Exploring The Interplay of Psychological Distress, Workplace‎Incivility, and Counterproductive Work Behavior:An Equa‎tion System for ManufacturingIndustries in Pakistan

  • Authors

    • Kaleem Ullah Department faculty of Business, Lincoln University College Malaysia, Off Jalan Perbandaran 47301, Malaysia
    • Amiya Bhaumik Department faculty of Business, Lincoln University College Malaysia, Off Jalan Perban.
    • Syed Ahmed Salman Department faculty of Business, Lincoln University College Malaysia, Off Jalan Perban
    • Maria Malik Department of Statistics, Comsats University, Lahore, Pakistan
    • Khurram Zafar Awan Institute of Education and Research, University of the Punjab Lahore, Lahore Main Campus, Pakistan
    • Kanwal Bilal Department of Management Sciences, Comsats University Islamabad Lahore Campus, Pakistan
    • Malik Muhammad ‎Kashif Shahzad Awan Faculty of Management Sciences, Riphah International University Islamabad, Pakistan
    https://doi.org/10.14419/8557q476

    Received date: October 18, 2025

    Accepted date: December 3, 2025

    Published date: February 15, 2026

  • Workplace Incivility; Fuzzy Regression; Behavioral Economics; Pakistani Manufacturing; Counterproductive Work Behavior

  • Abstract

    This study examines how workplace incivility affects counterproductive work behavior in Pakistani manufacturing using fuzzy regression to address a practical problem: traditional regression gives point estimates, but managers need cost ranges to plan realistically. Survey data from 395 employees across pharmaceutical, food, and textile sectors provides the basis for this analysis. Structural equation ‎modeling shows that psychological distress partially mediates the relationship (30%), aligning with prior research. However, fuzzy regression reveals something traditional methods miss: this mediation proportion actually ranges from 12% to 74% depending on individual differences. Prospect theory helps explain why employees with higher loss aversion respond more intensely when incivility defies their expectations about workplace treatment. The fuzzy approach offers practical advantages. It produces bounded estimates that ‎support scenario-based budgeting, doesn't require parametric assumptions that workplace data often violate, and explicitly acknowledges ‎that survey responses aren't perfectly precise measurements. For Pakistani manufacturers working with limited resources, these bounded ‎estimates enable three-tiered budgeting: conservative plans using lower bounds, target budgets using center estimates, and contingency ‎reserves for upper bounds. This matches how organizations already handle other uncertain investments. The findings also suggest that ‎mental accounting biases likely contribute to underinvestment in workplace interventions costs get dispersed across departments while ‎intervention expenses consolidate in training budgets‎.

