Combating Workplace Incivility: An Empathy-Based Educational Intervention to Foster Prosocial Behavioral Intentions

Introduction

Workplace incivility remains a significant concern in higher education because of its pervasive and detrimental impact on employee well-being, productivity, and organizational culture (Agarwal et al., 2023; Taylor et al., 2019). In response, organizations have widely adopted two primary intervention strategies: zero-tolerance policies and employee training programs that equip employees with skills to manage and respond to uncivil behavior (Clark et al., 2023; Hodgins et al., 2014; Howard & Embree, 2020; Lama et al., 2025).

Although these interventions are well-intentioned, they present notable limitations. Zero-tolerance policies require clearly defined behavioral standards to justify disciplinary action. However, the inherently ambiguous and subtle nature of many uncivil behaviors such as condescending tone, eye-rolling, spreading rumors, and social exclusion renders these policies difficult to implement and enforce (Gloor et al., 2024; Joseph et al., 2025).

On the other hand, training initiatives often focus exclusively on empowering targets of uncivil acts with response strategies, shifting the responsibility onto those most affected while leaving perpetrators unaccountable (Hodgins et al., 2014; Hudgins et al., 2023; Kagotho et al., 2023). Consequently, many employees become disengaged and apathetic toward combating incivility, which perpetuates a toxic workplace culture (Hodgins & McNamara, 2019; Taylor et al., 2019). Beyond enhancing targets’ coping strategies, most incivility training programs rely on traditional instructional methods, such as lectures and group discussions during workshops (Abedeni & Parvizy, 2019; Lasater et al., 2015). However, these methods have limited ability to convey subtle nonverbal behaviors, such as tone and facial expressions, that constitute uncivil behavior.

To advance meaningful and sustainable change, there is a need for multipurpose interventions that visually depict subtle, nonverbal uncivil behaviors and not only equip targets with effective coping strategies but also engage instigators and bystanders in the shared responsibility of fostering a civil and respectful workplace culture.

One instructional strategy that shows promise for conveying subtle uncivil behaviors and deepening emotional engagement is animated films (Sagheer et al., 2024). Yet relatively little research has explored animation as an intervention for illustrating the ambiguous and nuanced nature of incivility and its impact on targets.

This study addresses that gap by exploring the use of a 20-minute animated film to visually expose viewers to uncivil behaviors, especially those that are subtle and nonverbal. Given that animated videos have been shown to cultivate empathy (Adams et al., 2023; Aini & Rini, 2024; Choi & Yang, 2011; Friesem, 2016), the film aims to evoke empathy towards targets of uncivil behaviors by enhancing viewers’ perspective-taking of the emotional and psychological impact of incivility in academic workplaces. Whether viewers are currently experiencing incivility, have encountered it in the past, or may face it in the future as bystanders, instigators, or targets, the film seeks to motivate prosocial intentions, which represents an important first step toward engaging in preventative and proactive responses to uncivil behaviors.

Review of Existing Interventions

Over the past few decades, educational interventions, particularly within sectors such as healthcare and education, have been the predominant strategy for addressing workplace incivility (Bambi et al., 2017; Hodgins et al., 2014). These interventions are typically designed to raise awareness, improve employees’ ability to respond to uncivil behaviors, and enhance the self-efficacy of those who experience incivility (Lasater et al., 2015; Stoddard, 2017).

A range of skills are typically taught through these interventions. Cognitive Rehearsal Training (CRT), for instance, involves employees practicing scripted responses to hypothetical uncivil scenarios to strengthen their ability to react constructively when faced with real incidents (Kousha et al., 2022; Mammen et al., 2025). Emotional intelligence training is another common intervention, equipping employees to better recognize and regulate their own emotions while understanding and responding to others' emotions (Chakraborty et al., 2024). Conflict resolution skills are also widely emphasized, focusing on equipping employees to resolve disagreements constructively and respectfully (Chakraborty et al., 2024). In addition to these interpersonal skill-based interventions, gratitude journaling has emerged as a resilience-building practice. This technique encourages employees to reflect regularly on positive experiences to counteract the emotional toll of incivility and foster a more optimistic mindset (Locklear et al., 2021).

At the organizational level, zero-tolerance policies formally declare certain behaviors unacceptable and subject to disciplinary action (Kisner, 2018; Traina et al., 2005). These policies aim to reinforce organizational norms around civility, clarify behavioral expectations, and encourage reporting of uncivil acts.

While these interventions have demonstrated some effectiveness in mitigating workplace incivility (Leiter et al., 2011; Schilpzand et al., 2016), several limitations hinder their long-term impact and sustainability. One limitation is an overemphasis on target responsibility. Many interventions assume that increasing targets' awareness and assertiveness alone can reduce incivility (Hodgins et al., 2014). However, this approach disproportionately places sole responsibility on targets to address uncivil behaviors, rather than also addressing the behaviors of instigators or the organizational structures that enable them (Edwards, 2007). When perpetrators remain unchecked, uncivil behaviors may persist, ultimately signaling to employees that organizations are either unwilling or unable to effectively intervene (Holm et al., 2015). This perception can foster apathy, reduce engagement in reporting processes, and erode trust in institutional conflict-resolution mechanisms (Hodgins et al., 2014).

A second limitation is that many interventions are reactive rather than proactive. They are typically introduced only after incidents have occurred, rather than as part of a preventative framework (Walsh, 2011). This reactive posture may reinforce a workplace culture that tolerates incivility until it escalates into more serious or visible conflict.

Another concern is the risk of retaliation. Individuals who confront incivility after participating in training may become targets of further aggression, either from perpetrators or from organizational systems that fail to offer protection (Cortina et al., 2001; Hershcovis et al., 2018). Such risks can discourage employees from applying what they have learned, further undermining the effectiveness of interventions (Jones & Stephens, 2020).

Complicating matters further, some individuals with maladaptive personality traits, including narcissism, sadism, psychopathy, or sociopathy, may be fully aware that their behaviors are uncivil yet continue to engage in it due to motivations such as control, personal gain, or lack of empathy (Babiak & Hare, 2006; Tiwari & Jha, 2022). For these individuals, awareness-based interventions are unlikely to produce behavioral change, as the root problem is not ignorance but a lack of prosocial motivation.

At the organizational level, zero-tolerance policies also introduce challenges. Some leaders see these interventions as overly rigid or irrelevant, viewing them as a poor use of time and resources (Porath & Pearson, 2010). Additionally, the ambiguity of incivility, which often includes subtle or subjective behaviors such as eye-rolling, gossip, or exclusion, makes it difficult to enforce such policies consistently (Furman, 2018). Automatic penalties may limit managerial discretion and lead to unjust outcomes (Schwartz, 2013). Moreover, zero-tolerance policies can be misused, such as false accusations weaponized to harm others (What to Become, 2022). Employees may also hesitate to report incidents if they believe the consequences will be excessively punitive for their colleagues, undermining the deterrence these policies aim to create (What to Become, 2022).

