1
The role of Social Dominance Orientation and power in the spreading of
negative gossip
Master Thesis, MSc HRM, University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Abstract
Gossip and especially negative gossip is entailed in most every-day conversations due to the fact that individuals spend most of their everyday life on talking about others. In this study I argued that a possible explanation of the spreading of negative gossip is Social Dominance Orientation. I proposed that the relationship between Social Dominance Orientation and negative gossip is due to need for power and becomes stronger when individuals have a low rather than high level of power. Results of an experiment with 128 students in which participants’ level of power was manipulated, showed that there is a positive significant relationship between Social Dominance Orientation and negative gossip. However, expectation about the effect of need for power on the relationship between Social Dominance Orientation and gossip showed marginal support and expectation about level of power as a moderator in the previous relationship were disconfirmed. Several limitations were taken into account and further directions are proposed.
3
Table of Contents
Abstract ... 2
INTRODUCTION... 4
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 6
2.1 Social Dominance Orientation and gossip ... 6
2.2 Social Dominance Orientation and need for power ... 7
2.3 Need for power and gossip ... 7
2.4 Level of power ... 8
METHOD ... 10
3.1 Design and Participants ... 10
1.INTRODUCTION
As Oscar Wilde said: “If there is anything more annoying in the world than having people talk about you, it is certainly having no one talk about you” (p. 74). Undoubtedly nowadays we live in a communication-driven world where talking about others is of vital importance for individuals (De Gouveia, Van Vuuren & Crafford, 2005). In this world, informal every-day communication can be perceived as malicious gossip when individuals share evaluative negative information regarding a target person (De Gouveia et al, 2005). In addition, gossip in most cases is seen as a self-serving behavior aimed at manipulating and influencing others (Goodman, 1994). Consistent with that, previous research has identified gossip as a mean used by individuals in order to exchange information, (Foster, 2004), control and influence others (power-enhancing mechanism; Dunbar, 1996) and as a way of entertainment (Rosnow, 1977). Despite the positive image of gossip, Baumeister, Zhang and Vohs (2004) found out that negative information and consequently negative gossip is of higher interest to individuals than positive information due to the fact that it is more important for them to learn about “dangers” than about “opportunities”(p.114). But why is that the case? What makes individuals interested in receiving and spreading negative gossip and which are the main factors that lead to negative gossip?
Given the fact that group conflict and group based inequality are pervasive in today’s world (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth & Malle, 1994) I proposed that a possible explanation for spreading negative gossip is Social Dominance Orientation. To investigate group-based prejudice and oppression Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth and Malle (1994) developed social dominance theory which states that ‘societies minimize group conflict by creating consensus on ideologies that promote the superiority of one group over others’ (p. 741). Thus,
5
spread negative gossip due to their high need for power. Consequently taking into consideration all the above, the following research question was formed:
Do people with high Social Dominance Orientation spread negative gossip due to a high need for power and how does one’s level of power affect this relationship?
The importance of this study is dual. As recent study suggested negative gossip is becoming more prevalent in today’s world and reasons for violating people their own scruples and society’s scruples are still unknown (Wert & Salovey, 2004). Thus, this study will add evidence on the existing literature regarding gossip and shed light on other factors that lead to the spreading of negative gossip and therefore give an insight in the
understanding of causes of negative gossip, as well as in which way the level of power and the need for it, can contribute to negative gossip. Second, this research may contribute to the further awareness of Social Dominance Orientation, and this might help society and
especially companies to combat such persistent attitudes (Michelson, Van Iterson & Waddington , 2010) and consequently solve potential problems based on SDO (such as increased inequality and prejudice against out-groups; Sidanius, Liu, Pratto & Shaw, 1994) and secure a less discriminatory environment and less conflicts among individuals.
