The effects of Stress on Gossip:
The Role of Social Support and Prevention Focus
University of Groningen Master Thesis for MSc HRM
EBM722B20
Date: 19-1-2020
Name student: L.Willemsen
2 ABSTRACT
Stress can have detrimental consequences for organizations as well as for employees. Employees experiencing stress tend to partake in certain behavior in order to deal with stress. An important coping mechanism for dealing with stress is participation in gossip. Considering the negative consequences of stress, organizations should be aware of underlying reasons why and for whom feelings of stress lead to an increase in participation in gossip. Because little is known about why and for whom feelings of stress lead to an increase in participation in gossip, this research studies whether the relationship between stress and workplace gossip is mediated by the need for social support. Furthermore, the role of prevention focus on the relation between stress and workplace gossip, mediated by the need for social support is examined. Hypotheses were tested by using a questionnaire among 266 employees working in various organizations. The results showed that stress at work is associated with an increase in the need for social support which in turn enhances the engagement in gossip behavior. Moreover, this study revealed that an individual’s regulatory focus influences the relation between stress and the need for social support, such that the need for social support only increases for people who score low on prevention focus when they experience stress. However, further research is recommended in order to obtain a better understanding of these effects.
3 INTRODUCTION
Companies in the Netherlands yearly lose about €1.8 billion as a result of sick leave costs that are caused by work stress (TNO, 2015). Besides the fact that stress has consequences for organizations as it is costly for companies, stress also has consequences for employees and their behavior. Moreover, stress is quite common at work, and people show certain behaviors when under stress. Stress refers to the change in one’s physical or mental state in response to situations that pose a challenge or threat (Krantz, Grunberg, & Baum, 1985; Zimbardo, Weber, & Johnson, 2003). Previous research suggests that work stress has detrimental consequences, such as harmful effects on health (Dimsdale, 2008), and it can make individuals more easily affected by diseases (Haggerty, 1980). Other evidence even suggests that people are more likely to participate in gossip when under stress (Waddington & Fletcher, 2005). Due to the negative consequences of stress, it is necessary to get a better understanding of work stress and the ways in which people cope with feelings of stress that could lead to particular outcomes.
Besides the effects of stress on health, feelings of stress also trigger certain behaviors. One of these behaviors is gossip (Waddington, & Fletcher, 2005). In other words, feelings of stress prompt gossip, which is defined as evaluative talk between people who are familiar with each other concerning personal matters of persons that are not present (Eder & Enke, 1991; Foster, 2004; Sabini & Silver, 1982). Previous research shows that people that experience feelings of stress are more willing to participate in a gossip relationship (Waddington, & Fletcher, 2005). Additionally, Waddington and Fletcher (2005) found that gossip plays a role as a ‘safety valve’ for stress relief and emotional support.
4 in spreading gossip. The leading research question is: “Why and for whom do perceived feelings of stress lead to an increase in participation in gossip?”.
To extend previous scientific research, this study will examine employees in an organizational field setting. Qualitative research (e.g. interviews) among nurses revealed that stress and gossip are related (Waddington & Fletcher, 2005). However, they did not provide insight in the underlying reasons why and for whom feelings of stress trigger the participation in gossip.
5 can therefore be used as a way to gain social support. For this reason, the need for social support is considered within this research as a mediating variable between stress and gossip.
We further suppose that not every individual who perceives feelings of stress at work has the need for social support that in the end results in participating in gossip. One of the determinants that may explain for whom feelings of stress will lead to participation in a gossip relationship is an individual’s regulatory focus. In the literature, regulatory focus is described to regulate pain and pleasure in two different ways that have a major impact on people's feelings, thoughts, and actions. One way is prevention focused and the other one is promotion focused. An individual focused on the latter is concerned with advancement, growth, and accomplishment, whereas prevention focused individuals are concerned with security, safety, and responsibility (Brockner & Higgings, 2001). People who are prevention focused are therefore sensitive to threats of losses and are expected to try to reduce negative consequences. Brockner and Higgings (2001) show that people’s regulatory focus has important implications for work attitudes and behaviors. Stress is a threat to individual well-being and performance. Therefore, it is likely that prevention focused individuals use a coping strategy that consists of seeking support and security.
6 THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
The role of social support in the relation between stress and gossip.
Stress refers to the change in one’s physical or mental state in response to situations that pose a challenge or threat (Krantz, Grunberg, & Baum, 1985; Zimbardo, Weber, & Johnson, 2003). Work stress occurs as a result of the relationship between the person and his/her perceived environment. Individuals experience feelings of stress when the relationship with their environment is appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of that individual, or when the environment is perceived as endangering to the well-being of this person (Lazarus, & Folkman, 1984). Because work stress is an unfavorable feeling for an individual, individuals will seek for various ways to deal with their feelings of stress.
Seeking social support is one way to deal with feelings of stress. Social support is important especially when individuals who perceive stress feel threatened. Research shows that social support is negatively related to strains and that social support increases feelings of calmness among individuals (Beehr, 1995). In addition, Cohen and Wills (1985) argue that individuals who experience more social support also experience more calmness compared to people that experience less social support. This effect is grounded in the idea that the stress factors of individuals generate less tension if these individuals perceive social support (Beehr et al., 2000). Therefore, it makes sense that social support can protect people in crisis from a range of negative psychological states, for example by generating more calmness and less tension. Moreover, Hill (1987) shows that social bonds can have a decreasing effect on the experience of negative emotions that occur during stressful situations. Hence, it is likely that individuals who experience feelings of stress will search for social support.
7 concerns informal, evaluative talk about a member of the individuals’ social environment (Wert & Salovey, 2004). The process of gossiping and spreading negative or positive information about others occurs in all domains of social life (Foster, 2004). Actually, approximately 65% of adult conversations are about others who are not present (Emler, 1994; Levin & Arluke, 1985; Dunbar, 2004).
Gossip has different functions for groups and for individuals. First, gossip can help people to establish social bonds, moreover, it can be seen as the core of social relationships (Bosson et al., 2006; Dunbar, 2004). Second, gossip serves self-evaluation and supports in the communication of group norms which can lead to sanctioning of norm violators (Grosser, LopezKidwell, & Labianca, 2010). Third, people can use gossip to protect themselves from being exploited by others (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2011; Feinberg et al., 2012; Kniffin & Wilson, 2005). Last, gossip can be used as a means to influence reputational systems (Burt, 2008; Sommerfeld et al., 2007). In this research, we focus on the functions of gossip in order to help individuals in the establishment of social bonds. Although gossip can have functions in building social relationships, gossip can also have negative consequences. For example, gossip can be perceived as a threat to the organization and its employees, as gossip violates existing social norms (Michelson, Van Iterson, & Waddington, 2010). As gossip can also have a negative effect on individuals behavior in an organizational context, it is important to look at the determinants of people engaging in gossip.