Lastly, incivility training programs are often delivered through traditional formats such as lectures and group discussions (Abedeni & Parvizy, 2019; Lasater et al., 2015), which make it difficult to visually demonstrate subtle uncivil behaviors and their emotional impact on targets. These methods usually aim to raise awareness but often fall short in conveying the nonverbal and emotionally nuanced aspects of incivility. This lack of visual and emotional representation likely limits participants' understanding of the seriousness of such behaviors, reducing the effectiveness of efforts to discourage them.

Taken together, these limitations highlight the need for alternative interventions that convey the emotional and social nuances of uncivil behavior and offer immersive, engaging learning experiences that can reach learners beyond traditional lecture formats. To address these gaps, the present study developed a 20-minute animated film as an empathy-based educational intervention.

The Educational Intervention

A 20-minute animated film served as the empathy-based educational intervention because animated films are well-suited for fostering empathic understanding toward individuals experiencing adverse social circumstances (Reddan et al., 2024) and allow for the visual depiction of subtle, nonverbal uncivil behaviors such as exclusion, gossiping, eyerolling, condescension, ignoring, and idea theft (Moore et al., 2025; Rayboud, 2022; Walker & Epps, 2011; Zimmerman, 2016). The film was digitally produced using animation software and featured narrated dialogue, background music, and character-based storytelling designed to realistically depict academic workplace interactions.

Film Overview

The film comprises four scenes that follow Samantha Juma (Sam), a graduate student navigating various forms of workplace incivility, alongside other characters representing diverse academic roles (students, faculty, administrators).

Scene 1: Sam, a Graduate Teaching Assistant, encounters students who gossip, yawn, arrive late, and leave early. After class, Sam reflects on these events and cries in response.

Scene 2: As a graduate student, Sam is ignored in the hallway and excluded from a group discussion. Uncivil behaviors depicted include ignoring greetings, eyerolling, exclusion, and mocking.

Scene 3: During a meeting with her advisor, Sam observes a colleague, Paul, presenting her research idea as his own. Sam’s attempts to report these incidents to the Head of Department are dismissed, and she is spoken to condescendingly. This scene illustrates intellectual theft, dismissal, and infantilization.

Scene 4: Sam experiences overwhelming distress and suicidal thoughts, which are interrupted by her friend Sandy. The scene concludes with a message encouraging viewers to recognize the negative effects of incivility and share responsibility for fostering civility.

Design of the Intervention

Brief Description of Mayer’s Multimedia, Coherence, and Segmentation Principles

The author designed the animated film using three well-established principles from Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer, 2005): the multimedia principle, the coherence principle, and the segmentation principle. The multimedia principle asserts that learners understand and retain information more effectively when content is presented through both visual and auditory channels rather than through text alone (Mayer, 2005). The coherence principle states that people learn better from multimedia when irrelevant words, pictures, and sounds are excluded rather than included (Mayer, 2005). The segmentation principle states that people learn better when a multimedia lesson is presented in learner-paced segments rather than as a continuous unit (Mayer, 2005).

Application of Mayer’s Multimedia, Coherence, and Segmentation Principles

Across all scenes, elements of Mayer’s multimedia, coherence, and segmentation principles were at play. The multimedia principle was applied mainly in how the animation's audio and visual elements were presented. For example, in scene 1, Sam's story was narrated while Sam’s actions were visually portrayed to match the audio narration (see Appendix B to access the animated film). This purposeful pairing of audio and visuals allowed viewers to use both visual and auditory channels to process nuanced depictions of subtle acts of incivility, emotionally complex interactions, and the reactions of targets, instigators, and bystanders.

The coherence principle was applied by excluding extraneous scenes and scripts that did not aim to reveal the most common uncivil behaviors during the editing phases of animation production. For example, in scene 1, the coherence principle was applied when the narrator began speaking audibly, and the background music volume was drastically reduced to remove extraneous information in the form of loud background music that conflicted with the narrator’s voice. Adhering to the coherence principle ensured that the film focused on the emotional and behavioral dynamics central to the narrative, without unnecessary distractions.

Lastly, the segmentation principle was applied by structuring the animated film into clear, manageable scenes. After each scene, viewers were prompted to respond to reflection questions about observed behaviors and emotions. Viewers could pause as long as needed and resume by pressing the “Next” button, allowing them to process content at their own pace and preventing cognitive overload.

Theoretical Framework

This study draws on perspective-taking theory (Batson et al., 1997) to explain how exposure to an animated narrative depicting workplace incivility may evoke emotional responses such as empathy and shape individuals’ intentions to engage in prosocial behavior. According to this theory, individuals may be motivated to help others not only because of personal distress but also because of empathy. Personal distress, empathy, and other emotional reactions are often triggered when an observer engages in perspective-taking, a cognitive process in which individuals mentally place themselves in others' situations to understand their emotions and experiences (Batson et al., 1997). In this framework, perspective-taking is the “thinking” component, while empathy represents the “feeling” component of the response process.

Specifically, when individuals imagine how they themselves would feel if they were in another person’s situation (“What if that happened to me?”), a process Batson et al. (1997) described as imagine-self perspective-taking, they may experience personal distress, such as feelings of discomfort, guilt, or upset. As a result, they may feel motivated either to help or to avoid helping to relieve their distress. This motivation to help others to relieve one’s own distress is described as egoistic (Batson et al., 1997).

In contrast, when individuals imagine how another person feels in a situation, a process Batson et al. (1997) described as imagine-other perspective-taking, they may experience empathy or empathic concern. This emotional response can motivate individuals to help others for the other person's benefit. Batson et al. (1997) described this motivation as altruistic. The distinction between altruistic and egoistic motivation lies in their underlying focus: altruistic motivation centers on the other person's needs, whereas egoistic motivation primarily concerns reducing one’s own negative emotional state.

In educational contexts, perspective-taking can be intentionally cultivated through activities that encourage individuals to critically examine media content and engage in reflective exercises that deepen self-awareness and social understanding (Everyday Speech, n.d.). In particular, visual storytelling, such as films or animations, can allow viewers to connect with the emotional journeys of characters and better understand their experiences (Aini & Rini, 2024; Guo, 2022; Hood et al., 2018; Keen, 2006; Miller, 2015; Sweeney & Baker, 2018).

Based on theoretical and empirical evidence suggesting that perspective-taking can encourage empathic concern and prosocial behavior, the design and development of the animated film used in this study incorporated perspective-taking. Through visual and auditory cues, the film was intended to guide viewers to assume the emotional position of targets of workplace incivility. Depending on whether participants imagined themselves in the situation or focused on the target's experience, they might show signs of egoistic or altruistic motivation to engage in prosocial behavior.

