WORKPLACE GOSSIP

AS A WAY OF COPING WITH OCCUPATIONAL STRESS

by

Urszula M. Kakar

A Dissertation

Submitted to the University at Albany, State University of New York

in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Collage of Arts & Science

Department of Psychology

2013
 UMI Number: 3555175

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3555175
Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 Table of Contents

List of Tables.....................................................................................................................vii

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix

Abstract................................................................................................................................x

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... xiii

Chapter 1. Introduction and Statement of the Problem....................................................... 1

Chapter 2. Defining Workplace Gossip ............................................................................ 10

Subject ....................................................................................................................... 12

Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 13

Content....................................................................................................................... 14

Context....................................................................................................................... 14

Motivation ................................................................................................................. 15

The Current Study ......................................................................................................... 16

Method .......................................................................................................................... 16

Survey Generation ..................................................................................................... 16

Survey Procedures ..................................................................................................... 17

Results ........................................................................................................................... 17

Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 29

Subject ....................................................................................................................... 29

Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 30

Content....................................................................................................................... 30

Context....................................................................................................................... 31

ii
 Motivation ................................................................................................................. 32

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 32

Definition of Workplace Gossip ................................................................................... 33

Chapter 3. Review of the Literature .................................................................................. 34

Workplace Gossip ......................................................................................................... 35

Functions of Gossip ................................................................................................... 36

Gossip Consequences ................................................................................................ 38

Individual Differences and Psychological Needs ...................................................... 40

Transactional Process Model of Stress.......................................................................... 43

Primary and Secondary Appraisal ............................................................................. 44

Coping in the Transactional Process Model of Stress ............................................... 45

Relationships between Variables in the Transactional Process Model of Stress ...... 47

Workplace Stressors ...................................................................................................... 48

Workload ................................................................................................................... 50

Organizational Constraints ........................................................................................ 50

Interpersonal Conflict ................................................................................................ 50

Workplace Strains ......................................................................................................... 51

Physical Strain ........................................................................................................... 52

Psychological Strain .................................................................................................. 53

Workplace Gossip and Coping with Work Stress ......................................................... 54

Workplace Gossip and Workplace Stressors ................................................................ 56

Workplace Gossip and Workplace Strains .................................................................... 59

Chapter 4. Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................... 62

iii
 Workplace Stressors and Psychological Needs in Prediction of Workplace Gossip .... 63

Mechanisms through which Workplace Gossip Leads to Decrease

in the Stressors - Strains Relationship ........................................................................... 69

Social Support............................................................................................................ 71

Clarity and Strength of Organizational Norms .......................................................... 74

Perception of Workplace Fun .................................................................................... 76

Informal Influence ..................................................................................................... 78

Chapter 5. Methods ........................................................................................................... 82

Power Analysis .............................................................................................................. 83

Participants .................................................................................................................... 83

Measures........................................................................................................................ 88

Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 94

Chapter 6. Results ............................................................................................................. 97

Data Screening .............................................................................................................. 98

Data preparation. ....................................................................................................... 98

Missing data. ............................................................................................................. 99

Outliers. ..................................................................................................................... 99

Normality. ............................................................................................................... 100

Control Variables ........................................................................................................ 100

Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................... 102

The Moderating Effect of Gossip on the Stressor-Strain Relationship ....................... 104

Test of Study Hypotheses............................................................................................ 113

Workplace Stressors and Psychological Needs Predicting Workplace Gossip ....... 113

iv
 Hypothesis 1: Interpersonal Conflict and Need for Affiliation. .............................. 115

Hypothesis 2: Interpersonal Conflict and Need for Dominance.............................. 119

Research Questions 1-3 ........................................................................................... 121

Hypotheses 3 through 6: Mechanisms through which Workplace Gossip Leads to

Decrease in the Stressor-Strain Relations ................................................................ 122

Hypothesis 3: Coworker and Supervisor Support as a Moderator. ......................... 129

Hypothesis 4: Clarity of Organizational Norms as a Moderator. ............................ 135

Hypothesis 5: Workplace Fun as a Moderator. ....................................................... 139

Hypothesis 6: Informal Influence as a Moderator. .................................................. 142

Chapter 7. Discussion ..................................................................................................... 145

Stressors and Psychological Needs as Predictors of Gossip ....................................... 146

Need for Affiliation ................................................................................................. 147

Need for Dominance ................................................................................................ 149

Need for Achievement ............................................................................................. 149

Organizational Constraints and Workload .............................................................. 150

Mechanisms through which Gossip Influences the Stressor-Strain Relationship ....... 151

Assumption 1: Gossip Attenuates Strains ............................................................... 152

Assumption 2: Gossip Influences a Set of Moderators of the Stressor-Strain

Relationship ............................................................................................................. 156

Coworker and Supervisor Support. ................................................................... 156

Strength and Clarity of Organizational Norms .................................................. 158

Workplace Fun. ................................................................................................. 159

Informal Influence. ............................................................................................ 161

v
 Study Limitations ........................................................................................................ 162

Study Implications....................................................................................................... 165

Implications for Theory ........................................................................................... 165

Implications for Applied Setting ............................................................................. 166

Conclusion................................................................................................................... 167

References ....................................................................................................................... 169

APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................. 193

APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................. 195

APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................. 196

APPENDIX D ................................................................................................................. 199

APPENDIX E ................................................................................................................. 201

APPENDIX F.................................................................................................................. 202

APPENDIX G ................................................................................................................. 204

APPENDIX H ................................................................................................................. 205

APPENDIX I .................................................................................................................. 206

APPENDIX J .................................................................................................................. 207

APPENDIX K ................................................................................................................. 208

APPENDIX L ................................................................................................................. 209

vi
 List of Tables

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for the Survey Responses Presented by Consensus

Category .............................................................................................................................20

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for the Survey Responses Presented by Theme ................25

Table 3: Demographic Data Presented by Sample and Total ............................................86

Table 4: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations between Study Variables.........102

Table 5: Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Psychological Strain from

Gossip, Interpersonal Conflict and Interaction between them .........................................105

Table 6: Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Psychological Strain from

Gossip, Organizational Constraints and Interaction between them .................................107

Table 7: Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Psychological Strain from

Gossip, Workload and Interaction between them ............................................................108

Table 8: Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Physical Strain from Gossip,

Interpersonal Conflict and Interaction between them ......................................................110

Table 9: Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Physical Strain from Gossip,

Organizational Constraints and Interaction between them ..............................................111

Table 10: Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Physical Strain from

Gossip, Workload and Interaction between them ............................................................112

Table 11: Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Gossip from Need for

Affiliation, Interpersonal Conflict, and Interaction between Need for Affiliation and

Interpersonal Conflict .....................................................................................................116

vii
Table 12: Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Gossip from Need for

Dominance, Interpersonal Conflict and Interaction between Need for Dominance and

Interpersonal Conflict ......................................................................................................120

Table 13: Results of Regression Analyses Predicting Gossip from Need for Achievement,

Organizational Constraints and Workload .......................................................................122

Table 14: Coefficient Estimates for the Hypothesis 3, where Coworker Support was the

Moderator .........................................................................................................................130

Table 15: Analyses of Effects: Coworker Support ..........................................................131

Table 16: Coefficient Estimates for the Hypothesis 3, where Supervisor Support was the

Moderator .........................................................................................................................133

Table 17: Analyses of Effects: Supervisor Support .........................................................134

Table 18: Coefficient Estimates for the Hypothesis 4, where Clarity and Strength of

Organizational Norms was the Moderator .......................................................................136

Table 19: Analyses of Effects: Clarity and Strength of Organizational Norms ..............138

Table 20: Coefficient Estimates for the Hypothesis 5, where Workplace Fun was the

Moderator .........................................................................................................................139

Table 21: Analyses of Effects: Workplace Fun ...............................................................141

Table 22: Coefficient Estimates for the Hypothesis 6, where Informal Influence was the

Moderator .........................................................................................................................143

Table 23: Analyses of Effects: Informal Influence ..........................................................144

viii
 List of Figures

Figure 1: The Transactional Process Model of Stress .......................................................47

Figure 2: A Moderating Effect of Gossip on the Interpersonal Conflict - Psychological

Strain Relationship ...........................................................................................................106

Figure 3: A Moderating Effect of Gossip on the Workload - Psychological Strain

Relationship .....................................................................................................................109

Figure 4: A Moderating Effect of Psychological Needs on the Stressor-Gossip

Relationship .....................................................................................................................114

Figure 5: An Interaction between Need for Affiliation and Interpersonal Conflict ........117

Figure 6: A Model Presenting A Mechanism through which Workplace Gossip Leads to

Decrease in the Stressor-Strain Relationship ...................................................................124

ix
 Abstract

The goal of this study was to investigate the relationship between workplace

gossip and occupation stress. Gossip has been recognized as a ubiquitous and influential,

yet seriously under researched phenomenon in the workplace. It has been acknowledged

that research on workplace gossip is of great value because it constitutes a big part of

organizational communication, it serves important functions, and it has serious

consequences for members and organization itself. The small number of studies may be

in part explained by the lack of agreement among researchers on the definition of gossip.

Thus, the first part of this project deals with defining workplace gossip using

survey of scientific opinions. Gossip researchers were asked to indicate agreement or

disagreement with 20 statements representing defining features of workplace gossip.

There was consensus that gossip is an informal, evaluative talk about third absent parties

that are part of the organization. Researchers also agreed that motives behind gossip,

presence of the context of congeniality and the sign of the evaluation should not be a part

of the definition.

The second goal of the study was to investigate the relationship between

workplace gossip and occupational stress, by adopting Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984)

Transactional Process Model of Stress. An online survey of a sample of working

individuals was used in this investigation. It was found that need for affiliation and need

for dominance, as well as two types of workplace stressors: interpersonal conflict and

organizational constraints were predictive of gossiping behaviors.

The second set of hypotheses focused on several mechanisms related to gossip’s

functions that could explain gossip’s moderating influence on the stressor-strain

x
relationship. However, gossip was only a significant predictor of informal influence.

Further, the relations between variables ran counter to the hypotheses, suggesting that, if

anything, experiences of strains are actually stronger among workers who gossip more.

xi
 Acknowledgements

This dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance and support

of numerous individuals. I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest

appreciation to those who have made this dissertation possible.

First, I would first like to thank my committee chair, and advisor, Dr. Michael

Ford for his expertise, effort and commitment. He provided me with guidance, feedback,

and advice that helped direct my efforts toward completion of this project. He devoted

numerous hours of his time on improving the quality of this paper. I truly appreciate his

input.

I am also very grateful to the other members of my doctoral committee, Dr. Sylvia

Roch and Dr. Marcus Crede. Both have provided tremendous insight, valuable advice and

a substantial investment of time. Without their contributions, this dissertation would not

have been possible.

I would like to also thank Dr. Lisa Schurer Lambert from Georgia State

University for her assistance in performing the mediated moderation analyses. Her

pervious work is an integral component of my analytical toolkit. She committed her time

to explaining her method, and answering my questions. For this, I am truly grateful.

Finally, I would like to thank my dear husband Dheeraj for the years of support

and encouragement I received from him. I am truly grateful not only for supporting me in

completing this dissertation, but also for supporting me throughout graduate school. In

addition, I would like to thank my daughter Maya, who was born while I was working on

this doctoral project. Although she did not sleep much, her beautiful personality kept me

xii
going. Her persistence and infinite capability to learn new things was truly inspirational

and motivating to me.

xiii
 Chapter I

Introduction and Statement of the Problem

1
 Gossip is a ubiquitous and influential phenomenon in the workplace (e.g.,

Crampton, Hodge & Mishra, 1998; Kureland & Pelled, 2000). In recent years, the way in

which researchers perceive the nature and meaning of gossip has changed significantly.

Traditionally, gossip was viewed as socially undesirable and immoral behavior (e.g.,

Goodman & Ben-Zex, 1994; Nevo, Nevo & Derech, 1993) and commonly understood as

negative talk with intention to harm someone (Shermer, 2004). In the field of Industrial-

Organizational Psychology the initial approach toward gossip reduced this form of

informal communication to counterproductive workplace behavior (Marcus & Schuler,

2004; Neuman, 1998), blaming gossip for time waste, impairing employees’ productivity

and morale, and destroying belief in organizational activity. Early publications on

workplace gossip focused mostly on proposing strategies for disciplining the workforce

and managing and eliminating gossip in the workplace (e.g., Danzinger, 1988; Mishra,

1990). Recently, however, it has been recognized that gossip has also a positive side (e.g.,

Michelson & Mouly, 2004; Noon & Delbridge, 1993). Several gossip theorists from

across different scientific domains acknowledged that this form of communication is very

important for any social environment (e.g., Baumeister, Ahang, Vohs, 2004; Dunbar,

2004; Foster, 1994). What followed the recognition of the importance of gossip in the

field of organizational studies was the acknowledgement that research on gossip is of

great value to organizations (Noon & Delbridge, 1993). Researching gossip is so

important because it constitutes a big part of organizational communication (Esposito &

Rosnow, 1983; Mills, 2010; Ribeiro & Blakeley, 1995). Existing studies investigating the

frequency of gossiping behaviors show that gossip is a part of approximately 70 % of

human conversations (Dunbar, Marriott & Duncan, 1997; Elmer, 1989; Levin & Arluke,

2
1985) and approximately 14 % of coffee-break conversations in the workplace context

(Slade, 1997). Furthermore, researching gossip is important because it serves many

significant functions: 1) information exchange (Foster, 2004); 2) social bonding, which

includes building and maintaining social relationships (DiFonzo & Bordia; 2007), 3)

entertainment (Ribeiro & Blakeley, 1995); 4) exerting influence or enhancing one’s

social status (Hom & Haidt, 2002); and 5) emotional relief (Waddington, 2005). Gossip’s

consequences can be serious for both members of an organization as well as the

organization itself (Mishra, 1990). It is clear that gossip as a form of informal

communication is prevalent and influential, yet due to limited number of studies, our

understanding of its nature in organizations is still very vague.

Recently, several theoretical articles have been published on the benefits of

gossip, defending its reputation and encouraging scientists to conduct more research (e.g.,

Michelson & Moldy, 2000; Noon & Delbridge, 1993). However, despite Noon and

Delbridge’s (1993) call for more research, not many studies have been conducted on

gossip in an organizational setting. The small number of studies may be in part explained

by the lack of agreement among researchers on the definition of gossip. Defining

workplace gossip is not an easy task (e.g., Ayim, 1994; Kniffin & Willson, 2005). Many

authors stated that gossip is potentially difficult to conceptualize (e.g., Michelson &

Mouly, 2000; Mills, 2010; Wert & Salovey, 2004), and that any definition is likely to be

controversial (e.g., Ben-Zeev, 1994). Nevertheless, any concept cannot be researched

unless properly defined.

Thus, the first part of this study aims at defining workplace gossip. To this end,

expert opinions on existing definitions and theories of gossip were surveyed. A content

3
analysis of the literature showed that gossip is usually operationalized using five

dimensions: subject, evaluation, content, context in which it occurs and motivation

behind it. The experts, identified on the basis of their contribution to the literature on

gossip, were asked to indicate their agreement and disagreement with several statements

concerning defining features of the construct. The results of this survey, described in the

next section of this manuscript, converged on an agreed upon definition of the workplace

gossip.

Occupational stress and its impact on employee’s health and work performance is

another important subject for organizations. Stress at work has been recognized as a

global challenge (e.g., Dewe, O’Driscoll & Cooper, 2010). The cost and consequences of

job stress for both employees and organizations have been clearly demonstrated (e.g.,

Spielberg, Vagg & Wasala, 2001). Stress imposes a high cost on individual health,

mental well -being and quality of domestic and social relationships. For companies, stress

is a contributing factor to decreased productivity, with stressed employees more likely to

perform poorly, take sickness absences, or require costly medical care (e.g., Quick &

Tetrick, 2001). Thus, research on workplace stress is of great value to organizations.

Some preliminary findings on gossip’s role in emotional regulation (e.g.,

Waddington, 2005) as well as an examination of other potential roles gossip plays in the

social context suggest that there is a link between workplace gossip and occupational

stress (e.g., Michelson & Mouly, 2004). Thus, the second goal of this doctoral project is

to investigate the link between occupational stress and gossiping behaviors in the

workplace. In order to do that, this dissertation adopts Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984)

4
stress model and its assumptions with regard to the relationships between stressors,

coping and experience of strain.

The Transactional Process Model of Stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) defines

stress as a natural interaction between perceived challenge, obstacle, or threat to one’s

goals, health or happiness and the coping responses available to the individual (Quillian-

Wolever & Wolever, 2001). The basic premise of the model is that stress is a complex

process that consists of three major components: a) sources of stress that are encountered

in work environment; b) perception and evaluation of a particular stressor by an

employee; c) emotional reactions that are evoked when a stressor is appraised as

threatening (Spielberger, Vagg & Vasala, 2001). According to the theory, stress results

from an interaction between the person and the workplace environment, and its intensity

depends on individual coping skills and available resources. Thus, coping is another

crucial construct in this theory. According to the theory, coping efforts are directed at

changing stressful situations (problem-focused coping) and regulating emotional distress

(emotion-focused coping). An individual can use gossip as a coping mechanism in

attempts to alter a stressful situation as well as in attempts to regulate emotional distress.

Consequently, gossip can be considered a coping strategy. For example, gossip plays a

role in information exchange and in situations of uncertainty can be used to obtain

information helpful in clarifying and understand a stressful situation (e.g., DiFonzo &

Bordia, 2007). Gossip also plays a function in building and maintaining social relations

(DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007); thus one can engage in gossiping behavior in order to gain

emotional and instrumental support from others. Lastly, gossip can be used with the

purpose of entertainment or as emotional relief, when stressful situations cannot be

5
changed by any particular action. Humorous and funny gossip may allow one to view the

situation in better light. Thus, it is clear that gossip can be an emotion-coping strategy,

because it helps alleviate emotional distress either by providing means of expressing

emotions or by changing the meaning of what is happening, as well as problem-focused

coping strategy by indirectly leading to solving problems.

The link between stress and gossip has been previously theorized in the literature,

but only few empirical studies have been conducted to support it (e.g., Ribeiro &

Blakeley, 1995; Chinn, 1990). Existing studies show that employees rely on gossip when

they feel threatened, insecure and under stress (Crampton et al., 1998), and that the

consequence of gossiping can be stress reduction (Michelson & Mouly, 2004). Ribeiro

and Blakeley (1995) suggested that gossip can be used as a vehicle of emotional

ventilation, relief, emotional distress, anxiety and hostility. In support of this claim,

Waddington (2005) found that employees report using gossip mainly as a way of dealing

with stressful circumstances through expression and management of emotions. Thus,

these preliminary findings indicate that the link between gossip, coping and occupational

stress indeed exists.

Theses of this project are based on the assumptions of the transactional model of

stress with regard to relationships between stressors, coping and strains. The first part of

Lazarus and Folkman’s model shows how individual differences and stressors

interactively affect coping. In accordance with the model, this study hypothesizes how

psychological needs and workplace stressors predict gossiping as a way of coping with

stress. Looking at psychological needs as a type of individual difference can provide an

explanation for why people engage in a certain type of behavior, such as gossiping (e.g.,

6
Sheldon, Elliot, Kim & Kasser, 2001). Up to this date, only one study looked at the

relationship of gossiping and various psychological needs (Keefer, 1993). That study

showed that people who tend to gossip had higher need for social approval, higher need

for dominance, and lower need for achievement, whereas a need for autonomy was not

related to gossiping behavior. Individuals with a need for affiliation desire to interact

socially and be accepted by others (Hecket et al., 2000). As was mentioned before, gossip

provides one with an opportunity for social interaction, gaining feeling of social bonding

and being socially accepted. Individuals with a high need for dominance have the desire

to influence and direct others (Hecket et al., 2000) and gossip can be a way of obtaining

social influence (e.g., Kurland & Pelled, 2000). It is likely that gossip can be a tool for

fulfilling one’s need for affiliation or dominance. Thus, it is not surprising that a high

need for affiliation and a high need for dominance predict gossiping.

In the transactional model of stress, individual differences interact with

characteristics of stressful situation in prediction of coping. This study is based on the

assumption that gossip can be used as a coping strategy to deal with occupational

stressors. Following Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) model, this study investigates

whether psychological needs interact with workplace stressors and predict gossiping as a

coping strategy. Because gossip leads to social interaction as well as obtaining social

influence, it is logical to assume that individuals high on needs for affiliation and

dominance tend to use gossip as a coping strategy when workplace stressors are high. It is

also likely that different type of needs interact with different types of stressors in

prediction of gossiping. For example, social stressors may trigger gossiping in individuals

with a high need for affiliation to higher extent than workload or organizational

7
constraints, because the presence of social stressors may threaten their need fulfillment.

On the other hand, social stressors should not lead to gossiping for individuals with a

high need for achievement, because stressful social situations are not directly threatening

to their needs fulfillment, and because gossiping is not a useful tool of fulfilling their

needs. Thus, in congruence with the transactional model of stress, this study explores the

possibility that the psychological needs interact with workplace stressors in prediction of

gossiping behaviors.

The second part of the transactional model shows the relationship between coping

and strain. Accordingly, this study investigates a set of possible mechanisms through

which gossiping may lead to decrease in psychological, emotional and physical strain.

The assumption that gossip leads to decreases rather than increases in strain was made on

the basis of Crampton’s (1998), Michelson and Mouly’s (2004) as well as Waddington’s

(2005) studies that found this to be the case. The hypotheses explaining the mechanisms

were based on theories discussing gossip’s functions in a social environment. As was

mentioned above, gossip plays a significant role in building and maintaining social

relationships. Through gossip one gets closer with coworkers, feels trusted, accepted, and

as a part of a group. Thus, the first way through which gossip may lead to decreases in

strain is by providing the gossiper with social support. Gossip also plays an entertainment

role. It has been suggested that employees engage in gossip in order to obtain emotional

and intellectual stimulation, as well as escape from boredom and monotony of work

tasks. Thus, it is likely that gossip can lead to a higher perception of workplace fun and in

turn decrease workplace strain. The next important function of gossip is facilitation of

information exchange and reinforcement of organizational culture. It has been suggested

8
that stories spread by gossip contain important information on what is expected as well as

what is accepted in a particular organization (e.g., Baumeister, 2004). Because these

stories tend to be passed around and often repeated, they serve as a tool of reinforcement

of existing norms and values, as well as socialization of new employees. Thus, it is likely

that where gossip is present, employees have a higher perception of strength and clarity

of organizational norms. This in turn may lead to decrease in strain, because

organizational expectations are clear as to what to do in stressful situations or how to

solve problems. Lastly, gossip is an important tool of gaining influence and informal

power. People who tend to gossip tend to have more access to important information and

social networks. It is possible that they have a higher perception of influence and control,

which has been linked to less strain. Thus, this study explores a set of hypotheses with

regard to possible mechanisms in which gossiping as a coping strategy may lead to

decreases in strain.

9
 Chapter II

Defining Workplace Gossip

10
 Defining workplace gossip is not an easy task. Many authors stated that gossip is

potentially difficult to conceptualize (Ayim, 1994; Michelson & Mouldy, 2000; Paine,

1967), and that any definition of gossip is likely to be complex and controversial (Ben-

Zeev, 1994; Taylor, 1994; Wert & Salovey, 2004). Academics consistently encounter a

number of problems while attempting to conceptualize the construct of gossip (e.g.,

Delbridge & Noon, 1993; Gilmore, 1978; Kurland & Pelled, 2000). One is the existing

discrepancy between the common sense understanding of word gossip and the approach

adopted by scientists (e.g., Michelson, van Iterson, Waddington, 2010). Whereas

common sense understanding gossip indicates idle talk, or chitchat and carries negative

connotations (Rosnow, 1976), scientists lean toward more neutral meaning of the term

with emphasis on the organization of the communication (e.g., Mills, 2010). An

additional problem noted by Waddington (2005) is that the concept is researched in many

areas, such as anthropology (e.g., Dunbar, 1994), psychology (e.g., Rosnow, 1976),

sociology (e.g., Bergmann, 1993) and organizational communication (Mills, 2010).To

some extent, each of these disciplines views the concept differently and draws from

different theoretical perspectives (Noon & Delbridge, 1993). Moreover, there is a

diversity of gossip forms and most authors adopt a relatively narrow view on the

phenomenon focusing only on one of these forms (Michelson et al., 2010). Lastly, some

definitions of gossip describe the concept through its’ potential role or function. For

example, DiFonzo and Bordia (2007) define gossip through its role in building social

solidarity, whereas Noon and Delbridge (1993) define it through its function in

communicating information. Recently it has been recognized that gossip may serve many

functions (e.g., Foster, 2004).

11
 As a result of these problems, many researchers focused on delineating defining

features of gossip (e.g., Michelson et al., 2010; Mills, 2010) instead of proposing a

specific definition. Here I review potential core elements of the gossip and opinions on

these elements. The major themes in defining gossip concern a) subject, b) evaluation, c)

content, d) context, and e) motives behind gossip.

Subject

Majority of researchers agree that gossip is talk about absent third parties (Foster,

2004). Kureland and Pelled (2000) noted that in scholarly writings researchers

predominately treat the concept as communication about people. Further, the American

Management Association (AMA) asserted that gossip focuses solely on information

about people (Smith, 1996). However, there is no agreement on whether gossip is also

talk about events. For example, Grosser et al. (2011) argue that the subject of gossips is

exclusively about people and the subject of rumors is events. On the contrary, Ayim

(1994) as well as Michelson and Mouly (2000) acknowledge that gossip can revolve

around inanimate objects and events such as new management initiatives. Given that

human communication is dynamic and spontaneous (Mills, 2010), it is likely that most

talk about people is intertwined with talk about events.

Furthermore, Kureland and Pelled (2000) distinguish between work-related

(professional) and non work-related (social) gossip and suggested that only the former

should be considered workplace gossip. These authors have defined work-relatedness as

“the degree to which gossip is focused on a subject's work life, such as job performance,

career progress, relationships with other organizational members, and general behavior in

12
the workplace” (p. 428). However, according to Roy (1958), existing literature clearly

identifies non-work related talk as workplace gossip.

Lastly, Kureland and Pelled (2000) suggested that workplace gossip is talk about

members of an organization. However, it is likely that communication about third parties,

who are not part of an organization, including friends, family, and celebrities, is also

considered workplace gossip. This issue was not previously discussed in the literature,

yet it deserves attention.

Evaluation

Majority of researchers include a notion of evaluation as defining feature of

gossip. For example, gossip has been defined as evaluative talk (Eder & Enke, 1991),

critical talk (Gilmore, 1978), and a process of communicating value-laden information

(Noon & Delbridge, 1993). Some researchers, however, adopt a wider definition of

gossip excluding evaluation as an important feature of the concept (Michelson &

Mouldy, 2000). It has been noticed that the decision whether the statement is positive or

negative often depends on the context and shared understanding of gossipers; thus it is

hard to determine if evaluation is present (Wert & Salovey, 2004). Often subtle

evaluations are embedded in speakers’ tone or in a joke that an outsider cannot

understand. Yerkovich (1977) argues that moral comments are inevitable parts of gossip,

because when talking about third parties individuals build their moral character. Also, a

decision on whether particular behavior is important enough to be gossiped about is

based on its previous appraisal. Thus, evaluation is an inevitable part of gossip.

13
Content

Researchers also disagree on whether the content of gossip is trivial or significant.

Ben Ze’ev (1994) claims that gossip does not address highly sophisticated and serious

issues; Morreall (1994) states that gossip does not delve deeply into issues; and Taylor

(1994) argues that gossip requires no abstract thought or the working out of ideological,

or moral views. On the other hand, several authors argue that the content of gossip is far

from trivial (e.g., Elmer, 1994) and refers to the important and significant matters. For

example, Ayim (1993) argues that gossip cannot be trivial, since it evokes strong

reactions and controversy from the society. If the gossip were indeed trivial how would

we explain society’s intense nervousness surrounding it? Furthermore, it has been argued

that gossip is so commonly deprecated and criticized because its subject matter is indeed

important. Lastly, it has been argued that a talk concerning personal matters cannot be

trivial since our lives are not indeed trivial (Collins, 1994).

Context

Some argue that context is a necessary consideration in establishing that gossip is

present (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007; Foster, 1994). Many authors advocate that gossip is a

form of communication that occurs only in the context of privacy, intimacy and

congeniality (Eder & Enke, 1991; Gluckman, 1963). According to Yerkovich (1977),

“information isn't gossip unless the participants know enough about the people involved

to experience the thrill of revelation” (p. 196). Spacks (1982) asserted that “it’s a certain

atmosphere, most of all, that makes gossip recognizable: of intimacy, of gusto, often of

surprise and revelation” (p. 30). However, it must be acknowledged that the workplace

14
may set different contexts that may not allow for the congeniality in sharing information.

Although it is possible to have friends at work, most often we work with people whom

we would not necessarily consider friends. Nevertheless, it is agreed upon that gossip is a

ubiquitous phenomenon in the workplace (e.g., Ribeiro, 1996). Michelson and Mouly’s

(2004) study provides initial support for the claim that gossip occurs also between

strangers. Grosser et al. (2010) found that people with purely instrumental workflow ties

also get involved in gossip.

Motivation

Another issue is whether gossip is a motivated behavior. Again, two contradicting

opinions are found in the literature. The first perspective acknowledges that gossip is

purposeless and with no significant intended practical results (e.g., Thomas, 1993).

Collins (1993) argues that gossip is not an instrumental discourse, and it is directed to no

specific ends, while De Sousa (1993) also states that gossip is not goal-oriented.

Furthermore, Ben Ze’ev (1993) argues that gossip seems to be a talk for the sake of

talking, and we engage in gossip because we delight in the activity itself and not its

results. Some authors claim that the type of motivation linked to conversation makes it

gossip or not. Taylor (1993) gives an example of a conversation where participants talk

because they simply enjoy the subject and where participants express concern about the

person being spoken about. According to the author, only the first talk is a gossip because

it is purposeless.

The second perspective recognizes gossip as a motivated behavior, where a talk is

conceptually tied to the motives behind it (Schein, 1993; Stirling, 1956). For example,

Paine (1967) presents gossip as a device used to put forward one’s interests, and Merry

15
(1984) suggests it is a means of competing by broadcasting favorable information about

oneself and critical information about others. Also Stirling (1956) recognizes that certain

psychological mechanisms and needs are motivating forces driving toward gossip.

Stirling claims that needs met through gossip are not always on the level of awareness.

Regardless of whether the motivation for gossiping is on a conscious or unconscious

level, according to this perspective one’s involvement in gossiping is tied to motives.

The Current Study

Surveys of scientific opinions have been used in psychology in order to find the

extent of agreement and disagreement among researchers on controversial topics (e.g.,

Iacono & Lykken, 1997; Snyderman & Rothman, 1987). One purpose of the current

study is to use a survey of scientific opinions to determine areas of consensus and

controversy among gossip researchers regarding defining features of the concept.

