GOSSIP IS MORE THAN IDLE TALK: THE INFLUENTIAL ROLE OF
NEGATIVE GOSSIP ON ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION,
MODERATED BY ANXIETY.
Master’s Thesis, MSc, specialisation Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 6th, 2014 CHRISTINA FEIRER Student number: S2498901 Saffierstraat 27 9743 LE Groningen tel: + 31 (6)48-184911 e-mail: c.feirer@student.rug.nl
GOSSIP IS MORE THAN IDLE TALK: THE INFLUENTIAL ROLE OF NEGATIVE GOSSIP ON ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION, MODERATED BY ANXIETY.
ABSTRACT
Successful organisations require employees who perform well, and in order to consistently perform well, staff must be motivated. Individuals follow different achievement goals in order to become and stay motivated. It is most beneficial for an organisation to employ staff who follow approach rather than avoidance goals because such employees focus on success and are engaged in high task involvement (Van Yperen & Orehek, 2012; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). However, due to situational factors, individuals’ goal orientation may be adjusted over time; thus, approach and avoidance orientations might decrease or increase. Gossip may have an impact on an individual’s motivation. The role and importance of gossip must be investigated further to understand its impact on individuals and therefore organisations. This research proposes that negative gossip influences individuals to decrease their approach goal orientations, but increase their avoidance goal orientations. In addition to this, individuals react differently to negative gossip depending on their anxiety level, such that individuals possessing high rather than low levels of anxiety are more likely to react to negative gossip through a decrease of approach and increase of avoidance goals. However, the results suggest that neither negative gossip nor the moderating role of anxiety influenced a decrease of approach goals and increase of avoidance goals. Therefore, further research needs to be conducted to help organisations understand the reasons for adjustments in achievement goals, which enables them to avoid undesirable goal developments of their employees.
INTRODUCTION
Organisations rely on the performance of individuals. Individual performance depends on several factors, such as employees’ motivation (Boxall & Purcell, 2008). Organisations need to find a way to motivate employees in order to strengthen their willingness to work because motivated employees tend to be more productive. Productive employees are, in return, more likely to lead to an organisation’s success (Hull, 2013). A component considered as important for willingness to perform is employees’ achievement motivation (Van Yperen & Orehek, 2012).
The achievement goal theory distinguishes between different goal orientations. First, mastery oriented individuals strive to gain and develop competences. Secondly, performance individuals aim to outperform others (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Another differentiation can be made between approach and avoidance goal orientation. On the one hand, individuals may be motivated by striving for success, which refers to a positive approach orientation (performance approach or mastery approach). On the other hand, they may be motivated by aiming to avoid failure, which refers to a negative avoidance orientation (performance avoidance and mastery avoidance) (Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Elliot, 1999).
Van Yperen and Orehek (2012) stated that approach oriented individuals are able to perform better than avoidance oriented individuals because individuals high on approach interest focus on positive outcomes and enhance their efforts to reach achievement, whereas individuals following avoidance goals are focused on negative outcomes and evoke a fear of failure (Van Yperen & Orehek, 2012). Avoidance oriented individuals also face an inability to become absorbed in an activity, thus they show reduced task involvement relative to approach oriented individuals who can totally “dive into a task” (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). Moreover, avoidance orientation influences individuals’ well-being negatively. In particular, it decreases their self-esteem, personal control, vitality, and life satisfaction (Elliot & Sheldon, 1997). This is due to the fact that avoidance individuals tend to adopt passive and avoiding coping strategies as a reaction to stressors, which result in behavioural and cognitive escape-avoidance and distancing strategies. Passive coping strategies generate higher psychological distress and therefore influence individuals’ well-being adversely (Billings et al., 2000; Elliot & Thrash & Murayama, 2011; Sanjua´n & Magallares, 2014.).
well-being, as these factors may generate lower performance. Therefore, an organisation benefits more from approach oriented employees compared to avoidance oriented employees. As avoidance compared to approach employees are less desirable for organisations, it is important for them to clarify and understand antecedents of avoidance goals, thus reasons that cause an avoidance goal orientation. Firstly, avoidance orientation can be due to individuals’ predispositions, such as individuals’ achievement motive, which for avoidance individuals is the desire to avoid failure (Elliot, 1999). Secondly, avoidance orientation can be caused by situational factors, which change one’s perceived competences (Seifert, 1996; Elliot, 1999).
The fact that situational factors might contribute to the adoption of avoidance orientation may be adverse for organisations. Organisations may hire approach oriented employees in order to raise the number of well-performing employees. However, due to situational factors, employees may increase their avoidance goals after all (Senko & Harachiewicz, 2005).
One factor which may induce such a situational adjustment of achievement goals is being the target of negative rather than positive gossip. Overhearing negative gossip about oneself may influence one’s competence perception. In fact, individuals compare gossip to informal feedback. After receiving negative gossip, they feel down and become more anxious (Gholipour et al., 2011), which may lower their perceived competences. Individuals who perceive their competence as low possess limited intrinsic motivation and prefer easy tasks to avoid failure, thus they pursue an avoidance orientation (Elliot, 1999; Harter & Jackson, 1992).
As a consequence, individuals who receive negative gossip may adopt lower approach goals, but higher avoidance goals. Moreover, depending on their personality traits, individuals may respond differently to negative gossip. Research has shown that a high level of anxiety increases the chances that an individual has an avoidance orientation (Elliot, 1999; Senko & Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2011; Skaalvik, 1997). Thus, I expect that individuals with a high level of anxiety are more likely to respond negatively to gossip and are therefore more drawn to adopt lower approach goals, but higher avoidance goals. Therefore, negative gossip and a high level of anxiety may be seen as antecedents of an avoidance orientation.
