Gossip is power but not for all: the role of self-construal in gossip behavior as power enhancing mechanism

(1)

University of Groningen

Groningen 2015

Gossip is power but not for all: the role

of self-construal in gossip behavior as

power enhancing mechanism

MSc Human Resource Management

Master thesis

(2)

1

This research extends previous studies on the relation between gossip and power. It examines whether control motive is a main driver for powerless people to gossip and if this relationship changes when a person’s self-construal is independent or interdependent. In an experimental setting with N = 102 students I tested my hypotheses. Specifically, I examined if power predicts negative gossip when people are driven by their control need. Furthermore I proposed that individuals with independent self-construal would gossip more and interdependent self-construal ones will gossip less. The results supported the relationship between power and gossip but disconfirmed control motive as a reason for powerless people’s gossip behavior. Self-construal was also rejected as a condition for low power people to gossip if they are motivated by their control need.

1. Introduction

The common view about gossip is of an “idle talk” or “small talk”, which has entertaining function and is generally transmitting superficial information, about an absent person (Foster, 2004). The most cited by authors’ definition for gossip at the workplace is “informal and evaluative talk in an organization, usually among no more than a few individuals, about another member of that organization who is not present” (Kurland and Pelled, 2000, pp. 429). Gossip has two forms positive and negative, which are either favorable evaluative talk or respectively unfavorable talk (Kurland and Pelled, 2000). Gossip can serve functions such as entertaining, status enhancing mechanism, group norm preserver and transmitter of valuable information (Rosnow, 2001), for my research study I will pay more attention to the status enhancing one. Gossip can be a useful tool in the organizations, creating social networks and most of all granting the gossipers informal power and social status because they are the gate-keepers of important information that can undermine gossip target’s reputation (Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell, and Labianca, 2010).

(4)

3

Negative information and events are of higher interest to people than positive events and affect them more, because bad events can have unpleasant consequences which can harm and even kill an individual who was unaware of upcoming bad event (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001). Therefore, I will focus on negative gossip as a more influential tool for power enhancing, since it is a transmitter of information about bad events. Negative gossip can ruin reputations, undermine employee’s performance and management authority, but despite its ruinous nature it is still rampant in organizational and social life (Grosser at al., 2010). Such phenomenon evokes curiosity about what causes it and under what conditions. One possible motive can be the striving for control, as a basic human need. Control core motive is described as the satisfaction and desire of being able to predict the outcome of behaviors or environments (Fiske, 2009). DeCharms, (1968) states that "[m]an's primary motivational propensity is to be effective in producing changes in his environment, to feel competent and self-determined” (pp. 269). People with less power have less control over others’ behaviors, because they have no resources for influence by withholding or granting rewards, thus their control need remains unfulfilled. Sharing negative news about the target would indirectly influence receiver’s opinion, and thus actions, towards the target, immediately allowing the gossiper to feel in control by being a predictor for the target person’s outcomes. Another reason for powerless people to opt for negative gossip, in order to fulfill their control desire, is because they are more sensitive to failure (Burger & Cooper, 1976). Whereas direct attempt to influence may be too risky, holding the threat of more power loss, gossip’s indirect influence function provides a safer approach to satisfy the control need. Therefore, gossip could become the most convenient way to influence the gossip receiver.

(5)

4

more about which employees are more likely to engage in gossiping so adequate policy can be focus on that group of people in preventing the negative consequences of gossip such as bullying and turnover (Groser et.al., 2010). Fiske (in press) and Kitayama (2010) found out that control core motive is enacted differently for people with different self-construals, because an independent self-construal person perceives control as influencing the environment to achieve self-serving goals, while interdependent self –construal sees it as maintaining harmony in the relationship. A gossiper with independent self-construal wouldn’t mind damaging a relationship with the target, if this will bring more power, control and personal victory to him or her, while an interdependent gossiper would take into consideration how his or her actions would affect the harmony in the interpersonal relationship (Kitayama, 2010). The interdependent people would feel more mature and controlling if they manage to preserve balanced relationship within the group (Kitayama, 2010), therefore I propose that it would satisfy his or her control need more if the person with interdependent self-construal doesn’t share negative information about others.

This research will provide better insight on how people with low power can obtain power, avoiding direct conflict, and with that satisfying their control core need. This will be useful for companies, because it will help in creating more productive organizational culture and working environment for goal achieving. For HR management is vital to have better insight of every influence tactic employees might use at the working place in order to prevent negative consequence such as bullying, high levels of employee turnover and discrimination or take advantage of the positive ones such as norm preservation (Grosser et. al., 2010).

