The Impact of Gossip on Targets’ Task Effort and
the Influence of the ‘Self’: An Experimental Study
Master Thesis Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business June, 2014
Guus Dirk Sueters 1778641
Supervisor University E. Martinescu
2
The Impact of Gossip on Targets’ Task Effort and the Influence of the ‘Self’: An Experimental Study
Abstract
Purpose – The impact of gossip valence on targets’ task effort, mediated by self-improvement, is investigated. Also, one’s self-esteem is included as moderating variable between gossip valence and self-improvement.
Design – An experimental study manipulating the valence of gossip received by targets was conducted among students from the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Findings – Gossip valence is not related to task effort. Self-improvement is also not found to be a mediator in this relationship. However, self-improvement was found to negatively influence task effort. Self-esteem has not been found to be a moderator between gossip valence and self-improvement.
Originality – This study is the first to investigate the impact of gossip valence on the amount of task effort by gossip targets, mediated by self-improvement. Furthermore, the moderating role of gossip targets’ self-esteem has not been studied in existing literature and provides additional opportunities in this field of study.
3 Preface
For the last five months, I have been writing my master thesis to graduate for the master Human Resource Management. After I graduated for the master Accountancy, this is the second thesis that I have written in one year. My previous experiences in writing a master thesis were very useful in this process and gave me a considerable advantage.
The focus of this thesis is on the impact of gossip valence on gossip targets’ task effort and whether this relationship is influenced by gossip targets’ self-improvement motive and level of self-esteem. Gossip plays a major role in our daily lives, but the implications of gossip have been barely studied. Therefore, to me, it seemed very interesting to study the concept of gossip.
For me, this thesis is the very last hurdle to take before graduation and therefore it is of great significance for me. That is why I want to thank a few people that helped me throughout the process. First, I want to thank my supervisor from the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Elena Martinescu. Thanks to her very clear and helpful feedback, it was possible for me to successfully complete my master thesis. Also, I want to thank my parents. Thanks to them, it was possible for me to study and to graduate for two masters. My girlfriend, Lauret Krijnsen, my brother and sister, my friends and my fellow students were also very important for me during the last couple of months. In times of adversity, they were always there for me and provided me with distraction when needed.
Finally, I hope that the reader of my thesis will read it with a lot of enjoyment and will acquire some knowledge about gossip and its possible implications.
4 Table of contents
Introduction p.5
Theory
Gossip and task effort p.7
The role of self-improvement p.9
The role of self-esteem p.10
Method
Participants and design p.12
Procedure p.12
Measures p.13
Manipulation checks p.14
Results
Manipulation check and preliminary analyses p.15
Descriptive statistics p.15
Tests of hypotheses p.16
Discussion
General discussion p.18
Practical implications p.20
Limitations and future research p.21
Conclusion p.22
5 Introduction
Gossip, or “the informal, evaluative talk about a member of the discussants’ social environment who is not present” (Wert & Salovey, 2004, p.123), is considered widely to be negative talk (Wert & Salovey, 2004). According to Dunbar (2004), gossip is seen as malicious, destructive and largely reprehensible. In the Middle Ages, gossipers were being punished for their sins. It has been suggested that in Britain, the burning of women was more likely to be the result of these women spreading gossip than their putative extraordinary powers (Emler, 1994, cited in Beersma & Van Kleef, 2011). Nowadays, moral guidelines of most societies still condemn gossip practices (Goodman & Ben-Ze’ev, 1994, cited in Beersma & Van Kleef, 2011).
Despite the fact that gossip is perceived as something negative, gossip still plays a major role in our daily lives. Gossip has been found to account for approximately 65% of people’s speaking time (Dunbar, 2004). This finding raises the expectation that there is also a positive side to gossip. Foster (2004) states that to function efficiently in a complex social environment, humans require information about those around them. Also, gossip has been argued to be an efficient mean of transmitting information about rules, norms, and guidelines for living in a group or culture (Baumeister, Zhang & Vohs, 2004). In this respect, gossip may learn people something, especially when it is about themselves.
More specifically, Dunbar (2004) suggested that gossip can be seen as a manner in which self-serving behavior by group members at the cost of the group can be prevented. What is needed to prevent self-serving behavior at the cost of the group are norms that prescribe how members of the group should behave (Campbell, 1975). The exchange of information within groups will lead to the formation of and compliance with norms (Coleman, 1988). Gossip, in this respect, can be seen as a mechanism to construe these group norms and discourage infidelity (Dunbar, 2004; Gluckman, 1963). Gossip targets may feel pressured by gossip to behave in acceptable ways and to contribute to the group.
