1
Running Head: INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
Even If It’s Only On Your Mind: The Cognitive Toll of Incivility
Amir Erez
Warrington College of Business
University of Florida
Christine Porath
McDonough School of Business
Georgetown University
Trevor Foulk
Warrington College of Business
University of Florida
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
Abstract
In five experimental studies we found that incivility --whether it was witnessed or
primed-- disrupted working memory performance. Studies 1 and 2 showed that observing
incivility interfered with the memory maintenance function of working memory, which in turn,
negatively affected performance on complex and creative tasks. Study 3 showed that ‘just being
around’ incivility, by priming it, had similar effects on working memory and task performance.
The results of study 4 demonstrated that incivility effects extend to visuo-special tasks in which
individuals affected by incivility miss critical information. This study’s findings also revealed
that incivility affects the attention control function of working memory. Study 5 extended these
findings by showing that incivility disrupts the memory maintenance and attention control
functions of working memory. Specifically, incivility interferes with goal-management in
working memory and even with the planning and execution of limb movement. Theoretical and
practical implications are discussed.
Keywords: Incivility, Working Memory, Cognitive Functioning.
2
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
3
Even If It’s Only On Your Mind: The Cognitive Toll of Incivility
Individuals often claim that they have no time to be nice (cf. Pearson & Porath, 2009). In
a fast-paced modern society, deadlines call, responsibilities mount, and stresses accumulate. This
often results in anxious, rash, insensitive interactions between individuals. In fact, in many
institutions the culture may even dictate brashness, causing uncivil behavior to run rampant
throughout the ranks. In such environments, managers bark orders at employees, team members
respond brusquely to one another, and customers treat salespeople and administrators with
disrespect. Although these types of uncivil behaviors seem to be very prevalent (Cortina,
Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Pearson & Porath, 2009), they are for the most part low in
intensity and ambiguous in their intent to harm the target (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). One
should ask then: would small, defused, uncivil acts that are not directed specifically toward the
individual have significant effects on individual functioning?
Some evidence suggests that even these kinds of low-intensity acts with ambiguous intent
to harm the target have serious consequences for individual functioning. Targets of incivility
suffer psychological distress (Cortina, Magely, Williams, & Langhout, 2001), negative
emotional effects (Pearson & Porath, 2001), job burnout and employee emotional exhaustion
(e.g., Ben-Zur & Yagil, 2005; Deery, Iverson, & Walsh, 2002; Dormann & Zapf, 2004; Grandey,
Dickter, & Sin, 2004; Harris & Reynolds, 2003; Ringstad, 2005). They may lose time and
cognitive resources worrying about the uncivil interaction (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000).
However, an underlying assumption of this research is that a single incident of mild aggression is
unlikely to have major consequences (Kern & Grandey, 2009; Rafaeli, Erez, Ravid, DerflerRozin, Efrat, & Scheyer, 2012). Rather, it may be the accumulated effect of frequent “daily
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
4
hassles” that are harmful to individual health and well-being (Anderson & Pearson, 1999;
Cortina et al., 2001).
More recently, findings from several studies suggest that even a single, brief uncivil
incident can cause an immediate reduction in individuals’ functioning. For example, Porath and
Erez (2007) found that experiencing incivility hampered participants’ ability to perform complex
tasks and reduced their creativity. Similarly, Rafaeli et al. (2012) found that mild verbal
aggression from customers reduced customer service representatives’ ability to recall relevant
information and perform analytical tasks. Moreover, Porath and Erez (2009) also found that the
effects of incivility are not limited to those who experience incivility; witnesses of incivility
showed a reduced capacity for solving complex problems and were much less creative. This is
theoretically and practically significant because it implies that incivility extends beyond the
offender-target dyad to secondary stakeholders. It raises questions about how far-reaching the
consequences of incivility stretch. Does ‘just being around incivility’ (e.g., working in an uncivil
culture) affect individual functioning?
This also begs the question of how does incivility affect the functioning of targets,
witnesses, or those around it? Incivility research highlights emotional and motivational
mechanisms (Cortina et al., 2001; Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008; Miner-Rubino & Cortina,
2004; Porath, Overbeck, Pearson, 2008.). Yet, interestingly, Porath and Erez (2007) did not find
evidence for emotional or motivational mediating processes; they found that cognitive processes
related to memory mediated the relationship between experiencing incivility and task
performance and creativity. At least when it comes to performance-related consequences, they
suggest that incivility hampered cognitive processes which, in turn, may have the most potent
impact on individual functioning.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
5
Building on these findings, we theorize and test the specific cognitive processes that
incivility may disrupt. Identifying the specific processes is critical to ascertaining that it is
cognitive and not alternative emotional or motivational processes that drive the effects of
incivility. Isolating what particular cognitive functions incivility may disrupt is also crucial to
identifying the extent to which people may be able to regulate the effects of incivility on
performance. In considering how incivility may disrupt cognitive performance, it is judicious to
start with exploring the effects of incivility on working memory. Working memory is the
“workbench” of the memory system (Ashcraft & Radvansky, 2010). It is the place where
information is rehearsed and integrated; where planning and control of attention occurs and
decision processes are initiated (Eysenck & Keane, 2003). Thus, if exposure to incivility
interferes with cognitive functioning, it is very likely that these effects occur through working
memory. Accordingly, we investigate (1) the processes through which this occurs (controlled or
automatic), (2) the working memory systems disrupted (central executive, phonological loop,
and visuo-spatial sketchpad), and (3) the cognitive functions (memory maintenance and attention
control system) affected in five studies (see Table 1).
We begin by exploring the role of working memory, and how witnessing incivility may
negatively influence working memory performance. Extending this, we then test whether
working memory is the (mediating) mechanism through which witnessing incivility affects
cognitive performance on complex and creative tasks. Study 1 and 2 examine how incivility
affects a controlled process (i.e. in which participants may be conscious of the effects) using a
task which engages the central executive and phonological loop in memory maintenance. Study 3
expands our focus to how incivility may affect people automatically via a priming study.
Although research has focused on controlled processes, we theorize that incivility is likely to
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
6
affect working memory via automatic (i.e. subconscious) as well as controlled processes, albeit
through different mechanisms. We examine the automatic effects of incivility on memory
maintenance in Study 3. Taken together, the first three studies demonstrate the insidious and farreaching effects of incivility on various cognitive systems and functions.
In the latter two studies we test incivility’s effects on a broader range of cognitive tasks in
an attempt to learn more about which other working memory systems and functions incivility
affects. To date, most of the tasks employed in incivility research have been verbal tasks, yet our
findings in Studies 1, 2, and 3 suggest that incivility’s effects may extend beyond verbal tasks.
Thus in Study 4 we investigate whether incivility affects performance on visual-perceptual tasks.
Doing so allows us to isolate whether incivility affects the visuo-spatial sketchpad—a particular
component of working memory; and has important implications for how incivility may disrupt
attention and cause people to ‘miss’ critical information. In Study 5 we extend our understanding
by investigating how incivility affects goal management within the central executive supervisory
attention control system of working memory.
Overall, the combined results of these studies show that witnessing incivility or just
“having it on ones’ mind,” as in the case of priming, tend to elicit severe negative effects on
cognitive functioning, including memory maintenance and attention control. Incivility robs
people of cognitive resources, disrupts all three components of working memory, and ultimately
hijacks performance. We propose implications for cognitive and social psychology theories and
conclude with a discussion of the implications for how best to manage incivility.
Working Memory
Although the theory of working memory (Baddeley & Hitch, 1975) has been significantly
modified over the years, the basic components of this theory remain widely accepted among
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
7
cognitive scientists. According to this theory, working memory consists of three major
components – the central executive, the phonological loop, and the visuo-spatial sketchpad.
Updates to this basic theory have included the addition of a fourth component, the episodic
buffer (Baddeley, 2000)-- the breaking of the phonological loop into two sub-systems (Smith &
Jonides, 1997), and the breaking of the visuo-spatial sketchpad into two sub-systems (Logie,
1995). Nonetheless, the three component system is still widely accepted and has been used as the
framework for many working memory studies (Baddeley, 2002).
The phonological loop sub-system manages speech and sound-related information
(Ashcraft & Radvansky, 2010). It both stores sound-related information for perceptual purposes
and articulates sound related information for speech production purposes (Baddeley, 1990).
Because the phonological loop holds information in a speech-based form, it is needed in order to
maintain and reproduce sequences of articulated information (i.e., letters, words) and recall
speech-like information. In order to transfer information from working memory to long-term
memory (i.e., encoding), rehearsal of the information in the phonological loop of working
memory is essential. Rehearsal is a purposeful mental process in which information can be
converted to long term memory. It entails repetitive information recycling (i.e., repeating
numbers)--information is held in short term memory as long as it is repeated; it disappears
gradually when rehearsal is halted. Baddeley and Hitch (1974) showed that performing other
tasks that require cognitive resources may interfere with such rehearsal. Accordingly, if incivility
interferes with working memory it should interfere with rehearsal and cause accelerated
forgetting from short-term memory, not allowing information to be transferred to long-term
memory.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
8
The visuo-spatial sketchpad is responsible for managing visual and spatial information
(Ashcraft & Radvansky, 2010). It is used for temporary storage of visual information as well as
mental manipulation of this information (Baddeley, 1975). The visuo-spatial sketchpad also
captures the features of the physical world and predicts what dynamic objects will do next
(Ashcraft & Radvansky, 2010). The visuo-spatial sketchpad consists of two components (Logie,
1995) the visual cache, which stores information about visual form and color, and the inner
scribe, which deals with spatial and movement information (Eysenck & Keane, 2003). Similar to
the role of the phonological loop, the inner scribe rehearses information in the visual cache and
then transfers information from the visual cache to the central executive. Thus, if incivility
affects working memory and disrupts the processing of information it should also interfere with
the control and manipulation of visuo-perceptual information and the recall of this information.
The key component of working memory is the central executive; its functions include
planning future actions, initiating retrieval and decision processes, and integrating information
coming into the system (Ashcraft & Radvansky, 2010). The central executive component of
working memory can be seen in such daily activities as prioritizing and timesharing when
working on two tasks simultaneously and ignoring irrelevant stimuli (Baddeley, 1996). The
central executive resembles an attentional system and is considered the master of the two other
systems. For example, the central executive is responsible for switching between visual and
phonological retrieval plans, timesharing between the sub-systems, selective attention to certain
stimuli and ignoring others, and temporary activation of long-term memory (Baddeley, 1996).
Each of the three components of working memory has limited processing capacity. Expenditure
of processing capacity results in decreased performance on tasks that require the taxed
component (Ashcraft & Radvansky, 2010). Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
9
overloading the capacity of the central executive results in decreased performance on tasks that
require one of the other two components of working memory (Feng, Pratt, & Spence, 2012; de
Fockert, Rees, Frith & Lavie, 2001).
According to Baddeley and Hitch (1974; Baddeley, 1993) the main two functions of
working memory are memory maintenance and attention control. These two functions
continuously interact in a dynamic process (Kane & Engle, 2003). For example, encoding
information into long-term memory – a memory maintenance function is often done with
elaborative rehearsal (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Elaborative rehearsal, which uses the
comprehension or the meaning of the message to encode it to long-term memory requires active
attention. In fact, elaborative rehearsal requires an active learner, who not only performs the
rehearsal by giving it a meaning, but is also conscious of the necessity to store the gist of the
information in long-term memory (Ashcraft & Radvansky, 2010). As such, the transfer of
information from short-term to long-term memory (memory maintenance function) also requires
the attentional control function of working memory.
In turn, any interference with the attention control system is likely to interfere with the
memory maintenance system. In other words, when concentration to pay attention to the
meaning of the message is challenged, recall of the message should be poor. Similarly, factors
that interfere with the memory maintenance system may prevent the appropriate management
and control of information in the attention control system. We hypothesize that incivility will be
such a factor that will likely interfere with the attentional control system and the memory
maintenance functions of working memory.