(6)

5

2. Theory and hypotheses

To determine why it is important to people in low power positions to increase their influence, we have to look at the core motives, which are the main drivers for individuals to exhibit behaviors such as gossiping (Glasser, 1999). Fiske (2009) researches the motives behind people’s behavior and she points out that control is a core motive, which can derive by lack of power and is satisfied by gaining it, therefore is a motive for behaviors aiming at power enhancing. Motive is a “construct that stands for a force in the brain region that organizes perception, apperception, intellection, conation and action in such a way as to transform in a certain direction an existing unsatisfied situation” (Murry, 1938, pp. 123-124) Fiske (2009) explains control motive as the relationship between what people do and what they get or the need of people to be effective, to be able to predict the contingency between behaviors and outcomes, and therefore to have sense of control and competence (Gleicher and Weary, 1995, Pittman, 1998). Burger and Cooper (1979) state that people who have higher desire of control are more assertive, decisive, and active. They generally seek to influence others when such influence is advantageous, such as bringing higher power. Therefore, people with control desire might choose negative gossip as an influence instrument also because they prefer to avoid unpleasant situations or failures by manipulating the events or others to ensure desired outcomes (Burger& Cooper, 1979).

The definition of control motive can easily be connected to power, because powerless people with strong control desire have little opportunity to exert their will since individuals are more likely to comply with the wishes of those who control valued resources (Fragale, Overbeck , Neale, 2011). Furthermore, people with control deprivation try to avoid risks from more control loss that could come from direct influence attempts such as restricted access to resources or social isolation as a punishment from the group (Burger & Cooper, 1979). Therefore, their need to control would justify any indirect approach, such as gossip, granting higher power and thus more influence. Despite that control need applies for both high and low power individuals (Glasser, 1999), it is more likely that negative gossip is used by low power people, when they are driven by control need, because they lack resources for direct influence. Whereas, negative gossip provides a mechanism for the gossiper to indirectly control a target’s behavior, through ruining the reputation and threating target’s position, which allows the gossiper to fulfill his or her control need and obtain more informal power, when direct demands are too risky (Grosser, et. al., 2011).

(7)

6

(Michelson & Mouly, 2004); those who are insecure in their positions of power are likely to view negative gossip as an undermining activity (Ayim, 1994), because they can see gossip as a tool which can be used against them by lower power people. Through negative gossip, employees gain informal influence and can reclaim some sense of control over organizational events that may be outside their control (Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell, Labianca, 2010). Therefore, powerless people might take any opportunity to satisfy their control desire through negative gossip, since both power and status are commonly bestowed upon individuals who can make the most valued contributions to a group, reflecting processes of social exchange such as sharing negative news about others (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972; Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008). “One’s own position may be enhanced because the gossiper might seek to lower the prestige and standing of the “victim” in relation to oneself as a gossiper” (Noon & Delbridge, 1993, pp. 32-33). Rosnow (2004) explains gossip’s function to influence in the following way: Person A tries to get some kind of advantage over Person B or C, by trying to convince Person B to revise his or her opinion about Person C. This motive is self-serving and, for instance, aims at extending one’s own power by destroying the reputation of the target. Kieffer (2013) also supports this notion by stating that gossip can be used for bullying and scapegoating in organization where direct violence is prohibited. In this case the gossiper uses the influence function of gossip to gain superiority above a colleague and control his or her behavior.

Baumeister, et. al. (2001) discover that “survival requires urgent attention to possible bad outcomes, but it is less urgent with regard to good events. Hence, it would be adaptive to be psychologically designed to respond to bad more strongly than good” (pp. 325), therefore negative gossip would have stronger effect in influencing. This positive-negative asymmetry effect has been repeatedly confirmed by other researchers (Anderson, 1965; Peeters & Czapinski, 1990; Skowronski & Carlston, 1989), arguing that bad news outweigh good ones. The consequence of this psychological phenomenon is that people will pay more attention to negative gossip and it will be more influential upon persons’ behavior. Subsequently follows that negative gossip is more affecting to people, therefore it is more likely the low power individual to gain power through unfavorable talks against the target person.

(8)

7

Hypothesis 1a: There is a negative relationship between power and negative gossip behavior.