8 and supported. This is in line with previous research, that revealed that gossip is at the core of social relationships and helps with the establishment of social bonds (Bosson et al., 2006; Dunbar, 2004). Due to the establishment of social relationships and bonds, individuals will fulfill their need for social support in times when they feel threatened as a result of work stress. However, it is not clear why and which people use gossip to create a social bond.
Building on research about gossiping and stress (Waddington, & Fletcher, 2005), we thus know that stress prompts gossiping, and that an important reason why people gossip, is that gossiping helps them to build social relationships and support networks. As said before, people who experience stress sometimes need social support in order to cope with the perceived threat as a result of stress. Gossip can be used as a coping strategy to fulfill this need for social support. Gossip also helps to regulate the emotions that occur when an individual experiences stress. Moreover, gossip makes people feel better and serves in reducing the feeling of vulnerability and intense emotion and creates a state of safety (Dunbar, 2004).
Overall, we expect that feelings of stress lead to an increase in an individual’s need for social support which in turn leads to an increase in participating in a gossip relationship within organizations. More specifically, individuals that experience feelings of stress are expected to feel a need for social support in order to cope with stress. Under stress individuals feel threatened and they will try to counteract this feeling by seeking for social support. Gossip can be used to obtain social support. An important reason why people gossip is to build social relationships and support networks. Furthermore, gossip makes people feel better and reduces feelings of vulnerability and intense emotions. Thus, a coping strategy to deal with feelings of stress is to seek for social support by engaging in a gossip relationship. This leads to the first hypothesis of this research:
Hypothesis 1: The relation between feelings of stress and the participation in gossiping is
9 The role of prevention focus
Brockner and Higgins (2001) suggest that an individual’s regulatory focus has important implications for his/her work attitudes, feelings and behaviors. Regulatory focus differentiates two independent, self-regulatory systems that stimulate employees’ attitudes, feelings and behavior towards his/her work (Higgins, 1998; Kruglanski, Pierro & Tory Higgins, 2007; Markovits et al., 2008). These independent self-regulatory systems are called promotion and prevention focus. Both are associated with different desired end-goals and have impact on how individuals strive towards desired goals (Higgins, 1997). A promotion focus is concerned with advancement, growth, and accomplishment, whereas a prevention focus is concerned with security, safety, and responsibility (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). People who are promotion focused prefer a strategy of pursuing desirable outcomes, while people who are prevention focused prefer strategies that include the avoidance of undesirable outcomes (Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002).
Individuals who experience feelings of stress sometimes evaluate situations as threatening. It differs per individual how they respond to feelings of stress. The type of regulatory focus, prevention or promotion focus, of an individual may influence the way individuals perceive and cope with feelings of stress. This research will specifically look at the moderating role of prevention focus on the relationship between stress and the need for social support. Two explanations are given below to elaborate on the reason why in particular prevention focus moderates the relationship between stress and the need for social support.
10 strongly to stress. As a consequence, these individuals feel a need for social support in order to deal with this threat. Therefore, it is likely that prevention focused individuals use a coping strategy that consists of seeking support and security in order to avoid the negative outcomes related to stress. Prevention focus will be used in this research because it is likely that this way of self-regulation influences the relationship between feelings of stress and an individuals need for social support.
Second, prevention focused individuals will create strategies to protect themselves against threats of losses, negative consequences and will try to avoid mistakes (Johnson, Chang, & Yang, 2010).Individuals with a prevention focus will tend to ensure security and safety. To obtain a feeling of security and safety, it is likely that individuals with a prevention focus will seek for social support. Schepers, de Jong, Wetzels and de Ruyter (2008) even found that social support increases an individual’s feeling of psychological safety. Therefore, it is likely that people who experience stress, but are also highly prevention focused have a higher need for social support. As result, these individuals will participate in a gossip relationship in order to fulfill their need for social support. We suggest that people who are prevention focused, will search for strategies that will help to counteract threats. One of those strategies might be participating in gossip.
11 Therefore, we expect that regulatory focus will influence the relationship between stress and need for social support that in result lead to an increase in an individual’s engagement in gossip. More specifically, people that are highly prevention focused are more willing to participate in gossiping when they experience feelings of stress compared to people who are promotion focused.
This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: The indirect effect of stress through emotional support on gossip is stronger for
people who are prevention focused.
The graphical representation of the moderated mediation effect stated in the two hypotheses is shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: Graphical representation of conceptual model
METHOD Procedures and Participants
12 networks. The individuals were invited to voluntarily participate and were free to fill in the questionnaire at a moment which suited them best. In an introductory letter attached to the survey, the topic, aim, importance, fill-out time and procedure of the study were explained. Additionally, a declaration of strict confidentiality and the insurance of privacy was attached.
The final sample contained 195 participants (Mage = 36.46, SD = 13.35; 63.6% female).
A number of 71 participants was excluded, due to incomplete data regarding the main measures. The participants work in various sectors, such as business management and administration (4.1%), finance (6.7%), social work (7.2%) and manufacturing (6.2%). The highest educational level obtained by the participants is a University Master’s Degree (39 %), followed by a HBO Bachelor’s Degree (31.8%), MBO Degree (10.8%), HBO Master’s Degree (9.7%), University Bachelor’s Degree (3.1%), High School (5.1%) and one participant indicated performing an PHD (0.5%). Furthermore, most participants reported to work 36 hours per week or more (54.4%). Others indicated to work between 24 – 36 hours per week (29.2%), between 12 – 24 hours per week (11.3%) and between 0 – 12 hours per week (2.6%). Participants work, on average, for 5.8 years at their current employer (SD = 7.74). Moreover, 63.6% reported that they did not have a management position, followed by participants who fulfilled a middle management position (16.4%), lower management position (13.3%) and a top management position (4.6%). Finally, 57.9% indicated that there have been changes (e.g. mergers, layoffs, job redesign) within their organization in the past two years.
Measures
13
Workplace Gossip
The variable workplace gossip was measured using the Workplace Gossip Scale (Brady, Brown, & Liang, 2017).This instrument is designed in order to measure the degree to which individuals engage in positive and negative workplace gossip, using a 7-point Likert-scale. The total scale consisted of 20 items divided in four categories (e.g. positive workplace gossip supervisor, positive workplace gossip coworker, negative workplace gossip supervisor, negative workplace gossip coworker), such that each category contained 5 items. Respondents were asked to indicate how often they engaged in positive and negative gossip behavior at the workplace in the last month on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Never’ to ‘More than once a day’. Examples of items are: ‘In the last month, how often have you complimented your supervisor’s actions while talking to a work colleague?’ and ‘In the last month, how often have you criticized a co-worker while talking to another work colleague?’. The items of workplace gossip contained a high internal reliability (α = .92). To identify the underlying relationships among the items related to the variable workplace gossip we used Exploratory Factor Analysis. This principal component analysis with varimax rotation led to four subgroups with an eigenvalue higher than one. Based on the results (Appendix A), we divided workplace gossip into four groups, namely positive workplace gossip supervisor (α = .90), positive workplace
gossip coworker (α = .91), negative workplace gossip supervisor (α = .86) and negative workplace gossip coworker (α = .90). The total amount of respondents among the four
subgroups of gossip differed due to the fact that not every participant had a supervisor. In total 166 participants had a supervisor and 187 participants responded to the questions related to workplace gossip about coworkers. As a result, the outcomes in the result section are different per analysis.