As the example above shows, most often, the memory maintenance function and attention
control function of working memory work in concert to manage complex cognitive functions.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
10
However, in some situations one of these functions is more important than the other. For
example, when it comes to maintaining rote information in short-term memory the memory
maintenance system may be more important than the attention control system. In Studies 1-3 we
specifically test how incivility affects the memory maintenance function using a task that
requires memory maintenance of rote information in short term memory (i.e., letters) (see Table
1). In contrast, one’s ability to focus attention in the face of seemingly irrelevant distractors
mainly requires the attention control system. In Study 4 we test the effects of incivility on
focused attention that specifically addresses the attention control function in working memory.
Yet, in most situations the two functions of memory maintenance and attention control work as a
dynamic interaction to manage cognitive tasks. In Study 5 we specifically test how incivility
affects this dynamic process.
According to Shallice (1988; Norman & Shallice, 1986), one of the central functions of
the attention control system is to engage during conflicts among task goals and manage goal
priorities. Cognitive tasks that are too complex to perform directly usually have to be
decomposed to sub-goals that are tractable enough to achieve directly (Newell & Simon, 1972).
These multiple sub-goals have to be managed in terms of scheduling and activation. That is, the
right sub-goals have to be activated at the right time in the sequence of the steps needed to
achieve the task. In addition, the cognitive system has to monitor the progress towards achieving
the task and manage any conflicts that surface among the sub-goals and between the super-goal
(i.e., the general task goal) and the sub-goals. In order to manage sub-goals, their schedule, and
monitor progress toward the super-goal, the cognitive system has to maintain in memory the
super-goal and the non-activated sub-goals while performing the activated goals. The cognitive
system also needs to “pop back” to the temporarily inactivated goals to check for what progress
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
11
has been made in achieving these goals (Altman & Trafton, 2002). Thus, both the attention
control function and the memory maintenance function are needed in order to perform complex
cognitive tasks. We believe that incivility can interfere with the cognitive system ability to
manage goals and test this proposition in Study 5.
Incivility and Working Memory
Why would incivility disrupt working memory? Individuals have a spontaneous need to
evaluate and understand events that occur in their immediate environment and have implications
to their well-being. Lazarus (1991) proposed two evaluation processes: a “primary appraisal”
which is an automatic, fast-track process that is unavailable to consciousness (Shiffrin &
Schneider, 1977); and a “secondary appraisal” process which is a conscious, deliberate process
under volitional control. We theorize that incivility is likely to affect working memory via both
processes.
Primary appraisal involves automatically and subconsciously shifting the focus of
attention away from the task at hand because of a spontaneous need to protect oneself. The need
to protect oneself from potential harm or danger is a fundamental human motive (Daly &
Wilson, 1988; Kenrick, Li, & Butner, 2003) leading people to respond to aggression by fight or
flight type reactions. As a result, people are adept at identifying signs of social dangers and make
swift decisions about whether events are good or bad for their well-being. Indeed, primary
appraisals have been shown to spark spontaneous decisions. For example, Dimberg and Ohman
(1996) found that in conditional response studies participants easily and instantaneously learned
to associate angry faces with painful experiences (i.e., an electric shock). Because incivility is
subconsciously perceived as a sign of social danger (e.g., a status challenge) (Porath, Overbeck,
& Pearson, 2008), we expect it to evoke a spontaneous re-focus of attention to avoiding this
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
12
danger. That is, people who perceive incivility likely (subconsciously) engage in this primary
appraisal—focusing attention on protecting themselves—regardless of whether they are the
direct target.
Neurophysiological studies further support the automatic nature of individuals’ reactions
to remotely dangerous and relatively minor threats. LeDoux (1998) noted that threat is evaluated
through two neurophysiological pathways: Sensory information gathered in the thalamus (the
relay station of the brain) is communicated to the amygdala (the brain emotional hub) both
directly and indirectly through the cortex. The amygdala, in turn, has two projections: To the
autonomic nervous system where bodily reactions are produced (i.e., blood pressure elevations),
and to the prefrontal cortex where cognitive reactions are produced (Kandel, Schwartz, & Jessell,
2000). Thus, an encounter with a stimulus interpreted as threat (i.e., uncivil interaction) produces
an immediate bodily reaction (i.e., elevated heart rate) through the fast track of the nervous
system (the thalamus-amygdala-autonomic nervous system). This swift reaction is not conscious
but unavoidable as it is evolutionarily designed to prepare the body for presumed defensive
responses (i.e., preparation for fight or flight) (Kandel et al., 2000). Thus, threat encounters
create a “fast track” automatic shift of attention to survival, subconsciously directing attention
away from other tasks. Growing evidence suggests that this reaction may hold true for witnesses
since people are concerned with the well-being of others (see Kollock, 1998; Porath, MacInnis,
& Folkes, 2011). Witnessing harm to others may arouse strong negative emotions (Durkheim,
1964; Vidmar, 2000) which should trigger an automatic response.
Following the automatic reactions, interpretations of a hostile event occur in the slower
track of the nervous system (thalamus-cortex-amygdala-prefrontal cortex) (LeDoux, 1998).
When information about a potential threat reaches the prefrontal cortex a secondary appraisal
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
13
process is activated, whereby people assess control of the event, develop expectations about what
the event means (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985; Smith & Kirby, 2001) and craft their reactions.
Accordingly, we hypothesize that incivility affects the secondary appraisal process. For example,
Rafaeli et al. (2012) theorized that when employees encounter uncivil behavior from customers
they are likely to reduce attention to the tasks they are performing. Instead, they think about the
implications of the customer’s aggressive behavior, trying to understand the reasons for the
behavior and how to deal with it. Indeed, these authors found that customer incivility reduced
employees’ ability to memorize relevant information, perform analytical tasks, and handle
customers’ requests.
We expect witnessing incivility to have the same effects. Witnessing incivility invokes
negative emotions resulting from the appraisal of the unjust uncivil behavior, summoning
thoughts and feelings of concerns for others and self (Porath & Erez, 2009). Porath and Erez
(2009) found that witnessing incivility affected performance on a variety of cognitive tasks. They
suggest that because witnesses are upset by the incident, they are likely to spend cognitive
resources evaluating the situation (i.e. Am I next in the instigator’s line of fire?), engaging in
sense-making (i.e. Why did that happen?), making moral judgments (i.e. Was someone wrongly
mistreated?), and processing appropriate responses (i.e. Should I say something?) (see Weiss &
Cropanzano, 1996 for a review). These off-task cognitions about the uncivil event are likely to
disrupt cognitive processing, which decrease task performance (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989).
Consistent with this, Porath, Macinnis, and Folkes (2010) found that witnessing incivility
produced rumination about the event implying that witnesses of uncivil behaviors are inflicted
by a persistent intrusion of negative thoughts that may affect their regular and routine
information processing (Watkins, 2008).
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
14
Thus, there are good reasons to believe that incivility evokes secondary appraisal
processes wherein people appraise their control over the uncivil event (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985;
Smith & Kirby, 2001), and construct reactions to the event. Consequently, these appraisal
processes occupy witnesses’ thought processes, consuming cognitive resources and limiting the
cognitive resources available for other tasks (Clore, 1994).
In sum, incivility may cause a shift in focus of attention (automatic process, primary
appraisal), deplete people of cognitive resources by reappraising the situation searching for
coping strategies (controlled process, secondary appraisal), and managing the intrusion of
negative thoughts (rumination). Witnessing incivility may evoke some or all of these dynamics.
The result is the same: The central executive’s attention system is occupied, which leaves fewer
resources available for other central executive functions, including control of attention or
management of goals, and the management of functions between the central executive in the subsystems of the phonological loop and the visuo spatial sketchpad. Thus,
Hypothesis 1: Incivility will negatively influence working memory performance.
Study 1
To assess whether witnessing incivility affects working memory in Study 1, we use the
dual-task method, which was developed to test the limited capacity feature of memory
maintenance in working memory. More specifically, the dual-task method tests the
interdependence of tasks between the central executive and one of the two sub-components
(Baddeley & Hitch, 1975) and the interdependence of tasks within the sub-components (Morey
& Cowan, 2004). In the dual-task paradigm participants are asked to complete two tasks
simultaneously, a primary task and a secondary (distractor) task. If performance on the primary
task decreases when the participant is also doing the secondary task then the two tasks are
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
15
drawing on the same resources in working memory. Our study is designed to investigate if
witnessing incivility interferes with a primary task in this dual-task situation. We expect the
experience of witnessing incivility to function as a secondary task that requires attention from the
central executive and decreases memory maintenance. We also expect decreased performance in
tasks that require the central executive directly as well as tasks that require coordination between
the central executive and the phonological loop (i.e. tasks that require multiple simultaneous
actions).
Method
Participants. Students enrolled in a required course at Western university were asked to
participate in a laboratory study aimed at investigating emotions, personality, decision-making
and task performance. Participation was on a voluntary basis. 67 undergraduates participated
with age ranging from 18 to 27 years, and a median of 20. 54% were male, 42% were white, and
45% were Asian, 5% were black, 3% were Hispanic, and 5% listed “other” as race.
Procedure. This study used a procedure similar to that used by Porath et al. (2010).
Participants were randomly assigned to an uncivil or control condition. They were told that they
would be asked several different kinds of questions about themselves and their experiences as a
customer at a local bookstore. They would be asked to imagine himself/herself as a customer
who goes to a bookstore to purchase a book he/she need for a paper. After they viewed this
scenario they would perform a memory functioning task, and would take a brief survey that
asked them about how they felt and their experience. They wore headphones and viewed a pretimed video PowerPoint slide show depicting photographs of a local bookstore--Bretano’s-exterior and interior, as well as images of salespeople. Audio instructions told the participants
that they were to imagine that they had gone to the store to search for books they wanted to buy.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
16
Accompanying the audio were photos of bookshelves and reading areas in a typical bookstore.
Participants were then told to imagine that after locating their books, they went to the cashier’s
desk. At that point they viewed photos of a female and a male employee. The former was
gossiping on the phone with a friend. The latter offered to help participants ring up their books.
The uncivil manipulation occurred in the exchange between the two salespersons (see below).
After the manipulation was conducted the experimenter administrated the working memory task.
Finally, participants answered several additional questions (which included the manipulation
checks), were debriefed and released.
Incivility Manipulation. Incivility was manipulated by the nature of the male cashier’s
response to the gossiping saleswoman. In the uncivil reprimand condition, he said “Get off the
phone you idiot! What do you think you’re doing talking on the phone when customers are
waiting?” In the civil reprimand condition, the male employee said to the female employee
“Please be more considerate of the customers who are waiting. You can talk to your friends on
your break.”
Materials. After viewing this PowerPoint slide show, participants were instructed to
complete a working memory task-- the Automated Operation Span task (OSPAN) developed by
Randy Engle and colleagues (see Unsworth, Heitz, Schrock, & Engle, 2005). Prior research has
established the reliability and validity of the OSPAN as a marker of working memory capacity
(Kane & Engle, 2003). Participants began with a practice routine consisting of three parts. First,
in a recall task, participants were presented with a series of letters, each appearing alone on the
screen for 800 milliseconds (ms). After viewing the series of letters (varying from 1 to 6 in each
trial), participants were presented with a screen containing letters (including the letters presented
embedded in a list of multiple other letters) and were instructed to click a box next to each letter
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
17
that appeared in the order in which it was presented. Participants then received performance
feedback on this portion of the task.
Second, participants were given math problems (e.g. (1*2)+1=?). When the participants
solved the equation, they were instructed to click the mouse to advance to the next screen, at
which point they were presented with a single number (i.e., “3”) and asked to respond to a
true/false prompt indicating if this number represented the correct solution to the problem they
viewed. After each operation the participants received feedback.
Third, after these practice sessions, participants were presented with several practice
iterations combining the recall and math portions in the order they would be presented in the
actual experiment. Participants were presented with the sequential letters, followed by a math
problem, followed by the choices of letters with the instructions to select the letters in the order
in which they appeared prior to the math task. After completing all of the practice sessions
participants proceeded to the experiment. The procedure was the same as this third practice set,
repeated multiple times. The program recorded scores for accuracy on the recall tasks as well as
accuracy on the math tasks.