6
violated group norms which makes them feel bad. Effort has been positively related to performance (Vroom, 1964), indicating that the more effort is exerted, the higher the contribution to the group will be.
Although negative gossip may lead to a positive change in behavior, this type of reaction is not so self-evident. Arkin and Appelman (1983) state that individuals will respond more favorably to positive than to negative interpersonal evaluations, suggesting that positive gossip, in comparison to negative gossip, is more likely to lead to positive behavioral changes. This raises the expectation that there is some sort of process that might determine how individuals will respond to gossip.
Wert and Salovey (2004) argue that gossipers make a comparison between the person they are talking about and some social or egocentric reference point, such as social norms or their own perspective and behaviors. These evaluations by gossipers can be positive or negative (Foster, 2004), and contain informational value for gossip targets when the gossip is received. According to Festinger (1954), who articulated the social comparison theory, people have a fundamental desire to evaluate their opinions and abilities. In case there are no “objective reality tests” (p.257) or actual criteria, people will have to rely on each other to gain information about their opinions and abilities. For gossip targets, gossip will help them to evaluate their opinions and abilities, since gossip will tell them how one is viewed by others.
7
People want to improve the self because they want to enhance their ego (Suls, 1977). The concept of ego is variously called ego, self-esteem or self (Fleming, Costos & MacGowan, 1984). Anything threatening the self (e.g. negative gossip) might lead to anxiety (Harmon-Jones, Simon, Greenberg, Pyszczynski, Solomon & McGregor, 1997). However, Coudevylle, Gernigon and Ginins (2011) found that self-esteem negatively predicts cognitive anxiety, meaning that high self-esteem individuals will experience less fear and feel more secure. Less anxiety among high self-esteem individuals suggests that gossip, which may threaten the self, will have more impact on low esteem individuals compared to high self-esteem individuals. Therefore, the expectation is that gossip targets’ level of self-self-esteem influences the relationship between gossip valence and self-improvement.
Combining all the above mentioned expectations leads to the following research question that will be central within this study:
What influence does gossip have on the amount of effort exerted by gossip targets and how is this relationship shaped by gossip targets’ level of self-improvement and self-esteem?
The theoretical relevance of this study is that it will add new insights into gossip research. First, there is little to no research on targets’ reactions to gossip. Additionally, the specific mediating and moderating relations that will be tested in this study are the first in the field of gossip research. The practical relevance of this study is that it shows whether gossip has influence on gossip targets’ task effort, which may be relevant for organizations. It may be the case that, although gossip is considered to be something negative, it also can be beneficial for organizations. Also, it may clarify why and under which conditions gossip will have influence on targets’ task effort.
Theory
Gossip and task effort
8
empirical and theoretical work on feedback will be applied toward a better understanding of gossip, a topic that has been given comparatively little empirical study.
Gossip and feedback can evoke emotional responses, both positive and negative. Ashford and Cummings (1983) say that evaluations, positive or negative, directly reference the self and as a result it is inherently affective. Swann (1992) states that if feedback is positive, one will feel good and if feedback is negative, one will feel bad. This can be the result of the fact that receiving positive feedback will generally lead to pride and happiness, whereas receiving negative feedback will generally lead to disappointment and guilt (Lazarus, 1991 in Belschak & Den Hartog, 2009). Also, Van Kleef (2014) states that if someone is the target of an anger expression, one will infer that he or she did something wrong and this inference will lead to an alter in behavior. On the other hand, if someone is the target of happiness displays, one may infer that things are going well, which leads the target to stay the course of behavior (Van Kleef, 2014). Based on this, it is likely that the kind of gossip, positive or negative, will influence the way in which gossip targets will behave after receiving the gossip. Targets of negative gossip will alter their behavior, whereas targets of positive gossip will not see any reason to change the course.
People may become the target of negative gossip when they violate norms. The violation of norms by the gossip target can be seen as something that frustrates the gossipers. According to Smith, Haynes, Lazarus and Pope (1993), when one’s goals are being frustrated and he or she blames someone else for it, this will result in anger. For that reason, if gossipers experience that someone is violating norms, this person will become the target of negative gossip. As stated by Van Kleef (2014), when one is the target of an anger expression, he or she is likely to change his or her behavior. Negative performance gossip, as an anger expression, will incentivize the gossip target to alter his or her behavior since norms are violated, whereas positive performance gossip will lead the target to stay the course of behavior.