14 To measure work stress, we used a four-item scale (Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986) to indicate to what extent the individual felt stressed at work. The level of stress was measured by using items such as ‘I feel a great deal of stress because of my job’ and ‘I almost never feel stressed at work’. Individuals were asked to indicate their answer on a response format that consisted of a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Strongly agree’ to ‘Strongly disagree’. Two items had to be recoded before combining them (α = .79).
Need for social support.
To evaluate the individual need for social support, the items concerning social support of the MOS Social Support Survey (Sherbourne, & Stewart, 1991) have been used. Individuals were asked to rate the statements on how often they need the suggested support. This instrument consisted of a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Never’ to ‘More than once a day’. The original scale consisted of 14 items. To make this questionnaire more suitable for this research, an adjustment was made in one of the general questions stated above the questionnaire and five original items were deleted (3, 7, 9, 12 and 14; see appendix C). These items were deleted because they were not associated with a work environment but more related to private situations. Two examples of items are ‘How often were you (in the last month) in need of someone you can count on to listen to you when you need to talk?’ and ‘How often were you (in the last month) in need of someone to give you good advice about a crisis?’ (α = .94).
Prevention Focus.
15 the chronic regulatory focus of individuals. Example items are ‘I am more oriented toward preventing losses than I am toward achieving gains’ and ‘My major goal at work right now is to avoid becoming a failure’ (α = .83).
Control variables
The control variables used in this survey were gender (male; female) and age (in years) (e.g. Ng & Feldman, 2010; Warr, 1992; Wu, Luksyte, & Parker, 2015). These variables were included in the analysis in order to test if they influence the main variables and to rule out alternative explanations. Research suggests that basic demographic variables such as age and gender influence stress (Ng & Feldman, 2010; Warr, 1992; Wu, Luksyte, & Parker, 2015). Warr (1992) found that age is negatively related to stress.
In addition, to test whether extraversion influences stress and gossip, the Big Five measure (Donnellan et al., 2006) was used. By using this measure, all the dimensions of the Big Five (e.g. Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness and Neuroticism) were taken into account. The Big Five measure consisted of 20 items. The expectation that the Big Five measures influence the results, is based on the study of McCrae and John (1992). They found that people with a higher score on extraversion are likely to be more sociable, talkative and outgoing. Besides, Choi et al. (2015) mention that highly extraverted people are more likely to seek and maintain social networks. Therefore, it is expected that people that score high on extraversion will engage in gossip more frequently. Four items related to the dimensions of the Big Five contained a rather high internal reliability, namely extraversion (α = .85), Agreeableness (α = .64), Conscientiousness (α = .70), and Neuroticism (α = .76). Openness (α = .48)1 was the only dimension of the Big Five that contained a low internal reliability. Next, example items are given for each dimension of the Big Five: ‘I talk to a lot of different people at parties.’ (Extraversion); ‘I sympathize with others' feelings.’ (Agreeableness); ‘I like order.’
1 Opennes is not a really important variable in this research. Therefore, we decided to leave the low internal
16 (Conscientiousness); ‘I get upset easily.’ (Neuroticism); ‘I have a vivid imagination.’ (Openness).
Furthermore, autonomy at work was included as a control variable by using the Maastrichtse Autonomie Lijst (De Jonge, Landeweerd, & van Breukelen, 1994). According to Maslach, Schafeli and Leiter (2001), a lack of autonomy leads to a decrease in personal accomplishment. In order to deal with this feeling that can be viewed as a threat, individuals might engage in a gossip relation. Therefore, autonomy was added because it is expected that individuals who perceive a certain lack of autonomy at work will engage in gossip more often (α = .85). The autonomy scale consisted of 10 items. Example items are: ‘I have the option to determine the work objectives myself’ and ‘I have the option to decide for myself which work tasks I perform’.
RESULTS Preliminary Analysis
17 normally distributed data. However, results obtained from these analyses and conclusions drawn from both types of data, did not differ significantly. Hence, we report results with raw and unaltered data.
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics on the means, standard deviations and correlations of all variables. Contrary to hypothesis 1, work stress is not associated with workplace gossip2. The different workplace gossip measures, such as positive workplace gossip supervisor (r = .05, p =.55), and positive workplace gossip coworker (r = .05, p =.49), negative workplace
gossip supervisor (r = .10, p =.19) and negative workplace gossip coworker (r = .05, p =.53),
did not provide significant support for the hypothesis that work stress is associated with workplace gossip. However, hypothesis 1 also included the mediation effect of social support between work stress and gossip. The results showed that work stress is marginally significant related to the need for social support (r = .15, p =.05), meaning that an increase in feelings of work stress is associated with an increase in an individuals need for social support. Moreover, the need for social support is positively associated with positive workplace gossip supervisor (r = .22, p =.00), positive workplace gossip coworker (r = .27, p =.00), negative workplace gossip
coworker (r = .24, p =.00). This means that a higher need for social support increases the
participation in positive workplace gossip about the supervisor, as well as positive and negative workplace gossip about coworkers.
In this study it is found that age is negatively associated with engagement in positive workplace gossip (r = -.18, p = .01) and negative workplace gossip (r = -.21, p = .00). Furthermore, results revealed that the level of autonomy is significantly related to work stress (r = -.25, p = .00) and to positive workplace gossip coworker (r = .23 p = .00). This means that a higher level of autonomy results in lower feelings of work stress. It was also found that
2 The insignificant result of the relationship between stress and workplace gossip is tested by using a combined
18 extraversion is associated with positive workplace gossip coworker (r = .15, p = .04). Thus, individuals who score high on extraversion are more likely to engage in positive workplace gossip about coworkers. Furthermore, negative workplace gossip supervisor is significantly related to conscientiousness (r = -.18, p = .01) which suggests that higher levels of conscientiousness relate to lower levels of negative workplace gossip about a supervisor. Moreover, higher levels of neuroticism (r = .28, p =.00) are significantly related to a higher level of negative workplace gossip about a supervisor. These results indicate that individuals who score high on neuroticism are more likely to engage in negative workplace gossip about the supervisor.