Research Questions

Drawing on the perspective-taking theoretical framework, this study examined participants’ emotional responses to the animated film and the actions they reported taking in response to workplace incivility. The research questions posed were:

RQ1: What emotional responses do participants report after viewing an animated film depicting workplace incivility?

RQ2: What actions do participants report they would take to prevent or address workplace incivility after viewing the animated film, and how do they describe the motivations for those actions?

This study’s design intentionally aligned with Batson et al.’s (1997) perspective-taking theory, using the animated intervention to guide participants in imaginatively adopting the target character's experiences.

Methods

Before recruiting participants via convenience sampling on Prolific, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the study, and all participants provided informed consent electronically. Eligibility was restricted to individuals currently or previously employed in higher education institutions. This restriction ensured contextual consistency, as incivility in academic environments often presents unique challenges due to hierarchical structures, role ambiguity, and institutional culture (Hodgins & McNamara, 2019; Taylor et al., 2019). Limiting the sample to higher education enabled a focused examination of the intervention’s effectiveness in a setting where incivility is prevalent yet often under-addressed.

A total of 85 participants completed all study components, including the pre-test survey, the 20-minute empathy-based animated intervention, and the post-test survey. The pre-test survey (see Appendix A) collected demographic information. Following the pre-test, participants viewed the Articulate Storyline-hosted animated film (see Appendices B and C), which included guided reflection prompts embedded throughout. These prompts asked participants to describe the emotions they imagined the main character experiencing and the actions they might take to address workplace incivility. Immediately after the intervention, participants completed the post-test survey (see Appendix D) to finalize participation and compensation.

Data Cleaning Procedures

Qualitative responses collected through Articulate Storyline were reviewed for completeness and relevance. Of the 85 responses, 13 were excluded based on the following criteria:

1. Incomplete responses: Participants who began answering prompts but did not finish sentences were removed due to difficulty interpreting intended meaning.

2. Off-topic responses: Entries in which participants did not meaningfully answer the prompt were removed. For instance, when asked to reflect on their own emotional reactions, some participants simply restated details from the animated film (e.g., describing Sam’s emotions instead of reflecting on their own). These responses did not address the question and were therefore excluded for data-quality reasons.

Importantly, participants were not excluded based on emotional content, only on response quality. After cleaning, 72 participant responses remained for analysis.

Selection of Final Analysis Sample

To minimize selection bias and ensure thorough analysis, we analyzed 15 participant responses iteratively in the order they were downloaded from Prolific, using reflexive thematic analysis until thematic saturation. The remaining 57 responses were subsequently reviewed to confirm that no novel or contradictory themes existed beyond those identified.

Participant Demographics

The 15 participants in the final coded dataset included 4 females and 11 males. The racial/ethnic breakdown was 11 White, 2 African American, 1 Asian, and 1 Hispanic/Latino participant. Age ranges were: 18–24 (1), 25–34 (5), 35–44 (3), 45–54 (5), and 55–64 (1). Participants’ roles in higher education included staff (7), graduate students (3), undergraduate students (1), tenure-track faculty (2), IT manager (1), and human resources (1). See Table 1 for full demographic details.

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 15)

Data Analysis

Responses to the reflection prompts provided rich qualitative data, analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019) within an interpretivist paradigm, which assumes reality is socially constructed and best understood through individuals’ meanings. NVivo software supported data organization and coding, but the researcher made all analysis decisions, consistent with reflexive TA standards. The six phases of analysis were applied systematically as follows:

Step 1: Familiarization with the data

Two full readings of all participant responses were conducted. During the first reading, attention focused on tone, language, and emotional expression to understand participants’ engagement with the intervention. Early patterns indicated frequent attribution of sadness, anger, and frustration to the main character, Sam, which participants often mirrored in their own emotional responses, suggesting affective empathy. Expressions of concern for others or intentions to avoid uncivil behaviors indicated preliminary evidence of altruistic motivation.

The second reading examined patterns related to perspective-taking and moral reasoning. Many participants explicitly described “putting themselves in Sam’s shoes,” signaling imagine-self perspective-taking. Early impressions aligned with constructs relevant to the research questions:

RQ1 (emotional responses):

1. Emotional inference – imagining Sam’s emotions

2. Imagine-self perspective-taking – “putting oneself in Sam’s shoes”

3. Affective empathy – reporting emotions that mirrored Sam’s experience

RQ2 (prosocial actions and motivations for those actions):

1. Moral obligation – for example, “it’s the right thing to do”

2. Concern for others’ well-being – such as not wanting to cause harm

These impressions informed the development of an initial coding framework.

Step 2: Generation of initial codes

A coding document was developed with both code names and definitions. Codes were generated deductively from the research questions (e.g., empathy, motivation) and inductively based on repeated patterns observed during familiarization. We incorporated additional inductive codes iteratively as coding progressed.

Table 2

Summary of Initial Codes, Their Descriptions, and Sample Excerpts

Step 3: Searching for themes

Codes and subcodes were examined to identify patterns of meaning across the dataset. For perspective-taking, a consistent pattern emerged: most participants engaged in imagine-self perspective-taking, describing how they would feel if in Sam’s position.

Step 4: Reviewing themes

All themes were revisited to ensure coherence, clarity, and grounding in the data. During this phase, the coded excerpts associated with each theme were re-examined to assess internal consistency. For example, in the imagine-self perspective-taking theme, the pattern was confirmed across multiple participants. The analysis also considered whether any themes overlapped or required refinement, merging, or separation. This iterative review process helped ensure that each theme accurately reflected the dataset and directly addressed the research questions.

Step 5: Defining and naming themes

Once the themes were finalized, clear definitions were developed to capture their meaning and scope. Each theme was refined to specify what it included, what it excluded, and how it contributed to the overall analytical narrative. For example, the theme “Putting Myself in Their Shoes” was selected to represent imagine-self perspective-taking. This label reflects how participants frequently described perspective-taking by imagining themselves directly experiencing the events depicted in the film. The theme encompassed statements involving personal identification with the character, emotional resonance, or visualizing themselves as the target of incivility.

Step 6: Producing the report

In the final phase of thematic analysis, a coherent, and analytically rich account of the findings was developed. This stage involved selecting illustrative excerpts for each theme, integrating them into an interpretive narrative, and connecting the themes back to the research questions and relevant scholarship. For the theme “Putting Myself in Their Shoes,” for example, the analysis highlighted how participants’ empathic responses were frequently rooted in personal identification and affective simulation. These responses were interpreted through the lens of imagine-self perspective-taking, underscoring how immersive storytelling may elicit empathy. The results section weaves these themes together with existing literature on empathy, perspective-taking, and prosocial motivation, offering both descriptive insights and theoretical contributions.

