THRIVING ON VIRTUE OR VICE? INTERPERSONAL CITIZENSHIP AND INCIVILITY AS RESTORATIVE MECHANISMS FOR DAILY GOAL-RELATED SELF-ESTEEM AND EMOTIONAL IMPAIRMENTS By SinHui Chong A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Psychology—Doctor of Philosophy 2018 ABSTRACT THRIVING ON VIRTUE OR VICE? INTERPERSONAL CITIZENSHIP AND INCIVILITY AS RESTORATIVE MECHANISMS FOR DAILY GOAL-RELATED SELF-ESTEEM AND EMOTIONAL IMPAIRMENTS By SinHui Chong Employees are often required to bounce back promptly from poor goal progress in their daily work to maintain work efficiency for the rest of the day, hence it is helpful to shed light on mechanisms that can help employees better regulate their goal-related self-esteem and emotions during work hours. Based on the notion that recovery opportunities exist alongside employees’ interactions with their coworkers, I proposed that the performance of prosocial and antisocial interpersonal behaviors could both serve restorative functions for employees’ self-esteem and emotions in the workday, albeit under different boundary conditions. I first contended that employees’ daily goal progress would be positively related to their state self-esteem, especially on days when they perceived higher control over their goal progress. Next, based on the theories of self-consistency and interpersonal motives, I expected affiliation and dominance motives to act as first-stage moderators that interact with low state self-esteem to predict employees’ enactment of interpersonal citizenship behaviors and incivility respectively during the workday. The same motives were also expected to function as second-stage moderators to qualify the respective positive relations from interpersonal citizenship and incivility to employees’ end-of- day self-esteem. For emotions, I hypothesized goal progress to be negatively related to both midday anger and shame, but each to a different extent depending on employees’ perceived personal control over their daily goal progress. Next, I expected midday shame to positively predict interpersonal helping while midday anger to positively predict incivility enactment. In turn, the performance of these respective interpersonal behaviors would be negatively related to end-of-day shame and anger. Finally, I argued that both self-esteem recovery and emotional recovery would be positively related to goal progress for the second half of the workday. I collected data twice a day for ten workdays from 111 full-time employees to test this model. The results from 786 matched daily data points demonstrated daily goal progress to be positively related to midday self-esteem and negatively related to midday shame and anger. Perceived control was a significant moderator only for the goal progress – anger relation, such that it was less negative on days when there were higher (vs. lower) levels of perceived control. For self- esteem, the results revealed some unexpected but interesting differences between explicit esteem and implicit esteem in terms of their relations with the enactment of interpersonal citizenship and incivility. For emotions, midday shame did not predict citizenship behaviors, but performing more citizenship behaviors was related to lower end-of-day shame. Midday anger positively predicted the enactment of incivility, but enacting more incivility was not significantly related to lower end-of-day anger. Finally, esteem recovery and emotional recovery were related to better goal progress for the second half of the day. I discussed the theoretical and practical implications of these findings, before noting their limitations and proposing directions for future research. Copyright by SINHUI CHONG 2018 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It feels great to finally be penning the Acknowledgments section of this dissertation! I would not have arrived at this milestone without my advisor, Daisy Chang. Daisy, thank you very much for your guidance and support throughout the dissertation and job search processes! I am eternally grateful for the time and effort you have put into developing me and working with me. You inspire me both professionally and personally, and you have taught me skills and values that will stay with me beyond graduate school. I also thank my committee members— John Schaubroeck, Rick DeShon, and Kevin Ford. Your comments have challenged me to think more deeply about this research. I would also like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the faculty whom I have worked closely with in the last few years— Linn Van Dyne, Russ Johnson, John Schaubroeck, and Fred Leong. Thank you very much for all the research opportunities, and for the time and resources you have devoted into developing me as a researcher! I learned very much from each of you, and I am excited about passing them on to my future students. I am especially indebted to Linn Van Dyne. Your advice and support have been invaluable as I planned and pursued my career goals. A big thank you to Dan Ilgen too! Your willingness to provide me with advice whenever I needed them meant a lot to me, and your passion for I/O Psychology is very inspirational. Life in graduate school was also a lot more enjoyable thanks to a bunch of wonderful friends I made here, especially Christine Kermond, Jingjing Ma, Anita Keller, and Sam Xie. Your friendships have been an integral part of my life in MSU and the US. I hope technology and affordable flights will make it easy for us to keep in touch and visit each other in future! I appreciate the presence of Jingjing especially, for always making time to discuss various conceptual ideas and analytical approaches related to my dissertation with me. v Next, I want to thank my best friends in Singapore— Yelin, YenChun, Liyan, Zhijun, and the S25 girls— for being in my life and for encouraging me in the last couple of years when the going got tough. You are the most supportive and lovely friends one could ask for! I also greatly appreciate my many other good friends in Singapore who have kept me in their thoughts while I was away. May we catch up on lost times soon! Most importantly, I thank my family— Mummy, Papa, Korkor, Porpor, Uncle Meng, Dagu, WeiHeng, and Biying— for your unconditional love and support. I love all of you, and this love has kept me going strong in the last six years. The work values and ethics that you inculcated in me since young have helped me persevere and excel in graduate school. Thank you too, for teaching me to be kind and open to differences. These traits have brought me and will continue bringing me very far in life. Finally, to my dearest Uncle Choon, I have had a lot of adventures in the years since you were gone, and you have been in my thoughts at every step. I hope you are watching from above and beaming with pride at my achievements. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................. 10 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 10 Daily Goal Progress ............................................................................................................ 10 A Within-Person Approach to Studying Goal Progress ..................................................... 12 Implications of Goal Progress Perceptions ........................................................................ 13 Coping with Goal-Related Self-Esteem and Emotional Impairments ................................ 17 Self-Esteem ........................................................................................................................ 20 Self-Consistency Theory .................................................................................................... 24 Interpersonal Motives ......................................................................................................... 26 Emotions ............................................................................................................................. 29 Shame ................................................................................................................................. 31 Anger .................................................................................................................................. 32 The Social Domain as a Stage for State Self-Esteem and Emotional Restorations ........... 34 Interpersonal Citizenship Behaviors .................................................................................. 35 Workplace Incivility ........................................................................................................... 38 Concluding Comments from the Literature Review .......................................................... 41 CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................. 42 MODEL AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT ................................................................. 42 The Dual-Process Model of Cognitive and Emotional Recovery Related to Goal Progress ............................................................................................................................................ 42 The Cognitive Pathway: Daily Goal Progress and Midday State Self-Esteem .................. 43 Perceived Personal Control as Moderator of the Goal Progress – Midday Esteem Relation ............................................................................................................................................ 43 Self-Esteem Restoration During Work Hours .................................................................... 45 Interpersonal Motives as Dual-Stage Moderators .............................................................. 46 Midday State Self-Esteem, Affiliation Motive, and Interpersonal Citizenship to Coworkers ............................................................................................................................................ 47 Midday State Self-Esteem, Dominance Motive, and Incivility to Coworkers ................... 50 Midday State Self-Esteem, Dominance Motive, and Affiliation Motive ........................... 52 Interpersonal Citizenship to Coworkers and End-of-Day State Self-Esteem Among Employees with an Affiliation Motive ............................................................................... 53 Incivility to Coworkers and End-of-Day State Self-Esteem Among Employees with a Dominance Motive ............................................................................................................. 55 OCBI, Incivility, Dominance Motive, and Affiliation Motive ........................................... 57 Dual-Stage Moderated Mediation Model for State Self-Esteem Restoration .................... 59 vii State Self-Esteem Recovery and Goal Progress for Second Half of Day .......................... 60 The Emotional Pathway: Daily Goal Progress and Midday Negative Emotions ............... 61 Perceived Personal Control as Moderator of the Goal Progress – Midday Shame Relation ............................................................................................................................................ 63 Perceived Personal Control as Moderator of the Goal Progress – Midday Anger Relation ............................................................................................................................................ 65 Midday Emotions and Interpersonal Behaviors for Emotional Recovery ......................... 66 Midday Shame and OCBI .................................................................................................. 67 OCBI and End-of-Day Shame ............................................................................................ 68 Midday Anger and Incivility .............................................................................................. 69 Incivility and End-of-Day Anger ....................................................................................... 70 Emotional Recovery and Goal Progress for Second Half of Day ...................................... 71 CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................. 73 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 73 Recruitment Procedure ....................................................................................................... 73 Design and Procedures ....................................................................................................... 76 Sample ................................................................................................................................ 77 Measures ............................................................................................................................. 78 CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................. 85 ANALYSES AND RESULTS ................................................................................................. 85 Pilot Test for Shortened or Adapted Measures .................................................................. 85 Pilot Test for LDT Letter Strings ....................................................................................... 86 Attrition Analysis ............................................................................................................... 88 Data Cleaning, Descriptives, and Measurement Models ................................................... 88 Analytical Approach for Hypothesis Tests ........................................................................ 99 Hypothesis Tests ............................................................................................................... 113 Analyses for Research Questions ..................................................................................... 127 Supplemental Analyses Using Domain-Specific Self-Esteem Measures ......................... 137 CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................... 142 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................ 142 Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................... 142 Theoretical Implications ................................................................................................... 144 Midday Goal Progress and Midday Esteem and Emotions .............................................. 144 Interpersonal Behaviors as Recovery Mechanisms for Goal-Related Esteem Impairments .......................................................................................................................................... 146 Interpersonal Behaviors as Recovery Mechanisms for Goal-Related Emotions ............. 153 Workday Esteem and Emotional Regulation for Goal Progress for Second-Half of Day 156 Limitations and Future Directions .................................................................................... 159 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 167 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 169 APPENDIX A: Trait Interpersonal Motives .......................................................................... 170 APPENDIX B: Explicit Trait Global Self-Esteem ................................................................. 171 viii APPENDIX C: Daily Goal Progress ...................................................................................... 172 APPENDIX D: Daily Control Perception .............................................................................. 173 APPENDIX E: Explicit State Global Self-Esteem ................................................................. 174 APPENDIX F: Explicit State Domain-Specific Self-Esteem ................................................ 175 APPENDIX G: Implicit State Self-Esteem Lexical Decision Task ....................................... 176 APPENDIX H: State Shame .................................................................................................. 178 APPENDIX I: State Anger ..................................................................................................... 179 APPENDIX J: Daily OCB ..................................................................................................... 180 APPENDIX K: Daily Incivility .............................................................................................. 181 APPENDIX L: Goal Progress for Second Half of Day.......................................................... 182 APPENDIX M: State Positive Affect .................................................................................... 183 APPENDIX N: Frustration ..................................................................................................... 184 APPENDIX O: State Depletion ............................................................................................. 185 APPENDIX P: MSU IRB Approval ...................................................................................... 186 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 187 ix Table 1: Pilot test results ............................................................................................................... 86 LIST OF TABLES Table 2: Between-person and within-person means, SDs, correlations, and internal reliabilities 93 Table 3: Within-person and between-person variances for daily measures ................................. 98 Table 4a: Results from all models tested .................................................................................... 102 Table 4b: Level-2 residual variances of random slopes modeled in Model 6 ............................ 111 Table 5: Conditional indirect relations from midday goal progress to OCBI via midday positive word response latency at different levels of trait affiliation motive (2nd-stage moderated mediation) ................................................................................................................................... 116 Table 6: Conditional indirect relations from midday goal progress to incivility via midday explicit self-esteem at different levels of trait dominance motive (2nd-stage moderated-mediation) ..................................................................................................................................................... 118 Table 7: Conditional indirect relations from midday goal progress to incivility via midday positive word response latency at different levels of trait dominance motive (2nd-stage moderated mediation) ................................................................................................................................... 119 Table 8: Conditional indirect relations from morning goal progress to incivility via midday anger at different levels of perceived control (stage-1 moderated-mediation) ..................................... 120 Table 9: Conditional indirect relations from midday to end-of-day positive word response latency via OCBI at different levels of trait affiliation motive (dual-stage moderated mediation) ........ 123 Table 10: Conditional indirect relations from midday to end-of-day explicit self-esteem via incivility at different levels of trait dominance motive (1st-stage moderated mediation) ........... 124 Table 11: Conditional indirect relations from midday to end-of-day positive word response latency via incivility at different levels of trait dominance motive (dual-stage moderated mediation) ................................................................................................................................... 126 Table 12: Results of three-way interaction effect of midday positive word response latency × trait dominance motive × trait affiliation motive on enacted incivility .............................................. 128 Table 13: Simple slopes of three-way interaction effect of midday positive word response latency × affiliation motive × dominance motive on enacted incivility .................................................. 129 Table 14: Results of three-way interaction effect of OCBI × trait affiliation motive × trait dominance motive on end-of-day explicit esteem ...................................................................... 131 x Table 15: Simple slopes of three-way interaction effect of OCBI × affiliation motive × dominance motive on end-of-day explicit esteem ...................................................................... 131 Table 16: Results of three-way interaction effect of OCBI × trait affiliation motive × trait dominance motive on end-of-day positive word response latency ............................................. 133 Table 17: Simple slopes of three-way interaction effect of OCBI × affiliation motive × dominance motive on end-of-day positive word response latency ............................................. 133 Table 18: Results of three-way interaction effect of incivility × trait dominance motive × trait affiliation motive on end-of-day explicit esteem ........................................................................ 135 Table 19: Three-way interaction effect of incivility × affiliation motive × dominance motive on end-of-day explicit esteem .......................................................................................................... 135 xi Figure 1: Hypothesized model ........................................................................................................ 6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2: Hypothesized simple slopes for Hypothesis 2 ............................................................... 45 Figure 3: Hypothesized simple slopes for Hypothesis 3a ............................................................. 50 Figure 4: Hypothesized simple slopes for Hypothesis 3b ............................................................. 52 Figure 5: Hypothesized simple slopes for Hypothesis 4a ............................................................. 55 Figure 6: Hypothesized simple slopes for Hypothesis 4b ............................................................. 57 Figure 7: Hypothesized simple slopes for Hypothesis 8 ............................................................... 64 Figure 8: Hypothesized simple slopes for Hypothesis 9 ............................................................... 66 Figure 9: Figure summarizing results in final integrative model ................................................ 112 Figure 10: Simple slopes between midday goal progress and midday anger at different levels of daily perceived personal control (H9) ......................................................................................... 114 Figure 11: Simple slopes between midday positive word response latency and daily OCBI at different levels of trait affiliation motive (H3a) ......................................................................... 116 Figure 12: Simple slopes between midday explicit esteem and daily incivility at different levels of trait dominance motive (H3b) ................................................................................................. 117 Figure 13: Simple slopes between midday positive word response latency and daily incivility at different levels of trait dominance motive (H3b) ....................................................................... 119 Figure 14: Simple slopes between daily OCBI and end-of-day positive word response latency at different levels of trait affiliation motive (H4a) ......................................................................... 122 Figure 15: Simple slopes between daily incivility and end-of-day positive word response latency at different levels of trait dominance motive (H4b) .................................................................... 125 Figure 16: Simple slopes depicting 3-way interaction of affiliation motive × dominance motive × midday implicit esteem on daily enacted incivility (RQ1) ......................................................... 129 Figure 17: Simple slopes depicting 3-way interaction of affiliation motive × dominance motive × daily OCBI on end-of-day explicit esteem (RQ2) ...................................................................... 132 Figure 18: Simple slopes depicting 3-way interaction of affiliation motive × dominance motive × daily OCBI on end-of-day positive word response latency (RQ2) ............................................. 134 xii Figure 19: Simple slopes depicting 3-way interaction of affiliation motive × dominance motive × daily incivility on end-of-day explicit esteem (RQ2) ................................................................. 136 Figure 20: Alternative model using domain-specific self-esteem measures instead of global self- esteem measures.......................................................................................................................... 138 Figure 21: Simple slopes between midday goal progress and midday performance self-esteem at different levels of daily perceived personal control .................................................................... 139 Figure 22: Simple slopes between midday performance self-esteem and enacted incivility at different levels of trait dominance motive .................................................................................. 141 Figure 23: Simple slopes between midday social self-esteem and enacted incivility at different levels of trait dominance motive ................................................................................................. 141 xiii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Individuals possess an automatic drive to engage in thoughts and behaviors that help them maintain a positive self-regard, especially in the workplace where they spend a significant portion of their time (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998; Korman, 1970). Positive self-regard constitutes of how individual think of themselves (Rosenberg, 1989) and how they feel about themselves (Fredrickson, 1998). State self-esteem, defined as individuals’ perceptions of their current self- worth, and emotions, defined as intense affective states (Frijda, Kuipers, & Ter Schure, 1989), are therefore components of self-regard and serve as important predictors of employee motivation and work-related behaviors (Pierce & Gardner, 2004; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). One straightforward means for protecting and enhancing state self-esteem and emotional well- being in everyday work is through the achievement of planned performance goals, where greater goal progress and goal attainment induce and signal greater self-worth (Korman, 2001; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). However, advancement toward goal achievement is rarely consistent across work days, as employees may make better or worse progress on their work goals on some days versus others (Kappes, Singmann, & Oettingen, 2012; Spiegel, Grant‐Pillow, & Higgins, 2004; Zohar, Tzischinski, & Epstein, 2003). Good goal progress may be due to factors such as intrinsic motivation or social facilitation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ivancevich & McMahon, 1982), while poor goal progress may be caused by factors such as poor self-regulation (Webb, Chang, & Benn, 2013) or uncontrollable disruptive events like unexpected work requests, equipment malfunctions, and unwanted social interactions (Zohar et al., 2003). While it is important to uncover why and how employees make good goal progress for optimizing organizational 1 efficiency, it is equally essential to understand how employees overcome poor goal progress in order to offer potential insights for helping them achieve performance breakthrough. This is especially so because the lack of desired goal progress takes a toll on employees’ state self- esteem (Edwards, Burnard, Bennett, & Hebden, 2010) and emotions (Ilies, De Pater, & Judge, 2007), and are related to other indicators of poor well-being or psychological strain, such as anxiety (Rodell & Judge, 2009) and emotional exhaustion (LePine, LePine, & Jackson, 2004). Therefore, scholars have devoted considerable research attention into studying how employees can cope adaptively with the detriments associated with poor goal progress. These works consistently suggest off-work personal experiences and activities, such as psychological detachment from work (Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2010; Sonnentag, Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010) and social support from family and friends (Parasuraman, Greenhaus, & Granrose, 1992; D. W. Russell, Altmaier, & Van Velzen, 1987), as buffers to the negative effects of poor goal progress. Despite the beneficial and instrumental role that off-work psychological detachment and social support play in helping employees recover from the psychological strain related to inadequate goal progress, very much is overlooked if we assume that employees are always able to effectively contain the effects of goal stagnation during work hours and release or deal with them only during the off-work hours. This is because a perceived lack of goal progress and its related stress can instantly create an atmosphere to shape employees’ thoughts, emotions, and behaviors during the work day (Teuchmann, Totterdell, & Parker, 1999; Zohar, 1999). For example, in their experiential sampling field study, Zohar, Tzischinski, and Epstein (2003) found that on days when employees were unable to achieve desired goal progress at work due to the experience of disruptive events, such as an equipment malfunction or an unexpected scheduling 2 conflict, they experienced greater immediate and end-of-day fatigue and negative affect. This study, and other similar ones (Ilies, Dimotakis, & De Pater, 2010; Totterdell, Wood, & Wall, 2006), demonstrated and highlighted the temporal relations from goal progress to employee outcomes. While informative, most of these extant studies inopportunely ended their models with outcomes related to psychological strain, such as anxiety and emotional exhaustion, and fell short of examining whether poor goal progress has consequences on employees’ subsequent work-related behaviors during work hours, and whether these consequences may be mitigated or enhanced by other activities at work. This is a serious oversight because the critical and fast-paced nature of certain jobs, such as that of healthcare, law-enforcement, or financial fields, may require employees to recover quickly from goal-related esteem or emotional impairments and resume their pursuit of work goals as soon as possible in order to sustain organizational efficiency (J. Brown, Fielding, & Grover, 1999; Embriaco, Papazian, Kentish-Barnes, Pochard, & Azoulay, 2007). In other words, findings from prior research advocating psychological detachment or partaking in leisure activities are of less practical value to these employees because they will neither have access to non-work restorative resources nor possess the liberty to disengage from work activities during the workday. Therefore, I contend that while prior studies inform us that that poor goal progress impairs employees’ state cognitive and emotional well-being (Koopman, Lanaj, & Scott, 2016; Wanberg, Zhu, & Van Hooft, 2010; Zohar, 1999), and that positive off-work experiences and activities can help to restore employees’ well-being and work motivation (Sonnentag, Arbeus, Mahn, & Fritz, 2014; Sonnentag, Kuttler, et al., 2010), they do little in illuminating how daily goal progress shapes proximal work-related behaviors and whether these work-related behaviors can serve to restore employees’ state esteem and emotions, and motivate further goal persistence 3 and pursuit during work hours. This severely dismisses and overlooks the potential of employees’ behaviors in the workplace to function as restorative mechanisms (Lilius, 2012), and precludes an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the temporal and dynamic relations between goal regulation, state self-esteem and emotions, and employees’ interpersonal behaviors at work. Inspired by prior works that have argued for potential recovery properties inherent in work activities (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981; Lilius, 2012), I argue that mechanisms and opportunities for restoring an impaired self-esteem and negative emotions exist alongside employees’ interactions with their coworkers. My dissertation advances a dual-process model to consider the concurrent and respective relations from goal progress to state self-esteem and emotions, and back to goal progress via interpersonal behaviors. Specifically, I attempt to explain how prosocial or antisocial interactions with coworkers can function as momentary uplifts for employees’ self-esteem and emotions during the workday after they have experienced poor goal progress. The self-esteem pathway is informed by the theories of self-consistency (Korman, 1970) and interpersonal motives (Horowitz et al., 2006). The self-consistency theory (Korman, 1970) asserts that employees are motivated to engage in behaviors that allow them to maintain a level of positive self-esteem that is consistent with their desired self-image. Based on this notion, I suggest that goal progress signals to employees whether they are performing at a desired standard, and will therefore be positively related to their state self-esteem, especially at times when employees perceive high personal control over their goal progress. When employees make good goal progress, they should experience relatively high self-esteem as compared to when they are making poor goal progress Because self-esteem is aggregated by how employees feel about themselves across various domains such as the task and social domain, I expect 4 employees to automatically turn to their social domain and enact certain interpersonal behaviors to improve their state self-esteem at times when it is impaired by perceptions of poor goal progress. I further argue that employees’ chronic interpersonal motives will determine the type of interpersonal behaviors that they enact to help them reclaim their self-esteem at times of poor goal progress. According to Horowitz et al.’s (2006) theory of interpersonal motives, people with a strong (as compared to weak) affiliation motive develop positive self-worth when they form congenial relations with others, and people with a strong (as compared to weak) dominance motive develop positive self-worth when they exercise autocracy and control over others. Therefore, I expect individuals’ trait interpersonal motives to moderate the relations between their state self-esteem and their subsequent interpersonal behaviors during the work day, such that a strong affiliation motive will interact with low midday self-esteem to predict interpersonal citizenship behaviors, while a strong dominance motive interact with low midday self-esteem to predict the enactment of incivility behaviors toward coworkers. These different interpersonal behaviors will in turn be positively related to end-of-day state self-esteem among employees of the respective affiliation or dominance motive. For the emotional path, I draw from the appraisals theory (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988) to hypothesize negative relations between goal progress and the emotions of anger and shame. Specifically, employees are more likely to experience anger and shame on days when they make poor goal progress, but each to a different extent depending on employees’ perceived personal control over their daily goal progress. Employees’ perceptions of high, as compared to low, personal control over poor goal progress should be associated with greater shame experiences because shame is related to self-responsibility in the face of a negative experience (Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007). On the other hand, perceptions of low, as compared to high, personal 5 control over poor goal progress should be associated with the experience of greater anger because anger is often linked to appraisals of other-agency and injustice (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988). I then expect midday shame to positively predict interpersonal helping while midday anger to positively predict incivility enactment due to their respective prosocial (De Hooge, Breugelmans, & Zeelenberg, 2008; Wallace, 2013) versus aggressive tendencies (Glomb, 2002). In turn, the performance of these respective interpersonal behaviors should be negatively related to end-of-day shame and anger. Lastly, I expect both self-esteem restoration and emotional recovery facilitate goal progress during the second half of the workday. Figure 1 shows my hypothesized model. Figure 1: Hypothesized model In developing and testing this model, this dissertation aims to make the following contributions to theory and practice. First, the investigation of how daily goal progress relates to 6 state self-esteem and emotions, and interpersonal behaviors during work hours, and how these interpersonal behaviors relate to end-of-day state self-esteem and emotions, allows a fuller consideration of the dynamic relations from daily goal setbacks to state self-esteem and interpersonal behaviors throughout the work day. It brings attention to the immediate relationships from goal setbacks to employees’ cognition and emotions, and work-related behaviors. The direct examination of the reciprocal relations between state self-esteem and emotions with work-related interpersonal behaviors also extends existing research beyond a general focus on the role of off-work personal activities and experiences in neutralizing the negative effects of poor goal progress (Sonnentag, Kuttler, et al., 2010; Sonnentag & Natter, 2004), and clarifies whether employees’ proximal social context in the workplace can potentially function as a restorative mechanism for coping with goal-related esteem and emotional deficits. Second, this dissertation contributes specifically to the literature of self-esteem. Self- esteem refers to one’s perceived self-worth (Korman, 1970). It is theorized to be a global construct made up of various domains, such as the task and social domains (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). Extant research have contended and shown that these domains are likely to be independent, such that self-esteem in one domain will not impact self-esteem or behaviors in another domain (Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003; Ferris, Brown, Lian, & Keeping, 2009). This dissertation however attempts to explore the other side of the story by examining whether a low self-esteem that results from poor progress in the task domain will shape one’s behaviors in the social domain. If significant, the findings will illustrate the interrelatedness between the task and social domains in contributing to one’s global evaluation of oneself, and suggest that the boundaries between these various self-esteem domains are in fact permeable. In examining the moderating role of state control perceptions, I also shed light on the 7 contingency that determines the extent to which substandard daily goal progress may relate to damaged state self-esteem. This highlights the importance of considering sensemaking process when studying the relation between goal progress and self-esteem. Third, I contribute to the emotions literature by responding to the call for more research to examine affective dynamics and motivational processes in an integrative model (Barsade & Gibson, 2007). In particular, I go beyond previous studies on goal progress or interpersonal behaviors that only examined generalized negative affect instead of specific negative emotions (Harris, Daniels, & Briner, 2003; Ilies & Judge, 2005; Moberly & Watkins, 2010). By outlining the differential roles of shame and anger in relation to daily goal progress and interpersonal behaviors in the workplace, with perceptions of control functioning as a moderator, I clarify how personal control perceptions moderate individuals’ experience of either greater shame or greater anger when they perceive themselves to be progressing poorly on their goals, and how the two emotions relate to different interpersonal behaviors for emotional recovery. This allows me to tease out the unique nuances between shame and anger despite both being negative emotions, and should add on to the line of research that advocates that not all negative emotions are created equal or have similar influences on subsequent goal-related or interpersonal behaviors (Bunk & Magley, 2013; Chong & Park, 2017; Weiner, 1985). Finally, this research further examines unexplored nomological networks of citizenship and incivility behaviors in the workplace by integrating their relations with goal progress, state self-esteem and emotions, and interpersonal motives in a dual-process moderated mediation model. It responds to longstanding calls in citizenship literature for understanding the motives and antecedents behind why coworkers help each other (Kim, Van Dyne, Kamdar, & Johnson, 2013; Rioux & Penner, 2001), and also contributes to the series of recent studies targeted at 8 uncovering why employees behave in an uncivil manner to their coworkers (Foulk, Woolum, & Erez, 2015; Rosen, Koopman, Gabriel, & Johnson, 2016). The model also suggests that both interpersonal citizenship and incivility can potentially be associated to a same predictor, that is, poor goal progress, and both types of interpersonal behaviors can be uplifting for employees’ end-of-day state self-esteem (contingent on interpersonal motives) and emotions. Taken together, the hypothesized relationships adopt an actor-centric and a dual-process perspective to address when, why, and how perceived lack of goal progress can potentially predict interpersonal behaviors in the workplace, and highlight the value of taking an integrative and contingent approach to studying goal regulation, interpersonal behaviors, and well-being in the workplace. Moving on, I organize this dissertation proposal into five major sections. I first review existing research and present a theoretical overview of the main concepts and constructs of this dissertation in Chapter 2. I then develop my model and explain my hypotheses in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, I describe my methodology consisting of an experience sampling study and present the results in Chapter 5. Finally, I discuss the theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and future directions of this research in Chapter 6. 9 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter, I first refer to the literature on goal setting and regulation to define daily goal progress for this dissertation. I also summarize extant findings on how people respond to goal progress. Next, I review the self-esteem literature before bringing in the theories of self- consistency and interpersonal motives to explain how they serve as an overarching theoretical framework guiding the self-esteem pathway of the dual-process model in this dissertation. I then proceed to describe the affective events theory and its role in informing the emotional pathway of the dual-process model. Finally, I review existing research on interpersonal citizenship and incivility behaviors and discuss how they can potentially function as restorative mechanisms to help employees overcome goal-related esteem and emotional impairments during work hours. Daily Goal Progress Goal progress refers to individuals’ evaluative comparisons of their current performance with their desired performance (Carver & Scheier, 2011). In everyday work, employees have to complete numerous micro tasks to achieve the daily goals (i.e., standards) that they set for themselves (Wanberg et al., 2010). For example, an employee who has set the goal of completing a marketing report by the end of a workday will have to complete tasks such as conducting internet search for relevant information, organizing the information, writing, formatting the report, conducting additional analyses with any data available, and so on, to achieve this goal. An employee can therefore assess their overall daily work goal progress by evaluating the extent to which (i.e., how much and how well) they have completed these micro tasks. Daily goal progress is a central construct in employees’ daily work routine due to its self- regulatory nature , but because managers rarely set daily goals with employees, daily goal 10 progress evaluation is often a subjective interpretation of how employees view their performance in relation to their personal work standards for the day (Bandura, 1991; Wanberg et al., 2010). Making sense of and evaluating daily goal progress. Alongside evaluating their goal progress, individuals try to make sense of the factors that have contributed to their goal progress. This is commonly known as the appraisal or attributions process (Weiner, 1985). Goal progress or outcomes can be judged on the dimension of locus of causality, where causes can be attributed to internal factors stemming from within a person like ability and effort, or external factors stemming from beyond a person such as luck or task difficulty (Luginbuhl, Crowe, & Kahan, 1975). Besides the locus of causality, individuals can also form perceptions of personal control over the causes of their goal progress during their appraisal process. When individuals perceive high personal control over their goal progress, they believe that they are able to affect changes in their behaviors or their environment for making progress on their goals. When individuals perceive low personal control over their goal progress, they believe there is little they can do to determine how well or poorly they perform. Schunk (1990) noted that such appraisal processes moderate the relations from goal progress or goal outcomes to individuals’ perceived self-regard because they shape individuals’ expectancies for future performance episodes. This notion advocating the moderating function of appraisals has been reinforced by empirical findings. For example, Russell and McAuley (1986) showed that goal success was more positively related to perceptions of competence and positive affect when individuals perceived high (vs. low) personal control over the causes of goal success. They also found that goal failure was more positively related to anger, but not guilt, when individuals perceived high (vs. low) personal control over the causes of goal failure. In another study, Tolli and Schmidt (2008) demonstrated that negative goal-performance discrepancy (i.e., poor goal progress) had a 11 stronger negative relationship with self-efficacy among individuals who perceived the causes for the performance to be internal as compared to external. The findings from these studies suggest that perceiving personal control over the causes of performance plays an important role in moderating the impact of goal progress on one’s cognitive and affective outcomes. A Within-Person Approach to Studying Goal Progress Numerous studies utilized a cross-sectional or longitudinal design to study goal regulation in the workplace (Chang, Johnson, & Lord, 2009; Schmidt & Dolis, 2009; Wiese & Freund, 2005) Such designs are useful for assessing the between-person consequences of chronically experiencing goal setbacks. Repetti (1993), however, highlights the value of employing a within-person approach to studying goal regulation. She brought attention to evidence showing that the process of goal pursuit in the workplace have an immediate effect on employees’ physiological responses like blood pressure and heart rate (Lundberg & Palm, 1989; Rose, Jenkins, & Hurst, 1978), and recommended future studies to investigate how daily variation in goal progress shape employees’ immediate affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes in the workplace (Repetti, 1993). In addition, the task and social contexts in the workplace rarely stay stagnant over time given the fluid nature of the contemporary economy that organizations operate in. Unexpected events may occur and act as proximal hurdles that hinder employees’ daily goal progress (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). This again renders the within- person daily approach a better design for capturing accurate fluctuations in goal progress. In empirical support of the within-person approach to studying goal progress, Koopman, Lanaj, and Scott (2016) demonstrated within-person variance in daily goal progress among a sample of employees from diverse occupations, and as part of their model, showed that daily goal progress positively predicted daily job satisfaction and negatively predicted daily emotional exhaustion. 