Additionally, the goal is to gather experts’ opinions on if and how workplace context

alters our understanding of the concept.

Method

I conducted a Web-based survey of subject matter experts, asking the extent to

which respondents agreed or disagreed with 20 assertions that were commonly discussed

in the existing literature.

Survey Generation

Statements were generated on the basis of an extensive literature review and

content analysis of existing gossip definitions. I reviewed the majority of the published

articles and book chapters discussing core elements of gossip and made a list of features

that were used in defining gossip. The list was analyzed in terms of reappearing issues

16
and five major dimensions used to describe gossip were identified: (a) subject, (b)

content, (c) theme of evaluation, (d) context in which gossip occurs, (e) motivation

behind gossip. Using existing debates of these five dimensions I generated twenty

affirmative statements about workplace gossip. I included some issues that were not

previously discussed in the literature but I thought were relevant to the workplace

context.

Survey Procedures

The survey was sent to subject matter experts, who were identified on the basis of

their contribution to the literature. E-mail addresses were obtained either from university

websites or published articles. I sent e-mails asking experts to participate in an

anonymous Web-based survey dealing with issues of defining workplace gossip. Experts

were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each statement on a

1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) point Likert type scale. The invitation was sent

to 35 experts and 18 responses were received, yielding a response rate of 51%.

Results

In order to assess the extent to which experts agreed or disagreed with each

statement, I calculated: a) average ratings, b) percentages of respondents who agreed

(endorsed strongly agreed and agreed), and c) percentages of respondents who disagreed

(endorsed strongly disagree and disagree). Next, following Murphy, Cronin and Tam’s

(2003) suggestion on how to analyze results of surveys of scientific opinion, I grouped

statements into three categories. The first category was “Consensus Items”. A statement

was labeled a “consensus item” when the percentage of respondents on one side of the

issue was at least three times as large as on the opposite side and fewer than 25% of

17
respondents indicated no opinion. For example, 94.5% of respondents agreed, and 5.6%

of respondents disagreed with the statement “Workplace gossip can be an informal talk”.

Thus, the statement was categorized as “consensus item”. The second category of

statements referred to “polarized opinion”, if over 30% of the respondents indicated

agreement, and over 30% of respondents indicated disagreement.

Finally, the authors suggested labeling remaining items as “neither controversy

nor consensus.” For example, in the survey 61.2 % of respondents agreed, 22%

disagreed, and 16.7% did not have an opinion on the item: “Workplace gossip occurs

only among small groups of participants”. Thus, this item was labeled “neither

controversy nor consensus”.

According to this typology, 18 statements were categorized as “consensus items”

and 2 statements were categorized as “neither controversy nor consensus”. None of the

statements fit the “polarized opinion” category. Results of the survey presented according

to Murphy, Cronin and Tam’s (2003) typology are in Table 1. Table 2 shows statements

according to the theme.

It must be noted that high agreement or disagreement with the statement does not

indicate consensus among experts. For example, experts might have disagreed with the

statements but agreed with each other. Thus, in order to establish whether respondents

agreed with each other (uniformity of responses) Average Deviation Index (AD) (Burke

& Dunlap, 2002) was calculated. Average Deviation Index is indicative of interrater

agreement. The AD index for an item involves “determining the extent to which each

item rating differs from the mean item rating, summing the absolute values of these

deviations, and dividing the sum by the number of deviations” (p.160). The formula that

18
was used to estimate AD index for each item is presented below. The calculations were

performed in an Excel file:

ADM(j) = (∑ | xjk – xj|) / N

N refers to the number of judges for an item j; xjk is the k th judge’s rating on item

j; and xj is the mean of the judges’ scores on item j (Burke & Dunlap, 2002).

19
20
21
22
23
 According to Burke and Dunlap (2002) the acceptable level of interrater

agreement on a 5-point Likert-type scale is when the AD index is equal or lower than

.833. The AD index values that fall into the category of acceptable agreement were

underlined in both tables. The value of the AD index was lower than .833 for 11

statements, indicating high interrater agreement, and the index was higher than .83 for 9

statements, indicating low interrater agreement. There were 7 items that met Murphy et

al.’s (2003) criteria of “consensus item”, but did not meet Burke and Dunlap’s (2002)

criteria of interrater agreement. It must be noted that even if the AD indexes for these

items were high, they all received a high percentage of respondents who agreed or

disagreed (range from 72.2 % to 94.5 %).

24
25
26
27
28
 Discussion

Although many claimed that defining gossip is difficult, complex and potentially

controversial (e.g., Wert & Salovey, 2004), it appears that consensus among researchers

is stronger than previously assumed. A majority of the respondents agreed that workplace

gossip can be a) informal, b) evaluative, c) talk about third absent parties, and d) about

the organization. These core elements of the concept consistently appeared in many

proposed definitions of gossip (e.g., Mills, 2010; Michelson et al., 2010). Additionally,

none of the statements met Murphy et al.’s (2003) “polarized opinion” criteria, meaning

that there was no statement that raised extremely different opinions. Even if for several

statements, AD indexes were too high to indicate interrater agreement, the percentage

agreement was still very high (range from 72.2 % to 94.5 %). According to Murphy et al.

(2003) with such a high percentage of respondents who agreed or disagreed with a

statement, it is reasonable to declare that experts have come to some consensus.

Major findings of the current study will be discussed according to the theme.

Subject

Experts uniformly agreed that gossip is an informal talk about third absent parties

that are part of the organization. Experts also agreed that the subject of the workplace

gossip may concern both work-related and personal matters; may involve talk about

workplace events and situations; and that the third party can be member of the

organization or from outside of the organization. It is interesting that experts agreed that

workplace gossip involves talk about workplace events and situations, because many

researchers claimed that gossip should be treated exclusively as communication about

people, not events (e.g., Grosser et al., 2011). This finding corresponds to results of

29
Mills’ (2010) study showing how different types of communication in the workplace are

intertwined and often inseparable. The point here is that it is expected for communication

about events, situations and people to co-occur at any given time (Beehr, King & King,

1990). Further, given that people are part of workplace situations, it is reasonable to

assume that talk about these situations will become a part of gossip. Another interesting

finding is that experts considered personal affairs (e.g., divorce) to be more of a subject

of workplace gossip than work-related matters (e.g., someone’s job performance,

promotion).

Evaluation

Results of the survey indicated consensus among researchers with regard to the

theme of evaluation as a core element of gossip’s definition. Additionally, comments

posted by experts indicated that the notion of evaluation is in fact a feature that

distinguishes gossip from other forms of communication (e.g., news). This is consistent

with results of Bergmann’s (1993) analysis of the most common topics of gossip, which

suggested that the theme of evaluation is widely present in gossip. As was stated by

Yerkovich (1977), evaluation is an inevitable part of the construct, because people

appraise one’s behavior before gossiping about it. Thus, it appears that evaluation is an

agreed upon defining feature of workplace gossip.

Content

In his early work Rosnow (1976) proposed triviality to be a defining feature of

gossip. Researchers’ opinions on this issue have since been divided. This study showed

that currently gossip researchers recognize that the content of workplace gossip can be

both trivial, meaning it does not address any serious issues, and significant, meaning it

30
can convey important messages (e.g., talk about circumstances of an employee being

fired). Indeed, initial attempts to conceptualize gossip introduced features that are

difficult to reconcile such as appearance of trivial content, serious consequences, and

important functions. Such a narrow and confusing view of the content of the construct

has caused disagreements among researchers. It is likely that this finding is related to the

recent trend of adopting wide definitions of gossip (e.g., Michelson, et al. 2010; Mills,

2010) by predominately focusing on organization of communication. It also appears that

the issue of trivial versus significant content is not considered to be as important as its use

to be for defining the construct. After all, the judgment whether the content is trivial or

significant is highly subjective. A gossip about somebody’s promotion can constitute a

trivial content for one person, and significant content for someone else. It seems like

experts’ decisions on treating gossip content as potentially both trivial and significant has

helped deal with this unsolvable contradiction.

Context

Many authors stated that the context of congeniality is a necessary condition for

gossip to occur (e.g., Rosnow, 2001). However, it has to be acknowledged that even

though the workplace does not necessarily create a context of trust and intimacy gossip

remains ubiquitous in many organizations. Indeed, experts in this study agreed that

workplace gossip may occur without the context of congeniality, among people who do

not know one another fairly well. They also disagreed with the statement that gossip

occurs only in the context of congeniality. This finding corresponds well with a recent

study (Grosser et al., 2010) that found that people with both social and professional ties

31
get involved in gossip. This is an important finding, because it runs against previous

assumptions and significantly changes the way we think about gossip.

Motivation

Despite many claims that gossip is only idle talk (e.g., Ben Ze’ev, 1994; Taylor,

1994), in this study experts disagreed with the assertion that gossip cannot be tied to any

instrumental motives. In the contrary, the majority of the respondents agreed with the

claim that gossip is an instrumentally motivated behavior. This is an important finding

showing advancement in the field, because early writings on gossip presented the

construct as purposeless talk (e.g., Spacks, 1982). It is also important that experts

acknowledged that workplace gossip can be both motivated talk or simply for the sake of

talking. Moreover, as part of their comments, a majority of the experts stated that

motivation should not be a defining feature of gossip. This is because gossip may serve

many purposes. According to experts the purpose or a motive behind gossip is not

important for understanding what gossip is. Gossip as a form of communication can be

identified purely through its conversational organization: “Gossip is gossip regardless of

the motivation, intention or benefit”.

Conclusion

The most significant finding of this study is that gossip researchers strongly agree

on the defining features of workplace gossip. The second important finding is that issues

of motivation behind gossip and the triviality of its content should not affect how we

define the concept. Lastly, as far as the context of the workplace is concerned, it seems

like gossip can occur without congeniality among gossipers. This study showed that the

32
consensus among researchers with regard to the definition of gossip is stronger than

previously assumed.

Definition of Workplace Gossip

Based on results of this study, I define workplace gossip as “informal, evaluative

talk about absent third parties”. Workplace gossip is talk that occurs among members of

an organization, but it can take place both in and outside the organization and working

hours. The subject of workplace gossip may concern both organizational members and

people from outside of organization, as well as personal and work-related problems.

Gossip is gossip regardless of motives behind it, context of congeniality, and the weight

of the content.

33
 Chapter III

Review of the Literature

34
 Workplace Gossip

A substantial number of researchers have called gossip a ubiquitous phenomenon

in the workplace, as well as an inevitable part of organizational behavior (e.g., Crampton,

Hodge & Mishra, 1998; Davis, 1973; Grosser, Lopez- Kidwell, Labianca, 2010; Kniffin

& Willson, 2010; Mills, 2010; Wert & Salovey, 2004). There is empirical support for

this. According to Grosser, Lopez- Kidwell, Labianca and Wardt’s (2010) recent

research, over 90 % of the workforce engages in gossiping activities on the job. A study

conducted by De Mare (1989) demonstrated that 70 % of all organizational

communication occurs at the informal level. Indeed, workplace gossip is a natural part of

organizational life, since informal networks are a natural consequence of people’s

interactions (Davis, 1973), and its removal from any social setting is not feasible unless

there is a complete ban on all forms of communication (Noon & Delbrigde, 1993).

Workplace gossip has been traditionally seen in a negative light, blamed for time

waste, impairing employees’ productivity and morale, and destroying belief in

organization activity (e.g., Danziger, 1988; Mishra, 1990). Recently, the approach toward

workplace gossip has changed significantly. Contemporary publications on workplace

gossip focus on recognition of its important role. For example, Noon and Delbridge

(1993) write that gossip is a social process that helps to protect and perpetuate

organizations. Crampton, Hodge and Mishra (1998) claim that gossip can improve

organizational efficiency by helping to identify pending problems and by creating a

common organizational culture. Grosser, Lopez- Kidwell, Labianca, and Wardt (2010)

propose that negative gossip should be treated as a symptom of an organizational

problem rather than problem itself. Hafen (2004) states that gossip can be understood in

35
the context of organizational citizenship behaviors as “social capital” that enhances the

organization. This recent enthusiasm surrounding the phenomenon of gossip comes from

the recognition that gossip has a neglected positive side because it plays important roles

in any social setting (e.g., Foster, 2004; Stirling, 1956).

Functions of Gossip

Gossip in organizations can serve a variety of functions (e.g., Kniffin & Willson,

2010). The majority of gossip researchers utilize Foster’s (2004) taxonomy of gossip

functions, which includes informing, social bonding, entertainment and influencing

others. These functions are each discussed in detail below.

In regard to informing, gossiping can be understood as a mechanism of

exchanging and facilitating information flow (e.g., Stirling, 1956). Social environments

are complex and an exchange of information through gossiping helps individuals

understand norms, values and expectations shared in a certain social group. Through

gossip, an individual develops a cognitive schema of the social environment (Foster,

2004). Gossip informs people what to do and what not to do in a given social setting. The

informative function of gossip is even hypothesized to contribute to the development of

one’s self-esteem by providing individuals with information about their abilities and

competences used later in the process of social comparisons (Suls, 1977).

Gossip also contributes to group cohesiveness and strengthens group

identification and group boundaries by communicating what behaviors are necessary in

order to maintain group membership (Ribeiro & Blakeley, 1995). Also, gossip brings

groups together through the sharing of norms and establishing boundaries to distinguish

insiders from outsiders. Sharing gossip is also a way of communicating trust and

36
confidence in the recipient, where the gossiper chooses with whom to disclose and

exchange information. Thus, gossip can serve a function of social support by creating an

opportunity to share and obtain information with trusted individuals. Thus, gossip builds

up group solidarity and makes people feel closer or bonded. Gossip can also contribute to

the socialization process of the newly hired (e.g., Ribeiro & Blakeley, 1995). Gossip can

help the novice to internalize values and norms of a group and an organization as well as

the technology, language and culture of the profession (e.g., Crampton et al., 1998).

Messages conveyed through gossip can tell new employees a great deal about the

organizational values, practices and role expectations.

The third gossip function refers to gossip as a mutual mood enhancer by

providing social entertainment or merely as pleasurable pastime (e.g., Ribeiro &

Blakeley, 1995). As was found in a study by Roy (1958) investigating factory workers,

the entertainment value of gossip can provide considerable stimulation and relief from the

monotony of routine work. Within a workplace stress framework, the entertainment

function of gossip relates to psychological detachment from tasks, which aids in stress

recovery (e.g.,, Sonnentag, Binnewies & Mojza, 2008). Gossip is a form of

entertainment; it provides employees with temporary distraction from work-related

pressures and concerns during the brief gossiping session that so often occurs during a

coffee break or a meal.

Lastly, gossiping is a mechanism of obtaining power, enhancing social status, and

extorting influence by strengthening control and sanctions. Gossip helps define power

positions within a group and enhances the gossiper’s social status, because having

information is commonly linked to having greater power (e.g., DiFonzo & Bodia, 2004).

37
Also, gossip is linked to greater power because gossipers may use certain information to

deprecate others or to enhance themselves. Moreover, an individual’s social status can be

elevated by gossip, since listeners infer that the gossiper is in special possession of

knowledge. This was demonstrated in Hom and Haidt’s (2002) study, which showed that

gossiping made people feel more empowered and that their status was elevated. This

function of gossip in part reflects the traditional view of gossip as harmful to the absent

person. This last function also encompasses the normative influence of gossip, where

gossiping propagates and enforces group norms essential to group function through

informally communicating value-laden information about members of a social setting

(Ribeiro & Blakeley, 1995).

Gossip Consequences

The scope of gossip consequences makes this form of informal communication

worth researching. The consequences described in the literature are both positive and

negative. The most commonly described positive consequence of workplace gossip is

development of social networks between employees (e.g., Doyle, 2000). Often it results

in stronger in-group cohesiveness and in stronger employee socialization. Moreover,

since gossip preserves solidarity and formal structures at work, it also discourages

individuals from straying too far from collective standards for fear of attracting criticism

(e.g., Dunbar, 2004; Gluckman, 1963). Thus, the second positive consequence of gossip

is reinforcement of rules, norms, and values as well as diffusion of organizational

traditions and history (e.g., Baumeister, Zhang & Vohs, 2004; Kniffin & Wilson, 2005;

Noon & Delbridge, 1993).

38
 An additional positive consequence of workplace gossip is quicker transmission

of information to employees (Ribeiro & Blakeley, 1995; Rogers & Rogers, 1976,

Rosnow, 1977). Noon and Delbridge (1993) state that gossip can lead to better

organizational coordination because it helps in the communication of formal information.

The result of information transmission through gossip is also clarification and reduction

in uncertainty, anxiety and stress. Lastly, Michelson and Mouly (2004) state that gossip is

a way for managers to obtain feedback about employees’ reactions to new policies and

procedure changes. Along these lines, Ribeiro and Blakeley (1995) claim that gossip is a

way through which employees can voice their opinions and wishes, thus giving managers

powerful tools for influencing the workforce.

The most obvious negative consequence of organizational gossip is making and

breaking reputations of people and organizations (Tebbutt, 1997; van Iterson & Clegg,

2008). In Ogasawara’s (1998) study of a Japanese bank it was found that women

performing low-status duties were able to exert collective power over their managers by

controlling the content and target of gossip, and consequently, the reputation of

managers. Michelson and Mouly (2004) note that gossip contributes to the formation of

negative opinions, and once negative opinions emerge they are difficult to eliminate.

Thus, gossip can be a powerful tool of influence, gaining advantage over others and

manipulation (Mishra, 1990).

Given that gossip strengthens group identification and group boundaries, it can

also result in divisiveness and increased conflict between groups. Other negative

consequences often listed in the literature are wastage of time and low productivity, as

well as low employees’ morale, climate of mistrust (e.g., Akande & Funmilayo, 1994;

39
Baker & Jones, 1996; Burke & Wise, 2003; Danziger, 1988; Michelson & Mouly, 2004;

Mishra, 1990).

Individual Differences and Psychological Needs

Although gossip is considered to be a ubiquitous phenomenon, some people tend

to gossip more frequently than others (e.g., Keefer, 1993). In a search of who tends to

gossip more, it has been found that several individual differences have been linked to the

propensity to gossip. First, it has been demonstrated that the level of anxiety predicts

gossiping (e.g., Anthony, 1973; Rosnow, 1991; Walker & Blaine, 1991). For example,

Jaeger et al.’s (1994) experimental study showed that individuals who scored high on an

anxiety trait were more likely to spread gossip. Rosnow (1991) conducted a meta-analytic

review of studies looking at trait anxiety in prediction of rumor transmission and found

an effect size of r = .48. The trait anxiety can lead to gossiping because gossip offers an

explanation for what is going on. Gossip is a useful tool of sense-making when situations

are ambiguous or unclear. Through gossip one can obtain information and explanations

and/or gain an understanding of the situation, resulting in lower anxiety. Anxious

individuals have less tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty, and gossiping is a way of

finding explanations and reducing anxiety.

The second individual difference that has been found to predict gossiping is low

self-esteem (e.g., Jaeger et al., 1994; Keefer 1993; Rhodes, 1992). It has been suggested

that people with low self- esteem use gossip to gain external sources of regard and

attention (Rosnow & Fine, 1976). Fiske (2004) claims that in general individuals desire

to enhance their social status. Self-enhancement is a social motive to view ourselves as

worthy and improvable. Those who gossip have additional access to information as well

40
as social networks, which can make them feel important or at the center of attention.

Thus, for individuals with low self-esteem, gossip may be a way of enhancing their social

status, sense of self-worth, and uniqueness.

Some studies looked at psychological needs as predictors of gossiping behaviors.

Mitchells and Daniels (2003) defined psychological needs as “an unobservable force

internal to the person, which create a tension when the needs are not met. People try to

reduce or eliminate this tension through some action. This tension directs attention,

effort, persistence, thus needs are thought to be motivating” (p. 238). A need theory that

gained the most scientific support is McClelland’s theory of learned/acquired needs

(1987). The theory states that psychological needs are not inborn, but are acquired over

time and shaped by life’s experiences. For example, people learn that exercising power or

control over others and environment is pleasing (Landy & Conte, 2004), thus they seek

situations where they can exert power over others. Further, everyone, regardless of

gender, culture or age has a combination of three types of needs: achievement, power and

affiliation (McClelland, 1987). The theory says that individuals prioritize the needs,

meaning that some needs are dominant over others. The most dominant need directs

one’s attention and action, thus significantly influencing workers’ motivation and

effectiveness.

Need for achievement refers to the need to be successful. People with the

dominant need for achievement like to set and achieve challenging goals; take calculated

risks to accomplish these goals; they tend to like to work alone and be provided with

frequent feedback. Need for affiliation refers to the need to be liked and accepted by

others. People with a dominant need for affiliation want to belong to groups and often

41
will go with what group wants to do. They favor collaboration over competition and do

not like risk and uncertainty. Need for power refers to the need to influence others and

control the environment. People with a dominant need for power enjoy status,

recognition, competition and winning.

McClelland developed a method called Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) in

order to assess the relative dominance of these needs. This method entails presenting

subjects with ambiguous pictures and asking them to write a story based on them. This

story can be analyzed in terms of one’s driving motives and dominant needs.

There are several studies that looked at the relationship of psychological needs

and gossip. Keefer (1993) found that people with a higher need for social approval

engage in gossiping more. Contrary to this finding, Jaeger et al. (1993) found that people

with a lower need for social approval tend to gossip more, and in Rhodes’s (1992) study

there was no relationship between these two variables. The difference in the results may

be attributable to the differences in group norms. In environments where gossip is

perceived as undesirable behavior, people with a high need for social approval can avoid

gossiping behaviors. In this context, gossiping would be a violation of a norm and could

lead to rejection by group members. In environments where gossip is an accepted means

of communication, people with a high need for social approval may engage in gossiping

because it is a way of making friends and gaining allies. In fact, according to Di Fonzo

and Bordia (2007), rumors tend to be transmitted when gossipers wanted others to like or

think better of them, suggesting a link between gossip and an individual’s desire to

enhance or maintain relationships. The authors concluded that sharing gossip can fulfill

one’s need to belong.

42
 Additionally, Keefer’s (1993) study looked at different types of psychological

needs. The results indicated that a high need for dominance and a low need for

achievement were related to gossip, whereas a need for autonomy was not related to

gossip. The author explains that a need for dominance is related to gossip, because gossip

is a tool of influence and thus may lead to a dominance need fulfillment. Further the

author explains that a need for autonomy is negatively related to need for social approval,

and engaging in gossiping behaviors would not let one fulfill the need for autonomy.

With regard to a need for achievement, it is likely that people high on this need tend to

focus on tasks and work performance more than on social interaction. For them gossiping

may interfere with their wok performance as well as endanger their reputation and in turn

lower their accomplishments.

The studies presented above demonstrate that psychological needs can predict

gossiping behaviors. However, the relationship between psychological needs and gossip

may also depend on situational factors. The assumption that individual differences

interact with situational factors in the prediction of coping is a part of wider theoretical

perspective created by Lazarus and Folkman (1984). This dissertation adopts this

perspective in an attempt to explain the relationship between gossip and stress.

Transactional Process Model of Stress

Transactional Process Model of Stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) defines stress

as a “natural interaction between perceived challenge, obstacle, or threat to one’s goals,

health or happiness and the coping responses available to the individual” (Quillian-

Wolever & Wolever, 2001). The basic premise of the model is that stress is a complex

process that consists of three major components: a) sources of stress that are encountered

43
in the work environment; b) perception and evaluation of particular stressor by an

employee; and c) emotional reactions that are evoked when a stressor is appraised as

threatening (Spielberger, Vagg & Vasala, 2001). Stress results from an interaction

between the person and workplace environment and the intensity of the stress experience

depends on one’s resources and coping skills. In other words, stress is not a property of

the person or of the environment, but arises when there is a conjunction between a

particular kind of environment and a particular kind of person that leads to a threat

appraisal. The model proposes that stress is a dynamic process where psychological states

change over time and across different situations. Because the transactions between

workers and the environment change from moment to moment, as do coping behaviors,

the psychological experience of stress also varies across time.

Primary and Secondary Appraisal

Two key constructs for transactional process model of stress are cognitive

appraisal and coping. The theory says that humans are constantly involved in cognitive

evaluation of their environment in terms of its significance to their well-being. Appraisal

refers to the assessment of consequences of events for one’s personal well-being and to

the individual perception of the meaning of occurring events. Further, the theory

distinguishes two kinds of appraisals considering their function and source of

information. Primary appraisal refers to one’s perception of the environmental demands

with regard to its influence on one’s well - being. The primary appraisal of stress can be

of three types: 1) harm already experienced; 2) threat, which refers to anticipated harm;

3) challenge, which is potential for gain but still mobilizes coping. The extent to which

the transaction will be appraised as harmful or beneficial depends on individuals’

44
psychological characteristics such as goals, beliefs and values. Additionally, for the

relationship to be stressful, there must be some personal stake in the outcome.

Secondary appraisal refers to an evaluation if any action can be taken to change or

improve the relationship between the environment and the person. It involves appraisal of

available resources and coping skills that can be used to alter and deal with threatening

situations. It has been recognized that these two appraisals are intertwined and can

influence each other. For example, the perception of one’s coping skills can influence the

perception of the extent to which a particular situation is threatening. Thus, primary and

secondary appraisals influence each other and have no necessary temporal ordering

(Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). Furthermore, the theory states that there is interplay between

appraisal and coping. For example, when more is at stake, there will be more motivation

to cope; different coping strategies may be used depending on what is at stake. Also, the

choice of coping strategies depends on secondary appraisal-the evaluation of the extent to

which the relationship with the environment can be improved.

Coping in the Transactional Process Model of Stress

Coping is the second central construct in the transactional process model of

stress. The construct is of great importance to the model, because the extent to which the

transaction results in negative outcomes depends on the coping process. Coping has been

defined as “cognitive and behavioral efforts a person makes to manage demands that tax

or exceed his/ her personal resources” (Lazarus, 1991; p. 5). The authors say that coping

has two functions. First is coping directed on changing harmful person-environment

transaction, and the authors refer to it as problem-focused coping. The second function

concerns regulation of emotional distress, and it is referred to as emotion-focused coping.

45
According to the authors, there are many coping strategies that people use during

stressful encounters, with coping strategies often serving both functions. For example,

searching for social support is a coping strategy that can both change person-environment

transaction and help in regulation of emotional distress.

Another important facet of the theory is viewing coping as a process. The theory

states that coping is not static and changes as the person-environment relationship

progresses during stressful encounter. Both temporal flux and temporal context affect the

way people cope. This assumption was researched on a sample of college students in a

situation of examination stress. The coping strategies where assessed at tree times: a long

time before the exam, short time before the exam and right after the exam. It was found

that indeed students dealt with stress in different ways depending on time proximity of

the exam. Specifically it was found that in general students were using more problem-

focused strategies before the exam and more emotion-focused strategies after the exam

(Lazarus, 1991; p. 9). The authors explain this finding by saying that the choice of coping

strategies is greatly influenced by the perception of control over situation. Obviously, the

students had more control over the situation and choice of the coping strategy before the

exam than after the exam.

The important implication of Lazarus and Folkman’s approach to coping is that

when attempting to predict or explain the choice of coping strategy, one should look at

the interaction of individual differences and the characteristics of the stressful situation.

46
Relationships between Variables in the Transactional Process Model of Stress

As was described before, stress in the transactional model is conceptualized as a

transaction between person and environment, which is mediated by coping. An

illustration of the general model is presented below in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Transactional Process Model of Stress by Lazarus and Folkman (1984)

Mediating Process

Casual Time 1……T2…..T3…..Tn Immediate Long-term

Antecedents Encounter 1…2….3….n Effects Effects

Personal variables: Primary appraisal Physiological changes Somatic health /illness

• Values Secondary appraisal Positive or negative feelings Well-being

• Goals
• Beliefs Reappraisal Social Functioning
• Self-Esteem
Coping
Environmental:

• Demands & Constraints

• Resources
(e.g., social network)

In the model, personal variables (e.g., values, beliefs, self-esteem) and

environmental variables (e.g., situational demands, constraints, resources) are seen as

causal antecedents of emotional reactions. Personal variables and environmental variables

interact with each other. For example, personal variables such as values affect one’s

appraisal of environmental demands.

When people find themselves in demanding circumstances, they get involved in

cognitive processes through which they appraise the extent to which situation is

47
threatening to their goals and well-being. They also appraise their abilities to cope with

the situation. If the situation was appraised as threatening, and/or coping abilities as

insufficient, the person starts experiencing strain (short-term effects of stress). Immediate

effects of stress can expose themselves as emotional distress, anxiety, or physiological

symptoms, such as shortness of breathing. The relationship between a demanding

situation and an experience of strain is mediated by coping efforts and continuous

reappraisals of the situation. According to the model, a person engages in variety coping

strategies to alter the situation. Then the person engages in reappraisal of the situation,

which changes with time and across encounters, to some extent due to coping efforts. The

coping attempts and reappraisals are reoccurring as long as the situation is threatening to

individual’s goals and well-being. If the situation cannot be dealt with effectively, the

continuous experience of strain leads to long-term effects, such as somatic illness,

decreased well - being or decreased social functioning.

It is important to note that most of the variables in the model are recursive. For

example, inability to cope with the situation can lead to reappraisal of the situational

demands as more threatening than the first appraisal indicated.

Workplace Stressors

Although the transactional process model assumes that stress is a result of a

person - environment transaction as opposed to any particular stressful situation, it is still

necessary to identify workplace situations (stressors) to which individuals are likely to

react with stress. Stressor has been defined as “a perceived challenge, obstacle, or threat

to one’s goals, health or happiness” (Quillian-Wolever & Wolever, 2001). Most existing

theoretical approaches to job stress have attempted to identify objective stressors -

48
workplace characteristics and situations that are likely to cause stress in workers. The

difference between these approaches and the Transactional Process Model of Stress is the

assumption that the stressor is judged subjectively. Whether a situation is a stressor

depends on the individual’s appraisal, which incorporates the person’s goals, values, the

concept of well-being, and her/his coping skills and available resources. Additionally,

since the transaction between person and environment is viewed as a dynamic process,

the perception of a situation as threatening can vary across time and occasions within that

individual.

In the recent years, researchers identified many specific sources of stress in the

workplace. The authors vary in how they classify stress factors at work, but despite the

differences there seems to be considerable common ground across experts (Spielberg,

Vagg, & Wasala, 2003). Quick et al. (1997) summarized these existing theories on

sources of stress in the workplace, and they found that one can distinguish between:

features of the task (e.g., complexity, variety, and level of stimulation involved), the

conditions under which tasks are performed (e.g., working time, ergonomics conditions,

speed), role requirements (e.g., if ambiguous or conflicting), social conditions (fairness,

social support and appreciation), and wider organizational conditions (e.g., prospects for

development, job security, organizational climate, quality of communication, low

organizational trust). This study adapts Spector and Jex’s (1998) classification of

workplace stressors, which includes: workload, interpersonal conflict and organizational

constraints.