Enhancing Trustworthiness

Consistent with reflexive thematic analysis, the study did not use interrater reliability; themes emerged through the researcher’s interpretive lens. The researcher ensured rigor through iterative coding, a detailed audit trail, and reflexive memoing (Shenton, 2004). The reflexive journal documented analytic decisions, emotional reactions, and potential biases, while the audit trail provided a transparent record of procedures. Together, these strategies enhanced credibility, dependability, and confirmability.

The following Results section presents the emergent themes from participants’ reflections, highlighting patterns in emotional engagement, perspective-taking, and reported behavioral intentions.

Results

Overview

A total of 14 themes emerged from the qualitative analysis, organized into four overarching categories: (1) Perspective-taking, (2) Empathy and emotional responses, (3) Prosocial behavioral intentions and motivations, and (4) Emergent themes beyond the primary research questions. This thematic structure reflects the study's overarching goal of exploring how viewing an animated film can foster empathy and motivate individuals to prevent or address workplace incivility.

Under the first category (Perspective-taking), one central theme, “Putting Myself in Their Shoes,” captured how participants imagined themselves in the character’s position, suggesting that imagine-self perspective-taking was a primary mechanism for eliciting empathy.

The second category explored participants’ emotional responses. The theme “Feeling Emotions Felt by the Character” had two sub-themes which describe the process of empathy: (a) Mirroring emotional distress and (b) Sharing in emotional relief and hope. Another theme, “Emotional Response to Observed Incivility,” captured additional affective responses that were not necessarily empathic but were morally charged (e.g., anger, disgust, disappointment, or emotional detachment). Within this category, another theme emerged that offered insight into why participants experienced empathy and other emotional responses. The theme, “Prior Experience as an Emotional Antecedent,” explained how participants’ personal histories shaped their emotional responses. Three sub-themes further clarified this theme: (a) Empathy Rooted in Shared Experience, (b) Emotional Distance from Lack of Relevant Experience, and (c) Reliving Emotional Pain. These findings suggest that individual differences in past experiences can enhance, diminish, or complicate emotional engagement during perspective-taking.

The third category addressed prosocial behavioral intentions participants reported following the animation. Five themes emerged here: “Promoting Civility Through Informal Dialogue”, “Direct Confrontation of Uncivil Behavior”, “Self-imposed Conduct Guidelines”, “Support to Targets”, and “Reporting to Leadership.” Two themes emerged regarding participants’ motivations for these prosocial actions. The first, “Genuine Desire to Help Others (Altruistic Motivation),” included sub-themes such as the desire to prevent harm, offer emotional support, promote fair treatment, inspire hope, and act according to moral or cultural values. A second theme, “Sense of Personal Responsibility and Agency (Egoistic Motivation),” reflected participants’ internal sense of obligation to intervene in situations involving incivility.

Lastly, two themes emerged beyond the study’s primary research questions and offered valuable contextual insight. The theme "Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a barrier to impact” captured participants’ concerns that the artificiality of the animated film diminished its emotional impact. The theme “Impact on Self-Confidence from Uncivil Treatment” reflected participants’ observations about how persistent incivility can damage a person’s self-worth and psychological well-being.

Taken together, these 14 themes provide rich insight into how animated film can prompt or enhance perspective-taking, elicit empathy, and motivate actions to address workplace incivility, while also highlighting individual and contextual factors that shape emotional and behavioral responses.

Detailed descriptions of identified themes

Perspective-Taking

Theme 1: Putting Myself in Their Shoes. This theme captures how participants engaged in imagine-self perspective-taking by mentally placing themselves in the target's (Sam's) position. Many described vividly identifying with her experiences, emotions, and social exclusion. This cognitive-emotional simulation facilitated a deeper emotional connection and often served as the gateway through which empathy was evoked. Participants described this as “feeling like it was happening to me” or imagining “what it would be like if I were in her place.”

Empathy and Other Emotional Responses

Theme 2: Feeling the Emotions Felt by the Character. Participants not only took Sam’s perspective but also reported experiencing emotions aligned with hers. This reflects affective empathy and emotional contagion.

Subtheme 2a: Mirroring Emotional Distress. Participants described mirroring Sam’s negative emotions such as sadness and despair. Phrases like “I felt what she felt: sad, rejected, ignored” and “I felt compassion and kindness for her” show affective resonance with Sam’s experiences.

Subtheme 2b: Sharing in Emotional Relief and Hope. While most responses centered on negative emotional experiences, some participants also reported positive affective responses, such as happiness and hope, particularly in relation to moments of support or recovery in the storyline. For instance, one participant reflected, “I'm happy to know that she had someone like Sandy in her life… Even having just one person like that in your life can make a big difference in the way you feel and your mental health.” This suggests that affective empathy is not limited to mirroring distress but may also involve sharing in others’ emotional relief or hope.

These findings raise potential questions for future research on whether positive affective empathy emerges only after negative emotions are first experienced, or whether it can be elicited independently in response to moments of connection, support, or resilience.

Theme 3: Emotional Responses to Observed Incivility. Beyond empathy for the target, participants reported additional emotions triggered by witnessing uncivil behaviors.

Subtheme 3a: Moral Outrage / Injustice Sensitivity. Many expressed strong anger or disgust toward the perpetrators. Responses like “I felt angry at the attitudes of others towards Sam” and “I was angry that so many people around her were treating her badly” reveal a moral reaction rooted in perceived violations of fairness and decency.

Subtheme 3b: Disappointment in Society. Some participants expressed broader societal disappointment or existential concern, suggesting a sense of hopelessness or disillusionment. One participant stated, “I felt deep shame because of my fellow humans.”

Subtheme 3c: Emotional Numbness. A minority reported emotional detachment, either due to desensitization or difficulty connecting with the AI-generated medium. Quotes such as “I did not feel anything” and “I felt distant” reflect emotional disengagement.

Reasons for Experiencing Empathy and Other Emotions

Theme 4: Prior Experience as an Emotional Antecedent. Participants often explained their emotional responses, especially empathy, through the lens of their past personal experiences.

Subtheme 4a: Empathy Rooted in Shared Experience. Participants who had experienced incivility themselves were more likely to report strong empathic reactions. Statements like “I’ve also been ostracized like that before” or “I know what it’s like to be in that situation” reflect deep emotional resonance rooted in personal history.

Subtheme 4b: Emotional Distance from Lack of Relevant Experience. Those who had not experienced similar situations described feeling detached or neutral. For example: “Because I haven’t been through something like that” or “Because it has been a long time since I went to college.” These statements show how personal experiences influence emotional engagement.