The leading research question is as follows:
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Organisations rely on the job performance of individuals to be successful. Many factors determine individual’s performance (Van Yperen, 2003). Motivation represents one of those factors contributing to individuals’ performance. It describes the willingness to work due to a feeling of interest and being intrinsically incentivised (Boxall & Purcell, 2008). Due to the importance of motivation in contributing to performance, organisations need to understand what drives their employees’ motivation. To understand individuals’ motivation in the first place, it is necessary to understand goals towards which individuals are orientated (Nolen, 1988). To do so, I am going to use the achievement goal theory, as it has been the most influential and dominant theoretical approach in contemporary achievement motivation literature (Elliot, 1999).
The achievement goal theory
The achievement goal theory is a motivation theory (Senko & Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2011) and it is a useful instrument for understanding how individuals perceive, interpret and react to achievement situations. It describes the different goals individuals may have in an achievement context (Grant & Dweck, 2003); through individuals’ achievement goals, their behaviours can be explained (Poortvliet & Darnon, 2010). The theory is a cognitive approach to motivation, which focuses on goals or purposes observed for achievement behaviour. The different goals explain how individuals react to events differently, affecting their cognition and behaviour (Elliot, 1999). By understanding individuals’ achievement goals and motivation, it will be possible to predict their work performance.
Achievement goal theory primarily distinguishes between two goal orientations; mastery and performance goals, which represent two directions toward how individuals perceive their competences. (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996).
Mastery goals versus performance goals. Performance goal individuals are concerned
mastery (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Unlike individuals with performance goals, individuals with mastery goals do not depend on comparisons with other individuals. A mastery individual compares his/her current performance with one’s own past performance. Mastery goals induce a reciprocity orientation towards other people, which means that individuals are likely to exchange worthy information, which they believe will result in receiving useful information in return (Poortvliet & Darnon, 2010).
Achievement goal theory further differentiates between approach or avoidance orientation (Elliot, 1999). In this research, there will be a focus on approach and avoidance orientations.
Approach orientation versus avoidance orientation. On the one hand, individuals
following an approach orientation are motivated by behaviour which is driven by a positive or desirable event. In this case there is an orientation towards success (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). On the other hand, individuals motivated by an avoidance orientation are characterised by behaviour which is driven by a negative or undesirable event. In this case, behaviour is orientated towards avoiding failure (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996).
As indicated, there are four different orientations: mastery approach, mastery avoidance, performance approach, and performance avoidance.
Mastery approach orientation. A mastery approach orientation occurs when individuals
focus on developing and improving their competences or on attaining task mastery (Elliot, 1999; Skaalvik, 1997). Individuals possessing such goals aim to self-improve; they strive to develop skills and abilities, understand material and master a task successfully (Elliot & McGregor, 2001).
Mastery avoidance orientation. A mastery avoidance orientation emerges when
individuals aim to avoid mistakes and avoid the demonstration of incompetence (Elliot, 1999; Skaalvik, 1997). Such individuals aim to avoid failure or misunderstanding. They also intend to avoid making errors, leaving tasks incomplete or forgetting what they once learned. Therefore, mastery avoidance individuals aim to not make any mistakes or do things wrong (Elliot & McGregor, 2001).
Performance approach orientation. Performance approach orientation aims to
others. At the same time, they also define their own competences by outperforming others and by appearing talented (Senko & Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2011).
Performance avoidance orientation. Some performance goal individuals follow an
avoidance goal, such as to avoid looking stupid or to aim to not be the poorest (Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997). Those individuals define success through not doing worse than others and to avoid the demonstration of incompetence (Skaalvik, 1997).
For the sake of reinforcing well-performing employees, it is very important that organisations take the effects of achievement goals into account.
Relation to performance. All goals have potential to motivate individuals (Senko &
stressors (Elliot & Thrash & Murayama, 2011). In comparison to approach individuals, who tend to cope with problems through dealing with it actively, thus act in problem solving and positive reappraisal, avoidance individuals tend to adopt passive and avoiding coping strategies. Passive and avoiding coping strategies involve behavioural and cognitive escape-avoidance and distancing strategies (Billings et al., 2000). Active coping strategies are associated with lower psychological distress, whereas passive coping strategies are associated with greater psychological distress, which affects one’s well-being adversely (Sanjua´n & Magallares, 2014; Elliot & Thrash & Murayama, 2011). Therefore, avoidance orientation influences individuals’ well-being negatively. As a consequence, it appears that organisations benefit more from approach oriented employees.
Antecedents of goal orientation. In order to prevent organisations from having to deal
with less desirable avoidance employees and allow them to counteract, they need to understand antecedents of avoidance goals, thus reasons that cause an avoidance orientation. Achievement goal orientations can be caused by individuals’ predisposition as well as situational factors.
With respect to individuals’ predispositions, achievement motives illustrate the main reason for the kind of goal individuals adopt (Elliot, 1999). As already discussed, approach individuals are motivated by the orientation towards success, whereas avoidance individuals are motivated by the orientation towards avoiding failure (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996).
avoidance goal (Elliot, 1999). In particular, high competence perception is related to a greater level of intrinsic motivation. Individuals appreciate challenging work and they are success oriented; thus, they are likely to adopt approach goals. Low competence perception is related to limited intrinsic motivation. Individuals prefer easy work and are orientated towards avoiding failure. Therefore, they are likely to adopt an avoidance goal orientation (Elliot, 1999; Harter & Jackson, 1992). Therefore, situational factors may change the perception of one’s perceived competences which determine the adoption of a goal that is in line with the new perception. A factor that may have the power to change one’s perceived competence is gossip. A situation of being the target of gossip may therefore contribute to individuals adopting their achievement goals (Elliot, 1999).
