Running head: RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

Rumor Transmission and Forgiveness Culture in an Organizational Setting

Tessa Riley
Rochester Institute of Technology

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

2
Abstract

This study examined organizational rumor transmission and climate of forgiveness. Employees
working for an Upstate New York company were administered a self-report 2-wave survey on
factors corresponding to likelihood of rumor transmission and willingness to forgive. Employee
uncertainty, anxiety, and stress were expected to be positively associated with the frequency of
rumor transmission while job satisfaction, communication quality, trust, organizational
commitment, and productivity were expected to be negatively associated. Willingness to forgive
was postulated to be positively associated with job satisfaction, trust, organizational
commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior. Finally, forgiveness climate was
hypothesized to have a negative relationship with rumor transmission. There was not enough
data to analyze rumor transmission; therefore it was omitted from analysis. A positive correlation
was shown between supportive forgiveness and organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and
trust, as well as between cohesive forgiveness and organizational commitment, job satisfaction,
and supportive forgiveness. No correlations existed with organizational citizenship behavior for
time 1 or time 2. However, interesting correlations were observed between factors related to
rumor transmission and factors related to a climate of forgiveness, showing promise for future
research. Future research should define rumors in more detail to participants and examine the
relationship between productivity and forgiveness.
Keywords: rumor transmission, willingness to forgive, forgiveness culture

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

Rumor Transmission and Forgiveness Culture in an Organizational Setting

Rumor transmission is a rising interest in psychology especially in the context of the
relationship between an organization and its employees (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007). By
definition, rumors are stories circulating through an environment where the truth is unknown.
For example, a rumor that may be transmitted in the workplace could be talk about prospective
budget cuts in a particular department. This makes the distinguishable difference between news
and rumors, in that news is generally based on corroborated facts. A rumor is also discernable
from gossip in that gossip is more socially or politically focused about known individuals
(Bordia, Callan, DiFonzo, Gallois, & Jones, 2006). A story of how Judy and Jim are potentially
seeing each other outside of work would be characterized as gossip more so than rumor.
In an organization, the knowledge of rumor activity can be helpful. From understanding
the behavioral and psychological factors rooted behind rumors, one can then analyze and disarm
potentially harmful rumors more effectively. By doing so, individuals in managerial positions
can develop their organization into a more efficient entity or ease their organization through a
period of change with the least amount of resistance. One way of doing this might be to maintain
a high level of communication with employees as the change is occurring in order to reduce the
level of anxiety and uncertainty among coworkers (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2000).
Collective Intelligence
Developmental psychologists have found that the way an individual perceives their
reality is the product of social networking and communication (Overwalle & Heylighen, 2006).
Perception of reality involves a problem when people often collaborate with other individuals to
obtain their expertise and then rely on a collective group decision. As Overwalle and Heylighen
(2006) labelled it, this can be called collective intelligence or distributed cognition (p. 606).

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

This can be seen in every aspect of our society: government, social, and organizational. The
United States democratic government is a perfect example of this group-level, or meso level,
information processing when solving national and international issues. So when, say, an
employee of an organization is confronted with a rumor identifying a possible future
organizational problem, they are naturally going to converse with other employees to gage what
would be their course of action if it were true.
When such a rumor is transmitted, an initial sense of betrayal is felt by those that are at
risk of being affected by the change if it were true. Behavioral psychologists explain that the
sense of trust an individual feels stems from the match between words and behavior (DiFonzo &
Bordia, 1998). That is to say, if the organization says nothing is wrong but acts in such a way that
implies something is wrong, that trust is broken. DiFonzo and Bordias (1998) research found
that when communication of a corporation was poor, uncertainty rose and in turn created an
environment where rumors spread rapidly and widely.
One of the most apparent examples of this effect is seen during World War II, or the
springboard for the Golden Age of social psychology (Faye, 2007, p. 1). During the early
1940s, particularly the attack on Pearl Harbor, rumors spread like wildfire throughout the United
States. The public began to mistrust their government and lose their sense of morale in political
decisions due to a lack of communication. Security standards bared information from being
transmitted to the public in fear of important information being leaked at an international level.
Faye (2007) quoted one journalist who wrote about the complex situation, the silence created a
growing possibility that the public would soon begin to believe all rumors, simply because no
facts were made available to controvert them (p. 3). The situation reached an extreme level at
which point social psychologists were called in to convey their expertise and in 1942 the Rumor

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

Project was proposed to create rumor clinics throughout the nation. These clinics had the sole
job of observing, analyzing, and reporting strong rumors flowing through their area (Faye, 2007).
From this example, one can discern the large impact rumors can have on any group.
On a smaller scale, one can detect this type of collective group tendency and the trends of
rumor production in an organization. When an organization undergoes a structural or managerial
change, rumors are even more extensive. Bordia et al. (2006) argue that when a change occurs,
employees lose their feelings of situational control because the change is inevitable and out of
their hands. With lack of control and an equivocal future, individuals grasp onto whatever control
they can find. In doing this, they often think of the worst possible scenario that could result from
the situation and base their feelings and actions upon that. The formulation of such an
undesirable occurrence to base their decision-making processes creates a sense of comfort in that
they are prepared for the worst and will not be surprised if the worst actually occurs (Bordia et
al., 2006).
To drive this further, rumors of a worst possible scenario are also spread as a warning for
friends and colleagues to circumvent the potential demise. In a sense, rumors are an essential
element of the collective informal sense-making process (Bordia et al., 2006). Suffice to say, the
employees are emphasizing their interpretive control by predicting and making sense of the
ambiguous future.
Organizational Rumors
DiFonzo and Bordia (2000) observed this implication of uncertainty on rumors in an
organizational setting in their study. They surveyed public relations employees working for
global corporations and were particularly interested in the types and prevalence of rumors as well
as the types and efficiency of managerial techniques that were used to deter said rumors. They