49
Workload

Spector and Jex (1998) have defined workload as “sheer volume of work required

of an employee” (p. 358). This volume of work can be understood as the perceived

amount of work in terms of pace and quantity of tasks. In general, high workload is

expected to lead to strain because it increases the energy level needed to perform; thus it

influences the challenge or threat appraisal. Also, it is linked to uncertainty whether work

can be accomplished within time limits (Beehr & Bahagat, 1985).

Organizational Constraints

Organizational constraints “represent situations or things that prevent employees

from translating ability and effort into high level of job performance” (Spector & Jex,

1998; p. 357). Spector and Jex based the definition of this construct on the conceptual

framework of situational constraints created by Peters and O’Connor (1980). The

framework was built on the assumption that when observing variance in individual

performance, we must look not only at one’s motivation and abilities, but also at

characteristics of the situation and organization that influence this performance. In many

work situations, individuals who are willing and able to successfully perform their task

may be prevented from doing so due to organizational constraints. Peters and O’Connor

taxonomy consists of 11 constraints interfering with job performance, such as faulty

equipment, incomplete or poor information, interruptions by others, relevant task

training.

Interpersonal Conflict

Quick et al. (1997) suggested that interpersonal conflict and unfair treatment

constitute the core of social stressors at workplace. Keenan and Newton (1985) have

50
defined interpersonal conflict at work as “negative interpersonal encounters involving

hostility, verbal aggression, angry exchanges between individuals” (p. 154). Their

exploratory study investigating types of stressful situations in the workplace showed that

interpersonal conflict was the second most often reported stressor, behind wasted time

and effort. Interpersonal conflict in the workplace may range from minor disagreements

between coworkers to physical assaults on others. The conflict may be overt or may be

covert. Having good relationships at work is important, because very often work

performance or work outcomes depend on other people. Having interpersonal conflict at

work may be stressful by itself, but it may also cause stress by its impact on work

outcomes that depend on other people (availability of resources, career opportunities).

Frone’s (2000) study found that interpersonal conflict with the supervisor was predictive

of low job satisfaction, low organizational commitment and high turnover intentions,

whereas interpersonal conflict with coworkers was linked to personally relevant

outcomes such as depression, lower self-esteem and somatic symptoms.

Workplace Strains

According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984) strain arises when environmental

demands, pressures, or constraints are appraised by a person as exceeding his or her

resources or capacities to manage them. Strains have been defined as the individual’s

response to stressors (Cooper, Dewe & O’Driscoll, 2001), or outcomes resulting from the

experience of stressors (Beehr & Newman, 1978). Most reviews on stress distinguish

between three major categories of possible stress responses or strains: physical,

psychological, and behavioral (e.g., Beehr & Newman 1978, Cooper et al., 2001; Fried,

Rowland, & Ferris, 1984). Physical strain refers to physical complaints of illness or

51
health problems caused by stress; psychological strain refers to affective responses to

demanding situations, such as anxiety and depression; and behavioral strain refers to

behavioral changes occurring due to stress, such as diminished work performance. This

study investigates experiences of physical and psychological strains only, because it is

difficult to collect data on behavioral strain through self-report survey.

Physical Strain

The research on stress plainly indicates that work stress may be hazardous to

one’s physical health (e.g., Gangster & Schuabrieck, 1991). Stress can manifest itself in

increased susceptibility to medical illness, minor complaints of illness or major health

hazards (e.g., Sethi & Schuler; 1984). The link between stress response and health

problems (Quick & Tetrick, 2001) can be explained in two ways. First, there are two

neuroendocrine systems that are involved in the stress response: the sympathoadrenal

medullary system and hypothalamic-adrenal cortical system. These systems are

responsible for secretion of hormones such as cortisol and epinephrine as a body response

to demanding situations. Although secretion of adrenaline and cortisol is a natural body

reaction to stressful situations, their chronic elevation leads to health problems. Thus,

people who are consistently and for long period of time exposed to stress are more likely

to experience serious health problems. Second, when exposed to stressful situations

people may be more likely to engage in behaviors (such as smoking, abusing alcohol, or

excessive food consumption) that affect physical well-being (Jex &Beehr, 1991). The list

of major illnesses associated with the experience of chronic stress is long, and it includes

neuroses, coronary heart disease, alimentary conditions such as dyspepsia and ulcers,

cancer, asthma, high blood pressure, backaches, gastrointestinal symptoms stroke, and

52
diabetes (Watts & Cooper, 1998). Workplace stress can also reveal itself in less severe

physical symptoms such as trouble sleeping, an upset stomach, a backache, headache,

fatigue, and loss of appetite (Spector & Jex, 1998).

A commonly accepted method of assessing physical strain is the use of self-report

survey asking about the extent to which one experiences a number of physical symptoms

within a given period of time (Jex & Beehr, 1991). It has been established that self-

reported physical symptoms strongly correlate with more objective measures of physical

health such as blood pressure, heart rate and level of cortisol in saliva (Jex & Beehr,

1991).

Psychological Strain

Stress can manifests itself also on a psychological level, and it refers to affective

response to a stressful demand (e.g., Cooper, Dewe, &O’Driscoll, 2001; Newton, 1989).

Psychological strains have been the most common stress outcomes examined in the work

stress literature. Stressed individuals are likely to experience anxiety (e.g., Spector et al.,

1989), depression (e.g., Melchior, Tetrick & LaRocco, 1987), isolation (e.g., Bhagat,

McQuaid, Lindholm & Segovis, 1985), burnout (Maslach & Jackson, 1986), decreased

self-esteem (e.g., Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) and change in work attitudes (job

satisfaction, commitment, intention to turnover, withdrawal). According to Jackson and

Schuler’s (1985) meta-analytic review on the effects of perceived control on stressor-

strain relations, psychological strains are the strongest correlates of work-related

stressors. The most commonly assessed strains of work stress are job satisfaction,

depression, anxiety, and perceived stress. This study investigates the perception of stress

as an indicator of psychological strain. The perceived stress refers to a difficulty relaxing,

53
nervous arousal, being easily upset and agitated, being irritable and over- reactive, and

impatience.

Workplace Gossip and Coping with Work Stress

The potential link between gossiping behaviors and coping with work stress lies

in the five roles that gossip plays in the social environment: information exchange, social

bounding, entertainment, influence and emotional release. According to the Transactional

Process Model of Stress, coping efforts are directed at changing stressful situations and

regulating emotional distress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). An examination of the roles

gossip potentially plays reveals that gossip can be used in attempts to alter a stressful

situation as well as in attempts to regulate emotional distress; thus it can be considered a

coping strategy (behavior).

The first function of gossip, information exchange, can possibly be used in both

problem and emotion-focused coping. The vast majority of the literature discussing the

nature of gossip proposes that in situations of change, uncertainty, and anxiety people

tend to engage in gossip in order to obtain information helpful in clarifying and

understand stressful situations (e.g., DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007). Obtaining important

information through gossip can be an effective way of coping with work stress. First,

gaining insight into the stressful situation can lead to a change in the appraisal of the

situation, and viewing the situation as less threatening leads to lower levels of strain.

Second, one can possibly obtain information on how to actively influence or change the

stressful situation she/he encountered. Finally, gaining insight into the situation can lead

to anxiety reduction, and in turn to the alleviation of strain. Thus, gathering information

through gossip can be an emotion- and problem-focused coping strategy.

54
 The second commonly discussed function of gossip is social bonding-building

and maintaining social relations (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007). One can engage in gossiping

behavior in order to gain emotional and instrumental support from others. Emotional

support refers to a provision of sympathy, evidence of liking, caring and listening,

indicating that one is accepted and appreciated, whereas instrumental support refers to a

provision of material resources and needed services (Beehr, 1995). Many researchers

noticed that gossiping gives people feeling of belonging, being part of a social group, and

being liked and accepted (e.g., Grosser et al, 2011; Michelson & Mouly, 2002; Noon &

Delbridge, 1993). Through gossiping one can get a feeling of being understood and even

a feeling of being with others in the same boat. This experience of social support can lead

to alleviation of strain, and thus be considered as a form of regulation of emotional

distress (emotion-focused coping). Gossip can also provide one with instrumental

support. Through gossip once can find out how other people dealt with similar problems.

Thus, gossip can be used as problem- focused coping.

Gossip can be used with the purpose of entertainment, when stressful situations

cannot be changed by a particular action. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) proposed that

emotion- focused coping does not change the actual situation, but it changes the way this

situation is perceived and interpreted. Humorous and funny gossip can be a way of

emotional regulation, by allowing one to view the situation in a better light. Gossip can

help an individual alleviate emotional distress by changing the meaning of what is

happening.

Many suggested that gossip is a powerful tool for exerting influence (e.g., Home

& Haidt, 2001; Kurlend & Pelled, 2000; Ogasawa, 1998). Gossip can be used to

55
manipulate one’s opinion about somebody or influence somebody’s reputation. Thus, it

can be a tool of influencing one’s stressful situation. However, it can have an indirect

influence on the situation. For example, management can consider changing the situation

when employees gossip about it.

Workplace Gossip and Workplace Stressors

The main thesis of this study is that gossip can be a coping strategy with

workplace stress. As was described before, workplace stress has many sources (e.g., task,

role, social relationships), and it is likely that employees use different coping strategies

depending on the type of stressful situation they encounter. Thus, it is likely that people

tend to use gossip as a coping strategy in some types of stressful situations more than in

others. Looking at this issue from the other side, there is some support for the claim that

the effectiveness of a coping strategy to some extent depends on the type of stressful

situation, e.g., problem-focused strategies work best in situations characterized by high

levels of control (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). Thus, it may be of interest whether people

tend to gossip more in response to some types of stressors than others. If yes, in what

types of stressful situations are people more likely to gossip? Although, the existing

literature cannot provide answers to these questions, an examination of the relationships

of other coping strategies to types of stressful situations may provide a hint.

Dewe, O’Driscoll, and Cooper (2010) attempted to construct a matrix of stressors

and coping strategies in order to identify the kinds of strategy that has been most

frequently studied in relation to each of the stressor categories. Unfortunately, the authors

did not find enough studies aligning coping strategies with stressors to do so. They

56
concluded that there is a plethora of studies showing the relationship of work stressors

and strain, but not how people cope with these stressors.

With regard to workload, there are some studies that show that problem-focused

strategies such as time management are the most effective way of responding to workload

(e.g., Jex & Elacqua, 1999; Peeters & Rutte, 2005). Time management entails setting

goals, specifying a time period when the goals should be achieved, deciding on tasks that

should be performed, prioritizing, and planning how to effectively utilize the time. These

activities fall under the category of problem-focused coping.

With regard to interpersonal conflict, Dewe, O’Driscoll and Cooper’s (2010)

literature review showed that using withdrawal strategies as means of coping with

interpersonal conflict was related to lower subjective well-being. Moreover, Van

Dierendock and Mevissen’s (2002) study looking at stress of trolley car drivers found

that using confrontation or conflict avoidance coping was related to the experience of

higher burnout. Also, Dijkstra (2005), Tabak and Koprak (2007), as well as Portello and

Long (2001) showed that escape coping, avoidance and disengagement coping were

related to reduced well-being and increased psychological strain when subjects attempted

coping with interpersonal conflict. According to Dewe et al. (2010) these findings

suggest that even if people tend to use avoidance coping strategies when experiencing

interpersonal conflict, these strategies are not an effective way of dealing with

interpersonal conflict. Furthermore, studies looking at the relationship between problem-

focused strategies and strain when stress comes from interpersonal conflict (e.g., Tabak

& Koprak, 2007; Zapf & Gross, 2001) showed that problem-focused strategies were not

related to decreased strain and increased well-being as was expected. The authors explain

57
that in case of interpersonal conflict the effectiveness of problem-focused strategies

depends on perceived control over the situation and willingness of the involved parties to

resolve the conflict. Dewe et al. (2010) argue that in most cases in the workplace, these

two conditions are not met, which undermine the effectiveness of problem-focused

strategies in dealing with interpersonal conflict at work.

Given that gossiping behaviors play a role in emotional regulation (e.g., Ribeiro

& Blakeley, 1995), it is possible that gossip is often used as a coping strategy when

dealing with interpersonal conflict. The character of workplace relationships and

interactions often does not allow one direct confrontation. It may be politically beneficial

for an employee to keep the conflict covert, even to the cost of one’s well-being. Also,

interpersonal conflicts at work are often not solvable, especially when there is a conflict

of goals, interests or power (e.g., Dewe et al., 2010; Tabak & Koprak, 2007). Gossip, on

the other hand, is a safe way of expressing one’s anger, hostility, and frustration (e.g.,

Spacks, 1985). Gossip is also a way of gaining allies and uniting with people with similar

problems, maybe people who are also in conflict with the same person. Because gossip

may play a role in emotional regulation, it can also be used as an emotion-focused

strategy, which according to Robinson and Griffiths (2005) is the most frequently used

strategy of dealing with interpersonal conflict.

Further, considering the role of gossip in building, maintaining social boundaries

as well as providing social support, it appears that gossip can be a frequently used coping

strategy during interpersonal conflict at work. By engaging in gossip, those in conflict

with other individuals may gain social support and feel like their experiences are not

unique to them.

58
 Workplace Gossip and Workplace Strains

It has been suggested that gossip plays an important role in managing one’s

emotion and dealing with stress (e.g., Ribeiro &Blakeley, 1995; Waddington, 2005).

Existing studies indicate that employees rely on the channels of informal communication

when feeling threatened, insecure and under stress (e.g., Crampton, 1998), and that one

beneficial consequence of gossiping is indeed stress reduction (Michelson & Mouly,

2004). Ribeiro and Blakeley (1995) suggested that gossip could serve a cathartic

function, meaning that it can be used as a vehicle of emotional ventilation and relief of

emotional distress, anxiety and hostility. Waddington (2005) conducted a study on the

relationship of gossip and the experience of stress at work and found that employees

reported using gossip mainly as a way of dealing with stressful circumstances. Gossip,

they reported, helped them in expression and management of emotions. More

specifically, the employees stated that they engaged in gossiping when feeling worried,

frustrated, annoyed with someone, or stressed, or when they felt the need to “let off

steam”.

Although these preliminary studies indicate that indeed employees use gossip as a

way of managing emotions and relieving strain, the mechanisms through which gossip

leads to stress reduction has not yet been researched. Two ways can be speculated.

The direct way in which gossip can lead to stress relief is related to its cathartic

function suggested by Ribeiro and Blakeley (1995) and Smith (1996). According to the

authors, gossip can be used as a vehicle of emotional ventilation, as a means of

expressing emotions. The authors further argue that gossiping gives employees an

opportunity to dispel their anger and eliminate hostilities, which results in more

59
harmonious work relationships. The validity of these claims is somewhat supported by

clinical studies on self-disclosure and expressive writing (Pennebacker & Chung, 2007).

According to Pennebacker and Chung (2007), when people transform their feelings and

thoughts about personally upsetting experiences into language, their physical and mental

health often improve. Expressive writing is a therapeutic technique that allows

individuals to disclose deeply personal aspects of their lives on paper. It has been found

that expressive writing is related to improvement in general functioning, health (Frisina,

Borod & Lepore, 2004), psychological well-being (Smyth, 1998), performance (Lumley

& Provenzano, 2003), long-term mood (Smyth, 1998), and more quickly finding a job

after being laid off (Spera, Buhrfeind, & Pennebacker, 1994). The effectiveness of

expressive writing was associated with the fact that emotional acknowledgement fosters

important cognitive changes as well as the phenomena of emotional habituation. In

relevance to the cathartic function of gossip, Pennebacker and Chung (2007) stated that

most studies comparing the effectiveness of expressive writing to talking about emotional

experiences show that both techniques find comparable biological, mood and cognitive

effects. Thus, it is logically to assume that gossip as a means of expressing emotions

leads to reduction in strain.

The indirect way in which gossip can lead to strain reduction is related to

suggested gossip functions (e.g., DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007; Foster, 1994; Stirling, 1956).

As was explained, gossip plays role in information sharing and exchange. Through

gossip, employees can discuss and elaborate on situations or events that are ambiguous to

them, thereby filling the gap in their knowledge and allowing them to make more sense

of an issue. Suspense around events of concern can be reduced in this manner, removing

60
or alleviating a source of stress in the workplace (Ribeiro & Blekely, 1995). Furthermore,

gossip was found to play an important role in building group cohesiveness and in social

bonding (e.g., Grosser, et al., 2011; Noon & Delbridge, 1993). Thus, it can result in stress

reduction by a means of providing social support. In an extensive qualitative study on

employees’ grievances against employing organization, Tucker (1993) found that the first

step for many aggravated employees was to seek others in order to share their problems.

Gossip was often used by employees while looking for support and advice as well as for

reinforcement of their position in the conflict. Tucker concluded that gossip functioned as

a type of settlement behavior, where participants passed judgments on the case and

assigned the blame. Also, in Waddington’s (2005) study mentioned above, employees

reported that gossiping lead to the experience of gaining support and reassurance

resulting in stress relief. It is likely that as a consequence of gaining support in their

conflict employees experience reduction in the stress. Thus, the strain reduction may

occur through indirect mechanism-as a consequence of the four main functions of gossip.

61
 Chapter IV

Research Questions and Hypotheses

62
 Based on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) theoretical framework and its

assumptions as to the relationships between stress variables, this study investigates

relationships between workplace gossip and workplace stress. The first part of Lazarus

and Folkman’s model shows how individual differences and stressors interactively affect

coping. In accordance with this model, this study hypothesizes how psychological needs

and workplace stressors predict gossiping as a way of coping with stress. The second part

of the transactional model shows the relationship between coping and strain.

Accordingly, this study investigates a set of possible mechanisms through which

gossiping leads to decrease in psychological, emotional and physical strain.

Workplace Stressors and Psychological Needs in Prediction of Workplace Gossip

Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) theory assumes that people use a variety of coping

strategies. According to the authors, the choice of a particular coping strategy depends

both on personal characteristics and the characteristics of the situation. The major

implication of this approach is that particular work characteristics are only stressors to the

extent that they are appraised as such. Furthermore, people differ in their appraisal of

what situations are stressors and to what extent they are stressful. One employee may find

interpersonal conflict as stressful, whereas another employee may appraise an excessive

workload as a major stressor. Thus, the appraisal of a situation as stressful is related to

individual differences of these two employees. Depending on their personality

characteristics, these two employees may also choose different strategies to cope with the

stressor. Thus, Lazarus and Folkman suggest that looking at the interaction of individual

differences and characteristics of the situation provides more accurate prediction and

explanation of one’s coping.

63
 As was described in the literature review, some individual differences have been

linked to the tendency to gossip (e.g., trait anxiety, people- orientation, self- esteem, need

for social approval). Psychological needs appear to be especially interesting, because they

offer an explanation for motivation behind certain behaviors (e.g., Baumeister & Leary,

1995). Psychological needs refer to people’s motives and desires that direct behavior.

Baker and Jones (1993) explain that psychological needs direct behavior, because

individuals maintain the focus on meeting those needs.

With regard to gossip, it has been suggested that psychological needs are a type of

individual difference that can provide us with an insight why some people tend to engage

in gossip more than others (e.g., Baker & Jones, 1993; Michelson, Ad van Iterson &

Waddington, 2010). This study looks at three psychological needs conceptualized by

McClelland (1987): 1) affiliation (also referred to as a need for approval, a need for

relatedness or a need to belong); 2) dominance (also referred to as a need for power); and

3) achievement (also called a need for competence). First, the relationship between need

for affiliation and gossip will be discussed.

Need for affiliation refers to the desire to socially interact and be accepted by

others (Hecket, Cuneio, Hannah, Adams, Droste, Mueller, Wallis, Griffin & Roberts,

2000). People with a high need for affiliation have a preference for interacting with other

people and gossip is a way of getting close to other people. The relationship between

gossip and a need for affiliation has been previously theorized by some authors (e.g.,

Michelson & Mouly, 2004). For example, DiFonzo and Bordia (2007) argue that sharing

gossip can fulfill a need to belong because it produces positive feelings between people,

increases reciprocity and gives individuals an opportunity to contribute to a group sense-

64
making. In support of these claims DiFonzo and Bordia (2007) found that a desire to

enhance or maintain relationships has been linked to gossip. Also, Keefer (1993) found

that a high need for approval was related to gossiping. However, contradictory to this

finding, Jaeger’s et al.’s (1993) study indicated that individuals with low need for social

approval tend to engage in gossip. The difference in the results can be attributable to the

differences in variables such as group norms. In environments where gossip is perceived

as undesirable behavior people with high need for social approval might avoid gossiping

behaviors. In this context, gossiping would be violation of a norm and could lead to

rejection by group members. In environments where gossip is an accepted means of

communication people with a high need for social approval are likely to engage in

gossiping because it is a way of making friends and gaining allies.

This study hypothesizes that in general a high need for affiliation will lead to

gossiping. This is because gossip plays significant role in social bonding and leads to

social interactions, thus, gossip is a way of fulfilling a need for affiliation. Second, it is

likely that bad reputation of gossip rarely prevents people from gossiping. Gossip is a

common occurrence and natural for human interactions (e.g., Crampton, Hodge &

Mishra, 1998; Davis, 1973; Grosser, Lopez- Kidwell, Labianca, 2010; Kniffin & Willson,

2010; Mills, 2010; Wert & Salovey, 2004), thus even if social norms speak against it

people still find a way to gossip, although perhaps in a more concealed manner.

As was described before, according to transactional model of stress, a choice of

coping strategy depends on an interaction between individual differences and

characteristics of the situation. Thus, the choice of gossiping as a coping strategy depends

not only on individuals’ psychological needs, but also on a type of stressful situation.

65
Because similarities in personality may lead to similar appraisals, it is likely that

individuals with a high need for affiliation appraise some types of situations as more

stressful than individuals with different needs. This study investigates three types of

stressful workplace situations operationalized by Spector and Jex (1998): workload,

organizational constraints and interpersonal conflict. Looking at these three types of

workplace stressors, it seems logical to assume that interpersonal conflict would be

appraised as the most stressful by individuals with a high need for affiliation. This is

because interpersonal conflict may directly threaten the need fulfillment. Interpersonal

conflict may be a sign that one is not accepted by others and may lead to limited

opportunity for social interaction. Other types of stressful situations, such as

organizational constraints, may also be appraised by individuals with a high need for

affiliation as stressors and lead to gossiping. This is because the need to socially interact

may be activated or manifest itself stronger in stressful situations, and gossiping creates

an opportunity for social interaction. However, other work stressors are not likely to

directly threaten this need fulfillment. Thus, comparing to organizational constraints and

workload, it seems that interpersonal conflict may be appraised as the most stressful by

individuals with a high need for affiliation.

Hypothesis 1: Interpersonal conflict and need for affiliation will interactively

influence gossiping, such that high interpersonal conflict will lead to more gossiping

when a need for affiliation is high, but not when the need for affiliation is low.

A need for dominance refers to the desire to influence and direct others (Hecket et

al., 2000). Baker and Jones (1993) claim that dominance need - focused behavior at the

workplace will lead to gossiping, because gossip is a tool of social control and

66
maintaining status and power, and thus leads to the need fulfillment. Also, other authors

propose that a need for dominance or a need for power predicts gossiping in the

workplace (e.g., Keefer, 1993; Rhodes, 1992). These claims found support in Keefer’s

(1993) study where a high need for power was positively related to gossiping.

In addition, it has been suggested that need for dominance is more likely to trigger

gossiping in stressful situations (e.g., Baker & Jones, 1993). This may be because

stressful situations may threaten need fulfillment. Although very different, both the need

for affiliation and the need for dominance are people-oriented needs, meaning that they

cannot be met without the involvement of other people. As with individuals with a high

need for affiliation, individuals with a high need for dominance may appraise the

situations of interpersonal conflict as the most stressful. Thus, I predict that a high need

for dominance and social stressors will interactively predict gossiping.

Hypothesis 2: Interpersonal conflict and need for dominance will interactively

influence gossiping, such that high interpersonal conflict will lead to more gossiping

when the need for dominance is high, but not when the need for dominance is low.

A need for achievement refers to the desire to excel and improve on past

performance (Heckert et al., 2000). In Keefer’s (1993) study, gossiping was negatively

related to the need for achievement, meaning that individuals with a low need for

achievement tended to gossip more. It seems likely that people with a high need for

achievement focus primarily on their tasks and prefer not to waste time on gossiping if it

does not bring them closer to their work goals. Moreover, considering the negative

reputation of gossip, being perceived as a gossiper may be detrimental to the perception

of ones’ work achievements. In fact, in Grosser’s (2010) study the frequency of gossiping

67
was related to the supervisor’s perception of lower performance. On the other hand,

gossip can be a powerful tool of gaining information and influence, which maybe helpful

in higher work performance. It is likely that some individuals with a high need for

achievement can use gossip to get ahead of other people in their organizations. Because

these two explanations suggest different directions for the relationship between need for

achievement and gossip I ask an exploratory research question.

Research Question 1: Is there a relationship between one’s need for achievement

and gossiping behaviors? What is the direction of this relationship?

Hypothesis 1 and 2 proposes that situations of interpersonal conflict are predictive

of gossiping behaviors. This study investigates also other types of stressful situations that

can be predictive of gossiping behaviors. One of them is organizational constraints,

which represent situations or things that prevent employees from translating ability and

effort into a high level of job performance (Spector & Jex, 1998). Organizational

constraints are stressful because they tend to hinder one’s job performance and work

achievements. It is a source of frustration. When experiencing a situation that can be

classified as situational constraint (e.g., lack of equipment, lack of sufficient training),

employees may engage in gossip not only in order to relief stress and frustration, but also

to obtain information on how to deal or how others deal with this situation. On the other

hand, gossip may be perceived as an ineffective way of dealing with this type of stressor.

This is because in most cases gossiping will not directly lead to change in the stressful

situation. Thus, it is also likely that situations of organizational constraints may not lead

to increase in gossiping behaviors.

68
 Research Question 2: Are organizational constraints a type of stressor that

predicts gossiping behaviors? If yes, what is the direction of this prediction?

The last type of stressful situation that is worth exploring with regard to gossiping

behaviors is workload. Workload refers to the amount of tasks that are required to

perform on the job and time allowed for completion of these tasks. When workload is

high, employees are busy with their tasks and possibly less likely to get engage in

gossiping. Gossiping in this situation could be perceived as waste of scarce time,

jeopardizing task completion. Thus, it is likely that a high workload is negatively related

to gossip, meaning that in situations of high workload people gossip less. However, high

workload may cause great deal of frustration, anger and stress among employees. The

easiest way to express and relief these negative emotions are through gossip. Thus, the

relationship between workload and gossip needs to be explored.

Research Question 3: Is workload as a type of stressful situation predictive of

gossiping behaviors. If yes, what is the direction of this prediction?

Mechanisms through which Workplace Gossip Leads to Decrease in the Stressors -

Strains Relationship

Given gossip’s important role in managing one’s emotions (e.g., Ribeiro &

Blakeley, 1995; Waddington, 2005), it is warranted to ask whether people who tend to

gossip experience more or less strain. Further, considering gossip as a coping strategy, it

is also warranted to ask whether gossiping is an effective way of coping with stress.

The existing literature indicates that when employees are under stress, or feel

threatened or unsecure, they tend to engage in gossiping behaviors (e.g., Crampton, 1998;

69
Waddington, 2005). This overall tendency to gossip when stressed may be indicative of

the effectiveness of this strategy in reducing strain. In fact, some preliminary findings

suggest that stress reduction is indeed a consequence of gossiping (Michelson & Mouly,

2004). Furthermore, the existing literature points to the motives for why people tend to

get involved in gossip when in stressful situations. Waddington’s (2005) study showed

that people gossip to relieve emotional distress, and DiFonzo and Bordia’s (2007) studies

indicated that people gossip in search for information in order to reduce stressful

uncertainty. Thus, it is my contention that in general gossip attenuates the effect of

stressors on emotional and physical strain, given its role as a coping mechanism.

The existing literature suggests that gossiping may lead to strain reduction in

direct and indirect ways. The direct way through which gossip can lead to stress relief is

related to its cathartic function suggested by Waddington (2005), Ribeiro and Blakeley

(1995) and Smith (1996). According to the authors, gossip can be used as a vehicle of

emotional ventilation and expressing emotions. The authors further argue that gossiping

gives employees an opportunity to dispel their anger and eliminate hostilities, which

results in more harmonious work relationships. Also, Allport and Postman (1947)

asserted that gossip is an easy way of relieving frustration in the context of anxiety and

uncertainty.

As was described before, these claims find support in clinical studies on

expressive writing and self- disclosure, which show that emotional expression results in

improvement of health, psychological well-being, performance and general functioning

(e.g., Frisina et al., 2004; Pennebaker & Ching, 2007; Smyth, 1998;). The explanation of

the effectiveness of expressive writing states that emotional acknowledgement fosters

70
important cognitive changes and leads to emotional habituation. Several studies

compared the effects of expressive writing to talking to others and found that both had

similar and positive effects on physical and mental health (e.g., Donnelly & Murray,

1991; Murray, Lamnin & Carver, 1989). Thus, the support for gossip as a means of

reducing strain comes from studies on expressive writing.

Given a variety of roles that gossip plays in any social environment, it is possible

to hypothesize also several indirect ways in which gossip can affect the stressor – strain

relationship. Based on the existing literature, this study proposes four potential mediators

in addition to the direct cathartic function of gossip: social support, norm clarity and

strength, a perception of workplace fun and informal influence. It is being proposed that

through these potential mediators gossip moderates the stressor-strain relationship

(Figure 3).

Social Support

It is agreed upon that gossip plays an important role in social bonding and

building group cohesiveness (e.g., DiFonzo & Bordia, 1994; Dunbar, 2004; Foster,

2004). Gossip signals trust and confidence in the recipient, thus it builds intimacy,

friendship, and strengthens existing relationships. Subsequently, gossip is a means of

obtaining and providing social support – an important variable that consistently has been

linked to reduction in strain experiences as well as better mental and physical well –

being (e.g., Viswesvaran, Sanchez & Fisher, 1999).

Social support is considered a coping resource, and it refers to the availability of

emotional, informational and instrumental assistance from others (Thoits, 1995).

71
Emotional support can be defined as a belief that love, caring, sympathy, understanding,

esteem, and value are available from others (Thoits, 1995). Instrumental support

encompasses concrete, direct ways through which people can assist others, such as a

provision of financial or material goods or services. Informational support is the

provision of advice, guidance, suggestion or useful information (House & Kahn, 1985).

Several authors noticed that these supportive functions are highly correlated and often

form a single underlying factor of perceived social support (Caplan et al., 1975; Kaufman

& Beehr, 1986; LaRocco et al., 1980; Pinneau, 1976).