9
Based on these findings, the expectation within this study is that if a gossip target receives negative gossip, he or she will be motivated to increase task effort and if a gossip target receives positive gossip, incentives to increase task effort will disappear. From this, the following hypothesis can be drawn:
Hypothesis 1: Gossip valence will have a negative relationship with the amount of task effort exerted by gossip targets.
The role of self-improvement
Irrespectively of the type of gossip that is received, individuals have a significant need for feedback. People need feedback because it contains information that helps them to reach their goals and regulate their behavior (Ashford, 1986; Ashford & Tsui, 1991). Feedback is also important because it serves as an evaluation of how one is doing and can help people to recognize the adjustment that has to be made to the level or direction of their effort to accomplish predetermined objectives (Locke & Latham, 2002). Gossip, in this respect, may contain information that can be used by gossip targets to assess their effort and behavior and to make changes if necessary in order to accomplish predetermined objectives.
According to Jussim, Yen and Aiello (1995), the self-concept often may play an active role in reactions to evaluations (e.g. gossip). For gossip targets, gossip contains evaluative information concerning the self-concept. “The self-concept contains knowledge about personality traits, abilities, values, beliefs, expectations, motives, life events, relationships with significant others, possessions and appearance and knowledge about the views of one’s self that are held by others” (Sedikides & Strube, 1997, p.212). Because of the evaluative nature of the information, gossip may activate self-evaluation by gossip targets. Self-evaluation is a fundamental desire (Festinger, 1954) and it refers to the manner in which the self-concept is socially negotiated or modified (Sedikides & Strube, 1997). More specifically, it refers to the interaction between the individual and the social world (Sedikides & Hepper, 2009). So through gossip, gossip targets are enabled to evaluate one's self-concept.
10
more likely to instigate the self-improvement motive than any other motive. Since negative gossip stresses the inadequacy of the gossip target, the expectation is that negative gossip will lead to more improvement. Positive gossip, on the other hand, will lead to less self-improvement need. This, because positive gossip will only tell the gossip target that performance was sufficient and therefore does not contain any self-improvement value.
In line with this explanation are the findings by Plakht, Shiyovich, Nusbaum and Raizer (2013), who found that high quality negative feedback was associated with students’ more accurate evaluation of their performance in the clinical practice while high quality positive feedback can cause the student to overestimate his or her performance. Negative gossip thus may help the gossip target to evaluate the performance more accurate and stress the need for improvement, whereas positive gossip may cause the gossip target to overestimate his or her performance and discourage self-improvement.
Moreover, self-improvement will also be a motivation to exert more task effort. In previous research, motivation has been defined as a force that energizes, directs, and sustains employee effort into completing tasks (Landy & Becker, 1987). A stronger self-improvement motive will be characterized by incentives to be better than previous attempts, whereas a weaker self-improvement motive will be characterized by less incentives to be better than previous attempts. Therefore, people motivated to improve the self will exert more task effort to make sure that performance will surpass previous performance.
Based on the findings mentioned above, the expectation within this study is that if a gossip target receives negative gossip, self-improvement motive will be strengthened which will result in more task effort exerted. Positive gossip will lead to a weaker self-improvement motive, resulting in less task effort exerted. From this, the following hypothesis can be drawn:
Hypothesis 2: Gossip valence will have a negative indirect relationship with the amount of task effort exerted by gossip targets, through gossip targets’ self-improvement.
The role of self-esteem
11
According to Brown and Dutton (1995), self-esteem refers to “feelings of affection for oneself, no different, in kind, than the feelings of affection one has for others” (p.712). Self-esteem is expected to be an important predictor of one’s behavior (Smith, Norrell & Saint, 1996). The anxiety-buffer hypothesis states that if a psychological structure provides protection against anxiety, then strengthening that structure should make one less prone to exhibit anxiety or anxiety-related behavior in response to threats, and weakening that structure should make one more prone to exhibit anxiety or anxiety-related behavior in response to threats (Harmon-Jones et al., 1997). In this respect, a higher level of self-esteem, as protection against anxiety (Coudevylle et al., 2011), will make one less prone to exhibit anxiety or anxiety-related behavior, whereas a lower level of self-esteem will make one more prone to exhibit anxiety or anxiety-related behavior.