Effect of gossip as a predictor of a dominant goal orientation
Gossip can be defined as informal evaluative comments about a member of a social environment who is not present (Wert & Salovery, 2004). It is widely considered as negative and often includes adverse or malicious statements about individuals in their absence (Wert & Salovery, 2004).
Gossip can be considered as an informal type of feedback, which can be seen as a part of informal communication (Noon & Delbridge, 1993). It expresses opinions and ideas of others which makes receiving gossip comparable to getting informal feedback (Waddington, 2012).
As discussed above, negative feedback may lead to goal adjustments. Senko and Harackiewicz (2005) conducted a study and proposed that receiving positive or negative competence related feedback may result in students regulating their goals. They stressed that especially negative feedback may lead to such a goal adjustment. After receiving negative feedback, individuals are more likely to lower their ambitions and therefore show a change in their goal orientation. Even though the results showed that general stability was noticeable, several students reacted through goal adjustments in response to competence related feedback. In particular, they increased approach goals after receiving positive feedback and increased avoidance goals after receiving negative feedback. In a second study they failed to replicate these results. The feedback manipulation did not noticeably affect individuals, which implies that the goal orientations of individuals remained stable (Senko & Harachiewicz, 2005).
of competence indirectly affects the adoption of achievement goals through the environment. If the achievement environment is structured towards challenge, thus the possibility of success is noticeable, it activates individuals’ need for achievement and leads to an approach orientation. If the achievement environment is structured towards threat where the possibility of failure is emphasised, fear of failure is activated and it leads to an avoidance orientation (Elliot, 1999). Gossip is part of an achievement environment and potentially elicits an alternation of one’s perceived competences.
Individuals who overhear negative rather than positive gossip about them may consider those comments as feedback about themselves. This may influence individuals’ behaviour in the same way as it influences them when they receive negative feedback. After overhearing gossip, individuals feel down and become more anxious. Hearing gossip may even result in destructive behaviours (Gholipour et al., 2011). Those changes in thinking influence individuals’ perceptions about their own competences, which may make them adopt a lower approach goal orientation and a higher avoidance goal orientation.
Related to the research of Senko and Harackiewicz (2005), who proposed that receiving negative competence feedback is likely to lead to a higher adoption of an avoidance goal, I propose that receiving negative rather than positive gossip about oneself may lead to an adoption of lower approach goals and higher avoidance goals.
On the one hand, mastery and performance approach individuals may possess high perceived competence as well as an orientation towards achievement and success. Noticing that people gossip about them negatively, however, may reduce their perceived competences as well as their orientation towards achievement and success, which in turn reduces their mastery or performance approach orientation. On the other hand, individuals who already possess mastery or performance avoidance goals may have low competence perceptions and focus on failure. However, overhearing negative gossip may increase their avoidance orientation and therefore develop an even more avoidant mastery or performance orientation.
For this reason, I have developed four hypotheses. These are:
Hypothesis 1. Targets of negative gossip will adopt a lower mastery approach goal compared to targets of positive gossip.
Hypothesis 2. Targets of negative gossip will adopt a higher mastery avoidance goal compared to targets of positive gossip
Hypothesis 4. Targets of negative gossip will adopt a higher performance avoidance goal compared to targets of positive gossip
Gossip can be seen as one of the most pervasive activities in an organisation (Wert & Salovery, 2004). Due to the fact that gossip does exist in organisations and that it influences individuals, it remains important to the organisation (Noon & Delbridge, 1993). Understanding this social process may even help protect and maintain organisations (Noon & Delbridge, 1993). However, despite the importance of gossip, it has been widely overlooked in research so far and has not yet received serious attention (Wert & Salovery, 2004). It is an under-researched area (Noon & Delbridge, 1993), especially in relation to achievement goal orientation. Similar to receiving negative feedback, gossip possibly influences individuals’ goals as well.
The moderating effect of anxiety
Individuals might react differently to gossip. Depending on their personality traits, they may be more or less likely to respond to negative gossip through decreasing their approach goals or increasing their avoidance goals.
One personality trait which may influence a decrease of approach goal orientation and an increase of avoidance goal orientation is anxiety. Anxiety is defined as a human emotional response which signals apprehension. A person possessing a high level of anxiety perceives himself/herself as inadequate for a task, focuses on undesirable outcomes, is preoccupied with self-deprecating thoughts and expects failure (Zeidner, 1998). Throughout this research I am going to refer to anxiety as a personality trait.
For this reason I argue that high anxiety as a personality trait may decrease approach goals for mastery and performance individuals, whereas it may increase avoidance goals for mastery and performance oriented individuals, after receiving negative gossip. I therefore state the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 5. For individuals with high anxiety, the adoption of a mastery approach goal is less likely to occur after receiving negative gossip as compared to individuals with low anxiety.
Hypothesis 6. For individuals with high anxiety, the adoption of a mastery avoidance goal is more likely to occur after receiving negative gossip as compared to individuals with low anxiety.
Hypothesis 7. For individuals with high anxiety, the adoption of a performance approach goal is less likely to occur after receiving negative gossip as compared to individuals with low anxiety.