Considering gossip’s function in social bonding, employees who tend to engage in

gossip are more likely to have larger social networks consisting of coworkers,

supervisors, or even clients. These social networks may serve as helpful coping resources

when one finds him/herself in a stressful situation. Individuals who have large social

networks are more likely to obtain help they need when in a stressful situation. Through

gossip one may gain various kinds of social support that may lead to a reinterpretation of

the stressful situation or tangible assistance. Indeed, empirical findings indicate that

talking to others is one of the most often-used coping strategies (Newton & Keenan,

1985). Tucker’s (1993) extensive qualitative study on employees’ grievances against

employing organizations illustrates well the use of gossip as a means of obtaining social

support. Tucker found that the first step for many aggravated employees was to seek

others in order to share their problems. Gossip was often used by employees while

looking for emotional support and advice, as well as for reinforcement of their position in

the conflict. Tucker concluded that gossip functioned as a type of settlement behavior,

where participants passed judgments on the case and assigned the blame. Also, in

72
Waddington’s (2005) study employees reported that gossiping leads to the experience of

gaining support and reassurance resulting in stress relief. Lastly, Beehr and Fenlarson’s

(1994) study investigating the relationship between workplace communication and

perception of social support showed that talking about matters unrelated to work is

strongly related to perceptions of social support, regardless of the partner of the

conversation (supervisor, coworker, or others). Thus, the proposition that gossiping leads

to obtaining social support seems to be well grounded.

The role of social support in strain reduction has been well supported by the

existing empirical findings (e.g., Blau, 1981; Ganster et al., 1986; Kahn & Byoiere, 1992;

LaRocco & Jones, 1979). Viswesvaran, Sanchez and Fisher’s (1999) meta-analytical

review demonstrated that there is a negative relation between social support and strains

experienced (r = -.21). This effect has been explained in several different ways. Cohen

and Wills (1985) claim that social support helps one to reinterpret a stressful situation and

reassures or bolsters one’s self- esteem or sense of identity. Cohen and Wills also claim

that social support provides feedback and encouragement that sustain one’s sense of

mastery and competence. In addition, social support provides a sense of predictability and

stability by reinforcing embeddedness in social roles. It can also simply provide a

solution to the problem and facilitate health-related behavioral patterns.

Thus, it can be assumed that people who tend to engage in gossip are more likely

to build larger social networks, which can provide them with social support. In turn,

having more social support results in reduction in strain experiences.

Hypothesis 3: A higher frequency of gossiping will lead to a higher perception of

social support, which will moderate the relationship between stressors (workload,

73
organizational constraints, and interpersonal conflict) and strain (psychological and

physical). When the perception of social support is high the relationship between

stressors and strain will be weaker, compared to when the perception of social support is

low.

Clarity and Strength of Organizational Norms

Baumeister et al. (2004) claim that a primary function of gossip is cultural

learning. Gossip is an indirect way of communicating which behaviors are appropriate or

accepted by a certain group and which are not (e.g., Foster, 2004). For example, it has

been suggested that employees learn what is expected of them by hearing stories about

high and low performers. As these stories are being spread to new employees or simply

repeated among employees, gossip contributes to employee socialization (Jaeger,

Skelder, Rind & Rosnow, 1994; Michelson & Mouly, 2004; Ribeiro & Blakeley, 1995),

as well as a strengthening of organizational culture (e.g., Kurland & Pelled, 2000; Noon

& Delbridge, 1993). Additionally, Grosser et al. (2011) claim that gossip reflects

organizational culture. According to the authors, if culture is competitive and aggressive,

gossip is more likely to be predominately work- related and critical, whereas in more

collegial cultures gossips tend to be more positive and personal. Spreading gossip-

containing messages about expected standards of performance not only informs

employees, but also reaffirms and strengthens the existing organizational culture (e.g.,

Besnier, 1989; Gluckman, 1963).

In order for the organizational culture to be strong, there must be a high degree of

agreement among employees on norms, values and standards for behavior (e.g., Ribeiro

74
& Blakeley, 1995). Gossip not only informs about norms and values, but also prevents

people from violating them. Gluckman (1963) claims that when individuals violate

existing norms, they give others reasons to spread judgmental information about them.

There is also a risk of being excluded from a social group as a consequence of gossip

(e.g., Michelson & Mouly, 2004). This threat is an effective means of controlling deviant

behaviors and maintaining conformity.

Norms have been defined as standards that are shared by members of a group or

an organization (Gibson, 1999) and that regulate group members’ behavior (Forsyth

1999). Norms serve several functions. Norms are fundamental elements of a group’s

structure, for they provide direction and motivation and organize social interaction

(Wheelan, 2005). Norms make other people’s responses predictable and meaningful by

establishing common expectations regarding each group member’s contribution to the

team (Forsyth, 2006). A number of research findings suggest that norm strength exerts an

important influence on group outcomes (Colman et al., 2001; Gammage et al., 2001; Lee

et al., 2003, Stodgill, 1972). Some researchers argue that type of norm does not matter as

much as its strength (Lee et al., 2003; O’Reilly, 1985). Strong and positive norms should

result in more favorable attitudes than weak and negative norms (O’Reilly, 1985). It has

been found that norm strength exerts significant influence on group performance (Argote,

1989; Levine & Moreland, 1990; O’Reilly, 1985), group cohesion (Colman & Carron,

2001; Gammage, Carron & Estabrooks, 2001; Stodgill, 1972) and group satisfaction

(O’Reilly, 1985).

Clarity and strength of organizational norms may lead to a decrease in emotional

and physical strain and an increase in job satisfaction. When norms are clear and strong,

75
employees know what is expected of them and the workplace environment is more

predictable. Norm clarity may also influence an employees’ choice of coping strategy.

When norms are clear, employees are provided with guidelines and directions on how to

deal with the problem. Thus, it is expected that people who tend to engage in gossip will

better understand organizational norms, and in turn they will experience less emotional

and physical strain and more job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4: A higher frequency of gossiping will lead to a higher perception of

clarity of organizational norms, which will moderate the relationship between stressors

(workload, organizational constraints, and interpersonal conflict) and strain

(psychological and physical). When the perception of clarity of organizational norms is

high, the relationship between stressors and strain is weaker, compared to when the

perception of clarity of organizational norms is low.

Perception of Workplace Fun

An entertaining value of gossip has been commonly recognized (e.g., Ben Ze’ev,

1994; Gilmore, 1978; Rosnow, 1977; Spacks, 1982). The literature discusses gossip’s

role in reducing boredom, relieving work monotony and creating an entertaining

workplace environment (e.g., Foster, 1994). The majority of authors agree that sheer fun,

pleasure, amusement and enjoyment is the defining characteristic of gossip and an

explanation why people tend to involve in gossiping (e.g., Stirling, 1956). Some authors

even propose that gossip is an activity that intellectually stimulates employees (e.g.,

Travis et al., 2011). These claims were well illustrated in Roy’s (1958) case study

investigating factory workers, where the entertaining value of gossip provided

76
considerable stimulation and relief from the monotony of routine work. The author

concluded his study by stating: “the enjoyment of communication for ‘its own sake’

brings job satisfaction, at least job endurance, to work situations largely bereft of creative

experience” (p. 167).

Given that gossip exists for entertainment or recreational value of the gossipers, it

is reasonable to assume that gossipers are likely to have more experiences of fun. In the

context of the workplace, it is likely that employees who tend to engage in gossip may

also perceive their work environment as fun.

Workplace fun is a relatively new construct that lately has received substantial

amount of attention. Experienced fun has been defined as the extent to which a person

perceives the existence of fun in the workplace (Kart et al. 2006). Ford, Newstrom and

McLaughlin (2004) conceptualized this construct as “a workplace environment that

makes people smile” (p. 117), whereas McDowell (2004) describes fun at work as

“engaging in activities not specifically related to the job that are enjoyable, amusing, or

playful” (p. 9).

A variety of positive individual and organizational outcomes have been linked to

workplace fun such as group cohesiveness, job satisfaction, performance, creativity,

fewer human resources problems and better retention (Ford et al., 2004; Guerrier & Adib,

2003; Jeffcoat & Gibson, 2006; Karl & Peluchette, 2006; Karl et al., 2007; Newstrom,

2002). What is more important though is that workplace fun has been shown to help

employees cope with workplace stress. Several existing studies indicate that when

employees have fun at work, they experience less strain (e.g., Avolio, Howell, & Sosik,

1999; Matthes, 1993; McGhee, 2000; Karl & Harland, 2005; Kersley et al., 2006;

77
Steward, 1996). In addition, in Ford, McLaughlin and Newstrom’s (2003) study of

human resources managers pointed out a reduction in stress and anxiety as the strongest

advantage of workplace fun.

A perception of the workplace as a fun environment can lead to decrease in

emotional and physical strain in a variety different ways. For example, having a moment

of fun in the workplace may lead to temporary psychological detachment from tasks,

which has been found to be one of the determinants of stress recovery (Sonnetag,

Binnewies & Mojza, 2008). Moreover, a positive mood can spill over to tasks making job

duties more enjoyable (Chan, 2010). Finally, laughter was linked to positive health

benefits, sense of well-being, relaxation and positive outlook (Lyttle, 2007).

Thus, it is likely that people who engaged in gossip tend to perceive their

workplace as more entertaining and emotionally stimulating, which in turn leads to

decrease in strain experiences.

Hypothesis 5: A higher frequency of gossiping will lead to a higher perception of

workplace fun, which will moderate the relationship between stressors (workload,

organizational constraints, and interpersonal conflict) and strain (psychological and

physical). When the perception of workplace fun is high the relationship between

stressors and strain is weaker, compared to when the perception of workplace fun is low.

Informal Influence

Gossip has been recognized as way of exerting influence (e.g., Ad van Iterson &

Clegg, 2008; Grosser et al., 2010; Rosnow, 1977). Through gossip one can influence

what others think or feel about a particular employee as well as particular workplace

78
situation. This is related to gossip’s role in the sense-making process and building social

meaning. Because gossip offers explanations, people tend to gossip in ambivalent

situations where the meaning of the occurrence is not clear (DiFonzo & Bordia, 1997).

Thus, through gossip one can spread her/his interpretation of the situation influencing

other coworkers’ perceptions as well as attitudes. Additionally, it has also been

recognized that gossip is an effective tool of influencing reputations (e.g., Emler, 1994;

Rosnow, 1977; Tebbutt, 1995), for better or for worse. A previously cited study by

Ogasawara (1998) demonstrated how members of relatively low status group could use

gossip to exert informal power over people who hold formal power.

In fact, it appears that individuals who gossip, regardless of their formal status,

are perceived by coworkers as more influential. Grosser’s et al. (2011) study

demonstrated that individuals who gossip are seen by their peers as well connected in the

workplace social network and highly influential. When coworkers perceive a particular

person as more influential, they may be more likely to consult that person when the

situation they are in is unclear and needs explanation. This in turn may reinforce the

informal status of the gossiper in the group.

People who tend to engage in gossip may have a higher perception of control over

social situations. In fact, gossipers may have informal power. Kurland and Pelled (2000)

proposed a theoretical model explaining the link between gossip and informal power. The

authors have defined power, as “the ability to exert one’s will, influencing others to do

things that they would not otherwise do” (p. 430). According to the model, gossip

influences the extent of informal power one has. First, negative gossip may increase

coercive power, because gossip recipients may comply with gossiper’s requests in order

79
to avoid negative gossip, which could destroy their reputation. Second, positive gossip is

expected to influence reward power, because individuals may want others to spread

positive gossip about them. Third, gossip in general can increase expert power, because it

facilitates information and knowledge exchange. Gossipers may be perceived as a good

source of information. Lastly, the authors propose that gossip could both reduce and

increase referent power. This is because on one hand, people would not want to be

associated with the gossiper (Levin & Arluke, 1987), but on the other hand, gossipers

often have large social networks, which attracts people (e.g., Dunbar, 1996; Eder & Enke,

1991). Thus, this study hypothesizes that people who tend to gossip also perceive

themselves as more influential.

It is likely that people who perceive themselves as more influential experience

less strain. People with higher status or a high perception of informal power may be

coping with stress more effectively because they may believe that they have more control

or influence over their workplace reality. Indeed, perceived control in the workplace has

been the most commonly researched moderator of stressor-strain relations (e.g., Klein,

2002; Spector, 1986). A significant number of empirical studies suggest that people who

have a higher perception of control in the workplace experience considerably less strain

(e.g., Karasek, 2008; Spector, 1986; Wall, Jackson, Mullarkey & Parker, 1996). In

addition, employees who feel influential may feel influential over other coworkers and

the organization and therefore more secure. It is likely that gossipers who feel more

socially influential will experience less strain.

Hypothesis 6: A higher frequency of gossiping will lead to a higher perception of

informal influence, which will moderate the relationship between stressors (workload,

80
organizational constraints, and interpersonal conflict) and strain (psychological and

physical). When the perception of informal influence is high, the relationship between

stressors and strain is weaker, comparing to when the perception of informal influence is

low.

81
Chapter V

Methods

82
 Power Analysis

Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003) stated that a sample required to detect a

large interaction effect is 26, a sample required to detect medium effect size is 55, and a

sample required to detect small interaction effect is 392 (p. 297). It was assumed that

interaction effects in this study would be small or medium (Cohen et al., 2003). Thus,

accounting for a number of surveys lost due to random responding the data were

collected from 500 individuals. After data screening, 374 surveys were retained, which

met the sample size requirements proposed by Cohen et al. (2003).

Participants

Participants of this study were 500 working adults. Participants were recruited in

three different ways. First, 300 participants were recruited through Amazon Mechanical

Turk. Amazon MTurk is an online marketplace connecting two groups: requesters

offering payment for completion of human intelligence tasks (HIT’s) and workers willing

to complete such tasks. Recently, social researchers have recognized the value and

convenience of conducting data collection through Amazon MTurk (Barger, Behrend,

Sharek & Sinar, 2011). Conducting an online survey provides a quick and efficient way

of collecting data from a large and varied sample. Currently, the Amazon Mechanical

Turk administers a database of 500,000 participants from 190 countries willing to

complete tasks or participate in social research. Licensing fees provided by researchers

are used by Amazon Mechanical Turk to administer participant incentives. These

participants were paid 1 dollar for participation in the study. Only MTurk participants

were paid for participation.

83
 Second, data were collected in a west-coast-based branch of a worldwide not-for

profit organization. Approximately 80 people were employed in this organization and the

majority of them were office workers. The average age of employees was 44 years old; 67

% were women; 47 % were White, 12% were Black, 24% were Asian and 14% were

Hispanic. These participants were contacted and invited to participate in the survey by a

Human Resources representative. Approximately, 31 % of employees participated in the

survey. The majority of those who decided to participate were women (75 %),

approximately 79 % were White, 12 % were Black and 8 % were Asian. The average age of

employees who participated in the survey was 28 years old.

Third, 78 surveys were collected from working adults contacted through several

professional networks:

1) LinkedIn (Society for Industrial & Organizational Psychology group, I-O

Practitioners Network, I/O Career: Network for Industrial Organizational

Psychologists, I/O at Work).

2) Golden Gate Mothers Group Listserv (GGMG). Golden Gate Mothers Group is

a not-for profit organization that connects approximately 4000 women in the

Bay Area. The members of GGMG are both working and stay-at-home

mothers, but only working women were invited to participate.

3) American Association University Women Listserv (AAUW). AAUW is a

professional social network for women. Members of the AAUW Listserv are

former recipients of grants, fellowships and scholarships and are either

professionals or graduate students.

84
4) Rumor/Gossip Listserv. The members of a Rumor/Gossip Listserv were

researchers, professional and graduate students from around the world that

were interested in the topic of rumor and gossip.

All together 500 surveys were collected and 374 surveys were retained after

survey screening: 271 were obtained from Amazon MTurk, 78 surveys were obtained

through professional online groups, and 25 surveys were obtained through a branch of

not-for profit organization.

Demographic information about participants is presented in Table 3. Participants’

ages ranged from 18 to 67 years, with an average of 31.5 years old (SD = 10.6). Women

consisted 52.8 % of the participants. Hispanics were 5.7 % of the participants. With

regard to race, 81.5 % of the participants were White; 4.5 % were Black; 10.9 % were

Asian; 2 % were American Indian or Native Alaskan; and .6 % were Pacific Islanders.

85
Table 3
Demographical Data Presented by Sample and Total
MTurk Not-for profit LinkedIn Total
N 271 25 78 374

Gender: Women 45.00 % 75.00 % 75.30% 53.80%

Age: Mean (SD) 28.84 (9.1) 28.20 (9.1) 37.55 (9.4) 31.50 (10.3)

Tenure: Mean
(SD) 3.63 (4.2) 3.63 (4.2) 5.42 (4.84) 4.50 (5.2)

Number of people 23.80 (25.8) 22.00 (24.6) 19.40 (18.8) 22.40 (24.2)
interacting with

% of day
interacting
0% .40 % .00 % .00 % .30 %
1-25% 17.70 % 16.70 % 12.00 % 16.40 %
26-50% 23.20 % 29.20 % 26.70 % 24.50 %
51-75% 26.90 % 37.50 % 42.70 % 30.70 %
76-100% 31.40 % 16.70 % 18.70 % 27.80 %

Supervisor: Yes 15.90 % 54.20 % 32.00 % 21.80 %

Working Space
Cubical 15.20 % 12.50 % 20.00 % 15.00 %
Open Floor 30.00 % 20.10 %
Private Office 11.50 % 66.70 % 35.00 % 20.30 %
Share Office 15.60 % 12.50 % 16.70 % 16.00 %
Field Work 7.80 % 4.20 % 3.30 % 5.90 %
Telecommute 3.30 % 4.20 % 8.30 % 4.00 %
Other 16.70 % 13.30 % 17.40 %
Note. Valid percentage is reported.

86
Table 3
Demographical Data Presented by Sample
MTurk Not-for profit LinkedIn Total
Industry
Not-for Profit 5.50% 42.00% 5.70% 7.90%
Business 64.20% 13.00% 61.40% 60.00%
Academia 14.00% 42.00% 20.00% 16.90%
Government 6.60% .00% 10.00% 6.80%
Self-employed 3.70% 4.00% 2.90% 3.60%
Other 5.90% .00% .00% 4.40%

Employment type
Full-time 64.20% 88.00% 77.30% 68.50%
Part-time 16.60% 12.00% 14.60%
Self-employed 3.30% 2.70% 3.00%
Unemployed .70% .50%
Retired .40% .30%
Student 3.00% 8.00% 3.00%
Homemaker 10.70% 4.00% 9.70%
Other .70% 8.00% 1.00%

Hispanic: Yes 4.80% 4.30% 9.30% 5.70%

Race
White 80.70% 79.20% 85.50% 81.60%
Black 4.10% 12.00% 2.90% 4.50%
Asian 11.40% 8.00% 10.10% 10.90%
American
Indian or Alaska
Native 2.30% .00% 1.40% 2.00%

Pacific Islander .80% .00% .00% .60%

Other .80% .00% .00% .60%
Note. Valid percentage is reported.

87
 The average tenure of participants was 4.5 years (SD = 5.2). The number of

people with whom respondents interacted during the workday ranged from 1 to 350.

However, as was mentioned before, numbers above 100 were excluded from the analysis.

After the exclusion, the average number of people respondents interacted with was 22.4

(SD = 24.2). A majority of the respondents (30.7 %) indicated that they interacted with

other people 51-75 % of their workday, 27.8 % indicated that they interacted with other

people 75-100 % of the workday, 24.6 % of the respondents interacted with other people

26-50 % of their workday, and finally 16 % of the respondents spent 1-25 % of their

workday interacting with other people. With regard to supervisory role, 22 % of the

participants indicated they were a supervisor or a manager. With regard to working space,

a majority of respondents worked on an open floor (20.10 %), in private offices (20.30

%), shared offices (16 %), or in cubicals (15 %). Only 5.9 % of respondents indicated

they performed fieldwork, and 4 % telecommuted. A majority of participants worked

full-time (68.5 %), 14.6 % worked part-time, 9.3 % declared themselves as homemakers,

and only 3 % indicated they were self-employed. Further, a majority of participants

worked for business (60 %), 16.9 % worked in academia, 6.8 % held a government job,

and 7.9 % worked in a not-for profit industry.

Measures

Demographics. Participants were asked to indicate their gender, age, ethnic

background, tenure, number of people they interact with during the work day, percentage

of the day they interact with other people, type of industry they work for (e.g., academia,

not-for profit organization, business), their type of workspace (e.g., open floor, private

office, cubical etc.), type of employment (e.g., full-time, self-employed, student etc.), and

88
how they heard about the study (e.g., GGMG, LinkedIn, workplace). Demographic

questions can be found in Appendix A.

Workplace Gossip. Workplace gossip was measured with a shortened version of

Schmidt’s (2010) Office Gossip Scale. The original scale consisted of 10 items, each

asking about the frequency of gossiping, talking about others or swapping stories about

other people in their organization. In the effort of establishing reliability and validity of

scores obtained on this scale, Schmidt conducted a study on a sample of 277

undergraduate students from a large Midwestern University. In the Schmidt’s study, all

participants were working individuals and a majority of them was hired part-time (93.5

%). Approximately 70 % of participants were female and the average participant’s age

was 20 years old. The reliability of the scores obtained on this measure was α = .93.

Further, Schmidt performed a confirmatory factor analysis using principle axis

factoring for extraction in SPSS to assess if the scale was a single factor as

conceptualized. Support was found, with 1 factor having an Eigenvalue of 6.14,

accounting for 61.43 % of the variance. A second factor had an Eigenvalue of only .85,

significantly less and below common rules of thumb for Eigenvalues of 1.0 representing

potentially meaningful factors. Item loadings on the single factor ranged from .66 to .86.

All were above the .60 loading rule of thumb for high loadings suggested by Hair,

Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998). As such, Schmidt found support for the

psychometric soundness of the scale.

In order to shorten the scale for the needs of this study, I looked at statistics

obtained in Schmidt’s validation study. Items with the highest factor loadings were

picked (range from .78 to .86). In addition, the items were analyzed in terms of content

89
and it was concluded that the chosen 6 items were the most representative of the

construct. Next, a reliability analysis was performed on the chosen items, resulting a

coefficient alpha of .91. In this study, the reliability of the scores obtained on the shorten

version of Workplace Gossip Scale was α = .89.

A sample item of this measure is: “How often do you swap stories about other

people in the organization?” The full scale can be found in Appendix B.

Job Stressors. Job stressors were assessed using the Job Stressors Inventory

designed by Spector and Jex (1998). The inventory consisted of four scales: three were

intended to measure job stressors and one assessed physical strains. Job stressors items

are presented in Appendix C.

The Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS) was intended to measure how

well the respondents got along with others at work. This was a four-item, summated

rating scale. Respondents were asked to rate each item in terms of the frequency of its’

occurrence, using 5-point Likert Scale, where 1 indicated “never” and 5 indicated “very

often”. The possible score range was from 4 to 20, where high scores represented

frequent conflicts with others. A sample item of this measure is: “How often do you get

into arguments with others at work?” The internal consistency reliability reported by

Spector and Jex was .74, and the reliability of the scores obtained in this study was .84.

The Organizational Constraints Scale (OCS) was an 11-item scale that was based

on Peters and O’Connor’s (1980) classification of organizational constraints. Examples

included faulty equipment or insufficient training. Each area was assessed with a single

item, and a total constraints score was computed as a sum. The respondents were asked to

rate how often it was difficult or impossible to do their job because of each of the

90
constraint areas. Response choices ranged from less than once per month or never, coded

1, to several times per day, coded 5. The possible score range was from 5 to 55, where

high scores represented high levels of constraints.

With regard to reliability, an estimate of consistency in scores obtained on the

scale’s items does not apply to this type of scale. Each item on the scale represents a

situation that can occur regardless of the occurrence of other situations measured by the

scale. Thus, internal consistency is an estimate of reliability of the scores that is not

appropriate for this type of scale (Spector & Jex, 1998).

The Quantitative Workload Scale (QWI) consisted of 5 items intended to assess

the amount or quantity of work in a job. Each item represented a statement about the

amount of work that had to be performed. Response choices ranged from “less than once

per month or never”, coded as 1, to “several times per day”, coded as 5. High scores

represented a high level of workload, with a possible range from 5 to 25. A sample item

of this measure is: “How often does your job require you to work very fast?” Spector and

Jex (1998) reported an average internal consistency of .82 across 15 studies. The

reliability of scores obtained in this study was α = .86.

Psychological Needs. Need for affiliation, need for dominance and need for

achievement were measured with the Need Assessment Questionnaire developed by

Heckert, Cuneio, Hannah, Adams, Droste, Mueller, Wallis, Griffin and Roberts (1999).

Each need was measured by 5 items. The statements were rated on a 5–point Likert scale,

where one indicated strong disagreement and 5 indicated strong agreement. A sample

item for the scale measuring need for affiliation was: “I am a “people” person”; for the

scale measuring need for dominance: “I would enjoy being in charge of a project”; and

91
for the scale measuring need for achievement: “I try to perform my best at work”. Full

scales can be found in Appendix D.

Coefficients alpha found in this study were α = .77 for need for affiliation; α = .84

for need for dominance; and α = .88 for need for achievement.

Physical Strain. Physical Strain was assessed using the Physical Symptoms

Inventory (PSI), which was a part of “Job Stressors and Strains Inventory” by Spector

and Jex (1998). The scale assessed physical, somatic health symptoms that have been

linked to psychological distress. The scale consisted of 12 items, each asking about the

presence of a particular symptom (e.g., headache or chest pain) (see Appendix E). The

score was computed by summing the number of symptoms. The possible score range was

from 0 to 12.

With regard to reliability, an estimate of consistency in scores obtained on the

scale’s items does not apply to this type of scale. Each item on the scale represents a

situation that can occur regardless of the occurrence of other situations measured by the

scale. Thus, internal consistency is an estimate of reliability of the scores that is not

appropriate for this type of scale.

Psychological Strain. Psychological strain was measured with The Stress

Subscale from the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) developed by Lovibond

and Lovibond (1993). The DASS consists of 42 negative emotional symptoms intended

to assess depression, anxiety and stress. There are 14 items in each of these subscales, but

only 14 items from the Stress Subscale were used in this study. It was decided to use only

the Stress Subscale because using all three scales would significantly affect the length of

the questionnaire and the time required for its completion. The respondents were asked to

92
rate the extent to which they have experienced each negative symptom over the past

weeks on a 5-point Likert scale. A sample of the stress scale item is: “I found that I was

very irritable”. The full scale can be found in Appendix E. The reliability of the scores

obtained on this scale was α = .95.

Social Support. Social support was measured with a scale adapted from Caplan,

Cobb, French, van Harrison, and Pinneau (1975). The scale consisted of 5 items and was

intended to measure both emotional and instrumental social support. The questions were

answered on 5-point Likert scales, where 1 indicated “not at all” and 5 indicated “to a

great extent.” A sample item of this measure is: “How much are your coworkers helpful

to you in getting your job done?” The reliability of the scores obtained on this scale was α

= .89.

Perception of Workplace Fun. A perception of workplace fun was measured by

“The Level of Fun Experienced at Work Inventory” developed by Karl, Peluchette, and

Harland (2007). The measure was intended to assess the level of fun employees

experienced at work. The scale consisted of 5 items, each rated by respondents on a 5-

point Likert scale, where 1 indicated the greatest disagreement and 5 indicated the

greatest agreement. A sample item of this measure is: “This is a fun place to work”, and

the full scale can be found in Appendix H. The reliability of the scores obtained on this

scale was α = .86.

Strength and Clarity of Organizational Norms. The strength and clarity of

organizational norms were assessed with the “Perceived Norm Strength” scale developed

by Cohen, Ledford, and Spreitzer (1996). The scale consisted of three items. Items were

rated on a 5-point Likert scale: from 1-strongly disagree, to 5-strongly agree. A sample

93
item of the measure is: “Our group has clear standards for the behavior of group

members”. The full scale can be found in Appendix I. The reliability of the scores on this

scale was α = .90.

Informal Influence. The perception of informal influence was measured with four

items developed for this study. Three items were adopted from the Agentic/Communal

Subscale of the Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Values Inventory created by Locke

(2000). The author defined Agentic/Communal people as "Expressing themselves openly,

being heard, respected and having impact" and three items that were chosen aimed at

measuring the importance of having impact/ influence on others. These items are: “My

coworkers show interest in what I have to say”; “I have an impact on people’s opinions”;

“My opinions matter to my coworkers and supervisor”. The coefficient alpha for these

three items was .69. The fourth item came from Krackhardt’s (1990) measure of informal

influence: “I have the ability to influence what other people think”. Items were rated on a

5-point Likert scale: from 1-strongly disagree, to 5-strongly agree. The reliability of the

scores obtained on this scale was α = .85.

Procedure

The study involved using survey procedures. The data were collected through an

online survey website (Survey Monkey). The link to the survey was distributed to

participants in three different ways depending on the recruitment method. Participants

recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk found out about study from a human

intelligence task (HIT) posted on the workers’ Amazon MTurk website. The HIT

included short explanation of the study and the link to the survey. MTurk workers who

94
decided to participate in the study had to click on the link, which led them to the survey.

Participants were compensated for participation upon survey submission.

The second group of participants was recruited through a not-for profit

organization. The researcher contacted a human resources representative, who sent out an

email to all employees inviting them to participate in the survey. The email included

short information about the researcher, a description of the study, information that the

survey is anonymous and voluntary and the link to the survey. Employees who were

interested in participation were able to enter the survey online by clicking at the link at a

time of convenience. The human resources representative sent out one remainder about

the study approximately two weeks from initial invitation.

The remaining participants were recruited though online professional networks: 1)

LinkedIn (Society for Industrial & Organizational Psychology group, I-O Practitioners

Network group, I/O Career: Network for Industrial Organizational Psychologists group,

I/O at Work group); 2) GGMG Listserv (Golden Gate Mothers Group), 3) Rumor/Gossip

Listserv; 4) AAUW Listserv (American Association University Women Network). The

researcher used membership in these groups to post an invitation to participate in the

study (the same content that was sent to employees of the not-for profit organization).

The message included some brief information about the researcher, a description of the

study, information that the survey was anonymous and voluntary, and the link to the

survey. Individuals interested in participation were able to enter the survey online by

clicking at the link at a time of convenience.

The survey began with a consent form explaining the goal of the study,

participants’ rights and provisions of confidentiality. Participants had an option to agree

95
or disagree to participate in the survey. If a participant clicked “agree to participate” the

survey took her/him to the first set of questions. If a participant clicked “do not agree to

participate”, he/she exited the survey.

Scales in the survey were put in a particular order. The survey first asked

questions about workplace characteristics: workload, organizational constraints,

workplace fun and interpersonal conflict. These questions were asked first, because they

appear to be less personal and it might be easier for respondents to answer them.

Following these questions were items assessing physical strain, psychological needs,

workplace gossip, psychological strain and social support. The demographic questions

were asked at the end of the survey.