12 Wanberg, Zhu, and Van Hooft (2010) also demonstrated daily goal progress to be positively related to daily affect and reemployment efficacy among a sample of job seekers. In summary, given that goal regulation is a dynamic process that is open to fluctuations in the work environment (Trougakos, Beal, Cheng, Hideg, & Zweig, 2015; Zohar, 1999), I will take a within-person approach in hope of best examining the immediate and dynamic effects of goal progress on employees’ regulation of their cognition and behaviors during work hours on a daily basis. Implications of Goal Progress Perceptions Employees rely on their evaluations of their goal progress to determine how well they are performing on their goals and whether they will be able to attain their goals (Latham & Locke, 1991). Perceived goal progress therefore has affective, cognitive, and behavioral correlates. The following sections review these findings, with a focus on results from within-person studies when available. Affective implications. Goal progress is related to affective responses (Klug & Maier, 2015). For example, Wanberg et al. (2010) showed that perception of daily job search progress was positively related to end-of-day positive affect and negatively related to end-of-day negative affect among a sample of unemployed individuals. In another study, Mawritz, Folger, and Latham (2014) found positive relationships from poor goal progress (operationalized as being assigned exceedingly difficult goals on which progress would be difficult) to anger and anxiety among a sample of managers. Studies have also examined the relationship between daily goal disruption and emotional exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion refers to experiencing a lack of energy and feeling exhausted by work due to the overextension of emotions (Maslach & Jackson, 1982). LePine et al. (2004) explained that employees need to expend energy and to contain their 13 feelings of frustration and anxiety to cope with unsatisfactory goal progress, thus causing them to experience exhaustion. Relatedly, Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, De Witte, and Vansteenkiste (2010) argued that poor goal progress may be caused by goal-hindering events that wear out employees’ energy and lead to feelings of exhaustion. Supporting these conceptual claims, Koopman et al. (2016) showed that the performance of daily OCB hindered employees’ daily goal progress, and was in turn negatively related to employees’ end-of-day emotional exhaustion. Summarizing these findings, good goal progress is typically linked to positive affective outcomes while poor goal progress is linked to negative affective outcomes in employees. Cognitive implications. Besides affective reactions, previous studies have also examined the cognitive processes related to goal progress. Research showed that the experience of goal progress is related to individuals’ self-judgment and self-approval (Bandura, 1991; Schunk, 1990). Poor goal progress tends to be related to low subsequent work motivation and efficacy (LePine et al., 2004; Schunk & Swartz, 1993), and is associated with the tendency to fall back on habitual mental schemas for guiding their behaviors (Gersick & Hackman, 1990; Jordan & Audia, 2012; Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981). People have a desire to believe that they have worth and value, and one way through which they try to establish their self-worth is to succeed on their jobs (Korman, 1970). Goal progress signals to employees how successful they are. At times when employees do not make good goal progress, employees doubt themselves and discount their self-image (Bandura, 1991; Schunk, 1990). For example, Heatherton and Polivy (1991) demonstrated that undergraduates experienced diminished state self-esteem after receiving unsatisfactory exam grades. Relatedly, Schunk (1990) noted that the relationship strength between goal performance and self-esteem depends on how individuals appraise the importance of the goal and the causes of their goal 14 progress. If individuals do not regard the goal as a central component of their identity or believe that their progress is not a result of controllable factors, their self-concept is less likely to be threatened by poor goal progress. In addition, when employees perceive their goal progress to be due to factors they are unable to readily overcome, they are likely to believe that their efforts will not pay off, leading them to deactivate thoughts related to their work goals in order to protect their self-image (Di Paula & Campbell, 2002). Doing so results in psychological detachment from the task and lower task motivation. In support of this argument, LePine et al. (2004) demonstrated that the experience of events that impede upon learning progress, such as having difficulty understanding a particular class or spending time on unimportant peripheral work, negatively predicted the motivation to learn among a sample of undergraduates. Finally, Pearsall et al. (2009) explained that employees may retreat from their responsibilities when they experience goal obstacles, and in the process, they will fall back on ingrained knowledge structures in their mind to guide their cognition and behaviors. They tested this hypothesis by measuring and comparing the transactive memory of teams that faced an experimentally manipulated goal setback (i.e., being denied access to critical information) and those that did not. Transactive memory in this case assesses the degree to which team members are investing effort to come up with new team routines instead of falling back on their preconceived schemas (Wegner, 1987). The results from Pearsall et al.’s (2009) study showed that teams which made poor progress on their goals due to goal- hindering events indeed exhibited lower transactive memory as compared to team which did not have to cope with these events. These studies suggest that the goal progress triggers self- evaluative and also causal appraisal cognitive processes in employees. 15 Behavioral implications. Several studies also studied the behavioral reactions related to goal progress. An intuitive research question is to investigate how goal progress influences subsequent goal-regulatory behaviors. Wanberg et al. (2010) addressed this question by conducting a daily experience sampling study on a sample of unemployed individuals. They presented two contrasting hypotheses based on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1991) and control theory (Campion & Lord, 1982) respectively to predict how daily job search progress may shape job search effort the next day. Based on the social cognitive perspective, they expected poor progress to induce negative affect and low efficacy, thus reducing job search behaviors the next day. On the other hand, based on the control theory, they expected low perceived daily progress to signal to job seekers that they have not met their goals, thus creating a negative discrepancy that should motivate increased job search effort for the next day. Their data provided support for the latter hypothesis, where daily job search progress was negatively related to next-day job search effort (Wanberg et al., 2010). However, their study also demonstrated separately that daily job search progress was positively related to daily positive affect, such that making little job search progress was related to the experience of low positive affect, and “lower positive affect on any given day was related to less search effort on the following day for individuals with lower (vs. higher) ability to detach from negative thoughts” (p. 801). The integration of their findings suggests that poor goal progress may motivate individuals to put in more effort in an attempt to close up the goal-performance discrepancy, but such an attempt may be thwarted by negative affective experience that result from the same poor goal progress. These findings highlight the importance of taking a dual-process perspective to examine how employees can sustain or resume motivation for goal pursuit throughout the workday, and reinforces the rationale of this dissertation. 16 Besides subsequent behaviors directly linked to the core goal pursuit, Rodell and Judge (2009) demonstrated a negative relationship between the experience of hindrance stressors, hence poor goal progress, and the enactment of same-day counterproductive behaviors in an experience sampling study. This finding demonstrated the association between goal progress and other work behaviors that are not directly related to employees’ goal pursuit. However, no study, to my knowledge, has directly examined the crossover behavioral effects of goal progress in the task domain to the interpersonal domain in the workplace. A study that has come close to doing so found that the experience of a poor goal performance, induced by being assigned exceedingly difficult goals, positively predicted abusive behaviors among managers to their subordinates (Mawritz et al., 2014). Mawritz et al. (2014) explained that being assigned exceedingly difficult goal impedes managers’ goal progress because managers now believe they would not be able to attain these goals. This is related to negative emotions of anger and frustration, which is associated with tendencies to enact aggressive and abusive behaviors toward subordinates (Mawritz et al., 2014). On a brighter side, Rodell and Judge (2009) showed that the experience of certain goal challenges, such as unexpected increased work load, positively predicted employees’ attentiveness and their same-day citizenship behaviors toward their coworkers. These existing positive and negative findings regarding the behavioral outcomes related to goal progress support the potential value of investigating the relations from goal progress to interpersonal behaviors in this dissertation. Coping with Goal-Related Self-Esteem and Emotional Impairments The above literature has robustly shown goal progress to be related to various affective and cognitive reactions. Organizational scholars are especially interested in examining how employees can cope adaptively with poor goal progress in everyday work given the relations of 17 poor goal progress with aversive psychological and motivational outcomes. Most existing literature focused on off-work experiences and activities for insights on how to deal functionally with self-esteem or emotional impairments related to poor goal progress in the workplace. These studies consistently demonstrated psychological detachment, social support from family, and restorative activities during off-work hours as effective coping strategies (Fritz, Sonnentag, Spector, & McInroe, 2010; Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2008; Sonnentag & Kruel, 2006). I summarize the key findings from these studies below. Off-work experiences and activities. In a series of papers (Sonnentag, 2012; Sonnentag & Kruel, 2006; Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006), Sonnentag and colleagues argued for and tested the role of psychological detachment, a state of mentally disconnecting from work during off-work hours, in neutralizing or buffering the detrimental effects that poor goal progress had on employees’ well-being. One of these studies utilized a daily diary data collection method, and demonstrated that psychological detachment during off-work hours positively predicted feelings of contentment and cheerfulness, and negatively predicted fatigue at bedtime among their sample of employees (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005). In another study, the benefits of psychological detachment extended to the next morning, where psychological detachment negatively predicted next-morning fatigue and irritation among a sample of public-service employees (Sonnentag et al., 2008). More related to its role in buffering the negative effects of factors that hinder goal progress, Moreno-Jiménez, Rodrígez-Munro, Pastor, Sanz-Vergel, and Garrosa (2009) demonstrated that off-work psychological detachment weakened the negative association between the experience of goal-disruptive events, such as being interrupted and harassed by supervisors and coworkers while completing work tasks, with employees’ psychological strain. 18 Research also suggests that engaging in positive social interactions during off-work hours are helpful for employees to deal with psychological strain that results from negative work experiences. For example, Parasuraman et al. (1992) collected cross-sectional dyadic data from dual-income couples, and found that positive spousal interactions and spousal social support reduced the negative relation between factors that impede goal progress (i.e., schedule conflicts, task overload, etc.) on participants’ general satisfaction. Another study showed that engaging in volunteering activities during off-work hours helped employees fulfill their psychological needs and help them recover from esteem and affective impairments accumulated from their work in the day (Mojza, Sonnentag, & Bornemann, 2011). This is because volunteer activities help people perceive greater self-worth due to their ability to contribute and help others, thus increasing their positive affect to help them overcome work stress related to goal setbacks (Mojza et al., 2011). Restorative behaviors or activities during work hours. Despite showing to the usefulness of off-work experiences and activities for helping employees cope with goal-related esteem and affective impairments, the above studies focused on what employees do or can do during off-work hours instead of during work hours. Yet, as highlighted earlier, goal progress has immediate effects on employees’ affect and cognition (Repetti, 1993), and employees rarely have the access to the aforementioned non-work restorative resources during work hours. These factors make non-work restorative mechanisms less applicable for helping employees restore their impaired state self-esteem and emotions in the workplace, especially among employees who must bounce back from poor goal progress promptly to maintain organizational efficiency for the rest of the day. We are therefore missing the complete picture of the outcomes associated with goal progress and esteem and emotional recovery mechanisms if we fail to examine how the 19 experience of poor goal progress relates to employee behaviors during work hours. A couple of papers by Trougakos and colleagues (Trougakos, Beal, Green, & Weiss, 2008; Trougakos & Hideg, 2009) came close to addressing this question as they theoretically discussed and empirically investigated how break activities during the work day help employees recover from work-related esteem and affective impairments. They found that engaging in social activities with coworkers during lunch breaks helped fulfil employees’ need for relatedness, and negatively predicted their end-of-day fatigue, under the condition that employees had high (as compared to low) autonomy of deciding whether they wanted to engage in these social activities. Building on this notion, this dissertation examines whether and how work-related interpersonal behaviors, specifically interpersonal citizenship and incivility, serve restorative functions for employees’ impaired state self-esteem and emotions related to goal setbacks. In the next section, I will first focus on the self-esteem path, and review literature on self-esteem to provide a clearer idea of its role in this dissertation model. Self-Esteem Individuals construct their self-image by considering how valuable they are, and self- esteem refers to individuals’ appraisal of their self-worth (Rosenberg, 1965). Self-esteem exercises powerful and pervasive influences on affective, cognitive, and behavioral processes (Campbell & Lavallee, 1993). However, there exists considerable debate on how self-esteem should best be conceptualized and operationalized. I devote this section of the dissertation to review three key issues often raised in self-esteem literature, 1) trait self-esteem versus state self- esteem, 2) state self-esteem versus mood or emotions, and finally 3) global self-esteem versus specific self-esteem. I also discuss the perspective that this dissertation takes for each discussion point. 20 Trait self-esteem and state self-esteem. Some of the earlier research viewed self-esteem as a stable construct that results from demographic factors such as gender and social class (Rosenberg, 1981). This trait conceptualization maintains the view that individuals each has a stable baseline of self-esteem from which only insignificantly minor fluctuations occur. In support of this, Savin-Williams and Demo (1984) followed a group of adolescents over a period of four years, and found that their self-esteem remained “relatively stable from moment to moment and from year to year”. In another study, the same authors required adolescents to report how they felt about themselves at random timings of the day when a beeper went off, and the results demonstrated that self-feelings were not subject to significant influences by the immediate context (Savin-Williams & Demo, 1983). However, the notion that self-esteem is open to momentary changes has piqued immense research interest. In particular, James (1890) likened the self-esteem to a barometer that fluctuates with one’s success and failure experiences. Heatherton and Polivy (1991) subscribed to this state theory of self-esteem, and conducted a series of studies to capture such changes in individuals’ self-esteem. Their studies demonstrated that ego-threatening events that were naturally-occurring (e.g., school exam failure) or experimentally-manipulated (e.g., losing a logic puzzle game) both led to drops in individuals’ state self-esteem (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991). Reverse influences from state self-esteem to individuals’ cognition and behaviors have also been reported. One study showed that momentary increases in individuals’ state self-esteem suppressed individuals’ fear of death (Harmon-Jones et al., 1997), and another study demonstrated that daily self-esteem threat mediated the negative relationship between daily interpersonal justice and deviant behaviors among employees (Ferris, Spence, Brown, & Heller, 2012). Taken together, these findings suggest that state self-esteem are subject to influences by 21 events and experiences, and these momentary changes in self-esteem in turn shape proximal cognition and behaviors. These dynamic relationships likely due to individuals’ inherent motivation to align their state self-esteem back to a desired baseline level once it drops (Crocker, Brook, Niiya, & Villacorta, 2006). Building on this notion of reciprocal influences between individuals’ proximal experiences and their state self-esteem, I argue that daily goal progress will be positively related to employees’ state self-esteem, and such changes in state self-esteem will in turn be linked to employees’ proximal behaviors during work hours. This however does not imply a complete dismissal of the trait perspective of self-esteem. In fact, I support the view that trait and state self-esteem coexist to shape individuals’ cognition and behaviors. Empirical evidence for this can be found in previous research. For example, daily data from a sample of full-time employees from diverse occupations collected by Ferris et al. (2012) showed that trait self-esteem moderated the negative relation between daily self-esteem and workplace deviance, such that the relation was more negative when trait self-esteem was high. The authors explained that it is because people with high trait self-esteem are more reactive to drops in state self-esteem (Ferris et al., 2012). These findings suggest that trait self-esteem and state self-esteem are not mutually exclusive. More importantly, they imply that even if trait self-esteem stays relatively stable in the long run, momentary changes in individuals’ state self-esteem around this trait baseline do still have the power to shape individuals’ immediate behaviors, thus reinforcing the value of examining state changes in self-esteem in this dissertation. Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem. Finally, self-esteem may refer to global judgments of self-worth (Rosenberg, 1965), or evaluations of the self in specific domains such as task, social, physical, and so on (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; Rosenberg, Schooler, Schoenbach, & 22 Rosenberg, 1995). It should be noted that while the discussion on trait and state self-esteem revolves around the temporal stability of self-esteem, the discussion on global and specific self- esteem looks at the cross-situational consistency of self-esteem. In other words, both global self- esteem and specific self-esteem can be measured as trait or state variables (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). In their review paper on global and specific self-esteem, Rosenberg et al. (1995) concluded that global self-esteem is more predictive of individuals’ overall psychological wellbeing such as life satisfaction, while specific self-esteem is a better predictor of individuals’ behaviors in each specific domain. This is because global self-esteem pertains to individuals’ overall acceptance and respect for themselves, and is thus related to general wellbeing indicators. On the other hand, specific self-esteem helps to increase the salience of a particular domain’s situational cues to individuals, and helps to direct more attention into the regulation of behavior in that specific domain (Rosenberg et al., 1995). Given the abundance of empirical evidence documenting the effects of specific self- esteem on behaviors (Crocker et al., 2003; Ferris et al., 2009), this dissertation acknowledges the importance of these specific domains in studying self-esteem. However, I assert that the boundaries between these domains are possibly permeable. As noted by Heatherton and Polivy (1991), people derive their self-esteem by averaging their evaluations of themselves from a number of different situations. This suggests that self-esteem in these various domains potentially function in an additive nature to make up one’s global self-esteem, such that one’s global self-esteem may drop momentarily due to a blow to a domain-specific self-esteem (e.g., task self-esteem) but can potentially be restored by an equivalent increase in another domain- specific self-esteem (e.g. social self-esteem). 23 In the next section, I will bring in the self-consistency theory (Korman, 1970) and use its premises to better explain how self-esteem compensatory and restoration mechanisms potentially work. Self-Consistency Theory The self-consistency was conceived by Korman (1970) as a theory to explain the motivation of behaviors in the workplace. It is one of the first theories that introduced “balance” concepts from theories of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) and congruency (Sampson, 1963) into the organizational research field. This umbrella of “balance” theories posit the achievement of balance and consistency between one’s cognition and behaviors as a drive that motivates people’s actions (Heider, 1958). Self-consistency theory is however distinct from dissonance and congruence theories in at least two ways (Korman, 1970). First, it emphasizes the evaluation of the self in different situations as an overarching cognitive process that guides individuals’ behaviors, as opposed to other theories that may place attention exclusively on external forces and influences. Second, it integrates both of individuals’ past and present experiences in its attempt to understand how individuals construct and revise their self-concept, which sets it apart from social theories that are concerned with only momentary situational factors. The self-consistency theory constitutes of two key premises in its prediction of employees’ behaviors in the workplace (Korman, 1970): 1) Employees are motivated to behave in a way that is consistent with their self-image for approaching various situations. For example, if an employee sees himself as a competent performer, he will be motivated to perform effectively on his work tasks. As another example, if an employee has a self-image of being a dominant person, his interpersonal 24 behaviors in the workplace will likely to be characterized by the display of power and control over other coworkers. 2) Employees will choose to enter situations that allow them to enact behaviors that are consistent with their self-cognitions, and they will feel the most satisfied when they are in such situations. For instance, an employee with a high self-esteem may choose to take on additional work responsibilities in order to demonstrate his capability, and will feel satisfied doing so. As another illustration, if an employee has a self-image of being a friendly and sociable person, he will constantly and proactively seek out opportunities to build meaningful social connections with others, and his self-esteem will be most boosted when he does so. When applied to a between-person perspective of studying self-esteem, the self- consistency theory suggests that employees with a high overall self-esteem should exhibit better in-role performance and less deviant behaviors as compared to those with low overall self- esteem. Ferris et al. (2009) provided support for this as their study using multiwave, multisource data demonstrated that employees’ self-esteem negatively predicted their deviance behaviors in the workplace. They explained that employees with high self-esteem are more likely to want to be good employees in order to be consistent with their self-image, hence they are less likely to engage in deviance behaviors. Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, and Vohs (2003) also noted positive correlations between people’s self-esteem and their academic and interpersonal successes. However, they cautioned that these correlations do not imply causation, and even provided evidence for a reverse causation, where academic performance positive predicted students’ self-esteem instead of the other way. These findings further reinforce the notion of a cyclical relationship between self-esteem and behaviors put forth by the self-consistency theory. In other words, self-esteem and behaviors are potentially exercising mutual influences on each 25 other. Integrating this with the within-person approach to self-esteem that this dissertation is taking, it suggests that goal progress may be related to employees’ self-esteem, and when employees experience low self-esteem associated with poor goal progress, they are likely to engage in feasible means to bring their state self-esteem back to a level that is consistent with their self-image. Interpersonal Motives Interpersonal motives, sometimes referred to as interpersonal values, are mental representations of desired interpersonal outcomes that guide how individuals behave in social interactions (Horowitz et al., 2006; K. D. Locke, 2000). There are two key dimensions to interpersonal motives, the communion dimension and the agency dimension (Bakan, 1966). Individuals who score high on the communion dimension are known to have an affiliation motive, they are typically personable, sociable, and loyal (Horowitz et al., 2006). The affiliation motive motivates individuals to forge strong bonds with other people and to be part of an embedded social network (K. D. Locke, 2000). Individuals who score high on the agency dimension are said to have a high dominance motive, they are often controlling, self-focusing, and assertive (Horowitz et al., 2006). The dominance motive predisposes individuals to assert their individuality and exercise power and control over others by setting themselves apart from them (K. D. Locke, 2000). As summarized by Bakan (1966), “agency manifests itself in the formation of separations; communion in the lack of separations.” It should be noted that although much literature tended to use a comparative framing to contrast dominance versus affiliation interpersonal motives, these motives are conceptualized to be independent dimensions (Horowitz et al., 2006) and have been empirically demonstrated to be orthogonal (r = .00, K. D. Locke, 2000; r = .01, Markey & Markey, 2009). This means that it is 26 possible for individuals to have both a high dominance motive and a high affiliation motive. These individuals are allegedly more interpersonally flexible because they can potentially express whatever response, be it dominating and affiliative, they regard as appropriate for a given situation (Gurtman, 2011). On the other hand, individuals who score high on one dimension but low on the other may display interpersonal behaviors characteristic of their prevailing dimension more consistently across situations (K. D. Locke & Adamic, 2012). Regardless, it is generally argued that the two motives exert simultaneous influences on different interpersonal behaviors (K. D. Locke, 2000). Although some research did suggest possible interactive effects of the two motives beyond their main effects, where the blends of dominance and affiliative motives will shape interpersonal behaviors in unique manners (K. D. Locke, 2014; Yik, 2010), this dissertation will for now focus on the concurrent but separate relationships from the two motives to interpersonal citizenship and incivility respectively because this is an initial attempt to examine the interplay between within-person fluctuations in state self-esteem and stable interpersonal motives in predicting work-related interpersonal behaviors.. In other words, I take the perspective that employees can engage in both types of interpersonal behaviors during the workday to satisfy each corresponding motive, and formulate my hypotheses as such. Nevertheless, I also pose two research questions regarding the interaction between the two motives for explorative purpose alongside my hypotheses. Interpersonal motives and the self. As put forth by Baldwin (1992), interpersonal motives seemingly arise as ways to help individuals protect the self from feelings of threat and vulnerability. In reverse, individuals also define or modify how they view the self partially through their interpersonal interactions with others (Horowitz et al., 2006). Although the principle of interpersonal complementarity suggests that individuals’ interpersonal actions are 27 dynamic and will change based on their interaction partners (Kiesler, 1983), research has empirically determined that interpersonal motives tend to remain relatively stable over time (K. D. Locke, 2000). Scholars explained that while individuals adapt their interpersonal behaviors to each interacting partner, they do also constantly try to make sense of and integrate past interactional experiences and consolidate them into relational schemas, and these schemas crystallize into relatively stable interpersonal motives to guide their interpersonal actions (Horowitz et al., 2006). Interpersonal motives and behaviors. Scholars have examined how interpersonal motives influence individuals’ behaviors in social settings. In one study, participants reported their interpersonal motives and engaged in a 20-minute unscripted problem-solving interaction with a fellow participant whom they have never met before (Sadler & Woody, 2003). Blind observers coded the recordings of these interactions, and the results revealed that participants who scored high on the dominance expressed greater dominance (i.e., exhibited forceful, firm, or assertive behaviors) to their interacting partner, as compared to those who scored relatively low on the dominance motive. On the other hand, participants who scored high on the affiliation motive exhibited greater affiliative behaviors (i.e., being friendly) to their interacting partner, as compared to those who scored relatively low on the affiliation motive. In this same study, Sadler and Woody (2003) also found that participants perceived their interpersonal behaviors to be consistent with their own habitual view of themselves, such that “a man who perceives himself as typically dominant may tend to perceive himself as behaving dominantly in a given situation.” Another study that used a similar experimental paradigm demonstrated similar main effects of interpersonal motives on individuals’ behaviors (K. D. Locke & Sadler, 2007). 28 The findings from these reviewed studies suggest that interpersonal motives exercise broad and powerful influences over how individuals view themselves in relation to others and guide how they should behave toward others. Due to its relation to both the self and interpersonal behaviors, it is likely for interpersonal motives to function as critical moderators in the self- esteem pathway of my hypothesized dual-process model to influence the directions of relations from self-esteem to either interpersonal citizenship or incivility, and again from these interpersonal behaviors back to self-esteem. These specific hypothesized relations will be further explained in the next chapter. The next sections of this literature review will touch on emotions and the affective events theory to provide background information for understanding the emotional pathway in my dual-process model. Emotions Emotions refer to intense and temporary affective feelings that individuals experience (Fridja, 1986). They are usually elicited by specific events, and refer specifically to discrete feelings such as anger, shame, happiness, or surprise, instead of a broad affective construct that encompasses multiple feelings, such as positive affect or negative affect (Fridja, 1986). Emotions vs. state self-esteem. The use of a dual-process model in this dissertation to examine both the self-esteem and emotional recovery paths for goal-related impairments calls for a need to clarify whether emotions and state self-esteem are distinguishable from each other. Markus and Kitayama (1991) offered a fine response to this question, as they explained that emotions are affective in nature and are typically tied to instant physiological responses to events, while self-esteem is cognitive in nature as it involves an evaluation of oneself. They did however note that the two are intricately linked, because emotions may serve as feedback to direct one’s attention to the self and to influence one’s view of the self, while self-esteem may 29 influence one’s emotional experiences because one’s self-construe is related to one’s emotional reactions to different situations (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In other words, emotions and state self-esteem seem to operate alongside each other as individuals respond to environmental stimuli. In addition, Heatherton and Polivy (1991) asserted that general affect and self-esteem are empirically related but distinct, with reported correlations at between .40 and .60 (Brockner, 1983), so they advised future research to examine both self-esteem and emotions in an integrative manner in order to better tease apart the effects of each on outcomes of interest. Discrete emotions vs. affectivity or affect. As opposed to dispositional affect which is relatively stable, emotions are short-term intense feelings that individuals experience targeted at specific events (Fridja, 1986). In addition, emotions refer to discrete feelings such as happiness or anger or shame, instead of an affect umbrella subsuming all positive or negative emotions (Frijda, 1986; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Although negative affect subsumes several negative emotions (Watson et al., 1988), and the influences of negative affect have been demonstrated in wide-ranging outcomes such as self-regulation (Carver, 2004), risk-taking behaviors (Mittal & Ross, 1998), decision making (Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999), and creativity (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005), research has also robustly showed that discrete negative emotions are related to unique appraisal properties and have different specific effects on behavioral outcomes (Crisp, Heuston, Farr, & Turner, 2007; Ellsworth & Smith, 1988; Levenson, 1992; Tiedens & Linton, 2001). These distinct properties associated with discrete emotions would be overlooked if they are studied as a single construct of general affect, and lead to misleading theoretical findings that misinform future research. Therefore, I focus on two discrete emotions, shame and anger, in this dissertation. This is because shame and anger are frequently experienced in the face of goal failures (Bagozzi & Pieters, 1998; Turner, Husman, & 30 Schallert, 2002), and are also closely linked to individuals’ self-evaluation and self-regulation in the context of goal pursuit (Carver & Scheier, 2011; Tangney et al., 2007) Shame Shame is an unpleasant self-conscious emotion experienced when one believes one has done something bad or wrong (Tangney et al., 2007). Because this dissertation is primarily interested in the emotional reactions and recovery associated with goal progress, I focus on the emotion of shame which is elicited more frequently by achievement events, instead of guilt which is typically elicited by relational and familial events (Tracy & Robins, 2006). Shame is often related to feelings of being exposed of one’s shortcomings and concerns about others’ judgments of one’s deficits (Tangney et al., 2007). The experience of shame has been demonstrated by research to be related to a variety of detrimental well-being outcomes like depressive symptoms (Wei, Shaffer, Young, & Zakalik, 2005), neurosis (H. B. Lewis, 1974), and physical illness (Pichert & Elam, 1986). Appraisals and shame. Shame is an emotion that is activated when individuals are reflecting on their self-responsibility as they encounter an eliciting event (Tracy & Robins, 2006). According to results from four experiments conducted by Tracy and Robins (2006), people are more likely to experience shame when they blame themselves (vs. others) for a performance failure. When they blame others (vs. themselves) for a failure, they are more likely to experience anger (D. Russell & McAuley, 1986). As a result, the experience of shame is painful and unpleasant because shame is related to individuals perceiving themselves to have performed below expectations (De Hooge, Mohiyeddini, Eysenck, & Bauer, 2013; Tangney et al., 2007). 31 Shame and behavioral tendencies. Because shame is often related to feelings of being responsible for a failure, it is often accompanied by a tendency to hide or withdraw from the shame-eliciting event (Tangney & Dearing, 2002). However, De Hooge, Zeelenberg, and Breugelmans (2010) contended that shame is in fact a complex emotion that is associated with both approach and avoid behavioral tendencies. Specifically, shame will motivate individuals not only to avoid and escape from the eliciting event, but also to take proactive actions to restore positive feelings of themselves (De Hooge et al., 2010). One way which this self-restoration occurs is through the enactment of prosocial behaviors that are separated from the shame- eliciting event (Zeelenberg, Nelissen, Breugelmans, & Pieters, 2008). This is because shame is a precursor of conscience and is related to individuals’ use of internal sanctioning and reasoning to develop moral behavior, one of which is prosocial behavior toward others (Menesini & Camodeca, 2008). In addition, shame is commonly characterized by the displays of cooperative submissiveness for reducing aggressive or punitive judgments from others (Dickerson, Gruenewald, & Kemeny, 2004). A series of empirical studies supported the positive relationship between the experience of shame and subsequent prosocial behaviors (De Hooge et al., 2008; De Hooge et al., 2010). In particular, two experiments showed that participants who experienced shame after a failure on performance tasks in the lab, as compared to those who did not experience failure, were subsequently more likely to make prosocial decisions in a social dilemma game with an unrelated individual and more likely to report willingness to help an unrelated in other daily situations (De Hooge et al., 2008). Anger Another emotion that is commonly experienced in achievement settings is anger (Carver & Scheier, 2011). Anger is an approach-related emotion (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009) that is 32 experienced when individuals perceive their plans and expectations to have been intentionally thwarted by others (Frijda, 1986; Ortony & Turner, 1990). Appraisals and anger. Previous studies have found that anger is related to how much individuals perceive personal control for the causes of a negative experience. For example, Siemer, Mauss and Gross (2007) exposed participants to a rude treatment by an experimenter in the laboratory. In this scenario, participants who perceived low, as compared to high, personal control over the event were likely to experience greater anger (Siemer et al., 2007). Within the achievement context, Weiner (1985) noted that anger is experienced following a goal failure when individuals attribute the failure to external causes that are beyond their personal control (i.e., under others’ control). Anger is therefore associated with perceptions of having been subjected to unjust treatment or circumstances that one is unable to control (Levine, 1996). Indirectly supporting this theoretical argument, Rhodewalt and Morf (1998) demonstrated that highly narcissistic individuals were more likely to attribute goal failure to factors beyond their control (e.g., task difficulty) and experience greater anger following the failure. In summary, associating low personal control over the causes of a negative outcome appears to precede the experience of anger. Anger and subsequent behavioral tendencies. Levenson (1992) associated anger with high physiological arousal and activity levels. This suggest that people who are feeling angry experience greater activation and show greater readiness to engage in aggressive behaviors to displace their anger or to correct the injustice that they have encountered, so as to restore desired levels of positive self-regard (Frijda, 1986). In line with this notion, Crisp et al. (2007) found that that after a supported soccer team lost a match, angry soccer fans reported higher action tendencies such as arguing and confronting supporters of the other soccer team, as compared to 33 sad soccer fans who reported higher withdrawal tendencies such as avoiding supporters of the opponent soccer team. Anger has also been widely demonstrated to be associated with antisocial or aggressive behaviors in the workplace (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Glomb, 2002). For example, Meier and Semmer (2013) demonstrated a positive relation from work-related anger to enacted incivility toward coworkers. They explained that employees have a tendency to displace their anger stemming from negative work experiences to their coworkers through uncivil behaviors because doing so allows them to dissipate their negative emotions quickly and conveniently (Meier & Semmer, 2013). Integrating the findings from the above literature review into the within-person emotional impairments and recovery that this dissertation is examining, it suggests that poor goal progress is likely to be related to negative emotions such as shame and anger, but the extent of each will be contingent on the employee’s perceptions of personal control over his or her goal progress. In turn, shame, being related to prosocial motivation and a desire to be approved by others, should positively predict interpersonal citizenship, while anger, being related to aggressive displacement, should positively predict the enactment of coworker incivility. The next step would require understanding why and how interpersonal behaviors may be related to improvements in employees’ self-esteem and emotions after they have experienced poor goal progress. To address this, I review research that suggests that people, as social beings, are likely to turn to their social domain when they encounter a blow to their self-esteem and emotions. The Social Domain as a Stage for State Self-Esteem and Emotional Restorations People derive positive self-regard by “averaging feelings about themselves from a number of different situations” (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991). This suggests that the boundaries of the domains of self-esteem and emotions are at least partially permeable, such that individuals 34 may spontaneously turn to their social domain to restore their self-esteem and emotions when they are impaired by poor goal progress in the task domain. This is also especially likely because social relationships are a fundamental component of human life, and both state self-esteem and emotions are directly and highly sensitive to one’s interactions with others (Eisenberger, Inagaki, Muscatell, Haltom, & Leary, 2011; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007; Leary, 2005; K. D. Williams, 2007). It is thus logical to infer that the social domain has the potential of offering “quick fixes” to make employees think and feel better about themselves during the immediate hours following their experience of poor goal progress. The next question then lies in understanding what types of interpersonal behaviors employees will enact for the restoration of state self-esteem and emotions. Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski (1991) contended that both prosocial and antisocial behaviors have the potential to improve individuals’ self-regard. Hence, in the following sections, I will review literature on the two types of interpersonal behaviors that employees can potentially engage in in their workplace, namely interpersonal citizenship, which is prosocial in nature, and incivility, which is antisocial in nature, to provide an overview of what each comprises. Interpersonal Citizenship Behaviors Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) refers to discretionary employee behavior that is not formally required for the technical core of an employee’s job, but that facilitates the organizational, social, and psychological functioning in the workplace (Organ, 1997). It enhances organizational success by creating social capital in the workplace that allows resources to be readily mobilized and utilized purposefully for organizational effectiveness (Bolino, Turnley, & Bloodgood, 2002). OCB comprises of interpersonal citizenship (OCBI) that encompasses behaviors targeted at other individuals such as being helpful and polite towards 35 coworkers, and organizational citizenship (OCBO) that look at behaviors directed to the organization or unit at large such as attending organization events and maintaining organizational systems (L. J. Williams & Anderson, 1991). This dissertation looks only at OCBI due to its primary interest in how employees’ engagement in various interpersonal behaviors are related to boosts in their self-esteem after their encounter with goal setbacks. Antecedents of OCBI. Evidence for the relations between employees’ view of themselves and OCBI can be found in some existing research. For example, people with a high level of relational self-identity, who define themselves based on their interpersonal dyadic connections with other people (Andersen & Chen, 2002), are the most satisfied when they enjoy good relationships with others (Johnson, Chang, & Yang, 2010). This suggests that relational self-identity may be a positive predictor of OCBI. Indeed, Zhang, Chen, Chen, Liu, and Johnson’s (2014) supported this assertion as they demonstrated employees’ relational identification to be more strongly related to OCBIs than their collective identification. Research on terror management has also discussed the links between self-esteem and helping behaviors more generally. In particular, Solomon et al. (1991) contended that events that remind people of their vulnerability and threaten their self-esteem prompt them to engage in socially valued behaviors, such as helping. This is because the positive reactions receive from the recipients of their help tend to signal to them that they are valued, and are hence self-esteem boosting (Solomon et al., 1991). Several existing organizational research also investigated the antecedents of OCBI on a daily basis. For example, Halbesleben and Wheeler (2011) detected a positive relation between employees’ daily emotional exhaustion and OCBI, especially among those with strong reciprocity beliefs They explained, based on Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resources theory, 36 that exhaustion leads employees to deliberate over where and how to invest their resources, and OCBI is a functional behavior that employees believe will pay off in the long run. In addition, employees with strong reciprocity beliefs value their dyadic ties with their coworkers, hence they are likely to look to each other for support when they are exhausted, and it is likely that the enactment of OCBI enables them to replenish their resources (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007; Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2011). However, Trougakos et al. (2015) found contrasting results in their study, such that employees who experienced emotional exhaustion due to daily surface acting on their jobs performed less OCBI, especially among those with high chronic exhaustion. They explained, based on ego depletion theory (Baumeister, Muraven, & Tice, 2000), that exhausted employees would find it more difficult to expend resources to help others and were also more likely to want to conserve limited resources for themselves instead of contributing them to others. These empirical findings suggest the importance for future research to uncover the critical moderators that influence whether employees engage in helping behaviors or not when they are not in their best form. Outcomes of performing OCBI. Several organizational studies have examined the outcomes of performing OCBI on the performer. Most of these focused on affective or well- being outcomes. For example, Glomb, Bhave, Miner, and Wall (2011) suggested that OCBI can be used as a mood-regulation tool in the workplace because “helping others provides gratification and directs attention away from one’s negative mood”. Their daily study provided support for this thesis, as the results showed that negative mood at the beginning of the workday positively predicted employees’ enactment of OCBI during the workday, and the enactment of OCBI positively predicted positive mood at the end of the workday. Relatedly, Sonnentag and Grant (2012) demonstrated in their within-person daily study that employees’ perceptions of how 37 much prosocial impact they created at work predicted their off-work positive affect on the same day. However, Lanaj, Johnson, and Wang (2016) noted a dark side of OCBI as they found that providing help to coworkers positively predicted the provider’s end-of-day depletion. Their findings did however note that this negative relation between help provision and depletion was less negative among employees with high trait prosocial motivation because highly prosocial individuals tend to derive intrinsic rewards from helping others (Lanaj et al., 2016). Taken together, these studies suggest that performing OCBI has the potential of being restorative for employees when the appropriate boundary conditions are present, such as when employees value helping others. Workplace Incivility While OCBI covers a range of prosocial interpersonal behaviors, workplace incivility is an antisocial construct that encompasses a range of low-intensity antisocial behaviors like making impolite and rude comments, disrespecting the target, and isolating the target from work or social activities (S. Lim & Cortina, 2005). Despite its low intensity, workplace incivility appears to have high rates of incidence in the workplace, with a study reporting 71% of its respondents to have experienced uncivil behaviors at work in the last five years (Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001). Workplace incivility is typically enacted without a conscious intention to harm, and this ambiguous intent is a key characteristic that sets it apart from other forms of deliberate psychological aggression or harassment in the workplace (Cortina, 2008). Existing research on workplace incivility has taken at least one of these three perspectives to examine this phenomenon: experienced incivility (Bunk & Magley, 2013; V. K. Lim & Teo, 2009; Schilpzand, Leavitt, & Lim, 2016), witnessed incivility (Cortina, 2008; Miner & Eischeid, 2012), or enacted incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Blau & Andersson, 2005; 38 Rosen et al., 2016). The following section will focus on reviewing the last group of studies on enacted incivility that have taken a perpetrator-centric perspective to study enacted incivility due to the dissertation’s interest in examining whether fluctuations in self-esteem related to goal progress are linked to employees’ tendencies to behave in an uncivil manner to others. Antecedents of enacting incivility. Research suggests that perpetrator characteristics may predict their likelihood of behaving in an uncivil way to their coworkers. For example, Meier and Semmer (2013) conducted a study on full-time employees, and found trait narcissism to positively predict their enactment of uncivil behaviors to their supervisors. They explained that narcissists have a need for continuous attention and admiration from others and typically lack empathy and consideration toward others, hence making them likely perpetrators of workplace incivility (Meier & Semmer, 2013). Employees’ job attitudes can also function as predictors of their enactment of uncivil acts. For example, Blau and Anderson (2005) collected lagged data on job attitudes and instigated incivility from a sample of employees, and their results demonstrated that job satisfaction reported at Time 1 negatively predicted instigation of incivility toward coworkers reported at Time 2. Besides employees’ person-level factors, situational factors may also motivate the enactment of incivility in the workplace. A series of studies showed that experiencing incivility from coworkers prompted the victims to turn into perpetrators of incivility in the workplace, due to mechanisms such as displacement of aggression (Gallus, Bunk, Matthews, Barnes-Farrell, & Magley, 2014), unconscious behavioral contagion (Foulk et al., 2015), or ego depletion (Rosen et al., 2016). Another study demonstrated that employees who did not participate in an organization-initiated intervention, targeted at improving employees’ emotional self-efficacy through expressive writing, enacted greater incivility toward their coworkers as compared to those who participated in the intervention (Kirk, 39 Schutte, & Hine, 2011). These studies have uncovered various person or situational drivers of enacted incivility. Despite these extant findings, Schilpzand, De Pater, and Erez (2016) noted that very much mediating and moderating mechanisms still remain to be explored by future research. Outcomes of enacting workplace incivility. As compared to the amount of research conducted to examine the antecedents of enacted incivility, relatively little has been done to understand the consequences of enacting incivility on the perpetrator. A study that has indirectly addressed this was a research conducted by Scott, Restubog, and Zagenczyk (2013) to primarily investigate the antecedents of workplace ostracism. They found that the enactment of workplace incivility positively predicted the ostracism that perpetrators experienced, indirectly via distrust by coworkers. In addition, although not designed to directly test the effects of enacting incivility on the perpetrators as well, studies that demonstrated a negative spiral of incivility, reviewed in the previous section, do suggest that perpetrators of incivility are likely to receive uncivil treatment in return from their victims (Gallus et al., 2014; Rosen et al., 2016). Unfortunately, my literature search did not find any study that has looked at how enacting incivility makes perpetrators relate to perpetrators’ self-view and self-esteem, which is a key relation that this dissertation is interested in. However, this also further reinforces the notion that findings from this dissertation will help to fill this theoretical gap. Having reviewed existing literature on both OCBI and workplace incivility, one may now question which of these two types of behaviors employees will engage in, and how these interpersonal behaviors help to restore employees’ impaired self-esteem and dissipate their negative emotions. I contend that the relations of these interpersonal behaviors with self-esteem 40 are not simple ones, and are in fact moderated by interpersonal motives for the self-esteem pathway, and contingent on the specific emotions of shame or anger in the emotional pathway. Concluding Comments from the Literature Review The literature review on the various constructs covered in this chapter offers a comprehensive overview of the theoretical background of this dissertation. Although the hypothesized relations between the variables in this dissertation have yet to be empirically examined in a single integrative model in existing research, this chapter of literature review provides preliminary evidence for the validity of the hypothesized relations. Specifically, separate studies showed that goal progress is positively associated with immediate state self- esteem and negatively related with negative emotions (Crocker, Moeller, & Burson, 2010; Ilies & Judge, 2005), and poor progress is related to employees’ tendency to fall back on their habitual mental schemas (Gersick & Hackman, 1990; Pearsall, Ellis, & Stein, 2009). Extant research also suggests that employees commonly detach themselves from the task domain temporarily and turn to their social domain for means of boosting their self-esteem and emotions following negative self-evaluations (De Hooge et al., 2010; Rosenberg et al., 1995). Building on prior theoretical arguments advocating the restorative functions of various interpersonal behaviors (i.e., citizenship or incivility) in the workplace (Lilius, 2012), my dual-process model illuminates how the enactment of these interpersonal behaviors can help employees recover their goal-related esteem and emotional impairments. In the next chapter, I offer specific explanations and justifications for each hypothesized relationship in the theoretical model. 