The present study thus investigates the role of Social Dominance Orientation in the spreading of negative gossip as well as the role of need for power and the level of
individual’s power in the reinforcement of this relationship. Consequently it is investigated if high Social Dominance Orientation leads to more negative gossip. Next, it is examined if the relation between Social Dominance Orientation and negative gossip is stronger when there is a greater need for power and if the level of one’s power can strengthen or weaken this
2.THEORITICAL BACKGROUND 2.1 Social Dominance Orientation and gossip
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) rather than being a function of personality and individual temperament it is a multidetermined function based on individual’s socialization experiences (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDO is defined as : “a very general individual differences orientation expressing the value that people place on nonegalitarian and
hierarchically structured relationships among social groups” ( Sidanius and Pratto, 1999, p. 61). Thus, SDO is the extent of individuals’ desire for group-based dominance and inequality. Sidanius and Pratto (1999) noted that SDO can be affected by one’s background and
socialization such as living in a country where men are superiors of women as well as by personality traits such as being prejudiced against minority groups and feeling superior of others. Individuals with high level of SDO accept social inequality, while individuals low in SDO accept social democracy, socialism and feminism which reduce inequality (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In addition, SDO was found to be correlated with situational influences (threat of one’s group high status), gender (men have higher SDO than women), and socialization experiences (multicultural experiences, traumatic life experiences; Pratto, Sidanius & Levin,2006).
7
(Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Therefore there is no incentive for them to be involved in negative gossip since they do not seek to demonstrate their superiority. Thus, I expect that Social
Dominance Orientation is positively associated with negative gossip (Hypothesis 1).
2.2 Social Dominance Orientation and need for power
As Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth and Malle (1994) have stated high SDO individuals have an innate need to belong in dominant groups because they are motivated to maintain their dominance and consequently their privileges from high status over subordinate groups. Therefore, they point out their dominance through the maintenance of hierarchy legitimizing myths which are beliefs (stereotypes) and attitudes (prejudice) that subordinate groups are inferior to them and deserve their low status and low power (Pratto et al, 1994). Based on that argument we can observe that high SDO individuals have great need for power since they believe that they should be high in power and low SDO individuals deserve their low status and power (Pratto et al, 1994). Consequently, I expect that through power high SDO people can point out their dominance. Furthermore, research found that SDO individuals view the world as a competitive jungle characterized by amoral people struggling for power (Van Hiel, Pandelaere & Duriez, 2004) which means that they are highly concerned with power. In addition, Altemeyer (2003) described social dominant individuals as “relatively power
hungry, domineering, mean, Machiavellian, and amoral” (p. 3). Therefore, we can expect that high SDO individuals have a great need for power since they perceive the world competitive and people should struggle for power. Taking into consideration all these arguments I expect that Social Dominance Orientation is positively related with need for power (Hypothesis 2). 2.3 Need for power and gossip
In order to understand gossip we should examine individual motives because individuals are those who form the groups (Paine, 1967). Beersma and Van Kleef (2012) attribute gossip to four individual motives: to influence others negatively, to inform, to enjoy and to maintain group norms. The motive to influence others negatively is possibly the motive that led to the bad reputation of gossip (Foster, 2004). This is best explained by
1994), I will focus on this motive and I will try to explain what individuals would like to gain by influencing others negatively regarding a third party.
Cameron, Oliver and Dacher (2012) argue that the power motive consists of two components: a concern about having impact on other people by influencing their attitudes, emotions or behaviors and a concern about having status and prestige. Both components can lead to the spreading of negative gossip. Consequently, a potential action for people who have a high need for power is to start talking negatively about others in order to increase his/her power by decreasing the reputation of others. They will achieve that based on the theory of Wert and Salovey (2004) which suggests that gossip entails social comparison between the gossiper and the target person and therefore it can lead to self-enhancement. Through gossip the sender can influence and control the receiver of gossip because gossip is a powerful informal mechanism of influencing and controlling groups (Gluckman, 1963) and an easy and costless way to spread negative evaluations about others (Dunbar, 1996).
Furthermore, gossip in many cases is perceived as immoral due to its self-serving behavior (Goodman, 1994). Given also the fact that high power increases well being (Kifer et al, 2013) and powerlessness makes people act in immoral ways (Denton, 2011) and the fact that most individuals have an innate need to feel powerful and seek anything that gives them greater sense of power, prestige and control (Denton, 2011), I expect that need for power leads to
negative gossip (Hypothesis 3).
2.4 Level of power
9
Poppe, 2006). In contrast people with high status and power in a potential status and power-loss they just show their confidence based on their abilities.