96
Chapter VI

Results

97
Data Screening

Data preparation. The data were downloaded from the Survey Monkey Website

into a Microsoft Excel file. This initial dataset consisted of 500 surveys: 353 surveys

were collected through Amazon Mechanical Turk; 107 surveys were collected through

LinkedIn professional networks; and 40 surveys were collected through the west-coast

branch of a worldwide not-for profit organization. Each survey was given a unique

number.

Next, survey responses were screened for random responses, incomplete

responses and time of completion. There were a substantial number of surveys (61) with

no responses or only answers to 20 out of the 108 questions (respondents quit the survey

after completing two pages). In addition, surveys were tested for time taken by

respondents to complete the survey. It was decided that 5.5 minutes should be the shortest

accepted time spent to complete the survey consisting of approximately 100 questions.

This was a judgment call and was not based on any existing standards. Surveys submitted

in less than 5.5 minutes were rejected (37). Finally, surveys were screened for random

responses. There were three questions in the survey to check for random responses (e.g.,

Please choose the “I agree” response option). Surveys that failed one or more random-

responding check questions (total 28) were also removed. This resulted in 374 usable

surveys.

In the next step, reverse-scored items were reverse scored. Means, sums (for

physical symptoms and organizational constraints scales) and centered variables were

created for each scale.

98
 Next, I visually inspected all of the variables. Some variables needed to be

manually reentered. For example, in case of tenure, which was an open-ended question,

some respondents gave a range of years they worked for in their organization. I also

visually screened the data for outliers. If a high value was found (value out of the scale

range), I again went back to the survey to check the value and manually corrected it.

Missing data. In order to determine the extent of missing data, an examination of

the response frequencies for each question was performed. According to Tabachnick and

Fidell (2007) missing data are considered random “if 5 % or less of data points are

missing in a random pattern” (p. 63). For the majority of variables the percentage of

missing data varied between 1 and 2.7 %. As expected, the number of missing data grew

as the questions progressed. This pattern could be attributed to the length of the

questionnaire and respondent fatigue rather than any underlying substantive factors. The

only variable for which the percentage of missing data was 5.1 %, exceeding the value

suggested by Tabachnick and Fidel, was “Race”. Because it is not expected that

information about participant race would significantly affect data interpretation, all of the

cases were left in the dataset without any further action.

Outliers. All variables except demographics were rated on 1-5 point Likert scale.

Thus, the examination of univariate outliers for these variables was conducted by looking

at minimum and maximum values obtained through the descriptive statistics analysis. No

values outside of the 1-5 range were found. To screen demographic variables that had a

different response format, I looked at the frequency distributions. The problem seemed to

appear only for one variable: the number of people with whom a participant interacts

during a typical day. One participant declared interacting with 350 people per day, 2

99
participants declared interacting with 300 people per day, and 3 participants declared

interacting with 150 people per day. I decided to exclude these values when analyzing

descriptive statistics for demographic variables. I do not think that these were entered

randomly. Rather it is likely these numbers resulted from the respondent

misunderstanding the question. For example, one can give a lecture to 350 people, but it

does not assume interacting with them. Similarly, a participant working as a cashier

encounters hundreds of people each day, but does not really interact with them.

Normality. To examine the normality assumption of the study variables a visual

inspection of normality plots was conducted. The inspection revealed that a majority of

the variables were reasonably normally distributed. In addition, the skewness and kurtosis

of the study variables were examined for univariate normality. For the majority of the

variables the values of skewness and kurtosis were within the range of less than 1.96.

Only, informal influence was negatively skewed (-1.57, SE = .13) and kurtotic (5.01, SE

= .25). Given the size of the sample and the variability of performance the impact of this

departure from normality should be minimal (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

Additional data screening was conducted prior to each analysis, in order to make

sure that data did not violate assumptions of certain analysis.

Control Variables

Several variables unrelated to the study hypotheses might be related to the

frequency of gossiping, and these were examined to determine if they would have any

influence on the study results. This study looked at factors such as holding a supervisory

role, gender, percentage of the day interacting with people, type of working space, type of

employment, type of organization, age, tenure and sample as variables potentially related

100
to the frequency of gossiping. Several ANOVA analyses were conducted in order to

investigate whether frequency of gossiping depended on these factors. Results indicated

that the means for gossiping were not different between supervisory and non-supervisory

roles (F(1, 369) = .11, ns), between men and women (F(1, 368) = .77, ns), across the type

of work space (F(6, 363) = 1.17, ns), across the type of employment (F(7, 363) = 1.86,

ns), and across samples (F(4, 369) = .38, ns).

Further, an ANOVA analysis was conducted to investigate the differences in

gossiping frequency depending on the percentage of the work day one spends interacting

with people (F(3, 365) = 4.56, p < .05). Bonferroni Post Hoc analyses showed that people

who reported interacting 1-25 % of their workday gossiped significantly less than people

who indicated interacting 51-75% of their workday (p < .05) and 76-100% of their

workday (p < .05). Lastly, a correlation analysis was conducted to investigate

relationships between gossip, age and tenure. Results indicated that gossip was not

significantly related to age (r = -.09, ns) or tenure (r = -.01, ns).

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics for the study variables are presented in Table 4.

101
102
 The analysis of the correlations between study variables showed that gossip

positively and significantly related to two types of stressors and both strains. Gossip

correlated significantly with organizational constraints (r = .25, p < .001), interpersonal

conflict (r = .28, p < .001), psychological strain (r = .15, p < .001), and physical strain (r

= .23, p < .001). This means that gossiping frequency was related to experiences of

stressors and strains. Furthermore, the correlation between gossip and workload was

nonsignificant (r = .09, ns).

With regard to psychological needs, only the correlation with need for affiliation

was significant (r = .12, p < .05). Need for achievement had a nonsignificant correlation

with gossip (r = -.08, ns), and need for dominance was nonsignificantly related to gossip

as well (r = .10, ns).

Next, looking at moderating variables from hypotheses 3 through 6, gossip was

not significantly correlated with coworker support (r = .07, ns), supervisor support (r = -

.09, ns), clarity of organizational norms (r = -.07, ns), and perception of workplace fun (r

= .03, ns). Further, the only moderator variable that was significantly related to gossip

was informal influence (r = .20, p < .01). The correlation was positive suggesting that the

more people gossiped, the more influential they perceived themselves.

The results of nonsignificant correlations between gossip and some study

variables have important implications for some of the hypotheses. For example, the lack

of correlation between gossip and four of the moderators (e.g., coworker support)

indicated that hypotheses 3, 4, and 5 would not be supported. However, tests of these

hypotheses were still conducted in order to inspect moderating effects of these

103
hypothesized mechanisms and to explore potential reasons for a lack of support for study

hypotheses.

The Moderating Effect of Gossip on the Stressor-Strain Relationship

Before the tests of the study hypotheses, exploratory analyses looking at the

moderating effects of gossip on the stressor – strain relationship were performed. Several

hierarchical regression analyses were performed to investigate whether gossip interacted

with stressors predicting strains. In the analyses, strains (physical or psychological) were

specified as dependent variables; stressors (interpersonal conflict, organizational

constraints or workload) and gossip were specified as independent variables and were

entered in the first model; an interaction term between stressors and gossip was entered in

the second model. Results of these analyses are presented in Tables 5-10.

The first analysis looked at the moderating effect of gossip on the relationship

between interpersonal conflict and psychological strain. Tests of model 1, F(2, 371) =

42.55, p < .001, and model 2, F(3, 370) = 29.95, p < .001, were both significant. Because

the test of F-Change (p < .05) was also significant, indicating that adding an interaction

term to the model explained significantly more variance in psychological strain, further

description of the results will focus primarily on the second model. As displayed in Table

5, R2 = .20 for the second model, gossip, interpersonal conflict and the interaction

between them explained approximately 20 % of the variability in psychological strain.

Table 5 also displays coefficients B and the t tests of their significance. It appears that

gossip (β = .13; p < .001), interpersonal conflict (β = .41; p < .05), and the interaction

between them (β = .12; p < .05) were significantly predictive of psychological strain.

104
Table 5
Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Psychological Strain
from Gossip, Interpersonal Conflict and Interaction between Gossip and
Interpersonal Conflict

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficient Coefficient
B SD β t p R2
Step1 .19
Constant .01 .04 .16 .87
Gossip .12 .05 .12 2.55 .01
Conflict .45 .06 .38 7.81 .00
F(2, 371) = 42.55, p < .001
Step 2 .20
Constant -.02 .04 -.37
Gossip .13 .05 .13 2.61 .01
Conflict .41 .06 .35 6.91 .00
Gossip*Conflict .12 .06 .10 2.01 .04
F(3, 370) = 29.95, p < .001

Note. N = 373.

Next, the interaction between gossip and interpersonal conflict predicting

psychological strain was plotted (Figure 2) to ease the interpretation. The plot showed

that in general when interpersonal conflict increased individuals tended to gossip more

and psychological strain also increased. This effect is stronger for individuals high on

gossiping behaviors. Individuals high on gossiping behaviors tended to experience more

psychological strain as interpersonal conflict increased comparing to individuals low o

gossiping behaviors.

105
Figure 2.

A Moderating Effect of Gossip on Interpersonal Conflict - Psychological Strain

Relationship

2.5
Psychological Strain

1.5

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Interpersonal Conflict

Low Gossip High Gossip

Note. X- axis is Interpersonal Confict. Y-axis is Psychological Strain. The solid line
represents Low Gossip. The gradient line represents High Gossip. All variables were
measured on 1-5 Likert scale.

The second analysis looked at the moderating effect of gossip on the relationship

between organizational constraints and psychological strain. Results are presented in

Table 6. The overall test of model 1 incorporating gossip and organizational constraints

as predictor variables (F(2, 371) = 21.27, p < .001), and model 2, where the interaction

term was added F(3, 370) = 23.47, p < .001, were both significant. However, the test of

R2 change was not significant (p = .27), meaning that the addition of the interaction term

to the model did not add any value in explaining variability in psychological strain.

As displayed in Table 6, R2 = .16 for the second model, indicating that gossip and

interpersonal conflict explained approximately 16 % of the variability in psychological

106
strain. Table 6 also displays coefficients B and the t tests of their significance. It appears

that gossip (β = .15; p < .01) and organizational constraints (β = .33; p < .001) were

significantly predictive of psychological strain. The interaction term was nonsignificant

(β = .01; ns).

Table 6
Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Psychological Strain from
Gossip, Organizational Constraints and Interaction between Gossip and
Organizational Constraints
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficient Coefficient
B SD β t p R2
Step1 .16
Constant .00 .04 -.09 .93
Gossip .15 .05 .15 2.97 .00
Constraints .03 .01 .33 6.77 .00
F(2, 371) = 21.27, p < .001
Step 2 .16
Constant -.01 .04 -.33 .74
Gossip .15 .05 .15 3.04 .00
Constraints .03 .01 .33 6.57 .00
Gossip*Constraints .01 .01 .05 1.10 .27
F(3, 370) = 23.47, p < .001

Note. N = 373.

Next, an analysis was performed to investigate the moderating effect of gossip on

the relationship between workload and psychological strain. The results of the analysis

are presented in Table 7. The overall test of model 1 incorporating gossip and workload

as predictor variables (F(2, 371) = 12.72, p < .001), and model 2, where the interaction

term was added (F(3, 373) = 10.92, p < .001), were both significant. Because the test of

F-Change (p < .05) was also significant, indicating that adding an interaction term to the

model explained significantly more variance in psychological strain, further description

107
of the results will focus primarily on the second model. As displayed in Table 7, R2 = .07

for the second model, indicating that gossip, workload and interaction between them

explained approximately 7 % of the variability in psychological strain. Table 7 also

displays coefficients B and the t tests of their significance. It appears gossip (β = .21; p <

.001), and the interaction between gossip and workload (β = .13; p < .01) were

significantly predictive of psychological strain.

Table 7
Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Psychological Strain from
Gossip, Workload and Interaction between Gossip and Workload

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficient Coefficient

B SD β t p R2
Step1 .06
Constant 2.15 .04 50.13 .00
Gossip .22 .05 .22 4.37 .00
Workload .09 .04 .11 2.10 .04
F(2, 371) = 12.72, p < .001
Step 2 .07
Constant 2.14 .04 50.12 .00
Gossip .21 .05 .21 4.14 .00
Workload .09 .04 .10 1.94 .05
Gossip*Workload .13 .05 .13 2.63 .01
F(3, 373) = 10.92, p < .001

Note. N = 373.

An interaction between gossip and workload predicting psychological strain was

plotted (Figure 3) to ease the interpretation. The plot showed that individuals low on

gossiping behaviors experienced a moderate level of psychological strain regardless of

the level of workload. Individuals high on gossiping behaviors, on the other hand, tended

to experienced more psychological strain comparing to individuals low on gossiping

108
behaviors, and for individuals high on gossiping behaviors psychological strain grew as

workload increased.

Figure 3.

A Moderating Effect of Gossip on Workload - Psychological Strain Relationship

3.5

3
Psychological Strain

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Workload

Low Gossip High Gossip

Note. X-axis is Workload. Y-axis is Psychological Strain. The solid line represents Low
Gossip. The gradient line represents High Gossip. All variables were measured on 1-5
Likert scale.

Next, an analysis was performed to investigate the moderating effect of gossip on

the relationship between interpersonal conflict and physical strain. Results are presented

in Table 8. The overall test of model 1 incorporating gossip and interpersonal conflict as

predictor variables (F(2, 371) = 27.31, p < .001), and model 2, where the interaction term

was added (F(3, 370) = 19.19, p < .001), were both significant. However, the test of R2

change was not significant (p = .10), meaning that the addition of the interaction term to

the model did not add any value in explaining variability in physical strain. As displayed

in Table 8, R2 = .15 for the second model, indicating that gossip, interpersonal conflict

109
and the interaction between them explained approximately 15 % of the variability in

physical strain. The regression coefficients presented in Table 8 show that interpersonal

conflict (β = .34, p < .001) was a significant predictor of gossiping behaviors. However,

gossip (β = .06, p = .24) and the interaction term for gossip and interpersonal conflict

were not significant (β = .08, p = .10). Based on these results it was concluded that gossip

did not have a moderating effect on the interpersonal conflict-physical strain relationship.

Table 8
Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Physical Strain from
Gossip, Interpersonal Conflict and Interaction between Gossip and
Interpersonal Conflict

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficient Coefficient

B SD β t p R2
Step1 .13
Constant 24.20 .18 131.66 .00
Gossip .26 .22 .06 1.14 .26
Conflict 1.77 .26 .39 6.70 .00
F(2, 371) = 27.31, p < .001
Step 2 .14
Constant 24.12 .19
Gossip .26 .22 .06 1.18 .24
Conflict 1.63 .28 .31 5.94 .00
Gossip*Conflict .45 .28 .08 1.64 .10
F(3, 370) = 19.19, p < .001
Note. N = 373.

Next, an analysis was performed to investigate the moderating effect of gossip on

the relationship between organizational constraints and physical strain. Results are

presented in Table 9. The overall test of model 1 incorporating gossip and organizational

constraints as predictor variables (F(2, 371) = 29.68, p < .001), and model 2, where the

interaction term was added (F(3, 372) = 20.93, p < .001), were both significant. However,

110
test of R2 change was not significant (p = .08), meaning that the addition of the

interaction term to the model did not add any value in explaining variability in gossiping

behaviors. As displayed in Table 9, R2 = .15 for the second model, indicating that gossip,

organizational constraints and interaction between them explained approximately 15 % of

the variability in physical strain. The regression coefficients presented in Table 9 show

that only organizational constraints (β = .34, p < .001) was a significant predictor of

physical strain. Gossip (β = .07, p = .16) and the interaction term between gossip and

organizational constraints were not significant (β = .09, p = .08). Based on these results it

was concluded that gossip did not have a moderating effect on the relationship between

organizational constraints and physical strain.

Table 9
Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Physical Strain from Gossip,
Organizational Constraints and Interaction between Gossip and Organizational
Constraints
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficient Coefficient
B SD β t p R2
Step1 .14
Constant 24.17 .18 132.34 .00
Gossip .28 .22 .06 1.28 .20
Constraints .15 .02 .35 7.03 .00
F(2, 371) = 29.68, p < .001
Step 2 .15
Constant 24.10 .19 129.10 .00
Gossip .31 .22 .07 1.40 .17
Constraints .15 .02 .34 6.76 .00
Gossip*Constraints .04 .02 .09 1.76 .08
F(3, 372) = 20.93, p < .001
Note. N = 373.

Finally, an analysis was performed to investigate the moderating effect of gossip

on the relationship between workload and physical strain. Results are presented in Table

10. The overall test of model 1 incorporating gossip and workload as predictor variables

111
(F(2, 371) = 11.75, p < .001), and model 2, where the interaction term was added F(3,

370) = 8.60, p < .001, were both significant. However, the test of R2 change was not

significant (p = .14), meaning that the addition of the interaction term to the model did

not add any value in explaining variability in gossiping behaviors. As displayed in Table

10, R2 = .07 for the second model, indicating that gossip and workload explained

approximately 7 % of the variability in physical strain. The regression coefficients

presented in Table 10 show that workload (β = .19, p < .001) and gossip (β = .13, p < .05)

were significant predictors of physical strain. The interaction term between gossip and

workload did not predict physical strain (β = .08, p = .14). Based on these results it was

concluded that gossip did not have a moderating effect on the relationship between

workload and physical strain.

Table 10
Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Physical Strain from
Gossip, Workload and Interaction between Gossip and Workload
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficient Coefficient
B SD β t p R2
Step1 .06
Constant 24.14 .19 126.56 .00
Gossip .59 .22 .13 2.65 .01
Workload .74 .20 .19 3.80 .00
F(2, 371) = 11.75, p < .001
Step 2 .07
Constant 24.11 .19 126.16 .00
Gossip .56 .23 .13 2.50 .01
Workload .73 .20 .19 3.70 .00
Gossip*Workload .34 .23 .80 1.48 .14
F(3, 370) = 8.60, p < .001
Note. N = 373.

112
 Test of Study Hypotheses

Workplace Stressors and Psychological Needs Predicting Workplace Gossip

Hypotheses 1 and 2 proposed that the interaction between individual needs and

workplace stressors would predict gossiping behavior (Figure 4). In order to test these

two hypotheses, I conducted multiple regression analyses. In the first step, I conducted

analyses to check whether data assumptions were not violated. A visual inspection of

residual scatterplots, where residuals were plotted against predicted DV values,

demonstrated no violation of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity assumptions. In

addition, two muliticollinearity statistics were conducted. The tolerance statistic was

equal to .94, whereas the VIF statistic was equal to 1.01 suggesting that there was no

problem with multicollinearity.

113
Figure 4.

Moderating Effect of Psychological Needs on the Stressor-Gossip Relationship

Psychological Needs:
Affiliation,
Dominance,
Achievement

Stressors:
Interpersonal Gossip
Conflict, Workload
and Org.
Constraints

114
 Hypothesis 1: Interpersonal Conflict and Need for Affiliation. Multiple

hierarchical regression models were examined to test hypothesis 1, which proposed that

the interaction between need for affiliation and interpersonal conflict would predict

gossiping behaviors. Prior to the analysis, all continuous independent variables were

centered, and an interaction term was created from these centered variables. The

dependent variables were not centered (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). In the analysis

gossip was specified as the dependent variable; need for affiliation and interpersonal

conflict were specified as independent variables and were entered in the first model; an

interaction term between interpersonal conflict and need for affiliation was entered in the

second model. Results of this analysis are presented in Table 5.

Tests of model 1 (F(2, 370) = 20.47; p < .001) and model 2 (F(1, 369) = 15.23; p

< .001) were both significant. Because the test of F-Change (p < .05) was also significant,

indicating that adding an interaction term to the model explained significantly more

variance in gossip, further description of the results will focus primarily on the second

model. As displayed in Table 5, R2 = .11 for the second model, indicating that need for

affiliation, interpersonal conflict and interaction between them explained approximately

11 % of the variability in gossiping behaviors. Table 5 also displays coefficients B and

the t tests of their significance. It appears that both need for affiliation (β = .29; p < .001),

interpersonal conflict (β = .12; p < .05), and the interaction between them (β = -.11; p <

.05) were significantly predictive of gossiping behaviors.

115
Table 11
Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Gossiping from Need for
Affiliation, Interpersonal Conflict and the Interaction between Need for
Affiliation and Interpersonal Conflict

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficient Coefficient
b SE β t p R2
Step1 .10
Constant 2.82 .04 67.74 .00
Need for Affiliation .34 .06 .29 5.95 .00
Interpersonal Conflict .13 .06 .12 2.33 .02
F(2, 370) = 20.47, p < .001
Step 2 .11
Constant 2.82 .04 68.07 .00
Need for Affiliation .33 .06 .29 5.78 .00
Interpersonal Conflict .13 .06 .11 2.33 .02
Affiliation*Conflict -.16 .07 -.11 -2.15 .03
F(1, 369) = 15.23, p < .001

Note. N=373.

To better understand the direction of this prediction (Figure 5) a plot displaying

the interaction was created. The plot was generated by solving the regression equation at

high and low levels of need for affiliation, using unstandardized regression coefficients.

High and low levels of affiliation were determined by substituting plus one standard

deviation for the high level, and substituting negative one standard deviation for the low

level, following Cohen et al.’s (2003) suggestion.

116
Figure 5.
An Interaction between Need for Affiliation and Interpersonal Conflict

5
4.5
4
3.5
Gossip

3 Low Affiliation

2.5
2
1.5
1
Low Conflict High Conflict

Note. X-axis represents Interpersonal Conflict. Y-axis represents Gossip. The solid line
represents Low Affiliation. The gradient line represents High Affiliation. All variables
were rated on 1-5 point Likert scale.

The examination of the plot reveals that people with a high need for affiliation

tended to gossip to the same extent regardless of the level of interpersonal conflict.

Individuals with a low need for affiliation, on the other hand, tended to engage in

gossiping behaviors more when interpersonal conflict increased. When the interpersonal

conflict was low, individuals with a low need for affiliation gossiped less than people

with a high need for affiliation. Thus, results supported the existence of an interaction

between need for affiliation and interpersonal conflict predicting gossiping behaviors, but

the interaction was in the opposite direction from what was proposed in hypothesis 1.

Thus, hypothesis 1 was not supported.

117
 In order to better understand the interaction between interpersonal conflict and

need for affiliation two additional analyses were performed. First, simple slopes at the +/-

one standard deviation of the moderator (need for affiliation) were calculated. Before the

analyses were performed four new variables were created: low need for affiliation

(centered variable need for affiliation + one standard deviation of need for affiliation);

high need for affiliation (centered variable need for affiliation - one standard deviation of

need for affiliation); an interaction term between low need for affiliation and conflict; and

an interaction term between high need for affiliation and conflict. Next, the simple slope

for interpersonal conflict variable at the low level of affiliation was calculated by running

hierarchical regression analysis, where low need for affiliation and conflict were entered

in the first model and the interaction term between low need for affiliation and conflict

were entered in the second model. Next, the simple slope for interpersonal conflict

variable at the high level of affiliation was calculated by running hierarchical regression

analysis, where the high need for affiliation and conflict were entered in the first model

and the interaction term between high need for affiliation and conflict were entered in the

second model. Results indicated that the slope at the low level of moderator was β = .39,

and the slope at the high level of moderator was β = .11.

As was described above the difference in the extent to which individuals with a

low and high affiliation gossiped was the greatest at the lowest level of conflict. When

interpersonal conflict was low, individuals with a low level of affiliation gossiped less

than individuals with a high level of affiliation. In order to test whether this difference in

gossiping at low levels of conflict was significant, a test for significant difference

between the simple slopes was performed. The analysis was performed using Dawson

118
and Richter’s (2006) Excel worksheet, posted in their online resources. The significance

was tested at the lowest level of the moderator (1). Results showed that the gradient of

the simple slope was .17; and the t test indicated that the difference was nonsignificant (t

= .42, p = .67). Thus, there was no significant difference in the extent of gossiping at a

low level of interpersonal conflict between individuals with a high and a low need for

affiliation.

Hypothesis 2: Interpersonal Conflict and Need for Dominance. A multiple

regression analysis was performed to test hypothesis 2 proposing an interaction between

need for dominance and interpersonal conflict predicting gossiping behaviors. Results are

presented in Table 12. The overall test of model 1 incorporating need for dominance and

interpersonal conflict as predictor variables (F(2, 370) = 19.62, p < . 001), and model 2,

where the interaction term was added (F(1, 369) = 13.42, p < .001), were both significant.

However, the test of R2 change was not significant (p = .34), meaning that the

addition of the interaction term to the model did not add any value in explaining

variability in gossiping behaviors.

119
Table 12
Results of Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Gossiping from Need for
Dominance, Interpersonal Conflict and the Interaction between Need for
Dominance and Interpersonal Conflict

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficient Coefficient

b SE β t p R2
Step1 .10
Constant 2.82 .42 67.59 .14
Need for Dominance .34 .06 .29 5.94 .00
Interpersonal
Conflict .10 .05 .10 1.97 .05
F(2, 370) = 19.62, p < .001
Step 2 .10
Constant 2.82 .42 1.47 .14
Need for Dominance .33 .06 .29 5.77 .00
Interpersonal
Conflict .10 .05 .10 1.97 .05
Dominance*Conflict -.07 .07 -.05 -1.01 .31
F(1, 369) = 13.42, p < .001
Note. N = 373.

The regression coefficients presented in Table 12 show that interpersonal conflict

(β = .33, p < .001) and need for dominance (β = .10, p < .05) were significant predictors

of gossiping behaviors. However, the interaction term between need for dominance and

interpersonal conflict was not significant (β = -.07, p = .31). Thus, there was no need to

plot the interaction. Based on these results hypothesis 2 was not supported.

120
 Research Questions 1-3. Research questions 1-3 asked whether gossiping

behaviors can be predicted from need for achievement and two types of stressful

situations: workload and organizational constraints. Each research question was tested

with a standard regression analysis. All together, three standard regression analyses were

performed to answer research questions. In the analyses, gossiping was entered as a

dependent variable, whereas need for achievement, workload and organizational

constraints were added as predictors. Results of these analyses are presented in Table 13.

With regard to need for achievement (research question 1), the tests of the model (F(1,

372) = 2.10, p = .15) and standardized regression coefficient were nonsignificant (β = -

.08, p = .15). Thus, the answer to the first research question is that need for achievement

did not predict gossiping behaviors.

With regard to organizational constraints (research question 2), the tests of the

model (F(1, 372) = 25.10, p < .001) and the standardized regression coefficients (β = .25,

p < .001) were significant. Thus, the answer to research question 2 is that organizational

constraints are predictive of gossiping behaviors. The positive sign of the beta coefficient

indicates that people tended to gossip more when they experienced more organizational

constraints.

Lastly, with regard to workload (research question 3), the tests of the model (F(1,

372) = 3.14, p = .08) and regression coefficient (β = .09, p = .08) were nonsignificant.

Thus, the answer to research question 3 is that workload did not significantly predict

gossiping behaviors.

121
 Table 13

Results of Regression Analyses Predicting Gossip from Need for Achievement,

Organizational Constraints and Workload

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficient Coefficient
b SE β t p R2
RQ1 Constant 3.26 .32 10.26 .00 .01
Need for
-.11 .07 -.08
Achievement -1.45 .15
F(1, 372) = 2.08, p = .15
RQ2 Constant 2.21 .13 17.77 .00 .06
Org Constraints .02 .01 .25 5.01 .00
F(1, 372) = 17.23, p< .001
RQ3 Constant 2.52 .16 15.45 .00 .01
Workload .08 .05 .09 1.77 .08
F(1, 372) = 3.14 , p = .08
Note. N = 373.

Hypotheses 3 through 6: Mechanisms through which Workplace Gossip Leads to

Decrease in the Stressor-Strain Relations

In order to test hypotheses 3-6, several mediated moderation analyses were

performed. Mediated moderation analyses were conducted according to Edwards and

Lambert’s (2007) guidelines. Although Edwards and Lambert explained their method

using an example of moderated mediation, this method can be used both for mediated

moderation and moderated mediation. The method involves expressing relationships

among variables in the model by using regression equations. Regression equations are

written for all endogenous variables in the model. The regression equations are combined

into one equation by supplementing the moderator variable and its product with the

mediator variable. The terms in the equation are rearranged to represent simple effects

122
from the model. This procedure results in a reduced form equation, in which elements

represent simple effects from the model.

A general model that represents the logic behind hypotheses 3 through 6 is

presented in Figure 6. In general, the model assumes that engaging in gossiping behaviors

influences moderator variables, which moderate the relationship between stressors and

strains. In other words, the model assumes that the moderating effect of social support (or

informal influence etc.) on the relationship between stressors and strains can be different

depending on the levels of gossip.

123
Figure 6.

A Model Presenting Mechanisms through which Workplace Gossip Leads to a Decrease

in Stressor-Strain Relations

Gossip

Moderator (e.g.
Support, Informal
Influence)

Stressors Strains
(e.g.Workload) (Physical or
Psychological)

According to the method, in order to obtain the reduced form equations

representing simple effects among variables in the model, regression equations for all

endogenous variables in the model must be specified. In case of the model presented in

figure 3, there are two endogenous variables: a moderator and strain. Thus, the

relationships among variables are expressed in two equations, the first one focusing on

the moderator and the second one focusing on the strain.

Equation (1) describes the relationship between gossip and the moderator. It states

that the moderator variable (Z) (e.g., social support, informal influence) is predicted from

gossip (G):

124
 Z = a0 + a1G + ez; (Equation 1)

In the Equation (1), a0 represents the constant; a1G represents the regression

coefficient for gossip predicting the moderator; and ez represents the residual.

Equation (2) describes the interaction between stressor and moderator predicting

strain. It states that strains (Y) are predicted from stressors (X), the moderator variable

(Z), and the interaction between them (XZ).

Y = b0 + b1X + b2Z + b3XZ + ey; (Equation 2)

In the Equation (2), b0 represents the constant; b1X is the regression coefficient for

the stressor predicting strain; b2Z is the regression coefficient for the moderator predicting

strain; b3XZ is the interaction term between the stressor and the moderator; and ey is the

residual.

In order to obtain the reduced form equation representing all of the relationships

in the model, Equation (1) was substituted into Equation (2) for Z:

Y = b0 + b1X + b2(a0 + a1G + ez) + b3X(a0 + a1G + ez) + ey; (Equation 3)

Next, the variables were rearranged in order to simplify the Equation (3):

Y = (b0 + a0b2 + a0b3X) + a1b2G +X(b1 + a1b3G) + (ey + b2ez +b3Xez) (Equation 4)

Below is the explanation of the Equation 4 components:

1) (b0 + a0b2 + a0b3X) is an intercept;

2) a1b2G represents the mediated effect of G (gossip) on Y (strain) through Z

(social support etc.). In other words, it is an effect where gossip influences a moderator

variable Z, which in turn influences strain (Y);

125
 3) X(b1 + a1b3G) represents the mediated moderation effect proposed by

hypotheses 3 - 6 (gossip influencing the moderator variable [e.g., social support, informal

influence], which in turn moderated the relationship between the stressor and strain).