41 CHAPTER 3 MODEL AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT The Dual-Process Model of Cognitive and Emotional Recovery Related to Goal Progress Dual-process models are constructed based on the idea that individuals have multiple psychological systems that use different rules or principles for operation (Chaiken & Trope, 1999; Smith & DeCoster, 2000). In this dissertation, I contend that goal progress activates both cognitive and emotional mechanisms in employees, and both mechanisms operate concurrently to influence employees’ subsequent interpersonal behaviors for esteem and emotional recovery throughout the workday. The cognitive pathway focuses on the role that state self-esteem fluctuations and recovery play in linking goal progress, interpersonal behaviors as restorative activities, and subsequent goal progress, because self-esteem involves cognitive evaluations of one’s self-image and self- worth (Rosenberg, 1981). The emotional pathway, on the other hand, focuses on the experience and recovery processes of shame and anger in linking goal progress, interpersonal behaviors as restorative activities, and subsequent goal progress. The emotional pathway centers around the idea that shame and anger are associated with unique behavioral tendencies (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988), hence they require different restorative activities, either interpersonal helping or enacting incivility, for successful dissipation. In summary, the dual-process model aims to shed light on how interpersonal helping and the enactment of incivility toward coworkers serve restorative functions for both the state self-esteem and emotions of employees who make poor goal progress in the first half of the workday, and how esteem and emotional recovery allows employees to advance in their goal pursuit for the second half of the day. 42 The Cognitive Pathway: Daily Goal Progress and Midday State Self-Esteem The self-consistency theory (Korman, 1970) posits that employees enjoy a positive view of themselves through the accomplishment of important work goals (Korman, 1970). Goal progress is linked to self-appraisal process, and when individuals encounter adequate goal progress, it is associated with a positive self-appraisal. On the other hand, poor goal progress is linked to a negative self-appraisal (Lazarus, 1990), such that employees will evaluate themselves as falling short of the standards that are set for them, either by themselves or by the organization. This negative self-appraisal will lead employees to question and doubt their self-worth, and is thus likely to be detrimental for their self-esteem. In indirect support of this, D. Edwards et al. (2010) conducted a study to examine how the self-esteem levels of nursing trainees changed throughout a two-year period, and their results demonstrated that the nurses’ self-esteem levels fluctuated with their experience of goal setbacks. Integrating my theoretical arguments and empirical findings from past research, I make my first hypothesis positing a positive relationship between daily goal progress and midday state self-esteem within individuals. Hypothesis 1: Midday goal progress will be positively related to midday state self- esteem. Perceived Personal Control as Moderator of the Goal Progress – Midday Esteem Relation Perception of personal control is a core concept in the study of individuals’ self-esteem (Ross & Broh, 2000; Ruggiero & Taylor, 1997; Spector, 1982). When individuals perceive high personal control, they believe that they are able to effect changes to their own behaviors or their environment to achieve a desired outcome (Weiner, 1985). On the other hand, individuals who perceive little personal control regard factors such as circumstances, luck, and powerful others as the determinants of their outcomes (Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982). While the 43 contemporary workplace tends to offer many interesting and challenging opportunities that stimulate employees’ professional growth, its fluid environment also presents unexpected and uncontrollable disruptive events that hinder employees from efficiently progressing toward their goals (Webster, Beehr, & Christiansen, 2010; Zohar, 1999). This suggests that employees’ goal progress is often the result of a combination of both controllable and uncontrollable factors to different degrees. Given the presence of both controllable and uncontrollable factors that contribute to daily goal progress, I argue that employees’ perception of personal control will moderate the positive relationship between their goal progress and midday state self-esteem, such that the relationship will be more positive when the employee attributes high personal control over goal progress for the day. This is because a perception of high personal control over goal-related behaviors maintains and enhances the employee’s sense of internal causality over their goal progress (Zhou, 1998). Therefore, high perceived personal control will direct an employee’s attention to the self when the employee is evaluating his or her goal progress, thus strengthening the influence of goal progress on state self-esteem. Conversely, a perception of low personal control will make external constraints and demands more salient and lead the employee to believe that their goal progress is controlled by the environment or by someone else (Zhou, 1998). This distracts an employee’s attention from the self when evaluating how well they are progressing toward their daily work goals, and should weaken the relationship between goal progress and state self-esteem. In addition, attributing poor goal progress to uncontrollable causes functions to relinquish the employee’s self-responsibility for his or her poor performance, thus helping cushion the employee’s state self-esteem from the aversive outcomes associated with poor goal progress. As indirect empirical support for this, Ruggiero and Taylor (1997) showed in two 44 experiments that the state self-esteem of minority group members was less negatively impacted by a failure on a lab task when they attributed the failure to discrimination (i.e., uncontrollable cause) rather than their own effort (i.e., controllable cause). Therefore, I hypothesize the positive relationship between midday goal progress and midday state self-esteem to be more positive when perceived personal control is high (vs. low). Figure 2 presents my expected simple slopes for this moderation hypothesis. Hypothesis 2: State perception of personal control moderates the positive relationship between midday goal progress and midday state self-esteem, such that relationship is more positive when perceived personal control is high (vs. low). Figure 2: Hypothesized simple slopes for Hypothesis 2 m e e t s E i - f l e S y a d d M 5 4 3 2 1 0 Low Personal Control High Personal Control Low High Midday Goal Progress Self-Esteem Restoration During Work Hours Individuals have pervasive desires to protect and enhance their self-esteem, self-esteem fluctuations have been invoked as an explanation for a variety of self-regulated behaviors (Leary & Downs, 1995; Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Self-consistency theory argues that employees are 45 inherently motivated to maintain a positive view of themselves at all times, and will be galvanized to act in ways that can bring their self-esteem up to their desired baseline once it drops (Korman, 1970). This suggests that employees who have experienced lower self-esteem related to poor goal progress will likely and spontaneously seek out means to improve their self- esteem during work hours. The self-consistency theory also asserts that employees tend to choose situations or roles that allow them to best satisfy their self-esteem (Korman, 1970). This implies that employees will seek out an alternative domain, such as their social domain, for ways of improving their self-esteem as poor goal progress in their task domain impairs their state self- esteem. The notion of employees turning to their social domain, after suffering a setback in the task domain, is also consistent with theoretical arguments that suggest that people, as social beings, readily seek reinforcement of their self-worth from their interactions with other people (Solomon et al., 1991). Therefore, the rest of the hypotheses address how interpersonal behaviors in the workplace function as restorative mechanisms for employees who are experiencing goal- related impairments in their state self-esteem. Interpersonal Motives as Dual-Stage Moderators Scholars have however astutely noted that both prosocial and antisocial interpersonal behaviors can potentially reinforce employees’ self-esteem (Solomon et al., 1991). This therefore creates a need to uncover the moderating forces that steer employees to perform either of the interpersonal behaviors when they are nursing an impaired self-esteem. Going back to the self- consistency theory that proposes that employees will engage in behaviors that are consistent with their self-view and values (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; Korman, 1970), I propose looking at interpersonal motives as key dual-stage moderators in this model. Interpersonal motives are self- relevant schemas containing information on how individuals believe they should best behave in 46 social interactions (Horowitz et al., 2006). Therefore, interpersonal motives should enable us to identify the relational routines that individuals find most satisfying and that they will fall back on when their self-esteem is threatened. This implies that the interpersonal motives of affiliation and dominance will serve as first-stage moderators that interact with state self-esteem to predict the kind of interpersonal behaviors, OCBI or incivility, enacted by employees when they experience a low state self-esteem related to goal setbacks. Interpersonal motives also embody the interpersonal outcomes that individuals value and endorse (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; Horowitz et al., 2006). Returning to the premises of self- consistency theory, employees will satisfy and enhance their self-esteem most when they engage in behaviors that are consistent with how they view themselves (Korman, 1970; Solomon et al., 1991). Therefore, I expect the interpersonal motives of affiliation and dominance to also serve as second-stage moderators in my model to determine whether the enactment of OCBI or incivility, respectively, will positively predict employees’ end-of-day state self-esteem. In the following sections, I elaborate on each of these hypotheses. Midday State Self-Esteem, Affiliation Motive, and Interpersonal Citizenship to Coworkers People fall back on habitual routines to guide their interpersonal behaviors when they experience a threat to their self-esteem (Solomon et al., 1991), and interpersonal motives embody mental schemas of the relational processes and outcomes that individuals value and endorse (Horowitz et al., 2006). A high affiliation interpersonal motive is characterized by a strong need to experience genuine relations with others and to be of value to others (K. D. Locke, 2000). Past research contended that individuals with a high affiliation motive will be motivated to seek out informal relationships with their coworkers, because informal relationships typically begin with interpersonal liking and develop into enduring bonds as compared to formal role-ascribed 47 relationships (Hogg & Terry, 2000). When employees are experiencing a low state self-esteem related to poor goal progress, the deficiency in their state self-esteem is likely to be related to spontaneous reversion into their mental schemas for seeking out ways to reestablish their self- worth (Korman, 2001). When that happens, a high affiliation motive should motivate employees to bond meaningfully with other. OCBI is discretionary and not formally required of employees, and such behavior provides employees with an ideal conduit for connecting with coworkers on a deep level (L. J. Williams & Anderson, 1991). This suggests that a low midday self-esteem coupled with a high affiliation motive should galvanize employees to seek out immediate opportunities to perform OCBI due to the inherent self-enhancing incentives they attach to such affiliative interactions. The performance of OCBI also requires employees to take the perspective of others to better understand their problems and concerns in order to offer meaningful help (L. J. Williams & Anderson, 1991). Such a perspective-taking and considerate demeanor is consistent with the behavioral scripts prescribed by an affiliation motive (Horowitz et al., 2006). Indeed, Zhang et al. (2014) demonstrated, using two samples of employees, that employees’ relational identity positively predicted their performance of OCBI toward their coworkers. On the other hand, the affiliation motive is unlikely to exercise much influence among employees who are already enjoying a high midday self-esteem because there is no signal of self-worth deficiency to prompt them into performing self-enhancing OCBI acts. In sum, I expect a negative relation between midday state self-esteem and the performance of OCBI during the work hours between employees’ encounter of goal setbacks and their knock-off time among employees with a higher affiliation motive. I expect there to only be a weak relationship between state self-esteem and OCBI among employees with a lower affiliation motive. There are various ways of coping with a low state 48 self-esteem (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). If employees have a low affiliation and do not value forging meaningful ties with others, the idea of OCBI should be less accessible to them in their cognitive schemas activated by their threatened self-esteem. They may instead resort to other less relational means to nurse their impaired self-esteem, such as engaging in relaxing activities like listening to music or eating snacks (Trougakos, Hideg, Cheng, & Beal, 2014). This however does not mean that employees, with a low affiliation motive will never engage in OCBI. Instead, it suggests that they view helping others in an egalitarian light, and regard it as something that they have to do, typically because of obligatory circumstances (McAdams & Powers, 1981). In this case, there may be a slight positive relationship between state self-esteem and OCBI among employees with a low affiliation motive, such that only those who are currently experiencing a high state self-esteem will perceive themselves as having something valuable to offer others (Cohen, 1959), and be willing to engage in OCBI if the current circumstances call for it. Taking these together, I make the following hypothesis. The simple slopes representing this hypothesis are presented in Figure 3. Hypothesis 3a: Affiliation motive moderates the relation between midday state self- esteem and OCBI, such that the relationship is more negative among employees with high affiliation motive versus those with low affiliation motive. 49 Figure 3: Hypothesized simple slopes for Hypothesis 3a Low Affiliation Motive High Affiliation Motive 5 4 3 2 1 0 i s r o v a h e B p h s n e z i t i i C l a n o s r e p r e t n I Low High Midday State Self-Esteem Midday State Self-Esteem, Dominance Motive, and Incivility to Coworkers Individuals with a high dominance motive view and evaluate themselves positively when they are able to exercise autocracy and control over others (Horowitz et al., 2006). Therefore, their relational schemas are likely to be characterized by interpersonal behavioral routines that allow them to assert their individuality and power over others (K. D. Locke, 2000). Although very few studies have explicitly examined the moderating role of the dominance motive in predicting employees’ behaviors, an abundance of related research on trait dominance demonstrated that dominant individuals tend to behave in an assertive, forceful, and self-assuring manner (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Buss & Craik, 1980). Scholars have also found that dominant individuals tend to lack empathy and endorse prejudice in interpersonal interactions because of their preoccupation with wanting to be unique and above the rest (Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, & Duarte, 2003; Shao, Resick, & Hargis, 2011). The self-consistency theory posits that individuals will turn to their inner schemas and values for guidance on how to behave in order to reestablish their self-worth when experiencing 50 a low state self-esteem (Korman, 2001). When that happens, a high dominance motive is likely to encourage employees to behave in a controlling, uncivil, or distant manner toward coworkers, because doing so enables them to appear and believe that they are holding social power and influence over others (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009). These interpersonal behaviors that are devoid of meaningful interpersonal connections, such as putting coworkers down, paying little attention to the things that coworkers say, and passing sarcastic and demeaning remarks to coworkers, are incidentally captured by workplace incivility (Cortina et al., 2001; S. Lim & Cortina, 2005). The dominance motive should be less salient among employees with high state self-esteem because their current self-image is already consistent with their desired self, hence there is little motivation to actively engage in further behaviors to boost their self-esteem. Taking these arguments together, I hypothesize a negative relation between midday state self-esteem and enacted incivility among employees with a high dominance motive. Conversely, I expect there to only exist a weak positive relationship between state self- esteem and enacted incivility among employees with a low dominance motive. This follows a similar rationale as the one presented earlier for low affiliation motive, wherein concepts associated with dominance, such as being forceful or authoritative, are less accessible in the mental schemas of employees with a low dominance motive, thus providing little reason to expect them to behave in an uncivil manner toward others when their self-esteem is threatened. However, it is also possible for a slight positive relationship between state self-esteem and incivility to be present among employees with a low dominance motive. This is because high self-esteem empowers people to believe that they are better than others, and research showed that self-esteem is positively related to criticizing others’ actions and instigation of prejudice and discrimination against others whom they do not identify with (Baumeister et al., 2003). These 51 evidences point to the possibility of a positive relationship between state self-esteem and incivility even among those with a low dominance motive. Integrating these arguments, I present the following hypothesis. Figure 4 presents the hypothesized simple slopes. Hypothesis 3b: Dominance motive moderates the relation between midday state self- esteem and incivility behaviors, such that the relationship is more negative among employees with high dominance motive versus those with low dominance motive. Figure 4: Hypothesized simple slopes for Hypothesis 3b y t i l i i v c n I d e t c a n E 5 4 3 2 1 0 Low Dominance Motive High Dominance Motive Low High Midday State Self-Esteem Midday State Self-Esteem, Dominance Motive, and Affiliation Motive Because the dominance motive and the affiliation motive are independent (K. D. Locke, 2000; Markey & Markey, 2009), it means that they can potentially interact with each other to further moderate the relationship between midday self-esteem and OCBI and incivility, giving rise to a three-way interaction. Although not one of the primary foci of this dissertation, it will still be informative to explore and examine this three-way interaction when testing my model. Based on findings from extant literature, this three-way interaction can potentially be related to different outcomes. Gurtman (2011) argued that individuals with both a high dominance motive 52 and a high affiliation motive are more interpersonally flexible. This suggests these employees will be likely to engage greatly in both OCBI and incivility when they are experiencing a low state self-esteem related to poor goal progress, as compared to employees who score prevalently high only on either of the motives but low on the other. However, it may also be possible for the two motives to be in conflict with each other if both of them are strong (Horowitz et al., 2006). For example, an employee with a strong affiliation motive may want to engage in OCBI in order to form meaningful bonds with his or her coworkers, but the performance of OCBI will require the employee to give up autonomy temporarily and yield to the requests or demands of the coworkers who need help, thus thwarting his or her dominance motive that desires control over others. In such situations, the two strong motives may end up suppressing and neutralizing each other’s respective relationships with OCBI and incivility. Considering these different possibilities, I pose the following research question. Research question 1: How will the three-way interaction between midday state self- esteem, dominance motive, and affiliation motive relate to (a) OCBI and (b) incivility? Interpersonal Citizenship to Coworkers and End-of-Day State Self-Esteem Among Employees with an Affiliation Motive Values and motives define what is and what is not rewarding for the self (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; E. A. Locke, 1996). Individuals with a high affiliation motive value interpersonal relatedness (Horowitz et al., 2006). They enjoy warm, intimate, and communicative exchanges with people (McAdams & Powers, 1981), and derive their self-worth from being valuable to others (Leonard, Beauvais, & Scholl, 1999). This suggests that employees with a high affiliation motive will likely experience a boost in their self-esteem when they perform OCBI, because providing help involves interaction and coordination between the help provider and recipient, 53 and fosters a meaningful bond between the two parties (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2015). In addition, OCBI may inculcate a sense of competence in employees because it signals to them that they have something valuable to offer to their coworkers (Fiske, 2009), which should help improve their evaluation of themselves too. Summing these up, the performance of OCBI should function as a restorative mechanism that helps employees with a high affiliation motive perceive greater worth in themselves, thus allowing their self-esteem to recover. This reasoning leads me to hypothesize a positive relationship between OCBI and end-of-day state self-esteem among employees with a high affiliation motive. In indirect support of this, Brewer and Klein (2006), in their study on students who had to work in teams for a course, demonstrated that those with a high chronic affiliation motive reported greater satisfaction from giving or receiving help from their team members as compared to those who had a low affiliation motive. On the other hand, employees who have a low affiliation motive are less likely to derive intrinsic rewards from helping others because their self-worth is negligibly dependent on their social connections with others (Horowitz et al., 2006). This implies that they are unlikely to regain their self-esteem, impaired by poor goal progress, through the enactment of OCBI. Although it is possible that acts of OCBI may fulfill the need for competence among employees with a low affiliation motive and hence still improve their self-esteem (Fiske, 2009), it is also possible for these acts to be regarded by the providers as burdensome (L. Q. Yang, Liu, Nauta, Caughlin, & Spector, 2016a). It will therefore be specious to hypothesize either restorative or harmful effects of OCBI on end-of-day state self-esteem among employees with a low affiliation motive. Hence, I expect a weak relationship between OCBI and end-of-day state self-esteem among employees with a low affiliation motive. Taken together, I make the following moderation hypothesis. The hypothesized simple slopes are shown in Figure 5. 54 Hypothesis 4a: Affiliation motive moderates the relation between OCBI and end-of-day state self-esteem, such that the relationship is more positive among employees with high affiliation motive versus those with low affiliation motive. Figure 5: Hypothesized simple slopes for Hypothesis 4a m e e t s E - f l e S e t a t S y a D - f o - d n E 5 4 3 2 1 0 Low Affiliation Motive High Affiliation Motive Low High Interpersonal Citizenship Behaviors Incivility to Coworkers and End-of-Day State Self-Esteem Among Employees with a Dominance Motive Workplace incivility entails using low-intensity words or actions to belittle or demean coworkers (Cortina et al., 2001). Behaving in a derogative manner toward others may make dominant individuals look and feel good, because these domineering behaviors are consistent with their desired self-image of being socially superior over others (Schütz, 1998). This is also in line with Heider’s (1958) argument that individuals sometimes achieve a positive evaluation of the self by putting others down and facilitating a downward social comparison. In empirical support of this, Cialdini and Richardson (1980) showed that college students, who received negative performance feedback on an experimental task, subsequently provided poorer ratings of 55 their university’s rival school (i.e., blasting), as compared to participants who did not receive the negative performance feedback. This blasting effect exhibited by students who received the negative performance feedback was even stronger among those who also had a high (as compared to low) desire for public prestige. These findings suggest that the enactment of uncivil behaviors serves a self-enhancement purpose for individuals with a high dominance motive, and should technically help them reclaim their perceived self-worth and enable them to recover from a low state self-esteem related to poor goal progress. Therefore, I hypothesize a positive relationship between enacted incivility and end-of-day state self-esteem among employees with a high (as compared to low) dominance motive. On the other hand, I expect a weak relationship between enacted incivility and end-of-day state self-esteem among employees with a low dominance motive. Since dominance motive defines the value that individuals attach to exercising power and control over others, employees with a low dominance motive are less likely to find assertive and forceful behaviors intrinsically rewarding (Horowitz et al., 2006). In fact, if these individuals with a low dominance motive also have a high affiliation, behaving in an uncivil manner toward coworkers will be highly inconsistent with their desired self-image and will therefore be negatively related to their end-of- day state self-esteem. However, as reviewed and discussed in the literature review earlier, the dominance and affiliation motives are in fact independent dimensions despite how their conceptual definitions seemingly tap on two ends of a bipolar dimension (Horowitz et al., 2006). Previous empirical research provided further support for this independence as it found no significant correlation between the two motives (K. D. Locke, 2000; Markey & Markey, 2009). This may be because there can be socially apathetic and detached individuals who score low on both dominance and affiliation motives (Horowitz et al., 2006; K. D. Locke, 2000). In other 56 words, there is no robust theoretical argument for either a positive or a negative relationship between enacted incivility and end-of-day state esteem for employees with a low dominance motive. Integrating all the above arguments and evidences, I present my final hypothesis below. The hypothesized simple slopes are shown in Figure 6. Hypothesis 4b: Dominance motive moderates the relation between incivility behaviors and end-of-day state self-esteem, such that the relationship is more positive among employees with high dominance motive versus those with low dominance motive. Figure 6: Hypothesized simple slopes for Hypothesis 4b m e e t s E - f l e S e t a t S y a D - f o - d n E 5 4 3 2 1 0 Low Dominance Motive High Dominance Motive Low High Enacted Incivility OCBI, Incivility, Dominance Motive, and Affiliation Motive Similar to the rationale motivating the first research question, I pose an additional research question exploring how the three-way interaction between OCBI × dominance motive × affiliation motive, and between incivility × dominance motive × affiliation motive relates to the employee’s end-of-day self-esteem. My arguments for Hypotheses 3a and 3b propose OCBI to be positively related to end-of-day self-esteem for employees with high (as compared to low) affiliation motive, and incivility to be positively related to end-of-day self-esteem for employees 57 with high (as compared to low) dominance motive. These relationships are theorized to occur concurrently and independently of each other. However, the non-exclusiveness of the affiliation and dominance motive (K. D. Locke, 2000; Markey & Markey, 2009) suggests that the two motives may interact to further moderate the relationship from OCBI or incivility to end-of-day self-esteem. Findings from existing literature again point to various possible outcomes that can arise if this three-way interaction occurs. For example, employees with both a high dominance motive and a high affiliation motive may experience a quicker restoration in their state self- esteem by the end of the day because they can engage in both OCBI and incivility to reclaim their self-worth during the workday due to their interpersonal flexibility (Gurtman, 2011). This would imply a stronger relation from OCBI or incivility to end-of-day self-esteem among employees with strong affiliation and dominance motives. On the other hand, the motives may also be at odds with each other when they are both strong (Horowitz et al., 2006). For example, an employee with a strong affiliation motive should experience greater self-worth and an increase in self-esteem from performing OCBI due to the affiliative bonds formed in the process. However, if the nature of the OCBI performed requires them to compromise on their social power and yield to the needs of their coworkers, it may frustrate their equally strong dominance motive that values power and autonomy (L. Q. Yang et al., 2016a) and make it more difficult for them to restore their self-esteem through OCBI. When that happens, the interaction between the two motives would weaken the relation from OCBI or incivility to end-of-day self-esteem. Taking these different possible outcomes into account, I pose the following research question. Research question 2: How will the three-way interaction between (a) OCBI, dominance motive, and affiliation motive, and between (b) incivility, dominance motive, and affiliation motive relate to end-of-day self-esteem? 58 Dual-Stage Moderated Mediation Model for State Self-Esteem Restoration To integratively capture the self-esteem restoration process that occurs during the workday, I make two final hypotheses of a dual-stage moderated mediation model between midday self-esteem and end-of-day self-esteem. As informed by the theories of self-consistency (Korman, 1970) and interpersonal motives (Horowitz et al., 2006), employees have an automatic motivation to engage in behaviors that can enhance their self-esteem when it drops below their desired level. Because goal progress signals to employees whether they are meeting or falling short of their daily work standards, it is expected to be related with positively with midday self- esteem. A low mid-day self-esteem associated with poor goal progress is likely to motivate employees to shift their attention to their social domain instead of the task domain to seek self- verification. In this case, employees who have a high trait affiliation motive will likely fall back on their relational schemas to perform OCBI for their coworkers, and their self-esteem should recover best by the end of the day through the performance of OCBI because the affiliative bonds formed are intrinsically rewarding for them. Employees with a high trait dominance motive will likely fall back on their dictatorial schemas to behave in an uncivil manner toward their coworkers, and their self-esteem should recover best from their enactment of incivility because exercising autocracy over others is intrinsically rewarding for them. In sum, the two interpersonal motives will serve as first-stage moderators to precipitate OCBI and incivility respectively among employees experiencing a low midday self-esteem, and as second-stage moderators to qualify the restorative properties of these respective interpersonal behaviors on employees’ end-of-day self-esteem. 59 Hypothesis 5a: Affiliation motive moderates the negative indirect relationship between midday self-esteem and end-of-day self-esteem via OCBI at both the first and second stages, such that the indirect relationship via OCBI is more negative (i.e., stronger self- esteem fluctuation) when affiliation motive is high as compared to low. Hypothesis 5b: Dominance motive moderates the negative indirect relationship between midday self-esteem and end-of-day self-esteem via enacted incivility toward coworkers at both the first and second stages, such that the indirect relationship via incivility is more negative (i.e., stronger self-esteem fluctuation) when dominance motive is high as compared to low. State Self-Esteem Recovery and Goal Progress for Second Half of Day As explained in the opening section of this dissertation, one of the key rationales motivating the examination of work-related interpersonal behaviors as restorative mechanisms is because employees are often required to bounce back quickly from low state self-esteem related to poor goal progress and to resume the pursuit of planned goals during the remaining work hours to ensure organizational efficiency for the rest of the day (J. Brown et al., 1999; Embriaco et al., 2007; Monk, Trafton, & Boehm-Davis, 2008). Linking my model back to this rationale, my final hypothesis will investigate whether the self-esteem recovery mechanism represented by the earlier hypotheses relates to any beneficial performance-related outcomes in employees. In particular, I expect self-esteem recovery during the workday to help employees make better progress on their work goals for the second half of the day. Hence, I hypothesize a positive relationship between the employee’s end-of-day self-esteem and goal progress for the second half of the day, controlling for midday self-esteem. While maintaining consistent effort sustain adequate goal progress throughout the day is challenging enough, resuming goal pursuit 60 following a perceived lack of adeqaute goal progress can be even more difficult (Monk et al., 2008; Trafton, Altmann, Brock, & Mintz, 2003), because one is currently experiencing a low state self-esteem characterized by little confidence in one’s self-worth and thoughts of potential goal failure (Dutton & Brown, 1997; Ellis & Taylor, 1983). In such a situation, successful esteem recovery will likely help reestablish employees’ perceptions of self-worth and enable them to regain their confidence in their ability to overcome their earlier poor progress and move on to pursue their goals. For example, Hair, Renaud, and Ramsay (2007) demonstrated that self- esteem is positively related to control over the work environment and better ability to cope with distractions and interruptions. Although their study used a between-person approach, this positive relationship between self-esteem and the ability to resume goal pursuit will likely generalize to the within-person level because self-esteem is a psychological capacity that motivates work behaviors (Korman, 1970). In addition, Heppner et al. (2008) showed that one’s daily self-esteem is negatively related to daily perceptions of competence. This suggests that a failure to restore an impaired self-esteem following inadequate goal progress may be related to perceptions of low competence and tendencies to give up on the pursuit of planned goals for the day. Taking these evidences together, I present the following hypothesis. Hypothesis 6: End-of-day self-esteem will be positively related to the employee’s goal progress for the second half of the day, controlling for midday self-esteem. The Emotional Pathway: Daily Goal Progress and Midday Negative Emotions An employee’s evaluation of his or her goal progress at midday is related to their emotional reactions, because the attainment of daily work goals is of high relevance to the core objectives of an employee’s everyday routine (Koopman et al., 2016; Wanberg et al., 2010). According to Boekaerts (1993), perceiving a negative discrepancy between one’s desired 61 performance level and one’s current actual performance level (i.e. poor goal progress) is a distressful event, and it activates a network of negative emotions in one’s memory. This suggests that perceiving inadequate goal progress will likely coincide with the experience of multiple negative emotions at the same time. Therefore, I hypothesize a negative relationship between midday goal progress and midday shame and anger. The decision to look at shame and anger as the two focal emotions in my hypothesized model is informed by past research that have identified shame and anger as two negative emotions strongly linked to poor goal performance (Bagozzi & Pieters, 1998; Pekrun, 2006). Specifically, shame is an unpleasant self-conscious emotion experienced when one believes that one has fallen short of desired standards (Tangney et al., 2007), while anger is an emotion experienced when one encounters obstacles that block one’s achievement of a desired goal (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009; M. Lewis, 2010). Although the degree to which shame or anger is experienced depends on more complex appraisals processes (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988), individuals commonly experience both of these emotions at the same time in reaction to unpleasant events (Mosquera, Fischer, Manstead, & Zaalberg, 2008; Pekrun, Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld, & Perry, 2011). In fact, shame and anger are regularly assessed together under the broad umbrella of negative affect (Watson et al., 1988) when studying emotional reactions to goal progress (Bagozzi & Pieters, 1998; Ilies & Judge, 2005; Moberly & Watkins, 2010). For example, in their study on goal-directed emotions, Bagozzi and Pieters (1998) demonstrated that poor progress on dieting goals and the eventual failure to achieve dieting goals were related to the experience of both shame and anger. Summarizing these conceptual and empirical support, I expect midday goal progress to have a main positive relationship both midday shame and midday anger. 62 Hypothesis 7: Midday goal progress will be negatively related to midday (a) shame and (b) anger. Perceived Personal Control as Moderator of the Goal Progress – Midday Shame Relation According to Lazarus (1991), the perception of poor goal progress elicits negative emotions, but the extent to which each specific negative emotion is elicited depends on the goal content and individuals’ perceived personal involvement for the goal progress. This is consistent with contemporary perspectives in the emotions literature that emphasize the importance of self- related and situational appraisals as key determinants for the activations of specific emotions (Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2006; Scherer, Schorr, & Johnstone, 2001). One way through which employees appraise their personal involvement for their goal performance is through the evaluation of how much personal control they have had over their goal-related behaviors (Bhanji & Delgado, 2014; Ross & Broh, 2000; Ruggiero & Taylor, 1997). Based on these theoretical premises, I argue that perceptions of personal control over daily goal progress will serve as a moderator that determines whether poor daily goal progress is linked to the experience of greater shame or greater anger within an employee. Shame is a self-conscious emotion that is potentially experienced when employees attribute high self-responsibility for a negative outcome (Tangney & Dearing, 2002; Tracy & Robins, 2006). When employees perceive high personal control over their goal-related behaviors, they are likely to ruminate over what they should and could have done better during their goal pursuit (Cheung, Gilbert, & Irons, 2004). This focus on the inferiority of the self is highly related to feelings of shame (Cheung et al., 2004). On the other hand, if an employee perceives poor goal progress to be a result of causes that is beyond his or her personal control, he or she is less likely to experience self-doubt for the poor goal progress because the blame for the negative 63 outcome would have been externalized (Tracy & Robins, 2006). This reduces the likelihood of negative self-evaluation and precludes the feeling of shame. Applied to the context of daily work goal progress, employees can attribute different levels of personal control over their daily goal progress on different days because their goal-related behaviors on one day are likely to be facilitated or inhibited by different personal or environmental factors as compared to other days given the dynamic nature of the interactions between employees and their work environment (Weiner, 1985). Therefore, I hypothesize that the negative relationship between midday goal progress and midday shame will be more negative on days when employees perceive high (vs. low) personal control. Hypothesis 8: State perception of personal control moderates the negative relationship between midday goal progress and midday shame, such that relationship is more negative when state perception of control is high (vs. low). Figure 7: Hypothesized simple slopes for Hypothesis 8 e m a h S y a d d M i 5 4 3 2 1 0 Low Personal Control High Personal Control Low High Midday Goal Progress 64 Perceived Personal Control as Moderator of the Goal Progress – Midday Anger Relation As opposed to shame, I contend that employees will experience greater anger over poor goal progress on days when they perceive low (vs. high) personal control over their goal-related behaviors. This is because perceptions of low personal control over their goal progress suggest that employees believe that the environment or other people is responsible over their poor goal performance (Boekaerts, 1993). This drives employees to view poor goal progress as a violation of their performance norms and an unfair representation of their competence and ability (Averill, 1983; Stouten, De Cremer, & van Dijk, 2006), thus triggering feelings of indignance and anger. This is in line with Ellsworth and Smith’s (1988) assertion that the experience of anger is predicted by both an unpleasant event and the appraisal of others as being the causal agent of the event. The moderating function of perceived personal control has also been empirically supported by Neumann (2000) who demonstrated in an experiment that participants experienced greater anger when they perceived low (vs. high) personal control over the cause of an unpleasant experience with ambiguous causality in the lab. Applying to the within-person daily goal pursuit context, I hypothesize that employees will experience the highest level of anger on days when they perceive poor goal progress and attribute low personal control over their goal progress. Hypothesis 9: State perception of personal control moderates the negative relationship between midday goal progress and midday anger, such that relationship is less negative when state perception of control is high (vs. low). 