Research concerning SDO individuals stated that, high SDO individuals react
negatively to threats (Blumer, 1958) and are very concerned with their dominance (Sidanius et al, 1999). Thus, for high SDO individuals low in power it is more likely to point out their disadvantaged position by spreading negative gossip for a targeted individual since gossip is a mechanism for achieving their purpose and increase their reputation and consequently power by damaging the reputation of the target person (Rosnow, 1977). In addition, as the threshold hypothesis suggests, there is diminished motivation when a basic need is already satisfied (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Thus, we can argue that high SDO people high in power have fulfilled their need of obtaining power. Instead, high SDO individuals low in power want in most cases to increase their power and are willing even to be involved in immoral actions such as negative gossip in order to obtain power (Denton, 2011). Moreover, Rucker and Galinsky (2008) suggest that the feeling of powerlessness is an aversive state and can lead individuals in an attempt to alter this state. Due to the fact that negative gossip is an easy and costless way to alter this situation by influencing others to accept your ideas
(Dunbar, 1996), I assume that there is a greater likelihood for high SDO individuals low in power comparing to high power individuals to spread negative gossip due to their higher need for achieving power. Therefore, I propose that: The positive relationship between SDO and
need for power is stronger when people have a low level of power.(Hypothesis 4)
Subsequently, I expect that high SDO people spread more negative gossip than low SDO people due to need for power, and this relation is stronger when individuals have low rather than high power.(Hypothesis 5)
Taking into consideration all the above hypotheses I am able to form the following conceptual model:
Figure 1: Conceptual model (Moderated mediation model).
(+) (+)
(-)
SDO Need for power Negative gossip
3.METHOD 3.1. Design and Participants
In exchange for either course credits or 4 Euro, 128 students from University of Groningen (80 female and 48 male) participated in an experimental study which consisted of both a questionnaire as well as a group task. The mean age was 22.24 (SD = 2.85), and the range was from 18 to 34 years. Furthermore, all participants were randomly assigned to a power condition in a 2x2 factorial design crossing power of gossiper and receiver.
3.2. Procedure
The study was advertised as a group study involving teams of 3 participants. When participants arrived in the laboratory, 2 confederates who pretended that they are participants were already waiting to participate. After the appearance of the real participant, all group members were instructed to go to separate cubicles to fill in a questionnaire. At the
beginning, participants were informed about the purpose of the study, which was presented as a study measuring team performance and the effect of newcomers. The newcomer was to be randomly selected by the computer at the end of the questionnaire (in reality was always one of the confederates) and had to work alone on the task in the beginning and then join the group and discuss the task with the rest members. Next, participants were randomly assigned by the computer with a letter A, B and C and had to write this letter in a label and wear it in order to be visible for the other participants. Although participants were informed that they were randomly assigned with the letter, in reality the real participant had always the letter C, the newcomer-confederate the letter A and the other confederate the letter B. After that participants filled in a questionnaire in which their level of Social Dominance Orientation was measured and they were provided with a leadership questionnaire based on which they were told that they were assigned with a role of either the Officer (high power) or the crew member (low power) concerning the group task. Following, in the questionnaire there were instructions regarding the group task which was called “The lost on the moon exercise” in which participants had to rank fifteen items into three categories: vital, potentially useful and items to leave behind.
11
members and divide a prize of 50 euro among members with his/her own criteria while the Crew member had no specific responsibilities rather than following the commands of the Officer. Confederate B had always low power (Crew member) and confederate A and the real participant had either high (Officer) or low power (crew member) depending on the power manipulation.
After filling in the questionnaire and receiving the power manipulation, experimenter asked participant to take a seat in a room and wait for the other members (confederates). After a while confederates arrived in the room and the task started by the experimenter explaining that the person who was the newcomer (participant A raised his/her hand) had to work alone for 3 minutes and then he/she would join the others. At that point no pens-pencils were allowed and participant C and confederate B had only to think about the items and discuss them. During the discussion between confederate B and participant C, confederate B was instructed to be uninterested in the task, look bored and express that with sentences such as: ‘So boring task’, ‘we will die anyway’, ‘all the items seem the same to me’. After 3 minutes the experimenter brought newcomer (A) back in the room and all participants (real participant and two confederates) were informed that they had to work together and discuss the task in order to solve it (participant B now contributed a bit more to the task). At the same time experimenter gave instructions to the Officers (if there were any) by providing a paper with the items they controlled. Moreover, the experimenter explained that after couple of minutes there would be an interruption where one of the three participants would randomly be asked to leave the room due to the fact that they were interested in how interruption affected the team performance. The remaining group members had to stop with the task and wait until the participant was back. The experimenter in all cases asked for confederate B to go out of the room and left the two participants to discuss and thus provided them an
opportunity to gossip. After 2.5 minutes the experimenter brought back the participant (confederate B) and asked participants to finish the task.