4) (ey + b2ez + b3Xez) is the residual.

The component 2 (a1b2G) will not be further investigated because it is not relevant

for the hypotheses. The component 3 (X(b1 + a1b3G)), on the other hand, represents the

mediated moderation effect proposed by hypotheses 3-6 (gossip influencing the

moderators, which in turn moderate the stressor - strain relationship). Thus, the effect

from Equation 4 needs to be examined to test the hypotheses.

It is important to say that the general model presented in Figure 3 shows

relationships between stressors, strains and moderators in general. This study investigates

3 types of stressors, 2 types of strains and 5 types of moderators. Thus, in order to test the

hypotheses the model presented in Figure 3 had to be tested 30 times using different

variables. For example, to test hypothesis 6, with informal influence as the moderator,

analyses of the following models had to be performed: Model 6_1, where interpersonal

conflict is the stressor and psychological strain is the strain; Model 6_2, where

organizational constraints is the stressor and psychological strain is the strain; Model 6_3,

where workload is the stressor and psychological strain is the strain; Model 6_4, where

interpersonal conflict is the stressor and physical symptoms is the strain; Model 6_5

where organizational constraints is the stressor and physical symptoms is the strain;

finally, Model 6_6, where workload is the stressor and physical symptoms is the strain.

Below are the steps through which mediated moderation analysis was performed

following Edwards and Lambert (2007) guidelines:

126
1) First, two sets of unstandardized regression coefficients were obtained from OLS

regression analysis conducted in SPSS (an example of the syntax is shown in

Appendix K). The first set of regression coefficients was obtained from a

regression analysis where a moderator variable (coworker’s support, informal

influence, workplace fun etc.) was entered as the dependent variable, whereas

gossip was entered as a predictor. The second set of regression coefficients was

obtained from a regression analysis where strain (either psychological or physical)

was a dependent variable, whereas a stressor (workload, conflict or organizational

constraints) and moderator variable were independent variables. All variables

were mean-centered.

2) Next, in order to obtain 1000 bootstrap coefficients estimates a constrained

nonlinear regression (CNLR) module was performed. This analysis was

conducted in SPSS with the use of Syntax presented in Appendix L, and the

resulting 1000 coefficients estimates were reopened in EXCEL.

3) Next, 1000 coefficient estimates along with two sets of OLS regression

coefficients (from step 1) were transferred to an Excel file provided by Edwards

and Lambert (2007). The spreadsheet contained formulas necessary to calculate

bias-corrected confidence intervals used for testing the significance of the model

effects. What was changed in the spreadsheet was the formula to test the model:

Component 3 from Equation 4 (b1 + a1b3G) representing the study’s hypotheses.

4) The effect (b1 + a1b3G) was computed on low and high levels of gossip. Low and

high levels of gossip were determined according to Edwards and Lambert’s

(2007) suggestion. A low level of gossip was equal to one standard deviation

127
 below the mean (Z = -.86) and a high level of gossip was equal to one standard

deviation above the mean (Z = .86).

5) The difference between the effects across low and high levels of gossip was

computed by subtracting the value of the effect for individuals with a low level of

gossip from the value of the effect for individuals with a high level of gossip. The

test of the significance of this difference represents the test of the whole model.

6) Effects and the difference between the effects were tested with the bias-corrected

confidence interval method. Edward and Lambert’s (2007) Excel file was already

set up to locate the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles of the paths and effects computed

from the bootstrap estimates, establishing boundaries of the 95% confidence

interval. The file also contained Stine’s (1989) formulas, which adjust these

confidence intervals into bias-corrected confidence intervals. These confidence

intervals were used to test the effects across the levels of moderator such that, if

95 % confidence interval excluded 0, the quantity being tested was declared

significant (p < .05). In other words, if the confidence interval did not include 0

the effect or the value of the difference between effects were declared significant.

7) The test of the significance of this difference between effects computed on low

and high levels of gossip represents the test of the study hypotheses.

8) The final step of the procedure involved plotting significant effects to ease the

interpretations. To plot the effects components 1 (intercept) and 3 from the

Equation 4 should be used.

Below are descriptions of mediated moderation analyses presented according to the

hypotheses. Analyses were described using Edward and Lambert’s (2001) guidelines.

128
First unstandardized regression coefficients obtained from step 1 (OLS regression

analysis) are described. These regression coefficients represented paths between variables

in the model. Following these are significances tests of the effects and differences

between them. The test of the difference between the effects (b1 + a1b3G), computed on

low and high levels of gossip, constitutes the final test of the hypotheses.

Hypothesis 3: Coworker and Supervisor Support as a Moderator. Hypothesis 3

proposed that a higher frequency of gossiping leads to a higher perception of social

support, which in turn attenuates the relationship between stressors and strains. Social

support was operationalized as coworker and supervisor support. Table 14 presents

coefficient estimates for a model where coworker support was the moderator. Results

indicated that gossip was not significantly predictive of coworker support (a1G = .07, p =

.18). Furthermore, all of the coefficients representing strain being predicted from

stressors were significant. More specifically, interpersonal conflict (b1X = .44, p < .001),

organizational constraints (b1X = .03, p < .001) and workload (b1X = .12, p < .05) were

predictive of psychological strain; interpersonal conflict (b1X = 1.88, p < .001),

organizational constraints (b1X = .16, p < .001), and workload (b1X = .80, p < .001) were

predictive of physical strain. Finally, only in Model 3_3 where workload was the stressor

and psychological strain was the strain was the coefficient for coworker support

predicting physical strain significant (b2Z = -.20, p < .001). The interaction between

coworker support and workload was also significant (b3XZ = -.15, p < .001).

129
Table 14
Coefficient Estimates for the Test of Hypothesis 3, where Coworker Support was
the Moderator

Coworker
Support a0 a1G R2 b0 b1X b2Z b3XZ R2
Psychological
Strain
Interpersonal
Conflict .09 .07 .01 .03 .44** -.10 -.06 .20
Organizational
Constraints .09 .07 .01 .00 .03** -.10 -.01 .15
Workload .09 .07 .01 .02 .12* -.20** -.15** .08
Physical Strain
Interpersonal
Conflict .09 .07 .01 .37 1.88** -.23 .37 .13
Organizational
Constraints .09 .07 .01 .24 .16** -.12 .00 .14

Workload .09 .07 .01 .22 .80** -.54 -.45 .07

Note. N = 374. Reported are constants and unstandardized regression
coefficients. Symbol a0 represents a constant from equation 1, where a
moderator was predicted from gossip. Coefficient a1G is for the path where a
moderator was predicted from gossip. Symbol b0 represents a constant from
equation 2, where a strain was predicted from a stressor and an interaction
between the stressor and the moderator. Coefficient b1X is for the path where the
strain was predicted from the stressor. Coefficient b2Z represents the path from
the moderator predicting the strain. Coefficient b3XZ stands for the interaction
term. * p < .05; ** p < .001.

In order to test hypothesis 3, coefficients from Table 14 were applied to

component 3 from equation 4 (b1 + a1b3G) to compute simple effects on the low and high

levels of gossip and the difference between them. Table 15 presents results of this

analysis. Although, some of the effects were significant, tests of the difference indicated

that none of the hypothesized models was supported by the data. Some of the simple

effects were significant, because some paths from stressors to strains were significant.

The finding that the test of the value of the difference between effects on low and high

130
levels of gossip was nonsignificant is the result of the lack of a correlation between

gossip and coworker support. Thus, hypothesis 3 for coworker support as the moderator

was not supported.

Table 15
An Analysis of Effects for Hypothesis 3, where Coworker Support
was the Moderator
Moderator Variable: Low High
Coworker Support Gossip Gossip Difference
Model 3_1: Interpersonal
Conflict & Psychological .44** .44** .00
Strain.
Model 3_2: Organizational
Constraints & .03** .03** .00
Psychological Strain.
Model 3_3: Workload &
.13* .11 .02
Psychological Strain.

Model 3_4: Interpersonal

1.86** 1.90** -.04
Conflict & Physical Strain.
Model 3_5: Organizational
Constraints & Physical .16** .16** .00
Strain.
Model 3_6: Workload &
.83** .77** .05
Physical Strain.

Note. N = 374. The low gossip value was determined by subtracting

one SD form the mean of Gossip. The high gossip value was
determined by adding one SD to the mean of Gossip. Differences
between Low and High gossip were determined by subtracting
values of effects for low and high gossip. The significance of
effects and effects' differences was tested with bias-corrected
confidence intervals. ** p < .001; *p < .05.

Similar results were obtained for a model where supervisor support was the

moderator. Table 16 shows the coefficient estimates for the model. Results indicated that

131
gossip was not a significant predictor of supervisor support (a1G = -.12, p = .07).

Moreover, all of the coefficients for predicting strains from stressors were significant.

More specifically, interpersonal conflict (b1X = .46, p < .001), organizational constraints

(b1X = .03, p < .001) and workload (b1X = .12, p < .05) were predictive of psychological

strain; interpersonal conflict (b1X = 1.63, p < .001), organizational constraints (b1X = .15,

p < .001), and workload (b1X = .80, p < .001) were predictive of physical strain.

Furthermore, only the coefficient for supervisor support predicting psychological strain

(b2Z = .15, p < .001), and the interaction between supervisor support and workload (b3ZX =

-.08, p < .05) were significant. Other interactions were nonsignificant.

132
Table 16
Coefficient Estimates for the Test of Hypothesis 3, where Supervisor Support
was the Moderator

Supervisor
Support a0 a1G R2 b0 b1X b2Z b3XZ R2
Psychological
Strain
Interpersonal
Conflict .09 -.12 .01 .03 .46** -.05 .00 .19
Organizational
Constraints .09 -.12 .01 .01 .03** -.07 -.04 .14
Workload .09 -.12 .01 .02 .12* -.15** -.08* .07
Physical Strain
Interpersonal
Conflict .09 -.12 .01 .24 1.63** -.34 -.20 .14
Organizational
Constraints .09 -.12 .01 .21 .15** -.31 -.10 .14

Workload .09 -.12 .01 .24 .80** -.65** -.34 .09

Note. N = 374. Reported are constants and unstandardized regression
coefficients. Symbol a0 represents a constant from equation 1, where a
moderator was predicted from gossip. Coefficient a1G is for the path where a
moderator was predicted from gossip. Symbol b0 represents a constant from
equation 2, where a strain was predicted from a stressor and an interaction
between the stressor and the moderator. Coefficient b1X is for the path where
the strain was predicted from the stressor. Coefficient b2Z represents the path
from the moderator predicting the strain. Coefficient b3XZ stands for the
interaction term. * p < .05; ** p < .001.

Again, the coefficients from Table 16 were applied to component 3 from equation

4 (b1 + a1b3G) to compute simple effects on the low and high levels of gossip and the

difference between them. Table 17 presents the results of this analysis. Again, it was

found that some simple effects were significant, because paths from stressors to strains

were significant. However, tests of the difference indicated that none of the hypothesized

133
models was supported by the data. Thus, hypothesis 3 where supervisor support was the

moderator was not supported.

Table 17
An Analysis of Effects for Hypothesis 3, where Supervisor Support
was the Moderator
Moderator Variable: Low High
Supervisor Support Gossip Gossip Difference
Model 3_7: Interpersonal
Conflict & Psychological .46** .46** .00
Strain.
Model 3_8: Organizational
Constraints & .03** .03** .00
Psychological Strain.
Model 3_9: Workload &
.11 .12 -.01
Psychological Strain.

Model 3_10: Interpersonal

1.61** 1.65** -.04
Conflict & Physical Strain.
Model 3_11:
Organizational Constraints .14** .15** .01
& Physical Strain.
Model 3_12: Workload &
.76** .83** -.07
Physical Strain.

Note. N = 374. The low gossip value was determined by subtracting

one SD form the mean of Gossip. The high gossip value was
determined by adding one SD to the mean of Gossip. Differences
between Low and High gossip were determined by subtracting
values of effects for low and high gossip. The significance of
effects and effects' differences was tested with bias-corrected
confidence intervals. ** p < .001; *p < .05.

134
 Hypothesis 4: Clarity of Organizational Norms as a Moderator. Hypothesis 4

proposed that a higher frequency of gossiping behaviors leads to higher clarity and

strength of organizational norms, which in turn attenuates the relationship between

stressors and strains. Coefficient estimates in Table 18 show that gossip was not

significantly predictive of clarity and strength of organizational norms (a1G = -.09, p =

.16).

135
Table 18
Coefficient Estimates for the Test of Hypothesis 4, where Clarity of
Organizational Norms was the Moderator
Clarity of
Organizational
Norms a0 a1G R2 b0 b1X b2Z b3XZ R2
Psychological
Strain
Interpersonal
Conflict .05 -.09 .01 .02 .49** -.02 .02 .17

Organizational
Constraints .05 -.09 .01 -.02 .03** -.06 -.01* .16

Workload .05 -.09 .01 .00 .11* .13* -.06* .05

Physical Strain
Interpersonal
Conflict .05 -.09 .01 .21 1.81** .05 -.16 .13

Organizational
Constraints .05 -.09 .01 .21 .15** -.10 -.01 .14

Workload .05 -.09 .01 .19 .80** -.36 -.32 .06

Note. N = 374. Reported are constants and unstandardized regression
coefficients. Symbol a0 represents a constant from equation 1, where a
moderator was predicted from gossip. Coefficient a1G is for the path where a
moderator was predicted from gossip. Symbol b0 represents a constant from
equation 2, where a strain was predicted from a stressor and an interaction
between the stressor and the moderator. Coefficient b1X is for the path where
the strain was predicted from the stressor. Coefficient b2Z represents the path
from the moderator predicting the strain. Coefficient b3XZ stands for the
interaction term. * p < .05; ** p < .001.

Furthermore, all of the coefficients representing the prediction of strain from

stressors were significant. More specifically, interpersonal conflict (b1X = .49, p < .001),

organizational constraints (b1X = .03, p < .001) and workload (b1X = .11, p < .05) were

predictive of psychological strain. Interpersonal conflict (b1X = 1.81, p < .001),

136
organizational constraints (b1X = .15, p < .001) and workload (b1X = .80, p < .001) were

also predictive of physical strain. Finally, only in Model 4_3, where workload was the

stressor and psychological strain was the strain, was the coefficient for norm clarity

predicting psychological strain significant (b2Z = -.13, p < .05). In this model the

coefficient for interaction between workload and norm strength was also significant (b3XZ

= -.06, p < .05), indicating that workload interacts with clarity of organizational norms in

the prediction of psychological strain.

Table 19 presents results of tests of effects computed on the levels of low and

high gossip as well as the difference between them. The values under the column

“Difference” were all nonsignificant. Because the significance of the difference is the

ultimate test of the model, the results indicate that hypothesis 4 was not supported.

Regardless of the type of the stressor and the strain, gossip did not influence the clarity of

organizational norms, which did not moderate the relationship between stressors and

strain. It is important to note that some tests of the effects came out significant because

stressors were significantly predictive of strains. However, our interest is in the test of the

difference between effects, and results indicate that there was no moderating effect of

gossip on the stressor-strain relationship through norm clarity.

137
Table 19

An Analysis of Effects for Hypothesis 4, where Clarity of

Organizational Norms was the Moderator
Moderator Variable:
Clarity of Organizational Low High
Norms Gossip Gossip Difference
Model 4_1: Interpersonal
Conflict & Psychological .49** .48** .01
Strain.
Model 4_2: Organizational
Constraints & .03* .03* .00
Psychological Strain.
Model 4_3: Workload &
.10 .11 -.01
Psychological Strain.

Model 4_4: Interpersonal

1.80** 1.82** -.02
Conflict & Physical Strain.
Model 4_5: Organizational
Constraints & Physical .15** .15** .00
Strain.
Model 4_6: Workload &
.77** .82** -.05
Physical Strain.
Note. N = 374. The low gossip value was determined by subtracting
one SD form the mean of Gossip. The high gossip value was
determined by adding one SD to the mean of Gossip. Differences
between Low and High gossip were determined by subtracting
values of effects for low and high gossip. The significance of
effects and effects' differences was tested with bias-corrected
confidence intervals. ** p < .001; *p <.05.

The conclusion is that hypothesis 4 was not supported.

138
 Hypothesis 5: Workplace Fun as a Moderator. Hypothesis 5 proposed that higher

frequency of gossiping leads to a higher perception of workplace fun, which in turn

attenuates the relationship between stressors and strains. Coefficient estimates from OLS

regression analysis are reported in Table 20.

Table 20
Coefficient Estimates for the Test of Hypothesis 5, where Workplace Fun was
the Moderator

Workplace Fun a0 a1G R2 b0 b1X b2Z b3XZ R2

Psychological
Strain
Interpersonal
Conflict -.01 .03 .00 .04 .53** .00 .08 .19
Organizational
Constraints -.01 .03 .00 .03 .04** -.05 .01 .14
Workload -.01 .03 .00 .01 .08 -.14* .03 .03
Physical Strain
Interpersonal
Conflict -.01 .03 .00 .23 1.65** -.40 -.10 .13
Organizational
Constraints -.01 .03 .00 .18 .15** -.41 -.14 .14

Workload -.01 .03 .00 .19 .66** -.75** -.06 .07

Note. N = 374. Reported are constants and unstandardized regression
coefficients. Symbol a0 represents a constant from equation 1, where a
moderator was predicted from gossip. Coefficient a1G is for the path where a
moderator was predicted from gossip. Symbol b0 represents a constant from
equation 2, where a strain was predicted from a stressor and an interaction
between the stressor and the moderator. Coefficient b1X is for the path where
the strain was predicted from the stressor. Coefficient b2Z represents the path
from the moderator predicting the strain. Coefficient b3XZ stands for the
interaction term. * p < .05; ** p < .001.

First, results show that the path from gossip to workplace fun was nonsignificant

(a1G = .03, p < .05), meaning that gossiping was not associated with the perception of

139
workplace fun as was predicted by the hypothesis. Second, all but one of the coefficients

for the stressors-strains relationships were significant. More specifically, interpersonal

conflict was predictive of psychological strain (b1X = .53, p < .001) and physical strain

(b1X = 1.65, p < .001), organizational constraints was predictive of psychological strain

(b1X = .04, p < .001) and physical symptoms (b1X = .15, p < .001), and lastly workload

was predictive of physical symptoms (b1X = .66, p < .001). Workload did not

significantly predict psychological strain (b1X = .08, p = .07). Next, only in models where

workload was a stressor was workplace fun predictive of psychological (b1X = -.14, p <

.001) and physical strains (b1X = -.75, p < .001). The negative sign of the regression

coefficient indicates a negative relationship; more workplace fun was associated with

lower levels of strain. Finally, none of the interaction terms were significant.

140
Table 21

An Analysis of Effects for the Model, where Workplace Fun was the
Moderator
Moderator Variable: Low High
Workplace Fun Gossip Gossip Difference
Model 5_1: Interpersonal
Conflict & Psychological .49** .48** -.01
Strain.
Model 5_2: Organizational
Constraints & .30** .30** .00
Psychological Strain.
Model 5_3: Workload &
.10 .11 .01
Psychological Strain.

Model 5_4: Interpersonal

1.80** 1.82** .02
Conflict & Physical Strain.
Model 5_5: Organizational
Constraints & Physical .15** .15** .00
Strain.
Model 5_6: Workload &
.77** .82** .05
Physical Strain.

Note. N = 374. The low gossip value was determined by subtracting

one SD form the mean of Gossip. The high gossip value was
determined by adding one SD to the mean of Gossip. Differences
between Low and High gossip were determined by subtracting
values of effects for low and high gossip. The significance of
effects and effects' differences was tested with bias-corrected
confidence intervals. ** p < .001; *p <.05.

Again, in the next step models were tested by applying coefficients from Table 20

to Component 3 from Equation 4. Results are reported in Table 21. Results indicated that

although some effects were significant due to significant paths from stressors to strains,

tests of the differences between effects for low and high levels of gossip were

nonsignificant. These results were expected, because gossip was not predictive of

141
workplace fun, and none of the interaction terms between stressors and workplace fun

were significant. Thus, hypothesis 5 was rejected.

Hypothesis 6: Informal Influence as a Moderator. Hypothesis 6 proposed that a

higher frequency of gossiping leads to a higher perception of informal influence, which in

turn moderates the relationship between stressors and strains. Coefficient estimates

obtained from OLS regression are presented in Table 22. Results indicated that gossiping

significantly predicted perception of informal influence (a1G = .18, p < .001). This finding

is in congruence with what was proposed by the hypothesis. Moreover, all of the paths

from stressors to psychological and physical strains were significant, meaning that all

types of stressors significantly predicted experiences of strains. More specifically, paths

from interpersonal conflict to psychological strain (b1X = .47, p < .01) and physical strain

(b1X = 1.87, p < .001) were significant; paths from organizational constraints to

psychological (b1X = .03, p < .001) and physical (b1X = .16, p < .001) strains were

significant; and paths from workload to psychological (b1X = .12, p < .05) and physical

(b1X = .84, p < .001) strains were significant. Finally, regression coefficients for informal

influence predicting strains as well as interactions between informal influence and

stressors were all nonsignificant.

142
Table 22
Coefficient Estimates for the Test of Hypothesis 6, where Informal Influence was
the Moderator

Informal
Influence a0 a1G R2 b0 b1X b2Z b3XZ R2
Psychological
Strain
Interpersonal
Conflict .08 .18** .04 .01 .47** -.01 -.08 .18
Organizational
Constraints .08 .18** .04 .01 .03** -.11 .02 .14
Workload .08 .18** .04 .01 .12* -.09 -.07 .03
Physical Strain
Interpersonal
Conflict .08 .18** .04 .33 1.87** -.33 .37 .13
Organizational
Constraints .08 .18** .04 .20 .16** -.34 .26 .15

Workload .08 .18** .04 .25 .84** -.51 -.30 .06

Note. N = 374. Reported are constants and unstandardized regression coefficients.
Symbol a0 represents a constant from equation 1, where a moderator was
predicted from gossip. Coefficient a1G is for the path where a moderator was
predicted from gossip. Symbol b0 represents a constant from equation 2, where a
strain was predicted from a stressor and an interaction between the stressor and
the moderator. Coefficient b1X is for the path where the strain was predicted from
the stressor. Coefficient b2Z represents the path from the moderator predicting the
strain. Coefficient b3XZ stands for the interaction term. * p < .05; ** p < .001.

Like in previous analyses, Equation 4 was applied to coefficients from Table 22 to

compute effects that are reported in Table 23. Although, some of the effects were

significant, tests of the difference indicated that none of the hypothesized models was

supported by the data. Thus, hypothesis 6 was not supported.

143
Table 23
An Analysis of Effects for the Model, where Informal Influence was
the Moderator
Moderator Variable: Low High
Informal Influence Gossip Gossip Difference
Model 6_1: Interpersonal
Conflict & Psychological .48** .46** .02
Strain.
Model 6_2: Organizational
Constraints & .03 .04 -.01
Psychological Strain.
Model 6_3: Workload &
.10 .08 .02
Psychological Strain.

Model 6_4: Interpersonal

1.81** 1.93** -.12
Conflict & Physical Strain.
Model 6_5: Organizational
Constraints & Physical .14** .20** -.06
Strain.
Model 6_6: Workload &
.74** .65* .09
Physical Strain.

Note. N = 374. The low gossip value was determined by subtracting

one SD form the mean of Gossip. The high gossip value was
determined by adding one SD to the mean of Gossip. Differences
between Low and High gossip were determined by subtracting
values of effects for low and high gossip. The significance of
effects and effects' differences was tested with bias-corrected
confidence intervals. ** p < .001; *p <.05.

144
Chapter VII

Discussion

145
 The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between gossiping

behavior and strain using Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) theoretical framework. The first

set of hypotheses investigated the relationship between psychological needs and

workplace stressors predicting gossiping behaviors. It was found that gossiping behaviors

can be predicted from two types of workplace stressful situations: interpersonal conflict

and organizational constraints. It was also found that gossiping behaviors can be

predicted from two types of psychological needs: affiliation and dominance. In addition,

results indicated that an interaction between need for affiliation and interpersonal conflict

predicted strain such that interpersonal conflict was more predictive of gossip among

individuals with a low need for affiliation. The second set of hypotheses focused on

several mechanisms related to gossip’s functions that could explain gossip’s moderating

influence on the stressor-strain relationship. However, the only significant interactive

effects ran counter to the hypotheses, suggesting that, if anything, the relations between

some stressors and strains are actually stronger among workers who gossip more. These

effects and their implications are discussed in more detail below.

Stressors and Psychological Needs as Predictors of Gossip

The first part of the transactional process model of stress shows how individual

differences and stressors interactively affect coping efforts. In accordance with this

model, the first two hypotheses of this research proposed that individual needs interact

with workplace stressors in predicting workplace gossip. I also asked three exploratory

research questions about the simple relationships among need for achievement, workload,

organizational constraints and gossip.

146
Need for Affiliation

The first hypothesis proposed that interpersonal conflict and need for affiliation

interactively predict gossiping behaviors. It was proposed that people tend to gossip more

in situations of high interpersonal conflict and that this effect is stronger for individuals

with a high need for affiliation. It appears, however, that the proposed effect is true only

for individuals with a low need for affiliation, but not for individuals with a high need for

affiliation. Interestingly, individuals with a high need for affiliation, according to this

study’s findings, tended to gossip to the same extent regardless of the frequency of the

interpersonal conflict. In addition, when the interpersonal conflict was low, people with a

low need for affiliation tended to gossip less than people with a high need for affiliation.

The proposition incorporated in hypothesis 1 was built on the assumption that the

situation of interpersonal conflict is more threatening for individuals with a high need for

affiliation. Individuals who have a high need for affiliation want to be liked and accepted

by others (e.g., Hecket et al., 1999). In the workplace context, they prefer to interact with

others, favor collaboration over competition and often choose to go with others’ choices

(e.g., Baumeister, 1995; McClelland, 1987). Thus, the situation of interpersonal conflict

may be especially threatening for them because of their emphasis on harmonious

interpersonal relationships. Interpersonal conflict can result in a broken relationship or

even social rejection or exclusion. Results of this study showed, however, that individuals

with a high need for affiliation tend to gossip to the same extent regardless of the

intensity of the interpersonal conflict. It is in interesting finding suggesting that

individual differences (such as psychological needs) may provide more of an explanation

for why people tend to gossip than situational factors. It appears that if it is one’s nature

147
is to affiliate with others through gossiping, his/her gossiping behaviors are not

significantly affected by situations of interpersonal conflict. Moreover, it is interesting

that people high on affiliation reported engaging in gossiping behaviors only at a

moderate, not high, level. This can be explained by the context of the workplace. It is

possible that in the context of the workplace, where gossiping behaviors may be

associated with a bad reputation and evaluation of lower performance, people with a high

need for affiliation engage in gossiping behaviors only to some extent.

Contrary to individuals with a high need for affiliation, individuals with a low

need for affiliation tended to gossip less when interpersonal conflict was low, but tended

to increase gossiping behaviors when interpersonal conflict grew. This effect is in

congruence with propositions presented in hypothesis 1. Given gossip’s important role in

social bonding, building group cohesiveness and strengthening existing relationships

(e.g., Foster, 2004; Noon & Delbridge, 1993), it is likely that gossiping behaviors

increase during conflict to counterbalance this conflict by gaining social support (Ribeiro

& Blakeley, 1995). Gossip, after all, is a way of presenting one’s perspective on the

existing conflict and possibly influencing opinions of people involved in gossip (Hom &

Haidt, 2002; DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007). Thus, through gossiping individuals can gain

allies and supporters and strengthen their group membership (e.g., Grosser, 2010).

Finally, given gossips’ role in facilitating information flow (e.g., Stirling, 1956) and in

sense-making (e.g., DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007; Michelson & Mouly, 2004) in a situation

of interpersonal conflict, gossip can be used in an attempt to understand better the

situation and social reactions concerning the situation. This understanding can be crucial

148
in determining what behavior or reaction to the existing conflict would be socially

accepted (e.g., Crampton, et al, 1998).

Need for Dominance

The second hypothesis proposed that interpersonal conflict and need for

dominance would interactively predict gossiping behaviors. This hypothesis was not

supported. Although both interpersonal conflict and need for dominance significantly

predicted gossiping behaviors, the interaction between them was nonsignificant. These

results, however, still carry an explanatory value. First, looking at a need for dominance,

it was found that people with a higher need for dominance tend to gossip more. This

finding is consistent with the result obtained in Keefer’s (1993) study. People with a

dominant need for power like to have influence over others and control their

environment. They enjoy status, recognition, competition and winning (e.g., Hecket et al,

1997; McClelland, 1987). According to the literature, gossip is a powerful tool of social

influence (e.g., Hom & Haidt, 2001; Ogasawara, 1998). People who tend to gossip have

larger social networks, more access to information and more opportunities to influence

what others think (e.g., Kureland & Pelled, 2000. Thus, the dominant need for power can

be a motivating force to gossip.

Need for Achievement

Research Question 1 asked about the relationship between gossip and need for

achievement. Individuals with a high need for achievement have a high need to be

successful. They tend to focus on challenging goals and advancing their careers (Hecket,

1999; McClelland, 1961). Gossip, on the other hand, can take one’s attention away from

work and important goals. It can be also damaging to one’s reputation. In fact, in

149
Grosser’s (2010) study the frequency of gossiping was related to the supervisor’s

perception of lower performance. Thus, gossiping can result in a negative reputation, and

can lead to losing focus from what really matters for one’s goal achievements. This

relationship was previously investigated in only one study, where it was found that

gossiping was negatively related to need for achievement (Keefer, 1993).

Results of this study, however, indicated that gossip was not predicted by need for

achievement. The lack of relationship between gossiping and need for achievement can

be explained by a possible diversity of attitudes or beliefs high achievers may have

regarding gossip. Some of them may believe that gossiping is a waste of time and is

related to the risk of gaining a bad reputation as was explain above. Others may believe

that gossiping can be useful in building social networks that are helpful in finding out

about job opportunities and gaining social support. Gaining information about people and

work situations can help high achievers get ahead of others. This potential discrepancy in

beliefs and opinions about gossiping behaviors among high achievers can serve as an

explanation why this study did not find a relationship between gossip and need for

achievement.

Organizational Constraints and Workload

Research Question 2 and 3 asked whether gossiping behaviors can be predicted

from two types of workplace stressors: organizational constraints and workload. Results

indicated that organizational constraints predicted gossiping behaviors, whereas workload

did not. These results made theoretical sense. Organizational constraints refer to a set of

factors that hinders one’s job performance (e.g., insufficient training, lack of equipment,

conflicting job demands). These factors focus more on structural rather than social

150
sources of goal obstruction. There are two possible explanations why organizational

constraints predict gossiping. First, it is likely that people tend to search for a person

responsible for organizational constraints. They may get engaged in gossiping to find out

who is to be blamed for the existing situation. Second, these factors cause uncertain,

ambiguous, and frustrating situations for employees - situations that may inspire

gossiping behaviors (e.g., Rosnow & Fine, 1976; Tebbutt & Marchington, 1997).

