Journal of Business and Psychology (2021) 36:417–434

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09683-7

ORIGINAL PAPER

Are You Gossiping About Me? The Costs and Benefits of High
Workplace Gossip Prevalence
Noriko Tan 1 & Kai Chi Yam 1 & Pengcheng Zhang 2 & Douglas J. Brown 3

Published online: 26 February 2020

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Whereas organizational research has historically focused on the negative effects of workplace gossip behaviors, in this paper, we
draw on social information processing theory to examine both the benefits and costs of perceived work-related gossip prevalence.
On the one hand, we suggest that perceived work-related gossip prevalence is beneficial to employees’ job performance.
Employees who perceive work-related gossip prevalence to be high should experience higher levels of performance pressure.
Performance pressure, in turn, should be positively associated with higher job performance. At the same time, however, these
same employees will also experience lower levels of psychological well-being due to the lack of emotional ties and trusting
relationships that they have with co-workers. We furthermore suggest that both the positive and negative effects of perceived
work-related gossip prevalence are moderated by the valence of the gossip prevalence, such that employees feel more perfor-
mance pressure (and, in turn, higher job performance) and experience worse psychological well-being when the valence of their
perceived gossip prevalence is negative.

Keywords Workplace gossip . Job performance . Psychological well-being

“Gossips are worse than thieves because they steal anoth-
er person’s dignity, honest reputation and credibility…
which are challenging to restore.” (Salmansohn, 2016).
“Managers must work to minimize gossip in the office,
where it can easily become a dangerous force for poor
work habits and ill will.” (Danziger, 1988, p. 31).
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09683-7) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
* Pengcheng Zhang
zhangpch@hust.edu.cn
1
Department of Management and Organization, National University
of Singapore, 15 Kent Ridge Drive, Singapore 119245, Singapore
2
School of Management, Huazhong University of Science &
Technology, 1037 Luoyu Road, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China
3
Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 200 University
Avenue West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
Organizational scholars and layperson alike often assume
that gossip is harmful and believe that individuals should re-
frain from gossiping. Anecdotal evidence likewise suggests
that gossip can lower morale, ruin employees’ reputation,
and force valued employees to leave (Porterfield, 2008).
Extant studies by organizational scholars provide further em-
pirical support that gossip is dysfunctional to organizations.
For example, gossip has been associated with lower organiza-
tional citizenship behavior (Wu, Birtch, Chiang, & Zhang,
2018) and higher employee cynicism (Kuo, Chang, Quinton,
Lu, & Lee, 2015).
Such a negative view of gossip seems to be in direct contra-
diction with how scholars from disciplines such as psychology,
sociology, and anthropology view gossip. These scholars have
emphasized the positive functions that gossip serves—gossip
facilitates information flow, provides entertainment, promotes
friendship, and enhances control sanctions (Foster, 2004). In
this research, we seek to adopt a more balanced view of work-
place gossip and deviate from the perspective that workplace
gossip is solely dysfunctional. Drawing upon social informa-
tion processing theory (SIP; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), we
frame workplace gossip as a “mixed blessing,” a perspective
that is less adopted by organizational behavior scholars.
418
Predominantly, scholars have examined individual gossip
behaviors, focusing on the impact of gossip on the gossipers
and gossip targets. For example, gossipers are seen as higher
in reward and coercive powers (Kurland & Pelled, 2000),
whereas gossip targets suffer from damaged reputations
(Danziger, 1988). Our research aims to move beyond individ-
ual gossip behaviors to how gossip affects organizational
members at large, which is important since past research has
shown that workplace phenomena can impact not only the
actors directly involved but also other organizational mem-
bers. Specifically, social environment provides cues for em-
ployees to interpret reality; hence, observations of co-workers’
behavior or their interaction with others may shape em-
ployees’ work attitudes and outcomes (Salancik & Pfeffer,
1978).
In this paper, we examine the benefits and costs of em-
ployees’ perceived gossip prevalence. Broadly defined, per-
ceived gossip prevalence concerns the individual’s impression
of the prevalence of informal and evaluative talk occurring
within the organization about other organizational members,
which usually takes place among a few individuals out of
earshot from these members (Kurland & Pelled, 2000). We
focus specifically on work-related gossip prevalence (e.g.,
who received a promotion), as it is more relevant to em-
ployees, and hence usually taken more seriously, than work-
unrelated gossip (e.g., who got married; Kuo, Chang,
Quinton, Lu & Lee, 2015). Drawing upon SIP theory
(Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), we posit that perceived work-
related gossip prevalence is positively associated with higher
performance pressure because employees fear becoming gos-
sip targets. This performance pressure, in turn, should be pos-
itively associated with higher job performance. At the same
time, this perceived work-related gossip prevalence should be
negatively associated with employees’ psychological well-
being due to employee attention directed towards the constant
monitoring of others, as well as the lack of emotional ties with
Fig. 1 Theoretical model of the
current research
Perceptions of
Work-related
Gossip
Prevalence
J Bus Psychol (2021) 36:417–434
their co-workers. We furthermore theorize that the valence of
gossip prevalence amplifies both the positive and negative
effects of perceived work-related gossip prevalence, such that
employees experience greater performance pressure and lower
psychological well-being when they perceive the gossip prev-
alence to be highly negative. Figure 1 illustrates our posited
theoretical model, which we test using an experiment and two
multi-wave, multi-source field studies in the USA and China.
Given that Asian culture emphasizes “face-saving” and values
collectivism (Hofstede, 1980, 2001), the penalty of being
outcasted as a gossip target in Asian cultures may be more
severe than that in Western countries where individualistic
cultural values are observed. Hence, the use of two culturally
diverse samples in our field studies enhances the generaliz-
ability of our findings.
Our research makes several contributions to the work-
place gossip literature. First, we consider gossip preva-
lence as a mixed blessing, rather than treating it as a solely
disruptive element (see Brady, Brown, & Liang, 2016;
Noon & Delbridge, 1993). In doing so, we contribute to
research on the functional aspects of workplace gossip and
provide a more balanced view of workplace gossip.
Second, we move beyond the examination of individual
gossip behaviors to investigating perceived gossip preva-
lence, demonstrating the effects of gossip on organization-
al members not directly involved. To our knowledge, this
is one of the first studies that empirically examine the
impact of perceived gossip prevalence, an important yet
understudied work phenomenon. Third, by studying the
impact of perceived gossip prevalence on job perfor-
mance, we present a novel view of how gossip plays a role
in employees’ agentic, task-related behaviors. We thus add
to the existing literature which has predominantly studied
other-oriented, social behaviors as gossip outcomes (e.g.,
Feinberg, Willer, & Schultz, 2014; Wu, Balliet, & Van
Lange, 2015).
Negative
Gossip
H4 H5
Performance Job
H1 H2
Pressure Performance
H3
Psychological
Well-being
J Bus Psychol (2021) 36:417–434
Theoretical Background and Hypothesis
Development
Research on workplace gossip
Although gossip is “one of the most pervasive activities within
organizations” (Noon & Delbridge, 1993, p. 23), surprisingly
little research has been done on workplace gossip, in part due to
the perceptions that gossip is associated with having an “evil
tongue” (Jaeger, Skelder, & Rosnow, 1998; Schein, 1994) and
is a topic unworthy of serious attention (Noon & Delbridge,
1993). Recent advances in organizational behavior, however,
have resulted in researchers adopting more neutral definitions
of gossip and positing gossip as just another form of commu-
nication (Kurland & Pelled, 2000). Likewise, research has
started to reconceptualize workplace gossip as a construct in-
dependent of deviance (Brady et al., 2016). Although the use of
neutral definitions of workplace gossip allows for a more bal-
anced understanding of how workplace gossip influences the
actors directly involved (i.e., gossipers and gossip targets), less
is known regarding its impact on those not directly involved.
Therefore, in this study, we examined how perceptions of
work-related gossip prevalence influence organizational mem-
bers at large, beyond the actors involved.
Pressure to Perform When Perceptions
of Work-Related Gossip Prevalence Is High
Social information processing theory (SIP theory; Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1978) provides a useful theoretical perspective for
examining the downstream and (mal)adaptive consequences
when employees work in a setting with high perceived work-
related gossip prevalence. A central tenet of SIP theory is that
the social environment at work provides cues that enable em-
ployees to construct and interpret reality. Upon receiving and
processing these social cues, employees may adjust their
workplace attitudes and learn not only the expectations re-
garding their behaviors but also the consequences of those
behaviors. Within the organizational sciences, scholars have
demonstrated that employees’ perceptions of social cues
largely influence their attitudes and behaviors. For example,
in a workplace where organizational politics is prevalent, em-
ployees receive cues from their social environment, which
informs them that organizational members will focus on
protecting self-interests and accumulating power, often with
little concern for others. These social cues, in turn, cause em-
ployees to have poorer general work attitudes (i.e., job satis-
faction and affective commitment) and lower organizational
citizenship behaviors (Chang, Rosen, & Levy, 2009).
Applying this perspective to the context of workplace gos-
sip, we suggest that the perceived prevalence of work-related
gossip through observations of or interactions with co-
workers constitutes an important cue within one’s social
419
environment, which, in turn, shapes employees’ work atti-
tudes. We contend that perceptions of high work-related gos-
sip prevalence signal two things to employees: (1) they can
become gossip targets easily and be evaluated behind their
back; and (2) their work performance will be more visible to
other organizational members. These cues then drive em-
ployees to experience higher performance pressure, a type of
attitude system (Zimbardo & Leippe, 1991), that results in “a
negative evaluative orientation toward performance insuffi-
ciency” (Eisenberger & Aselage, 2009, p. 96).
In a workplace where work-related gossip is perceived to
be prevalent, employees are aware of a greater likelihood that
they will become gossip targets. In particular, they are aware
that the gossip that they hear about others through either direct
(i.e., observation and experience) or indirect (i.e., communi-
cation networks) channels can just as easily be about them-
selves (Foster, 2004). The knowledge that one can easily be
gossiped about puts pressure on employees, in part due to the
evaluative nature of workplace gossip. Past research suggests
that workplace gossip typically consists of value-laden infor-
mation, which results in an implicit or explicit evaluation of
the gossip target’s behavior or reputation (Brady, Brown, &
Liang, 2016; Foster, 2004). Since gossip facilitates the spread-
ing of one’s reputation within groups (Dunbar, 2004; Foster,
2004; Wu et al., 2015), employees who are concerned about
upholding their reputations (i.e., to avoid being called a free-
rider or an incompetent worker) may feel pressure to perform
better. Furthermore, gossip is often described as a social com-
parison process (Suls & Miller, 1977; Wert & Salovey, 2004)
that is used to validate an individual’s abilities (Schachter,
1959). When gossipers share evaluative information about a
gossip target, there is an implicit upward or downward social
comparison between the gossiper and the gossip target (Brady
et al., 2016). Employees face higher performance pressure
when they think that others are evaluating them informally,
because this informal evaluation is akin to having audience
presence at work, an important factor driving performance
pressure (Heaton & Sigall, 1991). For example, employees
may feel pressured to avoid mistakes and to perform their
tasks well when they are aware that others are keenly observ-
ing and will talk about their performance behind their backs.
Furthermore, when perceived work-related gossip preva-
lence is high, employees are aware that their job performance
is more visible to the other organizational members (Beersma
& Van Kleef, 2012). In particular, dissemination of perfor-
mance evaluation information via informal channels, such as
workplace gossip, is more far-reaching than formal channels,
such as performance appraisals, which, in contrast, is typically
contained between the focal employees and related managers.
Past research has suggested that gossips commonly praise
high performers and shame low performers (Foster, 2004).
Performing below expectations will increase the likelihood
of judgmental information (i.e., negative gossip) being spread
420
about the poor performer (Noon & Delbridge, 1993). Hence,
when perceived work-related gossip prevalence is high, em-
ployees know that they will garner a good reputation among
others if they exhibit good performance. In contrast, they are
also aware that their reputation will suffer if they display poor
performance, possibly affecting their progression within the
company. As a result of these reputational concerns, we theo-
rize that employees should experience higher pressure to per-
form when they perceive work-related gossip to be prevalent
in their work environment. We thus posit the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of work-related gossip preva-
lence are positively related to performance pressure.
Implications for Job Performance
We argue that, when employees are faced with higher per-
formance pressure due to the perceptions of work-related
gossip prevalence, this performance pressure, in turn, leads
to higher job performance. Performance pressure occurs
when the individual negatively evaluates their current level
of performance as being insufficient (Zimbardo & Leippe,
1991). This performance pressure involves a heightened
evaluation of consequences, increased arousal (Forward &
Zander, 1971; Humphreys & Revelle, 1984), and increased
effort and persistence in the face of difficulties (Ronan,
Latham, & Kinne, 1973; Weingart, 1992; Weldon, Jehn,
& Pradhan, 1991). Employees seek to reduce the adverse
sensation associated with performance pressure by finding
ways to increase job performance (Eisenberger & Aselage,
2009). In contrast, low pressure to perform tends to be
associated with employee complacency and reduced work
performance (Nygaard & Dahlstrom, 2002; Triandis,
1959).
Empirical support already exists indicating that perfor-
mance pressure can spur increased performance. Perceived
social pressure to perform well has been found to influence
job performance more so than formalized rules (Wagenaar &
Groeneweg, 1987). When male nurses recognize that their
performance at work is highly visible due to their gender, they
experience heightened performance pressure because they are
easier to be identified and their failures and success will catch
the attention of others more easily. Consequently, they over-
achieve when dealing with the performance pressure (Heikes,
1991). Furthermore, expected reward for high performance
was found to lead to performance pressure, which, in turn,
increased employees’ intrinsic interest and creative perfor-
mance (Eisenberger & Aselage, 2009). Finally, a longitudinal
study with 72 audit and consulting teams found that some
levels of performance pressure are associated with higher team
performance (Gardner, 2012). These arguments lead to the
following hypothesis:
J Bus Psychol (2021) 36:417–434
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between perceptions of
work-related gossip prevalence and job performance is medi-
ated by performance pressure.
Perceptions of Work-Related Gossip Prevalence
and Psychological Well-Being
As alluded to earlier, we theorize that perceived work-
place gossip is a mixed blessing. In this section, we sug-
gest that one potential dark side of high perceived work-
place gossip is reduced psychological well-being. Broadly
defined, psychological well-being is one’s positive mental
health state (Veit & Ware, 1983). In particular, it repre-
sents “an individual’s subjective sense of emotional well-
being and comfort” (Repetti, 1987, p. 711). In a social
environment, individuals’ psychological well-being can
be enhanced by positive factors and weakened by nega-
tive factors (Repetti, 1987). In this study, we suggest that
perceived work-related gossip prevalence represents a
negative factor that lowers individuals’ psychological
well-being, largely due to employees’ attentiveness to-
wards the constant monitoring and evaluation by their
co-workers, as well as employees’ inability to build strong
emotional connections, or trusting relationships, with their
co-workers.
When perceived work-related gossip prevalence is high,
employees can experience constant monitoring and evaluation
by co-workers, which can reduce their psychological well-
being. Monitoring intensifies employees’ workload because