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

found that rumors are extremely common in the everyday organizational environment, and are
more prevalent when the organization was experiencing change. Similar to the effects seen
during the WWII circumstance, one of the main effects of rumors was lowered morale. The other
two widespread effects were increased absenteeism and increased employee stress. Finally, with
regards to the uncertainty effect found in previously mentioned studies, DiFonzo and Bordia
(2000) found that uncertainty predicted rumor transmission.
As a way of pulling a handful of these assumed factors involved with organizational
rumors such as uncertainty and stress together, the same two researchers, DiFonzo and Bordia
(2007), carried out a more in depth study seven years later, this time looking at a singular
corporation. This corporation was chosen and observed across a four month period during which
half of the employees were laid off. The targeted factors included uncertainty, anxiety, and trust
while also looking at what they coined the likelihood of transmission (LOT) (DiFonzo &
Bordia, 2007, p. 191). LOT was calculated using the number of rumors heard in the organization
and the number that were continually disseminated throughout the employees. In order to create
a more longitudinal approach where they could observe the changes in the before mentioned
factors, a questionnaire was given to the employees four times, each time one month apart from
the next. These waves were labelled T1, T2, T3, and T4 while the layoff announcements
actually occurred between T2 and T3 (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007).
Their findings show a peak in rumor movement during the second wave, just before the
announcements were made. Not surprisingly, the levels of uncertainty and anxiety also peaked at
this time while their trust in the organization dipped below a mean of 3. Even though their level
of trust was somewhat restored by the fourth wave, the authors report a sense of bitterness that
hung in the employees minds. In turn, they concluded that of all the factors associated with

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

rumor transmission in an organization during a time of change, trust is the most important and
influential. Not only does a lack of trust create a surge in rumor transmission, but it also has an
effect on the other factors taken into account, uncertainty and anxiety, and their relationship to
rumor activity (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007).
Revenge as Reciprocity
The DiFonzo & Bordia (2007) as well as other previously mentioned studies have a
context where the uncertainty level was high as employees wait for some unexpected change. In
that regard, the company breached their established psychological contract by withholding
information about the companys future. In other words, if a company slights its employees in
some way by breaching their established psychological contract, employees would be more
willing to pass on negative rumors or, more specifically, vengeful rumors. This discovery of
another motivation to instigate rumors besides reducing uncertainty led Bordia et al. (2014) to
study the use of rumors as revenge in the workplace.
To observe this phenomenon, Bordia et al. (2014) completed two studies. The first was a
scenario survey designed to manipulate how an employee was being treated and how believable
the rumor was. These hypothetical vignettes provided an ethical and pragmatic way to
manipulate variables and allow experimental realism (Bordia et al., 2014, p. 7). One hundred
retail employees from Australia took this between-subjects questionnaire so all of the vignettes
described were grounded in a retail context. The results indicated that the workers who perceived
a breach in promise were more likely to transmit a rumor than those who did not. Furthermore,
the motivation provided by revenge facilitated the association between the breach in
psychological contract and the transmission of rumors. These results emphasize the vast
influence of contextual cues on behavior in an organization (Bordia et al., 2014).

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

Similar conclusions were made from the second study they conducted, this time from
using a self-report survey with a focus on reciprocity beliefs. Reciprocity beliefs are defined as
a unitary set of beliefs favoring retribution as the correct and proper way to respond to
unfavorable treatment (Bordia et al., 2014, p. 10). Their findings show that with high levels of
reciprocity a strong and positive relationship existed between the breach in promise and the
motivation for revenge. In other words, both studies have results that replicate this concept of the
impulsivity of rumor revenge when employees perceive wrongdoing (Bordia et al., 2014).
Forgiveness
With such negative rumor impulsivity that ensues from a certain type of workplace
environment, the goal of an organization should be to reduce these reactions as much as possible
by creating a climate of forgiveness. Forgiveness can be defined as a conscious decision to
release bitterness and to forgo vengeance (Cox, 2011, p. 1). Research done on forgiveness
specifically in an organizational setting is scarce but that doesnt belittle the affect it may have.
An organization with a healthy climate of forgiveness could have the potential to positively
influence the behavioral reactions of offended employees.
This implies that contexts can activate certain behavior tendencies when certain social
norms are broken. The social information processing theory, which states that individuals adapt
to their social environment and their personal reality of past, present, and future behavior by
altering and adapting their attitude and principles, essentially states the same conclusion. When
applied to the workplace, this proposes that the perceptions an employee has on the
organizational environment are influenced by their own judgments as well as the social factors
and cues provided by coworkers. Organizations that utilize this information by creating an

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

environment where grudges are not held and wrongdoings are disregarded in order to solve the
problems that arise may create a more efficient company (Cox, 2011).
In order to test this theory, Cox (2011) created a survey focusing on elements that
promote a forgiveness climate including cohesion, support, and trust while also observing an
individuals willingness to forgive. Supportive forgiveness means encouragement is shown to the
employee and assistance is given when needed. Cohesive forgiveness means employees feel a
level of connectedness and shared significance in their workplace. When someone has a high
willingness to forgive, they are more likely to drop ideas of revenge and disperse any feelings of
hostility. The elements observed for a relationship with willingness to forgive include job
satisfaction, job stress, organizational citizenship behaviors, and performance. Organizational
citizenship behaviors are behaviors that help more efficient organizational operations even
though they are not directly associated with the job (Cox, 2011).
Her findings show that support and cohesion were positively related to a forgiveness
climate. Indicating that if an organization were to create a cohesive environment of support for
its employees, it would aid in generating a healthy climate of forgiveness. When it came to trust,
Cox (2011) broke it down to integrity, ability, and benevolence. Only a trustworthy relationship
with integrity had a strong positive relationship to a forgiveness climate. Though the other two
types of trust may be correlated with a forgiveness climate, her findings were not statistically
significant enough to make that claim. These results imply that in order for an organization to
create a forgiveness climate, they should promote support, cohesion, and integrity within their
relationship with their employees (Cox, 2011).
Lastly, the results showed that an employees willingness to forgive was strongly related
to job satisfaction, job stress, and organizational citizenship behaviors. However, her findings did