Hypothesis 8. For individuals with high anxiety, the adoption of a performance avoidance goal is more likely to occur after receiving negative gossip as compared to individuals with low anxiety.
Figure 1 graphically represents the hypotheses. It shows the relationship between gossip valence and goal adoption moderated by anxiety.
FIGURE 1
Conceptual model
High/low anxiety
Gossip valence Lower approach goals.
METHODOLOGY
In order to find out whether negative rather than positive gossip lead to an adoption of lower approach goals and higher avoidance goals, whilst taking anxiety into account, I conducted an experiment at the Faculty of Economics and Business Research Lab. The experiment was called “Virtual teams – can they survive?” and was calculated to require 30 minutes in the laboratory as well as 10 minutes for an online questionnaire. Students participated for either 4 € or 2 research points.
Participants
124 participants (44.35% male and 55.65% female; 41.94% Dutch, 12.10% Germans and 45.96% other) attended the experiment. The age ranged from 18 to 31 years, with a mean of 22.39 years and a standard deviation of 2.45. The research included 37.6% business related Bachelor’s degree and 35.7% business related Master’s degree students, whereas 26.7% did not indicate their study programme.
Procedure
At Time 1 (T1), before the experiment took place, participants were required to fill out an online questionnaire. This questionnaire gathered information about individuals’ general goal orientation as well as their level of anxiety. Only one participant did not complete this questionnaire.
At the time the experiment occurred, the participants came to the Business Research Lab where they experienced positive or negative gossip about themselves. They were led to believe that the experiment was about problem solving in virtual teams of three. The task was called “Lost at sea” (see Appendix A) and the aim was to find an optimal solution as a team while only communicating electronically via a chat programme. The exercise represented a survival game, in particular the team went on a yacht trip, but the yacht eventually sunk. However, they managed to rescue 15 items, out of which each participant had to choose individually the 3 most important ones to survive.
They were told that even though they made individual choices, they could communicate virtually about each other’s choices. Moreover, they believed that the final score would represent the sum of all individual choices and that the best team would win 60 €.
Gossip manipulation. Even though participants were led to believe that they actually
not the case. The chat session was pre-programmed and represented the gossip manipulation. Participants never actually communicated with each other but were randomly assigned to a positive (n = 34), negative (n = 30) or control condition (n = 37) and received messages accordingly. Thus, within the chat session each participant received a message from participant “C” which said that participant “A” perceived their choices as good, bad or neutral.
The chat session proceeded as following: regardless the condition, participant C started with small talk: “hey there B, how did the first part go? we should really try to win the 60 euro! that’s a lot of money :)”. After this small talk, participant C mentioned “anyway….Look what A told me:”. At this point, messages varied depending on which condition participants were assigned to.
Firstly, participants assigned to the positive condition received the following message: “hi C! yea, let’s get that money! but did you see the items that B chose as top 3? I guess B really did think carefully about the task. I think B is working very hard and we can win with such an attitude!”
Secondly, participants assigned to the negative condition received the following message: “hi C! yea, let’s get that money! did you see the items that B chose as top 3? I guess B really didn’t think too much about the task. I think B isn’t working very hard and we can’t win with such an attitude!”
Thirdly, participants assigned to the neutral control condition received the following message: “hi C! yea, let’s get that money! did you see the items that B chose as top 3? do you think we can win?”
At the end of the experiment, participants solved a final task. Before fulfilling this task, members were required to fill out another questionnaire about their goal orientations regarding this final exercise. This questionnaire at Time 2 (T2) allowed me to assess the effect of the gossip manipulation on their achievement goals. Finally, they performed another task, which demanded participants to list as many purposes as possible for which a 15 nylon rope can be used.
Measurements
Achievement goal orientation measurement. In order to find out which goal orientation
participants followed, the four factor model – “Achievement Goal Questionnaire – Revised (AGQ-R)” (see Appendix B) of Elliot and Murayama (2008) was applied twice. It was initially applied for the dispositional goal orientation at T1 and then at T2 as the situational goal measurement. The dispositional goal orientation of T1 functioned as control variable, whereas the situational goal at T2 represented the dependent variable.
The measurement included four subscales, which were applicable in order to measure all four possible goal orientations i.e. mastery approach, mastery avoidance, performance approach and performance avoidance. Three items measured each orientation. To name example items for each subscale of the achievement goal orientation measurement, a mastery approach item was: “My aim is to completely master the material presented in my course”. An example mastery avoidance item was “My aim is to avoid learning less than I possible could”. An example item for measuring performance approach goals was “My aim is to perform well relative to other students” and an example item for measuring performance avoidance goals was “My aim is to avoid doing worse than other students.” Participants responded on a scale from 1 (not at all like me) to 7 (just like me). The same items were used to measure the situational goals at T2. However, in order to make the measurement fit to this experiment, I adjusted the original AGQ-R for the goal pursuit measurement during the experiment. Firstly, instead of students, it referred to the comparison with the team of this experiment, and the goal referred to the task they were about to engage in. To name an example, the item to measure performance approach was adjusted to: “Perform well relative to others in my team”. The measurements were reliable due to the fact that there was high internal consistency. With respect to the dispositional goal orientation questionnaire at T1, the Cronbach’s alpha for the mastery approach items was .84, for the mastery avoidance items .79, for the performance approach items .93 and for the performance avoidance items .95. Regarding the situational goal measurement at T2, the Cronbach’s alpha for the mastery approach items was .65, for the mastery avoidance items .94, for the performance approach items .93 and for the performance avoidance items .95.
