BEING THE RECEIVER OR THE TARGET OF
NEGATIVE GOSSIP: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
NEGATIVE GOSSIP AND COOPERATION
MEDIATED BY SOCIAL BONDING
by
JENNIFER RIKKERT
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Human Resource Management
2
Abstract
We investigate the relationship between gossip negativity and cooperation, and whether this is explained by social bonding. Two perspectives were taken into account to increase the understanding of this relationship. This is the perspective of the gossip target and that of the gossip receiver. We propose that that gossip targets will cooperate less with the senders after hearing the gossip due to a deteriorated bond. Moreover, that gossip receivers will cooperate more with senders due to an improved bond. Results of the online survey showed that negativity of gossip does not predict cooperation, nor does it predict social bonding. This was the true for both the target and the receiver. However, we did gain some useful insights. We found that receivers bond more with senders and that their cooperation therefore increases, but that it does not depend on the negativity of the message.
Key Words: negative gossip, cooperation, social bonding, gossip sender, gossip receiver,
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ... 4
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 7
Negative Gossip and Cooperation for Target ... 7
Negative Gossip and Cooperation for Receiver ... 7
Negative Gossip and Social Bonding for Target ... 8
Negative Gossip and Social Bonding for Receiver ... 8
Negative Gossip, Social Bonding and Cooperation for Target ... 9
Negative Gossip, Social Bonding and Cooperation for Receiver ... 10
Conceptual Model ... 10 METHODOLOGY ... 11 Data Collection ... 11 Measures ... 11 Data Analysis ... 12 Control Variables ... 12 RESULTS ... 13 Descriptive Statistics ... 13 Moderation analysis ... 14
Moderated Mediation Analysis ... 15
Additional Analysis ... 16
DISCUSSION ... 18
Hypotheses and Findings ... 18
Theoretical Implications ... 18
Practical Implications ... 20
Strengths, Limitations and Future Research ... 20
Conclusion ... 21
4
INTRODUCTION
Over the last twenty years researchers have shown increasing interest in the topic of gossip (Ellwardt, 2011). The research of Dunbar (2004) showed that when individuals are communicating, 65 percent of their dialogue time is spent on social issues. This can generally be characterized as gossip. Therefore, in two third of the dialogues people talk about third parties (Emler, 1994). Gossip is defined as ‘informal and evaluative talk about another member who is not present’ (Kurland & Pelled, 2000; p.429). Gossip can have both positive and negative outcomes at the same time. The difference in outcome can be explained by the different perspectives, target or receiver, from which gossip is perceived (Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell, Labianca & Ellwardt, 2012). Gossip is generally described as vicious and devastating and therefore has a bad reputation regarding the gossip targets (Dunbar, 2004). The gossip target is defined as the object of the gossip, the absent third party in the gossip triad (Ellwardt, 2011). Despite the fact that the target is not involved in the sending and receiving of gossip, the target remains an important element in the gossip event (Ellwardt, Labianca & Wittek, 2011). The other perspective that can be taken is the perspective of the gossip receiver. The gossip receiver is the individual that obtains gossip from the gossip sender (Ellwardt, 2011). From the receiver’s perspective gossip is not always vicious or devastating, because gossip can be positive for this individual. Gossip between sender and receiver can create interpersonal trust, feelings of mutual understanding and friendship (Den Hartog, 2005).
5 can either increase or decrease cooperation. However, there is no explanation yet for why gossip receivers and gossip targets have a different cooperation relationship with the gossip sender. This research tries to clarify why this difference exists.
To find an explanation for the difference in cooperation relationships between sender and target and sender and receiver we will look at functions that gossip might have on individuals. Rosnow (1977) emphasized the exchanging of context relevant information as a function. However, Dunbar (2004) argued that social bonding is the most important role that gossip can play. It could even be the ‘original impetus to the evolution of language’ (Dunbar, 2004; p.109). This means that social bonding is the reason why people started to communicate in the first place. Because of the importance of this function, our research investigates social bonding as the explanation behind the difference in cooperation relationship with the sender. Social bonding is defined as ‘the affection and emotional attachment between members or groups’ (Tsay et al., 2014; p.55). The exchange of information plays a role in social bonding part. Exchanging information with others helps to control what is happening in our social environments and maintaining the relationships in that environment (Ellwardt et al., 2011). If employees share discrete information repetitively with each other, the bond between sender and receiver will become stronger (Bosson, Johnson, Niederhoffer & Swann, 2006). However, the bond between sender and target is harmed when negative gossip is spread about oneself. Because of this reason the target feels victimized and possibly socially undermined (Ellwardt et al., 2011; Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002). Targets learn that others do not appreciate him and see him as a worthy individual (Aquino & Thau, 2009). Outlining these facts, it can be stated that negative gossip can have both positive and negative effects on a social bond between employees. This depends on whom it reaches, a receiver or a target.