Subtheme 4c: Reliving Emotional Pain. Some responses revealed that the animation triggered painful memories. One participant noted, “I experience this at home, not school. It robs a person of their view of the world. It validates all the bad, and it hurts.” These reflections suggest that the animated film did not evoke empathy but also elicited traumatic memories.

Prosocial Behavioral Intentions

Theme 5: Promoting Civility Through Informal Dialogue. Participants described intentions to informally educate others about civility and challenge incivility in everyday workplace interactions. This included casually raising awareness among peers or modeling respectful behavior. One participant shared, “I’ll also try to raise awareness about uncivil behaviors at informal settings with my colleagues.”

Theme 6: Direct Confrontation of Uncivil Behavior. This theme includes participants’ willingness to call out inappropriate behavior directly and assertively. “I would confront uncivil colleagues personally and warn them to stop” exemplifies an active, confrontational stance aimed at addressing incivility in real-time.

Theme 7: Self-Imposed Conduct Guidelines. Many participants described personal codes of conduct that guided their behavior, such as promoting respect, inclusion, and fairness. Statements like “I will treat others with respect” and “I will not gossip or steal others’ ideas” reflect self-regulated strategies to prevent uncivil behavior through principled action.

Theme 8: Support to Target. This theme reflects efforts to comfort, advocate for, or stand up for individuals experiencing incivility. Participants emphasized listening, offering emotional support, and befriending targets. For example: “I will always try to be kind to people and offer a listening ear” and “I will try to reach out to the person… and try to be their friend.”

Theme 9: Report to Leadership. Some participants emphasized the importance of formal escalation. They described intentions to report inappropriate behaviors to organizational leaders or HR. One participant wrote, “I would escalate the issue to the proper authorities until something is done.”

Motivations Behind Prosocial Behaviors

Theme 10: Genuine Desire to Help Others . Most prosocial intentions were grounded in altruism, an intrinsic desire to help others, prevent harm, and promote fairness. Five subthemes illustrate this core motivation:

Subtheme 10a: Desire to Prevent Harm Toward Targets. Participants expressed motivation to act to avoid causing psychological or professional harm. “I need to take those actions to prevent further damage on the person’s mental health…”

Subtheme 10b: Desire to Provide Emotional Support. Participants described their motivation as rooted in compassion and a wish to alleviate others' emotional suffering. “I wanted to reach out and comfort her.”

Subtheme 10c: Desire for Fair Treatment of Others. This subtheme reflects a justice-based rationale. For example: “Everyone has the right to be treated well” and “I do not like seeing people being treated unjustly.”

Subtheme 10d: Desire to Promote Hope and Positivity. A few participants focused on fostering optimism: “I want others to know life gets better and to stay positive.”

Subtheme 10e: Acting on Personal or Cultural Moral Values. This theme reflects participants’ motivation to act in ways consistent with their internalized moral values, such as fairness, equality, and the Golden Rule. Their responses suggest that moral upbringing, ethical reasoning, and a sense of justice underpin their prosocial behavior. One participant shared, “My parents believed the most important thing is to treat others how you want to be treated.” Another participant shared, “It is the morally right thing to do. We are all human beings and deserve to be treated as equals.”

Theme 11: Belief in Adequate Existing Social Conduct. It reflects the idea that the person feels they are already doing enough or the right thing socially and doesn’t see a need for further action. Few participants felt they were already acting morally and saw no need for further change. For example: “I already try to be kind in social interactions, so I don't think there's anything else to proactively do.”

Theme 12: Sense of Personal Responsibility and Agency (Egoistic Motivation). In contrast to altruism, some participants’ motivations reflected a sense of duty, self-accountability, or a desire to maintain self-esteem. They felt a personal obligation to intervene or avoid being undermined. “I would take those actions because I will never allow myself to be put down by uncivil colleagues, and to teach them I'm not one to mess with” illustrates this internal drive for integrity and self-respect.

Emergent Themes Beyond Research Questions

Theme 13: Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a Barrier to Impact. Some participants found that the video's AI-generated nature interfered with emotional engagement. They described the animated characters as “mechanical” or “heartless,” suggesting limited realism and emotional authenticity. “AI-generated content does not evoke any feeling within me” and “It detaches you from what would otherwise be a touching situation” captured this sentiment.

Theme 14: Impact on Self-Confidence from Uncivil Treatment. Several participants reflected on how incivility affects one’s self-worth. Responses like “Her confidence as a human being has been reduced by how badly she's treated” and “loss in confidence, insecurity” highlight the deep psychological toll that sustained mistreatment can have.

Overall, findings from all 14 themes suggest that watching animated films can enhance perspective-taking and empathy, with other emotions emerging as well, encouraging a range of prosocial behaviors. Emergent themes highlight emotional complexity, including the role of prior experiences, technological limitations, and the psychological consequences of incivility. Together, these insights support the potential of animated narratives in promoting workplace civility through emotional and behavioral engagement.

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

The themes that emerged from this study largely support the theoretical framework proposed by Batson et al. (1997), which suggests that perspective-taking can enhance empathy and, in turn, motivate individuals to engage in prosocial behaviors through either altruistic or egoistic pathways. Participants frequently described imagining themselves in the target character’s situation, which appeared to facilitate emotional understanding and motivate intentions to address or prevent uncivil behavior. However, several findings diverged from Batson’s framework. Participants who engaged in imagine-self perspective-taking frequently reported motivations consistent with altruistic concern for others. This contrasts with Batson’s model, which posits that imagine-self perspective-taking primarily produces egoistic motivation (e.g., relieving one’s own discomfort), whereas imagine-other perspective-taking is associated with altruistic motivation. One possible explanation is that participants who imagined themselves in the character’s situation simultaneously considered the character’s emotional experience. In other words, these findings may indicate that the cognitive processes involved in imagine-self and imagine-other perspective-taking are not entirely distinct. Instead, individuals who imagine themselves in another’s situation may simultaneously infer that person's emotional experiences, suggesting that the relationship between perspective-taking and prosocial motivation may be more dynamic than Batson’s original model implies.

Additionally, participant responses revealed motivations beyond altruistic and egoistic categories. Several individuals indicated that personal values, moral principles, or upbringing influenced their willingness to engage in prosocial behaviors. These motivations do not fit neatly within the altruistic–egoistic framework proposed by Batson et al. (1997). This finding suggests that perspective-taking may activate a broader range of motivational drivers, including internalized moral norms and identity-based values. Future research may therefore benefit from expanding existing theoretical classifications to account for these additional motivational influences.