Anxiety measurement. In order to measure anxiety, I used a part of the “BIG 5” scale
RESULTS
Manipulation check
As mentioned in the method section, the sample consisted of 124 students in total. The extent to what participants believed the gossip manipulation was coded by two researchers, which resulted in a Cohen’s Kappa of .96. We divided participants into three groups. First, 59 participants (47.6%) did not indicate any suspicion regarding the gossip manipulation. Second, 42 participants (33.9%) indicated suspicion (e.g. “I think the researchers might have interfered) and third, 23 participants (18.5%) were convinced that the chat session was not real. Since the manipulation did not work for 18.5%, I excluded those 23 participants from the dataset.
As a result, the final sample consisted of 101 students. Out of this sample, 34 (33.7%) were assigned to the positive gossip condition, 30 (29.7%) to the negative gossip condition, and 37 (36.6%) to the control condition. For the regression analysis, only participants who were assigned to the positive and negative conditions were taken into consideration.
Descriptive statistics and correlation
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations among the independent, dependent and control variables.
With respect to the means and standard deviations, it can be concluded that after the manipulation, the mastery approach mean was higher than the mean of the other goal orientations (M = 5.56, SD = .91). However, the other three goals, performance avoidance (M = 4.61, SD = 1.82), mastery avoidance (M = 4.60, SD = 1.55) and performance approach (M = 4.40, SD = 1.68) also showed means around the middle of the scale.
In line with goal conceptualizations, avoidance orientations measured at T1 were positively correlated with anxiety, i.e. mastery avoidance orientation (r = .23, p < .05) and performance avoidance orientation (r = .25, p < .05). This indicates that individuals with a general avoidance goal orientation were also likely to be anxious and vice versa.
The relationship of anxiety and mastery avoidance goal orientation at T2 was positive (r = .23, p < .05). An increase of anxiety was likely to result in an increase of mastery avoidance adoption and vice versa. Anxiety was not significantly correlated with any other dependent variables. Gossip condition did not show significant correlations with any of the dependent variables either. Thus, this model showed only a marginal linear dependence between independence and dependence variables.
TABLE 1
Means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations
M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1. Map (T1) 5.22 1.13 2. Mav (T1) 4.49 1.28 .47** 3. Pap (T1) 4.64 1.50 .40** .33** 4. Pav (T1) 4.44 1.67 .06 .46** .56** 5. Gossip valence .77 1.23 .09 -.15 -.08 -.13 6. Anxiety 3.97 1.20 .15 .23* .09 .25* .00 7. MAP (T2) 5.56 .91 .10 -.04 .22* .11 .12 -.14 8. MAV(T2) 4.60 1.55 -.00 .43** .20* .49** -.05 .23* .06 9. PAP (T2) 4.40 1.68 -.11 .10 .38** .41** .01 .09 .15 .35** 10. PAV(T2) 4.61 1.82 .02 .36** .25* .56** -.05 .18 -.09 .43** .56** * p ≤ .05, ** p ≤ .01
Map (T1), Mav (T1), Pap (T1), Pav (T1)= individuals‘ dispositional goal orientation at T1 MAP (T2), MAV (T2), PAP (T2), PAV (T2) = individuals’ situational goal orientation at T2
Hypotheses testing
I expected that receiving negative rather than positive gossip will decrease approach goals and increase avoidance goals. High anxiety will reinforce this tendency.
I tested these hypotheses by applying a regression analysis. Four regressions with gossip valence and anxiety as predictors and the situational goals at T2 as dependent variables were conducted First of all, I standardised the variable anxiety as well as the control variables from T1. I then created an interaction between the gossip condition and the standardised anxiety variable. The regression model included four independent variables, i.e. gossip condition, standardised anxiety, the interaction of condition and anxiety and the dispositional goal measured at T1 corresponding to the dependent variable, the situational goal measured at T2.
Table 2 displays the results of the hypotheses tests.
Model 1, with mastery approach as control variable, reveals that neither gossip valence (B = 07, p > .05), nor anxiety (B = -.04, p > .05), nor their interaction (B = .07, p > .05) can predict low situational mastery approach goals at T2, which disconfirms Hypotheses 1 and 5.
Model 2, with mastery avoidance as control variable, reveals that neither gossip valence (B = .10, p > .05), nor anxiety (B = .24, p > .05), nor their interaction (B = .03, p > .05) can predict high situational mastery avoidance goals at T2, which disconfirms Hypotheses 2 and 6.
Model 3, with performance approach as control variable, reveals that neither gossip valence (B = .03, p > .05), nor anxiety (B = .07, p > .05), nor their interaction (B = -.11, p > .05) can predict low situational performance approach goals at T2, which disconfirms Hypotheses 3 and 7.
Model 4, with performance avoidance as control variable, reveals that neither gossip valence (B = .14, p > .05), nor anxiety (B = .14, p > .05), nor their interaction (B = .21, p > .05) can predict high situational performance avoidance goals at T2, which disconfirms Hypotheses 4 and 8.
Contrary to my expectations, it can be concluded that the model did not explain the dependent variables. The results suggest that there was no influence of gossip condition or anxiety on goal adoption. In particular, mastery and performance approach goals did not decrease and mastery and performance avoidance goals did not increase.