6 understanding of the complete gossip triad. How relationships might differ when another perspective is taken.
The research question for this research will be:
7
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Negative Gossip and Cooperation for Target
Abbajay (2008) found that negative gossip ruins relationships between gossipers and targets due to a breakdown of trust and an increased conflict level. Trust between targets and gossipers is reduced because targets see the gossip as an egoistic behavior. A behavior that tends to weaken the target and improve the social status of the gossiper (Ellwardt, 2011). Moreover, Burt (2005) found that targets of negative gossip have difficulties in forming cooperative relationships with the gossiper at work. Participants in Burt’s research who were the target of negative gossip had a higher turnover rate than the ones that were not the target of negative gossip. This is for the reason that the sender shared reputation-harming information about the participants who were the target. The reputation-harming information damaged the relationship between gossiper and target, because spreading negative gossip might signal that the gossiper does not have feelings of affection towards the target (Ellwardt, 2011). Harming the others’ reputation is a form of antisocial behavior leading to decreased cooperation and collective actions (Feinberg, Willer, Stellar & Keltner, 2012). Specifically the target perceives the gossip as an egoistic behavior rather than a cooperative one. This leads to following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1a: Negative gossip decreases cooperation between sender and target.
Negative Gossip and Cooperation for Receiver
8 informal relationship of the gossiper and receiver and the existing trust will lead to more cooperation, because Girard, Hett and Schunk (2015) stated that it is a good indicator for cooperative behaviour. Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1b: Negative gossip increases cooperation between sender and receiver.
Negative Gossip and Social Bonding for Target
The target could suffer from the exchange of negative gossip when he hears about it, because he might feel socially excluded (Grosser et al, 2012). If the target feels excluded he does not feel accepted by the sender, the sender does not tolerate the target to be himself within the organization (Jansen, 2015). Feeling socially excluded hurts the bond between gossiper and target, because gossip targets feel like outcasts. Moreover, when a sender spreads negative gossip about the target, the target can feel victimized. Because of this victimization he gets frustrated and feelings of belonging decrease (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Victimized employees also have difficulties with trusting others (Aquino & Thau, 2009). The target is less likely to bond with the gossiper because the targets’ trust is offended and he does not feel appreciated by the gossiper. Furthermore, gossip is a form of egoistic communication, during which the sender sometimes forgets to think about the consequences for the target (Baker & Jones, 1996). Gossip seems to be motivated primarily by ego and individual status needs of the gossiper (Michelson, Van Iterson & Waddington, 2010). Therefore the sender may be too focused on himself rather than the effects of gossip for the target and the effects of gossip on their relationship. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2a: Negative gossip deteriorates the social bond between sender and target.
Negative Gossip and Social Bonding for Receiver
9 shows confidence in the receiver that he or she will not spread the gossip any further. This confidence is mostly grounded in strong work relations (Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell & Labianca, 2010) and implies affection and social bonding (Ellwardt, 2011). Kniffin and Wilson (2005) therefore reasoned that gossip is a mechanism for strengthening the informal relationships in the organization. Lyons & Hughes (2015) emphasized that these relationships are especially strengthened when negative information is shared. The bond between gossiper and receiver becomes stronger because sender and receiver learn about shared attitudes towards others. This information can create an in-group/out-group boundary (Bosson et al., 2006). The gossip sender signals to the receiver that their social bond is a close one and that he trusts the receiver enough to provide him with the information. In-group solidarity moreover, meets the fundamental needs of connectedness, closeness and belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). We hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2b: Negative gossip increases the social bond between sender and receiver.