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Inter-correlations Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1. Age 36.46 13.35 1 2. Gender 1.64 .48 -.08 1 3. Autonomy 3.52 .77 .04 -.05 1 4. Extraversion 3.32 .92 -.24** -.12 .09 1 5. Agreeableness 4.13 .62 -.10 .29** -.08 .13 1 6. Conscientiousness 3.95 .72 .09 .07 .14 -.16* -.06* 1 7. Neuroticism 2.31 .81 -.24** .23** -.20** -.12 .10 -.13 1 8. Openness 3.75 .67 -.02 -.07 .10 .18* .24** .00 -.12 1 9. Promotion Focus 3.56 .69 -.45** .02 .12 .23** .23** -.06 .11 .21** 1 10. Prevention Focus 2.34 .72 -.29** .09 -.16* -.18* -.03 -.13 .50** -.20** .25** 1
11. Need for social
support 3.49 1.40 -.33** .20** -.05 .09 .23** .01 .23** .10 .25** .18* 1 12. Work stress 3.09 .93 .01 -.07 -.25** -.10 .24** .01 .21** .01 .06 .30** .14 1 13. PWGS 2.69 1.04 -.11 -.17* .12 .14 -.01 -.14 -.03 .07 .18* -.04 .22** .05 1 14. PWGC 3.38 1.17 -.08 -.03 .23** .15** .14 -.13 .04 .12 .24** -.06 .27** .05 .59** 1 15. NWGS 1.79 .84 -.15 -.04 .02 .07 .10 -.18* .28** -.01 .15 .17* .13 .10 .23** .35** 1 16. NWGC 1.13 1.11 -.14 -.09 .01 -.05 .02 -.03 .04 -.02 .12 .04 .24** .05 .34** .36** .48** 1
20 Main Analysis
In order to test our predictions, a regression analysis was conducted by using the ‘Hayes process macro’ (Hayes, 2013). To test our hypothesis, we used moderated mediation analysis using standardized predictor variables. The predicted conceptual model is tested by using model number 7 of PROCESS in SPSS including 5000 bootstrap resamples.
The regression analysis is conducted four times because there are four groups of workplace gossip3; positive workplace gossip supervisor (table 2), positive workplace gossip
coworker (table 3), negative workplace gossip supervisor (table 4) and negative workplace gossip coworker (table 5). The results of the four analyses are shown below. In the regression
analysis the four groups of gossip were entered as dependent variables, need for social support as the mediator, work stress as independent variable and prevention focus4 as first stage moderator. The variables age, gender, autonomy, extraversion, conscientiousness and neuroticism were entered as control variables.
Positive workplace gossip supervisor
The first regression analysis is performed with the variable positive workplace gossip supervisor. The first hypothesis predicted that the relationship between stress and workplace gossip is mediated by the need for social support. The results of the analysis revealed marginally significant support for this indirect effect on positive workplace gossip supervisor. Moreover, we did find significant support for the interaction effect with work stress and prevention focus (B = -.19, SE = .08, p = .01) on the need for social support. Hence, the pattern of the interaction effect is contrary to what we expected in hypothesis 2, such that the effect of stress on the need for social support is stronger under low prevention focus rather than under high prevention
3 The regression analysis is also conducted with the combined version of workplace gossip, a combined version of
positive workplace gossip and a combined version of negative workplace gossip. However, these results did not show differences and are therefore excluded in this section.
4 The regression analysis is also conducted with promotion focus as moderator. However, these results did not
21 focus. The results of the regression analysis reveal that age (B = -.03, SE = .01, p = .00) and gender (B = .48, SE = .15, p = .00) are significantly related to the need for social support. Furthermore, the need for social support is significantly related to positive workplace gossip supervisor (B = .22, SE = .09, p = .01), meaning that positive workplace gossip supervisor is positively related to the need for social support.
22 Table 2: Regression Results for Moderated mediation effect analysis with pwgs
Dependent variable Social support
Variables Coefficient (SE) t p CI[..]
Stress .18 (.08) 2.31 .02* [.03;.33]
Prevention focus .03 (.09) .30 .76 [-.14;.20]
Interaction Stress x Prevention focus -.19 (.08) -2.47 .01* [-.34;-.04] Control Variables Age -.03 (.01) -4.18 .00** [-.04;-.01] Gender .48 (.15) 3.12 .00** [.18;.78] Autonomy .04 (.08) .48 .63 [-.11;.19] Extraversion .08 (.08) .98 .33 [-.08;.23] Conscientiousness .03 (.08) .35 .72 [-.12;.18] Neuroticism .05 (.08) .60 .55 [-.11;.21] R2 change .26 Dependent variable Pwgs
Variables Coefficient (SE) t p CI[..]
Social support .22 (.09) 2.57 .01* [.05;.39] Stress .10 (.08) 1.23 .22 [-.06;.27] Control Variables Age -.00 (.01) -.57 .57 [-.02;.01] Gender -.38 (.17) -2.17 .03* [-.72;-.03] Autonomy .19 (.08) 2.26 .03* [.02;.36] Extraversion .05 (.08) .60 .55 [-.12;.22] Conscientiousness -.18 (.08) -2.20 .03* [-.34;-.02] Neuroticism -.05 (.08) -.60 .55 [-.22;.12]
Conditional indirect effect
Effect moderation low .09 [.01;.18]
Effect moderation moderate .04 [-.00;.10]
Effect moderation high -.01 [-.07;.05]
Notes. N = 166. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients; standard error estimates are in parentheses. +p < .10, *p <
.05, **p < .01. Gender is labelled as female (2) and male (1). Pwgs = positive workplace gossip supervisor
Positive workplace gossip coworker
23 of stress on the need for social support is stronger under low prevention focus rather than under high prevention focus. The results of the regression analysis reveal that age (B = -.02, SE = .01,
p = .00) and gender (B = .38, SE = .15, p = .01) are significantly related to the need for social
support. Furthermore, the need for social support is significantly related to positive workplace gossip coworker (B = .32, SE = .09, p = .00) meaning that positive workplace gossip coworker is positively related to the need for social support.
24 Table 3: Regression Results for Moderated mediation effect analysis with pwgc
Dependent variable Social support
Variables Coefficient (SE) t p CI[..]
Stress .14 (.08) 1.90 .06+ [-.01;.29]
Prevention focus .04 (.08) .49 .62 [-.12;.21]
Interaction Stress x Prevention focus -.13 (.07) -1.77 .08+ [-.28;.02] Control Variables Age -.02 (.01) -3.75 .00** [-.03;-.01] Gender .38 (.15) 2.57 .01* [.09;.66] Autonomy .04 (.07) .58 .56 [-.10;.18] Extraversion .08 (.07) 1.14 .25 [-.06;.23] Conscientiousness .03 (.07) .46 .64 [-.11;.18] Neuroticism .10 (.08) 1.30 .20 [-.05;.26] R2 .21 Dependent variable Pwgc
Variables Coefficient (SE) t p CI[..]