Measures.
Working Memory. Similar to prior research (see Kane & Engle, 2003) we used the sum
of all perfectly recalled sets of letters from the recall task provided by the Autospan program to
measure working memory capacity. For example, if the participants were presented with an ‘A’,
then a ‘D’, then an ‘E’, and they clicked ‘A’ then ‘D’ then ‘E’ this would result in a score of 3.
If they clicked ‘A’ then ‘B’ then ‘E’ or ‘A’ then ‘E’ then ‘D’, this would result in a score of 0
since the letters were not recalled correctly or in the correct order.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
18
Math Errors. Two types of math error measures were used. The first measure was the
number of math errors the participant committed, and the second measure was the number of
times the participant ran out of time on a math task.
Results and Discussion
To determine whether our incivility manipulation created the intended experimental
condition, we conducted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with incivility as the
independent variable. For the dependent variable, participants rated their agreement with the item
“I thought that the salesman was respectful” (where 1=Strongly Disagree and 7=Strongly
Agree)1. This manipulation check was successfully used to test for civil versus uncivil discourse
by Porath et al. (2010). The results confirmed the expected manipulation effects (Mcontrol= 3.60,
SDcontrol=1.17; Muncivil= 2.84, SDuncivil= 1.35; F(1, 67)= 6.06 , p = .01).
An ANOVA with working memory as the dependent variable and the incivility
manipulation as the independent variable showed a significant effect (F(1, 65) = 4.72, p<.05,
2=.07). Those in the uncivil condition exhibited a reduction in the working memory capacity
(M=43.28, SD=10.67) in comparison to the control group (M=50.03, SD=14.29). That is, those
who observed the uncivil interaction between the two employees did not recall as many letters in
the dual-task assignment as those who observed the benign interaction. Thus, H1 was supported.
In a post-hoc analysis, we tested the influence of incivility on performance on the
distractor task (in the operation span). Hence, we tested the effects of witnessing incivility on
both the number of math errors committed and speed errors—errors in which the participant ran
out of time in attempting to solve a given operation. A MANOVA with these two measures of
1
The manipulation checks in all five studies were given to participants at the end of the experiment after all the
cognitive tasks were completed to avoid potential confounds. Self-report checks of manipulations can significantly
undermine the ecological validity of the study. Such reports may induce experimental influences, response effects,
focus participants’ attention on emotions and therefore interfere with the task, and make people self-conscious and
suspicious (see Isen & Erez, 2007).
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
19
performance on the distractor task as the dependent variables and incivility as the independent
variable was insignificant F(2, 64) = 1.00, ns.
Study 1 findings showed that observing incivility interferes with working memory
processes. Working memory is the workbench where conscious mental effort is applied and its
major functions are planning future actions, initiating retrieval and decision processes, integrating
information coming into the memory system, and transferring information to long-term memory
(Baddeley & Hitch, 1975). Numerous studies have shown that cognitive activities such as recall,
learning, reasoning, and problem solving ability are highly dependent on a functional working
memory (Baddeley, 1992). Therefore, if incivility is distracting and affects working memory it
should also affect other cognitive functions that depend on working memory. Study 1 results, then,
may help explain the negative effects of witnessing incivility on complex task performance and
creativity found in Porath and Erez (2009). Our test using the dual-task method suggests that
witnessing incivility affects the functioning of the central executive and its interaction with the
phonological loop, ultimately decreasing memory maintenance. To test whether working memory
indeed mediates the relationship between witnessing incivility and task performance and creativity
we designed Study 2.
Study 2
More than 40 years of research on problem-solving show that complex tasks are difficult
because people have to memorize and search through a large problem space to find a solution.
Thus, complex tasks require an extensive memory search and may cause a major working
memory overload, whereby individuals have to "hold more in their heads" in order to find a
solution (Eysenck & Keane, 2003). Study 1 showed that incivility is likely to hamper working
memory functioning as attentional resources are devoted to off-task activities. Such distractions
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
20
reduce the likelihood of task focus and flow (cf., Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 1997) and may render
the cognitive strategies needed to employ solutions to complex problems impossible. Incivility
studies indicate that this is indeed the case, as people that experience or even witness incivility
are less likely to solve complex problems in comparison to controls (Porath & Erez, 2007, 2009;
Rafaeli et al., 2012). These findings also suggest that because it is more difficult for people who
experience or witness incivility to concentrate they will also tend to be less creative.
However, in addition to attentional resource depletion, there is also another way by which
incivility may reduce performance and creativity. Creative thinking often requires deep
analogical thinking, in which a conceptual structure set of ideas is mapped onto another target set
of ideas. For example, to understand the structure of the atom, Rutheford used the solar system
analogy, where the atoms circulate around the nucleus in the same manner that the planets orbit
around the sun (see Gentner, 1983). Two cognitive operations are engaged in this mapping. First,
using the memory maintenance function, people must retrieve from memory a domain of
concepts that corresponds to the problems they face, and second, employing the central executive
system, they must match and compare the two sets of ideas in order to find similar or
complementary relational structure (see Gentner, 1983; Keane, 1988). This type of thinking
requires various working memory functions such as switching of retrieval plans, timesharing
between tasks, selective attention, and goal management. It demands effective coordination
between the central executive (controlling the process) and the memory retrieval function. Thus,
if incivility disrupts working memory it should also affect creativity as Porath and Erez (2007,
2009) showed. Thus,
Hypothesis 2: Working memory will mediate the relationships between witnessing
incivility and performance of complex tasks and creativity.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
21
Method
Participants. Students enrolled in a required course at a Western university were asked
to participate in a laboratory study aimed at investigating the personality correlates of task
performance. Participation was on a voluntary basis. 54 students participated with age ranging
from 18 to 33 years, and a median age of 21. Of the sample, 54% were male, 35% were white,
30% were Asian, 15% were black, 9% were Hispanic, and 11% listed “other” as race.
Procedure. This study used a procedure similar to that used by Porath and Erez (2009).
Participants were told that the experiment was designed to study how individual differences in
personality and moods affect people’s performance and creativity. They were told that they
would begin with a personality questionnaire and then would be asked to complete three tasks: a
memory task and two other cognitive tasks. Participants came to the lab in a group of five for
sessions that took about 40 minutes to complete. Participants completed a personality survey that
was used as a time filler. About seven minutes into the personality survey a confederate arrived
late to the room and said ‘I am really sorry that I am late, my class across campus was not
released on time’. Sessions were randomly assigned to be in either an uncivil or neutral
condition. In both conditions the confederate was dismissed from the room, and in the uncivil
condition the experimenter dismissed the confederate in an uncivil manner (see description
below of incivility manipulation).
When participants had completed the personality questionnaire, the experimenter
administrated three performance tasks. The first was the working memory task, followed by the
10 minute anagram and 5 minute brain-storming task. Finally, participants answered several
additional questions (which included the manipulation checks), were debriefed and released.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
22
Incivility Manipulation. When the confederate arrived late to the session, he or she
apologized for being late, after which the experimenter did one of two things. In the control
condition the experimenter dismissed the confederate in a neutral tone. In the incivility
condition, the experimenter dismissed the confederate rudely, saying, “What is it with you? You
arrive late…you’re irresponsible…look at you…how do you expect to hold a job in the real
world?” In both cases the confederate was dismissed from the room and not allowed to
participate in the study. This manipulation was given in plain sight of the participants so they
could see and hear the interaction. The incivility manipulation was designed to be a specific and
direct uncivil act to the confederate, as opposed to the control condition which was delivered in a
neutral tone that seemed appropriate for the situation. The uncivil manipulation was specifically
designed to seem uncalled for, but was designed not to seem too aggressive.
Measures.
Task performance. Task performance was tested using two tasks that were previously
used by Porath and Erez (2007, 2009). The first task was the number of anagrams (purposely
scrambled words) participants solved correctly in a 10 anagram performance task. In a previous
study (Erez & Isen, 2002) these anagrams were tested and shown to be moderately difficult.
Second, participants were asked to produce as many uses as they could for a brick in 5 minutes,
with the number produced counted as measure of performance. Psychologists frequently use this
type of brain-storming task to test performance and motivation (Guerin, 1999; Harkins, 1987).
Creativity. The brick brain-storming task is often also used to test creativity (Frick,
Guilford, Christensen & Merrifled, 1959; Guilford, 1975). Consistent with previous studies,
three graduate students (who were blind to the experimental condition) rated the uses participants
produced for the brick using a scale ranging from 1=”low” to 7=”high”. Anchors taken from a
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
23
pilot study were given to the graduate students as a way to frame the high (6-7) and low (1-2)
ends of the scale. An example of an anchor used for the low end of the scale was ‘build a house’
and an example of an anchor used for the high end of the scale was ‘decorate it like a pet and the
give it to a kid as a present’. The inter-rater reliabilities were ICC1 (.86) and ICC2 (.95)
suggesting that aggregation across raters was appropriate.
Working Memory. To measure working memory we used the same working memory
score used in Study 1. That is, the number of letters in the sets that were recalled correctly.
Math Errors. The same two types of math error measures (the number of math errors
the participant committed, and the number of times the participant ran out of time on a math
task) used in Study 1 were also used here.
Results
To determine whether our incivility manipulation created the intended experimental
conditions, we conducted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with incivility as the
independent variable. For the dependent variable, participants rated their agreement (1=Strongly
Disagree to 7=Strongly Agree) with a five-item construct indicating the experimenter behavior
toward other participants (=0.81). The items included "The experimenter treated others with
dignity,” “The experimenter treated others with respect,” “The experimenter refrained from
improper remarks and comments”, “I felt bad as a result of the experimenter treatment of people
(reversed),” and “People were insulted by the experimenter (reversed)” (Porath & Erez, 2009).
The first three items were taken from the interpersonal justice subscale of Colquitt (2001). The
results confirmed the expected manipulation effects (Mcontrol= 3.96, SDcontrol=.88; Mincivility= 3.45,
SDincivility= 1.02; F(1, 52)= 4.03, p = .05).
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
24
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among the study variables are provided
in Table 2. We tested our hypotheses using MANOVA for the three dependent variables of
performance on the anagram task, performance on the brick task, and creativity. The overall
model representing the influence of incivility on the three dependent variables was significant,
Multivariate F(3, 50) = 3.35, p<.05, 2=.17. The results of a series of ANOVAs are presented in
Table 3. These results show that participants in the uncivil condition performed worse than
participants in the neutral condition on all three dependent variables. Next, we tested the
influence of witnessing incivility on working memory. An ANOVA with working memory as the
dependent variable and incivility as the independent variable showed a significant effect (F(1,52)
= 3.99, p<.05, 2=.07). Those in the uncivil condition exhibited a reduction in the working
memory capacity compared to the control group.
Next, we tested whether working memory mediated the relationship between witnessing
incivility and the three dependent variables using a bootstrapping approach with 2000
replications in Mplus 7.11 (Muthen & Muthen, 2012). In bootstrapping a random sample is
drawn from the data set multiple times. In each random sample drawn, direct and indirect effects
and their standard errors are estimated. We specified three models with a direct effect from
incivility to each dependent variable, as well as an indirect effect through working memory.
Table 4 shows that the relationship between witnessing incivility and anagram (-.43, 95% CI: [1.10, -.03]) performance and creativity (-.21, 95% CI [-.62, -.01]) were significantly mediated by
working memory. However, the relationship between witnessing incivility and brick
performance was not mediated by working memory as the 95% CI included zero [-1.04, .121].
Thus, H2 was partially supported.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
25
Here again, in a post-hoc analysis we tested the influence of incivility on performance on
the distractor task. A MANOVA with the two measures of performance on the distractor math
task as the dependent variables and incivility as the independent variable showed insignificant
results F(2, 51) = 02, ns.