The amount of fear that comes with negative gossip is likely to be greater when a gossip target has a low rather than a high level of self-esteem. Therefore, the impact of gossip will be greater for low self-esteem gossip targets compared to high self-esteem gossip targets. The expectation within this study is that if a gossip target has a high level of self-esteem, the impact of the gossip on the gossip target will be lesser compared to the impact of gossip on gossip targets with a low level of self-esteem. From this, the following hypothesis can be drawn:
Hypothesis 3: A high level of self-esteem will weaken the indirect relationship between gossip valence and task effort through self-improvement.
When combining all the hypotheses, a conceptual model can be established (see figure 1). Gossip valence will have a negative relation with effort, through self-improvement concerns. In addition to that, one’s level of self-esteem will weaken the negative relationship between gossip valence and self-improvement concerns.
12 Method
Participants and design
Within this study, the sample consisted of students from the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. In total, 124 students participated in the experiment. After excluding disbelievers and the control condition, 64 participants (40.6% male, 59.4% female) were useful for the analyses. Their age ranged from 18 to 31 years (M = 22.4 years, SD = 0.33). 34 (53.1%) participants were Dutch, 30 (46.9%) participants had a different nationality. During the experiment, gossip was manipulated, such that participants received gossip about themselves. All participants were randomly assigned to one of the three possible gossip conditions. The conditions were negative gossip, neutral gossip and positive gossip.
Procedure
13
(positive gossip, neutral gossip, negative gossip). The positive gossip told the participants that they performed very well on the survival task. The neutral gossip did not inform the participants whether their performance was good or bad. The negative gossip told the participants that they performed very bad on the survival task. First, all the participants needed to individually choose 3 items that were most important to them and add an explanation for each item. Then, they submitted their ranking to their other group members. After this first ranking, the gossip from the other group members was send to the participants and the participants had the opportunity to write a message back. This gossip was about the target’s performance at the survival task. Subsequently, the participants had a second opportunity to indicate a final ranking. Finally, multiple questions needed to be answered to measure several variables, including self-improvement. At the end, a creativity task was presented to the participants in which they had to generate as many ideas as possible for how to use a nylon rope. In this way, the dependent variable task effort was measured.
Measures
Self-esteem
Self-esteem was measured using the Core Self-Evaluations Scale which was invented by Judge, Erez, Bono and Thoresen (2003). Participants were asked to what extent they agreed with the statements (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much). Statements included: “I am confident I get the success I deserve in life”, “Overall, I am satisfied with myself” and “I am capable of coping with most of my problems”. Cronbach’s Alpha was .83.
Self-improvement
Self-improvement was measured using the scale established by Martinescu, Janssen and Nijstad (2014). Participants were asked to what extent they agreed with the statements after they received the manipulated gossip (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much). Specific statements included: The information I received… “Helped me understand how to improve my performance at the survival game”, “Helped me understand that I can do better at the survival game” and “Helped me develop the right knowledge and abilities for this kind of task”. Cronbach’s Alpha was .91.
Task effort
14
about how to use a nylon rope as possible, the amount of effort can be measured. The more ideas generated, the more effort one exerted. In this case, the quality of the generated ideas is not taken into account. Effort does not necessarily need to lead to higher quality, so therefore the quality of the ideas is not taken into account.
Manipulation checks
15 Results
Manipulation check and preliminary analyses
Inspection of the manipulation checks revealed that 20% (25 participants) did not report the correct manipulation and/or did not believe the manipulation, thus they were excluded from further analyses.
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations between the variables. For the purpose of the analyses, all the gossip conditions were assigned a number to quantify the gossip conditions (negative gossip = -1, positive gossip = 1, neutral gossip = 2). Since the gossip was assigned to the participants, the mean and standard deviation of gossip valence is irrelevant. The mean of self-esteem is 5.29 (SD = 0.94), which is quite a high average since self-esteem was measured on a 7 points scale. 68.2 % of all the participants had self-esteem values between 4.35 and 6.23. This indicates that a vast majority of all the participants had high values of self-esteem. The mean of self-improvement is 2.64 (SD = 1.54). Self-improvement, as well as self-esteem, was measured on a 7 points scale. This means that the mean for self- improvement was particularly low. The standard deviation indicates that there is a high amount of variation from the average. However, most of the values remain very low. The last variable is effort. Effort has a mean of 4.04 (SD = 2.49). This means that during the creativity task at the end of the study, participants came up with an average of four ideas of how to use a nylon rope. Here, we see the largest standard deviation. This is because the numbers of ideas ranged from 0 to 12, which indicates that there is a large variance in number of ideas generated.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variable Mean S.D. 1 2 3 1. Gossip valence 0.75 1.23 2. Self-esteem 5.29 0.94 0.09 3. Self-improvement 2.64 1.54 0.05 -0.07 4. Effort 4.04 2.49 -0.11 0.03 -0.29* N = 99
16
The correlations do not warrant concerns over multicollinearity issues, since no correlation is higher than 0.8, which is needed to assume multicollinearity (Cooper & Schindler, 2003; Field, 2000). Self-improvement and effort correlate at a significant level, however, the coefficient is not a cause for concern. Surprisingly, against expectations, the correlation between self-improvement and effort is negative. This is not in line with expectations, since the expectation is that self-improvement will be positively related with task effort. Therefore, the correlation was expected to be positive.