Gossiping in these situations can serve as a sense-making tool, aimed at decreasing

anxiety and frustration (e.g., DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007). Also, with regard to workload,

engaging in gossip does not seem like æ÷a common method for dealing with this type of

workplace stressor. Under high workload, some people may complain through gossip and

some may simply focus on their work, but taken all together, workload alone does not

appear to predict gossip behavior.

Mechanisms through which Gossip Influences the Stressor-Strain Relationship

The second part of Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional process model of

stress focuses on the relationship between coping and strains; in other words, on the

effectiveness of coping. The basic premise is that effective coping leads to a decrease in

the experience of strains, or even redefinition of the intensity of stressors. Accordingly, a

theoretical model was proposed in hypotheses 3-6 specifying possible mechanisms

through which gossip (as a potential coping strategy) affects several probable moderators

of the stressor - strain relationship. Two assumptions derived from the gossip literature

were incorporated in the model: 1) gossip alleviates the relationship between stressors

and strains; 2) a set of variables, determined on the basis of gossip’s functions, moderate

the stressor-strain relationship. However, results of this study indicated that both

151
assumptions were incorrect, and thus, the proposed theoretical model was not supported.

First, I would like to discuss possible explanations for why these two assumptions were

not supported by the data in this study. Next, I will discuss results according to the

hypotheses.

Assumption 1: Gossip Attenuates Strains

The assumption that gossip alleviates strain was based on recently developed

theories about gossip’s roles in emotional regulation (e.g., Chinn, 1990; Foster, 2004;

Waddington, 2005), catharsis (Ribeiro & Blakely, 1995; Smith, 1996) and relieving

uncertainty in ambiguous situations (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007; Rosnow & Fine, 1976;

Tebbutt & Marchington, 1997). This assumption was also based on Michelson’s and

Mouly (2004) findings, where gossip was related to stress reduction. However, results of

this study contradicted this assumption. In fact, this study’s findings indicated that

gossiping behaviors are positively related to experiences of both psychological and

physical strains. There are several explanations for this finding.

First of all, it is possible that gossip is not an effective way of managing one’s

emotions and relieving stress. Multiple authors have theorized that people tend to engage

in gossiping in ambiguous and stressful situations (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007; Rosnow &

Fine, 1976; Tebbutt & Marchington, 1997). These claims found support in Waddington’s

(2005) study, who also found that people tend to engage in gossip to relieve tension,

frustration and stress. However, even if people tend to gossip with the intention of stress

relief, it does not mean that it is an effective way of dealing with stress. In fact, a vast

body of research contradicts catharsis theories showing that expression of aggression and

negative emotions does not lead to emotional release (e.g., Aronson, 2008). For example,

152
several experiments conducted by Bushman (2002) showed that expressing anger in a

physical manner was a less effective way of reducing anger than simply resting or

waiting it out. The same was found in Patterson’s study (1974) where the physical

expression of anger was related to an increase in hostility. In Geen’s (1981) experiments,

participants who were given a chance to express their frustration tended to deliver more

frequent and more intense shocks than participants who were not given such an

opportunity. Finally, studies by Glass (1964), David and Jones (1960) and Khan (1966)

investigating consequences of verbal expression of aggression showed that expressing

anger did not lead to its reduction but to its escalation. Aronson (2008) explains these

findings by people’s need to exhibit consistency in their behaviors and by the

phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. For example, once an employee makes a verbal

negative statement about his/her supervisor to the public, he/she tends to keep hostile

feelings toward the supervisor because this increases the consistency of the behavior.

Taken all together, scientific evidence coming from social psychology studies contradicts

the theory of catharsis and provides some insight into this study’s findings.

It is also possible that gossip is a symptom of emotional distress more than a

coping strategy. Some individuals may feel motivated to engage in gossip while in

stressful situations because it is a manifestation of their distress. Gossipers may be aware

that engaging in gossiping will not solve their problems or change the way they feel.

Recently, gossip has been treated more as a symptom of various problems that an

organization is experiencing rather than problem itself (Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell,

Labianca & Wardt, 2010).

153
 There are also other perspectives that can be useful in explaining the positive

relationship between gossip and strain experiences. As was described in the literature

review, gossiping behaviors are related to certain personality traits. A meta-analytic

review of studies looking at trait anxiety in the prediction of rumor transmission showed

an effect size of r = .48 (Rosnow, 1991). Similarly, some studies found gossiping to be

related to low-self esteem (e.g., Jaeger et al., 1994; Keefer, 1993; Rhodes, 1992). As a

matter of fact, these two personality characteristics are also linked to an individual’s

propensity to experience more stressors and strains (Quick & Tetrick, 2003). Nelson and

Simmons’s (2003) literature review on individual differences in relation to stress

experiences shows that positive affectivity, optimism, self-reliance, and internal locus of

control promote eustress. Negative affect and neuroticism (constructs close to trait

anxiety), on the other hand, have been linked to more stress experiences. Individuals with

negative affect tend to engage in negative appraisals and perceptions (Watson,

Pennebaker & Folger, 1987). Thus, the relationship between stressors and strain tend to

be stronger for people with negative affect, neuroticism or trait anxiety because they tend

to appraise more situations as stressful (McCrea & Costa, 1994). In addition, self-esteem

in the stress literature is treated as a resource helpful in dealing with workplace stress

(e.g., Quick & Tetrick, 2003). People with low self-esteem seemed to have fewer

resources to deal with workplace stress because they may appraise their skills as

insufficient to cope with stressful situations. As a result, people with low self-esteem tend

to appraise more situations as stressful and deal less effectively with strain. The point of

this argument is that the positive relationship between tendency to gossip and the stressor

and strain appraisal may be coming from individual differences that were not investigated

154
in this study. Thus, it should not be concluded that gossip is an ineffective way of coping

with workplace stress based on these results. Rather, stressor-strain relations may be

unaffected or even strengthened among workers who gossip frequently because gossiping

is a symptom associated with other maladaptive personality traits.

The last perspective that can be helpful in explaining the positive relations among

gossip, stressors and strains comes from the coping literature. There is some research

evidence indicating that people tend to engage in problem-focused coping in controllable

situations and in emotion-focused coping in situations where one cannot control the

situation (e.g., Folkman & Lazarus, 1978). This study investigated three types of stressful

situations, and it can be speculated that in general employees may have different level of

control over them. With regard to workload, it can be speculated that employees may

have a great deal of control over this stressor, because the literature indicates that there

are a variety of problem-focused strategies (e.g., time management, negotiating

deadlines, focusing on task completion) that employees tend to use when workload is

high (e.g., Jex & Elacqua, 1999; Peeters & Ruttee, 2005). Also, given that the literature

suggests that neither problem nor emotion-focused strategies are effective in dealing with

interpersonal conflict in the workplace (e.g., Dijkstra, van Dierendonck & Evers, 2005;

Portello & Long, 2001; Van Dierendonck & Mevissen, 2002), it can be speculated that

situations of interpersonal conflict are in general difficult to change or control. Further,

looking at gossip’s relation to these types of stressful situations, gossip was positively

related to interpersonal conflict and organizational constraints, but not related to

workload. Thus, it is likely that people tend to gossip in stressful situations that they

cannot change more than in situations that can be easily influenced. In fact, difficult

155
situations that cannot be influenced are in fact more stressful than controllable situations

(Spector, 1986). Although it is only speculation, it is likely that the positive correlation

between gossip and strains come from the fact that gossip is related to less controllable

and more stressful situations.

Concluding this part of the discussion, gossip may not be an effective way of

attenuating strains. However, before this conclusion is final, researchers should look at

additional personality and situational variables that might have affected this finding.

Assumption 2: Gossip Influences a Set of Moderators of the Stressor-Strain Relationship

Models proposed in hypotheses 3-6 were based on the assumption that gossip

influences several variables, which in turn moderate the stressor-strain relationship.

These variables were singled out based on theories about gossip functions (e.g.,

Delbridge & Noon, 1993; Foster, 2004; Grosser et al., 2011). As was described in the

literature review, gossip is expected to play a role in social bonding, clarifying and

reinforcing group norms, entertainment, and exerting informal influence. However,

results of this study did not support a relationship between these variables and gossip.

Results indicated that gossip was not a significant predictor of coworker and supervisor

support, clarity of organizational norms, or workplace fun. The only variable that gossip

was a significant predictor of was informal influence. Below is more detailed discussion

of hypotheses 3-6.

Coworker and Supervisor Support

Results of this study revealed that gossip was not a significant predictor of

coworker support, but coworker support did moderate the stressor-strain relationship.

156
However, given that gossip did not predict coworker support, the model proposed in

hypothesis 3 was not supported by the data.

The assumption that gossip leads to the perception of coworker support was based

on theories claiming that gossip plays an important role in social bonding, building group

cohesiveness and strengthening existing relationships (e.g., Crampton et al., 1998;

DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007; Gosser et al., 2012). It has been also said that gossip signals

trust and confidence in the recipient, thus building intimacy and friendship (e.g.,

Bergmann, 1993; Fine & Rosnow, 1978). A previous study by Fenlarson and Beehr

(1994) investigating the impact of informal communication in the workplace on the

perception of social support showed that talking about things not related to work was

positively related to the perception of coworker and supervisor support. In this study,

however, gossip did not predict coworker support. It is interesting that this study’s

findings did not provide support to the theories on gossip’s social bonding role. It is

possible that in the context of the workplace, gossip is less likely to be used for the

purpose of social bonding. It is also possible that gossip occurs in response to situations

of lower coworker support. In a situation of low support, a worker may try to find a

confidant to gossip with about the rest of the work group.

With regard to the model where supervisor support was the moderator, the results

of this study revealed that gossip was not a significant predictor of supervisor support,

but supervisor support did moderate the stressor-strain relationship. However, given that

gossip did not predict supervisor support, the model proposed in hypothesis 3 was not

supported by the data.

157
 It is interesting that gossip was not a significant predictor of supervisory support.

It is possible that there are a variety of reactions from supervisors toward employees who

gossip. It is possible that gossipers have less social support from their supervisors

because gossiping influences their reputation and creates the impression that they are

poor performers (e.g., Grosser, 2011). It is also possible, however, that supervisors

tolerate or even encourage informal communication with employees, because they may

believe that this increases the perception of social support.

Similarly, employees may become engaged in gossiping both when supervisor

support is high and low. First, it is likely that people tend to gossip when they experience

less supervisory support. In this case gossip can be treated either as a symptom of a

distress, or a coping strategy aiming at sense-making or self-expression. On the other

hand, an organizational culture can be permissive of informal behaviors, including

gossiping and discussing personal matters. In this case, like in Fenlarson and Beehr’s

(1994) study, gossiping can be related to higher supervisory support.

This variety of different reactions and motives behind gossiping can explain why

no effect of gossip on supervisor support was found.

Strength and Clarity of Organizational Norms

Results of this study revealed that gossip was unrelated to the clarity of

organizational norms. Further, the test of the difference of the effects across low and high

levels of gossip was also nonsignificant. Thus, hypothesis 4 was not supported.

Gossip researchers argued that gossip plays a role in clarifying and strengthening

organizational culture (Dunbar, 2004; Foster, 2004). It has been proposed that gossip is a

tool of cultural learning, because through information exchange, it helps people

158
understand complex sets of rules and expectations that guide social behaviors

(Baumeister et al., 2004). Information about what behaviors are accepted, appropriate,

rewarded and desirable is often spread by gossip. It is expected then that people will

gossip more when rules, norms and situations are unclear and ambiguous (e.g., Grosser,

2010; Kureland & Peeled, 2000; Noon & Delbridge, 1993). When, rules are strong and

clear, on the other hand, people should be less motivated to gossip, with sense-making

intentions in mind at least. This may explain in part why gossip was unrelated to

organizational norm clarity. Even though gossip can help clarify norms, it also tends to

occur in situations where norms are unclear to begin with.

Workplace Fun

Results of this study also revealed that gossip was not a significant predictor of

workplace fun, and workplace fun was not a significant moderator of the stressor-strain

relationships. Thus, the model proposed in hypothesis 5 was not supported. The

assumption that gossip influences the perception of workplace fun present in the model

was based on the entertainment value of gossip (e.g., Ben Ze’ev, 1994; Gilmore, 1978;

Rosnow, 1977). The literature discusses gossip’s role in reducing boredom, relieving

work monotony and creating an entertaining workplace environment (e.g., Foster, 1994,

Grosser et al, 2010; Michelson & Mouly, 2010; Noon & Delbridge, 199). As a matter of

fact, amusement, enjoyment and sheer fun used to be considered defining characteristics

of gossip and main motives for why people engage in this activity (e.g., Rosnow, 1977;

Spacks, 1982; Stirling, 1956). However, the results of this study do not support the

relationship between gossip and fun in the workplace context.

159
 Actually, the context of the workplace can be a key to explaining why the

relationship between gossip and fun was not found. It is important to note that the

majority of articles that link gossip to fun are theoretical. In fact, only one applied study

linked gossip and entertainment (Roy, 1958). This study was conducted in a factory

among assembly line workers, where the type of work performed did not involve

intellectual or mental engagement or interpersonal relationship-building.

Even if we assume that people gossip with the motive of entertainment outside

their offices, the context of the workplace may have an inhibiting influence on this

behavior. Gossip still carries negative connotations, has a bad reputation and is linked to

negative consequences. Getting involved in gossip, regardless of how light, entertaining

and positive, can affect one’s performance evaluation (Grosser et al., 2010), and

consequently jeopardize one’s career. Additionally, gossip has two sides that were not

distinguished in this study. Whereas, gossip can be positive (entertaining) and malicious,

this study measured gossiping behaviors in general. It is no fun to be the object of

malicious gossip in the workplace. Further, this study found that people tend to gossip in

responses to negative social situations (interpersonal conflict). These negative and

stressful situations that trigger gossip may overshadow any of the fun aspects of

gossiping.

As was mentioned above, the proposed model was rejected also because

workplace fun did not moderate the relationship between stressors and strains. Although,

workplace fun was moderately and negatively related to strains, meaning that people who

reported more workplace fun also experienced fewer strains and fewer stressors, the

moderating effect was not found.

160
Informal Influence

Results of this study revealed that gossip was a significant predictor of the

perception of informal influence, but informal influence did not moderate the stressor-

strain relationship. Thus, hypothesis 6 was not supported.

The assumption that gossip influences one’s perception of informal influence

proposed in the model has been commonly theorized in the gossip literature (e.g., Elmer,

1994; Rosnow, 1977; Tebutt, 1995). In fact, there is some research support for the claim

that gossip can be used to exert informal power over people with formal power (e.g.,

Hom & Haidt, 2001; Ogasawara, 1998), as well as that gossipers are perceived by their

coworkers as more influential (Grosser et al., 2011). The theory explains that gossipers

have larger social networks and have more access to information about other people

(Kurland & Pelled, 2000). This study contributes to the existing literature by

demonstrating that gossipers have a higher perception of informal influence.

Further, hypothesis 6 proposed that a high perception of informal influence

attenuates the stressor-strain relationship. This proposition was based on the speculation

that people with a higher perception of informal influence may also believe that they have

more control over their environment. However, this interaction effect was not supported

by the data. It is possible that there is considerable variance in individuals’ perceptions

and reactions to stress, even if their perception of informal influence is high. First, it is

possible that for some people with a high perception of informal influence experience of

stressors and strains are indeed lower, as was proposed by hypothesis 6. It is also

possible, however, that gossip may be a way of gaining informal influence for people

who actually have less formal influence and less control over their environment. Further

161
speculating, it is likely that people who have less formal influence experience more

stressful situations and strains because they have less control over their environments

(e.g., Klein, 2002; Spector, 1986). This explanation was proposed in articles discussing

why gossip tended to be perceived as women’s activity. Several authors argue that

traditionally women have less influence over their lives than men and gossip tended to be

used by women to gain more influence and more control (e.g., Collins, 1994; Dunbar,

1993; Rysman, 1977). Several recent studies have not supported the claim that women

gossip more than men (e.g., Collins, 1994; Foster, 2004; Levin & Arluke, 1985;

Michelson & Mouly, 2000; Nevo et al., 1993), but the explanation for the hypothesized

gender differences may explain why gossip is related to informal influence more

generally.

Study Limitations

The biggest limitation of this study is its cross-sectional design. As was described

in the literature review, variables in Transactional Process Model of Stress are reciprocal

in nature, meaning that they tend to influence each other, and it is hard to establish causal

directions between the variables in this study. For example, although in the model the

appraisal of a situation precedes coping, it is possible that an inability to cope with the

situation leads to reappraisal of the situational demands as more threatening than the first

appraisal indicated. This nonrecursive nature of the study variables made the study’s

findings hard to interpret. Future research investigating models linking gossip and stress

should include multiple measurements of variables to address the issue of reciprocity

among the variables (Lazarus, DeLongis, Folkman & Gruen, 1985; Lazarus & Folkman,

1984; 1897).

162
 The second limitation of this study relates to the operationalization of the concept

of gossip, both on conceptual and measurement level. Although efforts were made to

build an accurate and agreed-upon definition of gossip, an important distinction between

positive versus negative gossip, or in-group versus out-group gossip, was overlooked and

this might have influenced the results. As was described in the first chapter, it is agreed

upon that evaluation incorporated in gossip can be both positive and negative. If a talk

about a third absent person is evaluative in nature, regardless of the sign of the

evaluation, the talk is considered to be gossip. However, the distinction between positive

and negative gossip might have been crucial to the results of this study. It is possible that

employees engaged in or exposed to malicious gossip perceived their workplace as more

stressful and experienced more stress compared to employees who experience positive

gossip. Unfortunately, this distinction cannot be made because gossip was measured

without considering its positivity or negativity.

In order to design and conduct more research on gossip, researchers must know

more about gossip’s nature. Results of this study showed that an inclusive

operationalization of the concept may result in an inability to explain the study’s findings.

Thus, more qualitative research investigating the nature of gossip is needed. It appears

that focusing only on the structure of communication when defining gossip is not enough.

We need to gain more insight into what gossip is what its dimensions are, and its

different forms and types. Qualitative studies asking employees to report and rate

incidents of gossip in the workplace could help us answer all these questions. These

incidents could be rated on several scales: the sign of the evaluation (positive or

negative); affective well-being; consequences for the gossiper; consequences for the one

163
being discussed; whether it was in or out-group gossip; whether the gossip was helpful in

explaining some issues (sense-making function of gossip); whether the respondent felt

closer with the people involved in gossip after the incident (social bonding function of

gossip); and whether the respondent’s opinions on some matters changed (influence

function of gossip). Researchers could use several statistical methods such as

multidimensional scaling and factor analysis to gain more insight into gossip’s nature. In

sum, it appears that more work on the construct validity of the concept of gossip is

required.

Furthermore, hypotheses of this study were tested with moderation and mediated

moderation analyses. Interactional effects, especially in social studies, require high

statistical power to be found (Cohen et al., 2003). While analyzing data with moderation

or mediated moderation it is recommended to use perfectly reliable measures. Even if

scores obtained on the scales in this study had a high reliability, they were not perfectly

reliable. Further, moderation analyses require very large sample sizes. Thus, it is possible

that type two errors were committed in this study, where the power was too low to find

existing interactional effects.

An additional limitation refers to a bad reputation of gossip. Gossip still carries

negative connotations, and it is likely that participants were uncomfortable honestly

answering questions about their gossiping behaviors in the workplace. Even if the study

was anonymous and confidential, participants might have feared negative appraisal.

Finally, this study investigated three types of psychological needs that were

measured with Hecket et al.’s (1999) scale. With regard to the need for affiliation scale,

an examination of the items revealed that the measure seemed to be focusing more on

164
extraversion rather than need for affiliation. The choice of this scale might have had an

impact on the results of this study.

Study Implications

Implications for Theory

This project looks at the neglected subject of workplace gossip. Although many

researchers articulated the significance of research on gossip in the workplace,

publications on the topic remain primarily theoretical (e.g., Noon & Delbridge, 1993). As

was explained above, limited research on gossip can be in part explained by the lack of

agreement among researchers on the definition of gossip and on how gossip should be

measured. Therefore, there are four major contributions of this doctoral project to the

field of Industrial/Organizational Psychology.

First, the project deals with problems surrounding the definition of workplace

gossip. I conducted a Web-based survey of subject matter experts, asking the extent to

which respondents agreed or disagreed with 20 assertions that were commonly discussed

in the existing literature. The results of this survey allowed for the adaptation of a highly

accepted definition of gossip. The findings also gave insight into motives behind gossip

as well as the context in which gossip occurs, which are relevant to the applied part of

this project.

Second, the project adopts a theoretical framework of stress to explain the

relationship between gossip and employees’ experiences of stress. Thus, the project

significantly contributes to gossip and stress theory by building a bridge between two

important areas in the field: organizational communication and occupational health

psychology.

165
 Third, the project contributes to the literature by testing several assumptions

commonly present in gossip theories that were not previously empirically investigated.

For example, gossip theorists claim that gossip alleviates the stressor-strain relationship

or that gossip predicts social support. Some of these claims were supported and some

were not. It is important to note, however, that this study provides insight into gossip

theories that had not been previously tested.

Next, it appears that psychological needs are indeed helpful in explaining

gossiping behaviors in the workplace. Results of this study aligned with results of

previous studies looking at psychological needs as motivating forces for gossiping. These

findings add significantly to the knowledge about individual differences related to

gossiping behaviors as well as motives behind gossiping. Further, it also appears that

interpersonal conflict and organizational constraints, but not workload, are indeed types

of workplace stressors that lead to gossiping behaviors. Lastly, this study looked at

several variables that in multiple theories were linked to gossiping behaviors. Results of

this study provided support for some of these variables (e.g., informal influence) and did

not support others (workplace fun, supervisor’s support, organizational norms).

Taken all together, this study contributes significantly to our knowledge about

workplace gossip as the first study to test theories about gossip’s functions.

Implications for Applied Setting

Recently, gossip has been treated more as a symptom of various problems that an

organization is experiencing rather than problem itself (Grosser, Lopez-Kidwell,

Labianca, & Wardt, 2010). This study helps to identify organizational factors that are

likely to trigger gossiping behaviors. These factors can exist at the job level

166
(organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict), or individual level (need for affiliation

and dominance). Given that several factors triggering gossiping behaviors were found,

this study supports the claim that gossip is more a symptom of a problem rather than a

problem itself. Organizational consultants, who may be asked for assistance with

workplace gossip, could use the knowledge about stressors triggering gossip in their

assessment of the troubling situation. It is important to note, however, that this study

offers preliminary findings that should find support in other studies before they can be

used in an applied setting.

This study also showed that some of the theories discussing different roles that

gossip plays in social and organizational settings might not be supported by research.

Practitioners and organizational consultants dealing with gossip issues in organizations

should be cautious while basing their recommendations or building interventions on

theories that have not been empirically tested.

Conclusion

This study significantly contributes to the existing body of knowledge by

investigating the extent of agreement among researchers on defining characteristics of

workplace gossip. It was found that researchers agree on an inclusive view on what

gossip is. Nevertheless, this study also showed that more work aiming at understanding

the nature of gossip is needed. It appeared that researching gossip without making

distinctions between different types of gossip, made it difficult to explain relationships

among gossip and several related variables that are part of existing theories. In order to be

able to research and gain insight into gossip’s functions, and its impact on organizational

and individual lives the distinctions among different forms of gossip should be made.

167
 Further, this study helped in explaining the relationships between gossip and

stress by adopting and testing assumptions from the transactional process model of stress

framework. More specifically, this study helped identify individual differences that were

related to gossiping behavior, as well as situational factors that were likely to trigger

gossiping behaviors. Finally, this study empirically tested several theoretical assumptions

commonly appearing in the existing literature with regard to gossip’s functions in the

workplace. Interestingly, the support was only obtained for the claim that gossip is

related to the perception of informal influence.

Taken all together, this study contributes significantly to our knowledge about

workplace gossip as the first study to test theories about gossip’s functions, and gossip’s

role in dealing with. This study is also an invitation to gossip researchers, to conduct

more research to help us better understand the nature of gossip and its relations with

stress variables.

168
 References

Akanda, A., & Funmilayo, O. (1994). One more time – How to stop company rumors.

Leadership and Organizational Developmental Journal, 15, 27-30.

Allport, G. W., & Postman, L. (1947). The psychology of rumor. New York: Henry Holt.

Anisman, H., & Zacharko, R. M. (1982). Depression: The predisposing influence of

stress. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 89-137.

Anthony, S. (1973). Anxiety and rumor. Journal of Social Psychology, 89, 91-98.

Argote, L. (1989). Agreement about norms and work –unit effectiveness: evidence from

the field. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 131-140.

Aronson, E. (2008). The social animal. New York, NY: Worth Publisher.

Avolio, B. J., Howell, J. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1999). A funny thing happened on the way to

the bottom line: Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of

Management Journal, 42, 219-227.

Ayim, M. (1994). Knowledge through the grapevine: gossip as inquiry. In R. F.

Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 85 - 99). Lawrence:

University Press of Kansas.

Baker, J. S., & Jones, M. A. (1996). The poison grapevine: how destructive are gossip

and rumor in the workplace. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 75-86.

Barger, T., Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., & Sinar, E. F. (2011). I-O and the Crowd:

Frequently Asked Questions About Using Mechanical Turk for Research. The

Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 49, 11-18.

169
Baumeister R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal

attachment as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-

529.

Baumeister, R. F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Gossip as cultural learning. Review

of General Psychology, 8, 111-121.

Beehr, T. A. (1995). Psychological stress at work. New York: Routledge.

Beehr, T. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1990). Social support and occupational stress:

Talking to supervisors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 61-81.

Beehr, T. A., & Bahagat, R. S. (1985). Human stress and cognition in organizations: An

integrated perspective. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational

effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel

Psychology, 31, 665-699.

Ben-Ze’ev, A. (1994). The vindication of gossip. In R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev

(Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 11-24). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Besnier, N. (1989). Information withholding as a manipulative and collusive strategy in

nuclear gossip. Language in Society, 18, 315-341.

Bergmann, J. R. (1993). Discreet indiscretions: The social organization of gossip. New

York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Bhagat, R. S., McQuaid, S. J., Lindholm, H., & Segovis, J. (1985). Total life stress: A

multimethod validation of the construct and its effect on organizationally valued

outcomes and withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 202-214.

170
Blau, G. (1981). An empirical investigation of job stress, social support, service length

and job strain. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 279-302.

Boyd, N.G., Lewin, J.E., & Sager, J.K. (2009). A model of stress and coping and their

influence on individual and organizational outcomes. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 75, 197-211.

Brief, A.P., Burke, M.J., George, J.M., Robinson, B.S., & Wester, J. (1988). Should

negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 193-198.

Burke, L.A.,& Wise, J. M. (2003). The effective care, handling, and pruning of the office

grapevine. Business Horizons, 46, 71-76.

Burke, M.J.,& Dunlap, W.P. (2002). Estimating Interrater Agreement With the Average

Deviation Index: A User’s Guide. Organizational Research Methods 5, 159-172.

Bushman, B. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis,

rumination, distraction, anger and aggressive responding. Personality & Social

Psychology Bulletin, 28, 724-731.

Caplan, R.D., Cobb, S., French, J.R.P., Van Harisson, R., & Pinneau, S. R. (1975). Job

demands and worker health: Main effect and occupational differences.

Washington, D C: Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Carron, A. V., Brawley, L.R., & Widmeyer, N.W. (1998). The Group Environment

Questionnaire test manual. Morgantown: Fitness Information Technology.

Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M, Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and

performance in sport: A meta analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,

24, 168-188.

171
Chan, S. C. H. (2010). Does workplace fun matter? Developing a useable typology of

workplace fun in a qualitative study. International Journal of Hospitality

Management, 29, 720-728.

Chinn, P. L. (1990). Gossip: A transformative art for nursing education. Journal of

Nursing Education, 29, 318-321.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple

regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral science. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-

managing work team effectiveness. Human Relation, 49, 643-676.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.

Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.

Collins, L. (1994). Gossip: A feminist defense. In R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.),

Good gossip (pp. 106-116). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Colman, M. M., & Carron, A.V. (2006). The nature of norms in individual sport teams.

Small Group Research, 32, 206-222.

Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2001). Organizational stress. A review

and critique of theory, research, and applications. California: Sage Publications,

Thousand Oaks.

Crampton, S. M., Hodge, J. W., & Mishra, J. M. (1998). The informal communication

network. Public Personnel Management, 27, 569-584.

Danziger, E. (1988). Minimize office gossip. Personnel Journal, 67, 31-35.

172
David, K. E., & Jones, E. E. (1960). Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of

reducing cognitive dissonance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61,

402-410.

Davidhizar, R. (1992). The manager and the rumors. Today’s OR Nurse, 14, 44-46.

Davis, T. (1997). Can you keep a secret? - Women, gossip and identity. Journal of

Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, 2, 67-74.

Dawson, J. F., & Richter’s (n.d.). Citing Websites. Retrieved January 10 th, 2013, from

http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm.

DeBoer, E. M. Bakker, A. B., Syroit, J. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2002). Unfairness at

work as a predictor of absenteeism. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 23, 181-

197.

De Mare, G. (1989). Communicating: The key to establishing good working

relationships. Price Waterhouse Review, 33, 30-37.

de Sousa, R. (1994). In praise of gossip: Indiscretion as a sanity virtue. In R. F. Goodman

& A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 25-53). Lawrence: University Press of

Kansas.

Dewe, P. J., O’Diriscoll, M. P., & Cooper, C. L. (2010). Coping with work stress. A

review and critique. Malden: Wiley- Blackwell.

DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P., & Rosnow, R. L. (1994). Reining in rumors. Organizational

Dynamics, 23, 47-62.

DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2007). Rumor psychology. Social and organizational

approaches. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

173
Donnelly, D. A., & Murray, E. J. (1991). Cognitive and emotional changes in written

essays and therapy interviews. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10,

334-350.

Dijkstra, M. T. M., Van Dierendonck, D., & Evers, A. (2005). Responding to conflict at

work and individual well-being: The mediating role of flight behaviour and

feeling of helplessness. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology,

14, 119-135.

Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2002). Social stressors at work, irritation, and depressive

symptoms: accounting for unmeasured third variables in a multi-wave study.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 33-58.

Doyle, J. (2000). New community or new slavery? The emotional division of labour.

London: The Industrial Society.

Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General

Psychology, 8, 100-110.

Eder, D., & Enke, J. L. (1991). The structure of gossip: Opportunities and constraints on

collective expression among adolescents. American Sociological Review, 56, 494-

508.