Discussion
Previous studies suggest that people get pulled off track after experiencing or even just
observing incivility and that incivility disrupts their cognitive functioning (Porath & Erez, 2007,
2009; Rafaeli et al., 2012). However, these studies did not specify the cognitive mechanisms that
mediate these relationships. We uncover the specific internal mental processes that incivility
disrupts. Study 2 contributes to our understanding of how incivility disrupts cognition by
showing that the effect of observing incivility on various forms of cognitive performance is
carried through working memory. Because working memory is at the cornerstone of how people
think, perceive, remember, and learn, it is likely that the negative effects of incivility on working
memory are extended to numerous cognitive functions.
Study 2 extends the findings of Study 1 by using a different manipulation to triangulate
our results. Results from a single study that uses one manipulation is subject to questions or
potential skepticism that the finding could be attributed to the specific manipulation employed.
Triangulation involves using different methods to represent a concept and observing that they
produce the same effects (Isen & Erez, 2007). Because our manipulation in Study 2 converged
with our previous results we can conclude with reasonable confidence that it is witnessing
incivility and not just something simply associated with one particular operationalization that
was responsible for the results.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
26
In the next study we use a third manipulation to triangulate our results – we prime it.
There are several reasons to believe that incivility ‘even if you are just around it’ will directly
and perhaps automatically affect cognitions. First, incivility represents a social threat and
individuals are very adept at identifying social dangers and responding to them in swift and
automatic ways (see Miller, 2001; Vidmar, 2000; Porath et al., 2008). Second, it is now largely
accepted that the environment can directly and subconsciously affect individuals through
perception. Perception is the process by which the environment directly causes an internal mental
representation of the outside world; it is largely automatic and not under intentional control
(Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). Social perception is a subset of general perception and it entails
representation of social objects, events, and others behaviors and similar to other forms of
perception it is, to a large extent, an automated phenomenon (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). For
example, numerous studies show that others’ behaviors are automatically encoded as relevant
trait concepts (e.g., Bargh & Thein, 1985; Winter & Uleman, 1984; Carlston & Skowronski,
1994; Uleman, Newman, & Moskowitz, 1996) and that contextual priming of trait concepts
automatically affect people’s interpretations of other behaviors (Bargh, 1989; Higgins, 1989,
1996; Wyer & Srull, 1989). Accordingly, we theorize that incivility in the person’s environment
can directly and automatically affect cognition, and as such, priming incivility should also
disrupt cognition.
While we know of no studies to date that investigated the effects of priming aggression
on cognitive functioning, there are several studies that show that priming aggression can affect
individuals’ behaviors. Participants in Carver, Ganellen, Froming, and Chambers (1983)
experiment were first exposed to hostility-related words in a presumed “language experiment”
and then took the role of a “teacher” who had to give electric shock to “learners” in what they
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
27
believed to be a separate experiment. Those who were primed with the hostile words were more
likely than those who were not primed with hostility to give longer shocks to the learner.
Similarly, Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996) primed participants with uncivil words and found
that those in the uncivil condition engaged in uncivil behavior towards the experimenter (i.e.,
interrupted his conversation with a confederate) more than those who were not primed with
incivility. Priming incivility appears to have direct and subconscious effects on individuals. We
theorize that these effects may extend beyond behavior to cognitive processes such as working
memory. Thus, in the next study we specifically test the hypothesis that priming incivility will
affect working memory functioning.
Study 3
We theorized that witnessing incivility may affect cognitive processing automatically (via
primary appraisals) and subconsciously—or in a controlled manner (i.e. secondary appraisals).
To test whether witnessing incivility affects the automatic process, we designed Study 3 in which
we prime incivility. In this study we test whether the results of Studies 1 and 2 hold for the
priming of incivility. This is relevant because if priming incivility has negative consequences
then it implies that simply working in an uncivil culture (i.e. just being around it) may be
detrimental. It casts a wider stakeholder net for who incivility touches and how, with practical
implications for how best to manage incivility.
At the outset, at least two of the characteristics of witnessing incivility do not seem to
correspond to the criteria of automaticity and thus the consequences of incivility seem isolated to
the controlled process, in which people are conscious of its effects. Automatic processes were
originally conceptualized to be rapid, unintentional and unavoidable, outside of awareness, and
to consume few if any conscious resources (Posner & Snyder, 1975; Shiffrin & Schneider,
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
28
1977). Witnessing incivility is clearly not outside of awareness and there is a strong evidence to
suggest that it consumes cognitive resources (see Porath & Erez, 2009). Is it possible though that
witnessing incivility also operates automatically, attacking individuals’ functioning in ways that
people are not even aware of? Incivility researchers have implied that incivility’s effects are
often insidious and long-lasting. For some targets or witnesses of incivility the effects result in a
brain burn (see Hallowell, 1997), in which the memory is tattooed on the brain and is repeatedly
resurrected subconsciously by various triggers (i.e. seeing your bosses’ door, where you
witnessed an uncivil event long ago) (Pearson & Porath, 2009).
According to Bargh (1989) automatic processes do not have to start with sub-conscious
processes and may be primed by recent conscious experience of a construct, that in turn,
increases the accessibility of that construct for some time after one is no longer consciously
aware of it. Indeed, both Higgins, Bargh, and Lombardi (1985) and Lombardi, Higgins, and
Bargh (1987) found that priming a construct with a conscious experience can linger for some
time and exert preconscious influence on the interpretation of relevant stimuli. In addition,
Strauman and Higgins (1987) found that priming participants with traits that represented the
participant emotional vulnerabilities (i.e., agitation) automatically activated these emotions.
Taken together, these studies suggest that people’s conscious experience can linger for a long
time. As in the case of a ‘brain burn’, it can be activated or primed in influential ways if the
experience (i.e. incivility) was meaningful (Hallowell, 1997). Because witnessing incivility is
likely to be meaningful to most individuals it should prime an alerted state of mind long after the
stimulus (i.e. the uncivil interaction) (Pearson & Porath, 2009). While automatic processes may
not consume cognitive resources they can certainly start a process that interferes with other tasks
by shifting attention to the primed task. For example, while driving does not normally interfere
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
29
with other tasks (i.e., listening to the radio) a sense of danger (i.e., a threat of an accident) will
shift cognitive resources to the driving task and away from other tasks such as listening to the
radio. In the same way, because it represents social threat, incivility will likely automatically
shift the focus of attention from other tasks and start a process that can consume cognitive
resources. Thus,
Hypothesis 3: Priming incivility will disrupt working memory functioning, which in turn,
will negatively affect performance of complex tasks and creativity.
Method
Participants. Students enrolled in a required course at a Western university were asked
to participate in a laboratory study aimed at investigating the personality correlates of task
performance. Participation was on a voluntary basis. 60 undergraduates participated with age
ranging from 18 to 28 years, and a median age of 21. Of the sample, 55% were male, 29% were
white, 50% were Asian, 9% were Hispanic, 5% listed race as “other”, and 7% did not report their
race.
Procedure and Manipulation. Participants completed a short personality survey, which
was included as part of the cover story that this study was looking at the influence of personality
on task performance. They were told that they would perform four cognitive tasks: a
grammatical construction of sentences, a memory task, an analytical task, and a creative task.
After the personality survey, participants were given a scrambled sentence task similar to that
used by Bargh et al. (1996). This priming task was the manipulation in this study (see below).
After completing the scrambled sentence task, participants completed the working memory task,
anagram task, and brainstorming task, as described in study 2. Finally, participants answered
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
30
several additional questions (which included the manipulation checks), were debriefed and
released.
In the incivility condition we used the version of the priming task that Bargh et al. (1996)
used to prime incivility. Participants were presented with 30 combinations of 5 words and
instructed to use the five words to create a grammatically correct four word sentence. Of the 30
scrambled sentences, 15 contained a stimulus that was intended to prime incivility within the list
of 5 words presented. The 15 words that were used to prime incivility were aggressively, bold,
bother, disturb, intrude, annoyingly, interrupt, audaciously, brazen, impolitely, infringe,
obnoxious, aggravating, and bluntly. For example, one of the 5 word combinations would have
been ‘they her bother see usually.’ A correct assembling for this combination would yield the
sentence ‘they usually bother her.” In the neutral condition, we used the version of the task that
Bargh et al. (1996) used in their neutral condition. In this version, the 15 stimuli were
exercising, flawlessly, occasionally, rapidly, gleefully, practices, optimistically, successfully,
normally, send, watches, encourages, gives, clears, and prepares. For example, one of the five
word combinations would have been ‘they her send see usually’. A correct assembling of this
combination would yield the sentence ‘they usually see her.”
Measures
Task performance. Task performance was tested using the same two measures of
anagram and brick performance used in Study 2.
Creativity. The same method used in Study 2 to test for creativity was used in this
study. Here again three graduate students who were blind to the experimental condition rated the
uses participants produced for the brick using the same anchored scale used in Study 2. The
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
31
inter-rater reliabilities were ICC1 (.86) and ICC2 (.95), suggesting that aggregation across raters
was appropriate.
Working Memory. To measure working memory we used the same absolute score
measure used in Study 1 and 2.
Math Errors. We measured math errors by using the same accuracy and speed errors
measures used in Study 1 and 2.
Results and Discussion
To determine whether our incivility manipulation created the intended experimental
conditions, we conducted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with incivility as the
independent variable. For the dependent variable, participants rated their agreement with a fouritem construct indicating the nature of the sentences they constructed (=0.82). The items
included "The sentences you created were impolite,” “The sentences you created were pleasant,
(reversed)”, “The sentences you created involved incivility”, and “The sentences you created
involved unpleasantness” (where 1=Strongly Disagree and 7=Strongly Agree). The results
confirmed the expected manipulation effects (Mcontrol= 2.83, SDcontrol=1.10; Mincivility= 4.42,
SDincivility= 1.20; F(1, 59)= 29.07, p < .01).
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among the study variables are provided
in Table 5. We tested our hypotheses using MANOVA for the three dependent variables of
performance on the anagram task, performance on the brick task, and creativity. The overall
model representing the influence of incivility on the three dependent variables was significant,
Multivariate F(3, 56) = 9.32, p<.01, 2=.33. The results of a series of ANOVAs are presented in
Table 6. These results show that participants in the uncivil condition performed worse than
participants in the neutral condition on all three dependent variables. Next, we tested the
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
32
influence of incivility on working memory. An ANOVA with working memory as the dependent
variable and incivility as the independent variable showed a significant effect (F(1,59) = 4.16,
p<.05, 2=.07). Those in the uncivil condition exhibited a reduction in the working memory
capacity in comparison to the control group.
Next, we tested whether working memory mediated the relationship between incivility
and the three dependent variables using a bootstrapping approach with 2000 replications in
Mplus 7.11 (Muthen & Muthen, 2012). We specified three models with a direct effect from
incivility to each dependent variable, as well as an indirect effect through working memory.
Table 7 shows that the relationship between witnessing incivility and anagram (-.29, 95% CI: [.86, -.02]) and brick (-.52, 95% CI: [-1.58, -.02]) performance, and creativity (-.27, 95% CI [-.71,
-.03]) were significantly mediated by working memory. Thus, H3 has been supported.
In the same post-hoc analysis, we tested the influence of incivility on performance on the
operation span’s distractor task. Hence, we tested the effects of incivility on the number of math
errors committed and speed errors in which the participant ran out of time in attempting to solve
a given operation. A MANOVA with these two measures of performance on the distractor task
as the dependent variables and incivility as the independent variable showed significant results
F(2,58) = 3.33, p<.05, 2=.10. Those in the uncivil condition made more math errors (Mcontrol=
4.45, SDcontrol=2.98; Muncivil= 6.37, SDuncivil= 3.06; F(1, 59)= 6.15 , p = .05) and more speed errors
(not solving the math problem in the time allotted) (Mcontrol= .81, SDcontrol=.95; Muncivil= 1.83,
SDuncivil= 2.44; F(1, 59)= 4.76 , p = .05).