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

10

not support her hypothesis that performance would be positively related to willingness to forgive.
Instead, there was a strong negative relationship between the two. Cox takes the stance that there
is such a thing as too much forgiveness. If too much forgiveness is given and the employees are
not made accountable for their actions at all, poor performance may accrue (Cox, 2011).
Current Study
The current study will attempt to mix both DiFonzo and Bordias 2007 study and Coxs
2011 study using the same method of operationalizing the factors. In replication of the DiFonzo
and Bordia rumor study, factors including communication quality, uncertainty, anxiety, job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, trust, and productivity will be observed using the same
questionnaire. It will also include questions comparing the number of rumors heard vs. the
number of rumors passed. In order to study the independent variable of the level of rumor
transmission, the DiFonzo and Bordia method using LOT will be used.
In addition, aspects from Coxs (2011) study will be included. Questions on stress,
forgiveness in relation to support, forgiveness in relation to cohesion, and organizational
citizenship behavior will be added from her original dissertation in 2008. I will use DiFonzo and
Bordias questions on trust and productivity to compare against these forgiveness factors and
determine if similar results arise. The act of mixing both studies may shed more light on the
relationship between rumors and forgiveness, seeing as they could be two sides of the same coin.
Gaining the knowledge of this relationship may aid in effective organizational management
especially during a time of organization change or turmoil. The specific organization targeted has
a chapter in Rochester and a chapter in Albany, featuring approximately 13 female employees
who were asked to participate in a survey on rumor transmission and forgiveness culture.

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

11

Employee uncertainty, anxiety, and stress are expected to be positively associated with
the frequency of rumor transmission while job satisfaction, communication quality, trust,
organizational commitment, and productivity are expected to be negatively associated. Further,
willingness to forgive is postulated to be positively associated with job satisfaction, trust,
organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior. Finally, as a way of
bringing both experimental concepts of rumors and forgiveness together, I hypothesize that a
forgiveness climate will have a negative relationship with rumor transmission.
Method
Participants
The current study included thirteen employees (mode age range = 20-29 years, minimum
= 20-29 years, maximum = 60-69 years), working for a nonprofit organization as participants.
Eleven participants were recruited from the Rochester chapter and two participants were
recruited from the Albany chapter. The majority of participants (7) had been working for the
company for 0-4 years (5 participants = 5-9 years, 1 participant = 30+ years). Both departments
feature only females, yielding a participant pool of all females. Individuals who completed the
questionnaire were given $20. Some participants declined the 20$ and the remaining money was
turned into a general donation towards their company.
Procedure
Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their self-report of rumor
transmission and forgiveness climate in their company (Appendix A). At the beginning of the
questionnaire, participants were asked to answer a few demographic questions. The paper and
pencil questionnaires were distributed to the participants during work hours and they were given
a couple days to find the time to complete it. The whole process, however, was only projected to

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

12

take approximately 30 minutes. The task was presented in such a way so as to create a
confidential, unobtrusive opportunity for individuals to express their opinions on the before
mentioned factors. In order to create more substantial data, this questionnaire was administered
to participants twice, with a month in between. This two-wave technique further mimics DiFonzo
and Bordias (2001) study and may show slight fluctuation depending on current and reoccurring
rumors disseminated throughout the organization.
Measures
A self-report questionnaire was distributed to the participants containing 48 questions
regarding communication quality, uncertainty, anxiety, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, trust, productivity, stress, willingness to forgive and organizational citizenship
behaviors (Appendix A). Furthermore, the questionnaire asked how many rumors the individual
has heard vs. how many they have passed along to someone else within the organization. Lastly,
questions regarding the forgiveness culture in respect to support and cohesion will be addressed.
Unless the questionnaire specifies otherwise, participants rated their agreement or
disagreement for each question. A 7-point scale was used ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). The measurements for uncertainty and job satisfaction were adapted from
Schweiger and DeNisi (1991) while measurements for trust were borrowed from Meglino,
DeNisi, Youngblood, and Williams (1991). Variables including communication quality, anxiety,
rumors heard, rumors passed, and productivity items can be originally found in DiFonzo and
Bordia (2007). Organizational commitment measurements were used from the Affective
Commitment Scale (McGee & Ford, 1987). Finally, stress, forgiveness: support, forgiveness:

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

13

cohesion, willingness to forgive and organizational citizenship behavior items were borrowed
from Cox (2008).
Organizational Commitment. Organizational commitment is the amount of dedication the
employee feels to the organization. Organizational commitment was measured using the 6-item
scale from McGee and Ford (1987). An example item is I felt that I would be very happy to
spend the rest of my career with this organization. Each item was measured on a 7-point likert
scale from (1) Disagree, (3) Somewhat Disagree, (5) Somewhat Agree, (7) Agree. Higher scores
mean higher organizational commitment. Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.78 for time 1 and
0.92 for time 2 after an elimination of one item; Organizational commitment subscale was the
average of the 5 items.
Communication Quality. Communication quality is how well the managers communicate
expectations, goals, changes, news, etc. to employees. Communication quality was measured
using the 2-item scale from DiFonzo and Bordia (2007). An example item is How well
informed has the company kept you about upcoming changes? Each item was measured on a 7point likert scale from (1) Completely Uninformed, (3) A Little Informed, (5) Somewhat
Informed, (7) Completely Informed. Higher scores mean higher communication quality.
Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.91 for time 1 and 0.90 for time 2; Communication Quality
subscale was the average of the 2 items.
Uncertainty. Uncertainty is the amount of doubt and insecurity an employee has while
working for a company. Uncertainty was measured using the 4-item scale from Schweiger and
DeNisi (1991). An example item is I was uncertain about whether friends and colleagues will
lose their jobs. Each item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Not At All, (3) A