TABLE 2 Regression analysis Model 1 MAP (T2) Model 2 MAV (T2) Model 3 PAP (T3) Model 4 PAV (T4) B R² B R² B R² B R² Map (T1) .13 .02 Mav (T1) .57** .16 Pap (T1) .62** .16 Pav (T1) .77** .19 Gossip valence .07 -.02 .10 .19 .03 .16 .14 .20 Anxiety -.04 .24 .07 .14 Interaction .07 -.04 .03 .19 -.11 .16 .21 .21 * p ≤ .05, ** p ≤ .01
Map (T1), Mav (T1), Pap (T1), Pav (T1)= individuals‘ dispositional goal orientation at T1 MAP (T2), MAV (T2), PAP (T2), PAV (T2) = individuals’ situational goal orientation at T2
DISCUSSION
The main goal of the present research was to investigate whether negative rather than positive gossip and a high level of anxiety were responsible for individuals adopting a specific achievement goal orientation. In particular, I proposed that receiving negative gossip as well as possessing a high level of anxiety lead to lower mastery and performance approach goals, but lead to higher mastery and performance avoidance goals.
The results did not provide support for any of the hypotheses. Regression analyses showed that neither gossip valence, nor anxiety nor their interaction had an impact on the adoption of approach or avoidance goals. However, participants’ dispositional goal orientations did influence the situational goal orientations, such that mastery avoidance, performance approach and performance avoidance goals at T1 were predictors for individuals to adopt the same goal after the gossip manipulation at T2.
Theoretical implications
The fact that the hypotheses were not verified indicates that, contrary to research of Elliot (1999), the situation of receiving negative gossip did not activate individuals’ fear of failure even when threats of possible failures was noticeable (Elliot, 1999). Therefore, individuals did not adjust their perceived competences and hence their achievement goals were not affected. This implies that gossip transferred through the situational environment does not represent an antecedent of achievement goals but solely predispositions which cause individuals’ achievement goals.
However, achievement motives can indeed be seen as antecedents, thus in line with research of Elliot (1999), approach individuals are motivated through being successful, whereas avoidance individuals are motivated through avoiding failure.
characteristics as well as underlying desires and beliefs which remain stable over time (Seifert, 1996).
Practical implications
The lack of significance implies that achievement goals are characterised by more stability than I expected. In line with Nolen (1988) as well as Duda and Nicholls (1992) individuals’ achievement goals appear to be consistent rather than inconsistent, regardless of the situation.
Organisations are able to gain benefits if they understand that employees possess stable rather than instable achievement goals, as it is helpful to predict employees’ willingness to work. The employees’ willingness to perform contributes to their performance and is important to identify as organisations rely on well-performing employees (Boxall & Purcell, 2008). This present research implies that employees are likely to keep their achievement goals stable regardless of the situation. On the one hand, this can be seen as beneficial due to the fact that organisations know what they deal with and it is easier to cope with stability. On the other hand, it can be seen as a drawback if employees with undesirable goal orientations are hired as there is less chance to change those undesirable achievement goals. In order to avoid this problem, a good hiring decision appears as very important. Organisations are advised to prioritise on their recruiting and selection strategies to hire employees with desirable approach achievement goals rather than trying to change their undesired avoidance achievement goals later on.
Limitations
As theoretical background supports the developed hypotheses, I argue that even though achievement goals show more stability than I expected, the proposed model may still be correct and the non-significant results occurred due to several limitations related to the experiment and gossip manipulation. I argue that the non-significant results may be explained by the procedure of the experimental setting, in particular through the gossip manipulation. There are several reasons to believe that there were pitfalls in the procedure of the experiment.
Firstly, most of the limitations concern the believability of the way gossip occurred via the chat session. As indicated in the result section, 23 participants got excluded from the dataset due to disbelief of the gossip manipulation. However, another 42 participants indicated doubt about the authenticity of the chat session. As they only mentioned a doubt I did not exclude them. However, their potential disbelief of the chat simulation may have influenced the manipulation adversely and in return made participants not take the experiment seriously.
Secondly, gossip appeared as a one-time-event in the experiment. Participants were manipulated by receiving positive, negative or neutral gossip about their performance and their situational goal orientation was measured a few minutes afterwards. This may have represented a pitfall due to the fact that repeated gossip is more believable than unrepeated gossip (Sommerfeld & Krambeck & Milinski, 2008), as the possibility that errors occur is lower. In a single gossip statement errors can occur through transmission or reception. However, it is unlikely that the same errors occur over and over again, which is why repetitive gossip is more believable (Hess & Hagen, 2006). As the gossip only occurred once, it is likely that participants who received negative gossip about their performance perceived this statement as unbelievable and may have justified it with the fact that the gossiper misinterpreted his/her chosen survival items. In line with these studies, I think that negative gossip would have needed to occur repeatedly in order to decrease approach and increase avoidance goals.
believable as it is unlikely that multiple sources share the same story if they lied (Hess & Hagen, 2006). As participants only received gossip from one source during the experiment, they may not have found the statement reliable. This is another reason that can explain why the gossip manipulation did not affect participants’ goal adoption for the experimental task.
Fourthly, gossip was spread from another team peer. Just like the gossip receiver, the gossiper was a student aged between 18 and 31 years. Research suggests that authority persons generate a higher persuasive impact than a peer (Jaeger & Anthony & Rosnow, 1980). Margin and Helmore (2001) found that peer assessments are not accurate enough and lack validity and reliability in comparison to assessments of teachers. Assessments of teachers have a higher level of inter-rater agreement than assessments of peers. During the experiment, participants may not have experienced the gossip source as competent enough to judge their performance and for this reason, gossip has not been taken seriously enough to affect individuals’ achievement goals.