The findings also raise important considerations for multimedia learning theory. The animated intervention was designed using principles from Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer, 2005), which primarily focuses on optimizing cognitive processing through principles such as multimedia, coherence, and segmentation. While these principles provide useful guidance for structuring instructional content, they are less explicitly suited for guiding the design of media intended to promote affective learning outcomes, such as empathy, emotional awareness, or sensitivity to social and interpersonal dynamics. Unlike traditional instructional content, affective learning experiences often rely on narrative structure, character development, emotional tone, and interpersonal interactions rather than explicit explanations or demonstrations. In the present study, emotional engagement appeared to emerge primarily through storytelling and participants’ identification with the main character's experiences. This suggests that multimedia learning frameworks may need to be expanded or complemented by additional design principles that more directly address affective and attitudinal learning outcomes. Such frameworks could be particularly valuable for media formats such as animation, which are well suited to portraying complex emotional and social experiences.

Practical Implications

The findings suggest that participants engaged in perspective-taking (PT) and reported empathic responses while reflecting on the animated film. However, it remains unclear which specific elements of the film contributed most to these outcomes. Participants were not explicitly asked to reflect on which aspects of the intervention influenced their emotional engagement. Elements such as the narrative's emotional tone, background music, visual design, character development, and overall storyline may have contributed individually or in combination to participants’ experiences. Identifying which components most strongly influence perspective-taking and empathy would provide valuable guidance for instructional designers developing similar interventions. Future research should therefore examine how specific design features influence emotional engagement and perspective-taking in multimedia learning environments.

Standardizing effective design elements could also help ensure consistency when using animated media to address complex social issues such as workplace incivility. If particular design components meaningfully enhance empathic engagement, intentionally incorporating them into future interventions may improve effectiveness and reproducibility across different educational or organizational contexts.

Participants’ responses also highlighted how prior experiences shaped their reception of the intervention. Several individuals reported having personally experienced workplace incivility, which appeared to help them connect more deeply with the target character. This finding underscores the importance of considering learners’ prior knowledge and lived experiences when designing instructional interventions intended to promote perspective-taking, empathy, or prosocial behavior. Instructional designers may benefit from incorporating opportunities for personal reflection or connections to learners’ experiences to strengthen engagement with the material.

Individual differences in trait empathy may also have influenced how participants experienced the intervention. Participants with higher levels of dispositional empathy may have been more emotionally affected by the narrative than those with lower empathy levels, potentially contributing to variability in responses. This suggests that affective instructional interventions may benefit from more flexible or adaptive design approaches that accommodate differences in learners’ emotional responsiveness.

Finally, a small number of participants expressed concern that using animation may have trivialized the seriousness of workplace incivility. While animation can effectively present emotionally complex topics in an accessible and engaging way, it may not resonate equally with all audiences. For some viewers, animated representations may reduce the perceived seriousness of sensitive issues. This finding highlights the importance of understanding the target audience when selecting instructional media formats. Frameworks such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) offer potential strategies for addressing these challenges. By incorporating multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression, UDL principles can help instructional designers create more flexible and inclusive learning experiences. Applying these principles to affective instructional design may help ensure that multimedia interventions remain accessible and meaningful for diverse learners while still fostering emotional awareness and attitudinal change.

Beyond UDL and the practical considerations discussed above, the findings provide direct, actionable guidance for instructional designers. Table 3 translates these insights into transferable design principles for empathy-focused multimedia interventions.

Table 3
Transferable Design Principles for Empathy-Focused Multimedia Interventions

Limitations

Although this study yielded valuable insights, several limitations should be acknowledged.

1. Self-Report Bias
Self-reported measures are susceptible to social desirability bias. Participants may overstate their empathy or behavioral intentions to align with perceived expectations, particularly given the reflective nature of the intervention.

2. Limited Generalizability

The sample selected for this study was participants who work in higher education contexts. Recruiting a sample from a particular industry limits generalizability to other industries or workplace contexts. Second, because participants were self-selected and recruited through Prolific, an online crowdsourcing platform, the generalizability of the findings to other populations is also limited. Additionally, because participants engaged with the intervention in uncontrolled environments, other extraneous variables such as distractions or emotional states may have influenced their engagement and responses.

3. No Measurement of Other Variables
The study did not assess participants’ moral identity, prior exposure to workplace incivility, and other variables which could have influenced how they engaged with the intervention. Without accounting for these individual differences, it is difficult to determine the influence of intervention versus pre-existing dispositions.

4. Media Format Limitations
While animation was chosen for its potential to humanize complex emotional experiences, some participants reported that the AI-generated or animated format diminished the realism or seriousness of the subject matter. This feedback emphasizes the risk of unintended emotional distancing in media design, especially when addressing sensitive topics.

5. Limited Exploration of Design Components
Although the intervention appeared to foster empathy and prosocial motivation, this study did not isolate or manipulate specific design elements (e.g., music, character design, narration style) to determine which features were most impactful. Without such information, the precise drivers of the intervention’s effectiveness remain unclear.

Conclusion

This study explored how an empathy-driven animated film may support perspective-taking, evoke affective responses, and motivate prosocial intentions in response to workplace incivility. Using a reflexive thematic analysis approach, the findings reveal patterns of perspective-taking and emotional engagement in participants’ reflections on the animated narrative. Participants described experiencing strong emotional resonance with the target character and articulated a range of motivations, including altruistic, egoistic, and morally driven motivations, to promote civility in similar situations.

Notably, the findings raise questions about existing theoretical assumptions, particularly those proposed by Batson et al. (1997). While participants frequently engaged in imagine-self perspective-taking, their reported motivations often reflected altruistic concern for others. This observation suggests that imagine-self perspective-taking may, in some contexts, also be associated with altruistic outcomes. These findings suggest that the cognitive pathways linking perspective-taking and altruistic motivation may be more complex than previously theorized.

The study also highlights the complexity of affective learning in multimedia environments and emphasizes the importance of tailoring design elements to learners’ prior experiences, dispositional traits, and emotional readiness. Participants’ responses suggest that emotional engagement with the narrative may be shaped by factors such as prior experiences with incivility, individual differences in dispositional empathy, and personal values.

From a practical standpoint, the study provides preliminary support for using animation as a medium for empathy-focused educational interventions and social awareness initiatives. At the same time, the findings suggest that the effectiveness of such interventions may vary across audiences. Incorporating inclusive design approaches, such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL), may help instructional designers create more flexible and accessible learning experiences that resonate with diverse learners.

Overall, this study contributes to emerging scholarship at the intersection of affective learning, multimedia design, and workplace civility. It also highlights the need for continued research on how emotionally engaging digital media can support perspective-taking, deepen empathy, and encourage thoughtful, prosocial responses to complex interpersonal and organizational challenges.

