramson, L. Y., Semmel, A., & Von Baeyer, C. (1979). Depressive attributional style. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88(3), 242–247. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-843X.88.3.242
Shin, Y., & Hur, W. M. (2020). Supervisor incivility and employee job performance: The mediating roles of job insecurity and amotivation. The Journal of Psychology,
154(1), 38–59.
Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 176–189. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.003
Simsek, Z., Fox, B. C., & Heavey, C. (2015). “What’s past is prologue” a framework, review, and future directions for organizational research on imprinting. Journal of
Management, 41(1), 288–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314553276
Sliter, M., & Jones, M. (2016). A qualitative and quantitative examination of the antecedents of customer incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(2),
208–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039897
Sliter, M., Sliter, K., & Jex, S. (2012). The employee as a punching bag: The effect of multiple sources of incivility on employee withdrawal behavior and sales
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.767
Smith, A. E., Hassan, S., Hatmaker, D. M., DeHart-Davis, L., & Humphrey, N. (2021). Gender, race, and experiences of workplace incivility in public organizations.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(4), 674–699.
Smith, I. A., & Griffiths, A. (2022). Microaggressions, everyday discrimination, workplace incivilities, and other subtle slights at work: A meta-synthesis. Human
Resource Development Review, 21(3), 275–299.
Tremmel, S., & Sonnentag, S. (2018). A sorrow halved? A daily diary study on talking about experienced workplace incivility and next-morning negative affect.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(4), 568–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000100
Tröster, C., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2021). When victims help their abusive supervisors: The role of LMX, self-blame, and guilt. Academy of Management Journal, 64(6),
1793–1815.
UNC School of Medicine. (2020). Recognizing Mental Health Month for Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC), an interview with Amy Weil, MD, on trauma
informed care. July 31 https://www.med.unc.edu/medicine/recognizing-mental-health-month-for-black-indigenous-and-people-of-color-bipoc-an-interview-
with-amy-weil-md-on-trauma-informed-care/.
Vickers, M. H. (2006). Writing what’s relevant: Workplace incivility in public administration-a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 28(1), 69–88.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2006.11029525
Wagner, J. A., & Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: Concept and measure. Group & Organization Studies, 11(3), 280–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/
105960118601100309
Walsh, P., Owen, P. A., Mustafa, N., & Beech, R. (2020). Learning and teaching approaches promoting resilience in student nurses: An integrated review of the
literature. Nurse Education in Practice, 45, 102748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102748
Wang, C. H., & Chen, H. T. (2020). Relationships among workplace incivility, work engagement and job performance. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 3(4),
415–429. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTI-09-2019-0105
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.
Welbourne, J. L., Gangadharan, A., & Sariol, A. M. (2015). Ethnicity and cultural values as predictors of the occurrence and impact of experienced workplace
incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038277
Wilkie, D. (2014). Rooting out hidden bias. SHRM. December 1 https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/pages/1214-hidden-bias.aspx.
Wu, L. Z., Zhang, H., & Chiu, R. K. (2014). Hostile attribution bias and negative reciprocity beliefs exacerbate incivility’s effects on interpersonal deviance. Journal of
Business Ethics, 120, 189–199.
Zhou, Z. E., Yan, Y., Che, X. X., & Meier, L. L. (2015). Effect of workplace incivility on end-of-work negative affect: Examining individual and organizational
moderators in a daily diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(1), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038167
Zurbrügg, L., & Miner, K. N. (2016). Gender, sexual orientation, and workplace incivility: Who is most targeted and who is most harmed? Frontiers in Psychology, 7.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00565. Article 565.

14