Negative Gossip, Social Bonding and Cooperation for Target
In the research of Burt (2005) targets had difficulties in establishing relationships with the gossiper due to the shared negative gossip. The reputation-harming information damages the social bond between them, since the target feels offended by the sender (Lahno, 1995). Tsay et al. (2014) state that a social bond includes related factors, such as mutual respect and interpersonal relationships, which influence one’s intention to withhold knowledge. This means that when the bond between sender and target is damaged, the target will be less willing to share knowledge because of less mutual respect and a decreased interpersonal relationship. When sender and target share less knowledge with each other, the cooperation between them gets damaged. To cooperate effectively knowledge must be shared (Tamir, Zaki & Mitchell, 2015). Concluding, due to the hurt social bond, knowledge is not shared and hence cooperation between gossiper and target decreases. Therefore, we hypothesize:
10
Negative Gossip, Social Bonding and Cooperation for Receiver
Like mentioned in hypothesis 2b, negative gossip improves the social bond between gossip sender and receiver. This was due to the fact that gossipers and receivers have feelings of connectedness and closeness towards each other. The gossip sender shows confidence and closeness by sharing the gossip with receiver (Goff & Goff, 1988). It is a signal of the sender towards the receiver that he trusts the receiver’s discretion. This trust between sender and receiver can improve the social bond (Coleman, 1990). The improved social bond between sender and receiver can smooth cooperation within formal workgroups, but also in the entire organization (Oh, Chung & Labianca, 2004). The sender and receiver are willing to share required knowledge and (political) resources, which benefits the effectiveness of their collaboration. There is no indication that receivers will have intentions to withhold the knowledge, since they feel close to the gossiper (Tsay et al., 2014). Therefore we can state that we expect receivers to cooperate effectively with the gossiper. Concluding, due to the improved social bond, knowledge is shared and hence cooperation between sender and receiver increases. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3b: Negative gossip increases cooperation between sender and receiver because negative gossip improves the social bond.
Conceptual Model
Based on the research question and hypotheses a conceptual model has been drawn (see figure 1). The different variables, the mediator and moderator are being shown below.
FIGURE 1
11
METHODOLOGY
Data Collection
This research used an online survey. The participants were employees and students who were employed at a company for over the last year. We contacted our own network and also asked students from the University of Groningen to join the research. Students and employees could fill in the survey at home or in the office. In total 424 people started the survey and 243 finished it, which is 57.3%. 55.5% Of the participants were female and 44.5% were male. They had an average age of 32 years and were highly educated as 66,7% of the participants went to university. Most of them worked full time (74.1%) and the rest worked part time (25.9%) with an average of 26 hours a week. Moreover, on average the participants have been working for the company for 7.5 years.
The online survey was available in Dutch, but also in English, Bulgarian and German. This way both national and international students and employees filled in the survey. The survey started with some general questions about age, gender and organization size. After these general questions participants were randomly assigned to either the target position (177 people, 41.8%) or the receiver position (246 people, 58.2%). They were asked to remember a situation in which they received gossip or heard that someone gossiped about them. Participants that could not recall a situation or did not finish the survey were excluded. This left us with 266 participants. When participants recalled a situation they were asked to describe it briefly. Only 243 of them described negative gossip and therefore our sample consisted of 243 participants. After describing the scenarios participants answered some measures about cooperation and social bonding.
Measures
Negativity of gossip, social bonding and cooperation were measured on a 7 point Likert scale. The scale ranged from “not at all” (1) to “very much” (7). We will mention the statements that were used when the participant was in the target position. When someone was in the receiver position the word ‘me’ was replaced by the word ‘target’.
12 things about me” and “My colleague has told some unflattering stories about me”. The scale was reliable (α = .79).
For the operationalization of social bonding we used the article of Wojciszkei, Abele & Baryla (2009). There were three statements: “I have a warm feeling about the colleague who talked about me”, “I like the colleague that talked about me” and “I feel close to the colleague who talked about me”. The scale was highly reliable (α = .94).
Regarding the cooperation variable five statements of the article of Chatman & Flynn (2001) were used. These statements were: “It is important for us to maintain harmony in our relationship”, “There is little collaboration in our relationship, tasks are individually delineated”, “There is a high level of cooperation between me and my colleague”, “My colleague is willing to sacrifice their self-interest for the benefit of our relationship” and “There is a high level of sharing between me and my colleague who talked about me”. Reliability was checked and the scale was reliable (α = .73).
Data Analysis
The answers of the respondents were put in a statistical programme called SPSS. In SPSS the variables were recoded, if this was necessary, and then average variables were made. Thereafter, we made a Pearson’s correlation table. With this table we saw how the variables were related and how strongly they were related. In the end we tested the hypotheses with a regression analysis using Process by Andrew F. Hayes. We used model seven of Process since this one referred to a moderated-mediation analysis.