3.3.Measures SDO
SDO (independent variable) was measured before the start of the group task based on a 16-item scale which consisted of 16-items such as: “superior groups should dominate inferior groups” and “inferior groups should stay in their place” (Pratto et al , 2006). There was a seven -point Likert-type scale format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s α coefficient was .89 which meant high acceptable reliability. The scale can be found on Appendix A.
Power Manipulation
Although, a 2x2 factorial design was applied, it was examined only the role of gossiper’s power (participant C). Therefore, in order to check the power manipulation, a variable of perceived power was computed by averaging the perceived power the gossiper thought he had with a 4item-scale consisted of items such as: “how much were you in charge of”: directing the task, evaluating other participants, allocating the 50 euro prize and to “what extent did you have power over regular crew members”. The cronbach’s α coefficient was .86 which showed a good internal consistency.
Need for power
Need for power was measured during the experiment after the group task with a questionnaire. Participants were provided with a 5item-scale which consisted of items such as: for me a reason to engage in this conversation was: “to seek an active role in the leadership of the group”, “to influence participant A (the newcomer) to see things in my way” (the items were adapted to the scale of Steers & Braunstein, 1976). There was a seven -point Likert-type scale format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s α coefficient was .93 and indicated a high internal consistency. The scale can be found in Appendix B.
Negative gossip
13
cronbach’s α was .92 ( average Intraclass correlation .92), and regarding how descriptive was the gossip the cronbach’s α was .93 (average Intraclass correlation .93). This means that the items were reliable and therefore they were computed into one variable. The cronbach’s α coefficient was .78 which indicated a good internal consistency. An overview of the scale is presented in Appendix C.
3.4 Data
4.RESULTS
In the present experiment,33 participants were excluded from the sample for the following reasons: 17 participants confused both the roles of the other participants (who was the newcomer and with whom they interact first) in the questionnaire after the group task, 7 due to bad English and as a consequence they didn’t understand the questions during gossip time, 2 confused the power role of the participants, 2 suspected the confederates and the role play, 1 because the experimenter did not explain the task well and forgot to mention important information, 1 because one confederate did not play her role according to the standardized way that we agreed to apply to all participants, 1 because stopped gossiping and realized that there are cameras, 1 because was in a hurry to leave and therefore did not pay attention to the questions during gossip time and was focused on the task and moreover confused the role of the other participants in the questionnaire after the group task and lastly 1 because suspected the role play and confused the role of the other participants in the questionnaire after the group task. Thus, the total sample size after exclusion is now (N = 95) participants (64 female, 31 male, Mage = 21.92, SDage = 2.66).
4.1 Manipulation check
Descriptive statistics indicated that the mean of manipulation check was 4.75 (S.D. = 1.85). A univariate ANOVA was conducted to compare means between high and low power
individuals. Results showed that participants in high power (M = 6.26, SD= .58 ) had significantly higher means on the manipulation check than participants low in power (M = 3.27, SD = 1.42; F = 175.80, p < .05) suggesting that manipulation check was successful. 4.2 Descriptive Statistics
15
control variables (age, gender). Thus, SDO was significantly correlated negatively with gender (r = -.23, p < .05) suggesting that male participants had higher SDO than females. 4.3 Hypotheses testing
The results of the moderated mediation model with SDO as an independent variable, need for power as a mediator, level of gossiper’s power as moderator, and gossip as dependent
variable are presented in Table 2.
This section starts by analyzing the main effect of the independent variable (SDO) on the dependent variable (negative gossip). Hypothesis 1 predicted that SDO is positively associated with negative gossip. Table 2 below shows that the direct effect between SDO and negative gossip was significantly positive (b = .23, p < .05). Therefore hypothesis 1 was confirmed, suggesting that the higher the level of SDO the higher the spreading of negative gossip.
Hypothesis 2 suggested that SDO has a positive relationship with need for power. Results suggested that there was marginal significance between SDO and need for power (b = .28 , p = 08). Thus, hypothesis 2 cannot be totally disconfirmed suggesting that, high SDO individuals may have a tendency to a greater need for power than low SDO individuals.