Tests of hypotheses
Before the hypotheses were tested, the control condition (i.e. neutral gossip) was excluded. The control condition was excluded because within this study, we are only interested in the effects of negative or positive gossip. Therefore, the outcomes on the control condition would not have any informational value and are as a result irrelevant. After excluding the control condition, 64 of the 99 participants remained. 30 participants in the negative gossip condition, and 34 participants in the positive condition.
Within this study, the hypotheses will be tested using a bootstrap procedure developed by Preacher, Rucker and Hayes (2007). This procedure is used for assessing indirect effects and thus applicable for testing the hypotheses. Bootstrap procedures are also recommended by other researchers (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Muller, Judd & Yzerbyt, 2005). The model that will be tested is also called a moderated mediation model and attempts to explain how and when a given effect occurs (Frone, 1999). Table 2 shows the results of a multiple regression model in which self-improvement was the dependent variable. Table 3 shows the results of a multiple regression model in which task effort was the dependent variable.
First, the expectation was that gossip valence will have a negative relationship with the amount of task effort exerted by gossip targets. As can be seen in table 3, there is a negative relationship between gossip valence and task effort. However, this relationship is not
Table 2
Dependent variable: Self-improvement B p
Gossip valence -0.43 0.72
Self-esteem -0.36 0.10
17
Table 3
Dependent variable: Task effort B p
Gossip valence -0.11 0.73
Self-improvement -0.38 0.08
Indirect effects* Bootstrap indirect effect Bootstrap SE Bootstrap LLCI Bootstrap ULCI Level of self-esteem Low self-esteem -0.02 0.11 -0.26 0.16 Moderate self-esteem -0.06 0.08 -0.31 0.04 High self-esteem -0.09 0.12 -0.50 0.05 N = 64. Bootstrap sample size = 1000.
* = Indirect effect of gossip valence on task effort through self-improvement
significant (B = -0.11, p > 0.1). Therefore, hypothesis 1 which states that gossip valence will have a negative relationship with the amount of task effort exerted by gossip targets is rejected.
Second, the expectation was that gossip valence will have a negative indirect relationship with the amount of effort exerted by gossip targets, through gossip targets’ improvement. Table 2 shows that gossip valence is not significantly associated with self-improvement (B = -0.43, p = 0.72). Table 3 shows that self-self-improvement is negatively related with task effort, and that this relationship is marginally significant (B = -0.38, p < 0.1). This relationship was expected to be positive. Not surprisingly, the indirect effect of gossip valence on task effort through self-improvement is not significant (B = -0.06, p = 0.08, CI: [-0.31 to 0.04]). Therefore, hypothesis 2 which states that gossip valence will have a negative indirect relationship with the amount of task effort exerted by gossip targets, through gossip targets’ self-improvement is rejected.
18
self-esteem was high (B = -0.09, p = 0.12, CI: [-0.50 to 0.05]). These results indicate no support for hypothesis 3. Therefore, hypothesis 3, which states that the interaction between gossip valence and gossip targets’ level of self-esteem will weaken the indirect relationship between gossip valence and task effort through its effect on self-improvement is rejected.
Discussion
General discussion
Within this study, three hypotheses have been tested to see whether gossip valence is related to task effort and to what extent this relationship is influenced by gossip targets’ self-improvement motive and gossip targets’ level of self-esteem.
The first hypothesis stated that gossip valence would have a negative relationship with task effort. This means that negative gossip would lead to higher amounts of task effort exerted, whereas positive gossip would not lead to higher amounts of task effort exerted. This reasoning was based on the assumption that people would feel bad and disappointed after receiving negative feedback (Lazarus, 1991 in Belschak & Den Hartog, 2009; Swann, 1992) and therefore would want to increase effort, while people would feel good and satisfied after receiving positive feedback (Lazarus, 1991 in Belschak & Den Hartog, 2009; Swann, 1992) and therefore would not feel any incentives to increase effort. The results show that there is a negative relationship between gossip valence and task effort. However, this relationship is not significant, meaning that the hypothesis that gossip valence has a negative relationship with task effort is rejected.