Control Variables
13
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
To see how the variables are related to each other and how strong the relation between them is, Pearson’s correlations have been calculated.
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Gossip Negativity 4.19 1.47 - - - - 2 Social Bonding 3.78 1.78 -.02 - - - - 3 Cooperation 3.92 1.28 -.06 .72* - - - - - 4 Condition 1.63 .48 .23* .47* .31* - - - - 5 Gender 1.42 .50 -.05 .10 .02 -.04 - - - 6 Age 33.12 12.02 -.04 -.18* -.21* -.17* - - - 7 Education 2.61 .63 -.02 .07 .10 .04 - - -
N(NEGA)=231; N(BOND)=223; N(COOP)=219; N(COND)=234; N(Gender)=235; N(Age)=235; N(Edu)=235; *p< .01; Condition was coded 1 for target and 2 for receiver; Gender was coded 1 for female and 2 for man; Education was coded 1 for middle school, 2 for high school and 3 for university or higher
14 means that an increase in social bonding is related to an increase in cooperation. Looking at the control variables we see that age has a significant negative effect on social bonding (r=-.18, p<.01), cooperation(r=-.21, p<.01) and the condition variable(r=-.17, p<.01). This means that when age increases social bonding and cooperation decrease. Moreover, targets had a lower age than the receivers. Since gender and education level had no significant correlations at all they will not be used for further testing the hypotheses.
Moderation analysis
Hypothesis 1a predicted that negativity of gossip decreases the cooperation between sender and target and hypothesis 1b suggested that negativity of gossip increases the cooperation between sender and receiver.
TABLE 2
Moderation Analysis Dependent Variable Cooperation
N=214; *p<.05; Condition was coded 1 for target and 2 for receiver
Looking at table 2 we conclude that the relationship between negative gossip and cooperation is not significant, β=-.18, t=-.95, ns. Moreover, the relationship between the condition variable (target vs. receiver) and cooperation is not significant, β=.65, t=1.29, ns. The interaction effect is also not significant, β=.04, t=.35, ns. We did not find any support that negative gossip is related to cooperation and that it increases or decreases cooperation depending on being the target or the receiver. Therefore, hypothesis 1a and 1b cannot be confirmed.
Variables β T CI[..] P Control variable
Age -.01 -1.05 [-.03,.01] .30
Dependent variable: Cooperation
Negative Gossip (a) -.18 -.95 [-.56,.20] .34
Condition (b) .65 1.29 [-.34,1.63] .20
Interaction a*b .04 .35 [-.19,.27] .73
15
Moderated Mediation Analysis
TABLE 3
Moderated Mediation Analysis
Variables β T CI[..] P Control variables
Age -.01 -.92 [-.04,.01] .36
Dependent variable: Social Bonding
Negative Gossip (a) -.32 -1.33 [-.80,.16] .19
Condition (b) 1.39 2.22 [.16,2.63] .03*
Interaction a*b .10 .68 [-.19,.39] .50
R Square .30*
Control variables
Age -.00 -.50 [-.02,.01] .62
Dependent variable: Cooperation
Social Bonding (a) .51 14.04 [.44,.58] .00*
Gossip Negativity (b) -.04 -1.02 [-.12,.04] .31
R Square .52*
Conditional Indirect Effect
Effect moderation low -.11 [-.24,.01]
Effect moderation high -.06 [-.18,.04]
N=214; *p<.05; Condition was coded 1 for target and 2 for receiver
16 this does not depend on the negativity of the message. Therefore, hypotheses 2a and 2b cannot be confirmed since the interaction effect was not significant. Moreover, the control variable age was not significant, indicating that age does not have an effect on social bonding.
For hypotheses 3a and 3b we will look at all the variables together. Hypothesis 3a stated that negativity of gossip decreases cooperation between sender and target because it deteriorates the social bond. However with regard to the receiver cooperation would increase because of the improved social bond (hypothesis 3b). After looking at the middle of table 3 we determined that the relationship between social bonding and cooperation is significant, β=.51, t=14.04, p<.001. The better the social bond between people the more they will cooperate. However, gossip negativity is not significantly related to cooperation, β=-.04, t=-1.02, ns. There is no evidence that a more negative message would decrease or increase cooperation. Moreover, the control variable was not significant. Age does not have an effect on cooperation.