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

14

Little, (5) Somewhat, (7) Extremely. Higher scores mean more uncertainty. Cronbachs Alpha
coefficient was 0.80 for time 1 and 0.82 for time 2; Uncertainty subscale was the average of the 4
items.
Anxiety. Anxiety is the amount of concern and unease an employee feels while working
for a company. Anxiety was measured using the 2-item scale from DiFonzo and Bordia (2007).
An example item is I felt anxious about possible changes that will occur in this company. Each
item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Not At All, (3) A Little, (5) Somewhat, (7)
Extremely. Higher scores mean more anxiety. Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.96 for time 1
and 0.86 for time 2; Anxiety subscale was the average of the 2 items.
Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction is the amount of fulfillment and gratification the
employee feels while doing his/her job. Job satisfaction was measured using the 4-item scale
from Schweiger and DeNisi (1991). An example item is Knowing what you know now, if you
had to decide all over again whether to take the job you now have, what would you have decided
over the past month? Each item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Definitely Not,
(3) Possibly, (5) Probably, (7) Definitely. Higher scores mean higher job satisfaction. Cronbachs
Alpha coefficient was 0.90 for time 1 and 0.95 for time 2; Job satisfaction subscale was the
average of the 4 items.
Trust. Trust is the amount of confidence an employee has in relying on the company and
vice versa. Trust was measured using the 5-item scale from Meglino, DeNisi, Youngblood, and
Williams (1988). An example item is I felt that the company cares about what happens to its
employees. Each item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Disagree, (3) Somewhat

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

15

Disagree, (5) Somewhat Agree, (7) Agree. Higher scores mean more trust. Cronbachs Alpha
coefficient was 0.78 for time 1 and 0.90 for time 2; Trust subscale was the average of the 5 items.
Productivity. Productivity is the amount of work output and how efficient an employee is
at his/her job. Productivity was measured using the 2-item scale from DiFonzo and Bordia
(2007). An example item is How productive were you in comparison to your usual level of
productivity? Each item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Much Less Than Usual,
(3) Somewhat Less, (5) Somewhat More, (7) Much More Than Usual. Higher scores mean more
productivity. Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.94 for time 1 and 0.99 for time 2; Productivity
subscale was the average of the 2 items.
Stress. Stress is the amount of pressure and tension an employee feels while doing his/her
job. Stress was measured using the 4-item scale from Cox (2008). An example item is On
average, in respect to my work environment, I feel miserable. Each item was measured on a 7point likert scale from (1) Disagree, (3) Somewhat Disagree, (5) Somewhat Agree, (7) Agree.
Higher scores mean more stress. Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.83 for time 1 and 0.86 for
time 2; Stress subscale was the average of the 4 items.
Forgiveness: Support. Forgiveness: Support is the amount of encouragement and
assistance given to employees. Forgiveness: Support was measured using the 4-item scale from
Cox (2008). An example item is Everyones view is listened to even if is in a minority. Each
item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Disagree, (3) Somewhat Disagree, (5)
Somewhat Agree, (7) Agree. Higher scores mean more supportive forgiveness. Cronbachs Alpha
coefficient was 0.82 for time 1 and 0.94 for time 2; Forgiveness: Support subscale was the
average of the 4 items.

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

16

Forgiveness: Cohesion. Forgiveness: Cohesion is the amount of connectedness and

shared significance one feels with other employees and with managers. Forgiveness: Cohesion
was measured using the 4-item scale from Cox (2008). An example item is There is a lot of
team spirit among us. Each item was measured on a 7-point likert scale from (1) Disagree, (3)
Somewhat Disagree, (5) Somewhat Agree, (7) Agree. Higher scores mean more cohesive
forgiveness. Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was 0.90 for time 1 and 0.95 for time 2; Forgiveness:
Cohesion subscale was the average of the 4 items.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Organizational citizenship behaviors help more
efficient organizational operations even though they are not directly associated with the job.
Organizational citizenship behavior was measured using the 7-item scale from Cox (2008). An
example item is I help others who have heavy workloads. Each item was measured on a 7point likert scale from (1) Disagree, (3) Somewhat Disagree, (5) Somewhat Agree, (7) Agree.
Higher scores mean more organizational citizenship behaviors. Cronbachs Alpha coefficient was
0.83 for time 1 and 0.82 for time 2 after eliminating one item; Organizational citizenship
behavior subscale was the average of the 6 items.
Willingness To Forgive. Willingness to forgive is the propensity to drop ideas of revenge
and disperse any feelings of hostility. Willingness to forgive was measured using the 6-item scale
from Cox (2008). An example item is One of your coworkers always dominates departmental
meetings. This makes it difficult to hear others opinions, and this persons behavior also usually
causes meetings to run over the scheduled time. Each item was measured on a 7-point likert
scale from (1) Not Likely To Forgive, (3) Somewhat Likely, (5) Very Likely, (7) Extremely Likely
To Forgive. Higher scores mean a higher willingness to forgive. Using all 6 items, Cronbachs
Alpha coefficient was 0.66 for time 1 and 0.63 for time 2; Willingness to forgive subscale was