monitoring decreases the number of recovery opportunities
that employees may take (Smith, Carayon, Sanders, Lim, &
LeGrande, 1992). Further, monitoring increases cognitive de-
mand, as employees have an additional factor to consider
while working (i.e., others monitoring them; Smith et al.,
1992). Experiencing these increased workloads and demands
is especially likely in a gossip prevalent environment, where
employees perceive not only that they themselves are being
evaluated but also that their performances are being compared
with their co-workers’, consequently lowering employee psy-
chological well-being. Indeed, empirical studies provide sup-
port that monitored employees experience more stress and
dissatisfaction than nonmonitored employees (Aiello &
Kolb, 1995; Davidson & Henderson, 2000; Irving, Higgins,
& Safayeni, 1986).
Moreover, when perceptions of work-related gossip preva-
lence are high, employees are also less likely to form strong
emotional ties or trust their co-workers, both of which are
important relationship components that enhance psychologi-
cal well-being at work (Ryff, 1989; Veit & Ware, 1983; Warr,
1987). In particular, gossip creates norms of mistrust and in-
nuendo (Akande & Odewale, 1994), causing employees to
feel apprehensive that one’s shared thoughts and problems
with another may spread to a larger audience through gossip.
J Bus Psychol (2021) 36:417–434
As a result of such apprehension, employees refrain from
opening up to co-workers or trusting them with information
about themselves. Consequently, they receive less social sup-
port (i.e., the emotionally sustaining content of relationships;
Umberson, Chen, House, Hopkins, & Slaten, 1996) from co-
workers, which lowers their psychological well-being.
Therefore, we posit the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Perceptions of work-related gossip preva-
lence are negatively related to employee well-being.
The Moderating Role of Negative Gossip Prevalence
Although perceptions of work-related gossip prevalence can
positively influence job performance (via performance pres-
sure) and negatively influence psychological well-being, we
suggest that the valence of the gossip that is prevalent in the
workplace plays an important moderating role. Specifically,
gossip can have a positive or negative valence (Foster, 2004).
Prototypical negative gossip behaviors include affecting
others’ reputation adversely, sharing unfavorable news about
others, and reporting on others’ socially disapproved behavior
(Ellwardt, Labianca, & Wittek, 2012; Kurland & Pelled,
2000). For example, negative gossip can concern whether an
individual is a free-rider at work or has received a poor eval-
uation in a recent appraisal. In contrast, prototypical positive
gossip behaviors include affecting others’ reputation positive-
ly, sharing favorable news about others, and reporting on
others’ socially approved behavior (Ellwardt et al., 2012;
Kurland & Pelled, 2000). Examples of positive gossip include
praising someone’s work performance, or acknowledging and
applauding the help that someone provided to an uninvolved
colleague. Negative gossip may act as an informal policing
device for controlling those who fail to abide by norms or
perform up to standard (Foster, 2004; Gluckman, 1963),
whereas positive gossip may act as a form of social support
for the gossip target (Dunbar, 2004).
Drawing from the general principle that bad is stronger
than good (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs,
2001), we suggest that the prevalence of negative gossip is
likely to motivate performance pressure more so than the
prevalence of positive gossip. Hence, we investigate negative
gossip prevalence as an important moderator of the aforemen-
tioned relationships. Baumeister et al.’s (2001) general princi-
ple that bad is stronger than good posits that events with neg-
ative valence will have a stronger impact on individuals than
events with positive valence. When both positive and negative
events occur, the psychological effects of the negative events
will outweigh the positive ones. For example, Dunlop and Lee
(2004) found that workplace deviant behavior (WDB) pre-
dicts business unit performance above and beyond that of
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), such that WDBs
impaired performance of the business unit, while OCBs had
comparatively little effect. Consistent with this principle, we
421
argue that negative gossip prevalence influences behavior to a
greater extent than positive gossip prevalence.
When the valence of the gossip prevalence is negative,
employees estimate a higher probability that the work-
related gossip prevalence which they perceived will be nega-
tive too. This belief stems from an availability heuristic (i.e., a
mental shortcut in which individuals estimates probability by
the ease with which associations can be brought to mind;
Tversky & Kahneman, 1973); in particular, the valence of
the gossip that is prevalent defines the employees’ prototype
of the gossip concept (Ben-Ze'ev, 1994). For example, in a
workplace where negative gossip prevalence is high, it is easy
for employees to perceive the content of gossip among co-
workers to be negative. Therefore, negativity will be inherent
in employees’ perceptions of work-related gossip prevalence.
The belief that gossip is prevalent in the workplace and that
the content of the work-related gossip prevalence is largely
negative will likely increase pressure on employees for two
reasons. First, being subjected to negative evaluations by
others is more costly than the absence of positive evaluation.
For example, an employee who is evaluated negatively by co-
workers will face adverse consequences, such as a damaged
reputation or stigmatization by co-workers (Cox, 1970). In
contrast, an employee who fails to obtain praise for good
performance would not face the same adverse consequences,
although he or she may regret a missed opportunity to impress
others. Second, given that individuals are wired to respond
more strongly to bad than good (Baumeister et al., 2001;
Luu, Flaisch, & Tucker, 2000), employees may feel higher
performance pressure when the valence of their perceived
gossip prevalence is negative. Therefore, we expect the rela-
tionship of perceived work-related gossip prevalence on job
performance via performance pressure to be strengthened
when negative gossip prevalence is high. These arguments
lead to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: The indirect effect of perceptions of work-
related gossip prevalence on job performance via performance
pressure is moderated by negative gossip prevalence, such that
the indirect effect will be stronger when negative gossip prev-
alence is high.
Likewise, while perceptions of work-related gossip preva-
lence lower psychological well-being, we suggest that this
relationship is also moderated by negative gossip prevalence,
such that employees experience lower psychological well-
being when the valence of their perceived work-related gossip
prevalence is negative. As illustrated in the earlier sections,
events with negative valence are more impactful than events
of the same type with positive valence (Baumeister et al.,
2001). Furthermore, targets of negative gossip can face harsh
consequences (i.e., ruined reputations and experienced cen-
sure from others; Cox, 1970). Hence, when employees per-
ceive that the valence of the gossip that is prevalent in their
work environment is highly negative, they will treat
422
monitoring by co-workers more seriously to avoid being tar-
gets of negative gossip. This vigilance directed towards co-
worker monitoring, in turn, intensifies employee workload
and demand, resulting in lower psychological well-being.
Similarly, perceiving work-related gossip prevalence to be
largely negative in nature will further discourage employees
from building emotional ties and trusting relationships with
co-workers, because these employees fear that there is a
higher risk that their own problems and deficiencies may be
spread to the larger organizational community by their co-
workers. Such behavior reduces the social support employees
may receive and consequently weakens their psychological
well-being. Our theorizing leads us to make the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: The relationship between perceptions of
work-related gossip prevalence and employee well-being is
moderated by negative gossip prevalence, such that the rela-
tionship is stronger when negative gossip prevalence is high.
Research Overview
We conducted three studies to test our theoretical model. In
study 1, we investigated the relationship between perceived
work-related gossip prevalence and its proximal outcomes
including performance pressure and psychological well-
being (i.e., Hypotheses 1 and 3) using an online experimental
study with participants from the USA. In study 2, we focused
on the positive influence of perceived work-related gossip
prevalence due to its novelty and tested Hypotheses 1, 2,
and 4 with two-wave data collected from 209 employees in
the USA. In study 3, we examined our full theoretical model
by exploring both the positive and negative effects of per-
ceived work-related gossip prevalence (i.e., Hypotheses 1 to
5). Specifically, we collected three-wave, multi-source data
from 134 employee-supervisor dyads in China. All in all,
our three-study report allows for a cross-cultural validation
of our findings.
Study 1
Participants and Procedure
We recruited participants from Prolific Academic, an online
crowdsourcing platform for research and survey (for recent
research that adopted this data collection service, see
Kappes, Balcetis, & De Cremer, 2018; Yam et al., 2019).
We first determined the sample size required based on an a
priori power analysis using G*power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang,
& Buchner, 2007) with the following input parameters: statis-
tical power = .90, medium effect size d = .5 (Cohen, 1988),
α = .05, and number of groups = 2 (high work-related gossip
J Bus Psychol (2021) 36:417–434
prevalence vs control). The analysis indicated a minimum
sample size of 172 in total. To account for subjects who would
not complete the study, we recruited 200 employees who were
based in the USA from Prolific and randomly assigned them
to one of the two between-subjects conditions (high work-
related gossip prevalence vs control). Out of the 200 partici-
pants, 2 were not working full-time and 8 did not complete the
study. Our final sample size consists of 190 full-time em-
ployees. On average, the employees were 37.4 years old,
57.9% male, and 78.9% European-American; they also had
an average work tenure of 6.9 years. All participants were
compensated with one pound at the end of the study.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two con-
ditions: high work-related gossip prevalence vs control. In
both conditions, participants were assigned to read descrip-
tions of the organization, which serve as our manipulation.
Specifically, they were asked to put themselves in the shoes
of the employee at the described company and respond based
on how they think they would feel. Participants completed
survey measures of performance pressure, psychological
well-being, as well as manipulation check items after reading
the description of the organizations.
Manipulations
High Work-Related Gossip Prevalence Condition Imagine that
you are an employee in a consulting firm. One afternoon, as
you are doing your work report, you feel hungry and decide to
get some snacks from the office pantry. As you walk to the
pantry, you pass by a group of three colleagues who are
talking softly at a corner. When you get near them, you hear
the name of a colleague, Lucas, and they seem to be
discussing about him.
When you enter the pantry, you see another four of your
colleagues chatting around a table. You grab a packet of snack
and sit at the table behind them to enjoy your snack and surf
the Internet. As you scroll through your phone, you overhear
them sharing some news about another colleague who is out
for a meeting. They speak softly so it is hard for you to catch
the content but you hear their conversation jumps from
gossiping about one colleague to another. After finishing your
snack, you return to your desk and continue working on your
work report.
Control Condition Imagine that you are an employee in a
consulting firm. One afternoon, as you are doing your work
report, you feel hungry and decide to get some snacks from the
office pantry. As you walk to the pantry, you pass by a group
of three colleagues who are talking softly at a corner. When
you get near them, you hear them discussing about their work
project and they seem to be allocating tasks to one another.
When you enter the pantry, you see another four of your
colleagues chatting around a table. You grab a packet of snack
J Bus Psychol (2021) 36:417–434
and sit at the table behind them to enjoy your snack and surf
the Internet. As you scroll through your phone, you overhear
them discussing which restaurants they usually bring clients to
for meetings and how a nice ambience helps to clinch a deal.
They speak softly so it is hard for you to catch the content but
you hear their conversation jumps from managing client to
company ad-hoc activities such as the annual Dinner &
Dance activities. After finishing your snack, you return to
your desk and continue working on your work report.
Measures
Performance Pressure We measured performance pressure
using 6 items: Eisenberger and Aselage’s (2009) two-item per-
formance pressure scale, as well as another four items devel-
oped in addition to these two items for better measurement
precision. Multiple researchers have reported that two-item
scales are problematic and vulnerable to measurement error
(Emons, Sijtsma, & Meijer, 2007; Kruyen, Emons, & Sijtsma,
2013; Kruyen, Emons, & Sijtsma, 2012). Since longer scales
can more adequately identify the construct of interest (Eisinga,
Te Grotenhuis, & Pelzer, 2013), we consulted the performance
pressure literature (Gardner, 2012; Baumeister, 1984) in creat-
ing the four additional items. Employees indicated the extent to
which they agreed with the items. The two items from
Eisenberger and Aselage (2009) include “During work, I feel
pressured to do a good job” and “During work, I feel I have to
perform well”. The four items that we developed are as follows:
“During work, I feel pressured to produce results”; “During
work, I feel pushed to do well”; “During work, I feel a lot of
pressure to perform at a high level”; and “During work, I feel
compelled to do the best I can”. Participants were asked to
imagine themselves as employees in the described consulting
firm and indicate the extent to which they agree with the state-
ments (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree; α = .92).
Psychological Well-Being We assessed psychological well-
being with four items from the Mental Health Index (Veit &
Ware, 1983), a scale widely used in the organizational behav-
ior literature (e.g., Lim & Cortina, 2005; Lim, Cortina, &
Magley, 2008). On a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree), participants indicated the extent to which
they agree with different statements an employee of the de-
scribed consulting firm. Sample items include “I feel tense or
high strung” and “I feel in low or very low spirits” (α = .90).
P e r c e p t i o n s o f W o r k - R e l a te d G o s s i p P r e v a l e n c e
(Manipulation Check) Our manipulation check questions are
adapted from an existing measure of workplace gossip (Kuo
et al., 2015). Specifically, the original scale consists of two
five-item subscales, each measuring the positive and negative
aspects of gossip in a specific area. To capture work-related
gossip prevalence that is not specific to any valence, we
423
removed the valence component of the items. For example,
“Colleague’s excellent job performance” and “Colleague’s
poor job performance” from the original scale were adapted
to become “Colleague’s job performance.” We thus used a
total of five items for our manipulation check. The five items
are Colleague’s job performance, “Colleague’s attitudes to-
wards work,” “Colleague’s interpersonal skills,”
“Colleague’s job knowledge and experience,” and
“Colleague’s job morality.” Participants were asked to indicate
the extent to which the different types of gossip were prevalent
in the described consulting firm (1 = non-prevalent to 7 =
highly prevalent; α = .87).
Results
On average, participants in the high work-related gossip prev-
alence condition reported higher level of perceived work-
related gossip prevalence (M = 4.91, SD = 1.30) than those
in the control condition (M = 4.30, SD = 1.29), t (188) =
3.25, p < .01, d = .47). Thus, our manipulation was successful
in eliciting a state of high perceived work-related gossip
prevalence.
We conducted a series of t tests to test our hypotheses.
Participants in the work-related gossip prevalence condition
reported higher levels of performance pressure (M = 5.82,
SD = .76) than those in the control condition (M = 5.54,
SD = 1.15), t (188) = 2.01, p = .045, d = .29), supporting
Hypothesis 1. In addition, participants in the work-related
gossip prevalence condition reported lower levels of psycho-
logical well-being (M = 4.34, SD = 1.41) than those in the
control condition (M = 4.85, SD = 1.29), t (188) = − 2.59,
p = .01, d = .38), supporting Hypothesis 3.
Study 2
Participants and procedure
We recruited participants through Qualtrics Panel (for recent
research that utilized this data collection service, see Li, Lee,
Mitchell, Hom & Griffeth, 2016; Yam, Christian, Wei, Liao,
& Nai, 2018). Qualtrics is a research platform that provides
panel research services to facilitate data collection projects.
Panelists are a group of pre-screened respondents who have
expressed a willingness to participate in longitudinal online
surveys. Before the panelists are recruited, they have to an-
swer a set of profiling questions, which include their gender,
age, income, and so on. To ensure high-quality panelists,
Qualtrics have stringent recruitment quality checks, which
include double-opt-in and invite-only survey processes; these
processes require panelists to verify items, including their
mailing and e-mail addresses. Furthermore, Qualtrics adopted
digital fingerprinting and de-duplication technology to ensure
424 J Bus Psychol (2021) 36:417–434