This study shows that incivility affects performance because incivility is on the minds of
the participants. In this study incivility was primed in the participants’ associative network
(Collins & Loftus, 1975). Incivility was directly placed on the participants’ minds and effects
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
33
similar to those in Study 2 were observed. These priming results suggest that it is not simply
witnessing an uncivil event that consumes cognitive resources, disrupts working memory, and
harms performance. Rather, there seems to be something qualitatively disruptive about incivility
in particular that elicits a response in people. Even subconscious triggers (i.e. our priming
manipulation) of incivility weigh on people’s mind, taking a cognitive toll on working memory
and subsequent performance. These results indicate that even if people are unaware of the effects
of being around incivility, there are detrimental effects. In institutional contexts (i.e., the
workplace, schools), the implications are significant. An uncivil or toxic culture may disrupt the
functioning and performance of those even seemingly unaffected. Over time, these cognitive
performance losses may take a greater toll on individual and organizational performance.
Taken together, studies 1, 2, and 3 indicate that working memory mediates the effect of
incivility on performance and that this effect occurs because incivility is on the minds of
participants—whether or not they are conscious of it. In Studies 4 and 5 we attempt to isolate
what part of working memory incivility affects. In order to really understand why incivility
affects performance on complex and creative tasks, these questions need to be addressed. It may
also help to offer more detailed, accurate recommendations of what individuals should be
particularly mindful of when they observe or are simply around incivility. Thus, the next set of
studies test the influence of incivility on the attention control function of working memory.
Study 4
Studies 1, 2, and 3 showed that incivility affected individuals’ working memory,
performance on complex tasks, and creativity. However, all the tasks employed in these studies
were verbal tasks tied (at least primarily) to the central executive and its coordination with the
phonological loop. Thus, it is possible that incivility only interferes with articulatory processing
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
34
of information and not necessarily with other processes such as manipulation of visual
information. In this study we investigate whether incivility also interferes with the attentional
processes of visual information--the visuo-spatial sketchpad of working memory. Over the past
decade, researchers started demonstrating that perception of visual information requires attention
and that when attention is diverted to other objects or tasks individuals often fail to perceive
unexpected objects, even if they are at fixation (Simons & Chabris, 1999). This phenomenon is
termed ‘inattentional blindness’ (Mack & Rock, 1998). In a typical study an unexpected, taskirrelevant object appears for some duration during a continuous task (e.g., an actor dressed in a
gorilla suit passes through people playing a ball game while participants count the number of
ball-passes made, Simons & Chabris, 1999). Participants are then asked to report whether they
were aware of any extra task-irrelevant stimulus, or anything unusual on the screen. Results
show that participants often fail to notice the unexpected task-irrelevant stimulus.
The studies on the inattentional blindness phenomenon mainly examined perception
under conditions of heightened perceptual load but did not investigate other factors that may
capture attention (Cartwright-Finch & Lavie, 2007; Koivisto & Revonsuo, 2009). That is, in a
typical study participants are asked to perform a specific perceptual task that captures their
attention (i.e., counting the number of passes the players make) and this load interferes with the
attention required to perceive unexpected objects or events. However, there are reasons to
believe that when people’s minds are occupied with other activities they also miss important
perceptual information. For example, it is now well known that when people talk on the phone
while driving they may miss important perceptual information that they would normally notice
(i.e., a pedestrian step unexpectedly into the road) (Chabris & Simons, 2010). Similarly, we
argue that incivility may occupy ones’ mind, shift the focus of attention to the uncivil event, and
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
35
contribute to inattentional blindness. Thus,
H4: Incivility will lead to greater inattentional blindness.
Method.
Participants. Students enrolled in a course at a Mid-Atlantic university were asked to
participate in a laboratory study. Participation was on a voluntary basis. They were simply told
that they would be asked several different kinds of questions about themselves. 99
undergraduates participated with age ranging from 17 to 27 years, and a median of 20. 42%
were male, 66% were white, 18% were Asian, 8% were Hispanic, 2% were Black, and
6%reported “other”.
Procedure, Manipulation, and Materials. The procedure for this study was similar to
that reported in Study 3, with a few notable changes. Incivility was manipulated using the same
Bargh et al. (1996) priming task. After completing the priming task participants completed the
Invisible Gorilla task to test the influence of incivility on selective attention and perception. The
Invisible Gorilla task used in this study was similar to that used by Simons & Chabris (1999). All
participants individually viewed a video of two groups of players passing a basketball. Members
of one team were wearing black shirts and members of the other team were wearing white shirts.
Participants were instructed to keep a silent mental count of the number of passes made by one
of the teams and were instructed to count the passes of either the black team (the Black
condition) or the white team (the White condition). During the video while participants were
counting the passes a person in a black gorilla suit walked through the screen. After viewing the
complete video participants were instructed to write down the tally for the number of passes
made by the team they had been assigned to watch. They were then asked a series of several
questions about what they have witnessed.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
36
Measures.
Inattentional Blindness. Selective attention was measured by the participants' response
to the question 'While you were doing the counting, did you notice anything unusual on the
video?'. From a validity perspective our motive was to query the participants regarding their
awareness of the gorilla without asking them specifically if they had seen a gorilla and thus
cluing them into the purpose of the question. Prior research using a similar paradigm (Simons &
Chabris, 1999) suggests that the response to this question and responses to questions specifically
about the gorilla are highly equivalent. Therefore this question gauges the participants' awareness
of the gorilla without notifying them of the presence of the gorilla.
Results and Discussion
Twenty-four percent of the participants in the uncivil condition reported not noticing
anything unusual while only six percent in the neutral condition did not notice anything unusual.
Comparing the results of the white and black groups we found that in the white color condition
38% of the participants in the incivility manipulation condition did not report seeing anything
unusual while only, 9% in the neutral condition did not notice anything unusual. In the black
color condition these percentages were 10% (uncivil condition) and 4% (neutral condition).
To test our hypothesis that incivility may cause inattentional blindness, we ran a logistic
regression analysis with bootstrapping of 1000 iterations where the dependent variable was
inattentional blindness and the independent variables were the incivility manipulation, the color
condition, and the interaction between these variables. The model showed that the interaction
term was not significant. Thus, we ran a second model in which we did not include the
interaction term. The overall model was significant (χ2=11.03, p <.01) and explained 12% of the
variance in inattentional blindness. Similar to what was found in previous studies (Simons &
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
37
Chabris, 1999) our results showed that the color condition was significant (b=1.52, p < .05) and
those in the white condition noticed the gorilla almost five times (odds-ratio=4.57) more than
those in the black condition. The incivility effect on inattentional blindness was also significant
(b=1.57, p <.05) with an odds-ratio of 4.82, suggesting that those in the neutral condition were
about 5 times more likely to report noticing anything unusual than those in the uncivil condition.
Thus, H4 was supported.
Our results indicate that observing incivility leads to inattentional blindness. These results
suggest that incivility not only harms working memory and subsequent performance based on
verbal tasks, but also decreases attention to perceptual visual cues. Thus, the effects of incivility
not only affect the phonological loop and central executive of working memory as shown in
Studies 1, 2 and 3, but also the visuo-spatial sketchpad, and the coordination between it and the
central executive. Those that were primed with incivility were nearly five times less likely to be
attentive to seemingly obvious cues. These results suggest that people simply around incivility
may miss important information. People working in an uncivil environment may be less attuned
or attentive to key information, which may harm their performance in a variety of ways. If
incivility leads individuals to miss important information in emergency situations (i.e., a surgery)
than the results may be even fatal. These findings add to understanding of the insidious costs of
incivility. In order to better understand these costs we examine more specifically the processes in
the attention control system that incivility hampers in the following study.
Study 5
An important process in the central executive of working memory is the cognitive
management of goals. Goal management is a crucial part of problem solving, decision-making,
and the planning of future actions and therefore is important to individual functioning. Thus, in
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
38
this study we test the effects of incivility on one specific key aspect of working memory tied to
the attention control system of the central executive – goal management. Working memory
capacity may be less than ideal for solving complex problems, but the goal management function
of working memory can compensate for inadequate memory capacity by planning and
structuring problems to subroutines (Altman & Trafton, 2002). If a task is too complex to
perform directly it can be decomposed into sub-goals and if these sub-goals are also too complex
they can be further decomposed to sub-goals (Ernst & Newell, 1969; Newell & Simon, 1972).
Ultimately, the system reaches a sub-goal that can be managed directly. However, these subgoals need to be held in working memory, prioritized, and managed. If working memory is
occupied by interfering tasks it is likely that the goal management function of working memory
will be hampered. Thus, in Study 5 we test whether incivility negatively affects goal
management in (the central executive of) working memory.
In order to study goal management in working memory, we had participants complete the
Tower of Hanoi task. This task is designed to test the central executive function of working
memory, specifically. In the Tower of Hanoi task participants are asked to move a series of disks
(in this case 4) from one peg to another among a set of three pegs. The correct solution takes 15
moves (Carpenter, Just, & Shell, 1990) and requires the participant to manage a recursive set of
primary goals and subgoals (Welsh, Cicerello, Cuneo, & Brennan, 1995). Participants must
regularly suspend and then resume progress on goals (Altman & Trafton, 2002). The task can be
particularly taxing on working memory because it creates goal-subgoal conflict (Goel &
Grafman, 1995). There are several moves where making progress on a higher order goal requires
taking a step backwards on a lower order goal. Thus, some moves require managing more
conflicting goals than others (Carpenter et al., 1990). If incivility interferes with goal
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
39
management it should particularly interfere with moves in the Tower of Hanoi task that require
subgoal-conflict management. Thus,
H5: Incivility will interfere with working memory’s ability to manage goals.
Method
Participants. Students enrolled in a course at a Mid-Atlantic university were asked to
participate in a laboratory study aimed at investigating the personality correlates of task
performance. Participation was on a voluntary basis. 154 undergraduates participated with age
ranging from 17 to 32 years, and a median of 20. 52% were male, 70% were white, 14% were
Asian, 6% were Hispanic, 4% were Black, and 5% reported “other”.
Procedure, Manipulation, and Materials.The procedure for this study was similar to
that reported in Studies 3 and 4, with a few notable changes. Similar to the previous studies,
participants began with a short personality survey and then completed the incivility priming task.
The priming task was identical to the task employed in Studies 3 and 4. Rather than completing
the working memory, anagram, and brick tasks, participants completed the Tower of Hanoi task
to test for goal management in working memory. The Tower of Hanoi task was played on a
computer. At the beginning of the task all four of the disks were on the first peg (of the three
pegs), with the largest disk at the bottom and the smallest disk at the top (see Figure 1). The
participants were instructed to reconstruct this order of disks on the third peg, moving the disks
across the pegs one move a time. Participants were also instructed that at no time could a larger
disk be on top of a smaller disk. Moving the four disks from peg one to peg three requires a
sequence of 15 specific correct moves. Because in the Tower of Hanoi there is only one correct
sequence if participants made an error in a move the computer program rejected this move and
moved the disk to the previous position.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
40
Measures.
Task performance. Task performance was measured with three variables from the
Tower of Hanoi task. First, we measured the amount of time in milliseconds participants spent
thinking about a move. This decision making (DM) time was measured as the elapsed time from
the completion of the previous move to the point of clicking the mouse on the screen for the next
move. Physical move time (PM) time was measured as the amount of time spent physically
moving a disk from one peg to another. Finally, errors were measured as the number of incorrect
attempts made per move before the correct move was made.
For each move, the decision-making time and physical move time were measured as the
aggregate of the incorrect moves and the eventual correct move. For example, if on the 5th move
the participant made 2 incorrect attempts and then made the correct move, the time spent
thinking for this move was measured as the aggregate of the time spent thinking on the two
incorrect moves and the correct move. Physical move time was measured in a similar way.
Goal Management. Moves in the Tower of Hanoi task can be classified as requiring a
high or low level of goal management. Some moves require the participant to evaluate multiple
potential scenarios before making the move. In particular moves 1, 5, 9, and 13 require the
participant to generate one or more sub-goals before executing the move (Carpenter et al., 1990).
The other moves do not require specific goal management. For this study we coded moves 1, 5,
9, and 13 as moves that require a high level of goal management.