Hypothesis 1 b: The relationship between power and negative gossip behavior is mediated

by control core social motive.

After I suggested that there is a link between power and negative gossip mediated by control motive, emerges the question if this relationship is the same for every individual. According to Fiske (in press) control motive is enacted differently depending on the person’s self-construal, because that person’s values and life principles are determined by how they perceive themselves, related to the others. Therefore, I suggest that the extent people gossip or not, driven by control need, depends on their self-construals. The variable self-construal is divided by authors Marcus and Kitayama (1991) in two main constructs: independent and interdependent, typical for different people based on person’s awareness of his or her inner self and the relationship they would like to maintain with others. Kitayama (2010) also, confirmed in another study that persons with different self-construals enact the core motives in different aspects depending how one identify himself or herself. For instance, a person with independent self-construal who has a need for control would focus more on himself or herself, exhibiting more egocentric behaviors, such as disregarding others, abusing them directly or indirectly, in order to gain control over one’s own outcomes. However, a person with interdependent self-construal who has the same need would satisfy it more when his or her relationship with the others is in harmony, the person would try to become one whole with the group and maintain the interdependence, in order to fulfill his or her control need (Kitayama, 2010).

(9)

8

verify and affirm the inner core of the self” (Marcus & Kitayama, 1991, pp. 226). Consequent of this notion is that a low power individual with independent self-construal is more likely to choose negative gossip as power enhancer, because independent individuals prioritize their own needs and goals above the relationship with others or their disapproval. Even though negative gossip is socially undesirable (Litman & Pezzo, 2005) behavior and can destroy gossiper’s relationship with the target, it will bring satisfaction to gossiper’s control need through power enhancing, therefore, an independent self-construal person is more likely to gossip. By enhancing gossipers’ informal power through spreading negative news about a target person, his or her control need finds satisfaction together with minimizing risk of failure and more power loss with direct attempt to control, therefore more gossiping is expected from individuals construing themselves independently.

Interdependent self-construal: Marcus and Kitayama (1991) describe interdependence as “seeing oneself as part of an encompassing social relationship and recognizing that one's behavior is determined, contingent on, and, to a large extent organized by what the actor perceives to be the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others in the relationship”. Typical for the interdependent self-construal people is that they are focused not so much on the private inner self but more on the relationship between the person and other actors, and the interdependent self-construal person regulates his or her behavior according to that (Hamaguchi 1985). In other words, an interdependent self-construal person’s behavior is driven by other people’s opinion and perception for appropriate behavior, whether it is approved by the group or not. Negative gossip is perceived as socially undesirable behavior (Litman & Pezzo (2005), therefore it is unlikely for interdependent self-construal person to apply it as a power enhancer.

(10)

9

about a target person as a threat for the balance among the group interpersonal relations and what’s more negative gossip as socially undesirable behavior might put them in the position of social exclusion and other people’s disapproval. Therefore, it is expected to be less likely for them to use negative gossip to satisfy their control core motive, even the contrary they will feel as better predictors of outcomes, managing a balanced interdependence among the group members.

According to the definitions, independent self-construal person in need for control, would be focused on enhancing his or her own position in order to satisfy his or her control core need, regardless the ruinous consequences of negative gossip. On the other hand, interdependent self-construal individuals would perceive negative gossip as a threat for the harmony of the relationship among the group, which is in conflict with his or her ident ity and personal values. Moreover, interdependent self-construal person would be concerned how others would perceive negative gossip since it is known to be socially undesirable behavior. Therefore, I propose my next hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2 a: The direct effect of power on negative gossip through control motive is stronger when the person’s independent self-construal is high rather than low

Hypothesis 2 b:The direct effect of power on gossip through control motive is weaker when person’s interdependent self-construal is high rather than low.

FIGURE 1: CONCEPTUAL MODEL: THE CONDITIONAL INDIRECT EFFECT OF POWER ON NEGATIVE GOSSIP THROUGH CONTROL MOTIVE AND SELF - CONSTRUAL

(11)

10

3. Method

Participants:

Participants were 128 students from the University of Groningen, who were compensated with two course credits or €4. Female participants were 80 and male participants were 48 with average age of 22 years old (SD age = 2.31). They were randomly assigned to

high and low power conditions, in order to observe in which condition they will gossip more. The experiment took place in the FEB research lab on the first floor of the Duisenberg building, University of Groningen.