the same person completes the survey only once. Quality post-
participation checks are also in place to ensure that panelists
provide consistent responses.
We screened potential participants according to whether
they were (1) working full-time and (2) willing to complete
the survey at two different time points. To reduce potential
self-selection biases, participants were only given a generic
description of the study’s purpose during the screening pro-
cess. A total of 209 full-time employees participated in our
two-wave study. On average, the employees were 39.67 years
old, 52.6% male, and 61.24% European-American; they also
had an average work tenure of 17.9 years. All participants
were compensated with $7 per time wave at the end of the
survey. We adopted a two-wave design to reduce common
method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff,
2012). At time 1 (T1), employees completed measures of per-
ceptions of work-related gossip prevalence, negative gossip
prevalence, performance pressure, positive gossip prevalence,
and gender. At time 2 (T2), approximately 2 weeks later, em-
ployees reported their job performance. Employees answered
all the questions based on their current job and how they
actually feel.
Measures
Perceptions of Work-Related Gossip Prevalence We measured
perceptions of work-related gossip prevalence with the five
items used in the manipulation check questions of study 1.
Specifically, employees were asked to indicate the extent to
which different types of gossip were prevalent in their work-
place. Sample items include Colleague’s job performance and
Colleague’s attitudes towards work (α = .87).
Negative Gossip Prevalence Extant measures of gossip often do
not segregate the valence component of gossip and even if they
do, they measure gossip prevalence in a specific area such as job
performance (e.g., Kuo et al., 2015). Hence, we consulted the
literature on workplace gossip (Kurland & Pelled, 2000) to de-
velop a three-item negative gossip prevalence scale. These three
items measure negative gossip prevalence at the general level
rather than in a specific area and allow us to better capture the
phenomenon of negative gossip prevalence. The three items are
“Gossips that consist of unfavorable news about others,”
“Gossips that negatively influence others’ reputations,” and
“Gossips that consist of others’ socially disapproved behavior.”
Employees were asked to indicate the extent to which the dif-
ferent types of gossip were prevalent in their workplace (1 =
non-prevalent to 7 = highly prevalent; α = .93).
Performance Pressure We measured performance pressure
with the items as indicated in study 1. Specifically, employees
were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with the
statements based on their current job and how they actually
feel (α = .89).
Job Performance We measured job performance at T2 by
using Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1989)‘s five-item job per-
formance scale. Employees indicated the extent to which they
agreed with the items. Sample items include “I am always able
to complete my duties as specified in the job description” and
“I will complete the work requirements for all duties” (1 =
strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree; α = .80).
Controls We control for gender because past studies have
shown that women are more likely than men to gossip and
that gender may affect people’s engagement in specific types
of gossip behaviors (Levin & Arluke, 1985; Watson, 2012).
Further, we also control for positive gossip prevalence, be-
cause it is likely to influence negative gossip prevalence. For
example, when individuals praise someone, they may criticize
another as a form of comparison; hence, the presence of pos-
itive gossip may be related to the presence of negative gossip.
Similar to negative gossip prevalence, we consulted the liter-
ature on workplace gossip (Kurland & Pelled, 2000) to devel-
op a three-item positive gossip prevalence scale, because ex-
tant measures of gossip are not often segregated according to
the type of gossip valence (i.e., negative or positive) at the
general level. Employees indicated the extent to which