65 Figure 8: Hypothesized simple slopes for Hypothesis 9 Low Personal Control High Personal Control 5 4 3 2 1 0 r e g n A y a d d M i Low High Midday Goal Progress Midday Emotions and Interpersonal Behaviors for Emotional Recovery Emotional reactions associated with work events will go on to influence employees’ immediate attitudes and behaviors in the workplace (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). The affective events theory suggests that high levels of negative emotions can be brought back to the baseline by either endogenous or exogenous factors (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). This means employees can technically reduce the goal-related shame and anger that they are experiencing by making adequate progress on their goals or through other means that are not directly related to their goal pursuit. However, the former seems less plausible in the context of this dissertation because scholars have noted that when individuals are experiencing shame, they typically shun the source of their shame as an automatic self-defense mechanism and will look for other ways to redeem themselves (De Hooge et al., 2010). On the other hand, the experience of anger is linked to perceiving low personal control over the causes of goal progress (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988), as explained in Hypothesis 9. This suggests that angry employees, who have attributed their poor goal progress to factors out of their personal control, are likely to perceive limited ratification 66 actions that they can immediately undertake for enhancing their goal progress (Weiner, 2001). Employees who experience anger for poor goal progress are therefore likely to displace their anger through interpersonal behaviors toward targets who are not directly related to their goal pursuit in their proximal social context (Weiner, 2001). Integrating these arguments, I expect employees to turn to a different domain (i.e., the social domain) for means of dissipating their feelings of shame and anger following poor goal progress. In the following sections, I explain how shame may predict OCBI while anger may respectively predict the enactment of incivility toward coworkers. Midday Shame and OCBI Shame is often associated with a threatened or damaged self-concept (De Hooge et al., 2008; Tangney & Dearing, 2002). De Hooge et al. (2010) contended that individuals are likely to withdraw immediately from the situation that produces shame as an automatic self-defense mechanism, and they will turn to another safer domain for repairing and strengthening their self- concept following their experience of shame. Therefore, I expect employees who are experiencing shame related to poor goal progress to disengage themselves from their goal pursuit and turn to their social context temporarily for remedies to reduce their feelings of shame. Besides being a self-conscious emotion, shame is a moral emotion that increases the salience of universal moral standards to individuals (Tangney et al., 2007). Moral emotions promote altruistic beliefs and prosocial behaviors that are perceived to be universally good (Emde & Oppenheim, 1995). In particular, shame activates individuals’ conscience and is related to the use of internal sanctioning and reasoning to develop moral sentiments that value collective good over self-interest (Menesini & Camodeca, 2008). Indeed, several empirical studies demonstrated that people primed to feel shame are more likely to make prosocial decisions in 67 social dilemma games (De Hooge et al., 2008; Frank, 2004; Nelissen & Dijker, 2007). In addition, shame helps to prohibit the enactment of behaviors with negative consequences for others’ well-being, such as interpersonal aggression and lying, because these harmful acts upset interpersonal harmony and bring on further negative implications for the self (De Hooge et al., 2010; Tangney et al., 2007). Taking these together, I hypothesize that shame is likely to be positively related to interpersonal helping in the workplace. Hypothesis 10: Midday shame will be positively related to OCBI OCBI and End-of-Day Shame Literature in counselling psychology suggests that an effective way to reduce feelings of shame is through the empowerment of individuals (Deblinger & Runyon, 2005). Helping others serves this exact purpose of empowering employees because helping others implies to employees that they have something valuable to offer others, thus fulfilling their needs for relatedness and competency (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Fiske, 2009). In other words, OCBI allows employees to regain their self-worth and reduce feelings of shame (De Hooge et al., 2010). In addition, shame is often intensified by concerns of disapproving and negative judgments from others (D. A. Lee, Scragg, & Turner, 2001). Engaging in OCBI allows employees to behave in a cooperative manner (Dickerson et al., 2004), and requires them to go beyond the limits of their core job responsibilities (Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994). This should help employees gain social approval from their coworkers, and dissipate their feelings of shame by the end of the workday. Therefore, I hypothesize the enactment of OCBI to be negatively related to employees’ end-of- day shame. Hypothesis 11: OCBI will be negatively related to end-of-day shame, controlling for midday shame. 68 Midday Anger and Incivility I hypothesize a positive relationship between midday anger and enacted incivility toward coworkers. There are at least two reasons why anger may be associated with individuals’ tendency to enact uncivil behaviors toward coworkers. First, anger is related to aggressive behavioral tendencies. According to Ellsworth and Smith (1988), “anger prepares and motivates [a] person to attack” (p. 295). This is echoed by Carver and Harmon-Jones (2009) who posited anger as an approach-oriented emotion related to aggression, and by Weiner (2001) who noted that anger “gives rise to anti-social responses” (p. 7). This suggests that anger will likely activate the semantic network associated with aggression in employees’ minds automatically (Harmon- Jones & Sigelman, 2001), and increase employees’ likelihood of enacting uncivil behaviors toward their coworkers. Second, anger may predict incivility through mechanisms of both retaliation and anger displacement. As explained in the construction of Hypothesis 9, employees who experience anger in response to poor goal progress tend to perceive their poor goal progress as a result of factors beyond their volitional control, such as interruptions by their coworkers or supervisors, or environmental constraints like equipment malfunctions. If interruptions by coworkers is believed to be the cause of poor goal progress, anger may create a desire in employees to correct the unfair situation and prompt them to retaliate against coworkers who have disrupted them from their goal pursuit (Barclay, Skarlicki, & Pugh, 2005; Rudolph, Roesch, Greitemeyer, & Weiner, 2004), through the enactment of incivility like ignoring them or putting them down. Acting in an uncivil manner toward coworkers may also be functionally rewarding for angry employees because it may keep the targeted coworkers away and allow their resumption of goal pursuit (O'Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew, 1996). If employees’ goal pursuit was thwarted by their 69 supervisors whom they cannot directly confront or by environmental constraints that they cannot readily fix, employees are likely displace their anger on non-specific bystanding coworkers (O'Leary-Kelly et al., 1996). Relatedly, Meier and Semmer (2013) demonstrated a significant relationship between employees’ experience of work-related anger that originated from perceived lack of reciprocity in the workplace and their enactment of incivility toward coworkers. More distally, Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) showed that employees subjected to abusive supervision were more likely to engage in interpersonal deviance toward coworkers, which they explained using the concept of aggression displacement. Considering all these reasons, I hypothesize a positive relationship between employees’ midday anger and their enacted incivility toward coworkers on the same day. Hypothesis 12: Midday anger will be positively related to enacted incivility toward coworkers. Incivility and End-of-Day Anger The literature on emotional catharsis suggests that people engage in aggression to vent their anger in order to improve their affective states (Geen & Quanty, 1977). According to this view, anger and aggressive impulses that lie within the psyche of individuals seek to be expressed, and will result in psychological impairment if they are not released (Bushman, Baumeister, & Phillips, 2001). Anger expression and aggressive acts help to reduce the physiological arousals associated with anger and purge hostile feelings from the psyche of individuals (Doob & Wood, 1972). For example, Hokanson and Shetler (1961) showed that experimental participants who were frustrated by an experimenter and later given an opportunity to engage in aggressive acts showed “a return of blood pressure to prefrustration levels”, while frustrated participants who were not given an opportunity to engage in aggressive acts 70 experienced continued heightened blood pressure. Building on this notion, I argue that employees’ enacted incivility, which involves inflicting psychological harm to coworkers through uncivil words or actions (Cortina et al., 2001), will have a cathartic effect for releasing feelings of anger that reside within employees. Hypothesis 13: Enacted incivility to coworkers will be negatively related to end-of-day anger, controlling for midday anger. Emotional Recovery and Goal Progress for Second Half of Day Negative emotions can disorganize and disrupt employees’ work-related behaviors, and pose a serious threat to employees’ work efficiency (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). This is especially so because negative emotions “can produce responses incompatible with job demands or can use up cognitive resources needed for job performance” (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996, p. 55). The presence of negative emotions also signals to employees that there is an existing unresolved problem, and leaves them feeling continuously disrupted from their goal pursuit (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). For example, in their experience sampling study, J. Yang and Diefendorff (2009) demonstrated that the experience of daily work stressors elicited negative emotions in employees and were related to their enactment of daily counterproductive work behaviors such as coming to work late and intentionally withdrawing work effort, In other words, negative emotions have the potential to cripple employees’ ability to focus on their goal pursuit (Boekaerts, 1993). In addition, negative emotions activates the behavioral inhibition system in individuals that causes them to withdraw and decrease effort on their goals (Ilies, Judge, & Wagner, 2010). Using longitudinal data collected from undergraduates, Ilies, Judge, et al. (2010) demonstrated that the failure to perform up to self-set goals predicted negative emotional reactions, which in turned negatively predicted subsequent goals set and effort 71 investment. Finally, Weiner (2001) argued that both shame and anger can impair goal-related behaviors because shame makes individuals perceive themselves as less capable while anger makes individuals perceive little they can do for overcoming the unfair situation, thus both are related to low expectancies of future success and goal withdrawal (Weiner, 2001). The above theoretical and empirical evidences documenting the detrimental effects of negative emotions on goal-related behaviors in the workplace strongly suggests that a recovery from negative emotions is an important prerequisite for employees to focus on their goal pursuit for the second half of the day. This argument is consistent with Weiss and Cropanzano’s (1996) assertion that strategies aimed at reducing negative emotions immediately (i.e., emotion-focused coping) is efficient and useful in allowing employees to refocus on their job in the short run. Relatedly, Sonnentag, Mojza, Demerouti, and Bakker (2012) demonstrated that state negative affect was related to employees’ engagement in recovery activities in the evening of the same day, and recovery activities positively predicted recovery level the next morning. In turn, high morning recovery level the next morning was positively related to employees’ work engagement for the day. Applying this finding to the timeframe used in this dissertation, it suggests that employees who are able to recover from shame and anger efficiently, via the enactment of OCBI and incivility respectively, will likely be able to immerse in goal-related behaviors more effectively for the rest of the day. Therefore, I contend that end-of-day shame and anger will be negatively related to the employee’s goal progress for the second half of the day. Hypothesis 14: End-of-day (a) shame and (b) anger will be negatively related to the employee’s goal progress for the second half of the day, controlling for midday shame and anger. 72 CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY Recruitment Procedure Sample size determination. I determined the sample size required for this dissertation by referring to the power analysis guidelines offered by Mathieu, Aguinis, Culpepper, and Chen (2012b) and Scherbaum and Ferreter (2009). Mathieu et al. (2012b) reviewed representative studies testing cross-level interactions published in Journal of Applied Psychology from 2000 to 2010, and found the average power of these studies to be .40 at α = .05. To be more conservative than these published papers, I set the targeted power for this dissertation at .80. Using the Monte Carlo web calculator Multilevel Power Tool developed by Mathieu et al. (2012a), I added the relevant parameters based on estimated values from existing studies to calculate the power size for detecting moderate effect size. These values were obtained from separate existing daily studies that have looked at these variables. For example, the within-person variance for state self- esteem was .36 (Nezlek & Plesko, 2001), for enacted incivility was .18 (Rosen et al., 2016), and for OCBI was .56 (Lanaj et al., 2016). The internal reliabilities of each variable was ρxx = .84 for state self-esteem (Thewissen, Bentall, Lecomte, van Os, & Myin-Germeys, 2008), ρyy = .87 for incivility and .93 for OCBI (Lanaj et al., 2016; Rosen et al., 2016), and ρww = .80 for dominance motive and .86 for affiliation motive (Markey & Markey, 2009). Based on these values obtained from previous studies, it appeared that the cross-level interaction of midday self-esteem × dominance motive on enacted incivility would be one of the more difficult ones to detect in my model. I therefore estimated the power of this midday self-esteem × dominance motive on enacted incivility relationship for sample size determination. Because existing studies have not evaluated the exact relationships hypothesized in my model, I was not able to obtain an estimated 73 value for cross-level interaction (γ1w) for input into the calculator, hence I set it to be between small and moderate, at .20. The statistical power to detect cross-level interactions is determined by the magnitude of the cross-level interaction, the standard deviation of the level-1 slopes, and the level-1 and level- 2 sample sizes (Mathieu et al., 2012b; Scherbaum & Ferreter, 2009). This implies that power can be achieved by increasing either the level-1 or level-2 sample size. I ran the simulation with two permutations, with Sample 1 having 65 respondents with 7 daily responses each, and Sample 2 having 50 respondents with 12 daily responses each. The results from running the simulation on the web calculator showed that Sample 1 would yield a power of .86 at α = .05, and Sample 2 would yield a power of .88 at α = .05. After considering the logistical practicalities of data collection, I went with Sample 1 (i.e., targeted sample of 65 respondents with an average of 7 daily responses each). The average level-1 daily response rate in several recent published papers using experience sampling method is approximately 70% (Lin & Johnson, 2015; Rosen et al., 2016; Sonnentag, 2012), so I expected to receive seven daily responses from each participant over a ten-workday data collection period. The average level-2 response rate to research invitation in these referenced studies is approximately 70% as well, so I aimed to recruit an initial sample of no less than 95 respondents. Snowball recruiting procedure. I engaged the help of undergraduates from the HPR subject pool to identify potential full-time employee respondents from a wide variety of occupations for recruitment into this research using the snowball technique. Numerous published organizational research papers have used this approach to recruit a field sample (Lin, Ma, & Johnson, 2016; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006; Zapata, Olsen, & Martins, 2013). Following the same procedure used in these papers, I asked undergraduate students from the HPR subject pool 74 to each recruit and nominate a full-time employee to become my research participant. Undergraduate students received a research credit for their participation in this snowball recruiting procedure. To be eligible for this research, the nominated employee must meet four criteria: 1) be at least 18 years old, 2) be holding a full-time job in an organization (i.e., working approximately eight hours per day) to allow the examination of self-esteem fluctuations and behaviors throughout the workday, 3) belong in a work unit with other coworkers instead of working exclusively alone so that the measures of OCBI and incivility will be relevant, and 4) be working and residing in the United States for logistical ease of coordinating survey administration and to control for any cultural differences on the measured variables. The undergraduates from the HPR subject pool (n = 220) informed their contacts (i.e., potential employee respondents) of the research and sought their consent before providing me with the email addresses of the potential employee respondents (n = 220). I contacted the potential employee respondents directly for the dissemination of surveys. In the process, I informed them that participation was voluntary and that they had a right to decline participation or to withdraw from the research anytime without any loss of research credits to the undergraduates who nominated them. Those employees who were interested to be part of the research (n = 131; response rate to invitation = 59.54%) accessed the link to the baseline survey which also contained the consent form. They provided their consent and reported on the four screening criteria: 1) be at least 18 years old, 2) be holding a full-time job in an organization, 3) belong in a work unit with other coworkers instead of working exclusively alone, and 4) be working and residing in the United States. Those who met all four criteria (n = 122; baseline response rate = 55.45%) proceeded to complete the baseline survey, while those who did not meet one or more of the criteria (n = 9), due to being below 18 years old, not holding a full-time 75 job, and/or working exclusively alone with no interactions with others, saw a message that informed them that they were not eligible for the research and thanked them for their interest. Compensation. Undergraduates (n = 220) who provided the contacts of the employees received a research credit in return for the time (approximately 30 minutes) spent on introducing the research to the employees and recruiting them. They received the research credit regardless of whether their contacts completed the surveys or not. Eligible employee respondents (n = 122) received $1.00 for completing each midday or end-of-day survey (i.e., $20 in total for completing two surveys per day for ten work days), and an additional $10 bonus for completing all surveys. This brought the potential total compensation to $30 per employee. Design and Procedures Baseline survey and response rate. I sent an invitation email to 220 potential employee respondents, out of which 131 responded by providing their consent to participate (i.e., 59.54%). 122 respondents (i.e., 55.45%) met all four criteria to be eligible to participate in the research. Eligible respondents had a week to complete the baseline survey, in which they provided information regarding their work hours (i.e., start time, end time) to allow me to schedule the times to send them the daily surveys. They also completed the measures for affiliation motive, dominance motive, control variables (i.e., explicit trait self-esteem, implicit trait self-esteem, trait positive and negative affect, and work unit size), and demographics. Daily surveys and response rate. I emailed the midday survey link 3.5 hours after the commencement of each workday, and the end-of-day survey link 7.5 hours after the commencement of each workday, based on the work hours provided by respondents in the baseline survey. Respondents were requested to complete the survey within two hours of receiving the email, and I closed the midday survey three hours after sending the link daily. This 76 ensured that each midday survey was completed at least an hour before the end-of-day survey link was sent out to ensure temporal segregation between the two daily surveys. In each midday survey, they reported their midday goal progress, midday state self-esteem (both explicit and implicit measures), midday anger and shame, and the control variables of state positive affect, state depletion, and state frustration. In the end-of-day survey, they completed measures of OCBI, incivility, end-of-day state self-esteem (both explicit and implicit measures), end-of-day shame and anger, goal progress for the second half of the day, and the control variables of state positive affect, state depletion, and state frustration, and the number of hours interacted with coworkers for the day. Out of the 122 employees who completed the baseline survey, 111 completed at least one full day of surveys (i.e., both midday and end-of-day surveys), reflecting a retention rate of 91%. I received a total of 876 responses for the midday survey and 820 responses for the end-of-day survey. After matching the midday and end-of-day surveys, there were 786 matched daily data points from 111 individuals, in which was an average of 7.08 surveys per participant (i.e., 71% response rate). Sample The sample of 111 respondents had a mean age of 37.20 (SD = 13.13), with 36% of them being males. White Americans made up 80% of the respondents, followed by African Americans (12%), Hispanics or Latinos (5%), and Asians (4%). Majority of the respondents had a Bachelor’s degree (48%), with the rest having completed high school (35%), Master’s education (13%), Ph.D./M.D./J.D. (3%), or middle school (2%). The respondents came from a diverse variety of industries, such as healthcare (22%), retail (13%), clerical services (5%), engineering (5%), manufacturing (5%), education (5%), information technology (5%), and hospitality management (5%). They had a mean organizational tenure of 7.44 years (SD = 7.89), and 37% 77 of them were holding managerial posts. Finally, the respondents reported an average of 12 coworkers (SD = 9.78) in their immediate work unit with whom they interacted frequently. Measures The complete content of all scales and their response options are shown in the Appendices. All scales used a 5-point response scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree) unless otherwise stated. Trait interpersonal motives. I assessed employees’ trait interpersonal motives in the baseline survey using the affiliation and dominance dimensions in the interpersonal motives scale developed by Markey and Markey (2009). Each motive contains four items, and respondents will rate how much they agree or disagree that each item describes them in general. Example items of the affiliation motive include, “I inquire about others’ well-being,” and “I get along well with others”, and example items of the dominance motive include, “I do most of the talking,” and “I demand attention.” The internal reliabilities were α = .957 for affiliation motive and α = .908 for dominance motive. Between-person control variables measured in the baseline survey. I measured five between-person control variables in the baseline survey: 1) general goal progress, 2) work unit size, 3) trait self-esteem, 4) trait positive affect, and 5) trait negative affect. I controlled for respondents’ general goal progress (Koopman et al., 2016; Wanberg et al., 2010) at work to minimize any confounding effects it might have on the effects of daily goal progress. The 3-item scale (e.g., “In general at work, I am productive in relation to my work goals.”) had an internal reliability of α = .943. Respondents indicated the number of colleagues in their work unit for inclusion as a control too, because the frequency of respondents’ enactment of interpersonal citizenship and incivility behaviors are in part a function of how many coworkers they get to 78 interact with at work. I also measured employees’ explicit trait self-esteem using a validated 1- item measure “In general, I have high self-esteem” (Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001), and implicit trait self-esteem with the Lexical Decision Task described below (Dijksterhuis, 2004; Schvaneveldt, Meyer, & Becker, 1976). I controlled for them to prevent trait self-esteem from skewing the effects of state self-esteem on the behavioral outcomes (Ferris et al., 2009). Finally, I measured respondents’ trait positive and negative affectivity (Thompson, 2007) to control for their potential influences on prosocial and antisocial behaviors (George, 1990; Penney & Spector, 2005). The internal reliabilities were α = .832 for trait positive affect and α = .889 for trait negative affect. Daily goal progress for the first half of the day. Daily goal progress for the first half of the day was measured using three items that Koopman et al. (2016) adapted from Wanberg, Zhu, and Van Hooft (2010). Respondents rated how productive they had been in terms of their pursuit of work goals since the beginning of the workday till the time of the midday survey completion. Example items are “I have been productive in relation to my work goals since I began my workday till now” and “Since the beginning of the workday till now, I have made good progress on my work goals.” The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale, averaged across days, was α = .965. State personal control perceptions. I measured state personal control perceptions using the 4-item scale by Lachman and Weaver (1998). Respondents rated how much they agreed or disagreed with statements such as “I could do just about anything I set my mind to at work from the beginning of the workday till now” and “I had little control over the things that happened to me at work from the beginning of the workday till now (reverse-coded)”. The scale showed an internal reliability, averaged across days, of α = .899. 79 State explicit global self-esteem. I assessed state self-esteem twice per day, once during midday and again at the end of the workday. Respondents responded to a 1-item self-esteem scale, “I have high self-esteem” developed by Robins et al. (2001) with an adapted time referent of “at the moment” added to the item. State explicit specific self-esteem. Respondents also rated their specific self-esteem on the performance and social dimensions using six items adapted from the specific self-esteem scale developed by Heatherton and Polivy (1991). An example performance self-esteem item is, “Right now, I feel good about my work abilities.” An example social self-esteem dimension item is, “Right now, I feel good around my coworkers.” I formed a specific state self-esteem score for each dimension by aggregating the ratings on the three items for each dimension. The inclusion of a measure that captured specific self-esteem was for the purpose of supplemental analyses to examine whether employees compensated a drop in their performance state self-esteem by attempting to increase their social state self-esteem. The performance self-esteem measure had an internal reliability, averaged across days, of α = .929 (midday) and α = .937 (end-of-day), while the social self-esteem measure had an internal reliability, averaged across days, of α = .958 (midday) and α = .956 (end-of-day). State implicit global self-esteem. I captured implicit state self-esteem in the daily survey in case the esteem restoration process occurred on the implicit level instead of the explicit level. Several other organizational scholars have captured implicit constructs in their daily survey studies or lagged survey studies using reaction time-based tasks, such as a Lexical Decision Task (LDT) or a Stroop Task (Foulk et al., 2015; Rosen et al., 2016). In this dissertation, I used an LDT (Schvaneveldt et al., 1976) to measure implicit state self-esteem in each of the daily surveys. In an LDT, respondents would see a string of letters flash on the screen for 1 second 80 (Scarborough, Cortese, & Scarborough, 1977). They have to determine as quickly as possible if the string of letters is a word (e.g., AWESOME or PLASTIC) or a non-word (e.g., VROLIEB). Dijksterhuis (2004) adapted the LDT for the study of self-esteem by first flashing the letter “I” on the screen, which primes respondents to their self-concept, before flashing a string of letters. If there is a strong association between “I” and the string of letters, the accessibility to the word will be enhanced and the response time should be quicker. In the case of this research, if high self-esteem was readily accessible in the semantic memory of the respondent, he or she should take a shorter time to correctly identify letter strings that were positive trait words (e.g., AWESOME). In other words, if I flashed the letter “I” before flashing “AWESOME”, a positive word related to high self-esteem, the respondent would react more quickly and correctly classify “AWESOME” as a word when he or she was experiencing high (as compared to low) state self- esteem. Following Dijksterhuis’s (2004) procedure, respondents completed the LDT for this research by going through 20 trials of letter string identification in each daily survey. The 20 letter strings consisted of 10 positive words associated with high self-esteem (e.g., EXCEL, SUPERB, AWESOME, etc.) randomly selected from a pool of letter strings, 5 neutral word letter strings (e.g., SYRUP, RIBBON, BLANKET, etc.), and 5 non-word letter strings (e.g., HYCIT, KNELDY, VROLIEB, etc.). I matched the letter strings from the three categories (i.e., positive words, neutral words, and non-words) on their numbers of letters and syllables to prevent word and syllable length from confounding the response latencies. These 20 letter strings were presented in a random order during the LDT. Following the convention of administering LDT (Scarborough et al., 1977), the letter “I” flashed for 1 second in my LDT, followed immediately by the letter string which flashed for 1 second too. 81 Implicit state self-esteem was operationalized by aggregating the time taken to respond to the positive words correctly, such that shorter (vs. longer) response time would represent a higher (vs. lower) state self-esteem. Following guidelines for handling reaction time data (Ratcliff, 1993), I removed error responses and reaction time outliers, and conducted a log transformation on the reaction times before forming the aggregates. Further details regarding the data cleaning procedure are reported in the Results section. The internal reliability of the reaction times taken to respond to the ten positive words, averaged across days, was α = .908 (midday) and α = .865 (end-of-day). The internal reliability of the reaction times taken to respond to the five neutral words, averaged across days, was α = .598 (midday) and α = .576 (end-of-day). The internal reliability of the reaction times taken to respond to the five non-words, averaged across days, was α = .816 (midday) and α = .820 (end-of-day). State shame. Respondents rated their state shame using three items from the original scale of five items developed by Marschall, Sanftner, and Tangney (1994) on a 5-point scale (1 = Very lightly or not at all; 5 = Extremely) in both daily surveys. Example items are “Right now, I want to sink into the floor and disappear” and “I feel humiliated and disgraced now”. The scale had an internal reliability, averaged across days, of α = .919 (midday) and α = .900 (end-of-day). State anger. State anger was measured with three highest loaded items from Fuqua et al.’s (1991) 10-item state anger scale in both daily surveys. Respondents rated items such as “Right now, I am furious” and “Right now, I feel angry” using a 5-point scale (1 = Very lightly or not at all; 5 = Extremely). The scale had an internal reliability, averaged across days, of α = .935 (midday) and α = .914 (end-of-day). Daily enacted OCBI. Following Trougakos et al. (2015), I measured daily OCBI in the end-of-day survey using three items from the measure developed by Williams and Anderson 82 (1991). Respondents rated how frequently they engaged in each of the six interpersonal citizenship behaviors in the measure to their coworkers “in the time since [they] completed the last survey” on a 5-point response scale (1 = Never; 5 = Four or more times). An example item is, “I went out of my way to help a coworker.” The scale had an internal reliability, averaged across days, of α = .897. Daily enacted incivility. I measured incivility in the end-of-day survey using the four items that Rosen et al. (2016) extracted from the full incivility measure developed by Cortina et al., (2001). Respondents rated how frequently they enacted each incivility behavior to their coworkers “in the time since [they] completed the last survey” on a 5-point response scale (1 = Never; 5 = Four or more times). Example items are “Put one or more of my coworkers down or was condescending toward them,” and “Paid little attention to or showed little interest in one or more of my coworkers’ statements or opinions.” The internal reliability of the scale, averaged across days, was α = .735. Goal progress for the second half of the day. I measured respondents’ goal progress for the second half of the day with the same three items used for assessing goal progress for the first half of the day (Koopman et al., 2016; Wanberg et al., 2010). Respondents rated how productive they had been in terms of their pursuit of work goals since the midday survey. An example item is, “In the time since I completed the last survey, I have made good progress on my work goals.” The internal reliability of the scale, averaged across days, was α = .955. Within-person control variables measured in the daily surveys. I measured state depletion, state frustration, and state positive affect in both the midday and evening daily surveys for use as control variables on the within-person level. Existing research suggests that state depletion is related to employees’ daily interpersonal behaviors in the workplace (Rosen et al., 83 2016), and affect is related to people’s reactivity and responses to job stressors (Watson, Pennebaker, & Folger, 1987). Frustration is often used synonymously with anger in the context of goal pursuit by emotion scholars (Carver, 2004; Hauck, 1974), so I would explore if its relations to the variables of interest in my hypothesized model are indeed similar to those of anger. I measured state depletion using three items from the ego depletion scale developed by Twenge, Muraven, and Tice (2004), state positive affect using three items (i.e., joyful, happy, enthusiastic) (Barrett, 1998; Watson et al., 1988), and state frustration using three items from the frustration measure by Peters, O'Connor, and Rudolf (1980). The scales for all these control variables have been shortened for the purpose of keeping the length of each daily survey manageable, and the items are shown in the Appendix. The internal reliability of state depletion, averaged across days, was α = .820 (midday) and α = .886 (end-of-day). The internal reliability of state frustration, averaged across days, was α = .849 (midday) and α = .899 (end-of-day). The internal reliability of state positive affect, averaged across days, was α = .932 (midday) and α = .898 (end-of-day). I also asked respondents for the medium (i.e., 1 = desktop/laptop, 2 = handheld device/mobile phone) on which they completed each daily survey in case the medium affected their response time for the implicit state self-esteem LDT. 84 CHAPTER 5 ANALYSES AND RESULTS Pilot Test for Shortened or Adapted Measures I conducted a pilot test using an undergraduate sample to validate the shortened or adapted measures used in this dissertation. Past published papers have demonstrated the adequacy of undergraduate participants as a pilot sample for validation (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Lin et al., 2016). The sample recruited consisted of 270 undergraduates. They completed the measures shown in Table 1 in a single-cross sectional survey. In the survey, they first responded to the shortened measures, then answered some filler questions (e.g., “name three songs that come to your mind right now”, “name three food you last ate”, “name three cities you can think of”, etc.), before completing the original measures. In addition, there were four attention checks embedded throughout the survey (e.g., “If you are reading this, please select “Strongly disagree” as your answer to this statement.”). Respondents had to pass all four checks for their data to be included for analysis. The final sample after filtering out those who failed the attention checks consisted of 241 undergraduates. Their mean age was 19.40 (SD = 1.35), with 88% being females and 76% being Caucasian Americans. For measures related to interpersonal behaviors (i.e., OCBI and incivility), respondents were asked to think about their college peers with whom they interacted frequently. Table 1 shows the internal reliabilities of the shortened measures, and their correlations with their respective original scales. All shortened measures had positive and significant correlations with their original scales at p < .01. 85 Table 1: Pilot test results Variable Original Scale Shortened Scale r 1-item (Robins et al., 2001) .725** 3-item (α = .898) .880** 3-item (α = .837) .670** 3-item (α = .825) .884** 3-item (α = .944) .688** State global self- esteem 10-item (α = .897) (Rosenberg, 1965) State performance self-esteem 7-item (α = .898) (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991) State social self- esteem 7-item (α = .902) (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991) 5-item (α = .897) (Marschall et al., 1994) 10-item (α = .944) (Fuqua et al., 1991) State Shame State Anger Daily Enacted OCBI Daily Enacted Incivility 7-item (α = .912) (L. J. Williams & Anderson, 1991) 3-item (α = .831) (Trougakos et al., 2015) 7-item (α = .927) (Cortina et al., 2001) 4-item (α = .851) (Rosen et al., 2016) .902** .845** Note. n = 241. ** p < .01. Pilot Test for LDT Letter Strings In the same pilot test, I also attempted to conduct a validation to select the letter strings for use in the implicit self-esteem LDT. Respondents completed the LDT procedure described earlier by going through 145 trials of 25 positive word letter strings, 60 neutral word letter strings, and 60 non-word letter strings. The error rates were computed for each letter string. An error represented an instance where a respondent incorrectly classified a word as a non-word, or a non-word as a word. Out of the positive word letter strings, there was a word “OUTDO” that an abnormally large number of respondents (27.80%) rated as a non-word, hence I decided to remove this word from the set of positive word letter strings for use in the actual data collection because the high error rate suggested that the general population might be less familiar with this word. After removing “OUTDO” from the set, the average error rate for the positive word letter strings in the pilot test was 1.02%. For the neutral word letter strings, the error rates were 86 exceptionally high for two words “SABER” (23.24%) and “LADLE” (19.09%), which I removed too. The average error rate for the neutral word letter strings following the removal of these two letter strings was 1.58%. For the non-word letter strings, a rather high proportion of respondents (14.94%) erroneously classified the non-word “BALLESTIR” as a word. After removing “BALLESTIR” from the set, the non-word letter strings had an average error rate of 3.31%. I ran a one-way ANOVA to compare these mean error rates between the groups of positive words, neutral words, and non-words. The difference was significant (F(2,137) = 34.04, p < .01), and Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons showed that the non-word group had a significantly higher error rate than the positive and neutral word groups, but the error rates of the positive and neutral word groups were not significantly different from each other. This finding was consistent with past studies that have also observed a higher error rate for non-word letter strings than word letter strings (Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971; Taft & Forster, 1975). For the remaining 24 positive word letter strings, 58 neutral letter strings, and 59 non- word letter strings, I removed the error responses for each letter string before identifying outliers of response latency for each letter string. Following recommendations by past studies (Ratcliff, 1993; Whelan, 2008), I identified latencies above 2000 milliseconds (ms) as outliers in this pilot test data. The average outlier rates were 2.99% for positive words, 3.04% for neutral words, and 3.01% for non-words, and they ranged from .83% to 6.60% for all the letter strings. This range was similar to the conventional range observed in numerous past studies (Balota & Chumbley, 1984; Ratcliff, Thapar, Gomez, & McKoon, 2004). The eventual average response latencies were 384 ms (SD = 77 ms) for positive words, 388 ms (SD = 55 ms) for neutral words, and 370 ms (SD = 34 ms) for non-words. A one-way ANOVA showed that the differences in these response latencies were not significant (F(2,137) = 1.41, p = n.s). I then matched each positive word on 87 syllable and length with a corresponding neutral word and non-word for use in the implicit self- esteem LDT of the actual data collection (see Appendix for table of selected letter strings). Attrition Analysis Following the attrition analysis guidelines recommended by Jeličić, Phelps, and Lerner (2009), I conducted independent-samples t-tests on the demographic variables between respondents who completed both the baseline survey and at least one full day of daily surveys (n = 111) and respondents who completed only the baseline survey but no daily survey (n = 11). There were no significant differences between the two group of respondents in terms of age, gender, education level, managerial post, organizational tenure, and size of work unit. I also conducted independent-samples t-tests between respondents who completed six or more days of surveys (n = 73) and those who completed five or less days of surveys (n = 38) on these demographic variables. There were no significant differences between these two groups of respondents on all the variables as well. Data Cleaning, Descriptives, and Measurement Models Each midday survey was closed approximately an hour before the end-of-day survey was sent out. On average, respondents completed the midday survey 4 hours and 47 minutes (SD = 87 minutes) after the start of their workday, and the end-of-day survey 9 hours and 3 minutes (SD = 114.5 minutes) after the start of their workday. From the 111 respondents, I received a total of 876 responses for the midday survey and 820 responses for the end-of-day survey, and there were a total of 786 matched daily responses (i.e., level-1 n = 786; level-2 n = 111). I checked the descriptive statistics of all items for any unusual patterns before reverse-coding required items, forming composites, and examining the internal reliabilities of the composites. 88 Table 2 displays the between-person and within-person correlations between the variables and their means, standard deviations, and internal reliabilities. Data cleaning for implicit self-esteem LDT reaction time data. Ratcliff (1993) and Whelan (2008) highlighted three issues for consideration when handling reaction time data: 1) error responses, 2) outliers, and 3) transformation of data. Errors refer to instances when respondents incorrectly classified a word as a non-word, or a non-word as a word. An error would suggest that an actual word did not exist or that the non-word erroneously existed in the respondent’s semantic memory, hence reaction times associated with error responses were removed. The error rates were .99% (positive words), .72% (neutral words), and 2.88% (non- words) for the baseline survey; .87% (positive words), .92% (neutral words), and 3.70% (non- words) for the midday surveys; .94% (positive words), .93% (neutral words), and 3.29% (non- words) for the end-of-day surveys. These error responses were removed from analyses as per recommendations by Ratcliff (1993) and Whelan (2008). Scholars also recommended removing response latency outliers (Ratcliff, 1993; Whelan, 2008). Two most common ways used for identifying outliers are setting an absolute cutoff point or defining reaction times as those that fall beyond 2 standard deviations from the mean (Ratcliff, 1993). However, these are recommendations for between-person laboratory experimental designs and did not seem the most appropriate for my experience sampling design. Due to the within- person level of analyses involved in this research, I decided to detect outliers on the within- person level rather than the between-person level. I did so by computing a skewness coefficient for respondents’ reaction times for positive words, neutral words, and non-words, respectively, in each daily survey. A skewness coefficient of above 2.00 signaled the presence of one or more outliers in the daily data and allowed me to identify and remove the outlier. For example, a 89 respondent took 970 milliseconds to respond to a particular positive word while taking only 300 to 350 milliseconds each to respond to the other nine positive words. This gave the reaction time distribution an extreme positive skewness. In this case, I identified the reaction time of 970 milliseconds as an outlier and removed it from analyses. The outlier rates were 3.00% (positive words), 3.26% (neutral words), and 4.48% (non-words) for the baseline survey; 2.88% (positive words), 3.61% (neutral words), and 4.60% (non-words) for the midday surveys; 3.06% (positive words), 2.13% (neutral words), and 3.90% (non-words) for the end-of-day surveys. The error and outlier rates found in this data set were rather consistent with those in the range of 1 to 7 % found in past studies that have used the LDT (Balota & Chumbley, 1984; Ratcliff et al., 2004). Both the error and outlier rates in the actual data were rather consistent with those found in the between- person data in my pilot test reported earlier. Finally, following the advice of Ratcliff (1993), I conducted a log-transformation to correct the positively-skewed distribution typically associated with reaction time data before forming them into aggregates. Null model. I ran a null model to examine the within-person variances and between- person variances for the daily measures. The variances and the percentage of within-person variances are shown in Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis for baseline data. I conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the between-person level measurement model by specifying affiliation motive, dominance motive, trait general self-esteem, trait performance self-esteem, trait social self-esteem, general goal progress, trait positive affect, and trait negative affect as eight separate factors. Hu and Bentler (1999) recommended cutoffs of root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) < .06, standard root mean square residual (SRMR) < .08, and CFI/TLI > .95 for a 90 good model fit. My hypothesized 8-factor model had fit indices of χ2(323) = 560.377; RMSEA = .081; SRMR = .064; CFI = .900; TLI = .883. These indices suggested an adequate but not the most perfect fit. The less-than-perfect fit could be due to having more parameters than the sample size. The Chi-square, RMSEA, and SRMR coefficients are susceptible to small sample sizes (Bollen, 1990), so my relatively small sample-to-item ratio (i.e., between-person sample size of 111) might have posed a threat to the fit of this between-person measurement model. Nevertheless, when I ran alternative models in which two out of the eight factors were specified to correlate at unity, all the alternative models demonstrated poorer fit to the data as compared to the hypothesized 8-factor model, where chi-square difference tests were significant (p < .01) and fit values worsened. For example, when the factors of affiliation motive and dominance motive were specified to correlate at unity, the model had a poorer fit (χ2(df) = 753.962; ∆χ2(1) = 193.585, p < .01; RMSEA = .110; SRMR = .097; CFI = .818; TLI = .787). Similarly, the fit indices became worse when I correlated the general esteem and the performance esteem factors at unity (χ2(df) = 587.492; ∆χ2(1) = 27.115, p < .01; RMSEA = .086; SRMR = .089; CFI = .889; TLI = .870), and when I correlated the general esteem and the social esteem factors at unity (χ2(df) = 574.877; ∆χ2(1) = 14.500, p < .01; RMSEA = .084; SRMR = .083; CFI = .894; TLI = .877). These results in general supported the 8-factor structure over alternative models for the baseline data. Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis for daily data. I also ran a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis on the within-person daily data. According to Geldhof, Preacher, and Zyphur (2014), a two-level data structure implies that measurement error variances occur at both the within-person and between-person levels. A multilevel confirmatory factor analysis thus enabled me to assess the factor structure of the data on both the within-person and between- 91 person levels. Using the MPlus syntax developed by Dyer, Hanges, and Hall (2005), I estimated the parameters involving the focal daily measures at both the within- and between-person levels by stipulating a 15-factor model (goal progress, general self-esteem, performance self-esteem, social self-esteem, shame, anger, at both midday and end-of-day, perceived personal control, OCBI, and incivility). The model exhibited fit indices of χ2(1514) = 5479.853; RMSEA = .054; CFI = .866; TLI = .841. Importantly, the SRMR was better at the within-person level (SRMRwithin = .045) than the between-person level (SRMRbetween = .182), which was consistent with my expectation that the daily measures operated primarily at the within-person rather than the between-person level. The standardized factor loadings of the items at the within-person level (i.e., ranging from .600 to .959; mean loading = .861) were higher than those at the between- person level (i.e., ranging from .077 to .810; mean loading = .405) too. I then proceeded to test alternative factor structures on only the within-person level, where I correlated two latent factors at unity in each alternative model. When the hypothesized 15-factor model was modeled only on the within-person level, the fit indices were χ2(757) = 2845.157; RMSEA = .055; SRMRwithin = .049; CFI = .896; TLI = .875. All the alternative models had poorer fit than the hypothesized 15-factor model. For examples, when the factors of midday shame and midday anger were correlated at unity, the fit worsened (χ2(758) = 3195.909; ∆χ2(1) = 350.752, p < .01; RMSEA = .060; SRMRwithin = .134; CFI = .896; TLI = .875), as well as when the factors of midday anger and incivility were correlated at unity (χ2(758) = 2894.863; ∆χ2(1) = 49.706, p < .01; RMSEA = .056; SRMRwithin = .51; CFI = .893; TLI = .870). These results supported the daily variables as distinct constructs from each other on the within-person level. 