Next, Hypothesis 3 predicted that need for power leads to negative gossip. Results of the moderated mediation analysis showed that the effect of need for power on negative gossip is not significant (b = .04, ns). Thus, hypothesis 3 was not confirmed suggesting that higher need for power does not lead to more negative gossip.
Following, Hypothesis 4 predicted that the relationship between SDO and need for power was stronger when individuals had low power. As we can observe by the table below (table 2) the interaction effect of SDO and gossiper’s power did not have a significant relationship with need for power (b = -.05,ns). Hence, the moderating effect was not
supported. Thus, there was no evidence that individuals low in power strengthen the relation between SDO and need for power.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Zero-Order Pearson Correlations for Variables
Note. N= 95 *p < .05, **p < .01
Table 2
Moderated Mediated Analysis Mediator Variable model
Need for power
b t p CI[ ] SDO 0.28 1.76 0.08 [-0.03, 0.60] Level of power 0.30 0.52 0.60 [-0.86, 1.48] SDO x level of power -0.05 -0.34 0.73 [-0.37, 0.26]
Dependent variable model Negative gossip
SDO 0.23* 2.40 0.01 [0.04, 0.42]
Need for power 0.04 0.68 0.49 [-0.08, 0.16]
Conditional indirect effect
Low power 0.01 [-0.02, 0.10]
High power 0.00 [-0.01, 0.10]
17
5.DISCUSSION 5.1Findings
The present research aimed to provide a deeper insight into the relationship between Social Dominance Orientation and negative gossip as well as the role of need for power as a mediator and level of power as a moderator in the above relationship. Thus, several key findings were reached.
The main hypothesis suggested that there was a positive relationship between SDO and negative gossip. Results showed that indeed there was a significant positive relationship between SDO and negative gossip. More specifically results indicated that people with high SDO gossiped more negatively and their gossip was more evaluative and descriptive. A possible explanation for the aforementioned relationship is the fact that gossip entails social comparison (Wert & Salovey, 2004). As Wood (1989) pointed out, social comparison is motivated not only from self improvement but by the need for self-enhancement as well. Thus, through the comparison with the target of negative gossip, high SDO people may validate their opinions or abilities by making the receiver of the gossip to confirm this
information. Consequently, through negative gossip high SDO individuals could achieve self-enhancement since they could prove to the receiver of the gossip that they have better
abilities than the target person which, implies superiority and prejudice against out-groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). More interestingly although the sample of participants was not distributed equally among men and women, this research proved that males have a higher SDO than females. This result reinforces previous research that men have higher SDO than women ( Lee, Pratto & Johnson, 2011), suggesting that men are more prejudiced and feeling more superior of out-groups comparing to women and express this prejudice through negative gossip.
things in the gossiper’s point of view (Rosnow, 1977). However, other motives such as insecurity and validation of gossiper’s opinion regarding the target person (Wert & Salovey, 2004) could be more appropriate and lead to negative gossip.
Lastly, I hypothesized that low power would strengthen the positive relationship between SDO and need for power and consequently would generate more negative gossip than high power. However, this relationship was not significant, showing that power had no effect on the relation between SDO and need for power. This can be explained based on theory of Sidanius and Pratto (1999) which stated that SDO individuals prefer to be in dominant groups with high status. Thus, low status instead of low power could be a moderator in the relationship between SDO and need for power because SDO individuals may believe that through status they can achieve high power. In addition, results concerning the correlation between the level of power and negative gossip showed that low power people gossiped more negatively compared to high power people. This is an interesting observation since it raises important questions regarding the motives that lead low power people to gossip more. As Hollander and Einwohner (2004) suggested, oppressed individuals low in power gossip negatively in order to show their opposition and confront people with high power since gossip is an indirect strategy to achieve that (Scott, 1985).
Overall the analysis suggested that high SDO individuals spread more negative gossip than low SDO individuals. While need for power seemed to be a good predictor of SDO, results showed that the relationship between SDO and negative gossip was not significant. In addition, there was no evidence predicting the level of individual power as a moderator in the relationship between SDO and negative gossip which was mediated by the need for power. However, low power predicted more negative gossip than high power.