Fifthly, a lack of task importance and commitment may explain the insignificance of the hypotheses. Even though the winner team was promised to gain 60 €, participants might not have perceived the task as very important and as a result they lacked commitment towards the task. As a task is most likely to result in commitment when it is perceived as important (Yukl & Kim & Falbe, 1996), it appears likely that importance is related to the sensitivity towards gossip. In particular, the more important a task appears, the more commitment individuals put into solving this task, and hence the more sensitive participants react when receiving gossip about their performance for this task. Participants were neither involved in the task before the experiment, nor did the task have an impact on their future. Therefore, the survival task may not have appeared as important to participants, hence they were not influenced by gossip about their performance.
An additional limitation concerns the sample; it exclusively consisted of students, aged from 18 to 31 years. Due to this fact, the study may not be generalisable to other population segments. In particular, when relating this research to gain new insights for organisations I should have targeted a sample consisting of employees.
Further research
manipulation more believable, it will be necessary to design the procedure in a more naturalistic and realistic way. Firstly, gossip should not represent a one-time-event, but needs to occur repeatedly. Secondly, gossip should be spread from multiple sources. Furthermore, it is advisable to additionally use independent sources. Receiving gossip from multiple sources, especially if independent, is a reliable indicator for true gossip statements (Hess & Hagen, 2006). Thirdly, the gossiper should represent an authority individual rather than a peer. Fourthly, gossip needs to occur about the performance of tasks that are of high importance for individuals. Finally, I suggest to research in a work setting with employees representing the sample as this will benefit new practical insights.
Moreover, it would be interesting to research whether other factors strengthen the influence of gossip on achievement goals. Research suggests that self-esteem, self-validation. self-worth contingency, self-monitoring, need for approval, need for affiliation, fear of rejection or demographic variables such as sex, ethnicity or sociocultural background are possible antecedents of achievement goals (Elliot, 1999).
Further research should consider possible multiple-goal effects. Research suggests that individuals often adopt multiple goals, depending on the situation (Senko & Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2011). There is a possibility that this present research failed to prove a dominant goal orientation as individuals generally pursue more than one achievement goal. I encourage further research to explore the effect of gossip on multiple-goal orientations.
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Billings, D., W. & Folkman, S. & Acree, M. & Moskowitz, J., T. 2000. Coping and Physical Health During Caregiving. The Roles of Positive and Negative Affect. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 79(1): 131-142.
Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. 2008. Strategy and Human Resource Management. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Duda, J., L. & Nicholls, J., G. 1992, Dimensions of Achievement Motivation in Schoolwork and Sport. Journal of Educational Psychology. 84 (3): 290-299.
Elliot, A. J. & Murayama, K. 2008. On the measurement of achievement goals: critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology. 613–628.
Elliot, A., J. & Harachiewicz, J., M. 1996. Approach and Avoidance Achievement Goals and
Intrinsic Motivation: A Mediational Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 70(3): 461-475.
Elliot, A., J. & Mc Gregor, H., A. 2001. A 2 x 2 Achievement Goal Framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 80(3): 501-519.
Elliot, A., J. & Sheldon, K., M. 1997. Avoidance Achievement Motivation: A Personal Goals Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 73(1): 171-185.
Elliot, A., J. & Thrash, T, M. 2002. Approach-Avoidance Motivation in Personality: Approach and Avoidance Temperaments and Goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 82(5): 804-818.
Elliot, A., J. & Thrash, T., M. & Murayama, K. 2011. A Longitudinal Analysis of Self-Regulation and Well-Being: Avoidance Personal Goals, Avoidance Coping, Stress Generation, and Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Personality. 79(3):643-674.
Elliot, A., J. 1999. Approach and Avoidance Motivation and Achievement Goals. Educational
Gholipour, A. & Kozekanan, S., F. & Zehtabi, M. 2011. Utilizing gossip as a strategy to construct organizational reality. Business Strategy Series. 12(2): 56-62.
Goldberg, L., R. & Sweeney, D. & Merenda, P., F. & Hughes, J., E., Jr. (1996). The Big-Five Factor Structure as an Integrative Framework: An Analysis of Clarke’s AVA Model. Journal of Personality Assessment. 66(3): 441-471.
Grant, H. & Dweck, C., S. 2003. Clarifying Achievement Goals and Their Impact. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 85(3): 541-553.
Harter, S. & Jackson, B., K. 1992. Trait vs. nontrait conceptualizations of intrinsic/extrinsic motivational orientation. Motivation and Emotion. 16(3): 209–230.
Hess, N. H. & Hagen, E. H. 2006 Psychological adaptations for assessing gossip veracity. Human
Nature. 17(3): 337-354.
Hull, P. 2013. Motivation Mystery: How to Keep Employees Productive. Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickhull/2013/05/23/motivation-mystery-how-to-keep-employees-productive/ [26.12.20130].
Jaeger, M., E. & Anthony, S. & Rosnow, R., L. 1980. Who hears what from whom and with what effect: A study of rumor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 6: 473-478.
Margin, D. & Helmore, P. 2001. Peer and Teacher Assessments of Oral Presentation Skills: How reliable are they? Studies in Higher Education. 26(3): 287-298.
Middleton, M., J. & Midgley, C. 1997. Avoiding the Demonstration of Lack of Ability: An
Underexplored Aspect of Goal Theory. Journal of Educational Psychology. 89(4): 710-718. Nolen, S. 1988. Reasons for studying: motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and
Instruction. 5(4): 269-287.