Table 1 Means, standard deviation, and correlations of focal variables (studies 2 and 3)

M(SD) Study 2 M (SD) Study 3 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Gender (0 = female, 1 = male) .53 (.50) .56 (.50) – − .12 − .3 .05 − .09 − .04
2. Positive gossip prevalence 4.36 (1.33) 5.11 (1.04) − .15 – .44** .27** .13 .13
3. Perceptions of work-related gossip prevalence 4.84 (1.20) 4.74 (1.10) .06 .34** – .46** .26** .17*
4. Negative gossip prevalence 4.54 (1.60) 3.84 (1.50) − .11 .04 .20* – .45** .23**
5. Performance pressure 5.28 (1.27) 4.43 (.99) .16 − .11 .21* .18* – .31**
6. Job performance 5.36 (1.16) 5.41 (.92) .08 − .07 .13 − .08 .20* –
7. Psychological well-being – 4.50 (1.55) .01 − .04 − .30** − .20* − .17 − .03

N = 209 for study 2. N = 134 for study 3. Correlations for study 2 are shown above the diagonal; correlations for study 3 are shown below the diagonal
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
J Bus Psychol (2021) 36:417–434
positive gossip is prevalent in their workplace at T1, as indi-
cated in the following three items: “Gossips that consists of
favorable news about others,” “Gossips that positively influ-
ence others’ reputations,” and “Gossips that consist of others’
socially approved behavior” (1 = non-prevalent to 7 = highly
prevalent; α = .80).
In both studies 2 and 3, the inclusion of these control var-
iables did not affect the statistical significance of our findings.
For purposes of parsimony, we thus presented analyses with-
out any control variables in the main text. For purposes of full
data transparency, we presented analyses with the control var-
iables in the supplemental materials.
Results
Preliminary Analyses Means, standard deviations, and corre-
lations are presented in Table 1.
We first conducted a set of confirmatory factor analyses
(CFAs) to ensure that the five latent variables (i.e., perceptions
of work-related gossip prevalence, negative gossip preva-
lence, performance pressure, job performance, positive gossip
prevalence) had satisfactory discriminant validity.
Specifically, we employed a parceling technique that created
parcels for perceptions of work-related gossip prevalence, per-
formance pressure, and job performance; all three variables
had more than four measurement items. We adopted a parcel-
ing approach because we are primarily interested in the inter-
relations between constructs, rather than the interrelations be-
tween items within constructs (Little, Rhemtulla, Gibson, &
Schoemann, 2013).1 In particular, two- and three-item parcels
were created using an item-to-construct balance technique,
where the highest loading items were paired with the lowest
loading items to create parcels (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, &
Widaman, 2002; Sass & Smith, 2006). This resulted in one
three-item parcel and one two-item parcel for each of our two
scales (i.e., perceptions of work-related gossip prevalence and
job performance) and two three-item parcels for the perfor-
mance pressure scale.
1
Recent research (e.g., Marsh, Lüdtke, Nagengast, Morin, & Von Davier,
2013) has discussed the potential problems of item parceling and cautioned
against its use. In this study, however, we deem it appropriate to adopt the
parceling technique for three reasons. First, the key prerequisite of using
parceling is that “relations among constructs are accurately represented if
cross-loadings or correlated uniquenesses are eliminated by parceling”
(Marsh et al., 2013, p. 261). This prerequisite concerning the use of parcels
versus individual items in structural equation modeling is less relevant in our
research, because we adopted a path-analytic approach to hypothesis testing
and used item parcels only for confirmatory factor analyses. Second, Marsh
et al. (2013, p. 261) stated that “the use of item parcels is only justified when
there is good support for the unidimensionality of all the constructs at the item
level.” Indeed, all focal variables in this study have been widely conceptual-
ized and measured as unidimensional constructs. Third, statisticians have ad-
vocated the use of parceling in case of an item-to-subject ratio lower than 1:10
(Kunce, Cook, & Miller, 1975; Marascuilor & Levin, 1983), as in our research
(1:9.5 for study 2 and 1:5.2 for study 3).
425
The CFA results indicated that the five-factor model had a
good fit to the data, χ 2 (44) = 94.91; χ 2 /df = 2.16;
RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .04; TLI = .95; CFI = .96, and is su-
perior to three four-factor models in which (a) performance
pressure and job performance were loaded on one factor (Δχ2
(4) = 99.47, p < .01, RMSEA = .12; SRMR = .07; TLI = .86;
CFI = .90), (b) perceptions of work-related gossip prevalence
and negative gossip prevalence were loaded on one factor
(Δχ2 (4) = 164.65, p < .01, RMSEA = .15; SRMR = .09;
TLI = .80; CFI = .85), and (c) negative gossip prevalence
and positive gossip prevalence were loaded on one factor
(Δχ2 (4) = 204.10, p < .01, RMSEA = .16; SRMR = .12;
TLI = .76; CFI = .83). These results provided construct valid-
ity evidence of the five latent variables.
The Relationship Between Perceptions of Work-Related
Gossip Prevalence and Performance Pressure (H1) To test
H1, we conducted an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression.
Perceptions of work-related gossip prevalence were entered in
model 1 to predict performance pressure. Results revealed a
positive effect of perceptions of work-related gossip preva-
lence on performance pressure (β = .26, p < .01; see
Table 2). Hypothesis 1 is therefore supported.
Implications on Job Performance (H2) We followed the rec-
ommendations of Preacher and Hayes (2008); also see
Shrout & Bolger, 2002) and used the statistical software
developed by Hayes (2013) to examine our mediated mod-
el by using a bias-corrected bootstrapping procedure (see
Hayes, 2009, for a summary of the advantages of this
procedure). Bootstrapping analyses (5000 resamples) re-
vealed a significant total indirect effect. The coefficient
for the indirect effect of performance pressure was .07
(SE = .04), and the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval
(CI) did not include 0 (95% CI [.02, .16]). Although the
direct effect of perceptions of work-related gossip preva-
lence on performance is not significant, it is in the positive
direction (coefficient = .09, SE = .07, 95% CI = − .04 to
.22). Furthermore, the strength of mediation is often mea-
sured by the indirect effect, rather than the lack of direct
effect (Zhao, Lynch & Chen, 2010). Therefore, Hypothesis
2 is supported.
Moderated Mediation (H4) To test H4, we first examine the
interactive effect of negative gossip prevalence and percep-
tions of work-related gossip prevalence on performance pres-
sure. We entered negative gossip prevalence and perceptions
of work-related gossip prevalence in model 2 and the interac-
tive term in model 3. Results indicate that model 3 explained
significantly more variance (ΔR2 ¼ :04; p < :01 ) and that
the interactive term was significant (β = .20, p < .01; see
Table 2). Simple slope analysis confirmed that the results were
426 J Bus Psychol (2021) 36:417–434