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

17

the average of the 6. Because those coefficients do not meet the standards, using only 2 of the 6
items brought Cronbachs Alpha coefficient to 0.89 for time 1 and 0.87 for time 2. However,
because that is a significant drop in items, it was decided to use all 6 items despite the
Cronbachs Alpha.
Rumors Heard. This subcategory looks at how many rumors each participant heard.
Rumors heard was an open ended question that read, In the past month, how many different
rumors have you heard related to this organization? Higher scores mean more rumors heard.
There was not enough data collected on rumors heard to create meaningful results and was
therefore omitted from the Pearson correlation analysis.
Positive/Negative Rumors. Positive vs. negative rumors indicate whether the rumors
heard were good or bad. The question read, In the past month, how overall positive (i.e. giving
praise) versus negative (i.e. giving criticism) were the rumors that you heard? (Only answer if
you heard 1 or more rumors). This question was measured using a 7-point likert scale from (1)
Very Negative, (3) Somewhat Negative, (5) Somewhat Positive, (7) Very Positive. Higher scores
mean more positive rumors being heard. There was not enough data collected on
positive/negative rumors to create meaningful results and was therefore omitted from the Pearson
correlation analysis.
Shared Rumors. Shared rumors asks the likelihood of the participant to pass the rumor
whether they heard any or not. The question read, If you have heard a rumor over the past
month, how likely were you (or would you have been) to share this rumor with a coworker?
This question was measured using a 7-point likert scale from (1) Definitely Would Not, (3)
Possibly Would, (5) Probably Would, (7) Definitely Would. Higher scores mean higher likelihood

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

18

of the participant transmitting a rumor. There was not enough data collected on shared rumors to
create meaningful results and was therefore omitted from the Pearson correlation analysis.
Rumors Passed. This subcategory looks at how many rumors were passed by the
participant. Rumors passed was an open ended question that read, Of the above number of
rumors, how many did you pass on to someone else within the organization? (Write approximate
number.) Higher scores mean more rumors passed. There was not enough data collected on
rumors passed to create meaningful results and was therefore omitted from the Pearson
correlation analysis.
Results
Descriptive
Means, Standard Deviations, and 95% Confidence Intervals for all subscales are
presented in Table 1. Figure 1 displays a bar graph indicating the mean responses for each
subscale with time 1 and time 2 side by side.
Consistent but non-significant differences in one direction can be seen for most variables
toward reductions in positive attitudes and increases in negative attitudes from time 1 to time 2.
Uncertainty, anxiety, and stress all increased from time 1 to time 2. Organizational commitment,
job satisfaction, forgiveness support and forgiveness cohesion all went down slightly from time 1
to time 2. Communication quality, productivity, and willingness to forgive all went up slightly.
There was no difference in trust and organizational citizenship behaviors.
Correlates to Forgiveness Culture
All skewness statistics were non-significant. Pearson correlation values between the
variables are presented for time 1 in Table 2 and time 2 in Table 3. Due to a 50% response rate
for the questions pertaining to rumor, there was not enough data collected on the rumor subscales

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

19

to create meaningful results. Therefore, rumor subscales were omitted from the Pearson
correlation analysis.
For time 1, the Pearson correlation results show a strong positive correlation between
supportive forgiveness and organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and trust. This is
understandable because a company that is supportive and forgiving of minor offenses should lead
to higher employee commitment and satisfaction in that workplace. Also, in creating this climate
of forgiveness the managers are focusing more on the problem than blaming the culprit, which
should foster a trusting relationship. In that relationship, the manager trusts the employee to carry
out the task despite hiccups in completion and the employee trusts the manager to understand
that people can make mistakes. As DiFonzo and Bordia (2007) found, trust was the most
important and influential factor. One last correlation is found between supportive forgiveness and
willingness to forgive, for both the condensed willingness to forgive subscale as well as the allinclusive willingness to forgive subscale.
A positive correlation can also be seen between cohesive forgiveness and organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and supportive forgiveness. A unified environment should lead to
higher employee commitment and satisfaction while also correlating to supportive forgiveness. A
negative correlation can be seen between cohesive forgiveness and both uncertainty and stress.
This may mean that a stronger unified, forgiving environment decreases employee uncertainty
about maintaining their job and stress about making sure no mistakes are made. Finally, there is a
positive correlation between cohesive forgiveness and willingness to forgive, but only for the
condensed willingness to forgive subscale using only 2 items.
For time 2, the Pearson correlation results mimic the strong positive correlations shown
in time 1, between supportive forgiveness and organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

20

trust. It also mimics the strong positive correlation between cohesive forgiveness and
organizational commitment, job satisfaction and supportive forgiveness. However, time 2 results
show no correlation between cohesive forgiveness and uncertainty, nor stress. Also, in time 2 job
satisfaction and trust were positively correlated to both supportive and cohesive forgiveness. This
is unlike time 1, in which trust was not correlated to cohesive forgiveness.
In time 2, willingness to forgive with all six items was again negatively correlated to
anxiety, though it was not related to supportive forgiveness. The willingness to forgive, only
including the two reliable items, was positively correlated to supportive forgiveness.
This demonstrates a general similarity in correlations between variables for time 1 and
time 2. However, one obvious red flag is shown by no correlations between organizational
citizenship behavior and the many subscales neither for time 1 nor time 2. Cox (2008) found
willingness to forgive to be related to organizational citizenship behaviors and yet no relationship
was found in either time in the current study. This could be related to the type of organization
studied. In the current study it is a small nonprofit organization with a heavy workload for each
employee while in the Cox (2008) study elementary and secondary schoolteachers working in
public school systems participated. Perhaps a larger organization/school system gives way for
more opportunities to show organizational citizenship behaviors.
Discussion
Hypothesis 1 expecting employee uncertainty, anxiety and stress to be positively
associated with the frequency of rumor transmission while job satisfaction, communication
quality, trust, organizational commitment, and productivity to be negatively associated, was not
supported. Due to an insufficient number of responses, all subscales dealing with rumor
transmission were not able to be investigated. This means the third hypothesis that a forgiveness