92 Table 2: Between-person and within-person means, SDs, correlations, and internal reliabilities Within-Person (Level-1) Variables 1 Midday Goal Progress 2 Midday Perceived Personal Control 3 Midday Explicit Global Esteem 4 Midday Performance Esteem 5 Midday Social Esteem 6 Midday Response Latency to Positive Words 7 Midday Response Latency to Neutral Words 8 Midday Shame 9 Midday Anger 10 Midday Positive Affect 11 Midday Depletion 12 Midday Frustration 13 Midday Survey Response Medium 14 Enacted OCBI 15 Enacted Incivility 16 End-of-Day Explicit Global Esteem 17 End-of-Day Performance Esteem 18 End-of-Day Social Esteem 19 End-of-Day Response Latency to Positive Words 20 End-of-Day Response Latency to Neutral Words 21 End-of-Day Shame 22 End-of-Day Anger 23 End-of-Day Positive Affect 24 End-of-Day Depletion 25 End-of-Day Frustration 26 Goal Progress for Second Half of Day 27 Hours Spent Interacting with Coworkers Today 28 End-of-Day Survey Response Medium Between-Person (Level-2) Variables 29 Trait Affiliation Motive 30 Trait Dominance Motive 31 Trait Explicit Global Esteem 32 Trait Performance Esteem 33 Trait Social Esteem 34 Baseline Response Latency to Positive Words 35 Baseline Response Latency to Neutral Words 36 Trait Positive Affect 37 Trait Negative Affect 38 Age 39 Sex 40 Race 41 Number of Coworkers in Work Unit 42 Baseline Survey Response Medium Level-2 Mean Level-2 SD Level-1 Mean Level-1 SD 3.772 3.775 3.936 4.009 4.147 .414 .397 1.435 1.481 3.585 2.285 2.410 1.450 2.940 1.285 4.288 4.389 4.370 .340 .413 1.238 1.240 3.755 2.526 2.434 4.143 4.592 1.450 4.097 2.453 3.955 4.496 4.270 .378 .405 3.915 1.840 37.198 1.640 1.315 11.685 1.523 .660 .569 .657 .656 .641 .148 .111 .492 .460 .617 .817 .673 .453 .914 .409 .578 .562 .637 .124 .077 .471 .410 .599 .861 .923 .577 2.237 .443 1.141 1.188 1.004 .594 .766 .101 .100 .605 .573 13.128 .482 .726 9.778 .502 3.832 3.776 4.004 4.057 4.168 .401 .389 1.411 1.440 3.604 2.224 2.356 1.451 3.009 1.262 4.337 4.421 4.401 .330 .412 1.207 1.196 3.768 2.485 2.400 4.170 4.815 1.434 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 1.102 1.110 .980 .944 .907 .214 .145 .671 .771 .915 1.007 1.068 .498 1.192 .483 .798 .697 .775 .195 .095 .493 .517 .811 1.063 1.165 .853 3.567 .496 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ Note. Correlations below diagonal are between-person (n = 111) and above diagonal are within-person (n = 786). Level-2 correlations |r| ≥ .245 (p < .01) and |r| ≥ .187 (p < .05). Level-1 correlations |r| ≥ .092 (p < .01) and |r| ≥ .070 (p < .05). Cronbach’s alphas are listed on the diagonal. Cronbach’s alphas for level-1 variables were averaged across days. Response medium (1 = desktop/laptop computer, 2 = handheld device or mobile phone); Sex (1 = male, 2 = female). 93 Table 2 (cont’d) Var # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 1 (.965) .587 .762 .748 .570 -.270 -.002 -.383 -.428 .627 -.557 -.475 -.177 .173 -.443 .500 .520 .432 -.118 .013 -.196 -.298 .484 -.503 -.388 .647 .212 -.172 .076 -.033 .245 .324 .214 -.015 -.110 .312 -.072 .085 -.162 .068 .179 .068 2 .534 (.899) .526 .478 .410 -.136 .064 -.298 -.382 .497 -.510 -.533 -.081 .002 -.094 .309 .301 .209 -.023 -.156 -.140 -.189 .262 -.415 -.498 .411 .113 -.065 -.017 -.029 .223 .251 .185 .013 -.079 .360 -.195 -.060 -.051 .031 .086 .160 3 .794 .502 ‒ .855 .646 -.242 .037 -.600 -.496 .681 -.664 -.510 -.114 .095 -.391 .644 .678 .507 -.080 -.009 -.428 -.418 .534 -.524 -.393 .545 .201 -.100 .086 -.113 .329 .365 .297 .021 -.030 .268 -.172 .183 -.206 .013 .174 .014 4 .796 .457 .867 (.929) .740 -.317 -.041 -.629 -.453 .612 -.433 -.396 -.085 .119 -.379 .592 .710 .580 -.122 -.027 -.381 -.339 .541 -.373 -.224 .455 .160 .010 .212 -.033 .268 .367 .255 .017 -.096 .240 -.048 .132 -.134 .038 .166 .014 5 .622 .408 .703 .769 (.958) -.429 -.152 -.635 -.496 .585 -.352 -.290 -.006 .224 -.311 .507 .537 .653 -.116 -.088 -.358 -.293 .515 -.328 -.233 .350 .116 .010 .326 -.007 .230 .227 .395 .022 -.060 .244 -.241 .188 -.015 .091 .045 .028 6 -.398 -.236 -.382 -.417 -.418 (.908) .771 .215 .417 -.236 .099 .045 -.112 -.049 .257 -.006 .028 .026 .554 .422 -.093 -.065 -.218 .308 .178 .026 -.115 -.029 -.199 .012 -.062 -.041 .025 -.068 -.111 .060 .122 -.013 .047 -.214 -.102 .002 7 -.083 -.062 -.090 -.079 -.103 .542 (.598) -.074 .160 .012 -.075 -.131 -.173 -.036 .119 .181 .215 .184 .570 .497 -.266 -.222 -.012 .157 .067 .138 -.063 -.122 -.123 .054 .032 .079 .124 -.068 -.120 .100 .015 .042 -.054 -.160 .022 -.048 8 -.570 -.271 -.598 -.658 -.610 .293 .007 (.919) .732 -.540 .406 .327 .036 -.168 .197 -.499 -.498 -.424 -.020 -.137 .785 .574 -.424 .328 .210 -.197 -.117 .019 -.305 .117 -.006 -.207 -.295 -.122 -.047 -.086 .182 -.216 .050 -.103 -.096 -.003 9 -.568 -.557 -.576 -.576 -.571 .371 .117 .676 (.935) -.502 .523 .407 .060 -.111 .183 -.339 -.259 -.186 .137 .030 .540 .568 -.274 .504 .434 -.228 -.226 .130 -.193 .137 .002 -.222 -.232 -.043 .152 -.083 .205 -.198 .006 -.173 -.161 -.055 10 .689 .421 .720 .692 .599 -.332 -.123 -.539 -.498 (.932) -.443 -.323 -.172 .279 -.238 .460 .491 .417 -.034 -.026 -.401 -.275 .733 -.366 -.276 .478 .113 -.190 .198 -.107 .287 .248 .245 .155 .064 .266 -.224 .047 -.114 .169 .025 -.046 11 -.409 -.301 -.464 -.355 -.275 .090 .063 .345 .377 -.409 (.820) .720 .077 -.007 .383 -.450 -.312 -.250 .064 -.069 .355 .446 -.195 .806 .772 -.410 -.093 -.015 .049 .193 -.275 -.353 -.331 -.063 .046 -.309 .233 -.171 .104 .052 -.060 .029 Note. Correlations below diagonal are between-person (n = 111) and above diagonal are within-person (n = 786). Level-2 correlations |r| ≥ .245 (p < .01) and |r| ≥ .187 (p < .05). Level-1 correlations |r| ≥ .092 (p < .01) and |r| ≥ .070 (p < .05). Cronbach’s alphas are listed on the diagonal. Cronbach’s alphas for level-1 variables were averaged across days. Response medium (1 = desktop/laptop computer, 2 = handheld device or mobile phone); Sex (1 = male, 2 = female). 94 Table 2 (cont’d) Var # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 12 -.395 -.392 -.385 -.378 -.296 .073 .037 .315 .293 -.295 .520 (.849) .065 -.024 .171 -.444 -.324 -.243 .078 -.178 .327 .415 -.162 .566 .750 -.395 -.053 .010 .027 .095 -.177 -.260 -.217 -.065 .063 -.176 .121 -.012 .092 .075 .053 -.047 13 -.033 -.002 -.032 -.004 .035 -.100 -.101 -.021 .016 -.082 .037 .010 ‒ .034 .076 -.079 -.046 -.077 -.151 -.208 -.051 .012 -.018 -.045 .080 -.048 -.077 .865 .111 .185 -.044 -.126 -.001 -.063 -.031 .019 .069 .075 .119 -.146 -.001 -.022 14 15 .020 .006 .054 .045 .129 .054 -.057 -.086 -.003 .110 -.027 -.068 .012 (.897) .046 .376 .314 .399 -.051 .070 -.264 -.271 .385 -.040 .065 .337 .302 .024 .483 -.032 -.060 .116 .222 .074 -.039 .165 -.023 .099 -.064 .086 .027 -.096 -.458 -.247 -.389 -.400 -.401 .301 .091 .444 .375 -.358 .248 .184 .023 .024 (.735) -.185 -.022 -.199 .095 .031 .003 -.037 -.039 .424 .315 -.138 .096 .024 -.061 .368 -.104 -.040 .003 .031 -.019 .135 .052 -.200 -.057 .062 .028 .093 16 .420 .289 .475 .450 .423 -.019 .081 -.439 -.369 .399 -.297 -.241 .010 .306 -.208 ‒ .811 .770 -.014 .164 -.583 -.607 .560 -.299 -.245 .668 .123 .044 .303 .057 .234 .267 .319 .066 -.007 .307 -.172 .112 -.218 .040 .048 -.067 17 18 19 20 21 22 .448 .269 .520 .582 .468 -.065 .100 -.408 -.289 .416 -.199 -.239 .001 .213 -.058 .683 (.937) .781 -.039 .151 -.593 -.590 .611 -.135 -.038 .694 .130 .034 .282 .172 .300 .362 .348 .002 -.092 .304 -.096 .168 -.245 .004 .136 -.049 .311 .156 .351 .408 .580 -.025 .077 -.354 -.211 .313 -.130 -.182 .001 .336 -.166 .612 .679 (.956) -.063 .145 -.490 -.504 .520 -.069 -.040 .639 .081 .041 .384 .140 .244 .235 .448 -.014 -.087 .258 -.190 .201 -.120 -.018 .021 -.032 -.047 -.014 -.059 -.044 -.066 .305 .285 .007 .046 -.058 .012 -.007 -.054 -.010 .000 -.015 -.025 -.006 (.865) .359 -.080 .078 -.095 .099 .120 -.165 .076 -.211 -.342 -.204 -.115 -.065 -.052 -.009 -.194 .027 .066 .013 .018 .099 -.114 -.063 .010 -.083 -.050 -.046 -.046 .166 .187 -.018 .019 -.017 .043 -.027 -.149 .065 .076 .082 .067 .063 .167 (.576) -.303 -.301 .003 -.010 -.063 .075 -.007 -.162 .016 -.070 -.042 -.022 .171 .095 -.046 .002 .039 -.004 -.073 .026 -.025 -.120 -.322 -.165 -.390 -.406 -.389 .038 -.121 .595 .438 -.297 .255 .231 -.077 -.199 .166 -.555 -.573 -.493 -.029 -.099 (.900) .810 -.427 .212 .133 -.359 -.068 -.083 -.289 -.036 -.017 -.103 -.259 -.134 -.083 -.080 .096 -.224 .034 .020 -.108 .064 -.318 -.272 -.336 -.332 -.354 .058 -.063 .447 .480 -.216 .234 .213 -.043 -.195 .046 -.535 -.515 -.425 .048 -.102 .763 (.914) -.366 .254 .171 -.517 -.133 -.035 -.314 -.197 -.099 -.200 -.333 -.055 .058 -.143 .200 -.230 .113 .002 -.180 .026 Note. Correlations below diagonal are between-person (n = 111) and above diagonal are within-person (n = 786). Level-2 correlations |r| ≥ .245 (p < .01) and |r| ≥ .187 (p < .05). Level-1 correlations |r| ≥ .092 (p < .01) and |r| ≥ .070 (p < .05). Cronbach’s alphas are listed on the diagonal. Cronbach’s alphas for level-1 variables were averaged across days. Response medium (1 = desktop/laptop computer, 2 = handheld device or mobile phone); Sex (1 = male, 2 = female). 95 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 (.887) .506 -.009 -.008 -.175 -.063 .063 -.042 -.192 Table 2 (cont’d) Var # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 23 .428 .214 .472 .486 .427 -.241 -.046 -.361 -.270 .560 -.164 -.116 -.010 .196 -.197 .485 .513 .419 -.093 -.027 -.419 -.345 (.898) -.285 .019 .550 .180 -.021 .261 .132 .250 .134 .221 .139 .013 .296 -.167 .044 -.167 .205 .154 -.041 -.317 -.286 -.341 -.247 -.226 .207 .190 .239 .299 -.279 .547 .285 -.010 -.118 .305 -.262 -.163 -.087 .086 .038 .218 .215 -.288 (.886) .722 -.256 -.167 -.103 .069 .246 -.145 -.199 -.150 -.083 .075 -.211 .151 -.094 -.026 -.117 -.083 .038 -.298 -.291 -.309 -.244 -.215 .153 .115 .218 .248 -.193 .539 .609 .069 .002 .294 -.210 -.125 -.099 .015 -.020 .176 .134 -.075 .510 (.890) -.261 -.042 -.004 .133 .264 -.073 -.129 -.140 -.096 .030 -.131 .042 .034 -.008 .025 .067 .011 .547 .333 .508 .492 .408 -.162 .021 -.372 -.339 .465 -.290 -.269 .005 .175 -.224 .571 .644 .538 -.098 .044 -.467 -.472 .527 -.254 -.258 (.955) .177 .021 .184 .175 .253 .171 .274 .006 -.117 .302 -.136 .062 -.208 .011 .145 .005 .098 .033 .099 .084 .071 -.034 -.003 -.061 -.078 .055 -.042 -.059 -.052 .214 .046 .063 .060 .040 .083 .062 -.041 -.046 .079 -.080 -.040 .069 ‒ -.136 .046 .002 -.205 .111 .097 .104 -.062 .028 .052 .102 .018 .100 .237 -.045 -.062 .018 -.026 .002 .038 -.017 -.035 -.050 .010 -.073 -.011 -.027 .712 .023 .044 .099 .068 .079 -.097 -.150 -.140 -.098 .015 -.028 .023 .053 -.080 ‒ .158 .211 -.039 -.106 .028 .044 .016 .066 .138 -.057 .119 -.204 -.018 -.040 (.957) .151 .012 .151 .327 .081 .050 .094 -.210 .092 .052 .059 -.028 -.046 (.908) .120 -.035 .081 .007 -.018 .073 -.049 -.197 -.161 -.109 -.014 -.023 ‒ .465 .351 -.184 -.067 .461 -.319 .115 -.203 .057 .021 .029 (.834) .593 -.081 -.137 .479 -.243 .262 -.101 -.070 .225 -.033 (.867) -.028 -.212 .448 -.403 .202 .020 -.095 .110 .016 Note. Correlations below diagonal are between-person (n = 111) and above diagonal are within-person (n = 786). Level-2 correlations |r| ≥ .245 (p < .01) and |r| ≥ .187 (p < .05). Level-1 correlations |r| ≥ .092 (p < .01) and |r| ≥ .070 (p < .05). Cronbach’s alphas are listed on the diagonal. Cronbach’s alphas for level-1 variables were averaged across days. Response medium (1 = desktop/laptop computer, 2 = handheld device or mobile phone); Sex (1 = male, 2 = female). 96 Table 2 (cont’d) Var # 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 (.514) .037 -.045 -.133 -.102 -.012 -.058 -.113 (.832) -.347 .035 -.168 .082 .172 .069 35 36 37 (.889) -.152 .105 -.096 -.035 -.003 38 ‒ .099 -.166 .214 -.212 39 ‒ -.062 -.067 .109 40 ‒ -.023 -.007 41 ‒ .047 Note. Correlations below diagonal are between-person (n = 111) and above diagonal are within-person (n = 786). Level-2 correlations |r| ≥ .245 (p < .01) and |r| ≥ .187 (p < .05). Level-1 correlations |r| ≥ .092 (p < .01) and |r| ≥ .070 (p < .05). Cronbach’s alphas are listed on the diagonal. Cronbach’s alphas for level-1 variables were averaged across days. Response medium (1 = desktop/laptop computer, 2 = handheld device or mobile phone); Sex (1 = male, 2 = female). 97 Table 3: Within-person and between-person variances for daily measures Daily Focal Variables Midday Goal Progress Midday Perceived Control Midday Shame Midday Anger Midday Explicit General Self-Esteem Midday LDT Positive Words Response Latency Midday Explicit Performance Esteem Midday Explicit Social Esteem Daily Enacted Incivility Daily Enacted OCBI End-of-Day Shame End-of-Day Anger End-of-Day Explicit General Self-Esteem End-of-Day LDT Positive Words Response Latency End-of-Day Explicit Performance Esteem End-of-Day Explicit Social Esteem End-of-Day Goal Progress Daily Control Variables Midday Positive Affect Midday Depletion Midday Frustration Midday LDT Neutral Words Response Latency End-of-Day Positive Affect End-of-Day Depletion End-of-Day Frustration End-of-Day LDT Neutral Words Response Latency Daily Coworker Interaction Hours Within- Person Variance Between- Person Variance % of Within- Person Variance 1.002 1.082 .346 .505 .756 .032 .640 .501 .159 .706 .133 .187 .437 .031 .260 .289 .529 .584 .553 .855 .014 .402 .499 .629 .006 8.635 .208 .143 .108 .088 .205 .014 .257 .312 .086 .698 .137 .086 .201 .008 .233 .312 .195 .251 .477 .273 .007 .262 .621 .719 .004 3.765 .828 .883 .762 .852 .787 .696 .713 .616 .649 .503 .493 .685 .685 .795 .527 .481 .731 .699 .537 .758 .667 .605 .446 .467 .600 .696 Note. Level-1 n = 786; Level-2 n = 111. LDT = Lexical decision task, where a shorter response latency for positive words signified a higher implicit esteem. OCBI = Interpersonal citizenship behavior. 98 Analytical Approach for Hypothesis Tests I tested my hypotheses using multilevel modeling in MPlus (Muthén & Muthén, 2002) using “type = twolevel random” and “estimator = maximum likelihood”. Anonymous respondent ID was entered as the “cluster” variable. Within-person predictors (i.e., midday goal progress, midday perceived control, and daily control variables) were group-mean centered, and between- person predictors (i.e., interpersonal motives and between-person control variables) were grand- mean centered. The focal level-1 relationships involved in hypothesized cross-level moderations (i.e., daily goal to midday self-esteem, midday self-esteem to interpersonal behaviors, and interpersonal behaviors to end-of-day esteem) were modeled as random effects, while the daily emotions and control variables (i.e., state depletion, frustration, positive affect, number of hours spent interacting with coworkers, survey response medium, and response latency for neutral words in LDT) were modeled as fixed effects. The trait moderators of interpersonal motives and between-person control variables (i.e., unit size, trait self-esteem, trait positive and negative affect, and general goal) were added as level-2 predictors of interpersonal behaviors. I tested the hypotheses involving cross-level moderated-mediation relationships (i.e., level-2 variable moderating a level-1 indirect relationship) following the guidelines put forth by Bauer, Preacher, and Gil (2006). This procedure models the a path and b path of an indirect level-1 relation as random effects, and constructs 95% confidence intervals to test if the indirect effects are significant at higher and lower levels of the level-2 moderator (Bauer et al., 2006). Next, I plotted simple slopes for significant moderation effects using the online R calculator for multilevel interactions developed by Preacher, Curran, and Bauer (2006). The labels “high” and “low” are used in relative form in the following sections, where high dominance or affiliation 99 motive refers to values of the respective motives at +1 standard deviation, while low affiliation or dominance motive refers to values of the respective motives at -1 standard deviation. Models. I ran several models (Models 1 to 5) leading up to the final integrative model (Model 6). These models are described in Table 4a in which the results are presented too. All the paths modeled in the final Model 6 had the same directions and similar significance (or non- significance) as their corresponding paths in the preceding models, hence the coefficients presented in the hypothesis tests below were all retrieved from the final integrative Model 6. Model 6 and its path coefficients are also summarized in Figure 9. In addition, I ran an additional model (Model 7) in which I excluded the daily control variables (i.e., state depletion, state frustration, state positive affect, and survey response medium) to explore if the focal relationships would remain similar when these variables were not controlled, and the results remained highly similar. The results of all these models are presented in Table 4a for the ease of reference and comparison. Model specifications for Model 6. I employed several controls for the final integrative Model 6. First, I included each midday measure goal progress, self-esteem, anger, and shame as predictors of their respective corresponding end-of-day measures (e.g., midday anger as a predictor of end-of-day anger), like most extant within-person studies (Lanaj et al., 2016; Rosen et al., 2016). This enabled the elimination of midday levels of these variables so the results represented the effects of OCBI and incivility on the changes in the levels of these variables from midday to end-of-day. These midday variables were also controlled when their corresponding end-of-day assessments were used as predictors. For example, in modeling the relationship of end-of-day self-esteem with goal progress for the second half of the day, midday self-esteem was included as a control predictor of goal progress for the second half of the day too. Second, I 100 added midday depletion, frustration, positive affect, and daily interaction hours with coworkers as control predictors of OCBI and incivility to make sure that the focal effects of midday self- esteem, anger, and shame on interpersonal behaviors were incremental of these controls. I also controlled for end-of-day depletion, frustration, and positive affect as predictors of goal progress for second half of the day to ensure that the focal effects of end-of-day esteem, anger, and shame on goal progress for the second half of the day were incremental of these controls. Third, I controlled for between-person variables (gender, age, race, number of coworkers in unit, trait self-esteem, general goal progress, and general positive and negative affectivity) as predictors of OCBI and incivility to ensure that the effects of the state variables (i.e., daily goal progress, daily perceived control over goal progress, midday self-esteem, anger, and shame) on interpersonal behaviors were beyond these trait variables. All the modeled paths are shown in Table 4a. It should be noted that the results of the final integrative Model 6 held with or without daily and trait controls, as shown in Model 7 where the controls were removed. However, I will report results from Model 6 for the hypothesis tests as a more conservative approach. I also present the residual variances of the random slopes modeled in Model 6 in Table 4b. Coefficients associated with implicit state esteem. It should be noted that implicit self- esteem was represented by the response latency for positive words in the LDT task, where a shorter response latency signified a higher state self-esteem (i.e., response latency was inversely related to implicit state esteem). Therefore, the coefficients should be interpreted in the opposite direction to understand how the paths pertained to implicit state esteem. 101 Model 2 Est. The same as Model 1, except with implicit midday esteem measure added. Est/SE SE .686 .083 .003 - .084 - .004 - .009 - .027 - .356 .019 - .016 - .259 - .259 .087 .037 .034 .027 .010 .006 .005 .022 .019 .020 .016 .021 .021 .016 18.675** 2.445* .111 -8.706** - .651 -1.887 -1.247 -18.278** .970 -1.053 -12.540** -12.233** 5.302** .039 .034 .027 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ .019 .020 .016 .021 .021 .016 17.590** 2.437* .112 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -18.282** 1.145 -1.052 -12.544** -12.091** 5.87** 7261.017 7452.310 4692.640 4963.176 Table 4a: Results from all models tested Model Description Variable Est. Model 1 SE Est/SE Partial model with paths from midday goal progress to midday explicit esteem, shame, and anger, with each path moderated by daily perceived control. Outcome: Midday Explicit Esteem Midday Goal Progress Midday Perceived Personal Control Midday Goal Progress × Personal Control Outcome: Midday Positive Words RL Midday Goal Progress Midday Perceived Personal Control Midday Goal Progress × Personal Control Midday Survey Response Medium Outcome: Midday Shame Midday Goal Progress Midday Perceived Personal Control Midday Goal Progress × Personal Control Outcome: Midday Anger Midday Goal Progress Midday Perceived Personal Control Midday Goal Progress × Personal Control Model Statistics AIC BIC .685 .083 .003 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ - .356 .023 - .016 - .259 - .255 .095 Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01. 102 Table 4a (cont’d) Model Description Variable Est. Model 3 SE Est/SE Outcome: Midday Explicit Esteem Midday Goal Progress Midday Perceived Personal Control Midday Goal Progress × Personal Control Outcome: Midday Positive Words RL Midday Goal Progress Midday Perceived Personal Control Midday Goal Progress × Personal Control Midday Survey Response Medium Outcome: Midday Shame Midday Goal Progress Midday Perceived Personal Control Midday Goal Progress × Personal Control Outcome: Midday Anger Midday Goal Progress Midday Perceived Personal Control Midday Goal Progress × Personal Control The extension of Model 1 with added paths from midday esteem and emotions to daily OCBI and incivility, moderated by trait affiliation and dominance motives. .685 .084 .003 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ - .357 .015 - .018 - .259 - .259 .087 .039 .034 .027 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ .019 .020 .015 .021 .021 .017 17.59** 2.473* .116 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ -18.531** .782 -1.182 -12.539** -12.223** 5.253** Model 4 Est. The same as Model 3, except with implicit midday esteem measure added. Est/SE SE .684 .084 .003 - .082 - .004 - .006 - .055 - .357 .015 - .018 - .259 - .259 .087 .038 .034 .027 .010 .006 .005 .023 .034 .020 .015 .021 .021 .017 17.912** 2.469* .111 -8.132** - .700 -1.139 -2.442* 2.469* .782 -1.182 -12.539** -12.223** 5.253** Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01. Italicized predictors were modeled as random effects while the others were modeled as fixed effects. (Models 3 and 4 to be continued on the next page) 103 Table 4a (cont’d) Variable Intercept Outcome: Daily Enacted OCBI Trait Affiliation Motive Trait Dominance Motive Midday Explicit Esteem Midday Explicit Esteem × Trait Affiliation Midday Positive Words RL Midday Positive Words RL × Trait Affiliation Midday Shame Midday Positive Affect (L1 Control) Midday Depletion (L1 Control) Midday Frustration (L1 Control) Midday Neutral Words RL (L1 Control) Hours Spent Interacting with Coworkers (L1 Control) Trait Explicit Esteem (L2 Control) Baseline Positive Words RL (L2 Control) Baseline Neutral Words RL (L2 Control) General Goal Progress (L2 Control) Trait Positive Affect (L2 Control) Trait Negative Affect (L2 Control) Gender (L2 Control) Age (L2 Control) Race (L2 Control) Number of Coworkers (L2 Control) Model 3 (Continued) Est. SE 2.979 .413 - .070 .057 - .111 ‒ ‒ .071 - .005 - .021 - .039 ‒ .031 - .142 ‒ ‒ .034 .267 .215 - .276 .005 .091 - .002 .073 .067 .066 .078 .057 ‒ ‒ .073 .056 .046 .036 ‒ .010 .091 ‒ ‒ .091 .159 .150 .158 .006 .109 .008 40.893** 6.160** -1.065 .730 -1.934 ‒ ‒ .968 - .092 - .454 -1.078 ‒ 3.255** -1.567 ‒ ‒ .374 1.674 1.427 -1.752 .867 .837 - .295 2.979 .412 - .074 .177 .014 1.534 .963 - .034 .032 .002 - .021 -1.005 .028 - .132 .683 - .841 .027 .271 .213 - .280 .005 .076 - .002 .072 .067 .066 .071 .057 .325 .280 .071 .054 .045 .034 .251 .009 .092 .840 .860 .091 .159 .149 .157 .006 .109 .008 Est/SE Est. SE Est/SE Model 4 (Continued) 41.089** 6.164 -1.131 2.490* .243 4.718** 3.444** - .472 .588 .034 - .618 -3.996** 3.075 -1.438 .813 - .978 .291 1.708 1.423 -1.781 .828 .699 - .304 Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01. Italicized predictors were modeled as random effects while the others were modeled as fixed effects. (Models 3 and 4 to be continued on the next page) 104 Model 3 (Continued) Model 4 (Continued) Est/SE Est. SE Est/SE Est. SE 1.258 - .048 .130 - .084 - .138 ‒ ‒ .089 - .034 - .028 .053 ‒ .006 - .005 ‒ ‒ - .014 .009 - .019 - .015 - .003 - .043 .004 .024 .022 .022 .027 .016 ‒ ‒ .023 .023 .019 .015 ‒ .004 .030 ‒ ‒ .030 .054 .051 .053 .002 .037 .003 51.859** -2.135* 5.954** -3.089** -8.787** ‒ ‒ 3.934** -1.501 -1.456 3.601** ‒ 1.394 - .176 ‒ ‒ - .449 .167 - .380 - .283 -1.325 -1.172 1.574 1.258 - .046 .127 - .032 - .075 .429 .433 .066 - .017 - .009 .046 - .251 .005 - .005 .155 - .427 - .017 .014 - .022 - .020 - .003 - .049 .004 .024 .022 .022 .025 .016 .119 .099 .022 .022 .018 .014 .104 .004 .030 .276 .285 .030 .053 .050 .052 .002 .036 .003 52.419** -2.095* 5.874** -1.269 -4.611** 3.604** 4.359** 3.036** - .770 - .516 3.309** -2.406* 1.263 - .167 .562 -1.496 - .572 .262 - .429 - .377 -1.469 -1.335 1.559 Table 4a (cont’d) Variable Intercept Outcome: Daily Enacted Incivility Trait Affiliation Motive Trait Dominance Motive Midday Explicit Esteem Midday Explicit Esteem × Trait Dominance Midday Positive Words RL Midday Positive Words RL × Trait Dominance Midday Anger Midday Positive Affect (L1 Control) Midday Depletion (L1 Control) Midday Frustration (L1 Control) Midday Neutral Words RL (L1 Control) Hours Spent Interacting with Coworkers (L1 Control) Trait Explicit Esteem (L2 Control) Baseline Positive Words RL (L2 Control) Baseline Neutral Words RL (L2 Control) General Goal Progress (L2 Control) Trait Positive Affect (L2 Control) Trait Negative Affect (L2 Control) Gender (L2 Control) Age (L2 Control) Race (L2 Control) Number of Coworkers (L2 Control) Model Statistics AIC BIC 5509.591 5807.621 4574.785 4975.263 Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01. Italicized predictors were modeled as random effects while the others were modeled as fixed effects. 105 Variable Est. Model 5 SE Est/SE Complete model, except without implicit esteem measures. Model 6 (Final Model) SE Est. Est/SE Complete model with both explicit and implicit esteem measures. Est. Model 7 SE Est/SE The same as Model 6, but excluding all level-1 and trait control variables. Table 4a (cont’d) Model Description Outcome: Midday Explicit Esteem Midday Goal Progress Midday Perceived Personal Control Midday Goal Progress × Personal Control Level-1 Residual Variance Outcome: Midday Positive Words RL Midday Goal Progress Midday Perceived Personal Control Midday Goal Progress × Personal Control Midday Survey Response Medium Level-1 Residual Variance Outcome: Midday Shame Midday Goal Progress Midday Perceived Personal Control Midday Goal Progress × Personal Control Level-1 Residual Variance Outcome: Midday Anger Midday Goal Progress Midday Perceived Personal Control Midday Goal Progress × Personal Control Level-1 Residual Variance .685 .083 .003 .180 .039 .034 .027 17.602** 2.448* .102 .685 .083 .003 .038 .034 .027 17.827** 2.441* .106 .010 18.320** .181 .010 18.238** ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ - .082 - .004 - .006 - .056 .010 .006 .005 .023 -8.099** - .694 -1.127 -2.438* .017 .001 18.473** - .357 .015 - .018 .187 .019 .020 .015 -18.531** .782 -1.182 - .356 .015 - .018 .019 .020 .015 -18.402** .764 -1.167 .009 19.723** .187 .009 19.710** - .259 - .259 .087 .216 .021 .021 .017 .011 -12.539** -12.223** 5.253** 19.723** - .258 - .260 .087 .021 .021 .017 .216 .011 -12.403** -12.238** 5.281** 19.710** .685 .083 .003 .038 .034 .027 .180 .010 - .083 - .005 - .006 .010 .006 .005 ‒ .017 ‒ .001 - .356 .019 - .017 .020 .020 .016 .192 .010 - .259 - .259 .087 .021 .021 .016 .215 .011 17.923** 2.441* .115 18.295** -8.315** - .769 -1.111 ‒ 18.546** -18.271** .949 -1.074 19.774** -12.552** -12.243** 5.278** 19.774** Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01. Italicized predictors were modeled as random effects while the others were modeled as fixed effects. (Models 5, 6, and 7 to be continued on the next page) 106 Table 4a (cont’d) Model 5 (Continued) Model 6 (Continued) Model 7 (Continued) Variable Est. SE Est/SE Est. SE Est/SE Est. SE Est/SE 2.982 .383 - .074 .060 - .112 .073 .067 .065 .079 .056 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ .102 .001 - .022 .042 .072 .056 .047 .036 ‒ ‒ .031 - .140 .010 .090 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ .042 .253 .205 - .262 .004 .092 - .003 .483 .476 .091 .158 .150 .157 .006 .108 .008 .029 .075 41.060** 5.723** -1.135 .769 -2.028* ‒ ‒ 1.406 .011 - .466 -1.154 ‒ 3.228** -1.557 ‒ ‒ .466 1.597 1.371 -1.669 .582 .846 - .416 16.613** 6.331** 2.984 .072 .385 .067 - .080 .065 .175 .072 .011 .058 1.505 .326 .948 .283 - .016 .071 .036 .054 .000 .045 - .022 .035 - .989 .254 .029 .009 - .133 .091 .578 .833 - .876 .853 .029 .091 .263 .157 .201 .148 - .268 .156 .004 .006 .076 .108 - .003 .008 .026 .074 .430 .475 41.448** 5.791** -1.232 2.432* .198 4.616** 3.352** - .233 .661 - .005 - .638 -3.894** 3.183** -1.468 .693 -1.027 .320 1.673 1.355 -1.717 .586 .706 - .399 16.252** 6.430** 2.988 .385 - .080 .212 .021 1.180 .988 .017 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ .447 .473 -1.230 .072 41.575** .067 5.778** .065 .068 .059 .321 .285 .067 3.671** 3.467** 3.118** .359 .245 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ .027 .074 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 16.288** 6.419** Intercept Outcome: Daily Enacted OCBI Trait Affiliation Motive Trait Dominance Motive Midday Explicit Esteem Midday Explicit Esteem × Trait Affiliation Midday Positive Words RL Midday Positive Words RL × Trait Affiliation Midday Shame Midday Positive Affect (L1 Control) Midday Depletion (L1 Control) Midday Frustration (L1 Control) Midday Neutral Words RL (L1 Control) Hours Spent Interacting with Coworkers (L1 Control) Trait Explicit Esteem (L2 Control) Baseline Positive Words RL (L2 Control) Baseline Neutral Words RL (L2 Control) General Goal Progress (L2 Control) Trait Positive Affect (L2 Control) Trait Negative Affect (L2 Control) Gender (L2 Control) Age (L2 Control) Race (L2 Control) Number of Coworkers (L2 Control) Level-1 Residual Variance Level-2 Residual Variance Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01. Italicized predictors were modeled as random effects while the others were modeled as fixed effects. (Models 5, 6, and 7 to be continued on the next page) 107 Table 4a (cont’d) Model 5 (Continued) Model 6 (Continued) Model 7 (Continued) Variable Est. SE Est/SE Est. SE Est/SE Est. SE Est/SE 1.257 .024 52.433** ‒ ‒ 4.043** 3.594** -2.219* - .047 .022 5.887** .125 .022 - .029 .025 -3.025** - .074 .016 -8.798** .496 .123 .437 .102 .066 .022 -1.527 - .016 .022 -1.340 - .008 .018 .048 .014 - .253 .104 ‒ 1.353 .005 .004 - .122 - .004 .030 ‒ .153 .276 ‒ - .429 .285 - .449 - .016 .030 .142 .011 .053 - .371 - .023 .050 - .237 - .016 .052 -1.408 - .003 .002 -1.225 - .050 .036 .004 .003 1.553 17.366** .005 .009 5.432** .076 .048 -2.119* 5.764** -1.183 -4.558** 4.028** 4.305** 2.987** - .728 .436 3.429** -2.424* 1.234 - .142 .555 -1.506 - .543 .215 - .457 - .313 -1.563 -1.368 1.531 16.978** 5.523** 1.269 - .050 .131 - .047 - .069 .421 .441 .080 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ .081 .070 -1.919 .028 45.234** .026 .025 .022 .016 .122 .104 .022 5.129** -2.188* -4.265** 3.462** 4.252** 3.632** ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 16.718** 5.242** ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ .005 .013 Intercept Outcome: Daily Enacted Incivility Trait Affiliation Motive Trait Dominance Motive Midday Explicit Esteem Midday Explicit Esteem × Trait Dominance Midday Positive Words RL Midday Positive Words RL × Trait Dominance Midday Anger Midday Positive Affect (L1 Control) Midday Depletion (L1 Control) Midday Frustration (L1 Control) Midday Neutral Words RL (L1 Control) Hours Spent Interacting with Coworkers (L1 Control) Trait Explicit Esteem (L2 Control) Baseline Positive Words RL (L2 Control) Baseline Neutral Words RL (L2 Control) General Goal Progress (L2 Control) Trait Positive Affect (L2 Control) Trait Negative Affect (L2 Control) Gender (L2 Control) Age (L2 Control) Race (L2 Control) Number of Coworkers (L2 Control) Level-1 Residual Variance Level-2 Residual Variance 1.258 - .050 .128 - .082 - .138 .024 52.003** .022 .022 .027 .016 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ .092 - .035 - .026 .052 .023 .023 .019 .015 ‒ ‒ .005 - .004 .004 .030 ‒ ‒ - .014 .008 - .019 - .012 - .003 - .045 .004 .085 .048 ‒ ‒ .030 .054 .051 .052 .002 .036 .003 .005 .009 Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01. Italicized predictors were modeled as random effects while the others were modeled as fixed effects. (Models 5, 6, and 7 to be continued on the next page) 108 Table 4a (cont’d) Model 5 (Continued) Model 6 (Continued) Model 7 (Continued) Variable Est. SE Est/SE Est. SE Est/SE Est. SE 3.951 .079 .013 .239 - .011 - .270 .019 .287 .316 .059 .128 .078 .071 .030 .030 .087 .057 .030 .019 .038 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 30.825** 1.014 .187 8.038** - .362 -3.114** .342 9.433** 16.597** 1.558 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 3.925 .062 .023 .244 - .009 - .257 .011 .288 .313 .044 .383 - .074 .029 - .009 .019 - .022 - .028 .152 .127 - .043 .030 .005 .127 .076 .070 .030 .030 .088 .056 .030 .019 .039 .035 .022 .020 .009 .008 .019 .014 .041 .089 .024 .002 .004 30.801** .809 .328 8.262** - .290 -2.935** .193 9.465** 16.909** 1.118** 11.100** -3.378** 1.462 -1.041 2.293* -1.165 -2.079* 3.690** 1.429 -1.778 18.246** 1.256** - .128 .305 .025 .030 .206 .011 -5.104** 10.092** 19.027** - .119 .304 .025 .030 .208 .011 -4.798** 10.024** 19.207** 3.947 .057 .009 .245 - .007 - .279 .024 .281 .319 .043 .125 .069 .064 .029 .027 .084 .052 .030 .018 .036 .391 - .076 .026 - .011 .020 - .024 - .026 .154 .141 ‒ .030 .005 .034 .022 .019 .009 .008 .018 .014 .041 .088 ‒ .002 .005 - .122 .303 .025 .030 .206 .011 Est/SE 31.627** .826 .129 8.335** - .270 -3.309** .463 9.262** 17.243** 1.191 11.607** -3.502** 1.369 -1.207 2.405* -1.339 -1.924 3.758** 1.600 ‒ 18.298** .958 9.262** 10.106** 19.219** Intercept Outcome: End-of-Day Explicit Esteem Trait Affiliation Motive Trait Dominance Motive OCBI OCBI × Trait Affiliation Motive Incivility Incivility × Trait Dominance Motive Midday Explicit Esteem (L1 Control) Level-1 Residual Variance Level-2 Residual Variance Intercept Incivility Incivility × Trait Dominance Motive Outcome: End-of-Day Positive Words RL Trait Affiliation Motive Trait Dominance Motive OCBI OCBI × Trait Affiliation Motive Midday Positive Words RL (L1 Control) End-of-Day Neutral Words RL (L1 Control) End-of-Day Survey Response Medium (L1 Control) Level-1 Residual Variance Level-2 Residual Variance Outcome: End-of-Day Shame OCBI Midday Shame (L1 Control) Level-1 Residual Variance Outcome: End-of-Day Anger Midday Anger (L1 Control) Level-1 Residual Variance Incivility - .064 .288 .058 .029 .234 .012 -1.109 9.842** 19.706** - .058 .287 .057 .029 .235 .012 -1.006 9.813** 19.698** - .039 .283 .057 .029 .234 .012 - .685 9.683** 19.767** 109 Table 4a (cont’d) Model 5 (Continued) Model 6 (Continued) Model 7 (Continued) Variable Est. SE Est/SE Est. SE Est/SE Est. SE Est/SE Intercept Outcome: Goal Progress for Second Half of Day End-of-Day Explicit Esteem Midday Explicit Esteem (L1 Control) End-of-Day Positive Words RL Midday Positive Words RL (L1 Control) End-of-Day Shame Midday Shame (L1 Control) End-of-Day Anger Midday Anger (L1 Control) Midday Goal Progress (L1 Control) End-of-Day Positive Affect (L1 Control) Midday Positive Affect (L1 Control) End-of-Day Depletion (L1 Control) Midday Depletion (L1 Control) End-of-Day Frustration (L1 Control) Midday Frustration (L1 Control) End-of-Day Neutral Words RL (L1 Control) Midday Neutral Words RL (L1 Control) Level-1 Residual Variance Level-2 Residual Variance Model Statistics AIC BIC 4.572 .205 - .045 .098 .039 .043 ‒ ‒ - .182 - .007 - .219 .020 .164 .253 .128 - .066 - .006 - .064 .036 ‒ ‒ .271 .149 ‒ ‒ .076 .052 .066 .041 .035 .040 .042 .031 .032 .031 .028 ‒ ‒ .015 .028 10503.137 11024.690 46.601** 5.258** -1.041 ‒ ‒ -2.391* - .140 -3.293** .479 4.652** 6.284** 3.063** -2.089* - .174 -2.040* 1.286 ‒ ‒ 18.264** 5.262** 4.548 .220 - .074 - .286 - .421 - .207 .001 - .194 .027 .151 .242 .125 - .064 - .014 - .061 .025 .306 .079 .265 .143 .099 .039 .043 .113 .143 .076 .052 .066 .041 .035 .040 .041 .031 .032 .031 .028 .268 .186 .015 .027 46.020** 5.639** -1.709 -2.534* -2.948** -2.745** .021 -2.924** .665 4.254** 6.018** 3.012** -2.026* - .455 -1.942 .910 1.145 .425 18.252** 5.240** 4.622 .313 .021 - .310 - .497 - .290 - .021 - .202 .036 .182 .103 .038 .043 .116 .147 .077 .052 .068 .043 .036 44.845** 8.252** .487 -2.675** -3.388** -3.750** - .410 -2.965** .829 5.059** ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ .295 .122 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ .016 .025 ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒ 18.360** 4.950** 9153.336 9954.071 9349.670 10062.934 Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01. Italicized predictors were modeled as random effects while the others were modeled as fixed effects. 110 Table 4b: Level-2 residual variances of random slopes modeled in Model 6 Random Slope Modeled in Final Integrative Model 6 Est. SE Est/SE Midday Goal Progress  Midday Explicit Esteem Midday Goal Progress  Midday Positive Word RL Midday Explicit Esteem  Daily OCBI Midday Positive Word RL  Daily OCBI Midday Explicit Esteem  Daily Incivility Midday Positive Word RL  Daily Incivility Daily OCBI  End-of-Day Explicit Esteem Daily OCBI  End-of-Day Positive Word RL Daily Incivility  End-of-Day Explicit Esteem Daily Incivility  End-of-Day Positive Word RL .005 .082 .139 2.830 .005 .444 .001 .000 .059 .000 .001 .020 .042 1.060 .004 .177 .004 .000 .024 .002 4.028** 4.160** 3.327** 2.670** 1.255 2.504* .206 .118 2.513* .073 Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01. 111 Figure 9: Figure summarizing results in final integrative model Note. Path coefficients were obtained from the final Model 6 presented in Table 4a. Level-1 n = 786; Level-2 n = 111. LDT = Lexical decision task, where a shorter response latency for positive words represents a higher implicit state esteem. ✓ represents a supported hypothesis while ☓ represents an unsupported hypothesis. Paths without ✓ or ☓ represent relations that were not formally hypothesized. 112 Hypothesis Tests Relations of midday goal progress with midday esteem and emotions. I hypothesized a positive relation from midday goal progress to midday self-esteem (H1), and negative relations from midday goal progress to midday shame (H7a) and anger (H7b). The results showed that midday goal progress was positively related to explicit midday esteem (γ = .685, SE = .038, p < .01) and negatively related to response latency for positive words in midday LDT (γ = -.082, SE = .010, p < .01). These supported H1 and showed that midday goal progress was positively related to both explicit and implicit midday esteem. Midday goal progress was negatively related to midday shame (γ = -.356, SE = .019, p < .01) and midday anger (γ = -.258, SE = .021, p < .01), thus supporting H7a and H7b as well. Relations of midday goal progress × perceived control over goal progress with midday esteem and emotions. I also predicted perceived personal control over goal progress as a moderator for the relations between midday goal progress and midday esteem (H2), shame (H8), and anger (H9). Perceived personal control had a significant positive main effect on midday explicit self-esteem (γ = .083, SE = .034, p < .05) and a significant negative main effect on midday anger (γ = -.260, SE = .021, p < .01), but it did not have significant main effects on implicit midday esteem (γ = -.004, SE = .006, p = n.s) and midday shame (γ = .015, SE = .020, p = n.s). More importantly, perceived personal control was not a significant moderator of the relations between goal progress with explicit esteem (γ = .003, SE = .027, p = n.s), implicit esteem (γ = -.006, SE = .005, p = n.s), and midday shame (γ = -.018, SE = .015, p = n.s). Therefore, the results did not support H2 and H8. However, perceived personal control had a significant moderation effect on the relation between goal progress and midday anger (γ = .087, SE = .017, p < .01), such that the relation was less negative at higher (vs. lower) levels of 113 perceived personal control. Figure 10 depicts the simple slopes of this interaction. Both simple slopes were significantly negative, but the negative relationship was stronger at lower (-1SD) levels of perceived personal control (simple slope = -.355, SE = .069, p < .01) than at higher (- 1SD) levels of perceived personal control (simple slope = -.161, SE = .069, p < .05). These results supported H9, and implied that employees experienced less anger from poor goal progress on days when they perceived higher personal control over their goal progress as compared to days when they perceived lower personal control over their goal progress. Figure 10: Simple slopes between midday goal progress and midday anger at different levels of daily perceived personal control (H9) Relations of midday esteem × trait interpersonal motives with OCBI and incivility. I predicted midday esteem to be negatively related to OCBI among employees with high (but not low) trait affiliation motive (H3a). The results showed that trait affiliation had a significant and positive main effect on daily OCBI (γ = .385, SE = .067, p < .01), and explicit midday esteem 114 had a significant positive relationship with daily OCBI (γ = .175, SE = .072, p < .05). However, trait affiliation motive did not significantly moderate the relation from explicit midday esteem to daily OCBI (γ = .011, SE = .058, p = n.s), thus not supporting H3a where explicit midday esteem was concerned. The results were different for implicit midday esteem, such that the relation between midday response latency and OCBI was significantly positive (γ = 1.505, SE = .326, p < .01) and this relation was moderated by trait affiliation motive (γ = .948, SE = .283, p < .01). The simple slopes (Figure 11) showed that the slope between midday response latency and OCBI was significantly positive at higher (+1SD) levels of trait affiliation motive (simple slope = 2.541, SE = .472, p < .01) but not significant at lower levels of trait affiliation motive (simple slope = .443, SE = .428, p = n.s). In other words, employees with higher (but not lower) trait affiliation motive were more likely to perform OCBI on days when they experienced low implicit midday esteem. As a follow-up, I tested the conditional indirect effects of midday goal progress on OCBI via midday response latency at high and low levels of trait affiliation motive (stage-2 moderated mediation). The 95% confidence intervals based on 10,000 bootstrapped samples (Table 5) showed that the indirect relation was significant and negative at higher levels of affiliation motive (indirect effect = -.236, 95 % CI [-.264, .075]), but not at lower levels of affiliation motive (indirect effect = -.095; 95% CI [-.264, .075]). These results suggested that employees with higher (but not lower) trait affiliation motive were more likely to perform OCBI on days when they experienced low implicit midday esteem associated with poor midday goal progress. In summary, the results supported H3a when implicit midday esteem was examined, but not when explicit midday esteem was examined. 115 Figure 11: Simple slopes between midday positive word response latency and daily OCBI at different levels of trait affiliation motive (H3a) Table 5: Conditional indirect relations from midday goal progress to OCBI via midday positive word response latency at different levels of trait affiliation motive (2nd-stage moderated mediation) Indirect Effect 95% CI Low Affiliation Motive (-1SD) High Affiliation Motive (+1SD) -.095 -.236 [-.264, .075] [-.402, -.070] I also predicted midday self-esteem to be negatively related to the enactment of incivility among employees with higher (vs. lower) levels of trait dominance motive (H3b). The results showed that there was a positive main effect of trait dominance motive on daily enactment of incivility (γ = .125, SE = .022, p < .01). There was no significant level-1 main effect of explicit midday self-esteem on enacted incivility (γ = -.029, SE = .025, p = n.s), but the relation was significantly moderated by trait dominance motive (γ = -.074, SE = .016, p < .01) in the 116 hypothesized direction. The simple slopes (Figure 12) showed that the relation between explicit midday esteem and incivility was significantly negative at higher (+1SD) levels of trait dominance motive (simple slope = -.118, SE = .031, p < .01) but not significant at lower (-1SD) levels of trait dominance motive (simple slope = .058, SE = .031, p = n.s). I tested the conditional indirect effects of midday goal progress on incivility via midday explicit esteem at higher and lower levels of trait dominance motive (stage-2 moderated mediation). The 95% confidence intervals based on 10,000 bootstrapped samples (Table 6) showed that the indirect relation was significant and negative at higher levels of dominance motive (indirect effect = -.071, 95 % CI [-.101, -.041]), but not at lower levels of dominance motive (indirect effect = .021; 95% CI [-.012, .053]). These showed that midday goal progress was negatively related to daily incivility via explicit midday esteem for employees with higher (but not lower) trait dominance motive, and supported H3b. Figure 12: Simple slopes between midday explicit esteem and daily incivility at different levels of trait dominance motive (H3b) 117 Table 6: Conditional indirect relations from midday goal progress to incivility via midday explicit self-esteem at different levels of trait dominance motive (2nd-stage moderated- mediation) Indirect Effect 95% CI Low Dominance Motive (-1SD) High Dominance Motive (+1SD) .021 -.071 [-.012, .053] [-.101, -.041] Results in a similar direction were found for implicit midday esteem. There was a significant and positive main effect between midday response latency for positive words (i.e., inversely related to implicit self-esteem) and incivility (γ = .496, SE = .123, p < .01.), which indicated that implicit midday esteem was negatively related to the enactment of incivility. Trait dominance motive further moderated and made this relation more positive (γ = .437, SE = .102, p < .01). As shown in the simple slopes plotted in Figure 13, the relation between response latency and incivility was positive at higher (+1SD) levels of trait dominance motive (simple slope = .998, SE = .171, p < .01) but not significant at lower (-1SD) levels of trait dominance motive (simple slope = -.024, SE = .171, p = n.s). In other words, implicit midday esteem had a negative relation with enacted incivility for employees with higher (but not lower) levels of trait dominance motive. These results provided supported for H3b. A stage-2 moderated-mediation test (Table 7) demonstrated that midday goal progress was negatively related to enacted incivility indirectly via implicit midday esteem for those with higher trait dominance motive (indirect effect = -.092; 95% CI [-.127, -.056]) but not for those with lower trait dominance motive (indirect effect = -.026; 95% CI [-.057, .006]). These results further supported H3b. 118 Figure 13: Simple slopes between midday positive word response latency and daily incivility at different levels of trait dominance motive (H3b) Table 7: Conditional indirect relations from midday goal progress to incivility via midday positive word response latency at different levels of trait dominance motive (2nd-stage moderated mediation) Indirect Effect 95% CI Low Dominance Motive (-1SD) High Dominance Motive (+1SD) -.026 -.092 [-.057, .006] [-.127, -.056] Relations of midday emotions on OCBI and incivility. I hypothesized a positive relation between midday shame and daily OCBI (H10) and a positive relation between midday anger and daily incivility (H12). H10 was not supported, as there was no significant relationship between midday shame and daily OCBI (γ = -.016, SE = .071, p = n.s). On the other hand, H12 was supported as midday anger positively predicted the enactment of incivility toward coworkers (γ = .066, SE = .022, p < .01). As a follow up to the significant relation of midday goal progress × perceived personal control with midday anger relation (H9) and the significant relation of 119 midday anger with incivility relation (H12), I tested the stage-1 moderated-mediation of midday goal progress on incivility via anger at higher and lower levels of perceived personal control. The results (Table 8) demonstrated that the indirect relation from midday goal progress to incivility was negative and significant on days when employees perceived lower personal control (indirect effect = -.030; 95% CI [-.050, -.009]) as well as on days when they perceived higher personal control (indirect effect = -.019; 95% CI [-.036, -.002]. Nevertheless, the difference in the indirect effects was significantly more negative on days of lower perceived personal control as compared to days of higher perceived personal control as the 95% CI [.003, 021] constructed around the difference in the indirect effects did not contain zero. In other words, midday anger mediated the negative relationship from midday goal progress to incivility regardless of whether employees perceived higher or lower personal control over goal progress, but this indirect relationship was more negative on days when perceived control was lower (vs. higher). Table 8: Conditional indirect relations from morning goal progress to incivility via midday anger at different levels of perceived control (stage-1 moderated-mediation) Indirect Effect 95% CI Low Perceived Control (-1SD) High Perceived Control (+1SD) -.030 -.019 [-.050, -.009] [-.036, -.002] Relations of OCBI × trait affiliation motive with end-of-day esteem. I hypothesized the relationship between daily OCBI and end-of-day esteem (controlling for midday esteem) to be more positive for employees with higher (but not lower) trait affiliation motive (H4a). Daily OCBI exhibited a significant positive main effect on end-of-day explicit esteem (γ = .244, SE = .030, p < .01), but trait affiliation motive was not a significant moderator of this relation (γ = 120 -.009, SE = .030, p = n.s). Therefore, H4a was not supported in the case of end-of-day explicit esteem. For end-of-day implicit esteem, daily OCBI was not significantly related to end-of-day response latency for positive words (γ = -.009, SE = .009, p = n.s), but trait affiliation motive significantly moderated this relation (γ = -.019, SE = .008, p < .05). Simple slopes (Figure 14) showed that the slope was significantly negative for those with lower affiliation motive (simple slope = -.029, SE = .013, p < .05) but not significant for those with higher affiliation motive (simple slope = .011, SE = .013, p = n.s). Although significant, the direction of the result did not support H4a and demonstrated a significant moderation effect that contrasted the hypothesis. The simple slopes suggested that employees with lower (but not higher) trait affiliation motive responded more quickly to positive words in the end-of-day LDT (i.e., had higher end-of-day implicit esteem) on days when they performed more OCBI, after controlling for their midday response latency. For employees with higher trait affiliation, on the other hand, their daily performance of OCBI did not appear to be related to their end-of-day implicit esteem. 