Noon, M. & Delbridge, R. 1993. News From Behind My Hand: Gossip in Organizations.
Organization Studies. 14(1): 23-36.
Poortvliet, P., M. & Darnon, C. 2010. Toward a More Social Understanding of Achievement Goals: The Interpersonal Effects of Mastery and Performance Goals. Current Directions in
Sanjua´n, P. & Magallares, A. 2014. Coping Strategies as Mediating Variables Between Self-serving Attributional Bias and Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Happiness Studies. 15(2): 443-453.
Seifert, T., L. 1996. The stability of goal orientations in grade five students: comparison of two methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 66: 73-82.
Senko, C. & Harackiewicz, J., M. 2005. Regulation of Achievement Goals: The Role of Competence Feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology. 97(3): 320-336.
Senko, C. & Hulleman, C., S. & Harackiewicz, J., M. 2011. Achievement Goal Theory at the Crossroads: Old Controversies, Current Challenges, and New Directions. Educational
Psychologist. 46(1): 26-47.
Skaalvik, E., M. 1997. Self-Enhancing and Self-Defeating Ego Orientation: Relations With Task and Avoidance Orientation, Achievement, Self-Perceptions, and Anxiety. Journal of
Educational Psychology. 89(1): 71-81.
Sommerfeld, R., D. & Krambeck, H. & Milinski, M. 2008. Multiple Gossip Statements and Their Effect on Reputation and Trustworthiness. Biological Sciences. 275(1650): 2529-2536. Van Yperen, N., W. & Orehek, E. 2012. Achievement goals in the workplace: Conceptualization,
prevalence, profiles, and outcomes. Journal of Economic Psychology. 38: 71-79.
Van Yperen, N., W. 2003. Task interest and actual performance. The moderating effects of assigned and adopted purpose goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 85(6):1006-1015. Waddington, K. 2012. Gossip and Organizations - Routledge Studies in Management,
Organizations and Society. Routledge: New York.
Wert, S., R. & Salovery, P. 2004. A Social Comparison Account of Gossip. Review of General
Psychology. 8(2): 122-137.
Yukl, G. & Kim, H. & Falbe, C. M. 1996. Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 81(3): 309-317.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Task for experiment “Lost at sea”
Imagine you have rented a yacht with 2 friends, for the holiday trip of a lifetime across the Atlantic Ocean. Because none of you have any previous sailing experience, you have hired an experienced skipper and two-person crew.
Unfortunately in mid Atlantic a fierce fire breaks out in the ships galley and the skipper and crew have been lost whilst trying to fight the blaze. Much of the yacht is destroyed and is slowly sinking.
Your location is unclear because vital navigational and radio equipment have been damaged in the fire. Your best estimate is that you are many hundreds of miles from the nearest landfall.
You and your friends have managed to save 15 items, undamaged and intact after the fire. In addition, you have salvaged a four man rubber life craft and a box of matches.
1. Your task as a team is to choose the first 3 most important items, as you wait to be rescued. You will have 4 minutes to individually choose 3 items that are most important for your survival and to write down a short explanation for each item you chose.
2. You will then share your choice of top 3 items and explanations with each other and have a short chat session via the computer network in which you can exchange some information with each other.
3. After you exchange a few electronic messages with each other, you will indicate your final top 3 items. Your team score will be calculated using member’s final item ranking, in comparison to the expert ranking issued by the US Coastguard. The best 2 performing teams will win 60 euros.
4. It is crucial for the success at this exercise that you pay attention to the messages you receive from your group members. This is your only way of communicating with them. It is also important to pay attention to who says what. We will ask you some questions about the message exchange before the end of the study.
Items:
1. A sextant (navigation device) 2. A shaving mirror
3. A quantity of mosquito netting 4. A 25 liter container of water 5. A case of army rations (food) 6. Maps of the Atlantic Ocean 7. A floating seat cushion 8. A 10 liter can of oil/petrol
mixture
9. A small transistor radio
10.20 square feet of opaque plastic sheeting
11.A can of shark repellent 12.One bottle of 160 proof rum 13.15 feet of nylon rope
APPENDIX B
Achievement Goal Questionnaire – Revised (Elliot & Murayama, 2008)
Achievement goal measurement at T1 Mastery approach orientation:
My aim is to completely master the material presented in my course
I am striving to understand the content of my courses as thoroughly as possible. My goal is to learn as much as possible.
Mastery avoidance orientation:
My aim is to avoid learning less than I possibly could.
I am striving to avoid an incomplete understanding of the course material. My goal is to avoid learning less than it is possible to learn in my course. Performance approach orientation:
My aim is to perform well relative to other students. I am striving to do well compared to other students. My goal is to perform better than the other students. Performance avoidance orientation:
My aim is to avoid doing worse than other students. I am striving to avoid performing worse than others. My goal is to avoid performing poorly compared to others. Achievement goal measurement at T2
My goal for this final task is: Mastery approach orientation: Master this survival task.
Understand the content of this task as thoroughly as possible. Learn as much as possible from this task.
Mastery avoidance orientation:
Avoid learning less than I possibly could from this task. Avoid an incomplete understanding of the content of this task. Avoid learning less than I possibly could from this task. Performance approach orientation:
Perform well relative to others in my team. Do well compared to others in my team. Perform better than others in my team. Performance avoidance orientation: Avoid doing worse than others in my team. Avoid performing worse than others in my team.