References

1. Abedini, Z., & Parvizy, S. (2019). The effects of group discussion and self-learning on nursing students’ civility. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research, 24(4), 268–273. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_212_18
2. Adams, J. E., Williams, R., Gillespie, C., Minsky, M., LaPook, J., Greene, R., Ravenell, J., Dennehy, J., & Gonzalez, C. M. (2023). Using Animated Film to Foster Understanding of and Engagement in Addressing Implicit Bias Through Empathy Across the Health Care Continuum. Academic Medicine, 98(11S), S169–S169. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005389
3. Adams, S. B., & Scott, L. D. (2018). Gray Reflections: Poetry as a Pathway to Nursing Student Empathy and the Creation of Meaning in a Long-Term-Care Clinical Practicum. Creative Nursing, 24(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1891/1078-4535.24.1.52
4. Agarwal, S., Pandey, R., Kumar, S., Marc Lim, W., Agarwal, P. K., & Malik, A. (2023). Workplace incivility: A retrospective review and future research agenda. Safety Science, 158, Article 105990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105990
5. Aini, K., & Rini, H. P. (2024). Effectiveness of animation media in enhancing empathy to prevent bullying behavior in madurese adolescents. BIO Web of Conferences, 146, 1064. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/202414601064
6. Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. Regan Books/Harper Collins Publishers.
7. Bambi, S., Guazzini, A., De Felippis, C., Lucchini, A., & Rasero, L. (2017). Preventing workplace incivility, lateral violence and bullying between nurses A narrative literature review. Acta Bio-Medica : Atenei Parmensis, 88(5S), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v88i5-S.6838
8. Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 751-758
9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 16(2), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2019.1628806
11. Chakraborty, T., Sharada, V. S., & Tripathi, M. (2024). Promoting well-Being through respect. Advances in Human Resources Management and Organizational Development Book Series, 117–154. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-6079-8.ch006
12. Choi, H. J., & Yang, M. (2011). The effect of problem-based video instruction on student satisfaction, empathy, and learning achievement in the Korean teacher education context. Higher Education, 62(5), 551-561.
13. Clark, C. M., Kardong-Edgren, S., & Willhaus, J. (2023). Pilot study using cognitive rehearsal, simulation, and biomarker data to address workplace incivility. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 54(2), 79-88.
14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.1.64
15. Edwards, M. S. (2007). Organizational politics and workplace incivility: The role of perceptions of organizational politics. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(4), 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1217
16. Everyday Speech. (n.d.). Promoting emotional intelligence: Insightful perspective taking activities for adults. Everyday Speech. Retrieved May 10, 2025, from https://everydayspeech.com/sel-implementation/promoting-emotional-intelligence-insightful-perspective-taking-activities-for-adults/
17. Friesem, Y. (2016). Empathy for the digital age: Using video production to enhance social, emotional, and cognitive skills. In Emotions, technology, and behaviors (pp. 21-45). Academic Press.
18. Furman, J. W. (2018, July 31). Pitfalls of zero tolerance policies. Worklaw® Network. https://www.worklaw.com/blog/pitfalls-of-zero-tolerance-policies
19. Gloor, J. L., Okimoto, T. G., & Ryan, M. K. (2024). Recognising subtle forms of workplace discrimination. Global Institute for Women's Leadership. Retrieved from https://giwl.anu.edu.au/our-research/recognising-subtle-forms-workplace-discrimination
20. Guo, Y. (2022). Designing Game Narrative to Evoke Players’ Empathy. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
21. Hershcovis, M. S., Ogunfowora, B., Reich, T. C., & Christie, A. M. (2018). Target reactions to workplace incivility: Cross-lagged relationships with engagement and turnover intentions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(6), 750–763. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2308
22. Hodgins, J., Callan, V. J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2014). The role of zero-tolerance policies in combating workplace incivility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(7), 893-908.
23. Hodgins, M., MacCurtain, S., & Mannix-McNamara, P. (2014). Workplace bullying and incivility: a systematic review of interventions. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 7(1), 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-08-2013-0030
24. Hodgins, M., & Mannix McNamara, P. (2019). An enlightened environment? Workplace bullying and incivility in Irish higher education. SAGE Open, 9(3), 2158244019894278. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019894278
25. Holm, K., Torkelson, E., & Bäckström, M. (2015). The relation between witnessing workplace incivility and instigated incivility. Nordic Psychology, 67(2), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2014.987741
26. Hood, D. G., Haskins, T. L., & Roberson, S. C. (2018). Stepping into their shoes: The ostomy experience. Journal of Nursing Education, 57(4), 233-236.
27. Howard, M. S., & Embree, J. L. (2020). Educational intervention improves communication abilities of nurses encountering workplace incivility. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 51(3), 138-144.
28. Hudgins, T., Layne, D., Kusch, C. E., & Lounsbury, K. (2023). An analysis of the perceptions of incivility in higher education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 21(2), 177-191.
29. Joseph, O., Mir, G., Fylan, B., Essler, P., & Lawton, R. (2025). Incivility experiences of racially minoritised hospital staff, consequences for them and implications for patient care: An international scoping review. Sociology of Health & Illness, 47(1), e13760.
30. Kagotho, N., McClendon, J., Lane, S. R., Vanidestine, T., Bogenschutz, M., Flowers, T. D., & Wilson, L. (2023). “Challenge and Hold One Another Accountable:” Social Work Faculty Respond to Incivility. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 47(4), 328-342.
31. Keen, S. (2006). A Theory of Narrative Empathy. Narrative, 14(3), 207–236. https://doi.org/10.1353/nar.2006.0015
32. Kisner, T. (2018). Addressing workplace incivility. Nursing in Critical Care, 13(6), 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCN.0000546311.07792.74
33. Kousha, S., Shahrami, A., Forouzanfar, M. M., Sanaie, N., Atashzadeh-Shoorideh, F., & Skerrett, V. (2022). Effectiveness of educational intervention and cognitive rehearsal on perceived incivility among emergency nurses: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Nursing, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-00930-1
34. Lama, A., Nwamu, H., & Kim, Y. (2025). Interventions to Address Clinical Incivility in Nursing: A Systematic Review. Nursing Reports, 15(6), 199.
35. Lasater, K., Mood, L., Buchwach, D., & Dieckmann, N. F. (2015). Reducing incivility in the workplace: Results of a three-part educational intervention. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 46(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20141224-01
36. Leiter, M. P., Laschinger, H. K. S., Day, A., & Oore, D. G. (2011). The impact of civility interventions on employee social behavior, distress, and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1258–1274. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024442
37. Locklear, L. R., Taylor, S. G., & Ambrose, M. L. (2021). How a gratitude intervention influences workplace mistreatment: A multiple mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(9), 1314–1331. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000825
38. Mammen, B. N., Lam, L., & Hills, D. (2025). Evaluating the impact of an educational intervention with cognitive rehearsal training on preparing pre-registration nursing students to respond to workplace incivility. Nurse Education Today, 150, 106685.
39. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 41(1), 31-48.
40. Miller, S. R. (2015). Fostering informed empathy through patient-centered education about persons with disabilities. Perspectives on medical education, 4(4), 196-199.
41. Moore, W., Palerino, A., & Pawloski, K. (2025). Nursing program attributes contributing to a culture of civility. Journal of Nursing Education, 64(1), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20240827-04
42. Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. M. (2010). The cost of bad behavior. Organizational Dynamics, 39(1), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2009.10.006
43. Rayboud, A. (2022). Plagiarism, theft, misappropriation of theses. [Online survey conducted among 1,800 PhD students and young doctors]. Retrieved from etico.iiep.unesco.org
44. Reddan, M. C., Garcia, S. B., Golarai, G., Eberhardt, J. L., & Zaki, J. (2024). Film intervention increases empathic understanding of formerly incarcerated people and support for criminal justice reform. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121(44), e2322819121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322819121
45. Sagheer, I., Khalid, A., & Sarwer, S. (2024). Non-Verbal Communication Through Visual Storytelling: UMBRELLA Animated Short Film. Pakistan Languages and Humanities Review, 8(1), 277-292.
46. 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(S1), S57–S88. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1976
47. Schwartz, R. (2013). Zero tolerance policies: Fortress or paper tiger? Labor Notes. Retrieved from https://www.labornotes.org/2013/11/zero-tolerance-policies-fortress-or-paper-tiger
48. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
49. Stoddard, J. L. (2017). Civility matters: Overcoming workplace incivility using an interactive education intervention. Doctor of Nursing Practice Scholarly Projects. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/dnp/1
50. Sweeney, K., & Baker, P. (2018). Promoting empathy using video‐based teaching. The clinical teacher, 15(4), 336-340.
51. Taylor, H. L., Harle, C. A., Johnson, S. M., & Menachemi, N. (2019). Workplace incivility experienced by health administration faculty. The Journal of Health Administration Education, 36(2), 191–216. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7262725
52. Tiwari, M., & Jha, S. (2022). Narcissism, toxic work culture and abusive supervision: A double-edged sword escalating organizational deviance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(6), 1403–1423. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-05-2020-2187
53. Traina, M., Doctor, D., Bean, E. & Wooldridge, V. (2005). Student code of conduct in the online classroom: A consideration of zero tolerance policies. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2005--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1855-1863). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 7, 2025 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/21468/
54. Walker, K. L., & Epps, E. G. (2011). Faculty incivility toward graduate students: Voices of two African American women. The Journal of Negro Education, 80(3), 327–338. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41341138
55. Walsh, B. M. (2011). A multilevel model of the effectiveness of workplace incivility training (Publication No. AAI3485424) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
56. What To Become. (2022). Zero‑tolerance policy workplace: Points to consider. Retrieved from https://whattobecome.com/blog/zero-tolerance-policy-workplace/
57. Zero-tolerance policy workplace: Points to consider. What To Become. Retrieved from https://whattobecome.com/blog/zero-tolerance-policy-workplace/
58. Zimmerman, C. A., Carter-Sowell, A. R., & Xu, X. (2016). Examining workplace ostracism experiences in academia: understanding how differences in the faculty ranks influence inclusive climates on campus. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 753.