Results
To test the influence of incivility on goal management we used hierarchical linear
modeling (HLM 6.08, Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2009). Using the HLM model described
below we regressed time spent thinking about a move (DM), time spent physically making a
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
41
move (PM), and the number of errors made (errors) on the difficulty of the move. At the first
level of analysis (i.e., the move level), the specified model for each move is:
ij = 0j + 1j X1ij+ rij
Where, ij is each move i in individual j’s score of DM, PM or errors; 0j (the intercept)
represents the average dependent variable scores for each individual; 1j represents the
relationship between easy moves and hard moves and the dependent variable; X1ij represents the
difficulty of move i within the person j (dummy variable – hard moves coded as ‘1’, easy moves
coded as ‘0’); and rij represents the move error term. HLM incorporates a second-level (i.e.,
individual-level) in which the move-level intercepts (0j) and slopes (2j) are simultaneously
regressed on the incivility condition variable:
0j = 00 +01W1j + U0j
1j = 10 + 11W1j + U1j
Where 00 represents the grand mean, W1 represents the incivility condition (dummy
coded – incivility condition coded as ‘1’ and control condition coded as ‘0’), 01 represents the
relationship between the incivility condition and 0j, 10 represents the influence of move
difficulty on the dependent variables, controlling for incivility. 11 represents the influence of the
incivility condition on the relationship between move difficulty and score on DM, PM and error
scores of individual j, and U represented the individual-level error terms.
To test whether performance in the Tower of Hanoi task was affected by the incivility
priming we ran a reduced model in which the dependent variables were regressed only on the
incivility condition. The results are presented in Table 8. Step 1 shows that those who were
primed with incivility took more time to make a decision about moves, took more time to
physically move the mouse, and made significantly more errors than those in the neutral
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
42
condition. Next, we included move difficulty in the model to test more specifically whether the
moves that involved goal management were particularly taxing under the incivility condition.
Step 2 shows that priming incivility affected the relationships between move difficulty and
decision-making time and physical move time but not the relationship between move difficulty
and number of errors. As shown in Figure 2, incivility did not affect decision-making time in the
moves that did not require excessive goal management. However, incivility slowed decisionmaking time significantly in the moves that required goal management. The same pattern of
results with regard to the effects of incivility on the relationship between goal management
moves and physical time of moves is shown in Figure 3. Here again, incivility did not affect the
physical move time of the moves that did not require goal management but it significantly
slowed the physical moves that required goal management. Thus, H5 was supported.
Discussion
Study 5 results demonstrate how incivility influences goal management, a key function in
the central executive component of working memory. Incivility slowed both decision-making
and physical move time for goal management activities, but not those that didn’t require goal
management. These results help us to better pinpoint how incivility taxes working memory, and
in doing so, decreases performance on complex tasks. The term “goal” refers to a mental
representation of an intention to achieve a specific state of the world such as accomplishing a
task (Altmann & Trafton, 2002). However, in order to accomplish goals, they often must be
suspended or set aside temporarily, as in hierarchical problem solving, where one has to suspend
a goal, in favor of a sub-goal that must be achieved first (Miller, Galanter & Pribram, 1960).
Goal management also requires resuming a suspended goal, which in turn, involves toggling
back to the stage where the goal was suspended. The better the working memory system function
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
43
and one can recall how far it has progressed toward achieving the expected goal the more
efficiently it can restart the goal (Altmann & Trafton, 2002). In fact, recommencing the task at
the right stage, without wasting resources on redundant actions, but also without skipping steps,
is essential for goal management (Latorella, 1996). Thus, any interference with the goal
management system, such as incivility, entails disruption to the suspension and reactivation of
the goals and sub-goals. Indeed, Study 5 findings showed that incivility disrupts this cognitive
process.
In addition, the results of Study 5 showed that incivility affected physical moves and
these findings correspond to Study 4 findings that incivility affects the visuo-spatial functioning
of working memory. Specifically, it is likely that incivility affects the functioning of the inner
scribe part of the visuo-spatial sub-system. Accoring to Logie (1995) the visuo-spatial sketchpad
consists of two inter-dependent visual and spatial components. One component is a passive
visual storage system (the ‘visual cache’) and the other is an active spatial rehearsal apparatus
(the ‘inner scribe’). The contents of the storage system of the visual cache are refreshed via the
mechanism of the active inner scribe (Pearson, 2001). However, the inner scribe is also
important during the planning and execution of body and limb movement (Pearson, 2001;
Eysenck & Keane, 2003). A direct consequence of this is that factors such as incivility that
interfere with the functions of the visuo-spatial sketchpad, as has been shown in the previous
study, could potentially also interfere with the functioning of the inner scribe component of this
system. As such, production of physical movement, or even just the planned production of
movement, could potentially be harmed by incivility. Our results show that this may indeed be
the case and that incivility effects on working memory can slow down physical movements.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
44
General Discussion
In a series of five studies we improved our understanding of why incivility reduces
performance, and showed how incivility disrupts cognitive functioning. We theorized and
confirmed that this effect occurs through working memory. Digging deeper, we tested where and
how this occurs, isolating incivility’s effects on the various components of working memory.
We found that incivility interferes with the attentional system of the central executive, and in
turn, with many tasks that require coordination between the central executive and the other two
sub-systems. Across our studies we found that incivility disrupts the functioning of all three
components of working memory—the phonological loop system, the visuo-spatial sketchpad,
and the central executive system. None of the components are immune; incivility appears to rob
resources from each of them. Perhaps this explains the rather potent effects we found across
studies.
Our results in Studies 1 and 2 (in which we used the dual-task method) suggest that
witnessing incivility affects the functioning of the central executive and its interaction with the
phonological loop and the memory maintenance function of working memory. Study 2 shows
how this tends to reduce performance. Study 3 elaborates on our understanding of the impact of
incivility by showing that our results hold for those simply primed with incivility. Incivility tends
to affect people automatically and seems to prompt a shift in focus of attention, which occurs
during primary appraisal. Witnessing incivility depletes additional cognitive resources as people
reappraise the situation, weigh coping strategies (secondary appraisal), and may battle the
intrusion of negative thoughts (rumination) through controlled processes (i.e. secondary
appraisal). This occupation of the central executive’s attention system leaves fewer resources
available for other central executive functions. Studies 4 and 5 provide information about which
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
45
particular working memory systems and functions incivility affects. Our findings from Study 4
demonstrate that witnessing incivility produces selective attention. People are more apt to miss
visual information that is right in front of them. Our findings in Study 5 show how incivility
seems to hijack the central executive’s ability to manage goals.
The ability to remain focused on a task is essential to any coherent cognitive function
(Lavie, 2005). It is not surprising then that many theories of human cognition attempt to explain
how cognitive systems function in the face of interference from distractors. Indeed, the notion of
interference dominated theories of forgetting in cognitive psychology for decades (Ashcraft &
Radvansky, 2010). For example, theories of working memory hypothesize that “cluttering” one
cognitive system (i.e., central executive) with information can interfere with the functioning of
other systems (i.e., phonological loop, visuo-special sketchpad). To test the effects of interfering
information on cognitive functions such as memory maintenance, cognitive scientists usually
employ distractors that are cognitive in nature (i.e., letters, words, math problems). Our study
adds to this body of knowledge by showing that other forms of information that are more
emotional in nature (i.e., social threat) may have the same “cluttering” or interfering effects on
working memory.
Similarly, theories of selective attention show that “cluttering” the cognitive system with
perceptual load interferes with perceptual awareness. In a typical study participants that are
occupied with one perceptual task (i.e., counting basketball passes) fail to notice task-irrelevant
objects (i.e., a gorilla) even if this object is in the center of their visual field. Here again our
Study 4 results show that incivility, even if it is just primed, may have similar effects as
perceptual load. That is, incivility not only affects memory maintenance but also interferes with
perception by blocking information from entering into the cognitive system.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
46
Researchers of cognitive complexity also utilize the notion of interference and argue that
one of the reasons that complexity is especially taxing is because in human memory old items do
not decay instantaneously; they clutter the cognitive system making it difficult for the cognitive
system to find critical items (Altman & Trafton, 2002). In order to reduce the clutter or the
interference effect, goals and sub-goals that are not essential to directly performing the task
should be kept at a lower level of activation. Thus, as long as the goal is above a certain level of
activation it directs behavior; below this level of activation it is treated as a distractor and
ignored (Altman & Trafton, 2002). However, in order to complete tasks the cognitive system has
to pop back to these dormant goals and reactivate them (Altman & Trafton, 2002). As such, both
the attention control system which regulates the schedule and order of the goals and sub-goals
and the memory maintenance system which has to reactivate goals have to be engaged in
complex tasks. When the working memory system is disrupted these two functions are hampered
and so is goal management. Our Study 5 results show that incivility interferes with the
functioning of this goal management system. This suggests that emotional events may have a
major “cluttering” effect in the management of complex tasks.
The extent psychological literature assumes that the main mechanism by which emotional
events such as incivility tax the cognitive system is through deliberate regulation (Beal, Weiss,
Barros, & MacDermid, 2005; Goldberg & Grandey, 2007; Grandey, 2003; Gross, 2002, 2013;
Richards, 2004). However, our results suggest that the effects of incivility may be more
immediate and direct. At least initially, individuals may not even have the ability to regulate their
experience. In particular, Study 3 showed that simply being primed with incivility took a toll on
cognitive processing. These results are disconcerting because they imply that people may be
unaware of the toll of just being around incivility and may have limited ability to regulate their
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
47
reaction. These results raise questions and concern about how much control people have over the
negative cognitive effects of incivility.
At the same time our findings may also have some important implications for the
literature on self-regulation. The idea that regulatory efforts deplete resources is now well
accepted in the psychological literature (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). For example, trying hard
to focus on work, suppressing the urge to laugh, or staying on a diet plan all consumed
regulatory resources and interfered with later attiontional focus on tasks (Baumeister,
Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). In fact, Baumeister and his colleagues provided strong
evidence to support the idea that various forms of self-regulation all draw on the same resource
(e.g., Baumeister et al., 1998). Interestingly, this vast literature also found that while selfregulatory efforts seem to effect task effort and persistence, they do not influence the cognitive
aspects of tasks (Baumeister, Twenge, & Nuss, 2002; Schmeichel, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2003).
However, unlike other forms of regulation, emotional regulation does seem to deplete
pure cognitive resources. For example, Richards and Gross (2000) found that emotional
regulation has negative effects on memory. Our results may help explain why emotional
regulation may affect pure cognitions such as cue-recognition recall. While our studies did not
test emotional regulation per se, in our studies we found that when individuals deal with negative
stimuli it affected their working memory and specifically the central executive function in
working memory. These findings lend indirect support to Richards and Gross (2000) findings
that when people are trying to interpret and control negative stimuli and their own reactions to
these stimuli it may affect the very core of cognition. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest
that emotional regulation requires the brain executive function and, as such, it should deplete
cognitive resources for other tasks. For example, in an fMRI study, Ochsner, Bunge, Gross, and
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
48
Gabrieli (2002) found that emotional regulation involved activation of the lateral and medial
prefrontal cortex that are essential for working memory (Miller & Cohen, 2001; Smith &
Jonides, 1999). If people who encounter incivility are engaged in emotional regulation, than our
results add to this body of research by showing that emotional regulation directly affects working
memory -- the very workbench of the cognitive system. Future research would benefit from
testing more directly the effects of emotional regulation on working memory functioning.
Limitations
Perhaps the most notable limitation of our study is that we did not investigate why
incivility created cognitive disruption in working memory. In any given study researchers have
to balance comprehensiveness with parsimony, therefore, given that first we had to establish that
incivility created disruption in multiple cognitive functions of working memory we could not
address this question. Nonetheless, we believe there are several possible explanations for why
incivility creates cognitive disruption. Perhaps the most obvious explanation is that incivility
presents a social threat that activates very basic emotional processes that interfere with higher
level processes. There is now strong evidence from neuroscience research that suggests that the
amygdala, located deep in the limbic system of the brain, is activated in the presence of even
minor threats (Damasio, 1994). When activated, the amygdala shifts attentional resources from
higher processes to a more primitive flight or fight response (Purves et al., 2004). Incivility may
disrupt cognition by automatically activating the primitive brain systems that communicates that
rather than the cognitive task at hand, the priority is “self-protection”.