Finally, we look at the bottom of table 3. The indirect effect of gossip negativity on cooperation through social bonding did not differ at higher levels of the condition variable (target vs. receiver) from the lower level of this variable. For low level, β=-.11 LLCI=-.24, ULCI=.01 and high level, β=-.06 LLCI=-.18, ULCI=.04. The moderated-mediation was not significant and therefore hypothesis 3a and 3b cannot be confirmed.
Additional Analysis
After performing the above analysis we found the target vs. receiver condition was significantly related to the social bonding. Moreover, we found that social bonding had a significant relationship with cooperation. Therefore, we perform an additional analysis with these three variables with social bonding as the mediator. A model has been drawn based on the additional analysis, which can be found in figure 2.
FIGURE 2
17 TABLE 4 Mediation Analysis Variables β T CI[..] P Control variable Age -.01 -1.10 [-.04,.01] .27
Dependent variable: Social Bonding
Condition 1.67 7.63 [1.24,2.10] .00*
R Square .28*
Control variable
Age -.00 -.64 [-.02,.01] .53
Dependent variable: Cooperation
Condition -.17 -1.15 [-.46,.12] .25
Social Bonding .53 12.96 [.45,.61] .00*
R Square .52*
N=214; *p<.05; Condition was coded 1 for target and 2 for receiver
Looking at table 4 we see that the target vs. receiver condition is significantly related to social bonding, β= 1.67, t=7.63, p<.001. Because the condition is significant it means that targets and receivers differ in bonding. Moreover, the positive coefficient (β=1.67) signals that receivers bond more than targets do.
18
DISCUSSION
Hypotheses and Findings
As mentioned in the theoretical framework three hypotheses were formulated, which were split for the target position and for the receiver position. First, we expected that the more negative the gossip was the lesser the target cooperated with sender. Moreover, we expected that the receiver would cooperate more with the sender after hearing the negative gossip. This research did not indicate a significant relationship between negative gossip and cooperation with moderator target vs. receiver. This shows that negativity of gossip does not predict cooperation for targets or for receivers with the sender.
Second, targets were expected to have a harmed social bond due to the negativity of the gossip. Moreover, we thought that receivers would bond more after hearing the negative gossip about target. None of this was found true since the relationship was not significant. This indicates that negativity of gossip does not predict social bonding between sender and target or sender and receiver.
Third, we expected that negative gossip would decrease the cooperation between sender and target due to a deteriorated social bond. With regard to the receiver, we expected that the receiver would cooperate more with sender after hearing the negative gossip due to an improved social bond. This moderated mediation analysis was not significant, which indicates that negativity of gossip does not predict cooperation for targets or for receivers with the gossiper. Moreover, it shows that the relationship between the negativity of gossip and cooperation is not explained by social bonding.
In the additional analysis we tested if social bonding could explain the relationship between the condition variable (target vs. receiver) and cooperation. We found this mediation to be significant and stated that social bonding explains the relationship between the condition variable (target vs. receiver) and cooperation. Moreover, we saw that receivers bond more and therefore cooperate more with the gossiper.
Theoretical Implications
19 target. They state that evolutionary models of human cooperation are more and more emphasizing the role of honest gossiping. Their results show that multiple statements from independent sources increases the veracity of the gossip. This is the case because information from multiple independent sources approximates the complete situation better and is less likely to contain errors (Hess & Hagen, 2006; Sommerfeld, Krambeck & Milinski, 2008). In this research we focused on the gossiping of the sender, which is just one statement from one source. This could have decreased the trustworthiness of the gossip message. Consequently, receivers and targets may not believe the gossip and therefore it did not predict their cooperation with the gossiper.
Although we thought that targets would feel victimized after hearing the negative gossip, and that this would hurt the social bond, we did not find this. Foster (2004) explains that gossip can be seen as an informal policing device. A policing device that facilitates relationships by keeping track of individuals and controlling the ones that fail to abide the rules underpinning the society (Dunbar, 2004). Targets may not see negative gossip as harmful and decrease their bond with gossiper, but they will see it as an indicator that they need to change their behavior and improve their performance. On the contrary, our results show that receivers have a better social bond with the gossiper than targets. Nevertheless, this depends on the total gossip activity which includes both negative and positive messages. Grosser et al. (2010) indicated that gossipers spread both positive and negative messages when there is a friendship tie between people. We could state that the gossiper and receiver have a better bond since they chose to share the information with each other. They disclose details about their network and reveal information that can have a strategic value to the other (Ellwardt, 2011). This can be described as a signal of trust and also a signal that their bond is a close one, close enough to share the information (Bosson et al., 2006).