− .28**

− .18*
− .10
β
6

.03*
.14
.12
.12

− .11 .09

− .14 .07
SE
Model 6

Performance Pressure
5

− .27** − .4
B
4

− .15†
β

.21†
DV = psychological well-being

− .43 .12 − .30** − .39 .12

− .16 .09

.10
.11
SE
Model 5

2
B

1
Low perceptions of gossip High perceptions of gossip
prevalence prevalence
SE β

.09
.08
Model 4

High negative gossip prevalence

Low negative gossip prevalence
B

Fig. 2 The interactive effect between perceptions of work-related gossip

.23**

prevalence and negative gossip prevalence on performance pressure

.20

.09

(study 2)
β

.05**
Model 3

.18* .18 .08

.15† .06 .06

.12
.10
.12 .04
SE

in the hypothesized direction. When negative gossip preva-

B

lence is higher, perceptions of work-related gossip prevalence

significantly predicted performance pressure (β = .31,
β
DV = performance pressure

p < .01). When negative gossip is lower, however, perceptions

.02†
Model 2

.19 .08 .21* .17 .08

.10 .06

.07
.05
SE

of work-related gossip prevalence did not influence perfor-

mance pressure, as the slope did not differ significantly from
B

0 (β = − .02, p = .45). To aid interpretation, we plotted the

SE β

interaction effect in Fig. 2.

Model 1

.05
.04
Study 3

Finally, we followed the bootstrapping-based analytic ap-

proach of Edwards and Lambert (2007) and used the statistical
B

software of Hayes (2013) to test for a conditional indirect

.39**

.20**
.13†

effect (with 5000 resamples) at one standard deviation above

β

and below the moderator (i.e., negative gossip prevalence).

.04**
Model 3

.14 .08

.42** .31 .06

.24
.23
.10 .03

When negative gossip was lower, the mediated model was

SE

not significant (indirect effect = − .006, SE = .03, 95% CI =

B

− .07 to .05). When negative gossip was higher, however, the

mediated model was significant (indirect effect = .08,
Summary of regression results (studies 2 and 3)

.07
β

SE = .06, 95% CI = .001 to .23). We calculated the index of

.14**
DV = performance pressure

.33 .056
.27 .07 .26** .07 .074

moderated mediation (Hayes, 2015), and results revealed that

Model 2

.20
.20
SE

the difference between the two coefficients was also signifi-

B

cant (coefficient = .03, SE = .02, 95% CI = .002 to .07). Since

N = 209 for study 2. N = 134 for study 3

the indirect effect was positive, results suggested that percep-

SE β

tions of work-related gossip prevalence led to increased job

Model 1

.07
.06
Study 2

performance via increased performance pressure, but only

p < 0.1; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

when negative gossip is higher. Hypothesis 4 is supported.

B

Study 2 provides initial support for our hypotheses on the

positive influences of work-related gossip prevalence (H1,
× negative gossip
Work-related gossip