Social support .32 (.09) 3.64 .00** [.15;.49] Stress .09 (.09) 1.05 .30 [-.08;.26] Control Variables Age .00 (.01) .22 .82 [-.01;.01] Gender -.19 (.17) -1.12 .26 [-.54;.15] Autonomy .30 (.08) 3.61 .00** [.14;.46] Extraversion .08 (.08) .92 .36 [-.09;.24] Conscientiousness -.17 (.08) -2.00 .05+ [-.33;-.00] Neuroticism -.00 (.09) -.02 .99 [-.17;.17]
Conditional indirect effect
Effect moderation low .09 [.02;.18]
Effect moderation moderate .05 [-.00;.11]
Effect moderation high .00 [-.06;.08]
Notes. N = 187. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients; standard error estimates are in parentheses. +p < .10, *p <
.05, **p < .01. Gender is labelled as female (2) and male (1). Pwgc = positive workplace gossip coworker
Negative workplace gossip supervisor
25 need for social support is stronger under low prevention focus rather than under high prevention focus. The results of the regression analysis reveal that age (B = -.03, SE = .01, p = .00) and gender (B = .48, SE = .15, p = .00) are significantly related to the need for social support.
26 Table 4: Regression Results for Moderated mediation effect analysis with nwgs
Dependent variable Social support
Variables Coefficient (SE) t p CI[..]
Stress .18 (.08) 2.31 .02* [-.03;.33]
Prevention focus .03 (.09) .30 .76 [-.14;.20]
Interaction Stress x Prevention focus -.19 (.08) -2.47 .01* [-.34;-.04] Control Variables Age -.03 (.01) -4.18 .00** [-.04;-.01] Gender .48 (.15) 3.12 .00** [.18;.78] Autonomy .04 (.08) .48 .63 [-.11;.19] Extraversion .08 (.08) .98 .33 [-.08;.23] Conscientiousness .03 (.08) .35 .72 [-.12;.18] Neuroticism .05 (.08) .60 .55 [-.11;.21] R2 .26 Dependent variable Nwgs
Variables Coefficient (SE) t p CI[..]
Social support .06 (.07) .90 .37 [-.08;.21] Stress .03 (.07) .49 .63 [-.10;.17] Control Variables Age -.00 (.01) -.56 .58 [-.01;.01] Gender -.18 (.14) -1.23 .23 [-.46;.11] Autonomy .08 (.07) 1.16 .25 [-.06;.22] Extraversion .02 (.07) .28 .78 [-.12;.16] Conscientiousness -.11 (.07) -1.58 .12 [-.24;.03] Neuroticism .21 (.07) 2.94 .00** [-.07;.35]
Conditional indirect effect
Effect moderation low .02 [-.03;.09]
Effect moderation moderate .01 [-.01;.05]
Effect moderation high -.00 [-.03;.02]
Notes. N = 166. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients; standard error estimates are in parentheses. +p < .10, *p <
.05, **p < .01. Gender is labelled as female (2) and male (1). Nwgs = negative workplace gossip supervisor
Negative workplace gossip coworker
27 the effect of stress on the need for social support is stronger under low prevention focus rather than under high prevention focus. The results of the regression analysis reveal that age (B = -.02, SE = .01, p = .00) and gender (B = .38, SE = .15, p = .01) are significantly related to the need for social support. Furthermore, the need for social support is significantly related to negative workplace gossip coworker (B = .29, SE = .09, p = .00), meaning that negative workplace gossip coworker is positively associated with the need for social support.
28 Table 5: Regression Results for Moderated mediation effect analysis with nwgc
Dependent variable Social support
Variables Coefficient (SE) t p CI[..]
Stress .14 (.08) 1.90 .06+ [-.01;.29]
Prevention focus .04 (.08) .49 .62 [-.12;.21]
Interaction Stress x Prevention focus -.13 (.07) -1.77 .08+ [-.28;.02] Control Variables Age -.02 (.01) -3.75 .00** [-.03;-.01] Gender .38 (.15) 2.57 .01* [.09;.66] Autonomy .04 (.07) .58 .56 [-.10;.18] Extraversion .08 (.07) 1.14 .25 [-.06;.23] Conscientiousness .03 (.07) .46 .64 [-.11;.18] Neuroticism .10 (.08) 1.30 .20 [-.05;.26] R2 .21 Dependent variable Nwgc
Variables Coefficient (SE) t p CI[..]
Social support .29 (.09) 3.22 .00** [.11;.46] Stress .01 (.09) .06 .95 [-.17;.18] Control Variables Age -.01 (.01) -1.24 .22 [-.02;.01] Gender -.35 (.18) -1.99 .05+ [-.70;-.00] Autonomy .03 (.08) .37 .72 [-.14;.20] Extraversion -.14 (.09) -1.65 .10 [-.31;.03] Conscientiousness -.06 (.09) -.67 .50 [-.23;.11] Neuroticism -.03 (.09) -.37 .71 [-.21;.14]
Conditional indirect effect
Effect moderation low .08 [.02;.17]
Effect moderation moderate .04 [-.00;.10]
Effect moderation high .00 [-.07;.07]
Notes. N = 187. Values are unstandardized regression coefficients; standard error estimates are in parentheses. +p < .10, *p <
.05, **p < .01. Gender is labelled as female (2) and male (1). Nwgc = negative workplace gossip coworker
In sum, the first hypothesis predicted that the relation between work stress and gossip is mediated by the need for social support. Three of the four regression analyses performed, provide evidence for this indirect effect of work stress on gossip. More specifically, only three particular variables of gossip are significantly related to the need for social support, namely positive workplace gossip supervisor, positive workplace gossip coworker and negative workplace gossip coworker.
29 pattern of these interaction effects are contrary from what we expected in hypothesis 2, such that the effect of stress on the need for social support is stronger under low prevention focus rather than under high prevention focus. In other words, only individuals who score low on prevention focus perceive higher levels of stress that in result is associated with an increase in the need for social support. Below, the graphical representation of the moderation model and the interaction effect with positive workplace gossip supervisor is shown (see figure 2). The interaction effect of the analysis for workplace gossip supervisor (positive and negative) and workplace gossip coworker (positive and negative) differ due to the fact that the number of respondents for workplace gossip supervisor is lower. However, the results did not vary much, so only one interaction effect is shown.
Figure 2: Graphical representation of moderation effect
Additionally, with regard to the control variables, there are several significant relations found. First, individuals who perceive high levels of autonomy within their job are more likely to participate in positive workplace gossip about their supervisor and their coworker. Second, individuals that score high on conscientiousness are less likely to engage in positive workplace
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Low Work stress High Work stress
30 gossip about their supervisor and their coworker. Third, people that score high on neuroticism are more likely to engage in negative workplace gossip about their supervisor
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to investigate the relation between work stress and workplace gossip. The main focus of this research was to examine whether the need for social support mediates the relation between stress and workplace gossip. The expectation was that the more one perceives feelings of stress, the more one has the need to create a social bond in order to receive social support that will be obtained by engaging in gossip. Additionally, we proposed that an individual’s regulatory focus influences the relation between stress and the need for social support which in the end would lead to an increase in gossip. Therefore, it was expected that individuals who score high on prevention focus would have a higher need for social support when they experience stress. Hypotheses were tested by using a cross-sectional self-report survey among 195 employees working in various organizations.