121 Figure 14: Simple slopes between daily OCBI and end-of-day positive word response latency at different levels of trait affiliation motive (H4a) Because support for H4a (i.e., significant interaction between affiliation motive and OCBI in predicting end-of-day self-esteem) was required for testing the dual-stage moderation hypothesized in H5a, and it was only supported for implicit esteem, I tested H5a only with implicit esteem. I ran a dual-stage moderated mediation test (Table 9) examining the relationship of implicit midday esteem and end-of-day implicit esteem via OCBI at higher and lower levels of trait affiliation motive. The results did not support affiliation motive as a significant dual-stage moderator (indirect effect at higher affiliation motive = .056, 95% CI [-.024, .135]; indirect effect at lower affiliation motive = -.009, 95% CI [-.031, .013]), and therefore did not support H5a. This was likely due to the paths being significant at different levels of affiliation motive at the first and second stages, where relation between implicit midday esteem and OCBI (a path) was significant at only higher levels of affiliation motive (first-stage moderation), but the relation 122 between OCBI and end-of-day implicit esteem (b path) was significant at only lower levels of affiliation motive (second-stage moderation). Table 9: Conditional indirect relations from midday to end-of-day positive word response latency via OCBI at different levels of trait affiliation motive (dual-stage moderated mediation) Indirect Effect 95% CI Low Affiliation Motive (-1SD) High Affiliation Motive (+1SD) -.009 .056 [-.031, .013] [-.024, .135] Relations of incivility × trait dominance motive with end-of-day esteem. For H4b, I expected the relationship between daily incivility and end-of-day esteem (after controlling for midday esteem) to be more positive for employees with higher (but not lower) trait dominance motive. The results showed that the enactment of incivility was negatively related to end-of-day explicit esteem (γ = -.257, SE = .088, p < .01), and this relation was not moderated by trait dominance motive (γ = .011, SE = .056, p = n.s). The results therefore did not support H4b, and in fact suggested that employees, regardless of their levels of trait dominance motive, reported lower end-of-day explicit esteem on days when they acted in an uncivil manner to their coworkers. As a follow up to this significant main effect relationship and the earlier significant midday explicit esteem × trait dominance motive on incivility relation (H3b), I tested the moderated mediation of the indirect relation from explicit midday esteem to end-of-day explicit esteem via enacted incivility at higher and lower levels of trait dominance motive on the first- stage. The results (Table 10) showed that the indirect effect was significant for those with lower trait dominance motive (indirect effect = -.021, 95% CI [-.035; -.007]) but not for those with 123 higher trait dominance motive (indirect effect = .030, 95% CI [-.003; .062]). This implied that employees with lower (but not higher) dominance motive were more likely to experience a drop in their explicit esteem from midday to end-of-day on days when they enacted greater incivility. Although this did not provide exact support for the dual-stage moderated-mediation in H5b, it was somewhat in a consistent direction. Instead of making employees feel better from enacting incivility, high dominance motive in this case appeared to buffer them from experiencing poorer self-esteem after behaving in an uncivil manner. Table 10: Conditional indirect relations from midday to end-of-day explicit self-esteem via incivility at different levels of trait dominance motive (1st-stage moderated mediation) Indirect Effect 95% CI Low Dominance Motive (-1SD) High Dominance Motive (+1SD) -.021 .030 [-.035, -.007] [-.003, .062] Different results for H4b were observed for end-of-day implicit esteem. The results showed that there was no significant relation between daily incivility and end-of-day response latency for positive words (γ = -. 022, SE = .019, p = n.s), but this relationship was significantly moderated by trait dominance motive (γ = -.028, SE = .014, p < .05). Simple slopes (Figure 15) showed that the slope between enacted incivility and end-of-day response latency for positive words was negative for employees with higher dominance motive (simple slope = -.054, SE = .025, p < .05), but not for those with lower dominance motive (simple slope = .018, SE = .698, p = n.s). This meant that employees with higher dominance motive (but not those with lower dominance motive) took a shorter time to respond to positive words in the end-of-day LDT (i.e., had a higher end-of-day implicit esteem) on days when they enacted more incivility. This provided supported for H4b in the case of implicit esteem. 124 Figure 15: Simple slopes between daily incivility and end-of-day positive word response latency at different levels of trait dominance motive (H4b) Dual-stage moderated mediation test (Table 11) also showed that the indirect positive relation from implicit midday esteem to end-of-day implicit esteem via incivility enactment was moderated by high trait dominance motive at both stages 1 and 2 (indirect effect = -.030, 95% CI [-.055, -.004]), but not moderated significantly by low trait dominance motive at both stages (indirect effect = .007, 95% CI [-.003, .017]. Therefore, H5b was supported when implicit state esteem measures were examined. 125 Table 11: Conditional indirect relations from midday to end-of-day positive word response latency via incivility at different levels of trait dominance motive (dual-stage moderated mediation) Indirect Effect 95% CI Low Dominance Motive (-1SD) High Dominance Motive (+1SD) .007 -.030 [-.003, .017] [-.055, -.004] Relations of OCBI and incivility with end-of-day shame and anger. I predicted negative relations between daily OCBI and end-of-day shame (H11), and between daily incivility and end-of-day anger (H13), controlling for midday shame and anger respectively. The results supported H11 but not H13. Daily OCBI was negatively related to end-of-day shame (γ = -.119, SE = .025, p < .01) beyond the effect of midday shame on end-of-day shame. However, daily incivility was not significantly related to end-of-day anger (γ = -.059, SE = .058, p = n.s) beyond the effect of midday anger on end-of-day anger. Relations of esteem and emotional recoveries on goal progress for second half of day. Finally, I hypothesized a positive relationship of end-of-day esteem with goal progress for the second half of the day (H6), and negative relationships of end-of-day shame (H14a) and anger (H14b) with goal progress for the second half of the day, beyond the effects of midday esteem, shame, and anger. The results supported all of these hypotheses. End-of-day explicit esteem was positively related to goal progress for second half of the day (γ = .220, SE = .039, p < .01). End-of-day response latency for positive words was negatively related to goal progress for second half of the day (γ = -.286, SE = .113, p < .05), which implied a positive relation between end-of-day implicit esteem with goal progress for the second half of the day. For the emotions, end-of-day shame (γ = -.207, SE = .076, p < .01) and end-of-day anger day (γ = -.194, SE = .066, p < .01) were both negatively related to goal progress for the second half of the day. 126 Analyses for Research Questions I also posed two research questions regarding potential 3-way interactions in my model: RQ1: How will the three-way interaction between midday state self-esteem, dominance motive, and affiliation motive relate to (a) OCBI and (b) incivility? RQ2) How will the three-way interaction between (a) OCBI, dominance motive, and affiliation motive, and between (b) incivility, dominance motive, and affiliation motive relate to end- of-day self-esteem? I explored RQ1 and RQ2 concurrently by creating an interaction term for dominance motive × affiliation motive, and adding it as a level-2 moderator into the existing full model at both the first and second stages between midday esteem, interpersonal behaviors, and end-of-day esteem. This allowed the examination of dominance motive × affiliation motive as a moderator beyond the existing separate moderation effects of dominance motive and affiliation motive respectively. Consistent with prior research that suggested the independence of trait dominance motive and affiliation motive, the baseline data showed the correlation of the two variables to be non-significant (r = .151, p = n.s). Three-way interaction of midday implicit esteem × affiliation motive × dominance motive on daily enacted incivility. The results for RQ1 demonstrated that the joint affiliation × dominance interaction significantly moderated the path between implicit midday esteem and incivility (γ = -.211, SE = .046, p < .01) beyond the separate moderations by dominance motive and affiliation motive. This meant that affiliation motive negated the moderating effect of dominance motive on the midday implicit esteem – incivility relation. Table 12 presents the results of this 3-way interaction. These results were extracted from the complete structural model. 127 Table 12: Results of three-way interaction effect of midday positive word response latency × trait dominance motive × trait affiliation motive on enacted incivility Outcome = Enacted Incivility Estimate SE Predictors Intercept Midday Response Latency (Level-1) Trait Dominance Motive (Level-2) Trait Affiliation Motive (Level-2) Dominance × Affiliation (Level-2) Response Latency × Dominance Response Latency × Affiliation Response Latency × Dominance × Affiliation 1.375** 1.294** .216** -.018 -.029 1.102** .077 -.211 .078 .181 .061 .029 .019 .169 .188 .046 Note. **p < .01. *p < .05. Response latency is inversely related to implicit esteem. I plotted the simple slopes of this interaction (Figure 16) using the R calculator for 3-way multilevel interactions developed by Preacher et al. (2006). As evident from the simple slopes (as shown in Figure 16 and listed in Table 13), employees with higher (but not lower) trait dominance motive were more likely to enact greater incivility toward their coworkers on days when they experienced lower implicit midday esteem (i.e., have slower midday response latency to positive words), and this was regardless of whether their affiliation motive was high or low. Specifically, employees with high dominance and low affiliation enacted the most incivility on days when they experienced low implicit midday esteem (simple slope = 2.801 SE = .359, p < .01), followed by those with high dominance and high affiliation (simple slope = 2.405, SE = .357, p < .01). On the other hand, employees with low affiliation × low dominance (simple slope = -.389, SE = .146, p < .01) were the least likely group of employees to act in an uncivil manner on days when they experienced lower implicit midday esteem. For those with high 128 affiliation × low dominance, the simple slope was not significant (simple slope = .359, SE = .357, p = n.s). Table 13: Simple slopes of three-way interaction effect of midday positive word response latency × affiliation motive × dominance motive on enacted incivility Level of Affiliation Level of Dominance Motive Low Affiliation High Affiliation Motive (Original Moderator) Low Dominance High Dominance Low Dominance High Dominance Simple Slope between Midday Response Latency for Positive Words and Incivility SE of Simple Slope -.389** 2.801** .359 2.405** .146 .359 .364 .357 Note. **p < .01. *p < .05. A positive slope between response latency and incivility signifies a negative relation between implicit esteem and incivility, and vice versa. Figure 16: Simple slopes depicting 3-way interaction of affiliation motive × dominance motive × midday implicit esteem on daily enacted incivility (RQ1) 129 The other paths between midday esteem and interpersonal behaviors (i.e., midday explicit and implicit esteem  OCBI; midday explicit esteem  to incivility) were not significantly moderated by the affiliation × dominance interaction. Next, for RQ2, I examined whether the affiliation motive × dominance motive interaction term moderated the relations from OCBI or incivility to end-of-day esteem. The results showed that the affiliation motive × dominance motive interaction significantly moderated three paths (i.e., OCBI  end-of-day explicit esteem; OCBI  end-of-day implicit esteem; incivility  end-of-day explicit esteem). Three-way interaction of daily OCBI × affiliation motive × dominance motive on end-of-day explicit esteem. The results (Table 14) showed that the 3-way interaction of OCBI × affiliation motive × dominance motive was significant on end-of-day explicit esteem (γ = -.024, SE = .005, p < .01). This implied that although having high (but not low) affiliation motive made the path between OCBI and end-of-day explicit esteem more positive, having a high dominance motive at the same time weakened the moderating effect of high affiliation. In other words, employees with high affiliation × low dominance experienced the greatest explicit esteem recovery from performing OCBI (simple slope = .386, SE = .034, p < .01), but this simple slope was significantly less positive in employees with high affiliation × high dominance (Δsimple slope = -.079, SE = .034, t = 2.32, p < .05). High dominance motive in this case negated the moderating property of high affiliation motive in enhancing the esteem recovery property of performing OCBI. Figure 17 and Table 15 show the simple slopes of this 3-way interaction. 130 Table 14: Results of three-way interaction effect of OCBI × trait affiliation motive × trait dominance motive on end-of-day explicit esteem Outcome = End-of-Day Explicit Esteem Estimate SE Predictors Intercept Midday Explicit Esteem (Level-1) Enacted OCBI (Level-1) Trait Affiliation Motive (Level-2) Trait Dominance Motive (Level-2) Affiliation × Dominance (Level-2) OCBI × Affiliation OCBI × Dominance OCBI × Affiliation × Dominance 2.866** .297** .325** -.316** -.628** .264** .019** -.006 -.024** .259 .028 .027 .101 .181 .056 .006 .015 .005 Note. **p < .01. *p < .05. Table 15: Simple slopes of three-way interaction effect of OCBI × affiliation motive × dominance motive on end-of-day explicit esteem Level of Affiliation Level of Affiliation Simple Slope between OCBI and Motive Motive (Original End-of-Day Explicit Esteem Low Dominance High Dominance Moderator) Low Affiliation High Affiliation Low Affiliation High Affiliation .278** .386** .329** .307** SE of Simple Slope .034 .034 .034 .034 Note. **p < .01. *p < .05. 131 Figure 17: Simple slopes depicting 3-way interaction of affiliation motive × dominance motive × daily OCBI on end-of-day explicit esteem (RQ2) Three-way interaction of daily OCBI × affiliation motive × dominance motive on end-of-day implicit esteem. There was also a significant 3-way interaction of OCBI × affiliation motive × dominance motive on end-of-day response latency for positive esteem words (γ = -.011, SE = .001, p < .01), as presented in Table 16. As demonstrated earlier in H4a, contrary to my hypothesis, those with low (but not high) affiliation motive had a shorter response latency to positive words (i.e., had higher end-of-day implicit esteem) after performing more OCBI. This OCBI × affiliation motive interaction remained in the current results (γ = .027, SE = .004, p < .01). However, and interestingly, having a high dominance motive at the same time suppressed the moderating effect of affiliation motive on the OCBI – response latency path (γ = -.011, SE = .001, p < .01). The simple slopes (Figure 18; Table 17) suggested that employees with a high dominance motive responded more slowly to positive words (i.e., had a lower implicit esteem) after performing more OCBI regardless of their concurrent affiliation motive. 132 On the other hand, for employees with a low dominance motive, those with a concurrent low affiliation motive actually responded most quickly to positive words after performing more OCBI (simple slope = -.104, SE = .009, p < .01). Interestingly, those with high affiliation motive × high dominance motive exhibited a non-significant slope between their OCBI and end-of-day response latency (simple slope = -.013, SE = .009, p = n.s). Table 16: Results of three-way interaction effect of OCBI × trait affiliation motive × trait dominance motive on end-of-day positive word response latency Outcome = End-of-Day Response Latency Estimate SE Predictors Intercept Midday Response Latency (Level-1) Enacted OCBI (Level-1) Trait Affiliation Motive (Level-2) Trait Dominance Motive (Level-2) Affiliation × Dominance (Level-2) OCBI × Affiliation OCBI × Dominance OCBI × Affiliation × Dominance .205** .153** .039** -.103** -.129** .043** .027** .049** -.011** .044 .040 .009 .013 .025 .008 .004 .006 .001 Note. **p < .01. *p < .05. Response latency is inversely related to implicit esteem. Table 17: Simple slopes of three-way interaction effect of OCBI × affiliation motive × dominance motive on end-of-day positive word response latency Level of Affiliation Level of Affiliation Simple Slope between OCBI and Motive Motive (Original End-of-Day Response Latency Moderator) for Positive Words Low Dominance High Dominance Low Affiliation High Affiliation Low Affiliation High Affiliation -.104** -.013 .042** .074** SE of Simple Slope .009 .009 .009 .009 Note. **p < .01. *p < .05. A positive slope between OCBI and response latency signifies a negative relation between OCBI and implicit esteem, and vice versa. 133 Figure 18: Simple slopes depicting 3-way interaction of affiliation motive × dominance motive × daily OCBI on end-of-day positive word response latency (RQ2) Three-way interaction of daily incivility × affiliation motive × dominance motive on end-of-day explicit esteem. The results (Table 18) revealed a significant incivility × affiliation motive × dominance motive on end-of-day explicit esteem (γ = -.154, SE = .044, p < .01). The simple slopes (Figure 19, Table 19) showed that when trait affiliation motive was low, having a high dominance motive allowed employees to experience greater end-of-day explicit esteem from enacting greater incivility (simple slope = .973, SE = .328, p < .01), but having a low dominance motive allowed them to experience lower end-of-day explicit esteem from enacting greater incivility (simple slope = -.787, SE = .178, p < .01). For employees with high affiliation motive, also having a high dominance motive allowed them to experience greater end-of-day explicit esteem from enacting greater incivility (simple slope = 1.140, SE = .371, p < .01), but having a low dominance motive was related to a non-significant slope between incivility and esteem (simple slope = .215, SE = .226, p = n.s). 134 Table 18: Results of three-way interaction effect of incivility × trait dominance motive × trait affiliation motive on end-of-day explicit esteem Outcome = End-of-Day Explicit Esteem Predictors Intercept Midday Explicit Esteem (Level-1) Enacted Incivility (Level-1) Trait Dominance Motive (Level-2) Trait Affiliation Motive (Level-2) Dominance × Affiliation Incivility × Dominance Incivility × Affiliation Incivility × Dominance × Affiliation Estimate 2.866** .297** .385* -.628** -.316** .264** .565** .256** -.154** SE .259 .028 .197 .181 .101 .056 .144 .089 .044 Note. **p < .01. *p < .05. Table 19: Three-way interaction effect of incivility × affiliation motive × dominance motive on end-of-day explicit esteem Level of Affiliation Level of Dominance Motive Low Affiliation High Affiliation Motive (Original Moderator) Low Dominance High Dominance Low Dominance High Dominance Note. **p < .01. *p < .05. Simple Slope between Incivility and End-of-Day Explicit Esteem -.787** .973** .215 1.140** SE of Simple Slope .178 .328 .226 .371 135 Figure 19: Simple slopes depicting 3-way interaction of affiliation motive × dominance motive × daily incivility on end-of-day explicit esteem (RQ2) In summary, the presence of some significant 3-way interactions in this set of supplemental analyses suggested the potential for employees’ affiliation motive to interact with their dominance motive to influence the reciprocal relationships between state esteem and daily interpersonal behaviors. However, the directions of the significant 3-way interactions, as shown in Figures 16 to 19, did not seem to be consistent enough for deriving a conclusive pattern of how the two interpersonal motives would jointly moderate the association between the esteem and interpersonal behaviors. For example, from the 3-way interaction shown in Figure 16 for RQ1, it appeared that employees with high dominance motive × low affiliation motive enacted the greatest amount of incivility on days when they experienced lower midday implicit esteem. Going by this reasoning, we would have expected the opposite pattern to surface, such that employees with low dominance motive × high affiliation motive would enact the least amount of 136 incivility on days when they experienced lower midday implicit esteem. This was however not the case, as the esteem had a weak relationship with incivility for those with low dominance × low affiliation. Similarly, for the significant 3-way interaction shown in Figure 17 for RQ2, employees with high affiliation motive × low dominance motive experienced the greatest recovery for their end-of-day explicit esteem after enacting OCBI. This made one expect the opposite where employees with low affiliation motive × high dominance motive would recover the least from enacting OCBI, but this was again not the case, as the ones whose esteem recovered the least from enacting OCBI were those with low affiliation × low dominance. These interesting but somewhat unpredictable patterns suggest that the interaction of the two interpersonal motives might have given rise to unique behavioral and perceptual properties that could not be predicted by the simple sum of their respective properties. Supplemental Analyses Using Domain-Specific Self-Esteem Measures To explore whether the relationships in the model would turn out differently if domain- specific self-esteem was examined instead of global self-esteem, I tested a model in which I substituted the explicit and implicit global state self-esteem measures with domain-specific state self-esteem measures (i.e., state performance self-esteem and state social self-esteem). The results are presented in Figure 20. In general, the directions of results were mostly similar to the original model. Differences in directions or significance between this model and the original model have been highlighted in grey in this new model. The new model also showed that the relations of performance self-esteem versus social self-esteem with the other focal variables were highly similar, thus suggesting that they operated in a similar manner in the context of my hypothesized model despite being domain-specific measures. 137 Figure 20: Alternative model using domain-specific self-esteem measures instead of global self-esteem measures 138 The first notable difference between this supplemental model and the original model was that midday perceived control significantly moderated the relation from midday goal progress to midday performance self-esteem (γ = .041, SE = .013, p < .01). The simple slopes (Figure 21) showed that the relation from midday goal progress to midday performance self-esteem was more positive when perceived control over goal progress was higher (simple slope = .731, SE = .044, p < .01) as compared to when perceived control was lower (simple slope = .640, SE = .044, p < .01). The difference in slopes was significant (Δsimple slope = .091, SE = .044, t = 2.068, p < .05). The simple slopes further suggested that midday performance self-esteem would be low on days when goal progress low, regardless of perceived control. However, midday performance self-esteem would be highest on days when there was high goal progress and also high (vs. low) perceived control. Figure 21: Simple slopes between midday goal progress and midday performance self- esteem at different levels of daily perceived personal control 139 A second significant difference was the original model demonstrated a negative relation from enacted incivility to end-of-day explicit global esteem, but this negative relationship was not demonstrated with both the domain-specific esteem measures in the new model, where both paths were not significant. The relationship between end-of-day shame and goal progress for second half of day also became non-significant in this new model. Overall, there were more similarities than differences in the results of this supplemental model and the original model. For example, the results of this supplemental model also demonstrated that trait dominance motive significantly moderated the relations between midday performance esteem and enacted incivility (γ = -.088, SE = .026, p < .01), and between midday social esteem and enacted incivility (γ = -.112, SE = .025, p < .01). The simple slopes (shown in Figures 22 and 23) were also consistent with those shown in the original model, such that the relations from midday performance esteem and midday social esteem to enacted incivility were significantly negative when trait dominance motive was high (simple slope of performance esteem = -.168, SE = .048, p < .01; simple slope of social esteem = -.196, SE = .047, p < .01) but not significant when trait dominance motive was low (simple slope of performance esteem = .042, SE = .048, p = n.s; simple slope of social esteem = .070, SE = .047, p = n.s). In general, the findings from the supplemental alternative model suggest a consistency between how global esteem and domain-specific esteem behaved in the context of my examined model. 140 Figure 22: Simple slopes between midday performance self-esteem and enacted incivility at different levels of trait dominance motive Figure 23: Simple slopes between midday social self-esteem and enacted incivility at different levels of trait dominance motive 141 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION Summary of Findings This dissertation aimed to examine whether prosocial and antisocial interpersonal behaviors (i.e., performing OCBI or enacting incivility) could stem from and in turn function as restorative mechanisms for goal-related daily esteem and emotional impairments. The results from an experience sampling study showed that midday goal progress was positively related to midday self-esteem, and negatively related to midday shame and anger. The midday goal progress to anger path was also moderated by midday perceived personal control, such that the path was less negative on days when employees perceived greater (as compared to less) control over their goal progress. As hypothesized, both midday explicit and implicit esteem were negatively related to enacting incivility toward coworkers for employees with high but not low trait dominance motive. Subsequently, employees reported lower end-of-day explicit esteem on days when they enacted greater incivility, regardless of their levels of trait dominance motive. This was inconsistent with my hypothesis and did not support the restorative function of enacting incivility for state explicit esteem. The same hypothesis was however supported for end-of-day implicit esteem, such that employees with a high but not low trait dominance motive experienced higher implicit esteem at the end of the day on days when they enacted greater incivility. In other words, the results demonstrated the restorative function of enacting incivility for implicit self- esteem but not for explicit self-esteem by the end of the workday. Differences also showed up between explicit and implicit esteem for the OCBI paths. Specifically, midday explicit esteem was significantly and positively related to the performance 142 of OCBI, regardless of the levels of trait affiliation motive, which was contrary to what I hypothesized. The results from implicit esteem measure, on the other hand, supported the proposed hypothesis as midday implicit esteem was negatively related to the enactment of OCBI for employees with high but not low trait affiliation motive. The performance of OCBI was related to improved end-of-day explicit esteem regardless of employees’ trait affiliation motive. For implicit esteem, performing OCBI was related to improved end-of-day implicit esteem only for those with low but not high affiliation motive, again contrasting my hypothesis. For the paths related to emotions, midday shame did not predict the enactment of OCBI toward coworkers, but the enactment of OCBI was associated with lower shame by the end of the day. Midday anger positively predicted the enactment of incivility toward coworkers, but enacting incivility was not related to reduced anger by the end of the day. Finally, end-of-day esteem, both explicit and implicit, was positively related to goal progress for the second half of the day, while end-of-day shame and anger were negatively related to goal progress for the second half of the day. Further analyses revealed some significant 3-way interactions of trait dominance motive × trait affiliation motive on the paths from midday esteem to interpersonal behaviors, and from interpersonal behaviors to end-of-day esteem. Supplemental analyses from an alternative model also showed that domain-specific self-esteem (i.e., performance self-esteem and social self- esteem) tended to function in a similar manner as each other and as global esteem in the original model. In the following sections, I discuss several theoretical and practical implications associated with these results, identify the limitations of this study, and propose some directions for future research. 143 Theoretical Implications Overall, the development and examination of the dual-process model of how midday goal progress relates to interpersonal behaviors during work hours indirectly through midday esteem and emotions, and how these interpersonal behaviors relate back to end-of-day state self-esteem and emotions, facilitated a comprehensive and integrative consideration of interpersonal behaviors as restorative mechanisms for goal-related esteem and emotional deficits during the workday. In the following sections, I note the specific theoretical implications arising from the four key components in my model: 1) the dual-path relations of midday goal progress with self- relevant cognitive and emotional reactions, 2) interpersonal behaviors as recovery mechanisms for goal-related esteem impairments, 3) interpersonal behaviors as recovery mechanisms for goal-related emotions, and 4) the implications of esteem and emotional regulation during work hours for goal progress for the second-half of the day. I also suggest some potential alternative theoretical explanations for unsupported hypotheses. Midday Goal Progress and Midday Esteem and Emotions Dual outcomes of midday goal progress on esteem and emotions. This dissertation responded to past calls for more research to examine cognitive and emotional dynamics in employee motivational processes in a comprehensive manner (Barsade & Gibson, 2007). The results demonstrated partial support for the idea of a dual-path (i.e., esteem and emotional) mechanism for the relations between goal processes and interpersonal behaviors in the workplace, and underpinned the notion that unique esteem and emotional outcomes, and both prosocial and antisocial behaviors, could arise concurrently from a single source of daily goal progress. More importantly, the findings showed that the esteem path and the emotions path function simultaneously and have incremental validity over each other in predicting interpersonal 144 behaviors and end-of-day outcomes, thus reinforcing the benefits of amalgamating theories of self-consistency (Korman, 1970), interpersonal motives (Horowitz et al., 2006), and specific emotions (Bagozzi & Pieters, 1998; Pekrun, 2006) in an integrative manner for understanding and explaining how the task domain and social domain in the workplace spill over to each other on the daily basis. Role of perceived control over goal progress. Beyond the dual outcomes of esteem and emotions, this research also looked at how employees made sense of their daily goal progress by examining whether and how perceived control over goal progress might moderate the relations of midday goal progress with midday esteem and emotions. These series of hypotheses were formulated based on the argument that if there was lower (as compared to higher) perceived control over goal progress, employees would externalize their accountability for their goal progress and be less affected by it. The results showed that the main effects of midday goal progress on midday esteem and emotions were all significant in the hypothesized directions, but perceived control was only supported as a moderator for the midday goal progress – anger path (i.e., only H9 was supported out of the three moderation hypotheses). The lack of support for the moderating effect of perceived control on the relation from midday goal progress to midday esteem (H2), and from midday goal progress to midday shame (H8) suggested that employees felt bad (i.e., lower esteem and greater shame) after experiencing poor goal progress, even on days when they perceived that the goal progress was out of their control. This might be because feeling a lack of control could make employees feel powerless and doubt their ability to improve the situation (Glass, McKnight, & Valdimarsdottir, 1993; Mirowsky & Ross, 1990). In other words, perceiving a lack of control could have conditioned employees to expect future failures and made them belittle their self-worth and value to the organization (Pekrun, 2006), instead of 145 cushioning the detrimental impact of poor goal progress on their esteem and shame through the externalization of accountability. Taken together, these findings contribute to literature by clarifying that perceived control is a relevant moderator for goal-related anger but not goal- related esteem or shame. Therefore, if future research is interested in predicting anger as an outcome of goal-related processes, it may be important to consider state appraisals of self- control. However, if researchers are interested in understanding the relations of goal progress with esteem and shame, it may be less necessary to consider self-control attributions. Next, I discuss more specifically how OCBI and incivility during work hours may or may not be triggered by, and in turn help restore, goal-related impaired self-esteem and negative emotions, and the implications of these findings on specific literatures. Interpersonal Behaviors as Recovery Mechanisms for Goal-Related Esteem Impairments OCBI and actor self-esteem. The investigation of the reciprocal relations between state self-esteem and OCBI contributes to the recent stream of research that has utilized an actor- centric perspective for studying the implications of performing OCBI on the actor’s psychological functioning (Koopman et al., 2016; Li & Liao, 2017; L. Q. Yang, Liu, Nauta, Caughlin, & Spector, 2016b). Some of these studies demonstrated that performing OCB could be exhausting for the actors (Bolino, Hsiung, Harvey, & LePine, 2015), while others showed that it could be energizing and rejuvenating (Lam, Wan, & Roussin, 2016). Initially, I had hoped to reconcile these mixed findings by introducing affiliation motive as a moderator that would qualify the positive relationship from the performance of OCBI to positive esteem for the actors. However, the hypothesized moderating effect of affiliation was not supported, and my findings appeared to be more consistent with the view that performing OCB is beneficial for the actor’s well-being in general (Lam et al., 2016; Yurcu, Çolakoğlu, & Atay, 2015) as there was a 146 significant positive main effect of OCBI on end-of-day explicit esteem, and a significant negative main effect on end-of-day shame. In fact, the path between OCBI and end-of-day implicit esteem as moderated by affiliation motive was significant in a direction opposite to my hypothesis (H4a), such that it was positive for employees with low (but not high) affiliation motive. I speculate this could be because employees with low affiliation motive are more likely to regard performing OCBI in an egalitarian light (McAdams & Powers, 1981), and do not typically perform OCBI as a daily routine. Therefore, when employees with a low affiliation motive perform OCBI, they are more likely to consider it as “going an extra mile” as compared to employees with high affiliation motive who may view performing OCBI as a behavioral norm. This perception of putting in extra effort may therefore make employees with lower affiliation motive perceive themselves to be of greater importance and worth to others, thus improving their self-esteem more than those with high affiliation motive by the end of the day. Enacted incivility and actor self-esteem. Besides the OCB literature, the findings of this dissertation have implications for the incivility, self-esteem, and self-regulation literatures. Past incivility research has focused almost exclusively on targets’ experience of uncivil treatment when studying the implications of workplace incivility (Beattie & Griffin, 2014; Cortina et al., 2001; Schilpzand, Leavitt, et al., 2016). This is understandable because we want to devise ways to help targets cope adaptively with this unpleasant experience. However, as noted by Schilpzand, De Pater, et al. (2016), it is instrumental and necessary to understand why perpetrators or instigators of incivility act the uncivil way they do in order to nip this organizational hazard in the bud. A handful of studies did attempt to introduce, at least in part, an actor-centric approach as they examined how targets of incivility could potentially turn into actors of incivility due to situational factors such as behavioral contagion (Foulk et al., 2015) or 147 retaliation (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Rosen et al., 2016). Other studies that have also taken an actor-centric perspective found that stable traits of perpetrators such as a non-integrative conflict style (Trudel & Reio, 2011) or attitudes such as perceived psychological contract violations (Blau, 2007) were positively related to enacted or instigated incivility. However, each of these studies told only a segmented part of the story of why employees might enact incivility, and there is a critical “lack of an overarching or integrated theoretical framework” to understand how situational, interpersonal, and trait factors interact to shape uncivil behaviors (Schilpzand, De Pater, et al., 2016, p. S80). My dissertation filled this gap in the incivility literature by integrating situational factors (i.e., daily goal progress and control perceptions), attitude (i.e., self-esteem), emotions (i.e., shame and anger), and stable traits (i.e., interpersonal motives) in a comprehensive model to uncover the contingent and mediated relations between these variables. The findings should hopefully encourage scholars to consider the interplay between various factors when attempting to understand why employees may act in an uncivil manner toward coworkers. In addition, these results have implications for the broader self-esteem and self-regulation literatures. For the self-esteem literature, the fact that employees with a high dominance motive experienced greater implicit end-of-day esteem on days when they enacted greater incivility suggested that highly dominant individuals could derive their implicit self-worth at the expense of others through acts of incivility. This uncovered a paradoxically adaptive outcome of antisocial behaviors for the esteem of highly dominant employees, and highlighted the importance of applying stable motives, and more broadly, schemas and values, when studying how individuals build and restore their esteem. In addition, my findings illustrated the interrelatedness between the task and social domains in contributing to one’s appraisals of self- 148 worth, and demonstrated the permeability of the boundaries between these domains in contributing to one’s overall self-evaluations. Analyses from the supplemental alternative model also revealed highly similar patterns between the two domain-specific self-esteem scores (i.e., performance self-esteem and social self-esteem), and between them and the global self-esteem score, in terms of how they were related with the goal and interpersonal variables in the current model. These findings contest the domain-specific contingency perspective of self-esteem (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001), which argues that self-esteem in one domain (e.g., performance domain) is mostly affected only by domain-specific factors (e.g., task factors) and go on to shape only domain-specific attitudes or behaviors (e.g., task performance) (Crocker et al., 2003). My findings demonstrated prompt spillovers between the performance and social domains, and in general showed that self-esteem (both global and specific) could be impaired by poor goal progress and reinstated by interpersonal behaviors, albeit with some relationships not working in exact hypothesized directions. In reflection, this spillover effect observed in my results could be due to the within-person daily approach taken in this research. Past research that have advocated for the domain-specific perspective of self-esteem have mostly utilized cross-sectional or lagged between-person designs that demonstrated that individuals who have greater self-esteem in one domain will engage in more behaviors in that domain than others who have lower self-esteem in that domain (Crocker et al., 2006; Crocker et al., 2003). My research, however, examined the within-person regulation of self-esteem during work hours. It is likely that employees in my case would more readily reach out to any plausible immediate means, even from a different domain, to improve their state self-esteem. My findings therefore uncovered potential multilevel mechanisms that have been understudied in existing self-esteem literature by suggesting that domain permeability in self-esteem may function differently on the between-person level and the 149 within-person level. Nevertheless, I do not rule out the possibility that the consistency between the domain specific self-esteem scores and the global self-esteem score in terms of their relationships with other variables in the examined model might be a result of common method variance or a consistency response bias because employees responded to all measures of state self-esteem one after another in each daily survey. However, this methodological bias is less likely to be the cause because the CFA I conducted did support distinction between the different esteem measures in the measurement model. For the self-regulation literature, my results extend existing within-person research by highlighting the importance of trait interpersonal motives in helping us predict how employees might behave interpersonally after experiencing some unconscious impairments to their daily esteem and emotions. Past studies showed that employees are more likely to instigate incivility on days when they experience greater self-control depletion (Rosen et al., 2016), or at times when they have experienced unconscious behavioral contagion related to incivility (Foulk et al., 2015). The results of my dissertation demonstrated a negative relation between midday esteem (only implicit) and OCBI for employees with high but not low affiliation motive (H3a) and a negative relation between midday esteem (both explicit and implicit) and enacted incivility for employees with high but not low dominance motive (H3b). These significant moderated relations suggest that employees automatically fall back onto their schemas defined by their motives to regulate their interpersonal behaviors toward their coworkers when they have experienced some setbacks to their esteem or emotions. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the moderating effects of interpersonal motives were not completely consistent with my hypotheses on the second stage. Specifically, the restorative function of enacting incivility for employees with high dominance motive was not supported for end-of-day explicit esteem but supported for implicit end-of-day 150 esteem (H4b). Also, the recovery function of OCBI for implicit end-of-day esteem was supported for those with low instead of high affiliation motive (i.e., significant in an opposite direction of H4a). Therefore, if researchers plan to include motives as between-person moderators to study the self-regulation of interpersonal behaviors during work hours, more consideration has to be expended into theorizing specifically when motives or values might shape the interpersonal behaviors, and whether the moderated-mediations function through implicit or explicit processes. Related to this point, I suggest some reasons for the differences in the results between implicit and explicit processes in my model below. Differences between explicit and implicit end-of-day esteem after enacting incivility. My examination of the recovery function of enacting incivility on employees’ end-of-day self- esteem revealed different results for explicit versus implicit end-of-day esteem, such that enacting incivility was negatively related to explicit end-of-day esteem regardless of dominance motive, but positively related to implicit end-of-day esteem for employees with high (but not low) dominance motive. In other words, the recovery function of enacting incivility for employees with high dominance motive was supported for the implicit end-of-day esteem, but not for explicit end-of-day esteem. These were unanticipated findings, and I turn to literature on explicit and implicit attitudes to help me make sense of them. Rydell and McConnell (2006) noted that explicit attitudes are shaped by a deliberate processing of information, while implicit attitudes are represented by reflexive, associated concepts in one’s schemas. Explicit attitudes tend to be highly malleable and they change when individuals are presented with counter-attitudinal information, while implicit attitudes require a slow, ongoing accrual of information for small changes to occur (Rydell, McConnell, Strain, Claypool, & Hugenberg, 2007). Applying these notions into the context of this dissertation, it 151 might be likely that employees with high (but not low) trait dominance motive felt good implicitly and automatically after enacting incivility, because enacting incivility enabled them to gain authority and power over others (Parkins, Fishbein, & Ritchey, 2006), which are relational schemas and values consistent with having a high dominance motive (Horowitz et al., 2006). However, because most organizations and workplaces openly discourage and condemn workplace incivility, the organizational climate might act as a counter-attitudinal information to shape employees’ deliberative processing of how they should evaluate themselves after enacting incivility. This was especially plausible because I asked employees to report their own enacted incivility before reporting their end-of-day explicit esteem. Their response to the incivility measure mighty therefore have served as a cue to deter them from reporting that they were feeling greater explicit esteem from enacting incivility, thus showing a significant relationship (i.e., negative relation between enacting incivility and end-of-day explicit esteem) counter to my hypothesis of the restorative function of incivility for explicit esteem by the end of the day. The prevailing question is then whether incivility still possesses restorative functions given that it was negatively related to explicit esteem measured at the end of the day regardless of dominance motive, but positively related to end-of-day implicit esteem for employees with high (but not low) dominance motive. It is difficult to draw a conclusion for this question because both the explicit and implicit systems function simultaneously in a dual-process system to make up the overall attitude of individuals (Gregg, Seibt, & Banaji, 2006; Payne, Burkley, & Stokes, 2008), and there is no good answer to whether explicit or implicit attitude is more definitive or a more accurate representation of attitude. It is possible that enacting incivility offers employees with high trait dominance motive with instant gratification, but then leaves them with conscious regret and distress following that. According to Zeigler‐Hill (2006), 152 discrepancies in explicit and implicit self-esteem can be related to poor psychological adjustment. In particular, Kernis (2003) explained that the most optimal form of self-esteem is one where individuals experience congruence between their explicit and implicit self-esteem because the convergence would signify genuineness and stability that help individuals feel secure. These existing theoretical premises open an avenue for future research to more closely monitor and investigate whether convergences or divergences in explicit or implicit self-esteem that stem from enacting incivility has long-term impacts for employees’ psychological well- being. Interpersonal Behaviors as Recovery Mechanisms for Goal-Related Emotions Shame and OCBI. As shown by the findings, midday shame did not predict the performance of OCBI, but the performance of OCBI lowered shame by the end of the day. I initially hypothesized that midday shame could prompt employees to perform OCBI because shame is a moral emotion that increases the salience of moral standards for doing good and being helpful to others (Tangney et al., 2007). However, this was not demonstrated by my results. It is possible that shame is associated with feelings of inadequacy and incompetence, and leads to a tendency to withdraw from social interactions as some scholars argued (Izard, 1991). If this was the case, however, there should be a significant negative relationship between midday shame and OCBI. Yet, the two variables were not significantly related in my results. Several prior research have noted this potential paradoxical effect of shame, such that it can potentially be related to both a tendency to do good to repair the situation and a tendency to withdraw (De Hooge et al., 2013; De Hooge et al., 2010; M. Lewis, Alessandri, & Sullivan, 1992; Mosquera et al., 2008). Therefore, the non-significant relationship between midday shame and OCBI adds to this pool of literature, and hints at the presence of a more complex mechanism, perhaps a moderated 153 relationship, between the experience of shame and its behavioral outcomes. For example, Mosquera et al. (2008) demonstrated that the experience of shame led to proactive voicing of disapproval of a wrongdoer’s behavior in participants from an honor culture, but led to withdrawal and detachment from the wrongdoer in participants from a non-honor culture. Transferred to my context, it could be possible that shame may predict OCBI among employees who have higher identification with their work unit and greater pride in their work, while predicting withdrawal among employees with lower identification with their work unit and lower pride in their work. These are certainly questions that future research can examine in order to better comprehend the behavioral outcomes of goal-related shame in the workplace. Anger and incivility. My results also showed that anger positively predicted the enactment of incivility, but enacting incivility was not related to lower anger at the end of the day. This finding is interesting because it supports the anger-aggression perspective on the within-person level, such that anger is related to tendencies to behave in a hostile or antisocial manner. However, the finding does not support the catharsis perspective that suggests engaging in aggressive acts helps to dissipate anger on the within-person level. Extant literature regularly packaged the two concepts of anger-aggression and catharsis in one, and alluded that anger leads to aggressive or antisocial inclinations towards targets unrelated to the source of anger because of individuals’ need for cathartic release of the anger (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939; W. A. Lewis & Bucher, 1992). However, the findings in this dissertation suggest that they are two distinct components that should be unpacked and evaluated on their own on the within- person level. While anger was related to the enactment of incivility, the enactment of incivility did not significantly purge or release anger by the end of the day on days when employees acted in an uncivil manner (i.e., non-significant, albeit negative, relationship between incivility and 154 end-of-day anger, controlling for midday anger). Future research could benefit from considering potential moderating mechanisms that may qualify and enhance the cathartic and restorative function of enacting incivility. For instance, is it possible that incivility will dissipate anger on days when the uncivil behaviors are directed at specific coworkers who have disrupted or hindered the employee’s goal progress but not on days when the incivility is directed at other blameless coworkers? Examining these research questions will be useful for evaluating whether there are conditions under which enacting incivility has a restorative function for the actor and when it does not. Anger versus shame as negative emotions. Although shame did not predict OCBI, the results showed that performing OCBI was related to lower shame by the end of the day. On the other hand, although anger predicted incivility, the enactment of incivility was not related to lower anger by the end of the day. These results contribute to research that looks at the differences between specific emotions within general negative affect (Chong & Park, 2017; Yi & Baumgartner, 2004). Taken together, the findings generally suggest that shame and anger, despite both being negative emotions, have different degrees of affect spin (Beal, Trougakos, Weiss, & Dalal, 2013) and function at different intensities temporally, such that it is easier to dissipate shame than anger through interpersonal behaviors within the span of a workday. This can be informative for researchers who are interested in designing specific interventions for emotional regulation and management in the workplace (S. P. Brown, Westbrook, & Challagalla, 2005; Morris & Feldman, 1997), because it shows that it will be more effective to recommend different actions to help employees cope with specific negative emotions than using a one-size- fits-all strategy for reducing overall negative affect. 155 Workday Esteem and Emotional Regulation for Goal Progress for Second-Half of Day Finally, the results of this research showed that employees do engage in interpersonal behaviors as a function of regulating their goal-related esteem and emotions throughout the workday. These findings contribute meaningfully to the literature that have conceptually argued for, but never empirically tested, the restorative functions of interpersonal behaviors during work hours (Lilius, 2012). This is important because it pushes the boundaries of existing recovery research beyond a general focus on off-work personal activities and experiences as recovery mechanisms (Sonnentag, Kuttler, et al., 2010; Sonnentag & Natter, 2004), and demonstrates that employees’ proximal social context in the workplace can function to help them cope with goal- related esteem and emotional deficits. It also informs future research that the constructive regulation of esteem, anger, and shame during work hours can help employees promptly improve their goal progress in the same day. This should encourage more future research to examine how to help employees manage their esteem and emotions during work hours for enhancing organizational effectiveness. Practical Implications I draw a few insights for practice from the findings of this research. First, this research informs managers that the task domain and social domain have mutual influences on each other in everyday work life via esteem and emotional regulation. It is all organizations’ goal to foster a collegial environment in which employees engage in more OCBI and do not enact incivility, but such social behaviors can be influenced on the daily level by employees’ perceptions of their goal progress for the day. It would be helpful for managers to be aware of such relations between the task and social domains, in order to better manage expectations regarding OCBI and incivility behaviors in the workplace. Managers who have highly dominant employees may also 156 take preemptive steps to prevent incivility on days when these employees are experiencing low goal progress and low esteem by providing them with support and counselling, and by encouraging them to regain their self-worth through instrumental, task-related actions rather than incivility. Second, this research showed that performing OCBI makes people feel good in general (i.e., higher end-of-day esteem and lower shame). Although the results were not completely consistent with my hypothesis that OCBI would only make employees with high (but not low) affiliation motive feel good, it indicates the potential of using OCBI as a tool to help employees recover their self-worth and to reduce shame during the workday. Organizations can leverage this by providing employees with more opportunities to help each other. For example, organizations can consider setting up an internal crowdsourcing platform for employees to post work-related favors they need from coworkers, and coworkers may seek out helping gigs on the platform and engage in OCBI when they want to do so. However, the opportunities to perform OCBI should remain voluntary and not turn into something obligatory, because my results also showed a positive relationship between (explicit) midday esteem and OCBI, which implies that employees do need to perceive a certain level of self-worth before they can or will channel their resources into helping others. Therefore, if OCBI becomes obligatory, employees may experience greater destress from perceiving the pressure to engage in OCBI and having to expend resources for helping others when they are already encountering goal-related esteem and emotional impairments. Third, this research demonstrated a potential dark side of having high trait dominance motive. Trait dominance, which is highly similar to the concept of trait dominance motive, has often been demonstrated to be a desirable leadership trait and to be predictive of leadership 157 emergence (Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986; Mann, 1959; Zaccaro, 2007). Employees with high dominance display a strong desire to achieve and control (Cozzolino & Snyder, 2008), rendering them likely candidates to be promoted to positions of authority in organizations (Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009). However, this research showed that employees with high trait dominance are more likely to enact incivility on days when they are experiencing low goal progress and low state self-esteem. Perhaps most perceptively noted by Hawley (2007), individuals with high social dominance are usually socially competent but also socially aggressive. They are likely to coordinate collective actions in a group, but equally likely to resort to socially coercive moves to achieve their goals (Hawley, 2007). Therefore, while organizations value trait dominance as a leadership trait, they should be cognizant of how it can also be related to the enactment of incivility on days of poor goal progress and low self-esteem. How then can we attempt to reduce incivility that stems from goal-related esteem impairments and anger in daily work? Findings from the esteem route in this dissertation model would suggest trying to lower dominance motive so that it would not qualify the negative relationship from midday esteem to the enactment of incivility. However, as noted above, having a high dominance motive is not always a bad thing in the organizational setting because it can predict leader emergence (Judge et al., 2009). Hence, it may not necessarily be practical or beneficial to discourage trait dominance motive in employees. A potential solution would be for organizations to inform and educate highly dominant employees of the bright and dark sides of this trait, in hopes of increasing their awareness of their behavioral tendencies, thus helping them curb tendencies to act in an uncivil manner on days when they experience low goal progress and low esteem. Findings from the anger route in the tested model suggest that managers can attempt to reduce the occurrence of incivility through an attempt to reduce the experience of anger 158 following poor daily goal progress. This can possibly be done by getting employees to focus on what they can control instead of what they cannot control regarding their daily goal progress. Doing so may help them perceive greater personal control and be able to better visualize concrete, instrumental next steps they can take for addressing the poor goal progress. Organizations can also consider holding anger management workshops to help employees explore ways of handling and managing their anger in an adaptive and constructive manner, such as through physical exercises (Richardson & Rothstein, 2008), to prevent them from using incivility as an outlet for the catharsis of their anger Finally, it should be noted that there would be limited effectiveness in attempting to counter the detrimental moderating effects of dominance motive by developing affiliation motive. One might intuitively believe that one could discourage or minimize incivility by encouraging employees to adopt an affiliative and collegial mindset. However, the results from this research supported the independence of the two motives, and the supplemental 3-way interaction analyses further demonstrated that high affiliation motive did not weaken the negative relationship between midday esteem and incivility once employees had a high dominance motive. Therefore, organizations should understand that trying to promote a high affiliation motive among employees is unlikely to help solve the problem of incivility unless they also attempt to lower employees’ levels of dominance motive simultaneously. Limitations and Future Directions The following limitations of this study should be noted simultaneously with the above theoretical and practical implications to understand the boundaries of the research findings. First, my use of a single-item measure (Robins et al., 2001) to assess explicit global state self-esteem in the daily surveys may be considered a flaw of this research. I chose to use the single-item 159 measure to keep the daily survey length short and manageable for respondents, but as noted by Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy (1997), “the use of single-item measures for psychological constructs is typically discouraged, primarily because they are presumed to have unacceptably low reliability” (p. 247). Although the single-item explicit global state self-esteem measure I used was previously validated and demonstrated by Robins et al. (2001) to be a comparable alternative to the 10-item Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-Esteem Scale, it was done on the trait level of analysis and ultimately unclear if the single item would remain a valid substitute on the daily level. I attempted to minimize this limitation using a pilot test where I assessed the correlation of the two scales. The pilot test result showed that the two measures, adapted to a daily time frame, were positively and significantly correlated (r = .725, p < .01). This was consistent with prior validation that showed the two measures to be correlated in the range of .72 to .76 on the trait level of analysis (Robins et al., 2001). However, my pilot test merely changed the temporal referent of the items from “in general” to “at the moment” and was still a cross-sectional survey, hence it did not directly evaluate the shortened and original scales in terms of their within-person and between-person variabilities over days. Future studies may therefore benefit from either conducting an extensive validation test for this single-item measure in an experience sampling context or from replicating this research using a measure of explicit global state self-esteem that contains multiple items to expand the covered scope of construct. Second, measuring end-of-day esteem and emotions, and goal progress for the second half of the day all in the second daily survey prohibited a temporal segregation between the final two stages in the hypothesized model. Therefore, like all correlational studies, this current research is limited in its ability to draw causal inferences. For example, it was possible for the positive relationships from end-of-day esteem and emotions to goal progress for the second half 160 of the day to be a function of a reversed causality (i.e., better goal progress for second half of day led to better esteem and less negative emotions at the end of the day) rather than due to the hypothesized causal direction. To address this, one could consider separating the measures of the focal constructs into three or four daily surveys instead of two surveys. This was something that this current research did not manage to achieve due to a worry of overwhelming respondents and due to practical logistical concerns. If researchers have access to a sample of highly committed respondents, having more daily surveys might be a feasible and the most straightforward strategy for overcoming this limitation. It should nonetheless be noted that having three or four daily surveys would still not eradicate the correlational nature of experience sampling data that continues to exist to prevent causal conclusions from being drawn. To establish causality, future research could design a laboratory experiment that requires participants to engage in the pursuit of work goals following the measures of their esteem and emotions pre- and post-interaction with teammates in a goal achievement setting. Third, all the measures in this study were self-reported, including enacted OCBI and incivility. The use of self-reports could raise concerns of common method variance where observed relations between variables might be attributable to the rater bias rather than to true covariance between the variables (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Reio, 2010). In the context of this research, social desirability bias (Moorman & Podsakoff, 1992; Thomas & Kilmann, 1975) might lead to inflations of OCBI and underreports of enacted incivility, thus complicating the potential influence of common method variance for the research. The self-reports of OCBI and incivility could also have raised the salience of these behaviors to respondents and influence their reports of their state esteem and emotions. Future research could address this limitation by attempting to collect peer-rated OCBI and incivility. Scholars could also design experiments that 161 allow them to assess these interpersonal behaviors objectively. For example, Foulk et al. (2015) conducted an experiment in which they assessed behavioral incivility by studying how participants distributed prize money between themselves and targets. OCBI could also be captured in experiments using experimental measures such as volunteering to help fellow participants or cooperating in a social dilemma game (J. M. Twenge, Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Bartels, 2007). Next, there was no way to ascertain why respondents completed surveys on some days and not others during the data collection period. The attrition analyses suggested no differences between respondents who completed more (i.e., six or more) surveys and those who completed less (i.e., five or less) surveys, and this research assumed that these daily responses were missing at random. However, it is possible for respondents’ response behaviors to be intricately related to the research questions studied in this research. For example, respondents with high (as compared to low) trait dominance motive might choose to ignore survey invitations and be less likely to respond on days when they experienced lower goal progress and lower state self-esteem as a means for them to establish dominance over someone, in this case, the researcher of this study. On the other hand, respondents with high (as compared to low) trait affiliation motive might regard completing the daily surveys as a favor to the researcher, and be more likely to respond, on days when they experienced lower goal progress and lower state self-esteem. Such possibilities may mean that the act of responding to daily surveys could serendipitously become a conduit through which respondents enacted incivility or helping during work hours. Future research could consider addressing this speculation by examining the research model in a controlled laboratory experiment where participants are not allowed to skip responses. Researchers who choose to study this model using experience sampling method should also 162 consider extending my current research design and conduct interviews with respondents at the end of the data collection period to probe whether there are specific reasons why they choose to, or not to, complete surveys on certain days. Finally, I acknowledge the limitation of not having measured and controlled for other potential recovery behaviors during work hours in this research. The development of my theoretical model was based on theories related to interpersonal motives for regaining self- esteem and social functions of emotions, hence I focused on the measures of OCBI and incivility as recovery behaviors to maintain the parsimony of my model and surveys. I also argued that employees, as social beings, were likely to turn to their immediate social context readily and spontaneously for recovery means during work hours (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991). However, past research suggested that recovery might not always involve interpersonal interactions (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). For examples, employees may engage in relaxation activities (e.g., listening to music or meditation), psychological detachment (e.g., cyberloafing or taking respites), or mastery activities (e.g., learning a new skill) to recover from work stress (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). This research does not address when and why employees might turn to interpersonal behaviors or intrapersonal behaviors when trying to regulate their esteem and emotions during the work hours. Not controlling for these other recovery behaviors also meant that this research was not able to evaluate how much incremental validity the enactment of incivility and OCBI have over these other behaviors in terms of predicting esteem and emotional recovery during work hours. A potential direction for future research would therefore be the development of an integrative model that incorporates trait and situational factors to explain when and why employees might choose one type of recovery strategy over others, and that allows scholars to predict the circumstances under which each strategy works most effectively. 163 Beyond the above future directions that are aimed at addressing the limitations of this study, I also propose the following ideas for next steps to extend this research. For one, future research can build on the findings of this research and investigate whether interventions can be devised to help prevent highly dominant employees from inflicting incivility on innocent coworkers due to goal-related esteem and anger impairments. It should be emphasized that it is not an intention of this dissertation to encourage the enactment of incivility as a means for countering low state self-esteem or anger. However, the results from this study did suggest that highly dominant employees do inevitably engage in uncivil acts toward coworkers on days when they are experiencing low self-esteem, so do employees who are experiencing goal-related anger. Therefore, it may be advantageous to develop an intervention that allows these employees to act out their incivility with minimal actual harm done to their real-life coworkers. For example, organizations could explore ways to create a virtual platform for employees to engage in “fictitious incivility” that helps them dispense their feelings of worthlessness or anger through harmless uncivil acts on virtual characters in video games or online simulations. As a real-life illustration, the organization Groupon has an interactive video that allows customers who have chosen to unsubscribe from its email listserv to click on a button to “punish” the employee responsible for sending the emails (Groupon Inc., 2018; see https://www.dropbox.com/s/gky66mxy8sw7l76/GrpnUnsub.mp4?dl=0 for demonstration). This tongue-in-cheek interactive tool enables customers to engage in a relatively harmless uncivil act where a cup of water is being thrown on the said employee in the video. Importantly, the general positive comments (Gale, 2014; Young, 2012; Zeigler, 2010) received by this video tool makes one perceive its potential as a feasible concept to be implemented into the organizational setting for allowing highly dominant employees to engage in incivility without actual costs to real-life 164 coworkers. If such a tool can be successfully implemented in the organizational setting, it may greatly minimize the incivility experienced by real-life coworkers. Alternatively, other interventions may also be explored and tested. For instance, researchers may inform and educate highly dominant employees of their tendencies to act in an uncivil manner on days of low goal progress and low self-esteem. Doing so may increase their awareness of this problem and help them consciously curb their tendencies to act in an uncivil manner. Next, I took a trait approach toward interpersonal motives that assumed that employees possess a stable pattern when they interact with others (Horowitz et al., 2006), but future research could consider conceptualizing and operationalizing interpersonal motives as state variables that fluctuate with each dyadic interaction (K. D. Locke & Sadler, 2007). According to the state perspective, interpersonal behaviors invite complementary responses from others (Kiesler, 1996). It is hence possible for individuals to become less dominant at times when they are interacting with someone who asserts greater dominance than them. Individuals may also experience a stronger affiliation motive when they interact with other highly affiliative individuals or when they are embedded in a highly collective group (Erdogan & Liden, 2006; Wagner, 1995). Integrating this potential dynamic nature of interpersonal motives into the current research context, it suggests that employees may adopt different levels of dominance and affiliation motives, and engage in different interpersonal behaviors after encountering poor goal progress and low self-esteem based on whom they are currently in company with. Future research may therefore consider utilizing a social network approach for collecting dyadic or matrix data to capture and examine such rich and complex interpersonal interaction patterns in the workplace. 165 In addition, the results of this research revealed unexpected but interesting differences between explicit and implicit end-of-day esteem in terms of how they were influenced by the enactment of incivility. Incivility was negatively related to explicit end-of-day esteem regardless of high or low dominance motive, but positively related to implicit end-of-day esteem for employees with high but not low dominance motive. Such a discrepancy in how the enactment of incivility makes employees feel about themselves is deserving of greater research attention. As discussed earlier under theoretical implications, differences in explicit and implicit measures of attitudes can potentially be due to reasons such as poor psychological adjustment (Zeigler‐Hill, 2006), social desirability (Knoll, 2013), or social or organizational norms (Rutland, Cameron, Milne, & McGeorge, 2005; Ziegert & Hanges, 2005). In the case of this research, one possibility was that employees were explicitly aware that being uncivil to others was undesirable and socially incorrect, thus making them report lower end-of-day esteem on days when they behaved in an uncivil manner to their coworkers. However, such deliberative evaluations of one’s actions might not have transferred to their unconscious level of processing, especially for those with high trait dominance who automatically gained self-worth from asserting power over others (Parkins et al., 2006). Therefore, the employees with a high trait dominance motive continued to relate faster to positive words (i.e., experience better implicit self-esteem) on days when they enacted incivility. Future research may investigate the factors that lead to such inconsistencies in how antisocial or prosocial actions make the actors feel. For example, individual characteristics such as social desirability or political correctness beliefs (Lalonde, Doan, & Patterson, 2000; Norton, Sommers, Apfelbaum, Pura, & Ariely, 2006), or organizational factors such as justice climate (Dietz, Robinson, Folger, Baron, & Schulz, 2003) may render certain actions more favorable or unfavorable on the conscious level, thus functioning as a moderator on the relations 166 from incivility behaviors to explicit and implicit self-esteem. In connection, future research could also examine whether discrepancies in explicit and implicit self-esteem lead to greater psychological distress for employees during work hours. Finally, this research focused on the interaction of internal actor-based factors (i.e., interpersonal motives) and situational factors (i.e., goal progress) to study workday esteem and emotional regulation, without taking into consideration potential organizational factors that may confound the hypothesized relationships in the model. In particular, organizational factors such as helping or incivility climates, or more broadly ethical and justice climates, may function to limit or promote the incidence of citizenship or incivility behaviors in the workplace (Ehrhart, 2004; J. Lee & Jensen, 2014). The sample used in this research hailed from a diverse array of organizations and occupations, hence it remains unclear whether the observed effects in this research can potentially be influenced by climate factors unique to an organization. Future research may attempt to more systematically identify organizational factors that can be leveraged for helping employees regulate and recover their esteem and emotions in socially adaptive ways. Conclusion This dissertation developed and tested a dual-process model to look at how prosocial and antisocial behaviors might arise from employees’ daily fluctuations in esteem and emotions associated with their goal progress. The results in general suggested the spillover of influences between the task domain and the social domain via esteem and emotions during work hours, and contributed to the literature that seeks to understand the antecedents and outcomes of incivility and interpersonal citizenship behaviors from the perspective of the actor. Both the supported and unsupported hypotheses uncovered rather novel insights regarding the intricate relationships between task behaviors and interpersonal behaviors in the processes of esteem and emotional 167 regulation during daily goal pursuit. The findings should hopefully serve as a first step to inspire more future research on studying interpersonal behaviors as recovery mechanisms in the workplace. 168 APPENDICES 169 APPENDIX A: Trait Interpersonal Motives (Markey & Markey, 2009) Please rate your agreement or disagreement of how descriptive each statement is of you in general. Affiliation motive 1. I am interested in people. 2. I inquire about others’ well-being. 3. I reassure others. 4. I get along well with others. Dominance motive 1. I enjoy being the center of interest. 2. I tend to speak loudly. 3. I like to do most of the talking in conversations. 4. I enjoy having power over others. 1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree 170 APPENDIX B: Explicit Trait Global Self-Esteem (Rosenberg, 1965) Please record the appropriate answer for each item, depending on whether you agree or disagree with whether this statement is descriptive of you in general in life. 1. In general I have high self-esteem. 1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree 171 APPENDIX C: Daily Goal Progress (Koopman et al., 2016; Wanberg et al., 2010) From the beginning of the workday till now, 1. I have been productive in relation to my work goals. 2. I have made good progress on my work goals. 3. I have moved forward with my work goals. 1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree 172 APPENDIX D: Daily Control Perception (Lachman & Weaver, 1998) [Adapted to daily referent] From the beginning of the workday till now, 1. I could do just about anything I set my mind to at work 2. Whether or not I was able to achieve what I wanted at work was in my own hands 3. I had little control over the things that happened to me at work (R) 4. I felt helpless in dealing with my work problems (R) 1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree 173 APPENDIX E: Explicit State Global Self-Esteem (Robins et al., 2001) Please record the appropriate answer for each item, depending on whether you agree or disagree with it. 1. Right now, I am experiencing high self-esteem. 1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree 174 APPENDIX F: Explicit State Domain-Specific Self-Esteem (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991) Items from the Performance and Social dimensions of the scale (eliminated the Appearance dimension) Performance 1. Right now, I feel good about my work abilities. 2. Right now, I feel like I am doing well on my work. 3. Right now, I feel confident that I understand things that I am working on today. Social 1. Right now, I feel good around my coworkers. 2. Right now, I am pleased with how I behave toward my coworkers. 3. Right now, I am satisfied with my interactions with my coworkers. 1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree 175 APPENDIX G: Implicit State Self-Esteem Lexical Decision Task (Dijksterhuis, 2004; Schvaneveldt et al., 1976) Each row was matched on number of letters and syllables. Respondents went through 20 trials for the LDT, so 10 positive words and its corresponding neutral or non-words were randomly selected to be administered in each LDT in each daily survey. Below is a the list of letter strings used. Positive Words Associated Neutral Words with High Self-Esteem 1-syllable BEST GOOD GREAT 2-syllable ABLE EXCEL GIFTED SUPERB WORTHY TALENT USEFUL PERFECT AWESOME FLAWLESS SKILLFUL OUTSHINE 3-syllable CAPABLE AMAZING EXCELLENT COMPETENT QUALIFIED EFFICIENT IMPORTANT 4-syllable SUPERIOR VALUABLE 1-syllable VEST FOOT BREAD 2-syllable LOGO TABLE RIBBON SHADOW MOMENT BOTTLE CARPET BLANKET PLASTIC DISTRICT MIDNIGHT PLATFORM 3-syllable JUPITER OCTOPUS RECTANGLE GEOGRAPHY CONTINENT APARTMENT RECORDING 4-syllable DIAGONAL RESIDUAL 176 Non-Words 1-syllable YEUM WEEM SPLET 2-syllable PIWA HYCIT LURRAG CELURT DRIFAS KNELDY PLUNUM LOPIUTE VROLIEB EINNAUKE HEUTRONT RAUCTINT 3-syllable LAUPITO FRUTAMI KRANSELON IUPKLEMIN YERUSKALL EPPUNGENT METRUFFIG 4-syllable JONIALUS PYLIFIRE Preview: https://msu.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_e342Wnwh04uD2At Instructions The letter “I” appears for .5 second to prime self-concept Letter string appears for .5 second Respondent selects whether letter string is a word or non-word; Response time recorded 177 APPENDIX H: State Shame (Marschall et al., 1994) Right now, 1. I want to sink into the floor and disappear. 2. I feel small. 3. I feel disgraced. 1 = Very slightly or not at all; 5 = Extremely 178 APPENDIX I: State Anger (Fuqua et al., 1991) Right now, 1. I am furious. 2. I am mad. 3. I feel angry. 1 = Very slightly or not at all; 5 = Extremely 179 APPENDIX J: Daily OCB (Trougakos et al., 2015; L. J. Williams & Anderson, 1991) In the time since I completed the last survey, I 1. went out of my way to help my coworkers 2. took a personal interest in other employees 3. tried to be available to my coworkers 1 = Never; 5 = Four or more times 180 APPENDIX K: Daily Incivility (Cortina et al., 2001; Rosen et al., 2016) In the time since I completed the last survey, I have 1. Put one of more of my coworkers down or was condescending toward them. 2. Paid little attention to or showed little interest in one or more of my coworkers’ statements or opinions. 3. Made demeaning or derogatory remarks about one or more of my coworkers, either publicly or privately. 4. Doubted the judgment of one or more of my coworkers on a matter over which they have responsibility. 1 = Never; 5 = Four or more times 181 APPENDIX L: Goal Progress for Second Half of Day (Koopman et al., 2016; adapted from Wanberg et al., 2010) In the time since I completed the last survey, 1. I have been productive in relation to my work goals. 2. I have made good progress on my work goals. 3. I have moved forward with my work goals. 1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree 182 APPENDIX M: State Positive Affect (Barrett, 1998; Watson et al., 1988) This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Indicate to what extent you feel this way currently, at this moment. 1. happy 2. joyful 3. enthusiastic 1 = Very slightly or not at all; 5 = Extremely 183 APPENDIX N: Frustration (Peters et al., 1980) Indicate to what extent you feel this way currently, at this moment. 1. Trying to get this job done is a very frustrating experience. 2. Being frustrated comes with this job. 3. I am experiencing very little frustration on this job. (R) 1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree 184 APPENDIX O: State Depletion (J. Twenge et al., 2004) 1. Right now, I feel drained. 2. My mind feels unfocused right now. 3. Right now, I feel like my willpower is gone. 1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree 185 APPENDIX P: MSU IRB Approval 186 REFERENCES 187 REFERENCES Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 367-403. doi:10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367 Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: an interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109(4), 619-645. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.4.619 Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to- face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 491-503. doi:10.1037/a0014201 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. doi:10.5465/AMR.1999.2202131 Averill, J. R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion. American Psychologist, 38(11), 1145-1160. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.38.11.1145 Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re‐examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462. doi:10.1348/096317999166789 Bagozzi, R. P., & Pieters, R. (1998). Goal-directed emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 12(1), 1-26. doi:10.1080/026999398379754 Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Oxford, UK: Rand Mcnally. Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 461-484. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.461 Balota, D. A., & Chumbley, J. I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(3), 340-357. doi:10.1037/0096- 1523.10.3.340 Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. (2005). Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 629-643. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.629 Barrett, L. F. (1998). Discrete emotions or dimensions? The role of valence focus and arousal focus. Cognition & Emotion, 12(4), 579-599. doi:10.1080/026999398379574 188 Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 36-59. Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11(2), 142-163. doi:10.1037/1082- 989X.11.2.142 Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1-44. doi:10.1111/1529-1006.01431 Baumeister, R. F., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Ego depletion: A resource model of volition, self-regulation, and controlled processing. Social Cognition, 18(2), 130-150. doi:10.1521/soco.2000.18.2.130 Beal, D. J., Trougakos, J. P., Weiss, H. M., & Dalal, R. S. (2013). Affect spin and the emotion regulation process at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 593-605. doi:10.1037/a0032559 Beattie, L., & Griffin, B. (2014). Accounting for within‐person differences in how people respond to daily incivility at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(3), 625-644. doi:10.1111/joop.12067 Bhanji, J. P., & Delgado, M. R. (2014). Perceived control influences neural responses to setbacks and promotes persistence. Neuron, 83(6), 1369-1375. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.012 Blau, G. (2007). Partially testing a process model for understanding victim responses to an anticipated worksite closure. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(3), 401-428. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.08.005 Blau, G., & Andersson, L. (2005). Testing a measure of instigated workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4), 595-614. doi:10.1348/096317905X26822 Boekaerts, M. (1993). Being concerned with well-being and with learning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 149-167. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2802_4 Bolino, M. C., Hsiung, H.-H., Harvey, J., & LePine, J. A. (2015). “Well, I’m tired of tryin’!” Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 56-74. doi:10.1037/a0037583 Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 505-522. Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 256-259. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.256 189 Brewer, S., & Klein, J. D. (2006). Type of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an asynchronous, collaborative learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 331-354. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9603-3 Brockner, J. (1983). Low self-esteem and behavioral plasticity: Some implications. In L. Wheeler & P. Shaver (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 237-271). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Brown, J., Fielding, J., & Grover, J. (1999). Distinguishing traumatic, vicarious and routine operational stressor exposure and attendant adverse consequences in a sample of police officers. Work & Stress, 13(4), 312-325. doi:10.1080/02678379950019770 Brown, S. P., Westbrook, R. A., & Challagalla, G. (2005). Good cope, bad cope: Adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies following a critical negative work event. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 792. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.792 Bunk, J. A., & Magley, V. J. (2013). The role of appraisals and emotions in understanding experiences of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(1), 87-105. doi:10.1037/a0030987 Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Phillips, C. M. (2001). Do people aggress to improve their mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation opportunity, and aggressive responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 17-32. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.81.1.17 Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1980). The frequency concept of disposition: Dominance and prototypically dominant acts. Journal of Personality, 48(3), 379-392. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 6494.1980.tb00840.x Campbell, J. D., & Lavallee, L. F. (1993). Who am I? The role of self-concept confusion in understanding the behavior of people with low self-esteem. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Springer Press. Campion, M. A., & Lord, R. G. (1982). A control systems conceptualization of the goal-setting and changing process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30(2), 265- 287. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(82)90221-5 Carver, C. S. (2004). Negative affects deriving from the behavioral approach system. Emotion, 4(1), 3-22. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.4.1.3 Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 183-204. doi:10.1037/a0013965 Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2011). Self-regulation of action and affect. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 19-38). New York, NY: Guilford Press. 190 Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in Social Psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Chang, C.-H. D., Johnson, R. E., & Lord, R. G. (2009). Moving beyond discrepancies: The importance of velocity as a predictor of satisfaction and motivation. Human Performance, 23(1), 58-80. doi:10.1080/08959280903400226 Cheung, M.-P., Gilbert, P., & Irons, C. (2004). An exploration of shame, social rank and rumination in relation to depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(5), 1143- 1153. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00206-X Chong, S., & Park, G. (2017). The differential effects of incidental anger and sadness on goal regulation. Learning and Motivation, 58, 1-15. doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2017.03.001 Cialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of image management: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 406-415. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.406 Cohen, A. R. (1959). Some implications of self-esteem for social influence. In C. I. Hovland & I. L. Janis (Eds.), Personality and persuasibility (pp. 102-120). Oxford, UK: Yale University Press. Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen injustice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 55-75. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.27745097 Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64- 80. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64 Cozzolino, P. J., & Snyder, M. (2008). Good times, bad times: How personal disadvantage moderates the relationship between social dominance and efforts to win. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(10), 1420-1433. doi:10.1177/0146167208321595 Crisp, R. J., Heuston, S., Farr, M. J., & Turner, R. N. (2007). Seeing red or feeling blue: Differentiated intergroup emotions and ingroup identification in soccer fans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(1), 9-26. Crocker, J., Brook, A. T., Niiya, Y., & Villacorta, M. (2006). The pursuit of self‐esteem: Contingencies of self‐worth and self‐regulation. Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1749- 1772. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00427.x Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 894-908. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.894 Crocker, J., Moeller, S., & Burson, A. (2010). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of personality and self-regulation (pp. 403-429). Oxford, UK: Wiley- Blackwell. 191 Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108(3), 593-623. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.593 De Hooge, I. E., Breugelmans, S. M., & Zeelenberg, M. (2008). Not so ugly after all: When shame acts as a commitment device. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 933-943. doi:10.1037/a0011991 De Hooge, I. E., Mohiyeddini, C., Eysenck, M., & Bauer, S. (2013). Moral emotions and prosocial behaviour: It may be time to change our view of shame and guilt Handbook of psychology of emotions: Recent theoretical perspectives and novel empirical findings (pp. 255-276). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. De Hooge, I. E., Zeelenberg, M., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2010). Restore and protect motivations following shame. Cognition and Emotion, 24(1), 111-127. doi:10.1080/02699930802584466 Deblinger, E., & Runyon, M. K. (2005). Understanding and treating feelings of shame in children who have experienced maltreatment. Child Maltreatment, 10(4), 364-376. doi:10.1177/1077559505279306 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 Di Paula, A., & Campbell, J. D. (2002). Self-esteem and persistence in the face of failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 711-724. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.83.3.711 Dickerson, S. S., Gruenewald, T. L., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). When the social self is threatened: Shame, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality, 72(6), 1191-1216. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00295.x Dietz, J., Robinson, S. L., Folger, R., Baron, R. A., & Schulz, M. (2003). The impact of community violence and an organization's procedural justice climate on workplace aggression. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 317-326. doi:10.2307/30040625 Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). I like myself but I don't know why: Enhancing implicit self-esteem by subliminal evaluative conditioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 345-355. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.345 Dollard, J., Doob, L., Miller, N., Mowrer, O., & Sears, R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Doob, A. N., & Wood, L. E. (1972). Catharsis and aggression: Effects of annoyance and retaliation on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22(2), 156-162. doi:10.1037/h0032598 192 Dutton, K. A., & Brown, J. D. (1997). Global self-esteem and specific self-views as determinants of people's reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 139-148. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.139 Dyer, N. G., Hanges, P. J., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 149-167. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.009 Edwards, D., Burnard, P., Bennett, K., & Hebden, U. (2010). A longitudinal study of stress and self-esteem in student nurses. Nurse Education Today, 30(1), 78-84. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2009.06.008 Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit‐level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61-94. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x Eisenberger, N. I., Inagaki, T. K., Muscatell, K. A., Haltom, K. E. B., & Leary, M. R. (2011). The neural sociometer: Brain mechanisms underlying state self-esteem. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11), 3448-3455. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00027 Ellis, R. A., & Taylor, M. S. (1983). Role of self-esteem within the job search process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 632-640. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.632 Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, C. A. (1988). From appraisal to emotion: Differences among unpleasant feelings. Motivation and Emotion, 12(3), 271-302. doi:10.1007/BF00993115 Embriaco, N., Papazian, L., Kentish-Barnes, N., Pochard, F., & Azoulay, E. (2007). Burnout syndrome among critical care healthcare workers. Current Opinion in Critical Care, 13(5), 482-488. doi:10.1097/MCC.0b013e3282efd28a Emde, R. N., & Oppenheim, D. (1995). Shame, guilt, and the Oedipal drama: Developmental considerations concerning morality and the referencing of critical others. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 413-436). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2006). Collectivism as a moderator of responses to organizational justice: implications for leader‐member exchange and ingratiation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(1), 1-17. doi:10.1002/job.365 Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Lian, H., & Keeping, L. M. (2009). When does self-esteem relate to deviant behavior? The role of contingencies of self-worth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1345. doi:10.1037/a0016115 Ferris, D. L., Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2012). Interpersonal injustice and workplace deviance: The role of esteem threat. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1788- 1811. doi:10.1177/0149206310372259 193 Festinger, L. A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Fiske, S. T. (2009). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77-83. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 Foulk, T., Woolum, A., & Erez, A. (2015). Catching rudeness is like catching a cold: The contagion effects of low-intensity negative behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 50-67. doi:10.1037/apl0000037 Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291-309. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803 Frank, R. H. (2004). Introducing moral emotions into models of rational choice. In A. S. R. Manstead, N. Frijda, & A. Fischer (Eds.), Feelings and emotions: The Amsterdam symposium (pp. 422-440). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300-319. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300 Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press. Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 212- 228. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.212 Fritz, C., Sonnentag, S., Spector, P. E., & McInroe, J. A. (2010). The weekend matters: Relationships between stress recovery and affective experiences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1137-1162. doi:10.1002/job.672 Fuqua, D. R., Leonard, E., Masters, M. A., Smith, R. J., Campbell, J. L., & Fischer, P. C. (1991). A structural analysis of the state-trait anger expression inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(2), 439-446. doi:10.1177/0013164491512018 Gale, S. (2014). Best unsubscribe ever: Groupon email marketing win. 60-Second Marketer. Retrieved from https://60secondmarketer.com/blog/2014/01/20/groupon-email- marketing-win/ Gallus, J. A., Bunk, J. A., Matthews, R. A., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Magley, V. J. (2014). An eye for an eye? Exploring the relationship between workplace incivility experiences and perpetration. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2), 143-154. doi:10.1037/a0035931 194 Geen, R. G., & Quanty, M. B. (1977). The catharsis of aggression: An evaluation of a hypothesis. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 1-37. doi:10.1016/S0065- 2601(08)60353-6 Geldhof, G. J., Preacher, K. J., & Zyphur, M. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 72-91. doi:10.1037/a0032138 George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 107-116. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.107 Gersick, C. J., & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47(1), 65-97. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(90)90047-D Glass, D. C., McKnight, J. D., & Valdimarsdottir, H. (1993). Depression, burnout, and perceptions of control in hospital nurses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 147. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.61.1.147 Glomb, T. M. (2002). Workplace anger and aggression: Informing conceptual models with data from specific encounters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(1), 20-36. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.7.1.20 Glomb, T. M., Bhave, D. P., Miner, A. G., & Wall, M. (2011). Doing good, feeling good: Examining the role of organizational citizenship behaviors in changing mood. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 191-223. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01206.x Gregg, A. P., Seibt, B., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Easier done than undone: Asymmetry in the malleability of implicit preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 1-20. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.1 Groupon Inc. (2018). Manage subscriptions. Groupon Subscription Center. Retrieved from https://www.groupon.com/subscription_center Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & Duarte, S. (2003). Does social dominance generate prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 697-721. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.84.4.697 Gurtman, M. B. (2011). Circular reasoning about circular assessment. In L. M. Horowitz & S. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory, research, assessment and therapeutic interventions (pp. 299–312). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Hair, M., Renaud, K., & Ramsay, J. (2007). The influence of self-esteem and locus of control on perceived email-related stress. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 2791-2803. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.005 195 Halbesleben, J. R., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 93-106. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.93 Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2011). I owe you one: Coworker reciprocity as a moderator of the day‐level exhaustion–performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(4), 608-626. doi:10.1002/job.748 Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2015). To invest or not? The role of coworker support and trust in daily reciprocal gain spirals of helping behavior. Journal of Management, 41(6), 1628-1650. doi:10.1177/0149206312455246 Harmon-Jones, E., & Sigelman, J. (2001). State anger and prefrontal brain activity: Evidence that insult-related relative left-prefrontal activation is associated with experienced anger and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 797-803. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.797 Harmon-Jones, E., Simon, L., Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & McGregor, H. (1997). Terror management theory and self-esteem: Evidence that increased self-esteem reduced mortality salience effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 24-36. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.24 Harris, C., Daniels, K., & Briner, R. B. (2003). A daily diary study of goals and affective well‐ being at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 401-410. doi:10.1348/096317903769647256 Hauck, P. A. (1974). Overcoming frustration and anger. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminister Press. Hawley, P. H. (2007). Social dominance in childhood and adolescence: Why social competence and aggression may go hand in hand. In T. D. Little, P. C. Rodkin, & P. H. Hawley (Eds.), Aggression and adaptation: The bright side to bad behavior (pp. 1-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 895-910. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.895 Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley. Heppner, W. L., Kernis, M. H., Nezlek, J. B., Foster, J., Lakey, C. E., & Goldman, B. M. (2008). Within-person relationships among daily self-esteem, need satisfaction, and authenticity. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1140-1145. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02215.x Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513 196 Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. I. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121-140. doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.2791606 Hokanson, J. E., & Shetler, S. (1961). The effect of overt aggression on physiological arousal level. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(2), 446-448. doi:10.1037/h0046864 Horowitz, L. M., Wilson, K. R., Turan, B., Zolotsev, P., Constantino, M. J., & Henderson, L. (2006). How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(1), 67-86. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_4 Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Ilies, R., De Pater, I. E., & Judge, T. (2007). Differential affective reactions to negative and positive feedback, and the role of self-esteem. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(6), 590-609. doi:10.1108/02683940710778459 Ilies, R., Dimotakis, N., & De Pater, I. E. (2010). Psychological and physiological reactions to high workloads: Implications for well‐being. Personnel Psychology, 63(2), 407-436. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01175.x Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2005). Goal regulation across time: The effects of feedback and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 453-467. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.453 Ilies, R., Judge, T. A., & Wagner, D. T. (2010). The influence of cognitive and affective reactions to feedback on subsequent goals. European Psychologist, 15(2), 121-131. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000011 Ivancevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1982). The effects of goal setting, external feedback, and self-generated feedback on outcome variables: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 25(2), 359-372. doi:10.2307/255997 Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions. New York, NY: Plunum Press. James, W. (1890). The consciousness of self. In W. James (Ed.), The principles of psychology (Vol. 8). New York, NY: Henry Holt. Jeličić, H., Phelps, E., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). Use of missing data methods in longitudinal studies: the persistence of bad practices in developmental psychology. Developmental psychology, 45(4), 1195-1199. doi:10.1037/a0015665 Johnson, R. E., Chang, C.-H., & Yang, L.-Q. (2010). Commitment and motivation at work: The relevance of employee identity and regulatory focus. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 226-245. 197 Jordan, A. H., & Audia, P. G. (2012). Self-enhancement and learning from performance feedback. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 211-231. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0108 Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11(2-3), 167-187. doi:10.1080/08959285.1998.9668030 Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 855-875. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.004 Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), 1-39. doi:10.1007/BF00844845 Kappes, A., Singmann, H., & Oettingen, G. (2012). Mental contrasting instigates goal pursuit by linking obstacles of reality with instrumental behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 811-818. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.002 Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 1-26. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1401_01 Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90(3), 185-214. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.185 Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Personality, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Kim, Y.-J., Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Johnson, R. E. (2013). Why and when do motives matter? An integrative model of motives, role cognitions, and social support as predictors of OCB. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 231-245. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.004 Kirk, B. A., Schutte, N. S., & Hine, D. W. (2011). The effect of an expressive‐writing intervention for employees on emotional self‐efficacy, emotional intelligence, affect, and workplace incivility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(1), 179-195. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00708.x Klug, H. J., & Maier, G. W. (2015). Linking goal progress and subjective well-being: A meta- analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(1), 37-65. doi:10.1007/s10902-013-9493-0 Knoll, B. R. (2013). Assessing the effect of social desirability on nativism attitude responses. Social science research, 42(6), 1587-1598. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.07.012 Koopman, J., Lanaj, K., & Scott, B. A. (2016). Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 414-435. doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0262 198 Korman, A. K. (1970). Toward an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(1p1), 31-41. doi:10.1037/h0028656 Korman, A. K. (2001). Self-enhancement and self-protection: Toward a theory of work motivatio. In M. Erez, U. Kleinbeck, & H. Thierry (Eds.), Work motivation in the context of a globalizing economy (pp. 121–130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1998). The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 763-773. Lalonde, R. N., Doan, L., & Patterson, L. A. (2000). Political correctness beliefs, threatened identities, and social attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 317-336. doi:10.1177/1368430200033006 Lam, C. F., Wan, W. H., & Roussin, C. J. (2016). Going the extra mile and feeling energized: An enrichment perspective of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 379-391. doi:10.1037/apl0000071 Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Wang, M. (2016). When lending a hand depletes the will: The daily costs and benefits of helping. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1097-1110. doi:10.1037/apl0000118 Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 212-247. doi:10.1016/0749- 5978(91)90021-K Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry, 1(1), 3-13. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0101_1 Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46(8), 819-834. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.819 Leary, M. R. (2005). Sociometer theory and the pursuit of relational value: Getting to the root of self-esteem. European Review of Social Psychology, 16(1), 75-111. doi:10.1080/10463280540000007 Leary, M. R., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Interpersonal functions of the self-esteem motive. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 123-144). New York, NY: Springer. Lee, D. A., Scragg, P., & Turner, S. (2001). The role of shame and guilt in traumatic events: A clinical model of shame‐based and guilt‐based PTSD. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 74(4), 451-466. doi:10.1348/000711201161109 199 Lee, J., & Jensen, J. M. (2014). The effects of active constructive and passive corrective leadership on workplace incivility and the mediating role of fairness perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 39(4), 416-443. doi:10.1177/1059601114543182 Leonard, N. H., Beauvais, L. L., & Scholl, R. W. (1999). Work motivation: The incorporation of self-concept-based processes. Human Relations, 52(8), 969-998. doi:10.1023/A:1016927507008 LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 883-891. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.883 Levenson, R. W. (1992). Autonomic nervous system differences among emotions. Psychological Science, 3(1), 23-27. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00251.x Levine, L. J. (1996). The anatomy of disappointment: A naturalistic test of appraisal models of sadness, anger, and hope. Cognition & Emotion, 10(4), 337-360. doi:10.1080/026999396380178 Lewis, H. B. (1974). Shame and guilt in neurosis. Oxford, England: International Universities Press. Lewis, M. (2010). The development of anger. In M. Potegal, G. Stemmler, & C. Spielberger (Eds.), International handbook of anger (pp. 177-191). New York, NY: Springer. Lewis, M., Alessandri, S. M., & Sullivan, M. W. (1992). Differences in shame and pride as a function of children's gender and task difficulty. Child Development, 63(3), 630-638. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01651.x Lewis, W. A., & Bucher, A. M. (1992). Anger, catharsis, the reformulated frustration-aggression hypothesis, and health consequences. Psychotherapy: Theory, research, practice, training, 29(3), 385-392. doi:10.1037/h0088540 Li, S., & Liao, S. (2017). Help others and yourself eventually: Exploring the relationship between help-giving and employee creativity under the model of perspective taking. Frontiers in psychology, 8(1030), 1-11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01030 Lilius, J. M. (2012). Recovery at work: Understanding the restorative side of “depleting” client interactions. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 569-588. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0458 Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 483-496. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.483 Lim, V. K., & Teo, T. S. (2009). Mind your E-manners: Impact of cyber incivility on employees’ work attitude and behavior. Information & Management, 46(8), 419-425. doi:10.1016/j.im.2009.06.006 200 Lin, S.-H. J., & Johnson, R. E. (2015). A suggestion to improve a day keeps your depletion away: Examining promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors within a regulatory focus and ego depletion framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1381-1397. doi:10.1037/apl0000018 Lin, S.-H. J., Ma, J., & Johnson, R. E. (2016). When ethical leader behavior breaks bad: How ethical leader behavior can turn abusive via ego depletion and moral licensing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(6), 815-830. doi:10.1037/apl0000098 Locke, E. A. (1996). Motivation through conscious goal setting. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 5(2), 117-124. doi:10.1016/S0962-1849(96)80005-9 Locke, K. D. (2000). Circumplex scales of interpersonal values: Reliability, validity, and applicability to interpersonal problems and personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75(2), 249-267. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7502_6 Locke, K. D. (2014). Circumplex Scales of Intergroup Goals: An interpersonal circle model of goals for interactions between groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(4), 433-449. doi:10.1177/0146167213514280 Locke, K. D., & Adamic, E. J. (2012). Interpersonal circumplex vector length and interpersonal decision making. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(6), 764-769. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.001 Locke, K. D., & Sadler, P. (2007). Self-efficacy, values, and complementarity in dyadic interactions: Integrating interpersonal and social-cognitive theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(1), 94-109. doi:10.1177/0146167206293375 Lord, R. G., De Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402-410. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.71.3.402 Luginbuhl, J. E., Crowe, D. H., & Kahan, J. P. (1975). Causal attributions for success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(1), 86-93. doi:10.1037/h0076172 Lundberg, U., & Palm, K. (1989). Workload and catecholamine excretion in parents of preschool children. Work & Stress, 3(3), 255-260. doi:10.1080/02678378908251561 Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56(4), 241-270. doi:10.1037/h0044587 Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2009). A brief assessment of the interpersonal circumplex: The IPIP-IPC. Assessment, 16(4), 352-361. doi:10.1177/1073191109340382 Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 201 Marschall, D., Sanftner, J., & Tangney, J. P. (1994). The state shame and guilt scale. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mathieu, J. E., Aguinis, H., Culpepper, S. A., & Chen, G. (2012a). Multilevel power tool [Web calculator]. Retrieved from https://aguinis.shinyapps.io/ml_power/ Mathieu, J. E., Aguinis, H., Culpepper, S. A., & Chen, G. (2012b). Understanding and estimating the power to detect cross-level interaction effects in multilevel modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 951-966. doi:10.1037/a0028380 Mawritz, M. B., Folger, R., & Latham, G. P. (2014). Supervisors' exceedingly difficult goals and abusive supervision: The mediating effects of hindrance stress, anger, and anxiety. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 358-372. doi:10.1002/job.1879 McAdams, D. P., & Powers, J. (1981). Themes of intimacy in behavior and thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(3), 573-587. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.3.573 Meier, L. L., & Semmer, N. K. (2013). Lack of reciprocity, narcissism, anger, and instigated workplace incivility: A moderated mediation model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(4), 461-475. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.654605 Menesini, E., & Camodeca, M. (2008). Shame and guilt as behaviour regulators: Relationships with bullying, victimization and prosocial behaviour. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26(2), 183-196. doi:10.1348/026151007X205281 Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2), 227-234. Miner, K. N., & Eischeid, A. (2012). Observing incivility toward coworkers and negative emotions: Do gender of the target and observer matter? Sex Roles, 66(7-8), 492-505. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0108-0 Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1990). Control or defense? Depression and the sense of control over good and bad outcomes. Journal of health and social behavior, 31(1), 71-86. doi:10.2307/2137046 Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159-1168. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159 Mittal, V., & Ross, W. T. (1998). The impact of positive and negative affect and issue framing on issue interpretation and risk taking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(3), 298-324. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2808 202 Moberly, N. J., & Watkins, E. R. (2010). Negative affect and ruminative self-focus during everyday goal pursuit. Cognition & Emotion, 24(4), 729-739. doi:10.1080/02699930802696849 Mojza, E. J., Sonnentag, S., & Bornemann, C. (2011). Volunteer work as a valuable leisure‐time activity: A day‐level study on volunteer work, non‐work experiences, and well‐being at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 123-152. doi:10.1348/096317910X485737 Monk, C. A., Trafton, J. G., & Boehm-Davis, D. A. (2008). The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), 299. doi:10.1037/a0014402 Moorman, R. H., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1992). A meta‐analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behaviour research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(2), 131- 149. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00490.x Moreno-Jiménez, B., Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., Pastor, J. C., Sanz-Vergel, A. I., & Garrosa, E. (2009). The moderating effects of psychological detachment and thoughts of revenge in workplace bullying. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(3), 359-364. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.031 Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.91.6.1321 Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1997). Managing emotions in the workplace. Journal of managerial issues, 9(3), 257-274. Mosquera, P. M. R., Fischer, A. H., Manstead, A. S., & Zaalberg, R. (2008). Attack, disapproval, or withdrawal? The role of honour in anger and shame responses to being insulted. Cognition and Emotion, 22(8), 1471-1498. doi:10.1080/02699930701822272 Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(4), 599-620. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8 Nelissen, R. M., & Dijker, A. J. (2007). How to turn a hawk into a dove and vice versa: Interactions between emotions and goals in a give-some dilemma game. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2), 280-286. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.01.009 Neumann, R. (2000). The causal influences of attributions on emotions: A procedural priming approach. Psychological Science, 11(3), 179-182. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00238 203 Nezlek, J. B., & Plesko, R. M. (2001). Day-to-day relationships among self-concept clarity, self- esteem, daily events, and mood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 201- 211. doi:10.1177/0146167201272006 Norton, M. I., Sommers, S. R., Apfelbaum, E. P., Pura, N., & Ariely, D. (2006). Color blindness and interracial interaction: Playing the political correctness game. Psychological Science, 17(11), 949-953. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01810.x O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 225-253. doi:10.5465/AMR.1996.9602161571 Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97. Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Granrose, C. S. (1992). Role stressors, social support, and well‐being among two‐career couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(4), 339- 356. doi:10.1002/job.4030130403 Parkins, I. S., Fishbein, H. D., & Ritchey, P. N. (2006). The influence of personality on workplace bullying and discrimination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(10), 2554-2577. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00117.x Payne, B. K., Burkley, M. A., & Stokes, M. B. (2008). Why do implicit and explicit attitude tests diverge? The role of structural fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 16-31. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.16 Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P., & Stein, J. H. (2009). Coping with challenge and hindrance stressors in teams: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(1), 18-28. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.02.002 Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315-341. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9 Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2006). Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 583-597. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.583 Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36-48. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002 Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 777-796. doi:10.1002/job.336 204 Peters, L. H., O'Connor, E. J., & Rudolf, C. J. (1980). The behavioral and affective consequences of performance-relevant situational variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25(1), 79-96. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(80)90026-4 Pichert, J. W., & Elam, P. (1986). Guilt and shame in therapeutic relationships. Patient Education and Counseling, 8(4), 359-365. doi:10.1016/0738-3991(86)90102-3 Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30(5), 591-622. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2003.10.001 Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544. doi:10.1177/014920638601200408 Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437-448. doi:10.3102/10769986031004437 Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 510-532. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.510 Ratcliff, R., Thapar, A., Gomez, P., & McKoon, G. (2004). A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging in the lexical-decision task. Psychology and Aging, 19(2), 278-289. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.19.2.278 Reio, T. G. J. (2010). The threat of common method variance bias to theory building. Human Resource Development Review, 9(4), 405-411. doi:10.1177/1534484310380331 Repetti, R. L. (1993). Short-term effects of occupational stressors on daily mood and health complaints. Health Psychology, 12(2), 125-125. Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1998). On self-aggrandizement and anger: A temporal analysis of narcissism and affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 672-685. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.672 Richardson, K. M., & Rothstein, H. R. (2008). Effects of occupational stress management intervention programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(1), 69-93. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.13.1.69 Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: a motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1306-1314. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1306 Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 151-161. doi:10.1177/0146167201272002 205 Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1438-1451. doi:10.1037/a0016752 Rose, R. M., Jenkins, C. D., & Hurst, M. V. (1978). Air traffic controller health change study. (FAA Report No. AM-78-39). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration. Rosen, C. C., Koopman, J., Gabriel, A. S., & Johnson, R. E. (2016). Who strikes back? A daily investigation of when and why incivility begets incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(11), 1620-1634. doi:10.1037/apl0000140 Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rosenberg, M. (1981). The self-concept: Social product and social force. In M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 593-624). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Rosenberg, M. (1989). Self-concept research: A historical overview. Social Forces, 68(1), 34-44. doi:10.1093/sf/68.1.34 Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995). Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem: Different concepts, different outcomes. American Sociological Review, 60(1), 141-156. Ross, C. E., & Broh, B. A. (2000). The roles of self-esteem and the sense of personal control in the academic achievement process. Sociology of Education, 73(4), 270-284. doi:10.2307/2673234 Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 5-37. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.5 Rudolph, U., Roesch, S., Greitemeyer, T., & Weiner, B. (2004). A meta‐analytic review of help giving and aggression from an attributional perspective: Contributions to a general theory of motivation. Cognition and Emotion, 18(6), 815-848. doi:10.1080/02699930341000248 Ruggiero, K. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1997). Why minority group members perceive or do not perceive the discrimination that confronts them: The role of self-esteem and perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 373-389. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.373 Russell, D., & McAuley, E. (1986). Causal attributions, causal dimensions, and affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1174-1185. 206 Russell, D. W., Altmaier, E., & Van Velzen, D. (1987). Job-related stress, social support, and burnout among classroom teachers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(2), 269-274. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.2.269 Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Milne, A., & McGeorge, P. (2005). Social norms and self‐ presentation: Children's implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. Child Development, 76(2), 451-466. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00856.x Rydell, R. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2006). Understanding implicit and explicit attitude change: A systems of reasoning analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 995- 1008. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.995 Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., Strain, L. M., Claypool, H. M., & Hugenberg, K. (2007). Implicit and explicit attitudes respond differently to increasing amounts of counterattitudinal information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(5), 867-878. doi:10.1002/ejsp.393 Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2003). Is who you are who you're talking to? Interpersonal style and complementarily in mixed-sex interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 80-96. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.80 Sampson, E. E. (1963). Status congruence and cognitive consistency. Sociometry, 26(2), 146- 162. doi:10.2307/2785904 Savin-Williams, R. C., & Demo, D. H. (1983). Situational and transituational determinants of adolescent self-feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(4), 824-833. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.4.824 Savin-Williams, R. C., & Demo, D. H. (1984). Developmental change and stability in adolescent self-concept. Developmental Psychology, 20(6), 1100-1110. doi:10.1037/0012- 1649.20.6.1100 Scarborough, D. L., Cortese, C., & Scarborough, H. S. (1977). Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(1), 1-17. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.3.1.1 Scherbaum, C. A., & Ferreter, J. M. (2009). Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 347-367. doi:10.1177/1094428107308906 Scherer, K. R., Schorr, A., & Johnstone, T. (2001). Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S57- S88. doi:10.1002/job.1976 207 Schilpzand, P., Leavitt, K., & Lim, S. (2016). Incivility hates company: Shared incivility attenuates rumination, stress, and psychological withdrawal by reducing self-blame. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 133, 33-44. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.02.001 Schmidt, A. M., & Dolis, C. M. (2009). Something’s got to give: The effects of dual-goal difficulty, goal progress, and expectancies on resource allocation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 678-691. doi:10.1037/a0014945 Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 71-86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2501_6 Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(3), 337-354. doi:10.1006/ceps.1993.1024 Schütz, A. (1998). Assertive, offensive, protective, and defensive styles of self-presentation: A taxonomy. The Journal of Psychology, 132(6), 611-628. doi:10.1080/00223989809599293 Schvaneveldt, R. W., Meyer, D. E., & Becker, C. A. (1976). Lexical ambiguity, semantic context, and visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(2), 243-256. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.2.2.243 Scott, K. L., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). A social exchange-based model of the antecedents of workplace exclusion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 37-48. doi:10.1037/a0030135 Shao, P., Resick, C. J., & Hargis, M. B. (2011). Helping and harming others in the workplace: The roles of personal values and abusive supervision. Human Relations, 64(8), 1051- 1078. doi:10.1177/0018726711399940 Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 278-292. doi:10.1086/209563 Siemer, M., Mauss, I., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Same situation-different emotions: How appraisals shape our emotions. Emotion, 7(3), 592-600. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.3.592 Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 108-131. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_01 Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1991). A terror management theory of social behavior: The psychological functions of self-esteem and cultural worldviews. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 93-159. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60328-7 208 Sonnentag, S. (2012). Psychological detachment from work during leisure time: The benefits of mentally disengaging from work. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 114-118. doi:10.1177/0963721411434979 Sonnentag, S., Arbeus, H., Mahn, C., & Fritz, C. (2014). Exhaustion and lack of psychological detachment from work during off-job time: Moderator effects of time pressure and leisure experiences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2), 206-216. doi:10.1037/a0035760 Sonnentag, S., & Bayer, U.-V. (2005). Switching off mentally: Predictors and consequences of psychological detachment from work during off-job time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), 393-414. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.393 Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2008). "Did you have a nice evening?" A day- level study on recovery experiences, sleep, and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 674-684. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.674 Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2010). Staying well and engaged when demands are high: The role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 965-976. doi:10.1037/a0020032 Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 204-221. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204 Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2015). Recovery from job stress: The stressor‐detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), S72-S103. doi:10.1002/job.1924 Sonnentag, S., & Grant, A. M. (2012). Doing good at work feels good at home, but not right away: When and why perceived prosocial impact predicts positive affect. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 495-530. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01251.x Sonnentag, S., & Kruel, U. (2006). Psychological detachment from work during off-job time: The role of job stressors, job involvement, and recovery-related self-efficacy. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(2), 197-217. doi:10.1080/13594320500513939 Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. (2010). Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for recovery: A multi-source study on the benefits of psychological detachment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 355-365. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.005 Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E. J., Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Reciprocal relations between recovery and work engagement: The moderating role of job stressors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 842-853. doi:10.1037/a0028292 209 Sonnentag, S., & Natter, E. (2004). Flight attendants' daily recovery from work: Is there no place like home? International Journal of Stress Management, 11(4), 366-391. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.11.4.366 Sonnentag, S., & Zijlstra, F. R. (2006). Job characteristics and off-job activities as predictors of need for recovery, well-being, and fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 330- 350. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.330 Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employee's locus of control. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 482-497. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.482 Spiegel, S., Grant‐Pillow, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). How regulatory fit enhances motivational strength during goal pursuit. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(1), 39-54. doi:10.1002/ejsp.180 Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 501-524. doi:10.2307/2392337 Stouten, J., De Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E. (2006). Violating equality in social dilemmas: Emotional and retributive reactions as a function of trust, attribution, and honesty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 894-906. doi:10.1177/0146167206287538 Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(6), 638-647. doi:10.1016/S0022- 5371(75)80051-X Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 345-372. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145 Teuchmann, K., Totterdell, P., & Parker, S. K. (1999). Rushed, unhappy, and drained: An experience sampling study of relations between time pressure, perceived control, mood, and emotional exhaustion in a group of accountants. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(1), 37-54. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.4.1.37 Thewissen, V., Bentall, R. P., Lecomte, T., van Os, J., & Myin-Germeys, I. (2008). Fluctuations in self-esteem and paranoia in the context of daily life. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117(1), 143-153. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.117.1.143 Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1975). The social desirability variable in organizational research: An alternative explanation for reported findings. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 741-752. doi:10.2307/255376 210 Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 227-242. doi:10.1177/0022022106297301 Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 973-988. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.973 Tolli, A. P., & Schmidt, A. M. (2008). The role of feedback, causal attributions, and self-efficacy in goal revision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 692-701. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.93.3.692 Totterdell, P., Wood, S., & Wall, T. (2006). An intra‐individual test of the demands‐control model: A weekly diary study of psychological strain in portfolio workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(1), 63-84. doi:10.1348/096317905X52616 Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2006). Appraisal antecedents of shame and guilt: Support for a theoretical model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1339-1351. doi:10.1177/0146167206290212 Trafton, J. G., Altmann, E. M., Brock, D. P., & Mintz, F. E. (2003). Preparing to resume an interrupted task: Effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(5), 583-603. doi:10.1016/S1071- 5819(03)00023-5 Trougakos, J. P., Beal, D. J., Cheng, B. H., Hideg, I., & Zweig, D. (2015). Too drained to help: A resource depletion perspective on daily interpersonal citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 227-236. doi:10.1037/a0038082 Trougakos, J. P., Beal, D. J., Green, S. G., & Weiss, H. M. (2008). Making the break count: An episodic examination of recovery activities, emotional experiences, and positive affective displays. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 131-146. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2008.30764063 Trougakos, J. P., & Hideg, I. (2009). Momentary work recovery: The role of within-day work breaks. In P. Perrewé, J. Halbesleben, & C. Rose (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and wellbeing (Vol. 7, pp. 37-84). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Trougakos, J. P., Hideg, I., Cheng, B. H., & Beal, D. J. (2014). Lunch breaks unpacked: The role of autonomy as a moderator of recovery during lunch. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 405-421. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.1072 Trudel, J., & Reio, T. G. (2011). Managing workplace incivility: The role of conflict management styles—antecedent or antidote? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(4), 395-423. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20081 211 Turner, J. E., Husman, J., & Schallert, D. L. (2002). The importance of students' goals in their emotional experience of academic failure: Investigating the precursors and consequences of shame. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 79-89. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3702_3 Twenge, J., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. (2004). Measuring state self-control: Reliability, validity, and correlations with physical and psychological stress. Unpublished manuscript. San Diego State University. Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 56-66. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56 Van den Broeck, A., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). Not all job demands are equal: Differentiating job hindrances and job challenges in the job demands–resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(6), 735-759. doi:10.1080/13594320903223839 Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 765-802. doi:10.2307/256600 Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152-173. doi:10.2307/256731 Wallace, B. (2013). The effect of shame and guilt types on helping behaviors. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). East Carolina University. Greenville, NC. Wanberg, C. R., Zhu, J., & Van Hooft, E. A. (2010). The job search grind: Perceived progress, self-reactions, and self-regulation of search effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 788-807. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.52814599 Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247-252. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.82.2.247 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 Watson, D., Pennebaker, J. W., & Folger, R. (1987). Beyond negative affectivity: Measuring stress and satisfaction in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8(2), 141-158. doi:10.1300/J075v08n02_09 Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P., & Benn, Y. (2013). ‘The Ostrich Problem’: Motivated avoidance or rejection of information about goal progress. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(11), 794-807. doi:10.1111/spc3.12071 212 Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2010). Toward a better understanding of the effects of hindrance and challenge stressors on work behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(1), 68-77. Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Wei, M., Shaffer, P. A., Young, S. K., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult attachment, shame, depression, and loneliness: The mediation role of basic psychological needs satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 591-601. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.591 Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573. Weiner, B. (2001). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attribution perspective. In F. Salili, C. Y. Chiu, & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), Student motivation (pp. 17- 30). New York, NY: Springer. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 18, pp. 1-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Whelan, R. (2008). Effective analysis of reaction time data. The Psychological Record, 58(3), 475-482. Wiese, B., & Freund, A. (2005). Goal progress makes one happy, or does it? Longitudinal findings from the work domain. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(2), 287-304. doi:10.1348/096317905X26714 Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism: The kiss of social death. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 236-247. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00004.x Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617. doi:10.1177/014920639101700305 Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 259-295. doi:10.1111/j.1744- 6570.2009.01138.x Yang, L. Q., Liu, C., Nauta, M. M., Caughlin, D. E., & Spector, P. E. (2016a). Be mindful of what you impose on your colleagues: Implications of social burden for burdenees' well‐ being, attitudes and counterproductive work behavior. Stress and Health, 32(1), 70-83. doi:10.1002/smi.2581 213 Yang, L. Q., Liu, C., Nauta, M. M., Caughlin, D. E., & Spector, P. E. (2016b). Be mindful of what you impose on your colleagues: Implications of social burden for burdenees' well‐ being, attitudes and counterproductive work behaviour. Stress and Health, 32(1), 70-83. doi:10.1002/smi.2581 Yi, S., & Baumgartner, H. (2004). Coping with negative emotions in purchase‐related situations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 303-317. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1403_11 Yik, M. (2010). Affect and interpersonal behaviors: Where do the circumplexes meet? Journal of Research in Personality, 44(6), 721-728. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.10.003 Young, S. (2012). Groupon unsubscribe page uses video to recover subscribers. SmartShoot. Retrieved from https://blog.smartshoot.com/groupon-unsubscribe-page-uses-video-to- recover-subscribers Yurcu, G., Çolakoğlu, Ü., & Atay, H. (2015). The effect of organizational citizenship behavior on subjective well-being. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(8), 120-130. Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 6- 16. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.6 Zapata, C. P., Olsen, J. E., & Martins, L. L. (2013). Social exchange from the supervisor’s perspective: Employee trustworthiness as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(1), 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.001 Zeelenberg, M., Nelissen, R. M., Breugelmans, S. M., & Pieters, R. (2008). On emotion specificity in decision making: Why feeling is for doing. Judgment and Decision making, 3(1), 18-27. Zeigler‐Hill, V. (2006). Discrepancies between implicit and explicit self‐esteem: Implications for narcissism and self‐esteem instability. Journal of Personality, 74(1), 119-144. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00371.x Zeigler, T. (2010). Unsubscribing from the Groupon email list. The Brick Factory. Retrieved from https://blog.thebrickfactory.com/2010/07/unsubscribing-from-the-groupon-email- list/ Zhang, S., Chen, G., Chen, X.-P., Liu, D., & Johnson, M. D. (2014). Relational versus collective identification within workgroups: Conceptualization, measurement development, and nomological network building. Journal of Management, 40(6), 1700-1731. doi:10.1177/0149206312439421 Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 261- 276. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.261 214 Ziegert, J. C., & Hanges, P. J. (2005). Employment discrimination: the role of implicit attitudes, motivation, and a climate for racial bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 553-562. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.553 Zohar, D. (1999). When things go wrong: The effect of daily work hassles on effort, exertion and negative mood. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(3), 265-283. doi:10.1348/096317999166671 Zohar, D., Tzischinski, O., & Epstein, R. (2003). Effects of energy availability on immediate and delayed emotional reactions to work events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 1082- 1093. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1082 215