The effects of confrontation and avoidance coping in response to workplace incivility.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workplace incivility has significant adverse consequences for targets. However, we know remarkably little about how targets of incivility cope and even less about which coping strategies are effective. Drawing on the coping process of the transactional model of stress, we examine confrontation as a form of problem-focused coping and avoidance as a form of emotion-focused coping in response to incivility. We examine the effects of these coping strategies on reoccurrence of incivility, incivility enacted by targets, psychological forgiveness, and emotional exhaustion. Focusing on the target's perspective of a series of uncivil interactions between a target and perpetrator, we conducted a 3-wave study of employees from various occupations. Employing the critical incident technique, participants reported on an incident of workplace incivility, and then answered a series of questions over 3 waves of data collection regarding their interactions with this perpetrator. Our findings suggest that confrontation and avoidance are ineffective in preventing reoccurrence of incivility. Avoidance can additionally lead to increased emotional exhaustion, target-enacted incivility, and lower psychological forgiveness. However, confrontation coping has promise with regards to eliciting positive outcomes such as psychological forgiveness that are beneficial to interpersonal workplace relationships. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it