This finding means that gossip, positive or negative, will not influence the amount of effort exerted by gossip targets. A reason for this finding may be that the content of the gossip was not positive or negative enough and therefore, did not stimulate participants to exert more or less effort. It can also be that the negative gossip discouraged participants to put in extra effort because of the negativity and therefore, a difference in effort has not been found.
19
The second hypothesis stated that gossip valence would have a negative indirect relationship with task effort, through gossip targets’ self-improvement motive. This means that negative gossip would give rise to a stronger self-improvement motive and that a stronger self-improvement motive would lead to an increase in effort. Positive gossip, on the other hand, would lead to a weaker self-improvement motive, and therefore would result in no incentives to increase the amount of effort. This reasoning was based on the assumptions that negative gossip would instigate the self-improvement motive due to the self-improvement value of the gossip, whereas positive gossip would not (Sedikides & Strube, 1997). Further, a stronger self-improvement motive would lead to more effort exerted because people want to ensure that future performance will surpass previous performance. However, the relationship between gossip valence and self-improvement has not been found significant. The relationship between self-improvement and task effort has been found marginally significant, though this relationship was negative instead of positive as was expected. Finally, there are no significant results for the mediation, indicating that gossip valence is not negatively related to task effort through self-improvement. Therefore, the second hypothesis which stated that gossip valence would have a negative indirect relationship with task effort, through gossip targets’ self-improvement motive, is rejected.
These findings mean that negative gossip will not result in a stronger self-improvement motive and that positive gossip will not result in a weaker self-self-improvement motive. A reason for this might be that the gossip did not contain sufficient self-improvement value. When the gossip does not contain sufficient self-improvement value, the gossip will not tell the gossip target how to improve the self. Therefore, the self-improvement motive will not be strengthened. On the other hand, the positive gossip might not have been positive in such a way which may lead a gossip target to decrease effort.
This is not in accordance with literature regarding self-improvement. Sedikides and Strube (1997) stated that feelings of threat or inadequacy are more likely to instigate the self-improvement motive, and since negative gossip can be seen as something that is threatening (Taylor, Neter & Wayment, 1995) and may stress the gossip targets’ inadequacy, a significant relationship between gossip valence and self-improvement was expected.
20
negative relationship between self-improvement and task effort might be that participants with a strong self-improvement motive were more focused on the quality of the creativity task than on the quantity. Participants with a strong self-improvement motive want to achieve high performance, and therefore might pay more attention to the quality of the generated ideas than to the quantity. Since task effort was measured by the quantity of the generated ideas, the quality of the ideas in this respect were not relevant.
The third and last hypothesis stated that the interaction between gossip valence and gossip targets’ level of self-esteem would have weakened the indirect relationship between gossip valence and task effort through its effect on self-improvement. This means that a low level of self-esteem strengthens the effect of gossip valence on self-improvement, whereas a high level of self-esteem weakens the effect of gossip valence on self-improvement. This reasoning was based on the assumption that people with low self-esteem are more vulnerable for gossip than people with high self-esteem (Harmon-Jones et al., 1997). This indirect effect has not been found significant, for both low and high levels of self-esteem. Therefore, the third hypothesis which stated that the interaction between gossip valence and gossip targets’ level of self-esteem would have weakened the indirect relationship between gossip valence and task effort through its effect on self-improvement is rejected.
These findings mean that regardless of the level of self-esteem, the impact of gossip on gossip targets is the same. A reason for these findings may be that the content of the gossip was not threatening enough. Therefore, the impact of the gossip may have been very low for both low and high self-esteem participants and as a result, the difference in self-esteem was not reflected in self-improvement motives.
The results for the last hypothesis are just like the other hypotheses not in accordance with previous studies. Coudevylle et al. (2011) found that the level of self-esteem will reduce the amount of anxiety. Based on this study, threatening gossip which leads to anxiety should have had less impact on participants with high levels of self-esteem compared to participants with low levels of self-esteem, and therefore weaken the relationship between gossip valence and self-improvement motive.
Practical implications
21
the force of gossip may be not as strong as expected. This suggestion should be taken with a grain of salt, because within this study, the gossip might not have been as harmful as gossip can be within organizations.