H2, and H4). When perceptions of work-related gossip prev-

Negative gossip
work-related
Perceptions of

Adjusted ΔR2

alence are high, employees experience higher performance

prevalence

pressure, which in turn leads to better job performance. This

Variables

gossip
Table 2

is especially so when negative gossip prevalence is high. One

ΔR2
R2

important limitation with this study, however, is our reliance

†
J Bus Psychol (2021) 36:417–434
on employees’ assessments of their own job performance.
Although the separation in time between measures partially
reduces common method variance, this self-reported measure
led to potential concerns about the accuracy of the rated job
performance (i.e., self-ratings, compared with other-ratings,
tend to be over-estimations of one’s performance).
In the next study, we sought to mitigate this limitation and
constructively replicate our findings in several ways. First, we
adopted a three-wave, multi-source survey design to increase
the internal validity of the design, which uses leader-ratings of
follower job performance. Second, we enhanced the general-
izability of our theoretical model by testing our hypotheses in
China. Third, we examined our full theoretical model by ex-
ploring both the positive (i.e., increased performance pressure
and, hence, job performance) and negative (i.e., decreased
psychological well-being) effects of work-related gossip prev-
alence at work.
Study 3
Participants and Procedure
We contacted 200 full-time leaders who were enrolled in a
part-time Master of Business Administration (MBA) program
that took place during the evenings or weekends at a large
university in Central China. Our participants came from a
variety of industries, most notably from the automotive, con-
struction, banking, communication, and education sectors. We
first asked leaders to each provide a list of names and e-mail
addresses for all of their followers. To minimize selection bias,
we randomly picked one follower from each of these lists to
form the leader-follower dyad. We further validated the iden-
tities of the followers by contacting them directly and
informing them of the nature of the study (e.g., multi-wave,
organization-focused) without disclosing our specific
hypotheses.
We sent the surveys via e-mail to the dyads. Each wave was
separated by approximately 4 weeks. At time 1, followers
completed measures on perceptions of work-related gossip
prevalence, negative gossip prevalence, and positive gossip
prevalence. At time 2, followers completed measures on per-
formance pressure and psychological well-being. At time 3,
leaders rated followers’ job performance; leaders did not com-
plete any other measures at time 1 or 2. Employees answered
all the questions based on their current job and how they
actually feel. In total, we have 134 dyads (both leader and
his/her follower) who completed all three surveys. A total of
66 dyads failed to complete all three surveys—this may be due
to one of the following situations: (1) employee failed to com-
plete time 1 survey, (2) employee failed to complete time 2
survey, or (3) leader failed to complete time 3 survey. In other
427
words, we only use data from dyads that completed all three
surveys, resulting in a response rate of 67%.
Measures
Perceptions of Work-Related Gossip Prevalence We measured
perceptions of work-related gossip prevalence as indicated in
study 2 (α = .90).
Negative Gossip Prevalence We measured negative gossip
prevalence as indicated in study 2 (α = .92).
Performance Pressure We measured performance pressure
with the items as indicated in study 1. Specifically, employees
were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with the
statements based on their current job and how they actually
feel (α = .80).
Psychological Well-Being We measured psychological well-
being with the items as indicated in study 1. Specifically,
employees were asked to indicate the extent to which they
agree with the statements based on their current job and how
they actually feel (α = .86).
Job Performance As in study 2, we measured job performance
with Podsakoff and MacKenzie’s (1989) five-item job perfor-
mance scale. In contrast to using self-ratings in study 2, we used
supervisor ratings for measuring job performance in study 3.
Supervisors indicated the extent to which they agreed with the
items. Sample items include “This employee is always able to
complete his/her duties as specified in the job description” and
“This employee will complete the work requirements for all
duties” (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree; α = .75).
Controls We controlled for gender and positive gossip
(α = .76) as done previously in study 2. As in study 2, the
inclusion of control variables did not affect the results; thus, in
the main text, we present the results without any control var-
iables. For the sake of data transparency, we present the same
set of analyses in the supplemental materials, which include
the control variables.
Results
Preliminary Analyses Means, standard deviations, and corre-
lations are presented in Table 1.
We first conducted a set of confirmatory factor analyses
(CFAs) to ensure that the six latent variables (i.e., perceptions
of work-related gossip prevalence, negative gossip preva-
lence, performance pressure, job performance, psychological
well-being, and positive gossip prevalence) had satisfactory
discriminant validity. Similar to study 2, we specifically
employed a parceling technique since our primary interest is
428
in the interrelations between constructs, rather than the inter-
relations between items within constructs (Little et al., 2013).
We created parcels for perceptions of work-related gossip
prevalence, performance pressure, job performance, and psy-
chological well-being—all of which had four or more mea-
surement items. Specifically, two- and three-item parcels were
created using an item-to-construct balance technique, where
the highest loading items were paired with the lowest loading
items to create parcels (Little et al., 2002; Sass & Smith,
2006). This resulted in one three-item parcel and one two-
item parcel for two of our four scales (perceptions of work-
related gossip prevalence and job performance), two three-
item parcels for the performance pressure scale, and two
two-item parcels for the psychological well-being scale.
The CFA results indicated that the six-factor model had a
good fit to the data, χ 2 (57) = 91.15; χ 2 /df = 1.47;
RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .04; TLI = .96; CFI = .97, and is su-
perior to three five-factor models in which (a) performance
pressure and job performance were loaded on one factor
(Δχ2 (5) = 121.24, p < .01, RMSEA = .13; SRMR = .08;
TLI = .81; CFI = .86), (b) negative and positive gossip preva-
lence were loaded on one factor (Δχ2 (5) = 145.36, p < .01,
RMSEA = .14; SRMR = .12; TLI = .78; CFI = .84), and (c)
perceptions of work-related gossip prevalence and psycholog-
ical well-being were loaded on one factor (Δχ2 (5) = 115,
p < .01, RMSEA = .12; SRMR = .08; TLI = .81; CFI = .86).
These results provided construct validity evidence of the six
latent variables.
The Relationship Between Perceptions of Work-Related
Gossip Prevalence and Performance Pressure (H1) We con-
ducted an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to test H1.
The results revealed a positive effect of perceptions of work-
related gossip prevalence on performance pressure (β = .21,
p = .01; see Table 2). Hence, Hypothesis 1 is supported.
Implications on Job Performance (H2) Following the recom-
mendations of Preacher and Hayes (2008), we used the statis-
tical software developed by Hayes (2013) to examine our
mediated model by using a bias-corrected bootstrapping pro-
cedure (5000 resamples). The coefficient for the indirect effect
of performance pressure was .04 (SE = .02), and the bias-
corrected 95% confidence interval (CI) did not include 0
(95% CI [.005, .10]). Hence, Hypothesis 2 is supported.
The Relationship Between Perceptions of Work-Related
Gossip Prevalence and Psychological Well-Being (H3) We con-
ducted an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to test H3.
Perceptions of work-related gossip prevalence were entered in
model 4 to predict psychological well-being (see Table 2). The
results showed that perceptions of work-related gossip preva-
lence negatively influence psychological well-being (β =
− .30, p < .01). Hypothesis 3 is supported.
J Bus Psychol (2021) 36:417–434
Moderated Mediation (H4) To test H4, we first examined the
interactive effect of negative gossip prevalence and percep-
tions of work-related gossip prevalence on performance pres-
sure. We entered negative gossip prevalence and perceptions
of work-related gossip prevalence in model 2 and the interac-
tive term in model 3 (see Table 2). Results show that model 3
explained significantly more variance (ΔR2 ¼ :05; p < :01 )
and that the interactive term was significant (β = .23, p < .01).
Simple slope analysis confirmed that results were in the hy-
pothesized direction. When negative gossip is higher, percep-
tions of work-related gossip prevalence significantly and pos-
itively predicted performance pressure (β = .35, p < .01).
When negative gossip is lower, however, perceptions of
work-related gossip prevalence did not influence performance
pressure, as the slope did not differ significantly from 0
(β = .00, p = .47). We plotted the interaction effect in Fig. 3.
To test H4 in an integrative fashion, we used the
bootstrapping-based analytic approach of Edwards and
Lambert (2007), and the statistical software of Hayes (2013),
to test for a conditional indirect effect (with 5000 resamples) at
one standard deviation above and below the moderator (i.e.,
negative gossip prevalence). When negative gossip was lower,
the mediated model was not significant (indirect effect = .001,
SE = .02, 95% CI = − .04 to .04). When negative gossip was
higher, however, the mediated model was significant (indirect
effect = .07, SE = .04, 95% CI = .01 to .16). The index of
moderated mediation (Hayes, 2015) revealed that the differ-
ence between the two indirect effects was also significant (co-
efficient = .02, SE = .01, 95% CI = .002 to .06). Since the
6
5
Performance Pressure
4
3
2
1
Low peceptions of gossip High peceptions of gossip
prevalence prevalence
High negative gossip prevalence
Low negative gossip prevalence
Fig. 3 The interactive effect between perceptions of work-related gossip
prevalence and negative gossip prevalence on performance pressure
(study 3)
J Bus Psychol (2021) 36:417–434
indirect effect was positive, this suggests that perceptions of
work-related gossip prevalence led to increased job perfor-
mance via increased performance pressure, but only when
negative gossip is higher. Hypothesis 4 is supported.
Interactive Effect of Negative Gossip Prevalence and
Perceptions of Work-Related Gossip Prevalence on
Psychological Well-Being (H5) We entered negative gossip
prevalence in model 5 and the interactive term in model 6
(see Table 2). Results show that model 6 explained significant-
ly more variance (ΔR2 ¼ :03; p ¼ :04 ) and that the interac-
tive term was significant (β = − .18, p = .04). Simple slope
analysis confirmed that the results were in the hypothesized
direction. The negative relationship between perceptions of
work-related gossip prevalence and psychological well-
being is stronger when negative gossip prevalence is higher
(β = − .61, p < .01) than when negative gossip prevalence is
lower (β = − .19, p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 5 is support-
ed. We plotted the interaction effect in Fig. 4.
General Discussion
Extending research on gossip and drawing upon SIP theory,
we conducted an experiment and two multi-wave field studies
that aimed to provide insight into the “mixed blessings” expe-
rienced by employees who perceive gossip to be prevalent in
the workplace. Specifically, we examine the underlying pro-
cesses and boundary conditions that result in perceived work-
related gossip prevalence having different effects on employee
work outcomes. In terms of benefits, we demonstrated that, of
the important cues offered by employees’ social environ-
ments, their perceptions of work-related gossip prevalence
are positively associated with their higher performance
6 ganizational members at large, beyond the actors involved. As
5 phenomena can shape the work environment and influence
Psychological Well-being
4 & Toth, 1997; Rosen & Levy, 2013; Schoeman, 1994). By
3
2
1
Low peceptions of gossip High peceptions of gossip
prevalence prevalence
High negative gossip prevalence
Low negative gossip prevalence
Fig. 4 The interactive effect between perceptions of work-related gossip
prevalence and negative gossip prevalence on psychological well-being
(study 3)
429
pressure and, in turn, their higher job performance. In terms
of costs, we found that such perceptions are also negatively
associated with their psychological well-being. We further
showed that these benefits and costs are amplified when the
content of perceived gossip is negative in nature—that is,
negative gossip content enhances the positive effects of nega-
tive gossip prevalence on job performance while exacerbating
its negative effects on psychological well-being. Below, we
discuss the implications of our findings.
Theoretical Contributions
Our work makes at least four important contributions to the
literature on workplace gossip. First, we demonstrated how
gossip can be characterized as a “mixed blessing,” rather than
cast entirely as dysfunctional and deviant behavior, as previ-
ously portrayed by organizational scholars (Noon &
Delbridge, 1993; also see Brady et al., 2016). In three studies,
we found that perceived work-related gossip prevalence can
lead to both positive (i.e., increased job performance) and
negative (i.e., decreased psychological well-being) outcomes.
These findings portrayed a more nuanced view of workplace
gossip, which should encourage organizational researchers to
adopt a more balanced perspective when examining this con-
struct. More importantly, our research demonstrated that
workplace gossip should not simply be conceptualized as a
form of deviance, by providing support for its potential social
functions at work (Noon & Delbridge, 1993).
Second, the vast majority of research on workplace gossip
has focused on the outcomes of gossip behavior on the spe-
cific gossipers and/or the gossip targets (Danziger, 1988;
Kurland & Pelled, 2000; Turner, Mazur, Wendel, &
Winslow, 2003). While these examinations provide important
insights that advance our understanding of the influence of
workplace gossip behavior, little is known regarding the im-
pact of perceptions of work-related gossip prevalence on or-
past research suggests, the perceived prevalence of different
work outcomes (e.g., politics; Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey,
examining the perceived prevalence of gossip on employees’
work outcomes, our work provides a more complete picture of
how gossip exerts its influence on the workplace.
Third, by studying the effect of perceived work-related
gossip prevalence on performance pressure and subsequent
job performance, this study offers a new perspective of how
gossip may shape employees’ agentic (vs other-oriented) and
task-related (vs social-relational) behaviors. The bulk of gos-
sip research has positioned gossip as a trigger for employee
reputational concerns and awareness as a social actor (e.g.,
Feinberg et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2015), resulting in a narrow
focus on its implications on other-oriented behaviors such as
430
cooperation. In contrast, this study examines how employees,
in the hope of being seen as a qualified worker in an environ-