  • References

    1. Agarwal, U. A., & Vaghela, P. S. (2021). Work-life balance, well-being, and perceived organizational support during COVID-19: An empirical study. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(4), 1027-1050. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-06-2020-2267
    2. Alomari, M., & Darus, M. (2010). Some Ostrowski type inequalities for quasi-convex functions with applications to special means. RGMIA Res. Rep. Coll., 13(2), 6.
    3. Alomari, M., Darus, M., Dragomir, S. S., & Cerone, P. (2010). Ostrowski type inequalities for functions whose derivatives are s-convex in the sec-ond sense. Applied Mathematics Letters, 23(9), 1071-1076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2010.04.038.
    4. Alshurideh, M. T., Al Kurdi, B., Alzoubi, H M, Ghazal, T M, Said, R A, AlHamad, A Q, Hamadneh, A, Sahawneh, N and Al-kassem, A H. (2022). Fuzzy assisted human resource management for supply chain management issues. Annals of Operations Research, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04472-8.
    5. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349.
    6. Carpenter, N. C., Whitman, D. S., & Amrhein, R. (2020). Unit-Level Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB): A Conceptual Review and Quan-titative Summary. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1498-1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320978812
    7. Cong-Xin, W., & Ming, M. (1991). Embedding problem of fuzzy number space: Part I. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 44(1), 33-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(91)90030-T.
    8. Cortina, L. M., Kabat-Farr, D., Magley, V. J., & Nelson, K. (2017). Researching rudeness: The past, present, and future of the science of incivil-ity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 299-313. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000089.
    9. Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupation-al Health Psychology, 6(1), 64-80. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64
    10. Dragomir, S. S., & Wang, S. (1998). Applications of Ostrowski's inequality to the estimation of error bounds for some special means and for some numerical quadrature rules. Applied Mathematics Letters, 11(1), 105-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0893-9659(97)00142-0.
    11. Fatima, A. (2016). Impact of workplace ostracism on counter productive work behaviors: Mediating role of job satisfaction. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, 9(2), 388-408.
    12. Giumetti, G. W., Saunders, L. A., Brunette, J. P., DiFrancesco, F. M., & Graham, P. G. (2022). Cyber incivility @ work: The new age of interper-sonal deviance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 25(6), 383-391.
    13. Hamberg-van Reenen, H. H., Proper, K. I., & van den Berg, M. (2012). Worksite mental health interventions: A systematic review of economic evaluations. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 69(11), 837-845. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2012-100668.
    14. Hershcovis, M. S., & Reich, T. C. (2013). Integrating workplace aggression research: Relational, contextual, and method considerations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S26-S42. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1886.
    15. Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of employee turnover theory and research. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 102(3), 530-545. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000103.
    16. Huang, H., Lin, J., Wu, L., Fang, B., Wen, Z., & Sun, F. (2020). Machine learning-based multi-modal information perception for soft robotic hands. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 25(2), 255-269. https://doi.org/10.26599/TST.2019.9010009.
    17. Ipsen, C., van Veldhoven, M., Kirchner, K., & Hansen, J. P. (2021). Six key advantages and disadvantages of working from home in Europe during COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1826. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041826
    18. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185.
    19. Kaleva, O. (1987). Fuzzy differential equations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 24(3), 301-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(87)90029-7.
    20. Kirk, B. A., Schutte, N. S., & Hine, D. W. (2021). The effect of an expressive-writing intervention for employees on emotional self-efficacy, emo-tional intelligence, affect, and workplace incivility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(9), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12800.
    21. Kőszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2006). A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1133-1165. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.121.4.1133
    22. Loh, J. M. I., & Loi, N. (2018). Tit for tat: burnout as a mediator between workplace incivility and instigated workplace incivility. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 10(1), 100-111. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-11-2017-0132.
    23. Mitchell, M. S., Baer, M. D., Ambrose, M. L., Folger, R., & Palmer, N. F. (2018). Cheating under pressure: A self-protection model of workplace cheating behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(1), 54-73. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000254.
    24. Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). Workplace incivility. In Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets. (pp. 177-200). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10893-008.
    25. Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Wegner, J. W. (2001). When workers flout convention: A study of workplace incivility. Human Relations, 54(11), 1387-1419. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267015411001.
    26. Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91(1-2), 114-121.
    27. Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on task performance and helpfulness. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 50(5), 1181-1197. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159919.
    28. Richardson, K. M., & Rothstein, H. R. (2008). Effects of occupational stress management intervention programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Oc-cupational Health Psychology, 13(1), 69-93. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.13.1.69.
    29. Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2019). Social Identity Theory. In K. Sassenberg & M. L. W. Vliek (Eds.), Social Psychology in Action: Evidence-Based Interventions from Theory to Practice (pp. 129-143). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_9.
    30. Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Or-ganizational Behavior, 37(S1), S57-S88. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1976 .
    31. Shin, Y., Lee, E. J., & Hur, W.-M. (2022). Supervisor incivility, job insecurity, and service performance among flight attendants: the buffering role of co-worker support. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(6), 901-918. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1905618.
    32. Smith, S. L., Kindermans, P.-J., Ying, C., & Le, Q. V. (2017). Don't decay the learning rate, increase the batch size. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.00489.
    33. Tanaka, H., Uejima, S., & Asai, K. (1982). Linear regression analysis with fuzzy model. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 12(6), 903-907. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1982.4308925.
    34. Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3), 183-206. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199909)12:3<183::AID-BDM318>3.0.CO;2-F.
    35. Vranjes, I., Baillien, E., Vandebosch, H., Erreygers, S., & De Witte, H. (2021). The development and validation of the Inventory of Cyberbullying Acts at Work (ICA-W). European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30(2), 179-191.
    36. Welbourne, J. L., Gangadharan, A., & Sariol, A. M. (2023). Supervisor gender and workplace incivility: The costs of being female. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 30(1), 93-107.
    37. Wu, C., & Gong, Z. (2001). On Henstock integral of fuzzy-number-valued functions (I). Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 120(3), 523-532. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(99)00057-3.
    38. Wu, L.-Z., Yim, F. H.-k., Kwan, H. K., & Zhang, X. (2012). Coping with Workplace Ostracism: The Roles of Ingratiation and Political Skill in Employee Psychological Distress. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 178-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01017.x.
    39. Yao, J., Lim, S., Guo, C. Y., Ou, A. Y., & Ng, J. W. X. (2022). Experienced incivility in the workplace: A meta- analytical review of its con-struct validity and nomological network. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(2), 193-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000870.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Ullah , K. ., Bhaumik , A. ., Salman , S. A. ., Malik , M. ., Awan , K. Z. ., Bilal , K. ., & Awan , M. M. ‎Kashif S. . (2026). Exploring The Interplay of Psychological Distress, Workplace‎Incivility, and Counterproductive Work Behavior:An Equa‎tion System for ManufacturingIndustries in Pakistan. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 13(2), 145-160. https://doi.org/10.14419/8557q476