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

21

climate would have a negative relationship with rumor transmission was also not investigated.
Future research on the relationship between rumors and forgiveness should expand the items for
rumor as well as explain in more detail the definition of a rumor to participants. This might help
generate more responses. Perhaps the way rumors were presented in this study altered the
participants decision of whether or not to answer the questions. Then again, it could be that there
were little to no rumors disseminated in this specific organization.
Hypothesis 2 postulating that willingness to forgive would be positively associated with
job satisfaction, trust, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors was
not supported for neither time 1 nor time 2. There were issues with the reliability of willingness
to forgive in this study. Originally, the subscale included six items but with a low Cronbachs
Alpha coefficient, another more reliable subscale was created only using two of the six items.
According to prior research on forgiveness, a climate of forgiveness, and willingness to forgive
by Cox (2008) shows more correlations and a stronger willingness to forgive factor. This means,
future research should include more questions in this subscale. There also could be a limitation to
the current studys survey being that it was lengthy and the willingness to forgive questions were
last. Fatigue could have incurred and caused the participants to answer without giving as much
thought on the questions.
Cox (2011) focused on three elements that promoted a forgiveness climate including
cohesion, support, and trust. Trusting forgiveness was not found to be significant, therefore the
current study only included supportive forgiveness and cohesive forgiveness. She found that
these two factors served as antecedents for a forgiveness climate. Though I did not include the
forgiveness climate subscale, in the hopes to keep the questionnaire from being to lengthy, the
two factors included in the current study proved to exhibit interesting correlations. Both

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

22

supportive and cohesive forgiveness was positively correlated with other factors related to rumor
transmission, such as job satisfaction, trust, stress, and organizational commitment. This implies
that further research should be done on these factors as well as the climate of forgiveness.
More specifically, future research should look at the relationship between productivity
and forgiveness. In the current study, productivity was not correlated to neither supportive nor
cohesive forgiveness. In Cox (2010), there was a strong negative relationship between
performance and willingness to forgive. It would be beneficial to study more thoroughly whether
or not a forgiveness climate and/or willingness to forgive will help or harm productivity in an
organization.
Outside of the hypotheses, the data revealed some interesting results. First, organizational
commitment was the subscale most strongly correlated with other subscales including job
satisfaction, trust, productivity, supportive forgiveness and cohesive forgiveness. This shows how
interrelated these factors are in regard to how committed employees are to the company.
Knowledge such as this may help managers retain and maintain employees for a longer period of
time by a simple way of altering the organizational environment to be more cohesive and/or
supportive. In a generation where employees stay with a company for approximately 4.4 years, it
would be beneficial for employers to complete slight changes to the organization in order to raise
that statistic in their company, even if just minimally (Meister, 2012).
There were no hypotheses made regarding the differences between responses at time 1
and responses at time 2. However, another interesting result was an underlying trend with the
majority of the variables. Seven out of the twelve subscales showed reductions in positive
attitudes and increases in negative attitudes. Uncertainty, anxiety, and stress increased from time
1 to time 2. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, forgiveness support and forgiveness

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

23

cohesion all went down slightly from time 1 to time 2. Granted none of the variables changed
enough to make it significant but considering the consistency of the factors, it can be inferred
that there was a general shift in attitude over the one month period between questionnaire
distributions.
There are numerous possibilities as to why this general shift occurred. Perhaps an event
during that month caused unrest amidst employees. Maybe it was the timing of the second
questionnaire: be it on a busy week for all employees, around a hard work deadline, or simply
before an all staff meeting. The first questionnaire was administered right after an all staff
meeting which may have accounted for lower responses in uncertainty, anxiety, and stress. The
possibility of a hard work deadline near the distribution of questionnaire 2 is also feasible given
the rise in anxiety, stress, productivity, and communication quality along with the decrease in job
satisfaction and forgiveness.
Overall, there were many limitations of the current study. First and foremost, the
questionnaires were distributed to the Rochester chapter as well as the Albany chapter. Although
the two are interconnected, they involve two organizational climates and environments which are
probably not the same. This would be acceptable if the distribution of participants from both
were equal. However, eleven participants came from the Rochester chapter and two participants
came from the Albany chapter. This brings up another large limitation of the small sample size.
Being that there were only thirteen participants, it decreased the reliability of reflecting the
organization as a whole. If more of the location chapters were included in the study, there would
have been a better chance of finding significant results that reflect the entire organization.
Of that sample, all of the participants were female. When speaking of rumors and
forgiveness, both topics have a gender stigma attached to them. In this regard, it would be

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

24

beneficial to get an evenly distributed sample size between both genders. This would yield
results where the female and male responses could be compared on how likely both were to
spread rumors and how likely they were to forgive.
Another limitation is the method at which the questionnaires were distributed and
received. Participants were given up to a week to do fill out the questionnaires at their own time.
The individuals mood on that day or whether or not they were rushed in completing the task
may have an effect on how they respond. The last limitation is the questionnaire itself. The
manner in which the rumor questions were presented in the questionnaire may have scared
participants away from answering them. None of the forgiveness climate questions were used in
this questionnaire, though in hindsight it may have been useful in correlational analysis.
All in all, conclusions regarding the relationship between rumor transmission and climate
of forgiveness were not made. This does not deter from the importance of research regarding
these factors in an organizational setting. Interesting correlations were observed between factors
related to rumor transmission and factors related to a climate of forgiveness, showing promise for
future research.