ment where gossip is prevalent, become pressured to strive for
better individual performance. As such, this study extends the
impact of gossip to the agentic domain and innovatively the-
orizes it as a performance booster.
Last, we investigated a new boundary condition that influ-
ences the effects of perceptions of work-related gossip preva-
lence on important work outcomes, specifically job perfor-
mance and psychological well-being. Although gossip re-
searchers have demonstrated that gossip valence can be posi-
tive or negative and that their respective impacts can differ
greatly (Foster, 2004; Ellwardt et al., 2012), organizational
scholars have tended to focus on the main effect of gossip
with little regard for the moderating role of gossip valence
(Farley, Timme, & Hart, 2010; Kuo et al., 2015). Our research
highlighted the effect of negative gossip in enhancing the pos-
itive effects of perceived work-related gossip prevalence on
job performance while exacerbating the negative effects of
perceived work-related gossip prevalence on psychological
well-being. Hence, we showed that the valence of gossip
should not be neglected when investigating the effects of gos-
sip on organizational outcomes.
Practical Implications
Given that gossip accounts for approximately 66% of daily
conversation (Dunbar, Marriott, & Duncan, 1997; Emler,
1994) and that workplace gossip is rather common (Grosser,
Lopez-Kidwell, & Labianca, 2010; Kuo et al., 2015; Noon &
Delbridge, 1993), our research holds several important practi-
cal implications for employees, managers, and organizations.
First, by demonstrating the positive relationship between per-
ceptions of work-related gossip prevalence and job perfor-
mance, we hope that managers and organizations will be less
adverse towards workplace gossip activities among em-
ployees. We are by no means implying that supervisors and
organizations should actively encourage gossip as a way to
improve employee job performance; instead, we merely wish
to provide supervisors and organizations with a new perspec-
tive on the nuanced nature and functionality of workplace
gossip, as well as a new appreciation of how workplace gossip
can have both positive and negative effects on employees’
work outcomes.
Second, managers should be aware of the tradeoffs in-
volved in allowing negative gossip to thrive in the workplace.
Negative gossip plays an important moderating role in en-
hancing the positive and negative effects of workplace gossip
on job performance and psychological well-being, respective-
ly. While managers who are largely concerned with job per-
formance may permit negative gossip to flourish in the work
environment as a way to increase job performance, we sug-
gest, however, that the consequential effect of rampant
J Bus Psychol (2021) 36:417–434
negative gossip on reduced psychological well-being may be
more costly to organizations. As such, managers should weigh
the costs and benefits of negative gossip prevalence and ulti-
mately adopt policies that best suit the organization’s goals.
Although workplace gossip is unavoidable, managers can still
reduce the negative effect of gossip by attempting to minimize
negative gossip. One way to do so is to educate employees
about the impact of their words and how they should refrain
from conversations that negatively influence others. Managers
can also energize employees with challenging tasks so that
they have fewer opportunities and lesser time to engage in
gossip behavior.
Third, our research on work-related gossip prevalence
found that gender tends not to play a key role in affecting
perceptions of work-related gossip prevalence (see correla-
tions in Table 1) and the subsequent impact on work out-
comes. Given that the effect of work-related gossip prevalence
on both men and women are approximately equal, managers
should be mindful that men are not always entirely nonchalant
towards gossip even if they appear to be so. Such awareness is
important to ensure that both women’s and men’s psycholog-
ical well-being garner equitable concern.
Limitations and Future Research
The contributions of our research should be qualified in light
of its limitations, several of which may lead to new avenues
for future research. First, despite the temporal separation of
measures, studies 2 and 3 were fundamentally correlational.
Hence, we were unable to draw firm conclusions about cau-
sality. For example, it is plausible that employees’ perfor-
mance pressure or job performance has an impact on their
perceptions of the work environment, including perceptions
of work-related gossip prevalence. To address this issue, we
tested alternative models and found that the results are not
consistent with the possibility of reverse causality.
Specifically, in study 2, we tested the indirect effects of per-
formance pressure on job performance, via perceived work-
related gossip prevalence (i.e., reversing the sequence of our
IV and mediator). The analyses revealed that the coefficient
for the indirect effect of performance pressure on job perfor-
mance was .02 (SE = .02), and the bias-corrected 95% confi-
dence interval (CI) included 0 (95% CI [− .01, .07]). Hence,
the reverse relationship does not hold. Likewise, supplemen-
tary analyses of study 3 revealed that the indirect effect of
performance pressure on job performance, via work-related
gossip prevalence, is non-significant. Specifically, the indirect
effect of performance pressure was .02 (SE = .02), and the
bias-corrected 95% confidence interval (CI) included 0 (95%
CI [− .02, .06]). All in all, findings from these additional tests
are not consistent with the possibility of reverse causality.
Although study 1, with an experimental design, provided sup-
port for the causal effect of perceived work-related gossip
J Bus Psychol (2021) 36:417–434
prevalence on performance pressure and psychological well-
being, causal inferences are still an inherent limitation and
notable concern in study 2 and study 3. We encourage future
research to use field experiments or dynamic modeling with
repeated measures to examine the causal effect of gossip prev-
alence in the field.
Second, although our experimental study 1 provides strong
support for the causal order that we proposed, a limitation of
our field studies is that we did not control for several job
characteristics, such as job interdependence and job visibility,
that may serve as common causes for perceived work-related
gossip prevalence and/or performance pressure. Specifically,
job interdependence may create more frequent interactions
among employees and make them more familiar with each
other’s work, with the former offering more chances for gossip
to occur and the latter providing more information to be
gossiped about. At the same time, job interdependence may
trigger performance pressure as employees become more wor-
ried that their poor performance will affect others. In a similar
vein, job visibility makes employees more aware of each
other’s work progress, about which they gossip; job visibility
may also elicit performance pressure in that employees do not
want to look bad in front of others. Besides job characteristics,
individual characteristics and behaviors may also confound
the relationship between perceived work-related gossip prev-
alence and performance pressure. For example, employees
high in self-monitoring or situational awareness, due to their
sensitivity to the social environment, may readily capture gos-
sip episodes and thus perceive high gossip prevalence. These
employees may also engage in frequent and intense self-
evaluations and compare themselves with surrounding others,
consequently experiencing high-performance pressure.
Employees’ own gossip behavior is another plausible con-
found, because frequent engagement in gossip may drive em-
ployees to draw from their own experiences and perceive high
gossip prevalence; at the same time, these gossiping acts ex-
pose employees to stressful information which may lead to
performance pressure. Because we did not collect data on
the aforementioned potential confounds, we could not rule
out the possibility that such variables drove the observed re-
lationship between perceived work-related gossip prevalence
and performance pressure. Therefore, we encourage future
studies to carefully consider these control variables when ex-
amining the impacts of perceived work-related gossip
prevalence.
One key strength of our research is the use of two culturally
diverse samples (i.e., participants from the USA and China) in
our field studies. Since the Asian culture emphasizes “face-
saving” (Hofstede, 1980, 2001), employees in China may be
more concerned about how others view them and, thus, expe-
rience higher performance pressure when gossip is prevalent.
Also, Asians tend to be higher on collectivism, which empha-
sizes cohesiveness among individuals and prioritizes the
431
group over the individual (Triandis, 1994). This cultural char-
acteristic might amplify the penalty of being outcasted as a
gossip target. Therefore, employees will feel more pressured
to perform and avoid becoming gossip targets when work-
related gossip prevalence is high. Such observations may be
less pronounced in an individualistic culture (study 2), in
which individuals orientate around the self and prioritize in-
dependence over the group. While cultural differences may
influence the magnitude of our effects, we are unable to con-
clude it empirically because we did not measure cultural var-
iables such as individualism-collectivism. This limits our abil-
ity to generate deeper insights on how culture plays a role in
gossip’s effects and we encourage future studies to explore
how cultural values may affect the effects of work-related
gossip prevalence.
Last, unlike the gossip behavior measure—which is
highly objective in nature (i.e., a person is said to have
engaged in gossip behavior when he or she did it)—the
perceived work-related gossip prevalence measure is com-
paratively subjective. Employees’ perceptions of work-
related gossip prevalence may be influenced by other fac-
tors, such as their past experiences, personality traits, and
capability. For example, employees who have high trait
paranoia may report higher work-related gossip preva-
lence. While the degree of rater subjectivity as tapped by
our perceptions of work-related gossip prevalence measure
may potentially limit its precision of measurement, past
studies on workplace phenomenon have regarded rater
subjectivity as less of a concern. For example, organiza-
tional studies have addressed workplace politics as a per-
ceptual phenomenon that is made up of subjective evalua-
tion by organizational members (Andrews & Kacmar,
2001; Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; Gandz & Murray, 1980;
Kacmar & Ferris, 1991). Furthermore, politics, much like
gossip, is typically in the eye of the beholder. An action
perceived as political by one may be viewed as fair by
another (Ferris, Frink, Beehr, & Gilmore, 1995). As such,
even if there is subjectivity in organizational members’
ratings of their perceived work-related gossip prevalence,
the impact of perceived work-related gossip prevalence
should not be much affected. Having said that, we wel-
come future research that builds on the current study and
tests antecedents to perceptions of work-related gossip
prevalence, so that we can more accurately capture the
impact of work-related gossip prevalence.
Conclusion
Workplace gossip has been largely frowned upon by organi-
zational behavior scholars and managers alike. In contrast,
scholars from other disciplines have emphasized the positive
functions that gossip serves. In this research, we demonstrated
432
that the prevalence of workplace gossip can be a “mixed bless-
ing”—it is positively associated with employees’ job perfor-
mance, via the mediating role of increased performance pres-
sure, but is negatively associated with their psychological
well-being. Through this study, we highlight the importance
of a deeper awareness of the functional value of workplace
gossip. We believe that this research provides a more balanced
view of the effects of workplace gossip and represents a prom-
ising first step in allowing organizational behavior scholars
and managers to be less adverse towards workplace gossip.
Funding Information This research was supported by the grants funded
by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71572066
and 71832004).
References
Aiello, J. R., & Kolb, K. J. (1995). Electronic performance monitoring
and social context: Impact on productivity and stress. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80, 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-
9010.80.3.339.
Akande, A., & Odewale, F. (1994). One more time: How to stop company
rumours. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 15,
27–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739410059881.
Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2001). Discriminating among orga-
nizational politics, justice, and support. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 22, 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.92.
Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness
and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 610–620.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.46.3.610.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001).
Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–
370. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323.
Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Why people gossip: An empir-
ical analysis of social motives, antecedents, and consequences.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2640–2670. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00956.x.
Ben-Ze'ev, A. (1994). The vindication of gossip. In R. F. Goodman & A.
Ben-Ze’ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 11–24). Lawrence, KS:
University Press of Kansas.
Brady, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Liang, L. H. (2016). Moving beyond
assumptions of deviance: The reconceptualization and measurement
of workplace gossip. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000164.
Chang, C., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The relationship between
perceptions of organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain,
and behavior: A meta-analytic examination. Academy of
Management Journal, 52, 779–801. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.
2009.43670894.
Cohen, J. (1988). The effect size index: d. In Statistical power analysis
for the behavioral sciences (pp. 284–288).
Cox, B. A. (1970). What is hopi gossip about? Information management
and hopi factions. Man, 5, 88–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/2798806.
Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The
relationship of organizational politics and support to work behav-
iors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18,
159–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199703)18:
2<159::aid-job795>3.0.co;2-d.
Danziger, E. (1988). Minimize office gossip. The Personnel Journal, 67,
31–35.
J Bus Psychol (2021) 36:417–434
Davidson, R., & Henderson, R. (2000). Electronic performance monitor-
ing: A laboratory investigation of the influence of monitoring and
difficulty on task performance, mood state, and self-reported stress
levels. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 906–920. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02502.x.
Dunbar, R. I. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of
General Psychology, 8, 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-
2680.8.2.100.
Dunbar, R. I., Marriott, A., & Duncan, N. D. (1997). Human conversa-