Elias, N., & Scotson, J. L. (1965). The established and the outsiders. London: Frank

Cass.

Elmer, N. (1994). Gossip, reputation, and social adaptation. In R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-

Ze’ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 117-138). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Elovaino, M., Kivimaki, M., & Helkama, K. (2001). Organizational justice evaluations,

job control, and occupational strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 418-424.

174
Esposito, J. L., & Rosnow, L. R. (1983). Corporate rumors: How they start and how to

stop them. Management Review, 72, 44-49.

Fenlarson, K. J., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Social support and occupational stress. The

effect of talking to others. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 157-175.

Fine, G. A., & Rosnow, R. L. (1978). Gossip, gossipers, gossiping. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 161-168.

Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: a core motives approach to social psychology. New

York: Wiley.

Fleishman, J. A. (1986). Personality characteristics and coping patterns. Journal of

Health and Social Behavior, 25, 229-244.

Ford, R. C., Newstrom, J. W., & McLaughlin, F.S. (2004). Making workplace fun more

functional. Industrial and Commercial Training, 3, 117-120.

Forsyth, D. R. (2006). Group dynamics. Thomson: Wadsworth.

Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions.

Review of General Psychology, 8, 78-99.

Frese, M. (1999). Social support as a moderator of a relationship between work stressors

and psychological dysfunctioning: A longitudinal study with objective measures.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 179-192.

Frieburg, K., & Frieburg, J. (1998). Nuts! Southwest airline’s recipe for business and

personal success. New York: Broadway Books.

Friedman, E. S., Clark, D. B., & Gershon, S. (1992). Stress, anxiety, and depression:

Review of biological, diagnostic, and nosologic issues. Journal of Anxiety

Disorders, 6, 337-363.

175
Frisina, P. G., Borod, J. C., & Lepore, S. J. (2004). A meta-analysis of the effects of

written emotional disclosure on the health outcome of clinical populations.

Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 192, 629-634.

Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: testing a

model among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,

246-255.

Gammage, K. L., Carron, A. V., & Eastabrooks, P. A. (2001). Team cohesion and

individual productivity: The influence of the norm for productivity and the

identifiably of individual effort. Small Group Research, 32, 3-18.

Ganster, D. C., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991). Work stress and employee health. Journal of

Management, 17, 235-271.

Ganster, D. C., Fusilier, M. R., & Mayes, B. T. (1986). Role of social support in the

experience of stress at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 102-110.

Geen, R. (1981). Spectator mood at an aggressive sport event. Journal of Social

Psychology, 3, 217-227.

Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy beliefs and

group performance across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal,

42,138-152.

Gilmore, D. (1978). Varieties of gossip in a Spanish rural community. Ethnology, 17, 89-

99.

Glass, D. (1964). Changes in liking as a means of reducing cognitive discrepencies

between self-esteem and aggression. Journal of Personality, 32, 531-549.

Gluckman, M. (1963). Gossip and scandal. Current Anthropology, 4, 307-316.

176
Goodman, R. F., & Ben-Ze’ex, A. (1994). Good gossip. Lawrence: University Press of

Kansas.

Grosser, T. J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., & Labianca, G. (2012). Hearing it through the

grapevine: Positive and negative workplace gossip. Organizational Dynamics, 41,

52-61.

Grosser, T.J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., & Labianca, G. (2010). A social network analysis of

positive and negative gossip in organizational life. Group & Organization

Management, 35, 177-212.

Guerrier, Y., & Adib, A. (2003). Work at leisure and leisure at work: A study of the

emotional labour of tour reps. Human Relations, 56, 1399-1417.

Hafen, S. (2004). Organizational gossip: A revolving door of regulation and resistance.

Southern Communication Journal, 69, 223-240.

Hecket, T. M., Cuneio, G., Hannah A. P., Adams, P. J., Droste, H. E., Mueller, M. A. ...

Robert, L.L. (1999). Creation of a new need assessment questionnaire. Journal of

Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 121-136.

Herskovits, M. (1937). Life in a Haitian valley. New York: Knopf.

Hom, H., & Haidt, J. (2001, February). Psst, did you hear? Exploring the gossip

phenomenon. Paperpresented at the meeting of the Society for Personalityand

Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX.

Houmanfar, R., & Johnson, R. (2003). Organizational implications of gossip and rumor.

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 23, 117-138.

177
House, J. S., & Kahn, R. L. (1985). Measures and concepts of social support. In S.

Cohen, & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health. Orlando: Academic

Press.

Hurrell, J. J., Nelson, D. L., & Simmons, B. L. (1998). Measuring ob stressors and

strains. Where we have been, where we are, and where we need to go. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 368-389.

Iacono, W.G., & Lykken, D.T. (1997). The validity of the lie detectors: Two surveys of

scientific opinions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 426-433.

Jaeger, M. E., Skleder, A. A., Rind, B., & Rosnow, R. L. (1994). Gossip, gossipers,

gossipees. In R. F. Goodman, & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 154-169).

Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Jakson, S., & Schuler, R. (1985). A meta analysis and conceptual critique of research on

role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Process, 36, 16-28.

Jeffcoat, K., & Gibson, J. W. (2006). Fun as serious business: Creating a fun working

environment as an effective business strategy. Journal of Business and Economic

Research, 4, 29-34.

Jex, S. M., & Elacqua, T. C. (1999). Self-esteem as a moderator: A comparison of global

and organization- based measures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 72, 71-81.

Jex, S.M., & Beehr, T.A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the

study of work-related stress. In K. Rowland, & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in

178
 Personnel and human resources management. (Vol. 9, pp. 311-365). Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press.

Judge,T. A., Parker, S., Colbert, A. E., Heller, D., & Ilies, R. (2001). Job satisfaction: A

cross-cultural review. In N. Andersen, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C.

Viewesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology

(Vol. 2, pp. 25–52). London: Sage.

Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M.

Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Eds.,Vol.

3, pp. 571-650). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kahn, M. (1966). The physiology of catharsis. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 3, 278-298.

Karasek, R. (2008). Low social control and physiological deregulation – the stress

disequilibrium theory, toward a new demand-control model. Scandinavian

Journal of Work, Environment, & Health, 34, 117-135.

Karl, K. A., Peluchette, J. V., & Harland, L. (2007). Is fun for everyone? Personality

differences in healthcare providers’ attitudes toward fun. Journal of Health and

Human Services Administration, 49, 409-447.

Karl, K. A., & Peluchette, J. (2006). Does workplace fun buffer the impact of emotional

exhaustion on job dissatisfaction? A study of health care workers. Journal of

Behavioral and Applied Management, 7, 128–141.

Karl, K. A., & Peluchette, J. (2006). How does workplace fun impact employee

perceptions of customer service quality? Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies, 13, 2-13.

179
Karl, K., & Harland, L. (2005). What's fun and what's not: An examination of age, gender

differences, and attitudes toward fun activities at work. Proceedings of the

Midwest Academy of Management 2005 meeting, Chicago, IL.

Karl, K., Peluchette, J., Hall-Indiana, L., & Harland, L. (2005). Attitudes towards

workplace fun: A three sector comparison. Journal of Leadership and

Organisational Studies, 12, 1-17.

Kaufmann, G. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1986). Interactions between job stressors and social

support: Some counterintuitive results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 522-

526.

Keefer, S. M. (1993). Portrait of the gossip as a young woman: form and content of

gossip among junior high school students (Unpublished dissertation). Temple

University, Philadelphia.

Keenan, A., & Newton, T. J. (1985). Stressful events, stressors, and psychological strain

in young professional engineers. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6, 151-156.

Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G., & Oxenbridge, S.

(2006). Inside the Workplace: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment

Relations Survey. London: Routledge.

Klein, C. T. F., & Helweg, - Larsen, M. (2002). Perceived control and the optimistic bias:

A meta-analytic review. Psychology & Health, 17, 437 – 446.

Kniffin, K. M., & Willson, D. S. (2005). Utilities of gossip across organizational levels.

Human Nature, 16, 278-292.

Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power

in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 342-369.

180
Kureland, N. B., & Pelled, L. H. (2000). Passing the word: Toward a model of gossip and

power in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 25, 428-438.

Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide. New York: Harper

Business.

Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2004). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to

Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Boston: The McGraw-Hill

Companies.

LaRocco, J. M., House, J. S., & French, J. R. P. (1980). Social support, occupational

stress, and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 202-218.

La Rocco, J. M., & Jones, A. P. (1978). Co-worker and leader support as moderators of

stress-strain relationships in work situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63,

629-634.

Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Psychological Stress in the workplace. Journal of Social Behavior

and Personality, 6, 1-13.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer

Publishing Company.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and

coping. European Journal of Personality, 1, 141-169.

Lee, C., Tinsley, C., & Bobko, P. (2002). An investigation of antecedes and

consequences of group level confidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

32, 1628-1652.

Levin, J., & Arluke, A. (1985). An exploratory analysis of sex differences in gossip. Sex

Roles, 12, 281-287.

181
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual

Review of Psychology, 41, 585-634.

Locke, K. D. (2000). Circumplex scales of interpersonal values: Reliability, validity, and

applicability to interpersonal problems and personality disorders. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 75, 249-267.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Eds.),

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago,

IL: Rand McNally.

Lovibond, S.H., & Lovibond, P.F. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress

Scales. Sydney: Psychology Foundation.

Lyttle, J. (2007). The judicious use and management of humor in the workplace. Business

Horizons, 50, 239- 245.

Lumney, M. A., & Provenzano, K. M. (2003). Stress management through written

emotional disclosure improves academic performance among college students

with physical symptoms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 641-649.

Matthes, K. (1993). Lighten up! Humour has its place at work. HR Focus, 70, 3-4.

Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: A

general perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 647-660.

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1986). Maslach burnout inventory manual (2 nd edition).

Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologist Press.

McAlister D. J. (1995). Affect-based and cognition-based trust as foundation of

interpersonal cooperation in organization. Academy of Management Journal, 38,

24-59.

182
McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of The

University of Cambridge.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrad.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1994). The stability of personality: Observations and

evaluations. Current Directions in Psychology Science, 3, 173-175.

McDowell, T. (2004). Fun at work: scale development, confirmatory factor analysis, and

links to organizational outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant

International University, San Diego, CA.

McGhee, P. (2000). The key to stress management, retention, and profitability? More

workplace fun. HR Focus, 77, 5-6.

Melchior, M., Caspi, A., Milne, B. J., Danese, A., Poulton, R., & Moffitt, T. (2007).

Work stress precipitates depression and anxiety in young, working women and

men. Psychological Medicine, 37, 1119-1129.

Merry, S. E. (1984). Rethinking gossip and scandal. In D. Black (Eds.), Toward general

theory of social control (pp. 271-302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press Inc.

Michelson, G., & Mouly, V. S. (2000). Rumour and gossip in organisations: A

conceptual study. Management Decisions, 38, 339-346.

Michelson, G., & Mouly, V. S. (2002). ‘You didn’t hear it from us but…’ Towards an

understanding of rumour and gossip in organisations. Australian Journal of

Management, 27, 57-65.

Michelson, G., & Mouly, V. S. (2004). Do loose lips sink ships? The meaning,

antecedents, and consequences of rumour and gossip in organizations. Corporate

Communications, 9, 189-201.

183
Michelson, G., van Iterson, A., &Waddington, K. (2010). Gossip in organizations:

context, consequences and controversies. Group & Organization Management,

35, 371-390.

Mills, C. (2010). Experiencing gossip: The foundation for a theory of embedded

organizational gossip. Group & Organization Management, 35, 213-240.

Miller, S. M., Brody, D. S., & Summerton, J. (1988). Styles of coping with threat:

Implications for health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 142-

148.

Mishra, M. J. (1990). Managing the grapevine. Public Personnel Management, 19, 213-

228.

Mitchells, T. R. & Daniels, D. (2003). Motivation. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J.

Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, Volume 12, Industrial and

Organizational Psychology (pp. 225-254). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Morreall, J. (1994). Gossip and Humor. In R. F. Goodman, & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good

gossip (pp. 56-64). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Murray, E.J., Lamnin, A.D., & Carver, C.S. (1989). Emotional expression in written

essays and psychotherapy. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 8, 414–

429.

Murphy, K. R., Cronin, B. E., & Tam, A. P. (2003). Controversy and consensus regarding

the use of cognitive ability testing in organizations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 660-671.

Nelson, D. L., & Simmons, B. L. (2003). Health psychology and work stress: A more

positive approach. In J.C. Quick, & L.E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of

184
 Occupational Heath Psychology (pp. 97-121). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Nevo, O., Nevo, B., & Derech-Zehavi, A. (1993). The development of the tendency to

gossip questionnaire: construct and concurrent validation for a sample of Israeli

college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 973-981.

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression:

evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets.

Journal of Management, 24, 391-419.

Newton, T. J. (1989). Occupational stress and coping with stress. Human Relations, 42,

441-461.

Newton, T. J., & Keenan, A. (1985). Coping with work-related stress. Human Relations,

38, 107-126.

Newstrom, J. W. (2002). Making work fun: An important role of managers.

SAM Advanced Management Journal, 67, 4-8.

Noon, M., & Delbridge, R. (1993). News from behind my hand: gossip in organizations.

Organization Studies, 14, 23-36.

Ogasawara, Y. (1998). Office ladies and salaried men: Power, gender, and work in

Japanese companies. Berkley: University of California Press.

O’Reilly, C., & Caldwell, D. F. (1985). The impact of normative social influence and

cohesiveness on task perceptions and attitudes: a social processing approach.

Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 193-203.

185
Patterson, A. (1974). Hostility catharsis: A naturalistic quasi-experiment. Paper

presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association,

New Orleans.

Pennebaker, J. W., & Chung, C. K. (2007). Expressive writing, emotional upheavals, and

health. In H. S. Friedman, & R. Cohen (Eds.), Oxford handbook of health

psychology (pp. 417-437). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Peeters, M. A. G., & Rutte, C. G. (2005). Time management behavior as a moderator for

the job demand- control interaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,

10, 64-75.

Peters, L. H., & O’Conner, E.J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes: The

influences of a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review,

5, 391-397.

Pinneau, S. R. (1976). Effects of social support on occupational stress and strain. Paper

presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington,

D.C.

Pomeroy, A. (1998). Constructing a gossip questionnaire. Unpublished master’s thesis,

Temple University, Philadelphia.

Portello, J. Y., & Long, B. C. (2001). Appraisal and coping with workplace interpersonal

stress: A model for women managers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48,

144-56.

Paine, R. (1967). What is gossip about? An alternative hypothesis. Man, 2, 278-285.

Quick, J. C., & Tetrick, L. E. (2003). Handbook of occupational health psychology.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

186
Quillian - Wolever, R. E., & Wolever, M. E. (2003). Stress management at work. In J. C.

Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational heath psychology (pp.

355-377). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ribeiro, V. A., & Blakeley, J. A. (1995). The proactive management of rumor and gossip.

JONA, 25, 43-50.

Rizzo, J. R., House R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in

complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.

Rhodes, A. K. (1992). Who’s up on the low down: a gossip study (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). Temple University, Philadelphia.

Robinson, O., & Griffiths, A. (2005). Coping with the stress of transformational change

in a government department. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41, 204-221.

Rogers, E., & Rogers, R. (1976). Communication in organizations. New York, NY: Free

Press.

Rosnow, R. L. (2001). Rumor and gossip in interactions and beyond: A social exchange

perspective. In R. M. Kowalski (Eds.), Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in

interpersonal relationships (pp. 203-232). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Inside rumor: A personal journey. American Psychologist, 46,

484-496.

Rosnow, R. L., & Fine, G. A. (1976). Rumor and gossi: The social psychology of

hearsay. New York: Elsevier.

Roy, D. F. (1958). Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human

Organization, 18, 158-168.

187
Rysman, A. (1977). How gossip became a woman. Journal of Communication, 27, 176-

180.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping and health: Assessment and

implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-

247.

Schein, S. (1994). Used and abused: Gossip in medieval society. In R. F. Goodman, & A.

Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 139-153). Lawrence: University Press of

Kansas.

Semmer, N. K. (2003). Job stress interventions and organization of work. In J. C. Quick,

& L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Semmer, N. K, Zapf, D., & Dunckel, H. (1995). Assessing stress at work: a framework

and an instrument. In O. Svane, &C. Johansen, (Eds.) Work and Health –

Scientific Basis of Progress in the Working Environment (pp.105-113).

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Sethi, A. S., & Schuler, R. S. (1984). Handbook of organizational stress coping

strategies. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about

satisfying events? Testing 10 candidates psychological needs. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325-339.

Shermer, M. (2004). The science of good and evil. Why people cheat, gossip, care share

and follow the golden rule. New York: Times Books Henry Holt and Company.

188
Slade, D. (1997). Stories and gossip in English: The macro-structure of casual talk.

Prospect, 12, 43-71.

Smith, B. (1996). Care and feeding of the office grapevine. Management Review, 86, 6.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). Measurement of satisfaction in work

and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Smyth, J. M. (1998). Written emotional expression: Effect sizes, outcome types, and

moderating variables. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 174-

184.

Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1987). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and

aptitude testing. American Psychologist, 42, 137-144.

Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2008). Did you have a nice evening? A

day-level study on recovery experiences, sleep, and affect. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 93, 674-684.

Spacks, P. A. M. (1985). Gossip. New York: Knopf.

Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job

stressors and strains: interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational

constraints scale, qualitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms

inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356-367.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). Relation of job stressors to affective,

health, and performance outcomes: a comparison of multiple data sources.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 11-19.

189
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies

concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005–

1016.

Spera, S. P., Buhrfeind, E. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1994). Expressive writing and

coping with job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 722-733.

Spielberg,C. D., Vagg, P. R., & Wasala, C. F. (2003). Occupational stress: job pressures

and lack of support. In Quick, J. C., & Tetrick, L. E. (Eds.), Handbook of

occupational health psychology (pp. 185-201). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Steward, W. (1996). ISO 9000 work instruction – subject: Fun. TQM Magazine,8, 17-19.

Stine, R. (1989). An introduction to bootstrap methods. Examples and ideas. Sociological

Methods and Research, 18, 243-291.

Stirling, R. B. (1956). Some psychological mechanisms operative in gossip. Social

Forces, 34, 262-267.

Stogdill, R. M. (1972). Group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness. Organizational

Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 8, 26-43.

Suls, J. M. (1977). Gossip as social comparison. Journal of Communication,27, 164-168.

Tabak, N., & Koprak, O. (2007). Relationship between how nurses resolve their conflicts

with doctors, their stress and job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Management,15,

321-331.

Taylor, G. (1994). Gossip as a moral talk. In R. F. Goodman, & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.),

Good gossip (pp. 34-46). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

190
Tebbutt, M., & Marchington, M. (1997). Look before you speak: gossip and the insecure

workplace. Work, Employment and Society, 11, 713-735.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management

Journal, 43, 176-190.

Theorell, T. (2003). To be able to exert control over own situation: a necessary condition

for coping with stressors. In J.C. Quick, & Tetrick, L. E. (Eds.), Handbook of

occupational health psychology (pp. 201-220). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Thoits, P. A. (1995). Stress, coping and social support process: Where are we? What

next? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 53-79.

Thomas, L. (1993). The logic of gossip. In R. F. Goodman, & A. Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good

gossip (pp. 47-56). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Tucker, J. (1993). Everyday forms of employee resistance. Sociological Forum, 8, 25-45.

Van Dierendonck, D., & Mevissen, N. (2002). Aggressive behavior of passengers,

conflict management behavior and burnout among trolley car drivers.

International Journal of Stress Management, 9, 345-356.

van Iterson, A., & Clegg, S. R. (2008). The politics of gossip and denial in

interorganizational relations. Human Relations, 61, 1117-1137.

Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the

process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 314-

334.

191
Waddington, K. (2005a). Using diaries to explore the characteristics of work-related

gossip: Methodological considerations from exploratory multimethod research.

Journal of Occupational Psychology, 78, 221-236.

Waddington, K. (2005b). The role of gossip in emotional labour or nursing work.

International Journal of Work, Organisation and Emotion, 6, 57-80.

Walker, C. J., & Blaine, B. (1991). The virulence of dread rumors: A field experiment.

Language and Communication, 4, 291-297.

Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., Mullarkey, S., & Parker, S. K. (1996). The demand-control

model of job strain: A more specific test. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 69, 153-166.

Watson, D., Pennebaker, J. W., & Folger, R. (1987). Beyond negative affectivity:

Measuring stress and satisfaction in the workplace. Journal of Organizational

Behavior Management, 8, 141-152.

Watts, M., & Cooper, C. L. (1998). Stop the world. Abington: Hodder and Stoughton.

Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A Social Comparison Account of Gossip. Review of

General Psychology,8, 122-137.

Yerkovich, S. (1977). Gossiping as a way of speaking. Journal of Communication, 27,

192-196.

Zeidner, M. & Endler, N. S. (1996). Handbook of coping. Theory, research, applications.

New York: John Wiley & Sons, INC.

192
 APPENDIX A

Demographic Questions

1. What percentage of your working day do you spend interacting with other people?
1. 5%
2. 10%
3. 25%
4. 50%
5. >50%
2. Approximately how many people do you interact with during your workday?
_____________
3. How long have you been working for your present employer?
____________
4. In which industry do you work? Choose all that apply:
1. Not-for profit
2. Business
3. Academia
4. Government
5. Self - employed
6. Other (please specify)
5. What best describes your primarily working space?
1. Cubical
2. Private office
3. Share office with other people
4. Field work
5. Working from home / Telecommuting
6. Other
6. Which of the following best describes you?
1. Employed full time
2. Employed part time
3. Self-employed
4. Not employed
5. Retired
6. Student
7. Homemaker
7. Are you a supervisor, or a manager?
1. Yes
2. No
8. What is your age?
___________

193
9. What is your gender?
1. Female
2. Male
10. Are you of Hispanic, or Latino origin?
1. Yes
2. No
11. Which of the following best describes you?
1. White
2. Black
3. Asian
4. American Indian or Alaska Native
5. Pacific Islander
6. Other
12. How did you find out about this study?
1. LinkedIn
2. Workplace
3. MTurk
4. Rumor/Gossip List Serv

194
 APPENDIX B

Workplace Gossip

Schmidt (2010)

Very Often
Rarely

Sometimes

Quite Often
Never
How often do you:

1 Talk with co-workers about 1 2 3 4 5

people’s experiences with the
boss.
2 Talk with others about people’s 1 2 3 4 5
experiences with co-workers.
3 Talk with co-workers about other 1 2 3 4 5
employee’s accomplishments and
mistakes.
4 Swap stories about other people 1 2 3 4 5
in the organization.
5 Talk with co-workers about other 1 2 3 4 5
employee’s personal lives.
6 Talk with co-workers about other 1 2 3 4 5
people we know in the
organization and what they have
been up to.

195
 APPENDIX C

Job Stressors

Spector and Jex (1998)

Workload

Less Once Once Once Several

than or or or times
once twice twice twice per day
per per per per
month month week day
or
never
1 How often does your
job require you to 1 2 3 4 5
work very fast?
2 How often does your
job require you to 1 2 3 4 5
work very hard?
3 How often does your
job leave you with
1 2 3 4 5
little time to get things
done?
4 How often is there a
great deal to be done? 1 2 3 4 5
5 How often do you
have to do more work 1 2 3 4 5
than you can do well?

196
 Organizational Constraints

How often do you find it difficult or Less Once Once Once

impossible to do your job because than or or or
of…? once twice twice twice
per per per per
month month week day
or
never
1 Poor equipment or supplies. 1 2 3 4

2 Organizational rules and 1 2 3 4

procedures.
3 Other employees. 1 2 3 4

4 Your supervisor. 1 2 3 4

5 Lack of equipment or supplies. 1 2 3 4

6 Inadequate training. 1 2 3 4

7 Interruptions by other people. 1 2 3 4

8 Lack of necessary information 1 2 3 4

about what to do or how to do it.
9 Conflicting job demands. 1 2 3 4

10 Inadequate help from others. 1 2 3 4

11 Incorrect instructions. 1 2 3 4

197
 Interpersonal Conflict

Quite Often

Very Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
1 How often do you get into 1 2 3 4 5
arguments with others at
work?
2 How often do other people 1 2 3 4 5
yell at you at work?
3 How often are people are 1 2 3 4 5
rude to you at work?
4 How often do other people do 1 2 3 4 5
nasty things to you at work?

198
 APPENDIX D

Psychological Needs

Heckert, et al. (1999)

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree
Disagree
Next, we would like to learn more about you. Please,

Neutral

Agree
rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with
each of the statements below.

1 I spend a lot of time talking to other people. 1 2 3 4 5

2 I am a "people" person. 1 2 3 4 5

3 When I have a chance, I try to work in a group 1 2 3 4 5

instead of by myself.

4 I prefer to do my own work and let others do 1 2 3 4 5

theirs.
5 I try my best to work alone on a work 1 2 3 4 5
assignment.
6 I try to perform my best at work. 1 2 3 4 5

7 I am a hard worker. 1 2 3 4 5

8 It is important to me to do the best job possible. 1 2 3 4 5

9 I push myself to be "all that I can be". 1 2 3 4 5

10 I try very hard to improve on my past 1 2 3 4 5

performance at work.

11 I would enjoy being in charge of a project. 1 2 3 4 5

12 I would rather receive orders than give them. 1 2 3 4 5

13 I seek an active role in the leadership of a 1 2 3 4 5

group.

14 I find myself organizing and directing activities 1 2 3 4 5

of others.

199
15 I strive to be "in command" when I am working 1 2 3 4 5
in a group.

200
 APPENDIX E

Physical Strain

Spector and Jex (1998)

Now, we would like to ask some questions

about your health. During the past 30 days did No Yes
you have any of the following symptoms?

1 An upset stomach or nausea.

2 A backache.
3 Trouble sleeping.
4 A skin rash.
5 Shortness of breath.
6 Chest pain.
7 Headache.
8 Fever.
9 Acid indigestion or heartburn.
10 Eye strain.
11 Diarrhea.
12 Stomach cramps (Not menstrual).
13 Constipation.
14 Heart pounding when not exercising.
15 An infection.
16 Loss of appetite.
17 Dizziness.
18 Tiredness or fatigue.

201
 APPENDIX F

Psychological Strain

Lovibond and Lovibond (1993)

Strongly Agree
Disagree

Disagree
Strongly
Next, we would like to learn more about you.

Neutral

Agree
Please, rate the extent to which you agreeor
disagree with rach of the statements below.

1 I spend a lot of time talking to other 1 2 3 4 5

people.
2 I am a "people" person. 1 2 3 4 5
3 When I have a chance, I try to work in a 1 2 3 4 5
group instead of by myself.
4 I prefer to do my own workand let others 1 2 3 4 5
do theirs.
5 I try my best to work alone on a work 1 2 3 4 5
assignment.
6 I try to perform my best at work. 1 2 3 4 5
7 I am a hard worker. 1 2 3 4 5
8 It is important to me to do the best job 1 2 3 4 5
possible.
9 I push myself to be "all that I can be". 1 2 3 4 5

10 I try very hard to improve on my past 1 2 3 4 5

performance at work.
11 I would enjoy being in charge of a 1 2 3 4 5
project.

12 I would rather receive orders than give 1 2 3 4 5

them.
13 I seek an active role in the leadership of 1 2 3 4 5
a group.
14 I find myself organizing and directing 1 2 3 4 5
activities of others.

202
15 I strive to be "in command" when I am 1 2 3 4 5
working in a group.

203
 APPENDIX G

Social Support

Caplan et al. (1975)

Very Much
Somewhat
Not at All

A Little

Always
1 How much does each of these people do things to make your work life
easier?

Your immediate supervisor 1 2 3 4 5

Other people at work 1 2 3 4 5

2 How easy is it to talk with:

Your immediate supervisor 1 2 3 4 5

Other people at work 1 2 3 4 5

3 How much can each of these people by relied on when things get
thought at work?

Your immediate supervisor 1 2 3 4 5

Other people at work 1 2 3 4 5

4 How much is each of the following people willing to listen to your

personal problems?

Your immediate supervisor 1 2 3 4 5

Other people at work 1 2 3 4 5

204
 APPENDIX H

Perception of Workplace Fun

Karl, Peluchette & Harland (2007)

Disagree

Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
Neutral

Agree

Agree
Please, rate the extent to which you agree or
disagree with each of the statements below.

1 This is a fun place to work. 1 2 3 4 5

2 At my workplace, we try to have fun 1 2 3 4 5

whenever we can.

3 Managers encourage employees to have 1 2 3 4 5

fun at work.

4 We laugh a lot at my workplace. 1 2 3 4 5

5 Sometimes I feel more like I am 1 2 3 4 5

playing than I am working.

205
 APPENDIX I

Clarity and Strength of Organizational Norms

Cohen, Ledford & Spreitzer (1996)

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree
Disagree
Please rate the extent to which you agree

Neutral

Agree
or disagree with each of the statements
below:

1 It is clear in our organization, what are 1 2 3 4 5

expectable behavior and what are not
acceptable.

2 Behavior in our organization is very 1 2 3 4 5

orderly, it is clear what members are
expected to do, and they do it.

3 Our organization has clear standards 1 2 3 4 5

for the behavior of group members.

206
 APPENDIX J

Informal Influence

Disagree
Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
Neutral

Agree

Agree
Please rate the extent to which you agree or
disagree with each of the statements below:

1 I have the ability to influence what other 1 2 3 4 5

people think.

2 My coworkers show interest in what I 1 2 3 4 5

have to say.

3 I have an impact on people’s opinions. 1 2 3 4 5

4 My opinions matter to my coworkers and 1 2 3 4 5

supervisor.

207
 APPENDIX K
An Example of the Syntax Used to Produce Regression Estimates for Hypotheses 3-6.

REGRESSION

/DEPENDENT Influ_Cent

/METHOD=ENTER Gossip_Cent .

REGRESSION

/DEPENDENT PsychStrain_Cent

/METHOD=ENTER Conflict_Cent Influ_Cent ConfxInfluence .

208
 APPENDIX L

An Example of the Syntax Used to Produce Bootstrap Estimates for Hypotheses 3 – 6.

SET RNG=MT MTINDEX=54321 .

MODEL PROGRAM a1=.077 b1G=.179 .

COMPUTE PRED = a1 + b1G*Gossip_Cent .

CNLR Influ_Cent

/OUTFILE='/Users/Documents/Output/hyp6_1_1.SAV'

/BOOTSTRAP=1000 .

SET RNG=MT MTINDEX=54321 .

MODEL PROGRAM a2=.006 b2X=.467 b3Z=-.012 b23XZ=-.077 .

COMPUTE PRED = a2 + b2X*Conflict_Cent + b3Z*Influ_Cent +

b23XZ*ConfxInfluence .

CNLR PsychStrain_Cent

/OUTFILE='/Users/Documents/Output/hyp6_1_2.SAV'

/BOOTSTRAP=1000 .

209