Experimental Procedure:

When participants arrived in the research lab, they were asked to sign information form and with their signature they agreed to participate in the experiment. Participants did not know the true purpose of the experiment prior its start; they were told that team processes are tested trough a survival task and therefore they will work in a team of three people, but actually two of them were confederates.

At the beginning of the experiment the participants were assigned in a cubicle to fill in questionnaire, measuring their self-construal. During that time, their power position was assigned with thorough description of the high and low power role. It could be either Officer (high power) or Crew member (low power). The experiment had 2 by 2 factorial design randomly assigning power to the gossip sender (participant) and gossip receiver (Confederate A). The participants were also informed, during this phase, that the effect of a newcomer on a group performance would be studied, therefore one of the group members would be randomly assigned as a newcomer, joining the group task on a letter stage. Participants were unaware that Confederate A was always the newcomer. Afterwards, participants were invited to a video room to start the team task with another two group members, who were confederates A (gossip receiver) and B (gossip target).

(12)

11

power over the other team-mates and task, such as 5 items from the survival task that he or she could rank on their own, the power to evaluate and reward the other members and arbitrating power in case of disagreement. Confederate A in high power had the same type of additional responsibilities. The group had to do the ratings for another 3 minutes with the third group member involved. After the time had passed the examiner called randomly one group member, who was always Confederate B to leave the room with the excuse that interruption of team performance is observed, thus the participant had 2,5 minutes to gossip. Confederate A (gossip receiver), used some trigger questions to facilitate gossip behavior. The questions followed a standardized script in order to avoid bias. Both confederates’ scripts are included in Appendix 3.

At the end of the group interaction the participants were assigned back in the cubicle to fill in the final questionnaire, testing their motive for exhibiting gossip.

Measurements and manipulations:

Dependent variable (Negative gossip): Gossip episode was video recorded and afterwards coded by two independent pairs of raters. During the coding three measures of gossip were coded. First, whether or not the participant gossip at all, coded with 0 = no gossip; 1 = gossip with triggers and 2 = participant initiated gossip. Second, how negative was the content of gossip, coded with 0 = not evaluative; 1= low (e.g. she was not really enthusiastic); 2 = medium (e.g. she is wired); 3 = high(e.g. she was as cold as ice); Finally, how descriptive was the content of the gossip, or how much details were provided to describe gossip about the target during the interaction, coded with 0 = no description; 1 = low (e.g. she suggested one thing but not really; 2 = medium(e.g.it was like one way traffic, she didn’t say anything); 3 = high (e.g. this girl doesn’t think it is interesting, she thought it was boring, she wasn’t interested, it wasn’t really active discussion, she was like I’m not sure, whatever etc.).

(13)

self-12

construal item is “I enjoy being unique and different from others in my respect” and for interdependent self-construal one is “It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group” (α = 0.733). Participants responded on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 = disagree strongly to 7 = agree strongly. All items are included in Appendix 2

Manipulation check (Gossiper’s power) To check whether or the power manipulations were correct and participants perceived their power role correctly they answered some additional questions in the final questionnaire after the experimental setting. Four items were used such as “How much were you in charge of directing the task?” (α =.94). Participants responded on 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 = disagree strongly to 7 = agree strongly. All items are included in Appendix 4.

4. Results

Before analyzing the results of the experimental setting based on manipulation checks and observations during the experiment, I excluded 26 participants for the following reasons. Firstly, some variations in confederates’ script were observed, which is a reason for biased or unreliable results (N = 6). Second, some participants didn’t have sufficient level of English to understand the trigger questions meant to facilitate gossip behavior (N = 1). Third, some participants did not perceive correctly their power role which could make the independent variable invalid predictor (N = 18).

Since there were four items checking the power manipulations, where participants responded on 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 = disagree strongly to 7 = agree strongly, I took the mean for each participant’s manipulation check and compared it with the actual power condition. The highest mean for the four items is 7; lowest = 1 average = 4. Participants in high power condition with average score on the manipulation check lower or equal with 4 were excluded, participants in low power condition with mean above 4 were also excluded, and because it is an indicator they didn’t perceive the power manipulation correctly.

Last reason for excluding participants was that some of them knew the true purposes of the experiment and/or suspected role play, which could restrain them from gossip behavior and disrupt my study (N = 1).

Therefore, the analysis of my research has been made with 102 participants.

