The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research
Abstract
Summary: A growing body of research explores workplace incivility, defined as low‐intensity deviant workplace behavior with an ambiguous intent to harm. In the 15 years since the theoretical introduction of the workplace incivility construct, research in this domain has taken off, albeit in a variety of directions. We review the extant body of research on workplace incivility and note the multitude of samples, sources, methodologies, and instrumentation used. In this review article, we provide an organized review of the extant body of work that encompasses three distinct types of incivility: experienced, witnessed, and instigated incivility. These three types of incivility serve as the foundation for a series of comprehensive models in which we integrate extant empirical research. In the last part of this review article, we suggest directions for future research that may contribute to this growing body of work. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
“Stress: appraisal and coping,”
Folkman, S. (2013) · Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_215 · Cited by 27,833
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.1.150 · Cited by 4,845
Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: A case of unrealized potential
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. T. (2011) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.690 · Cited by 266
Cited by
Yam, K. C., Tang, P. M., Jackson, J. C., Su, R., & Gray, K. (2023) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0001045 · Cited by 328
Who strikes back? A daily investigation of when and why incivility begets incivility.
Rosen, C. C., Koopman, J., Gabriel, A. S., & Johnson, R. E. (2016) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000140 · Cited by 300
Achieving supply chain resilience: the role of supply chain ambidexterity and supply chain agility
Aslam, H., Khan, A. Q., Rashid, K., & Rehman, S.-U. (2020) · Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management · doi:10.1108/jmtm-07-2019-0263 · Cited by 284
Dhanani, L. Y., & LaPalme, M. L. (2019) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206318816162 · Cited by 115
Chen, S.-C., & Liu, N.-T. (2019) · Personnel Review · doi:10.1108/pr-09-2018-0368 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Organizational Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-10-28
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- S1
- ISSN
- 0894-3796 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1379
- OpenAlex
- W1876106324
- Cited by
- 859
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 62.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/job.1976
- The paper
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1976
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.