Appendices

1. Appendix A: Pre-training survey

2. Appendix B: Educational intervention

3. Appendix C: Reflection prompts used in the intervention

4. Appendix D: Post-training survey

5. Appendix E: Definition of key terms

Appendix A: Pre-training survey

Demographic questions

1. What is your primary role at your institution? (Check all that apply)

1. Graduate student

2. Higher education administrator

3. Faculty (tenure-track or tenure)

4. Faculty (non-tenure-track/adjunct/lecturer)

5. Staff

6. Post-doctoral fellow

7. Other____________________________

1. What is your race/ethnicity? (Select all that apply)

1. American Indian or Alaska Native

2. Asian

3. Black or African American

4. Hispanic or Latino

5. Middle Eastern or North African

6. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

7. White

8. Another race or ethnicity: __________

9. Prefer not to answer

1. What is your gender identity?

2. Woman

3. Man

4. Nonbinary or gender diverse

5. Another identity: __________

6. Prefer not to answer

1. What is your age range?

1. 18–24

2. 25–34

3. 35–44

4. 45–54

5. 55–64

6. 65 or older

7. Prefer not to answer

1. How many years have you worked or studied in higher education settings (as staff, faculty, administrator, student, etc.)?

1. Less than 1 year

2. 1–3 years

3. 4–6 years

4. 7–10 years

5. More than 10 years

1. What is your primary department or area of work/study? (e.g., Biology, Student Affairs, English, IT Services, Engineering) __________________

2. Are you employed full-time or part-time at your institution?

1. Full-time

2. Part-time

3. Other: __________

1. Please create a unique 4-character code that follows this format: two letters followed by two numbers (e.g., XT30, yg88, Tg41). You will be asked to enter this same code again later in the study, so please write it down and keep it somewhere safe to ensure consistency and maintain your anonymity. _________________________

Appendix B: Educational Intervention

Design Artifact

Appendix C: Reflection prompt questions used in the intervention

Participants were presented with the following prompts embedded within the eLearning module immediately after each scene in the animated film:

After Scenes 1–3:

1. List one or more emotions you imagine Sam (the main character) felt.

2. Why do you think Sam felt that emotion/those emotions?

After Scene 4 (Final Scene):

1. Based on the emotions you imagined Sam felt in all scenes, what emotions did/do you feel? (Enter N/A if you did not feel any emotions.)

2. Why do you think you felt those emotions? (If you did not feel any emotions, please explain why.)

3. Reflecting on all scenes: What one or more actions will you take going forward to ensure you do not engage in uncivil behaviors or to prevent and address incivility directed toward yourself or others? (Enter N/A if you do not anticipate taking any action.)

4. Why do you think you would take those actions? Please explain what might motivate you. (If you stated you will take no action, please explain why.)

Appendix D: Post-training survey

1. Please enter the 4-character code (2 letters, followed by 2 numbers) you used in the pre-test survey. _____________________________

Receiving Your Compensation

1. Copy this code: CX2R23DK

1. Submit this code to Prolific to receive your monetary compensation.

Appendix E: Definition of Key Terms

1. Workplace Incivility: Workplace incivility is defined as low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect (Anderson & Pearson, 1999).

2. Incivility target: The individual or group to whom uncivil behaviors are directed.

3. Bystander: The individual or group (also often referred to as a witness/an observer) who is a mere observer of uncivil conduct.

4. Prosocial behaviors: Behaviors people voluntarily engage with to help others without expecting a reward.

Funding: This work was supported by an internal research grant from Purdue University.