Results also show that there is no relationship between gossip valence and self-improvement motives, suggesting that gossip will not lead employees to improve the self. However, self-improvement has been found to negatively relate with task effort. This suggests that self-improvement may be harmful for organizations. This suggestion may not be very trustful for two reasons. First, this relationship was only found marginally significant, Second, within this study, it was hard to measure the relationship between self-improvement and task effort due to the design of the experiment and therefore, this relationship can also be differently.
Last, results show that self-esteem does not influence the relationship between gossip valence and effort. For organizations, this suggests that employees’ level of self-esteem is irrelevant when determining the impact of gossip on employees’ task effort. Therefore, organizational actions to reduce the negative effects of gossip on employees’ task effort might make sense for all employees, not only for employees with low levels of self-esteem. This suggestion should also be taken with a grain of salt. Namely, it seems quite obvious that self-esteem does not influence the relationship between gossip valence and effort, since these two concepts were not significantly related in the first place.
Limitations and future research
Within this study, 64 participants were useful for the analyses. This is a limitation of this study, since this number of participants is not very large. A small number of participants can lead to non-significant relationships. Testing a model with a larger number of participants might increase the likelihood of significant relationships. 25 participants (20%) had to be excluded due to disbelief. This proportion of the participants for which the manipulation was not successful can be explained by the fact that the gossip that they received was too obvious to be true. In the comments, many participants stated that it was very clear that the messages they received did not come from their group members. Also, it is possible that some participants did not fully understand the messages that they received from their other group members due to their poor English language and as a result believed that the messages they received were positive rather than negative for example.
22
control question ‘What do you think of the chat session’, many participants did not believe the gossip that was send to them because they thought that the gossip was pre-programmed. In future research, an actor that spreads the gossip may be a manner in which the credibility can be increased. Also, the content of the gossip can be made more specific. In this experiment, the gossip only told the participants whether their performance was good or bad, it did not tell anything specific about the ranking that they came up with in order to survive. The more specific and personally the gossip is, the more likely it is that the gossip will have an impact on the gossip target and on self-improvement.
The manner in which task effort was measured might also be a limitation of this study. Effort is very complicated to measure. In this study, effort was measured by looking at the quantity of the generated ideas during a creativity task. However, it might also be the case that effort results in quality. Within this study, effort was measured by the quantity of the generated ideas because it is assumed that effort does not necessarily lead to quality.
Future research might focus on different variables. It is possible that another self-motive, as devised by Sedikides and Strube (1997), might determine the outcomes of received gossip. Also, within this study, task effort was the dependent variable. It might be interesting to study other outcomes that are relevant, for example affective outcomes. This would be theoretically relevant because there has been hardly done any research in the area of gossip. It can also be practically relevant, since other outcomes than task effort might be relevant for organizational practices.
Conclusion
23 References
Arkin, R.M., & Appelman, A.J. (1983). Social Anxiety and Receptivity to Interpersonal Evaluation. Motivation and Emotion. 7: 11-18.
Ashford, S.J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaption: a resource perspective.
Academy of Management Journal. 29: 465-487.
Ashford, S.J., & Cummings, L.L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 32: 370-398.
Ashford, S.J., & Tsui, A.S. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: the role of active feedback-seeking. Academy of Management Journal. 34: 251-280.
Baas, M., de Dreu, C., & Nijstad, B.A. (2012). Emotions That Associate With Uncertainty Lead to Structured Ideation. Emotion. 12(5): 1004-1014.
Baumeister, R.F., Bratlavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K.D. (2001). Bad Is Stronger Than Good. Review of General Psychology. 5(4): 323-370.
Baumeister, R.F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K.D. (2004). Gossip as cultural learning. Review of
General Psychology. 8: 111-121.
Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G.A. (2011). How the grapevine keeps you in line: Gossip increases contributions to the group. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2: 642-649.
Belschak, F.D., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2009). Consequences of Positive and Negative Feedback: The Impact on Emotions and Extra-Role Behaviors. Applied Psychology: An
24
Brown, J.D., & Dutton, K.A. (1995). The Thrill of Victory, the Complexity of Defeat: Self-Esteem and People’s Emotional Reactions to Succes and Failure. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 68(4): 712-722.
Campbell, D.T. (1975). On the conflict between biological and social evolution and between psychology and the moral tradition. American Psychologist. 30: 1103-1126.
Coleman, J.C. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology. 94: 95-120.