5.2Theoretical implications
19
Furthermore, the marginal significance between SDO and need for power implies that SDO individuals are concerned with power which means that high SDO people who accept group-based hierarchy (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) perceive power as an essential characteristic that makes them dominant. However, the power motive did not lead them to negative gossip, suggesting that there are other stronger motives which will make them gossip negatively. As research suggested SDO individuals point out their superiority and discriminate against other individuals when they feel threatened (Quillian, 1995). Thus, feelings of threat or anxiety related to one’s everyday life ( stress about losing your job, possibility to get your promotion one other candidate and feel threatened from him, losing your social influence and control on the group you belong) could lead high SDO people to gossip more negatively than low SDO people. Lastly, level of individual power was significantly correlated with negative gossip. This is attributed probably to the fact that power increases well-being (Kifer et al, 2013) and since individuals have an innate need to feel powerful (Denton, 2011), they will engage in negative gossip to achieve power enhancement (Rosnow, 1977).
5.3Practical implications
This study provides several practical implications for organizations and society as well. The present results suggested that high SDO individuals spread more negative gossip than low SDO individuals. This fact, can help society and especially companies to combat attitudes concerning SDO (preference for inequality and prejudice; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) since negative gossip can harm relationships between groups and create conflicts which will cause reduced performance and satisfaction (Berkowitz, 1989; Jehn, 1997). Furthermore, being the target of a negative gossip can cause limiting success to work, difficulties on creating
Several limitations should be taken into account when the present results are interpreted. First of all it is important to mention that the data were collected at one single point in time and the characteristics of the study population were different from the general population. All the participants were students with a certain educational level ( Bachelor or master) and a certain age (from 18 to 34 years). This means that they were not a representative sample since there are people with different educational levels, different experiences and different ages.
Moreover, most of the participants were female which presents another limitation since the sample was not consisted of the same number of female and male participants which is not representative of the world population. One other limitation, is the fact that we measured negative gossip based on laboratory experiment using procedures that allowed for
experimental control but limited the extent to which one can generalize these results to the complexities of real world. Individuals act differently in their every-day life and differently in an experiment in which they do not know the other participants and they came for a purpose (either to gain credits or money). In addition, the scale that measured need for power was adapted in the initial scale of Steers & Braunstein (1976) which was designed to measure dominance items that people do or try to do in their jobs( “I seek an active role in the
leadership of the group”, “I try to influence others to see things in my way”). Thus, it was the first time that this new adapted scale was used to measure need for power and still needs to be tested if it is a good predictor of the need for power or not.
Furthermore, it was noticed that the questionnaire used to measure need for power was right before the end of the experiment and due to the fact that participants were in a hurry (the study lasted more than the expected), they may did not pay the necessary attention to this questionnaire. Last but not least, we noticed that although participants were informed that the duration of the experiment was 35 minutes the average time was around 50 minutes which means that participants were in a hurry and annoyed after a certain time and this maybe had a impact on the results of the experiment.
5.5 Future research
21
aspects and their connection with SDO. In addition, to examine further this relationship additional control variables such as different age levels and different educational backgrounds, could be taken into consideration in order to have a more diverse sample which portrays the real world. Since the mediating role of the need for power was not confirmed, the inclusion of additional variables as potential moderatos and mediators may be fruitful to better understand the factors that could lead to negative gossip. Potential factors could be personality factors such as stress and fear or situational factors such as job insecurity and level of individual power. Once the better understanding of these variables is achieved, future research should also be focused on the harmful outcomes of negative gossip and its effect on individuals that research suggests (Gluckman, 1963; Danziger, 1988) since there is a lot of controversy regarding the harmful or beneficial aspect of negative gossip (Ellwardt, Labianca & Wittek, 2011).
5.6.Conclusion
REFERENCES
Altemeyer B. (2003). What happens when authoritarians inherit the earth? A simulation.
Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3, 1–9
Anderson C., Gruenfeld D.H. & Keltner D. (2003). Power. Approach. and Inhibition. The
American Psychological Association. Inc., 110, No. 2, 265–284, DOI:
10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
Anderson. C. & Galinsky. A. D. (2006). Power. optimism. and risktaking. European Journal
of Social Psychology,36, 511–536.
Baumeister. R. F. & Leary. M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachment as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin,117, 497–529.
Baumeister. R.F., Zhang. L.Q. & Vohs. K.D. (2004). Gossip as cultural learning. Review of
General Psychology, 8, 111–121.