31 stress and need for social support, however, this relation is contrary to what we expected. This study revealed that the effect of stress on the need for social support is stronger for individuals scoring low on prevention focus rather than individuals who score high on prevention focus. Thus, individuals who score low on prevention focus have a higher need for social support when they experience stress. In addition, this research revealed that individuals who perceive high levels of autonomy within their job are more likely to participate in positive workplace gossip about the supervisor and the coworker. With regard to personality traits, this research shows that individuals that score high on conscientiousness are less likely to engage in positive workplace gossip about the supervisor and the coworker. Moreover, people that score high on neuroticism are more likely to engage in negative workplace gossip about the supervisor.
One particular finding suggests that the relation between stress and gossip is not mediated by the need for social support when looking at one specific type of gossip, namely negative workplace gossip about the supervisor. This finding might be affected by a ‘floor effect’, meaning that the variance of this variable is low and that a large amount of the scores of participants is concentrated at or near the limit (Lewis-Beck, Bryman, & Liao, 2003).
32 Another reason to explain the contrary interaction effect might be that seeking social support is a constructive way of dealing with stress. Individuals that score high on prevention focus are more likely to prefer strategies that avoid negative outcomes. They may also be afraid that seeking social support will harm them even more. Therefore, it would not be very likely that an individual that scores high on prevention focus would seek support or ask for advice.
Previous research conducted by Maslach, Schaufeli and Leiter (2001), suggests that a lack of autonomy might lead to a decrease in personal accomplishment. We proposed that individuals try to deal with this feeling of a threat, as result of the perceived lack of autonomy, by engaging in workplace gossip. However, present research elaborates on this because results revealed that the higher the level of autonomy the more likely it is that individuals will participate in a gossip relationship and more specific in a positive workplace gossip about the supervisor or coworker. In other words, perceiving autonomy at work may lead to an increase in workplace gossip. This might be the result of the different functions of gossip. Autonomous employees may pursue their own goals and feel personally responsible for the outcomes of their behavior. An individual who perceives a high level of autonomy might have the need to reflect on one’s own ideas, thoughts and behavior due to the feeling of responsibility. Gossip is a way to gain and create self-evaluation (Grosser, LopezKidwell, & Labianca, 2010). Thus, in order to create an opportunity for self-reflection, employees who perceive autonomy might engage in positive workplace gossip. In addition, this research also revealed another positive effect of higher level of autonomy, namely that it results in lower feelings of work stress.
Theoretical Implications
33 supervisor/coworker). The results of this research elaborate on research of Waddington and Fletcher (2005) by introducing the role of the need for social support as a mediator between stress and workplace gossip and by providing evidence for this mediating relationship. Therefore, by meaning of this research, we provide a better understanding about the reason why stress leads to gossip.
Furthermore, our research offers a new perspective on stress and gossip by adding the role of regulatory focus to the literature. Our research provides evidence for the interaction effect of work stress and prevention focus on the need for social support. However, the results of the interaction effect are contrary to what we expected. The results showed that individuals that score low on prevention focus have a higher need for social support when they experience stress at work. This may be a consequence of the source of stress. Specific stressors may lead to an increase in the need for social support for individuals who are low on prevention focus. For instance, stress that may rise as result of a high workload or due to a period of change. Difonzo and Bordia (2007) predicted that in times of change, ambiguity and uncertainty grow. Prevention focused individuals want to avoid and prevent negative outcomes such as ambiguity and uncertainty. As result, it is likely that during times of change in which ambiguity and uncertainty occurs, individuals low on prevention focus may seek a way to prevent these events. In order to tackle their feelings of uncertainty and to tackle ambiguity they seek for social support. Therefore, our research provide insights for literature about stress and regulatory focus. Practical Implications
34 This research provides evidence that individuals who experience stress have a higher need for social support. Managers should focus on ways in which employees can gain social support within the organization, because it is one way to deal with feeling of stress. To provide a network of social support may help to decrease feelings of stress and threats. The organizational climate, associated with the structure of an organization are important determinants of the way how social support within the organization is provided (Marek, Schaufeli, & Maslach, 2017). Creating a work environment in which social support is encouraged and provided may be beneficial for the organization. However, it is unlikely that stress and workplace gossip will be fully eliminated. Organizations could build a supportive environment at work which is necessary to enhance social support. During training sessions, managers or trainers may encourage their employees to be supportive and sensitive to the need of others instead of harming them (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006; Schreurs et al., 2012). Furthermore, organizations could stimulate employees to work together in teams which could help them in building social support networks (Henttonen, Johanson, & Janhonen, 2014).
Our results showed that individuals who experience more autonomy at work, are more likely to engage in positive workplace gossip about the supervisor and coworker. Furthermore, we also found that more autonomy leads to lower work stress. Thus, it could be very beneficial for organizations to focus on creating a higher level of autonomy among employees. Managers could support autonomy by implementing practices such as flexible job tasks and hours or by enhancing opportunities for employees to participate in decision making (Chen et al., 2017). By providing these practices, employees may have the feeling that they have more sense of control over their work.
35 is likely that during periods of change, feelings of stress rise which in result lead to a need for social support and gossip behavior. Organizations could counteract these consequences by removing uncertainty and ambiguity. For example by building effective channels for information exchange (Wu, Luksyte, & Parker, 2015) or by clear communication about goals during organizational change (Mills, 2010)
Limitations and Future Research
This research contains certain limitations that might have influenced the results or the interpretation of these results. Therefore, future research is needed in order to confirm whether the results of this research can be replicated. First of all, results are possibly influenced by the sensitivity of the topic gossip. Participants may have answered the questions to some extent in a desirable way. We took this into account in the beginning by choosing to ask about the frequency that certain social interactions occur despite of asking about the frequency of gossip behavior. However, it is possible that participants still were not completely honest about their actual gossip behavior. An individual might not be truly honest in answering the questions about how frequently he/she criticizes his/her coworker. Moreover, an individual might even rate their frequency performing positive gossip higher than it actually is, because this might seem to be the desirable answer.
36 their own behavior, it is more likely that socially desirable answers are given (Nauta & Kluwer, 2004). As a consequence, it leads to constraints by drawing causal relationships.
Third, this research only takes one part of the gossip triad into account, namely the gossiper. Other parties of the gossip triad (listener/respondent and target) were not taken into account in this research (Michelson, Van Iterson, & Waddington, 2010). Future research might also take the other parties into account in order to review the consequences of the gossip told as result of stress and the need for social support. It is important to investigate the effects of the gossip on the listener, because he/she will provide social support to the gossiper by listening to the gossip. However, we do not know how this influences the listener. This may lead to more stress for the listener and therefore an ongoing circle can occur as result of listening to the gossip that may increase feelings of stress and in turn again lead to a need for social support. Moreover, Beehr, Bowling and Bennett (2010) even predicted that individuals might even focus more on their perceived stress as result of interactions with others. This may also suggest the existence of an ongoing circle. However, our data did not show support for the effect of workplace gossip on an increase in feelings of stress. Due to the fact that our data revealed that stress mediated by the need for social support could lead to an increase in both, positive and negative workplace gossip. Whereas, especially negative workplace gossip is suspected to have a negative influence on feelings of stress (Grosser, Kidwell, & Labianca, 2012).