Another possibility, however, is that incivility may present people with an informational
challenge. It may not be clear to the victim or even a bystander what the uncivil person “really”
wants, why he or she is being rude, and how to respond. Instead of concentrating on the task at
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
49
hand, the victim or the observer is likely to be focused by trying to understand what the source of
the problem is and how to address it. As a result, incivility increases cognitive load and makes
the task at hand more cognitively complex. In other words, it is possible that it is not only the
emotional challenge that creates the cognitive distraction but also the informational challenge
that is presented by the uncivil person. Future research should benefit from addressing the
question of why incivility affects working memory, is this because of primary appraisal
processes, secondary appraisal processes, or both?
Implications and Future Research
Our findings demonstrate that individuals pay a price for incivility—perhaps without
knowing they are vulnerable. This is troubling, particularly in some industries where the stakes
of attention and cognitive performance are critical. For example, in a recent study most of the
800 physician executives surveyed said that disruptive behavior happens in their hospitals at
least once a month (Rosenstein & O’Daniel, 2008). Ten percent called it a daily occurrence and
almost all believed that this bad behavior negatively affected their patients’ care. Nearly onefourth said that it led to actual harm to their patients. The news from doctors and nurses actually
treating patients is even more frightening. Nearly three out of four identified bad behaviors
within their teams that led to medical errors; and more than one-fourth were convinced that these
behaviors contributed to the deaths of their own patients. Our findings may help explain why
health care mistakes occur and patient care may suffer despite well-intentioned efforts. It’s clear
that incivility impairs individual’s ability to think, even when individuals are not the target.
Witnessing incivility—or even being around it-- triggers reactions in the brain, making it tougher
to manage tasks and solve problems. Incivility increases the likelihood that people miss
important information. In the case of medical teams, we’ve been told that people may miss
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
50
important information on the patient’s chart. Researchers and doctors have highlighted that a
climate of trust and respect, or psychological safety, benefits learning (Edmondson, Bohmer, &
Pisano, 2001; Gawande, 2002). Our study may offer some specifics about why this is the case.
The implications of this study span far beyond health care though. Employees’ whose
work demands focus, problem-solving, decision-making, creativity, or cognitive performance
should be wary of incivility’s impact. Beyond the workplace, our findings hold important
implications for school settings. Students who are simply around an uncivil setting (e.g.,
classroom behavior, playground antics) may suffer negative cognitive effects and decreased
performance. We suspect that uncivil environments will reduce students’ ability to be attentive,
learn, and perform well. We encourage research that tests the longer term effects; as such an
environment may impact student learning, achievement, and career success. We also encourage
research that studies how incivility encountered in one setting may carry over to negatively
impact an individual or those they interact with in another setting. For example, people that
encounter incivility in organizational settings may bring home the effects, with negative effects
on their personal, work, or other roles. Recent research (Lim & Tai, in press) has shown how
incivility encountered with one’s family negatively affects work performance. Perhaps these
relationships flow other ways, too.
This prompts another interesting avenue for future research. How long do these negative
effects of incivility last? Our studies focused on short-terms effects. However, research suggests
that the effects of excitation—even from small infractions-- can remain in the body for long
periods of time (Zillman, 1988). Moreover, the effects of arousal from a previous small
infraction (such as witnessing incivility) can be combined with arousal of another situation to
intensify the emotional reaction (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Research that uncovers more about how
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
51
the effects of incivility may endure and accumulate could potentially be theoretically and
practically useful.
Our results highlight the importance of being mindful of the cognitive toll of incivility.
For some, simply being aware of how distracting incivility can be is helpful. Ideally people steer
clear of incivility whenever possible, limiting their involvement with uncivil colleagues and
organizations. When around incivility, one should attempt to re-focus attention mindfully as best
as possible. Mindfulness, meditation, and other related practices may be helpful in improving
individual functioning (Hunter, 2013; Tan, 2012)—particularly when people are dealing with
emotions and stress stemming from incivility. Unfortunately though, our results suggest that
people may not realize that working in this environment may limits their potential and harm their
career. They may be unaware that incivility is silently chipping away at their well-being,
productivity, and creativity. Research reveals that ordinary daily hassles considerably outstrip
major life stressors and their impact on emotional, social, and work functioning (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). Incivility may be one such hassle; yet may not be consciously acknowledged.
We encourage people to be more mindful of uncivil interactions and uncivil environments.
While many recommendations for managing incivility are aimed at the target (i.e. cope
with incivility, taking care of self, addressing the offender), our results shift the focus and onus
to managers and organizations. Specifically, our results highlight the far-reaching potent effects.
Managers can limit incivility through recruiting and selection with an eye for civility, setting
expectations, and training. When incivility occurs, they cannot tolerate it. Managers must deal
with it swiftly in order to limit the negative consequences. We hope our results raise awareness
about the costs of incivility—the cognitive toll it takes on people, sneakily robbing them of
resources, disrupting working memory, and ultimately hijacking performance.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
52
References
Altmann, E.M., & Trafton, J.G. (2002). Memory for goals: An activation-based model.
Cognitive Science, 26(1): 39-83.
Andersson, L.M., & Pearson, C.M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452-471.
Ashcraft, M.H., & Radvansky, G.A. (2010). Cognition (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Baddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G.J. (1975). Working memory. The Psychology of Learning and
Motivation, 8, 47-89.
Baddeley, A.D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Baddeley, A.D. (1992) Working memory. Science, 255, 445-559.
Baddeley, A.D. (1993). Working memory or working attention? In A. Baddeley & L.
Weiskrantz (Eds.), Attention: Selection, awareness, and control (pp. 152-170). Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A.D. (1996). Exploring the central executive. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 49(1), 5-28.
Baddeley, A.D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417-423.
Baddeley, A.D. (2002). Is working memory still working? European Psychologist, 7(2), 85-97.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
53
Bargh, J.A., & Chartrand, T.L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American
Psychologist, 54(7), 462-479.
Bargh, J.A., & Thein, R.D. (1985). Individual construct accessibility, person memory, and the
recall-judgment link: The case of information overload. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 49(5), 1129-1146.
Bargh, J.A. (1989). Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence in social
perception and cognition. Unintended Thought, 3, 51-69.
Bargh, J.A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of
trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71(2), 230-244.
Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D.M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the
active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5),
1252-1265.
Baumeister, R.F., Twenge, J.M., & Nuss, C.K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on cognitive
processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 83(4), 817-827.
Beal, D.J., Weiss, H.M., Barros, E., & MacDermid, S.M. (2005). An episodic process model of
affective influence on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1054-1068.
Ben-Zur, H., & Yagil, D. (2005). The relationship between empowerment, aggressive
behaviours of customers, coping, and burnout. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 14(1), 81-99.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
54
Ben-Zur, H., & Yagil, D. (2005). The relationship between empowerment, aggressive behaviours
of customers, coping, and burnout. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 14(1), 81-99.
Carlston, D. E., & Skowronski, J. J. (1994). Savings in the relearning of trait information as
evidence for spontaneous inference generation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66(5), 840-856.
Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A
theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test.
Psychological Review, 97(3), 404-431.
Cartwright-Finch, U., & Lavie, N. (2007). The role of perceptual load in inattentional blindness.
Cognition, 102(3), 321-340.
Carver, C. S., Ganellen, R. J., Froming, W. J., & Chambers, W. (1983). Modeling: An analysis in
terms of category accessibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(5), 403421.
Chabris, C. F., & Simons, D. J. (2011). The invisible gorilla: And other ways our intuitions
deceive us. New York: Crown.
Clore, G. L. (1994). Why emotions are felt. In P. Ekman & R.J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of
emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 103-111). New York: Oxford University Press.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.
Psychological Review, 82(6), 407-428.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
55
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a
measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400.
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), 6480.
Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671-684.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Literacy and intrinsic motivation. Daedalus,119(2), 115-140.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life.
New York: Basic Books.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Damasio, A.R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York:
Grosset/Putnam.
Deery, S., Iverson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Work relationships in telephone call centres:
Understanding emotional exhaustion and employee withdrawal. Journal of Management
Studies, 39(4), 471-496.
de Fockert, J. W., Rees, G., Frith, C. D., & Lavie, N. (2001). The role of working memory in
visual selective attention. Science, 291, 1803-1806.
Dimberg, U., & Öhman, A. (1996). Behold the wrath: Psychophysiological responses to facial
stimuli. Motivation and Emotion, 20(2), 149-182.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
56
Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2004). Customer-related social stressors and burnout. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 9(1), 61-82.
Durkheim, E. (1964). The division of labor in society. (G. Simpson, Trans.) Toronto: CollierMacMillan. (Original work published 1858)
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning
and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly,
46(4), 685-716.
Erez, A., & Isen, A. M. (2002). The influence of positive affect on the components of expectancy
motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1055-1067.
Ernst, G. W., & Newell, A. (1969). GPS: A case study in generality and problem solving. New
York: Academic Press.
Eysenck, M.W., & Keane, M.T. (2003). Cognitive psychology. East Sussex, UK: Psychology
Press.
Feng, J., Pratt, J., & Spence, I. (2012). Attention and visuospatial working memory share the
same processing resources. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 103.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Frick, J. W., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., & Merrifield, P. R. (1959). A factor-analytic
study of flexibility in thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 19, 469495.
Gawande, A. (2002). The Learning Curve. The New Yorker, 77(45), 52-61.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
57
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science,
7(2), 155-170.
Goel, V., & Grafman, J. (1995). Are the frontal lobes implicated in “planning” functions?
Interpreting data from the Tower of Hanoi. Neuropsychologia, 33(5), 623-642.
Goldberg, L S., & Grandey, A. A. (2007). Display rules versus display autonomy: Emotion
regulation, emotional exhaustion, and task performance in a call center simulation.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 301-318.
Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as
determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of
Management Journal, 46(1), 86-96.
Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D. N., & Sin, H. P. (2004). The customer is not always right: Customer
aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25(3), 397-418.
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences.
Psychophysiology, 39(3), 281-291.
Gross, J. J. (2013). Emotion regulation: Taking stock and moving forward. Emotion, 13(3), 359365.
Guerin, B. (1999). Social behaviors as determined by different arrangements of social
consequences: Social loafing, social facilitation, deindividuation, and a modified social
loafing. The Psychological Record, 49(4), 565-578.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
58
Guilford, J. P. (1975). Varieties of creative giftedness, their measurement and development.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 19(2), 107-121.
Hallowell, E.M. (1997). Worry. New York: The Random House Publishing Group.
Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 23(1), 1-18.
Harris, L. C., & Reynolds, K. L. (2003). The consequences of dysfunctional customer behavior.
Journal of Service Research, 6(2), 144-161.
Higgins, E. T. (1989). Knowledge accessibility and activation: Subjectivity and suffering from
unconscious sources. In J.S. Uleman & J.A. Bargh (Eds), Unintended thoughts (p. 75123). New York: Guilford Press.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T.
Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles
(pp. 133-168). New York: Guilford Press.
Higgins, E. T., Bargh, J. A., & Lombardi, W. J. (1985). Nature of priming effects on
categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
11(1), 59-69.
Hunter, J. (2013). Is mindfulness good for business? Mindful, April, 53-59.
Isen, A. M., & Erez, A. (2007). Some measurement issues in the study of affect. In A.D. Ong &
M.H.M. van Dulmen (Eds.), Oxford handbook of methods in positive psychology (pp.
250-265). New York: Oxford University Press.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
59
Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., & Jessell, T. M. (Eds.). (2000). Principles of neural science (4th
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The
contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(1), 47-70.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An
integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74(4), 657-690.
Keane, M .T. (1988). Analogical problem solving. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood.
Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., & Butner, J. (2003). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: individual
decision rules and emergent social norms. Psychological Review, 110(1), 3-28.
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.
Koivisto, M., & Revonsuo, A. (2009). The effects of perceptual load on semantic processing
under inattention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(5), 864-868.
Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology,
24, 183-214.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
60
Latorella, K. A. (1996). Investigating interruptions: An example from the flightdeck. In
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 40(4), 249253.
Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive
Science, 9(2), 75-82.
Lazarus, R.S. & Folkman, S.( 1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46(4), 352367.
LeDoux, J. (1998). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
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.
Lim, S., & Tai, K. (In press). Family incivility and job performance: A moderated mediation
model of psychological distress and core self-evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Logie, R. H. (1995). Visuo-spatial working memory. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
Lombardi, W. J., Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987). The role of consciousness in priming
effects on categorization assimilation versus contrast as a function of awareness of the
priming task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13(3), 411-429.
Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
61
Miller, D. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual Review of Psychology,
52, 527–553.
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual
Review of Neuroscience, 24, 67–202.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & P ibram, . H. (1960).Plans and the structure of behavior. New
York, NY: Henry Holt and Co, Inc.
Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L.M. (2004). Working in a context of hostility toward women:
Implications for employees’ well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
9(2): 107-122.
Morey, C. C., & Cowan, N. (2004). When visual and verbal memories compete: Evidence of
cross-domain limits in working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(2), 296301.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources:
Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247–259.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2011). Mplus User's Guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving (Vol. 14). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of
behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
62
self-regulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum
Press.
Ochsner, K. N., Bunge, S. A., Gross, J. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Rethinking feelings: An
fMRI study of the cognitive regulation of emotion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
14(8), 1215-1229.
Pearson, D. G. (2001). Imagery and the visuo-spatial sketchpad. In J. Andrade (Ed.), Working
memory in perspective (pp. 33-59). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2001). Effects of incivility on the target: Fight, flee or take care
of “me”. In annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC.
Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2009). The cost of bad behavior: how incivility is damaging
your business and what to do about it. New York: Portfolio.
Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace
incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29(2), 123-137.
Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on task
performance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1181-1197.
Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2009). Overlooked but not untouched: How rudeness reduces
onlookers’ performance on routine and creative tasks. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 109(1), 29-44.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
63
Porath, C.L., MacInnis, D., & Folkes, V. (2011). It’s Unfair: Why customers who merely
observe an uncivil employee abandon the company. Journal of Services Research, 14(3):
302-371.
Porath, C., Macinnis, D., & Folkes, V. (2010). Witnessing incivility among employees: Effects
on consumer anger and negative inferences about companies. Journal of Consumer
Research, 37(2), 292-303.
Porath, C.L., Overbeck, J., Pearson, C.M. (2008). Picking up the gauntlet: How individuals
respond to status challenges. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(7): 1945-1980.
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals.
In P.M.A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp. 669-682). New
York: Academic Press.
Purves, D., Augustine, G.J., Fitzpatrick, D., Hall, W.C., LaMantia, A.S, McNamara, J.O.,
&Williams, S.M. (2004). Neuroscience (3rd edition). Sutherland, MA: Sinauer.
Rafaeli, A., Erez, A., Ravid, S., Derfler-Rozin, R., Treister, D. E., & Scheyer, R. (2012). When
customers exhibit verbal aggression, employees pay cognitive costs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97(5), 931-950.
Raudenbush A., Bryk A., & Congdon R.(2009). HLM (Version 6.08) [Computer software].
Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Richards, J. M. (2004). The cognitive consequences of concealing feelings. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 13(4), 131-134.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
64
Richards, J., M., & Gross, J. J. (2000). Emotion regulation and memory: The cognitive costs of
keeping one’s cool. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 410-424.
Ringstad, R. (2005). Conflict in the workplace: Social workers as victims and perpetrators.
Social Work, 50(4), 305-313.
Rosenstein, A. H., & O'Daniel, M. (2008). A survey of the impact of disruptive behaviors and
communication defects on patient safety. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and
Patient Safety, 34(8), 464-471.
Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Intellectual performance and ego
depletion: Role of the self in logical reasoning and other information processing. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 33–46.
Shallice, T. (1988). From neuropsychology to mental structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information
processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 127-190.
Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness
for dynamic events. Perception-London, 28(9), 1059-1074.
Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813-838.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
65
Smith, E. E., & Jonides, J. (1997). Working memory: A view from neuroimaging. Cognitive
Psychology, 33(1), 5-42.
Smith, E. E., & Jonides, J. (1999). Storage and executive processes in the frontal lobes. Science,
283, 1657-1661.
Smith, C.A., & Kirby, L.D. (2001). Toward delivering on the promise of appraisal theory. In
K.R. Scherer, A. Schorr & T. Johnston (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory,
Methods, Research (pp.121-138). New York: Oxford University Press.
Strauman, T. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1987). Automatic activation of self-discrepancies and
emotional syndromes: When cognitive structures influence affect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1004-1014.
Tan, C. (2012). Search Inside Yourself: The unexpected path to achieving success, happiness
(and world peace). New York: Harper Collins.
Uleman, J. S., Newman, L. S., & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). People as flexible interpreters:
Evidence and issues from spontaneous trait inference. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 28, 211-279.
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the
operation span task. Behavior Research Methods,37(3), 498-505.
Vidmar, N. (2000). Retribution and revenge. In J. Sanders & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of
justice research in law (pp. 31–63). New York: Kluwer Academic.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
66
Watkins, E. R. (2008). Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought. Psychological
Bulletin, 134(2), 163-206.
Weiss, H.M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74.
Welsh, M., Cicerello, A., Cuneo, K., & Brennan, M. (1995). Error and temporal patterns in
Tower of Hanoi performance: Cognitive mechanisms and individual differences. The
Journal of General Psychology, 122(1), 69-81.
Winter, L., & Uleman, J. S. (1984). When are social judgments made? Evidence for the
spontaneousness of trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(2),
237.
Wyer Jr, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1989). Memory and cognition in its social context. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Zillmann, D. (1988). Cognition-excitation interdependencies in aggressive behavior. Aggressive
Behavior, 14(1), 51-64.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
67
Table 1. Hypotheses Tested in the Five Studies
Study
Process
Controlled
1
2
3
4
5
Incivility will negatively influence
working memory performance
Working memory will mediate the
relationships between incivility and
performance on complex tasks and
creativity
Priming incivility will negatively
influence working memory, complex
task performance, and creativity
Systems Engaged
Automatic
Functions Affected
Central
Executive
Phonological
Loop
VisuoSpatial
Sketchpad
Memory
Maintenance
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Attention
control
Priming Incivility will disrupt visual
attention
Priming incivility will interfere with
goal-directed information
management in working memory
X
X
X
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
68
Table 2
Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Intercorrelations Among Study 2 Variables.
M
SD
1
1. Number of anagrams solved
5.50
2.02
---
2. Number of brick ideas
9.28
3.49
.40
---
3. Rated creativity for the brick uses
4.02
1.57
.38
.45
---
48.19 15.10
.45
.20
.38
---
4. Working Memory
5. Math Errors
6. Incivility
2
3
4
7.19
6.07
-.16
-.05
-.20
-.24
.48
.50
-.30
-.34
-.32
-.27
5
6
--.03
---
Notes: N=54. Correlations above .28 are significant at the p < .05 level. Correlations greater than .37 are significant at the p < .01
level.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
69
Table 3
Influence of Witnessing Incivility on Task Performance, Creativity, and Working Memory in Study 2.
Control
1. Number of anagrams solved
2. Number of brick ideas
3. Rated creativity for the brick uses
4. Working Memory
Incivility
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
F
6.07
2.02
4.88
1.89
4.97*
10.39
3.92
8.08
2.51
6.57*
4.42
1.30
3.60
1.11
6.10*
52.04
14.80
44.04
14.58
3.99*
Notes: N= 54 (N=28 neutral condition, N=26 witnessing incivility condition); *p < .05.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
70
Table 4
Mediation Effects of Working Memory on the Relationship Between Witnessing Incivility and Performance, Study 2.
Anagrams
Task
b
Incivility to Working Memory
Working Memory to DVs
Direct effect of witnessing incivility to DVs
controlling for working memory
Indirect effect of witnessing incivility to DV
Through working memory
-8.00*
.05**
-.76
s.e
Brick
Task
Creativity
b
s.e.
b
s.e.
4.03
-8.00*
4.03
-8.00*
4.03
.02
.03
.03
.03*
.01
.51
-2.09*
.94
-.43
(-1.10, -.03)
-.23
(-1.04, .121)
-.60
.34
-.21
(-.62, -.01)
Notes: **p< .01, *p < .05. The coefficients are unstandardized and are based on bootstrapping 2000 re-sampling. 95% Confidence
intervals for indirect effect are in parenthesis.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
71
Table 5
Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and Intercorrelations Among Study 3 Variables.
M
SD
1
1. Number of anagrams solved
4.21
2.31
---
2. Number of brick ideas
7.25
3.63
.32
---
3. Rated creativity for the brick uses
3.23
1.68
.20
.55
---
48.25 14.48
.37
.35
.35
---
4. Working Memory
5. Math Errors
6. Incivility
2
3
4
5.39
3.14
-.16
-.27
-.15
-.40
.49
.50
-.55
-.32
-.28
-.26
5
6
--.31
---
Notes: N=60. Correlations above .26 are significant at the p < .05 level. Correlations greater than .34 are significant at the p < .01
level.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
72
Table 6
Influence of priming Incivility on Task Performance, Creativity, and Working Memory in Study 3.
Control
Incivility
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
F
1. Number of anagrams solved
5.45
2.78
2.93
1.53
25.51**
2. Number of brick ideas
8.39
3.58
6.07
3.34
6.82*
3. Rated creativity for the brick uses
3.68
1.64
2.76
1.62
4.74*
51.87
12.74
44.50
15.40
4.16*
4. Working Memory
Notes: N= 60 (N=31 neutral condition, N=29 witnessing incivility condition); *p < .05, **p < .01.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
73
Table 7
Mediation Effects of Working Memory on the Relationship Between Priming Incivility and Performance, Study 3.
Anagrams
Task
b
Incivility to Working Memory
Working Memory to DVs
Direct effect of priming incivility to DVs
controlling for working memory
Indirect effect of priming incivility to DV
Through working memory
s.e
-7.37*
3.46
.04*
.02
-2.23**
.48
-.29
(-.86, -.02)
Brick
Task
b
Creativity
s.e.
-7.37* 3.46
.07*
-1.80
.03
.93
-.52
(-1.58, -.02)
b
s.e.
-7.37* 3.46
.04*
-.68
.01
.41
-.27
(-.71, -.03)
Notes: **p< .01, *p < .05. The coefficients are based on bootstrapping 2000 re-sampling. Confidence intervals for indirect effect are in
parenthesis.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
74
Table 8.
Incivility Effects on Goal Management in the Tower of Hanoi Task, Study 5
Decision Making Time
Physical Move Time
Number of Errors
Step 1
Effects on Intercept β0
1. Intercept 00
2. Priming Incivility 01
2.86**
.34*
2.32**
.26*
1.70**
.22*
2.04**
0.09
1.93**
.14*
-2.60**
.44*
3.05**
.96*
1.47**
.46*
2.13**
-0.36
Step 2
Effects on Intercept β0
1. Intercept 00
2. Priming Incivility 01
Effects on Slope β1
1. Intercept 10
2. Priming incivility 11
Note: *p < .05 (one-tailed), **p < .01. β0 represents first-level intercept coefficient; β1 represents relationship between an indicator of
difficult move and the DVs. ’s represent second level coefficients..
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
Figure 1. Tower of Hanoi Task
75
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
76
Figure 2. Moderating effect of goal difficulty on the relationship between incivility and decision making time on the Tower of Hanoi
task.
INCIVILITY AND WORKING MEMORY
77
Figure 3. Moderating effect of goal difficulty on the relationship between incivility and physical move time in the Tower of Hanoi
task.