20 important function of language in general and particularly gossip. This is different from what Dunbar (2004) stated, as he thought that social bonding was the most important function. Future research could examine whether informal policing explains the relationship between gossip negativity and cooperation instead of social bonding.
Practical Implications
This research resulted in insights that help organizations gain a better understanding of how gossip influences employees’ behavior and organizational outcomes. The results show that receivers bond more with senders than targets do and that consequently cooperation of receivers with senders increases. Kraus, Huang & Keltner (2010) found that an increase in cooperation leads to both an increase in individual performance as organization performance. Increased performance is seen as beneficial to a company. Cooperation between targets and senders needs to improve to increase their performance and the overall performance of the organization. One way to handle gossip is an open and supportive work environment (Thomas & Rozell, 2007). An environment in which targets feel free to speak to the sender about the gossip, telling him how the gossip made him feel. Managers could initiate open sessions where employees can come together and discuss the gossip that they heard. It allows them to share their concerns regarding the gossip. These open sessions together with the supportive and open environment could lead to targets improving their bond with the gossiper. This improved bond could lead to an increased cooperation between sender and target, which increases overall performance of the organization in the end.
Strengths, Limitations and Future Research
21 people from Australia and Asia. Therefore, the findings can be generalized for different countries and different activity sectors.
However, there are limitations as well. One limitation is that the study only included cross-sectional data. It only provides us with a snapshot of the participants at one point in time. It would be meaningful to examine the relationships in the future in a longitudinal design. This is desirable because longitudinal designs are preferable for tests of mediation (Ellwardt, 2011). Moreover, because the phenomenon gossip has shown to be heterogeneous and therefore could may be manifested differently across the life span (Foster, 2004). The next and last limitation is the research design that was used. We focused on a large and diverse sample to increase generalizability but this came at the cost of in-depth analysis. An in-depth analysis of how people in a specific country or organizational activity sector react to gossip was therefore not possible. For the future it would be meaningful to investigate the relationships in more specific group of people. Furthermore, useful insights can come from investigating our moderated-mediation relationship in a more naturalistic setting. Social behaviors, such as gossiping, would benefit from using both qualitative and quantitative methods (Baumeister, Vohs & Funder, 2007). Researchers will gain a deeper understanding of the different variables in our moderated-mediation by observing them in the work environment (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). After this qualitative research, Edmondson and McManus (2007) state that a quantitative investigation could examine the logic underlying the relationship.
Conclusion
22
REFERENCES
Abbajay, M. (2008). The danger of workplace gossip. Careerstone: Learn Today. Lead Tomorrow.
Aquino, K. & Thau, S. 2009. Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol.60, p717-741.
Baker, J.S. & Jones, M.A. 1996. The poison grapevine: How destructive are gossip and rumor in the workplace. Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol.7, p75-86.
Baumeister, R.F. & Leary, M.R. 1995. The need to belong – Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human-motivation. Psychological Bulletin, Vol.117, p497- 529.
Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K.D., & Funder, D.C. 2007. Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behaviour? Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol.2, p396–403.
Besnier, N. 1989. Information withholding as a manipulative and collusive strategy in nukulaelae gossip. Language in Society, Vol.18, p315-341.
Bosson, J.K., Johnson, A.B., Niederhoffer, K., & Swann, W.B. 2006. Interpersonal chemistry through negativity: Bonding by sharing negative attitudes about others. Personal Relationships, Vol. 13, p135-150.
Burt, R.S. 2005. Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23 Chatman, J.A. & Flynn, F.J. 2001. The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 5, p956-974.
Coleman, J.S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
De Backer, C.J.S. & Gurven, M. 2006. Whispering down the lane: The economics of vicarious information transfer. Adaptive Behavior, Vol. 14, p249-264.
Den Hartog, D. 2005. Trusting others in organizations: Leaders, management and coworkers. In B. Nooteboom & F. Six (Eds.), The trust process in organizations: empirical studies of the determinants and the process of trust development (pp. 125-146). Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar.
Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C., Pagon, M. 2002. Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 45, p331–351.
Dunbar, R.I.M. 2004. Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, Vol. 8, No. 2, p100–110.