37 help to enhance the understanding of the relationship between stress and workplace gossip, mediated by the need for social support.
Fifth, another limitation emerges from the sample size of this study. In total, 195 respondents participated in this research. However, this could be seen as a rather small sample. A small sample size might influence the generalizability of the results. Future research could use a larger range of participants and a more diversified sample (e.g. other cultures) in order to investigate this subject. This may improve the generalizability of the results.
Lastly, the source of stress might influence an individuals need for social support and in the end in the participation in gossip. In this research work stress is measured by using a four-item scale (Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986). However, this scale does not include sources of stress, such as stress within specific companies or branches or stress as result of the fact that an organization is in a transition phase. Stress, caused by perceiving ambiguity in information, may lead to a higher need for social support and in turn to gossip. Research showed that especially during periods of organizational change an increase in negative gossip occurs (Houmanfar & Johnson, 2004). This is the result of uncertainty and ambiguity that rise due to situations of change (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007). In order to fill the lack of information and to compensate shortcomings with regard to formal communication, participation in gossip increases. Uncertainty and ambiguity may also be determinants that trigger stress and in turn the need for social support. Therefore, a broad measure of work stress that includes the sources of stress, may give better insights in the relation between stress and gossip, mediated by the need for social support.
Conclusion
38 role of prevention focus is added to explore for whom feelings of stress lead to an increase in the need for social support and in turn in an increase in participation in gossip. The present research shows that stress at work is associated with an increase in the need for social support which in turn enhances the engagement in gossip behavior. Moreover, our study revealed that the individual’s regulatory focus influences the relation between stress and the need for social support, such that the need for social support only increases for individuals who score low on prevention focus when they experience stress. However, further research is recommended in order to obtain a better understanding of these effects.
REFERENCES
Avolio, B. J., Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. Journal of
Management, 17(3), 571-587.
Beehr, T. A. (1995). Psychological Stress in the Workplace, Routledge, London.
Beehr, T. A., Bowling, N. A., & Bennett, M. M. (2010). Occupational stress and failures of social support: when helping hurts. Journal of occupational health psychology, 15(1), 45.
Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., & Murray, M. A. (2000). Work stressors and coworker support as predictors of individual strain and job performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21(4), 391-405.
Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2011). How the grapevine keeps you in line: Gossip increases contributions to the group. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 2, 642-649. Bosson, J. K., Johnson, A. B., Niederhoffer, K., & Swann, W. B. Jr. (2006). Interpersonal
chemistry through negativity: Bonding by sharing negative attitudes about others.
39 Brady, D., Brown, D., & Liang, L. (2017). Moving beyond assumptions of deviance: The reconceptualization and measurement of workplace gossip. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 102(1), 1-25.
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 86(1), 35-66.
Burt, R. S. (2008). Gossip and reputation. In M. Lecoutre & P. Lièvre (Eds.), Management Et Réseaux Sociaux: Ressource Pour L’action Ou Outil de Gestion? (27-42). Paris, France: Hermès Science.
Chen, M., Lyu, Y., Li, Y., Zhou, X., & Li, W. (2017). The impact of high-commitment HR practices on hotel employees’ proactive customer service performance. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly, 58(1), 94–107.
Choi, D., Oh, I. S., & Colbert, A. E. (2015). Understanding organizational commitment: A meta-analytic examination of the roles of the five-factor model of personality and culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1542.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). 'Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis',
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357
DiFonzo, N. & Bordia, P. (2007). Rumor, gossip and urban legends. Diogenes, 54, 19-35. Dimsdale, J. E. (2008). Psychological stress and cardiovascular disease. Journal of the
American College of Cardiology, 51(13), 1237-1246.
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological
assessment, 18(2), 192.
40 Eder, D., & Enke, J. L. (1991). The structure of gossip: Opportunities and constraints on collective expression among adolescents. American Sociological Review, 56, 494– 508.
Emler, N. (1994). Gossip, reputation, and social adaptation. In R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good gossip (117–138). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
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, 102, 1015-1030.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London, UK: Sage.
Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions. Review
of General Psychology, 8, 78-99.
Grosser, T. J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., & Labianca, G. (2010). A social network analysis of positive and negative gossip in organizational life. Group & Organization
Management, 35(2), 177-212.
Haggerty, R. J. (1980). Life stress, illness and social supports. Developmental Medicine &
Child Neurology, 22(3), 391-400.
Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Henttonen, K., Johanson, J-E., & Janhonen, M. 2014. Work-team bonding and bridging social networks, team identity and performance effectiveness. Personnel Review, 43(3): 330-349. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. Higgins, E. T. (1998) Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle.
Advances in experimental social psychology, 30, 1–46
41 Houmanfar, R., & Johnson, R. (2004). Organizational implications of gossip and rumor.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 23(2-3), 117-138.
House, J. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Johnson, R. E., Chang, C. H., & Yang, L. Q. (2010). Commitment and motivation at work: The relevance of employee identity and regulatory focus. Academy of management review,
35(2), 226-245.
Jonge, J. D., Landeweerd, J. A., & Breukelen, G. V. (1994). De Maastrichtse Autonomielijst: achtergrond, constructie en validering. Gedrag en organisatie, 7(1), 27-41.
Kniffin, K. M., & Wilson, D. S. (2005). Utilities of gossip across organizational levels. Human
Nature, 16, 278-292.
Krantz, D. , Grunberg, N., & Baum, A. (1985). Health psychology. Annual Review of
Psychology, 36, 349-383.
Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Tory Higgins, E. (2007). Regulatory mode and preferred leadership styles: How fit increases job satisfaction. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 29(2), pp. 137–149
Kuiper, N. A., Martin, R. A., & Olinger, L. J. (1993). Coping humour, stress, and cognitive appraisals. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences
du comportement, 25(1), 81.
Lazarus, R.S, & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal and coping. New York: Springer. Lefcourt, H. M., Davidson, K., Shepherd, R., Phillips, M., Prkachin, K., & Mills, D. (1995).
Perspective-taking humor: Accounting for stress moderation. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 14(4), 373-391.
Levin, J., & Arluke, A. (1985). An exploratory analysis of sex differences in gossip. Sex
42 Lewis-Beck, M., Bryman, A. E., & Liao, T. F. (2003). The Sage encyclopedia of social science
research methods. Sage Publications.
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 83(4), 854.
Marek, T., Schaufeli, W. B., & Maslach, C. (2017). Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research. Routledge.
Markovits, Y., Ullrich, J., van Dick, R., & Davis, A.J. (2008). Differential relations between regulatory foci and components of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 485–505.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of
psychology, 52(1), 397-422.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five‐factor model and its applications. Journal of personality, 60(2), 175-215.