Manipulation checks

(14)

13

ANOVA test. It has pointed significant difference between means in low power position and high power position: (Mean low power = 2.68; Mean high power = 4.71; F = 4.94, p < .001), which

points out that participants Crew members scored lower on the average on manipulation check questions and participants Officers scored higher on the average . These results indicate that power manipulations were successful.

Descriptive statistics

Before testing my hypothesis I have checked the results from the experimental setting for significant correlations between the variables. I measured how the evaluative content of gossip was related to the other variables. I chose to use this single measure of gossip for my analysis because it matches the most gossip definition from scientific research. Results are presented in Table 1:

Table 1: Mean, Standard deviation, Person correlation coefficient

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 1. Gossip .95 1.01 - 2. Power 0.18 0.98 -.18 - 3. Control motive 3.28 1.71 .11 . 04 - 4. Independent self-construal 4.73 0.76 .25* .02 .24** - 5. Interdependent self-construal 4.74 0.75 -. 08 .17 -.22* -.19 -

Note. N = 96. Low power was coded with -1; high power was coded with 1.*Correlation is significant at 0.05 level; **Correlation is significant at 0.01 level

The results showed that there is a marginally significant negative correlation between power and gossip (r = -.18, p = .06,), which is an indicator for a direct effect of power on gossip. In other words, low power was associated with more gossip than high power. However, there was no correlation between control motive and power (r = .11, p =.67) or control motive and gossip, which is an indicator that control motive isn’t an explanation for gossiping from low power people. A strong significant correlation was found between control motive and independent self-construal (r = .24, p =.01) as well as between gossip and independent self-construal (r = .25, p = .01). It is an indicator that it’s very likely independent self-construal to predict gossip behavior and control desire in people or the higher a person construe himself or herself independently the higher is possibility for them to gossip or have a stronger control need.

Hypotheses tests

(15)

14

and gossip as dependent variable. Second regression replaced independent self-construal with interdependent self-construal as a second stage moderator. For the model I used 5000

bootstrap samples. Results are presented in Table 2. Table 2: Moderated mediation analysis

Mediator variable model Control motive

t b Ci p

Power .41 .07 [-.27; .41] .67

Dependent variable model Gossip t b Ci p Power -1.85 -.18 [- .37;.01] .06 Control motive -1.12 -.43 [-1.20;.33] .26 Independent self-construal - .08 -.02 [-.62;.57] .93 Interdependent self-construal - .42 -.13 [-.75;.49] .67

Control motive* independent self-construal 1.24 .09 [-.05;.25] .21

Control motive*interdependent self-construal .36 .03 [-.13;.19] .71

Conditional indirect effect of power on gossip

Low Independent self-construal -.003 [-.06;.01]

Average independent self-construal .002 [-.01;.04]

High independent self-construal .007 [-.02;.08]

Low interdependent self-construal .003 [-.01;.07]

Average interdependent self-construal .005 [-.01;.06]

High interdependent self-construal .006 [-.02;.09]

Note. N = 96. Low power was coded with -1; high power was coded with 1. Ci = 95% confidence interval. p > 0.05

(16)

15

herself interdependently, which disconfirms hypothesis 2b as well. Finally, in order to make sure that control motive has no indirect effect on gossip I run a simple mediation analysis. However, no significant indirect effect on gossip through control motive was found (indirect effect = -.008; 95%; Ci [-.008; .05]). It shows that control motive isn’t a reason for low power people to gossip to a higher extend.

5. Discussion

The results of my study provided support for the hypothesis that power is a predictor of gossip behavior. In other words low power people, who don’t have resources to influence others (Fragale, Overbeck, Neale, 2011), tend to gossip to a higher extent, possibly in order to increase their power position, indirectly. In line with the theory, stating that negative gossip enhances power because negative news are perceived as punishment, ruining reputations, and therefore people comply with the gossiper(Kurland and Pelled, 2001), I have also observed a correlation between power and gossip.

However, hypothesis 1b, that the motive for powerless people to gossip more is their need to control, was disconfirmed. The results did not support the notion that people’s unsatisfied need to control turns into a motive for them to seek more indirect approach such as gossip, to satisfy their control desire (Murry, 1938). Possible explanation for participants not to opt for gossip behavior is that people with need for control might not have perceived gossip as influential enough instrument in order to fulfil their control desire (Burger & Cooper, 1979). Beersma and Van Kleer, (2012) state that influence or control motive is perceived as the least important reason to gossip. Perhaps individuals in my experiment saw gossip more as bonding or information transmitting tool therefore, they disregard gossip as an approach to satisfy their control desire.