Beersma B. & Van Kleef Gerben A. (2012). Why People Gossip: An Empirical Analysis of Social Motives. Antecedents. and Consequences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,42, Issue 11, 2640–2670, DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00956.x
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration, appraisals, and aversively stimulated aggression.
Aggressive Behavior, 14, 3–11.
Blumer H. (1958). Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position. The Pacific Sociological
Review
Burt. R.S. (2005). Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital. Oxford
University Press.
Cameron A., Oliver P. John. & Dacher K. (2012). The Personal Sense of Power. Journal of
23
Danziger, E. (1988). Minimize office gossip. Personnel Journal, 67, 31-34.
De Gouveia C., Van Vuuren Lj & Crafford A. (2005). Towards a typology of gossip in the workplace.SA Journal of Human Resource Management , 3, Issue 2, 56-68
Denton. D. K. (2011). Enhancing power. Industrial Management, 534, 12-17.
Domhoff. G. W. (1998). Who rules America. Mountain View. CA: Mayfield Publishing
Dunbar R. (1996). Grooming. gossip. and the evolution of language. London: Faber and
Faber.
Dunbar R. (2004). Gossip in Evolutionary Perspective. Review of General Psychology, 82, 100-110, DOI:10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.100
Ellwardt L., Labianca G. & Wittek R., (2011). Who are the objects of positive and negative gossip at work? A social network perspective on workplace gossip, Social Network,
DOI:10.1016/j.socnet.2011.11.003
Foster. E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy. methods. and future directions. Review
of General Psychology, 8, 78–99
Gluckman. M. (1963). Gossip and scandal. Current Anthropology, 4, 307–316
Goodman. R. F. (1994). Introduction. In R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev Eds.. Good gossip pp. 1–8. Lawrence. KS: University Press of Kansas Goodman. R. F.. & Ben-Ze’ev. A. Eds.. 1994. Good gossip.. Lawrence. KS: University Press of Kansas
Hayes. (2013) Introduction to mediation-moderation and conditional process analysis. Retrieved May 5, 2015, from .http://www.afhayes.com/introduction-to-mediation-moderation-and-conditional-process-analysis.html
Holland M. G. (1996). What's wrong with telling the truth? An analysis of gossip. American
Hollander, J. A. & Einwohner, R. L. (2004). Conceptualizing resistance. Sociological Forum, 19, 533-554.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). Affective and cognitive conflict in work groups: Increasing performance through value-based intragroup conflict. In C. de Dreu and E. van De Vliert (eds), Using conflict in organizations, Thousand Oaks, 87–100.
Kifer Y., Heller D., Perunovic W., Qi E. & Galinsky A. D. (2013). The Good Life of the Powerful: The Experience of Power and Authenticity Enhances Subjective Well-Being.
Psychological Science, 243, 280–288, DOI: 10.1177/0956797612450891
Lee. I. C., Pratto. F. & Johnson. B. T. (2011). Intergroup consensus/disagreement in support of group-based hierarchy: an examination of socio-structural and psychocultural factors.
Psychol. Bull., 137, 1029–1064.
Magee. J. C. & Galinsky. A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351–398.
Michelson. G., Van Iterson. A. & Waddington. K. (2010). Gossip in organizations: Contexts. consequences. and controversies. Group and Organization Management, 35, 371–390
Nevo. O., Nevo. B. & Derech-Zehavi. A. (1994). The tendency to gossip as a psychological disposition: Constructing a measure and validating it. InR. Goodman F. & Ben-Zeev A. 1994. Good gossip, Lawrence. KS: University of Kansas Press, 180–189.
Oscar Wilde. Retrieved from: Byrd L. (2015). Controlling your ACE. AuthorHouse ISBN: 9781491857236
Paine. R. (1967). What is gossip about? An alternative hypothesis. Man, 2, 272–285
Pfeffer. J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston:
25
Pratto F., Sidanius J., Stallworth L. M. & Malle. B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67. Issue 4, 741-763.
Pratto F. & Shih M. (2000). Social dominance orientation and group context in implicit group prejudice. Psychological Science, 11, Issue 6, 515-518, doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00299
Pratto F., Sidanius J. & Levin S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European review of social
psychology, 17, 271 – 320, DOI: 10.1080/10463280601055772
Pratto F., Sidanius J. & Levin S. (2004). Social Dominance Theory: Its Agenda and Method.