Cooper, D.R., Schindler, P.S. (2003). Business research methods. 8th edition. New York: McGraw Hill.
Coudevylle, G.R., Gernigon, C., & Ginins, K.A.M. (2011). Self-esteem, self-confidence, anxiety and claimed self-handicapping: A meditational analysis. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise. 12: 670-675.
Dunbar, R.I.M. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology. 8: 100-110.
Edwards, J.R., & Lambert, L.S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods. 12: 1-22.
Emler, N. (1994). Gossip, reputation and social addaption. In R.F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good gossip (p.119-140). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations. 7: 117-140.
Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics: using SPSS for Windows. London: Sage Publications.
25
Foster, E.K. (2004). Research on Gossip: Taxonomy, Methods, and Future Directions. Review
of General Psychology. 8: 78-99.
Frone, M.R. (1999). Work stress and alcohol use. Alcohol Research & Health. 23: 284-291.
Giardini, F., & Conte, R. (2012). Gossip for social control in natural and artificial societies.
Simulation-Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International. 88:
18-32.
Gluckman, M. (1963). Gossip and scandal. Current Anthropology. 4: 307-316.
Goodman, R.F., & Ben-Ze’ev, A. (1994). Good Gossip. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
Harmon-Jones, E., Simon, L., Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & McGregor, H. (1997). Terror management theory and self-esteem: Evidence that increased self-esteem reduces mortality salience effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 72: 24-36.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E., & Thoresen, C.J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology. 56(2): 303-331.
Jussim, L., Yen, H.J., & Aiello, J.R. (1995). Self-Consistency, Self-Enhancement, and Accuracy in Reactions to Feedback. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 31: 322-356.
Landy, F.J., & Becker, W.S. (1987). Motivation theory reconsidered. Research in
Organizational Behavior. 9: 1-38.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Emotion and adaption. New York: Oxford University Press.
Locke, E.A., Cartledge, N., & Knerr, C.S. (1970). Studies of the relationship between satisfaction, goal setting, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
26
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist. 57(9): 705-717.
Martinescu, E., Janssen, & Nijstad, B.A. (2014). Tell Me The Gossip: The Self-Evaluative Function Of Receiving Gossip About Others. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Matsui, T., Okada, A., & Inoshita, O. (1983). Mechanism of feedback affecting task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 31: 114-122.
Muller, D., Judd, C.M., & Yzerbyt, V.Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 89: 852:863.
Plakht, Y., Shiyovich, A., Nusbaum, L., & Raizer, H. (2013). The association of positive and negative feedback with clinical performance, self-evaluation and practice contribution of nursing students. Nurse Education Today. 33: 1264-1268.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., & Hayes, A.F. (2007). Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 42(1): 185-227.
Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science. 28: 4-13.
Sedikides, C., & Hepper, E.G.D. (2009). Self-Improvement. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass. 3(6): 899-917.
Sedikides, C., & Strube, M.J. (1997). Self-Evaluation: To Thine Own Self Be Good, To Thine Own Self Be Sure, To Thine Own Self Be True, and To Thine Own Self Be Better. Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology. 29: 209-269.
Smith, C.A., Haynes, K.N., Lazarus, R.S., & Pope, L.K. (1993). In Search of the “Hot” Cognitions: Attributions, Appraisals, and Their Relation to Emotion. Journal of Personality
27
Smith, S.M., Norrell, J.H., & Saint, J.L. (1996). Self-esteem and reactions to ego threat: A (battle) field investigation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 18(4): 395-404.
Suls, J.M. (1977). Social comparison theory and research: An overview from 1954. In J.M. Suls & R.L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical
perspectives (p.1-20). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Swann, W. B. (1992). Seeking “truth,” finding despair: Some unhappy consequences of a negative self-concept. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 1: 15-18.
Taylor, S.E., & Lobel, M. (1989). Social comparison activity under threat: Downward evaluation and upward contacts. Psychological Review. 96: 569-575.
Taylor, S.E., Neter, E., & Wayment, H.A. (1995). Self-Evaluation Processes. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin. 21: 1278-1287.
Van Kleef, G.A. (2014). How Emotions Regulate Social Life: The Emotions as Social Information (EASI) Model. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 18: 184-188.
Wert, S.R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A Social Comparison Account of Gossip. Review of
General Psychology. 8: 122-137
Wright, K. (2012). Student nurses’ perceptions of how they learn drug calculation skills.
Nurse Education Today. 32: 721-726.