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

25
References

Bordia, P., Callan, V. J., DiFonzo, N., Gallois, C., & Jones, E. (2006). Management are aliens!:
Rumors and stress during organizational change. Group & Organization Management,
31(5), 601-621. doi: 10.1177/1059601106286880
Bordia, P., Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., DiFonzo, N., Stenson, N., & Tang, R. L. (2014).
Rumor as revenge in the workplace. Group & Organization Management, 1-26.

doi:

10.1177/1059601114540750
Cox, S. S. (2008). A forgiving workplace: An investigation of forgiveness climate, individual
differences and workplace outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana Tech
University,
Cox, S. S. (2011). A forgiving workplace: An investigation of forgiveness climate and workplace
outcomes. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 1-6.
DiFonzo, N. & Bordia, P. (1998). A tale of two corporations: Managing uncertainty during
organizational change. Human Resource Management, 37(3&4), 295-303.
DiFonzo, N. & Bordia, P. (2000). How top PR professionals handle hearsay: Corporate rumors,
their effects, and strategies to manage them. Public Relations Review, 26(2), 173-190.
DiFonzo, N. & Bordia, P. (2007). Rumor psychology: Social and organizational approaches.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Faye, C. (2007). Governing the grapevine: The study of rumor during World War II. History of
Psychology, 10(1), 1-21. doi: 10.1037/1093-4510.10.1.1

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

26

McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment:
Reexamination of the affective and continuance commitment scales. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72, 638-642.
Meglino, B. M., DeNisi, A. S., Youngblood, S. A., & Williams, K. J. (1988). Effects of realistic
job previews: A comparison using enhancement and a reduction preview. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73, 259-266.
Meister, J. (2012). Job hopping is the new normal for millennials: Three ways to prevent a
human resource nightmare. Forbes. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeannemeister/2012/08/14/job-hopping-is-the-new-normalfor-millennials-three-ways-to-prevent-a-human-resource-nightmare/
Overwalle, F. V., & Heylighen, F. (2006). Talking nets: A multiagent connectionist approach to
communication and trust between individuals. Psychological Review, 113(3), 606-627.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.606
Palanski, M. E. (2012). Forgiveness and reconciliation in the workplace: A multi-level
perspective and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 275-287.
doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1125-1
Schweiger, D. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (1991). The effects of communication with employees
following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal,
34, 110-135.

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

27

Table 1
Mean, Standard Deviation, and 95% Confidence Interval Of
Each Subscale

Time 1

Time 2

Organizational Commitment
Communication Quality
Uncertainty
Anxiet
y
Job Satisfaction
Trust
Productivity
Stress
Forgiveness: Support
Forgiveness: Cohesion
Organizational Citizenship
Behavior
Willingness to Forgive
Organizational Commitment
Communication Quality
Uncertainty
Anxiet
y
Job Satisfaction
Trust
Productivity
Stress
Forgiveness: Support
Forgiveness: Cohesion
Organizational Citizenship
Behavior
Willingness to Forgive

Note. M = mean, SD = standard deviation.

M
5.34
5.15
2.75

95% Confidence
Interval
S
Lo
Upp
D
wer
er
1.13
4.65
6.02
1.16
4.45
5.86
1.24
2.00
3.50

3.23
5.35
4.86
5.15
2.71
4.85
5.62

1.55
1.53
1.03
0.83
1.35
1.04
1.01

2.30
4.42
4.24
4.65
1.90
4.22
5.00

4.17
6.27
5.49
5.65
3.53
5.48
6.23

6.14
3.35
5.08
5.38
3.40

0.68
0.94
1.56
1.10
1.44

5.73
2.78
4.14
4.72
2.53

6.55
3.91
6.02
6.05
4.28

3.77
5.16
4.86
5.35
2.96
4.56
5.42

1.60
1.66
1.23
1.21
1.35
1.37
1.26

2.80
4.16
4.12
4.61
2.15
3.73
4.66

4.74
6.16
5.61
6.08
3.77
5.39
6.18

6.14
3.65

0.69
0.74

5.73
3.21

6.56
4.10

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

28

Table 2
Pearson Correlation for Time 1

Note. OC = organizational commitment, CQ = communication quality, UT =

uncertainty, A = anxiety, JS = job satisfaction, T = trust, P = productivity, S =
stress, F:S = forgiveness: support, F:C = forgiveness: cohesion, OCB =
organizational citizenship behaviors, WTF(1-6) = willingness to forgive (including all
6 items), WTF(1&2) = willingness to forgive (only including 2 reliable items).

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

29

Table 3
Pearson Correlation for Time 2

Note. OC = organizational commitment, CQ = communication quality, UT =

uncertainty, A = anxiety, JS = job satisfaction, T = trust, P = productivity, S =
stress, F:S = forgiveness: support, F:C = forgiveness: cohesion, OCB =
organizational citizenship behaviors, WTF(1-6) = willingness to forgive (including all
6 items), WTF(1&2) = willingness to forgive (only including 2 reliable items).

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

Figure 1. Comparing the mean responses for each variable at time 1 and time 2.
Bar graph indicating the mean responses for each variable. Time 1 is displayed in solid colors
while time 2 is displayed in stripes.

30

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

31
Appendix A

Rumor Transmission and Forgiveness Culture Questionnaire

Demographics:
1. Pleasespecifyyoursex:

Male
Female
2. Pleasespecifyyourage:

Lessthan20yearsold
2029yearsold
3039yearsold
4049yearsold
5059yearsold
6069yearsold
7079yearsold

3. How many years have you been working at this nonprofit chapter?
0 4 years
5 9 years
10 14 years
15 19 years
20 24 years
25 29 years
30 + years

Communication Quality
On the whole over the past month,
1. How well informed has the company kept you about upcoming changes?
7 = Completely Informed, 1 = Completely Uninformed
2. How do you feel about the adequacy of communication that you receive from the
company?
7 = Completely Adequate, 1 = Completely Inadequate
Uncertainty
On average over the past month,
1. I was filled with questions about what current events in my company meant.
2. I was uncertain about whether friends and colleagues will lose their jobs.