My research also disconfirmed person’s self-construal as a condition under which powerless people use gossip as power enhancer. The results showed that participants’ independent self-construal did not affect the relation between power and gossip through control need. Since independent self-construal people exhibit behaviors motivated by own goals and self-serving motives (Marcus and Kitayama 1991) it could have been the case that the participants had prioritized other person - specific own goals than fulfilling control need, which leaves power seeking behind. Thus, influencing receiver’s opinion would not provide any gain for an independent self-construal person because he or she would be focused on achieving other goals.

(17)

16

gossip isn’t a socially desirable behavior (Littman and Pezzo, 2005). This hypothesis was also disconfirmed by results showing that participants’ interdependent self - construal did not decrease the extent they gossiped, possibly due to perception of interpersonal distance in the social relationship between the group members. According to Marcus and Kitayama (1991) interdependent self-construal people perceive themselves as part of social relationship, however when there is no relationship built yet the interdependent self-construal person would feel less concern about the others involved. There was insufficient time to build a strong bonding during the interaction of the experiment, therefore interdependent self-construal individuals were likely to perceive weak relationship with the group members and be motivated to gossip more about the target person than expected.

Theoretical implications

The findings of my research have three main implications for the theory. First, I showed that power predicted gossip behavior. Previous research has proven that negative gossip enhances coercive power by threating to punish with ruined reputation (Kurland and Pelled, 2000) but my study found a negative relationship between power and negative gossip in specific adding an insight that low power people prefer gossip more. Furthermore, these observations support the notion that low power people pay more attention to others than high power people (Fiske, 1993) and therefore gossipers obtain knowledge about others that could become a resource for influence (Rosnow, 2001).

Second, my research is one of the first studying the effect of self-construal on gossip behavior. Other studies determined before the cognitive, emotional and motivation implications of self-construal (Marcus & Kitayama, 1991) but not specific behaviors related to it. My findings could be a stepping stone for research examining self-construal in relation with gossip as specific social behavior. A correlation between independent self-construal and gossip has been found, however it isn’t moderating the relationship between power and gossip but it could add to the literature evidence that independent self-construal people would value more the influence function of gossip than the other functions, because they would use it to gain control over their environment if it is advantageous for them (Kitayama, 2010).

(18)

17

other prior the experiment. “In terms of group formation, gossiping about others feats and faults brings groups together through the sharing of norms. Gossip can help to cohere agreement around group norms which can establish closed group boundaries and becomes a way to distinguish trusted insiders from outsiders” (Melwani, 2012, pp. 19).

Practical implications

Through the insights of my study organizations and management can develop a strategy to minimize the negative effects of gossip such as high levels of employee turnover, lower performance levels (Grosser et.al. 2010) and bullying at the working place (Kieffer, 2013). For instance, knowing that power is a predictor of gossip behavior, managers can pay more attention to lower power employees and develop policies aiming at preventing gossiping at these levels, such as addressing the problem to the specific group of employee or an open door policy where employees are free to discuss the issue with the manager (Denaro, 2015). The knowledge of which specific groups of employees are more likely to engage in gossip can help managers to focus their resources easier and faster on the problematic area.

Furthermore, bullying through gossip is also very common in organizations where physical violence is prohibited (Kieffer, 2013). Strategy preventing such practices in lower levels of the organizational hierarchy such as establishing guidelines to prevent disruptive practices as bullying could increase performance and employee satisfaction, lowering the turnover.

For organizations that are aiming to expand their business in foreign markets the knowledge that person’s independent self-construal is correlated to gossip behavior could be put in use. They will be aware of the negative aspects of gossip when establishing their business entity abroad in a country with typical independent culture.

6. Limitations and future research

Limitations

Several possible limitations of my experiment might be a reason for distorted results, therefore should be kept in mind. First, participants’ power was manipulated in experimental setting therefore some participants might behave differently in a situation with the same power conditions in real life, because they perceive that the experimental situation is artificial and they do not consider it important thus they behave differently than in real life situation.

(19)

18

participant’s gossip behavior. Therefore some results of gossiping could be due participant’s reaction to confederates’ differing personality traits.