European review of social psychology, 17, 271 – 320, DOI: 10.1080/10463280601055772
Rosnow. R. L. (1977). Gossip and marketplace psychology. Journal of Communication. 27, 158–163.
Rucker D. D. & Galinsky A. D. (2008) Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and
compensatory consumption. Journal of consumer research, 35, DOI: 10.1086/588569
Scheepers D. & Ellemers N. (2004). When the pressure is up: The assessment of social identity threat in low and high status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 192–200
Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press
Sidanius. J., Liu. J., Pratto. F. & Shaw. J. (1994). Social dominance orientation. hierarchy attenuators and hierarchy–enhancers: Social dominance theory and the criminal justice system. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 338–366.
Sidanius J. & Pratto F. (2003). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of inequality: A reply to Schmitt. Branscombe & Kappen and Wilson & Liu. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 42, Issue 2, 207–213, DOI:10.1348/014466603322127193
Steers. R. M. & Braunstein. D. N. (1976). A behaviorally-based measure of manifest needs in work settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 251-266,
DOI:10.1016/0001-87917690083-X
Van Hiel A., Pandelaere M. & Duriez B. (2004). The Impact of Need for Closure on Conservative Beliefs and Racism: Differential Mediation by Authoritarian Submission and Authoritarian Dominance. Society for Personality and Social Psychology Inc., DOI: 10.1177/0146167204264333
Van Dijke. M. &Poppe. M. (2006). Striving for personal power as a basis for social power dynamics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 537-556
Wert S. R. & Peter Salovey. (2004). A Social Comparison Account of Gossip, Review of
General Psychology, 8, Issue 2, 122–137, DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.122
Wittek R. & Wielers R. (1998). Gossip in Organizations. Computational and Mathematical
Organization Theory, 4, Issue 2, 189-204. Kluwer Academic Publishers
27 APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
SDO Scale (Social dominance items, Pratto et al, 2006)
INSTRUCTIONS
Below are a series of statements with which you may either agree or disagree. For each statement, please indicate the degree of your agreement\disagreement by circling the appropriate number from ‘1’ to ‘7’. Once again, remember that your first responses are usually the most accurate.
Strongly Strongly Disagree/ Agree/ Disapprove Favor 1.Some groups of people are just more
worthy than others ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. In getting what your group wants, it is
sometimes necessary to use force
against other groups ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. It’s OK if some groups have more of a
chance in life than others ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. To get ahead in life, it is sometimes
necessary to step on other
groups ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. If certain groups of people stayed in
their place, we would have fewer
problems ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. It’s probably a good thing that certain
groups are at the top and other groups
are at the bottom ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Inferior groups should stay in their
place ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Sometimes other groups must be kept
in their place ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. It would be good if all groups could be
11. All groups should be given an equal
chance in life... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. We should do what we can to equalize
conditions for different groups ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. We should increase social equality...1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. We would have fewer problems if we
treated different groups more
equally ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. We should strive to make incomes
more equal ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. No one group should dominate in
society ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Note to users: Items 9 – 16 should be reverse coded. The reverse coded items are usually intermixed with the non-recoded items.
APPENDIX B
Need for power scale (adapted to the original scale of Dominance items, Steers & Braunstein, 1976):
Please think of the conversation you had with participant A while participant B was not present, and indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements. Remember that your first responses are usually the most accurate.
Strongly Strongly Disagree/ Agree/ Disapprove Favor For me, a reason to engage in this conversation was:
1.To seek an active role in the leadership
of the group... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. To influence participant A (the newcomer)
to see things in my way... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. To organize and direct the activities of
29
around me... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. To be “in command” when I was working
with the group... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Appendix C
Evaluative and descriptive negative gossip scale
There was not a reliable scale measuring gossip therefore we design our own scale based on the recorded videos and the way in which participants expressed gossip such that we can capture all the potential possibilities, from no or low to high level of negative gossip.
Evaluative
How evaluative - negative was the gossip?
0 - No evaluation ( I proposed items and she just agreed) 1 - low ( e.g. she is not really enthusiastic)
2 - medium ( e.g. she is weird) 3 -high ( e.g. she was cold as ice)
Descriptive content
How much detail was provided from the gossiper to describe the gossip about the target during the interaction?
0 – no description of behavior or interaction ( e.g. she was withdrawn and close) 1 – low (e.g. she suggested one thing, but not really)