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

3.
4.
5.
6.

32

I was uncertain about whether the company will be a good place to work.
I was uncertain about whether the overall quality of my job will change.
I was uncertain about whether I will be laid off.
I was filled with uncertainty related to my job and/or my company.

Anxiety
On average over the past month,
1. I felt anxious about possible changes that will occur in this company.
2. The thought of upcoming changes in this company worried me.
Rumors Heard
In the past month, how many different rumors have you heard related to this organization? (Write
approximate number.)
If you have heard a rumor over the past month, how likely were you (or would you have been) to
share this rumor with a coworker?
7 = Definitely Would, 1 = Definitely Would Not
In the past month, how overall positive (i.e. giving praise) versus negative (i.e. giving criticism)
were the rumors that you heard? (Only answer if you heard 1 or more rumors)
7 = Very Positive, 1 = Very Negative
Rumors Passed
Of the above number of rumors, how many did you pass on to someone else within the
organization? (Write approximate number.)
Job Satisfaction
1. In general over the past month, how well would you say your job measures up to the sort
of job you hoped it would be when you took it?
7 = Very Much Like, 4 = Somewhat Like, 1 = Not Very Much Like
2. All in all, how satisfied would you say you were with your job over the past month?
7 = Extremely, 4 = Moderately, 1 = Not At All
3. If a good friend of yours told you he/she was interested in working in a job like yours for
your employer, on average over the past month what would you have told him/her?
7 = Definitely Recommend, 1 = Definitely Not Recommend
4. Knowing what you know now, if you had to decide all over again whether to take the job
you now have, what would you have decided over the past month?
7 = Definitely Take Same Job, 1 = Definitely Not Take Same Job
Organizational Commitment
On average over the past month,
1. I did not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. (r)
2. I felt that this organization had a great deal of personal meaning for me.
3. I felt that I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.
4. I felt that I would enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it.
5. I did not feel like part of the family at this organization. (r)

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

33

6. I did not feel emotionally attached to this organization. (r)

Trust
On average over the past month,
1. I felt that the company takes advantage of its employees. (r)
2. I felt that management is concerned about employee potential and development.
3. I felt that the company is honest in its dealings with the employees.
4. I felt that the company cares about what happens to its employees.
5. I felt that the company listens to its employees.
Productivity
Over the past month,
1. How productive were you in comparison to your usual level of productivity?
7 = Much More Than Usual, 4 = Same as Usual, 1 = Much Less Than Usual
2. How much work did you accomplish in comparison to what you ordinarily accomplish?
7 = Much More Work, 4 = About the Same, 1 = Much Less Work
Stress
On average, in respect to my work environment, I feel
1. Miserable
2. Tense
3. Anxious
4. Helpless
Forgiveness: Support
On average,
1. We have a we are in it together attitude.
2. People keep each other informed about work-related issues in the team.
3. People feel understood and accepted by each other.
4. Everyones view is listened to even if it is in a minority.
Forgiveness: Cohesion
On average,
1. People pitch in to help each other out.
2. People tend to get along with each other.
3. People take a personal interest in one another.
4. There is a lot of team spirit among us.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
On average,
1. I help others who have been absent.
2. I help others who have heavy workloads.
3. I assist the supervisor with her work (when asked).
4. I take time to listen to co-workers problems and worries.
5. I go out of my way to help new employees.
6. I take a personal interest in other employees.

RUMORS AND FORGIVENESS

34

7. I pass along information to co-workers.

Willingness to Forgive
How willing are you to forgive the following workplace offenses?
1. You share something embarrassing about yourself with a coworker who promises to keep
the information confidential. However, that person breaks this promise when he/she
proceeds to tell several people. You are humiliated.
2. One of your coworkers starts a nasty rumor about you that is not true. As a result, people
begin treating you differently at work.
3. Your organization has yearly performance objectives. One group member fails to carry
out assigned duties that will affect your departments goals. This behavior will affect
everyones end of the year bonus.
4. One of your coworkers always dominates departmental meetings. This makes it difficult
to hear others opinions, and this persons behavior also usually causes meetings to run
over the scheduled time.
5. You had hoped for a special assignment this summer and you shared this information
with a coworker. However, when your supervisor asked for volunteers, you were not
present. You later find out that the colleague in whom you had confided had volunteered
for the position that he/she knew you wanted.
6. Repeatedly, one of your group members has to leave work for a family crisis or
emergency leaving you to do both your job and his/her job. One afternoon, your
coworker leaves early for a crisis. Later that day, you see your coworker shopping at the
mall with his/her spouse. Apparently, there was no true emergency.

Note. Unless otherwise indicated, participants were asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with each
statement on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = neither agree nor disagree; 7 = strongly agree).
Measures of uncertainty and job satisfaction are from Schweiger and DeNisi (1991) and previous
conceptualizations of uncertainty. Communication quality, anxiety, rumors heard, rumors passed, and
productivity items are from DiFonzo and Bordia (2007). Trust was assessed with five items from Meglino,
DeNisi, Youngblood, and Williams (1988). Organizational commitment from the Affective Commitment
Scale (McGee & Ford, 1987). Stress, forgiveness: support, forgiveness: cohesion, and organizational
citizenship behavior items are from Cox (2008).
Items with (r) were reverse-scored.