Michelson, G., Van Iterson, A., & Waddington, K. (2010). Gossip in organizations: Contexts, consequences and controversies. Group & Organization Management, 3, 371-390. Mills, C. (2010). Experiencing gossip: The foundations for a theory of embedded organizational
gossip. Group & Organization Management, 35, 213-240.
Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: its causes and consequences for job performance. Journal of applied psychology, 71(4), 618.
Nauta, A., & Kluwer, E. (2004). The use of questionnaires in conflict research. International
Negotiation, 9(3), 457-470.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). The relationships of age with job attitudes: a meta analysis. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 677-718.
43 biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Refining individualized consideration: Distinguishing developmental leadership and supportive leadership. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 79(1), 37–61.
Sabini, J., & Silver, M. (1982). Moralities of everyday life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schepers, J., de Jong, A., Wetzels, M., & de Ruyter, K. (2008). Psychological safety and social support in groupware adoption: A multi-level assessment in education. Computers &
Education, 51(2), 757-775.
Schreurs, B., van Emmerik, I.J.H., Guenter, H., & Germeys, F. (2012). A weekly diary study on the buffering role of social support in the relationship between job insecurity and employee performance. Human Resource Management, 51, 259-280.
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591-611.
Sherbourne, C. D., & Stewart, A. L. (1991). The MOS social support survey. Social science &
medicine, 32(6), 705-714.
Sommerfeld, R. D., Krambeck, H., Semmann, D., & Milinski, M. (2007). Gossip as an alternative for direct observation in games of indirect reciprocity. PNAS: Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 17435-17440.
TNO. (2015). Werkstress, burn-out & verzuim in cijfers. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/publicaties/2015/11/16/werkstress-burn-out-en-verzuim-in-cijfers. Posted on:16-11- 2015
44 Warr, P. (1992). Age and occupational well-being. Psychology and aging, 7(1), 37-45.
Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A social comparison account of gossip. Review of General
Psychology, 8(2), 122.
Wu, C. H., Luksyte, A., & Parker, S. K. (2015). Overqualification and subjective well-being at work: The moderating role of job autonomy and culture. Social Indicators Research,
121(3), 917-937.
Zimbardo, P., Weber, A., & Johnson, R. (2003). Psychology: Core concepts (4thed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Factor analysis/Principal component analysis
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
1. PWGS15 .839 .162 .142 .094 2. PWGS2 .831 .192 .160 .077 3. PWGS3 .695 .324 .144 .142 4. PWGS4 .782 .336 .167 .012 5. PWGS5 .819 .220 .017 .002 6. NWGS6 .199 .138 .191 .742 7. NWGS7 -.133 .147 .154 .791 8. NWGS8 -.014 .166 .224 .857 9. NWGS9 .155 .141 .213 .797 10. NWGS10 .082 -.012 .109 .645 11. PWGC1 .327 .811 .154 .072 12. PWGC2 .254 .853 .212 .127 13. PWGC3 .321 .675 .259 .158 14. PWGC4 .185 .883 .147 .021 15. PWGC5 .244 .692 -.025 .267 16. NWGC6 .104 .297 .736 .147
45 17. NWGC7 .100 .188 .819 .141 18. NWGC8 .136 .109 .856 .222 19. NWGC9 .113 .178 .848 .200 20. NWGC10 .199 -.139 .668 .385 Total 7.775 3.201 1.785 1.576 Initial Eigenvalues % of Variance 38.87 16.01 8.93 7.88
Appendix B: Workplace gossip scale
Items in Scales: Workplace Gossip Scale, (Brady et al., 2017)
INSTRUCTIONS: The following questions are about workplace conversations in which you talked about your supervisor when he/she was not present to hear what was said. In the last month, how often have you…
INSTRUCTIE: De volgende vragen gaan over gesprekken op het werk waarin u over uw leidinggevende sprak terwijl hij/zij niet aanwezig was om te horen wat er gezegd werd. Hoe vaak heeft u de afgelopen maand …
Positive WG About a Supervisor (PWGS)
(PWGS1) Complimented your supervisor’s actions while talking to a work colleague
(PWGS1) Complimenten gaf voor de acties van uw leidinggevende terwijl u met een collega aan het praten was
(PWGS2) Told a work colleague good things about your supervisor (PWGS2) Een collega goede dingen over uw leidinggevende verteld
46 (PWGS4) Said something nice about your supervisor while talking to a work colleague (PWGS4) Iets aardigs gezegd over uw leidinggevende terwijl u met een collega sprak (PWGS5) Told a work colleague that you respect your supervisor
(PWGS5) Een collega verteld dat u uw leidinggevende respecteert
Negative WG About a Supervisor (NWGS)
(NWGS6) Asked a work colleague if they have a negative impression of something that your supervisor has done
(NWGS6) Een collega gevraagd of hij/zij een negatieve indruk had van iets dat uw leidinggevende heeft gedaan
(NWGS7) Questioned your supervisor’s abilities while talking to a work colleague
(NWGS7) Twijfelde aan de capaciteiten van uw leidinggevende terwijl u met een collega sprak (NWGS8) Criticized your supervisor while talking to a work colleague
(NWGS8) Kritiek uitte op uw leidinggevende terwijl u met een collega sprak
(NWGS9) Vented to a work colleague about something that your supervisor has done (NWGS9) Geventileerd bij uw collega over iets dat uw leidinggevende heeft gedaan
(NWGS10) Told an unflattering story about your supervisor while talking to a work colleague (NWGS10) Een onflatteus verhaal over uw leidinggevende verteld terwijl u met een collega sprak
47 INSTRUCTIE: De volgende vragen gaan gesprekken op het werk waarin u over uw collega sprak toen hij/zij niet aanwezig was om te horen wat er gezegd werd. De collega kan elke collega zijn die niet uw leidinggevende is. Hoe vaak heb je de afgelopen maand …
Positive WG About Co-workers (PWGC)
(PWGC1) Complimented a co-worker’s actions while talking to another work colleague (PWGC1) Complimenten gaf voor de acties van een collega terwijl u met een andere collega aan het praten was
(PWGC2) Told a work colleague good things about another co-worker (PWGC2) Een collega goede dingen over een andere collega verteld
(PWGC3) Defended a co-worker's actions while talking to another work colleague (PWGC3) Verdedigde de acties van een collega terwijl u met een andere collega sprak (PWGC4) Said something nice about a co-worker while talking to another work colleague (PWGC4) Iets aardigs gezegd over een collega terwijl u met een andere collega sprak (PWGC5) Told a work colleague that you respect another co-worker
(PWGC5) Een collega verteld dat u een andere collega respecteert
Negative WG About Co-workers (NWGC)
(NWGC6) Asked a work colleague if they have a negative impression of something that another co-worker has done
(NWGC6) Een collega gevraagd of hij/zij een negatieve indruk had van iets dat een andere collega heeft gedaan
(NWGC7) Questioned a co-worker’s abilities while talking to another work colleague