Edmondson, A.C. & McManus, S.E. 2007. Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, Vol.32 (4), p1155-1179.
Ellwardt, L. 2011. Gossip in Organizations, A Social Network Study. Thesis
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 Networks, Vol. 34, Issue 2, p193–205
24 Enquist, M. & Leimar, O. 1993. The evolution of cooperation in mobile organisms. Animal Behaviour, Vol.45, p747–757.
Feinberg, M., Willer, R., Stellar, J. & Keltner, D. 2012. The Virtues of Gossip: Reputational Information Sharing as Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 102(5), p1015-1030.
Foster, E.K. 2004. Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions. Review of General Psychology, Vol. 8, p78-99.
Girard, Y., Hett, F. & Schunk, D. 2015. How individual characteristics shape the structure of social networks. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol 115, p197-216.
Goff, J.L. & Goff, P.J. 1988. Trapped in co-dependency. Personnel Joumal, Volume 67(12), p50-57.
Grosser, T.J., Lopez-Kidwell, V. & Labianca, G. 2010. A social network analysis of positive and negative gossip in organizational life. Group & Organization Management, Vol.35, p177-212.
Grosser, T. J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., Labianca, G.J. & Ellwardt, L. 2012. Hearing it through the grapevine: Positive and negative workplace gossip. Organizational Dynamics, 41(1), p52-61.
Hess, N.H. & Hagen, E.H. 2006. Psychological adaptations for assessing gossip veracity. Human Nature, Vol.17, p337–354.
Hollander, J.A. & Einwohner, R.L. 2004. Conceptualizing resistance. Sociological Forum, Vol. 19, p533-554.
25 Jaeger, M.E., Skleder, A.A., Rind, B. & Rosnow, R.L. 1994. Gossip, gossipers, gossipees. In: Goodman, R.F., Ben-Ze’ev, A. (Eds.), Good Gossip. University Press of Kansas, p.154– 168.
Jansen, W.S. 2015. Social inclusion in diverse work settings. [S.l.]: [S.n.]. 166 p.
Kniffin, K.M. & Wilson, D.S. 2005. Utilities of gossip across organizational levels – multilevel selection, free-riders, and teams. Human Nature-An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective, Vol. 16, p278–292.
Kraus, M.W., Huang, C. & Keltner, D. 2010. Tactile communication, cooperation, and performance: an ethological study of the NBA. Emotion, Vol. 10(5), p745-759
Kurland, N.B. & Pelled, L.H. 2000. Passing the word: toward a model of gossip and power in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, Vol.25, p428–438.
Lahno, B. 1995. Trust, reputation, and exit in exchange relationships. Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol.39, p495–510.
Leary, M.R., Tambor, E.S., Terdal, S.K. & Downs, D.L. 1995. Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 68, p518–530.
Lyons, M.T. & Hughes, S. 2015. Malicious mouths? The Dark Triad and motivations for gossip. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 78, p1-4.
Michelson, G., Van Iterson, A. & Waddington, K. 2010. Gossip in Organizations: Contexts, Consequences, and Controversies. Group & Organization Management, Vol.35 Issue 4, p371-390.
26 Sommerfeld, R.D., Krambeck, H.J., & Milinski, M. 2008. Multiple gossip statements and their effect on reputation and trustworthiness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, Vol. 275, p2529-2536.
Tamir, D.I., Zaki, J., & Mitchell, J.P. 2015. Informing others is associated with behavioral and neural signatures of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol 144(6), p. 1114-1123.
Thomas, S.A. & Rozell, E.J. 2007. Gossip and nurses: malady or remedy? The Health Care Manager, Vol. 26(2), p111-115.
Tsay, C.H., Lin, T., Yoon, J. & Huang, C. 2014. Knowledge withholding intentions in teams: The roles of normative conformity, affective bonding, rational choice and social cognition. Decision Support Systems, Vol. 67, p53-65.
Wittek, R., Hangyi, H., Van Duijn, M. & Carroll, C. 2000. Social capital, third party gossip, and cooperation in organizations. The Management of Durable Relations: Theoretical Models and Empirical Studies of Households and Organizations. Edited by Jeroen Weesie and Werner Raub.Amsterdam, ThelaThesis 2000
Wojciszke, B., Abele, A.E. & Baryla, W. 2009. Two dimensions of interpersonal attitudes: liking depends on communion, respect depends on agency. European Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol.39, p973–990.