Third, some participants were more aware than others about the video recording, and hidden contents of researches, even though they did not suspect entirely the purpose of the experiment, therefore they might feel intimidated from the supervision and exhibit different behavior than if they were not supervised.

Finally, some participants were more motivated than others to be involved in the task, which could also affect their reaction to the gossip target’s behavior, because being determined to perform better team work they evaluate more negatively demotivation showed by the gossip target.

Future research

Since my analysis showed correlation between self-construal and gossip it could be an interesting study to research what are the causes for this relationship and under what conditions. For instance, it could be researched whether the effect of independent self-construal on gossip behavior is mediated by one’s goals or moderated by trust, since interpersonal trust is known to be a precondition for transmitting gossip (Burt and Knez, 1996). It would help for better understating of gossip behavior.

It would be interesting topic also to know if the way one construe himself or herself affects the basic human needs to be enacted differently, by providing insight on how people differentiated from each other’s perceptions for the self and thus behaviors. Since a correlation between self-construal and control need was found it would be interesting to know if self-construal is related also to other basic needs such as need for belonging or need for self-esteem.

(20)

19

7. Conclusion

(21)

20

References:

Anderson, N. H., (1965). Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2, 1-9.

Ayim, M., (1994). Knowledge through the grapevine: Gossip as inquiry. In R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 85-99). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs K. D., (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review General Psychology, Vol. 5. No. 4. 323-370

Berger, J., Cohen, B.P., & Zelditch, M. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37, 241– 255.

Brehm, J. W. (1966). Response to Loss of Freedom: A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.

Brehm, J. W. (1993). Control, its loss, and psychological reactance, In G. Weary, F. H.

Burger J. M. and Cooper H.M. (1979). Desirability of control. Motivation and Emotion, VoL 3, No. 4. Burt, R. S., & Knez, M. (1996). Trust and third party gossip. In R. Kramer &T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in

organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 68-89). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Denaro, G., (2015, June 10th). Psst … 7 Tips for Minimizing Workplace Gossip. Retrieved from:

http://experts.allbusiness.com/

De Sousa, R. (1994). In praise of gossip. In R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 25-33). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas

DeCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.

Fiske A.P., (in press), Making up society: The four elementary relational structures. New York: free press

Fiske, S.T., (1993). Controlling other people: the impact of power on stereotyping. American psychologist. vol. 48, No. 6, 621 – 628

Fiske S.T., (2009). Social Beings: Core Motives in Social Psychology. Second edition, New Jersey, NJ, John Wiley and sons.

Fiske S. T & D’part E. (2011). Control, Interdependence and Power: Understanding Social Cognition in Its Social Context. European review of social psychology.

Fragale A. R., Overbeck J. R., Neale M.A., (2011). Resources versus respect: Social judgment based on targets' power and status positions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 47,767–775 French, J. R. P & Raven B., (1959). The basis of social power, in Studies in social power, Dorin

Cartwright, Ed. Ann Arbon, University of Michigan.

Foster, E. K., (2004). Research on Gossip: Taxonomy, Methods, and Future Directions. Review of general psychology, Vol. 8, No. 2, 78–99.

Glasser, W., (1999). Choice theory: a new psychology of personal freedom. New York: Harper Collins Gleicher F. & Weary G., (1995), Control motivation, In A. S. R Manstead & M. Hewstone (Eds.)

Blackwell encyclopedia of social psychology, pp. 132-136, Oxford, UK, Blackwell

Grosser T. J., Lopez-Kidwell V., and Labianca G., (2010). A Social Network Analysis of Positive and negative gossiping in organizational Life. Group and organization management, 20(10), 1–36 Hamaguchi, E. (1985) A contextual model of the Japanese: Toward a methodological innovation in

Japan studies. Journal of Japanese Studies

Johnson, F. (1985), The Western concept of self, In A. Marsella, G. De Vos, & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self, London: Tavistock.

Keltner D., Gruenfeld D. H., & Anderson C., (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, Vol 110(2),, 265-284.

Kieffer C. C. (2013), Rumors And Gossip As Forms Of Bullying: Sticks And Stones? , Psychoanalytic

Inquiry, 33:90–104

Kitayama S. & Cohen D., (2010) Handbook of cultural psychology, New York, NY, the Guilford Press.

Kurland N.B. & Pelled L. H., (2000), Gossip and Power, Academy of Managemet Review, Vol. 25, No. 2. 428-438.

Lewin K., (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Dorwln Cartwright, ed., New York: Harper & Row Litman J.A. and Pezzo M.V. (2005). Individual differences in attitude towards gossip. Personality and

(22)

21

Markus H.R. & Kitayama S., (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological review;

Michelson, G., & Mouly, S. (2004). Do loose lips sink ships? The meaning, antecedents and consequences of rumor and gossip in organizations. Corporate Communications, 9, 189-201 Murry, H. A. (1938). Exploration in personality. New York , Oxford University Press.

Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. , (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 33-60). New York: Wiley.

Pittman, Th. S., (1998). Motivation, in Handbook of Social Psychology, Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske and Gardner Lindzey ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Rosnow R. L., (2001). Rumor and gossip in interpersonal interaction and beyond: a social exchange perspective. Kowalski, R. M. (Ed), Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal relationships. , (pp. 203-232). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, 13, 333pp

Sampson, E. E. (1985). The decentralization of identity: Toward a revised concept of personal and social order. American Psychologist, 40,1203-1211.

Sampson, E. E. (1988). The debate on individualism: Indigenous psychologies of the individual and their role in personal and societal functioning. American Psychologist, 43,15-22.

Sampson, E. E. (1989). The challenge of social change for psychology: Globalization and psychology's theory of the person. American Psychologist, 44,914-921

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurment of independent and interdependent self-construal. Society of Personality and social psychology.

Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanation. Psychological Review, 105, 131-142.

Van Vugt M., Hogan R., & Kaiser R. B., (2008). Leadership, followership and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, Vol 63(3), 182-196

(23)

22

Appendix 1

Self-construal scale Independent self-construal

1. I’d rather say “No” directly, than risk being misunderstood 2. Speaking up during a class is not a problem

3. Having a lively imagination is important to me

4. I’m comfortable with being singled out for praise or reward 5. I am the same person at home that I am at school

6. Being able to take care of myself is a primary concern for me 7. I act the same way no matter who I am with

8. I feel comfortable using someone’s first name soon after I meet them, even when they are much older that I am

9. I prefer to be direct and forthright when dealing with people I’ve just met 10. I enjoy being unique and different from others in my respect

11. My personal identity independent of others, is very important to me 12. I value being in good health above everything

Interdependent self-construal

1. I have respect of authority figures with whom I interact 2. It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group 3. My happiness depends on the happiness of those around me 4. I would offer my seat in a bus to my professor

5. I respect people who are modest about themselves

6. I will sacrifice my self-interest for benefit of the group I am in

7. I often have the feeling that my relationships with others are more important than my own accomplishments

8. I should take into consideration my parents’ advice when making education/career plans 9. It is important to me to respect decisions made by the group

10. I will stay in a group if they need me, even when I am not happy with the group 11. If my brother or sister fails, I feel responsible

12. Even when I strongly disagree with group members I avoid an argument

Appendix 2

Control motive scale

You shared information about member B to member because: 1. To seek an active role in leadership of the group 2. To influence participant A to see things my way 3. To organize and direct activities of other in the group 4. To gain more control over the events around me

5. To be “In command” when I was working with the group

Appendix 3

Script confederate A

1. Interesting task , but I though it is a group task and it was disappointing to work alone in the beginning

2. Did you have more fun/was it easier working together with the other participant, 3. Did you have more input for solving the task?

4. Did you manage to see all the items? Why not? 5. What happened?

6. I noticed she was a little quite

(24)

23

1. This is too long trip we will die anyway if we have to walk 200 miles, if you ask me we will everything because it is pointless

2. Ok, I think box of matches should be really vital for this trip because we can set fire on and warm up

3. I really expected this task to be more interesting, it is so boring to rate items like this/ this items are so boring

4. I don’t know about this item but there should be more important things but I don’t know/don’t care

5. Then, I think we should take .45 caliber pistols, so we can be able to protect ourselves in case something happens

Argue about this item or another with Confederate A, afterwards demonstrates disinterest and demotivation with body language and attitude. Do not contribute more than two items for the task

Appendix 4

Excluded participants

P no Reason for exclusion

1 variations in confederates scripts

8 participant didn’t perceive power manipulations correct

39 participant didn’t know sufficient English

56 participant figured out the true purpose of the study and the role play

109 participant didn’t perceive power manipulations correct

121 participant didn’t perceive power manipulations correct

Gossip is power but not for all: the role of self-construal in gossip behavior as power enhancing mechanism

University of Groningen