tional behavior. Human Nature, 8, 231–246. https://doi.org/10.
1007/bf02912493.
Dunlop, P. D., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational
citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: The bad apples
do spoil the whole barrel. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,
67–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.243.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating mod-
eration and mediation: A general analytical framework using mod-
erated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22. https://doi.
org/10.1037/1082-989x.12.1.1.
Eisenberger, R., & Aselage, J. (2009). Incremental effects of reward on
experienced performance pressure: Positive outcomes for intrinsic
interest and creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 95–
117. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.543.
Eisinga, R., Te Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a
two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?
International Journal of Public Health, 58, 637–642. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3.
Ellwardt, L., Labianca, G. J., & Wittek, R. (2012). Who are the objects of
positive and negative gossip at work?: A social network perspective
on workplace gossip. Social Networks, 34, 193–205. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.socnet.2011.11.003.
Emler, N. (1994). Gossip, reputation, and social adaptation. In R. F.
Goodman & A. Ben-Ze'ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 117–138).
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Emons, W. H., Sijtsma, K., & Meijer, R. R. (2007). On the consistency of
individual classification using short scales. Psychological Methods,
12, 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.12.1.105.
Farley, S. D., Timme, D. R., & Hart, J. W. (2010). On coffee talk and
break-room chatter: Perceptions of women who gossip in the work-
place. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 361–368. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00224540903365430.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A
flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral,
and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146.
Feinberg, M., Willer, R., & Schultz, M. (2014). Gossip and ostracism
promote cooperation in groups. Psychological Science, 25, 656–
664. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613510184.
Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Beehr, T. A., & Gilmore, D. C. (1995).
Political fairness and fair politics: The conceptual integration of
divergent constructs. In Organizational politics, justice, and sup-
port: Managing the social climate of the workplace (pp. 21–36).
Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational
politics. Journal of Management, 18, 93–116. https://doi.org/10.
1177/014920639201800107.
Forward, J., & Zander, A. (1971). Choice of unattainable group goals and
effects on performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 6, 184–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(71)
90012-2.
Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future
directions. Review of General Psychology, 8, 78–99. https://doi.org/
10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.78.
Gandz, J., & Murray, V. V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics.
Academy of Management Journal, 23, 237–251. https://doi.org/10.
2307/255429.
J Bus Psychol (2021) 36:417–434
Gardner, H. K. (2012). Performance pressure as a double-edged sword:
Enhancing team motivation but undermining the use of team knowl-
edge. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0001839212446454.
Gluckman, M. (1963). Gossip and scandal. Current Anthropology, 4,
307–316.
Grosser, T. J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., & Labianca, G. (2010). A social net-
work analysis of positive and negative gossip in organizational life.
Group & Organization Management, 35, 177–212. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1059601109360391.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation
analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76,
408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and condi-
tional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00273171.2014.962683.
Heaton, A. W., & Sigall, H. (1991). Self-consciousness, self-presentation,
and performance under pressure: Who chokes, and when? Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1559-1816.1991.tb02721.x.
Heikes, E. J. (1991). When men are the minority: The case of men in
nursing. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 389–401. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1533-8525.1991.tb00165.x.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of
Management and Organization, 10, 15–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00208825.1980.11656300.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behav-
iors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage publications.
Humphreys, M. S., & Revelle, W. (1984). Personality, motivation, and
performance: A theory of the relationship between individual differ-
ences and information processing. Psychological Review, 91, 153–
184. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.91.2.153.
Irving, R., Higgins, C. A., & Safayeni, F. R. (1986). Computerized per-
formance monitoring systems: Use and abuse. Communications of
the ACM, 29, 794–801. https://doi.org/10.1145/6424.6430.
Jaeger, M. E., Skelder, A. A., & Rosnow, R. L. (1998). Who’s up on the
low down: Gossip in interpersonal relations. In B. H. Spitzberg & W.
R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships (pp. 103–
117). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of organizational
politics scale (POPS): Development and construct validation.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 193–205.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164491511019.
Kappes, H. B., Balcetis, E., & De Cremer, D. (2018). Motivated reason-
ing during recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 270–
280. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000263.
Kruyen, P. M., Emons, W. H., & Sijtsma, K. (2012). Test length and
decision quality in personnel selection: When is short too short?
International Journal of Testing, 12, 321–344. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15305058.2011.643517.
Kruyen, P. M., Emons, W. H., & Sijtsma, K. (2013). On the shortcomings
of shortened tests: A literature review. International Journal of
Testing, 13, 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2012.
703734.
Kunce, J. T., Cook, D. W., & Miller, D. E. (1975). Random variables and
correlational overkill. Educational and Psychological
M e a s u re m e n t , 3 5 , 5 2 9 – 5 3 4 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o rg / 1 0 . 11 7 7 /
001316447503500301.
Kuo, C., Chang, K., Quinton, S., Lu, C., & Lee, I. (2015). Gossip in the
workplace and the implications for HR management: A study of
gossip and its relationship to employee cynicism. The
433
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26,
2288–2307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.985329.
Kurland, 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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.
2000.3312928.
Levin, J., & Arluke, A. (1985). An exploratory analysis of sex differences
in gossip. Sex Roles, 12, 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/
bf00287594.
Li, J. J., Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (2016).
The effects of proximal withdrawal states on job attitudes, job
searching, intent to leave, and employee turnover. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 101(10), 1436.
Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the work-
place: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual
harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 483–496. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.483.
Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup
incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.
95.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002).
To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the
merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. https://doi.org/
10.1207/s15328007sem0902_1.
Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013).
Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one.
Psychological Methods, 18, 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0033266.
Luu, P., Flaisch, T., & Tucker, D. M. (2000). Medial frontal cortex in
action monitoring. The Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 464–469.
https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.20-01-00464.2000.
Marascuilo, L. A., & Levin, J. R. (1983). Multivariate statistics in the
social sciences: A researcher’s guide. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. J., & Von Davier, M.
(2013). Why item parcels are (almost) never appropriate: Two
wrongs do not make a right—Camouflaging misspecification with
item parcels in CFA models. Psychological Methods, 18, 257.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032773.
Noon, M., & Delbridge, R. (1993). News from behind my hand: Gossip
in organizations. Organization Studies, 14, 23–36. https://doi.org/
10.1177/017084069301400103.
Nygaard, A., & Dahlstrom, R. (2002). Role stress and effectiveness in
horizontal alliances. Journal of Marketing, 66, 61–82. https://doi.
org/10.1509/jmkg.66.2.61.18474.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1989). A second generation mea-
sure of organizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished
Manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources
of method bias in social science research and recommendations on
how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.
Porterfield, E. (2008). Gossip can be toxic to the workplace – And your
reputation. The Seattle Times. http://www.seattletimes.com/life/
lifestyle/gossip-can-be-toxic-to-the-workplace-8212-and-your-
reputation/.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strat-
egies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple medi-
ator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. https://doi.
org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879.
Repetti, R. L. (1987). Individual and common components of the social
environment at work and psychological well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 710–720. https://doi.org/
10.1037//0022-3514.52.4.710.
434
Ronan, W. W., Latham, G. P., & Kinne, S. (1973). Effects of goal setting
and supervision on worker behavior in an industrial situation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 302–307. https://doi.org/10.
1037/h0036303.
Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2013). Stresses, swaps, and skill: An inves-
tigation of the psychological dynamics that relate work politics to
employee performance. Human Performance, 26, 44–65. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2012.736901.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the
meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-
3514.57.6.1069.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing
approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22, 224–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563.
Salmansohn, K. (2016). Think happy: Instant peptalks to boost positivity.
Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
Sass, D. A., & Smith, P. L. (2006). The effects of parceling unidimen-
sional scales on structural parameter estimates in structural equation
modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 566–586. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15328007sem1304_4.
Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Schein, S. (1994). Used and abused in medieval society. In R. F.
Goodman & A. Ben-Ze'ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 139–153).
Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Schoeman, F. (1994). Gossip and privacy. In R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-
Ze'ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 72–82). Lawrence, KS: University
Press of Kansas.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-
experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.
Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037//
1082-989x.7.4.422.
Smith, M. J., Carayon, P., Sanders, K. J., Lim, S., & LeGrande, D. (1992).
Employee stress and health complaints in jobs with and without
electronic performance monitoring. Applied Ergonomics, 23, 17–
27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(92)90006-h.
Suls, J. M., & Miller, R. L. (1977). Social comparison processes:
Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Oxford: Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation.
Triandis, H.C. (1959). A critique and experimental design for the study of
the relationship between productivity and job satisfaction.
Psychological Bulletin, 56, 309–312.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: Mcgraw-
Hills.
Turner, M. M., Mazur, M. A., Wendel, N., & Winslow, R. (2003).
Relational ruin or social glue? The joint effect of relationship type
and gossip valence on liking, trust, and expertise. Communication
M o n o g r a p h s , 7 0 , 1 2 9 – 1 4 1 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o rg / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 /
0363775032000133782.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judg-
ing frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9.
J Bus Psychol (2021) 36:417–434
Umberson, D., Chen, M. D., House, J. S., Hopkins, K., & Slaten, E.
(1996). The effect of social relationships on psychological well-be-
ing: Are men and women really so different? American Sociological
Review, 61, 837–857. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096456.
Veit, C. T., & Ware, J. E. (1983). The structure of psychological distress
and well-being in general populations. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 51, 730–742. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-
006x.51.5.730.
Wagenaar, W. A., & Groeneweg, J. (1987). Accidents at sea: Multiple
causes and impossible consequences. International Journal of Man-
Machine Studies, 27, 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-
7373(87)80017-2.
Warr, P. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Watson, D. C. (2012). Gender differences in gossip and friendship. Sex
Roles, 67, 494–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0160-4.
Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complex-
ity, effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 682–693. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.77.5.
682.
Weldon, E., Jehn, K. A., & Pradhan, P. (1991). Processes that mediate the
relationship between a group goal and improved group performance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 555–568. https://
doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.61.4.555.
Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A social comparison account of gossip.
Review of General Psychology, 8, 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/
1089-2680.8.2.122.
Wu, J., Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A. (2015). When does gossip promote
generosity? Indirect reciprocity under the shadow of the future.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 923–930. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1948550615595272.
Wu, L., Birtch, T. A., Chiang, F. F., & Zhang, H. (2018). Perceptions of
negative workplace gossip: A self-consistency theory framework.
Journal of Management, 44, 1873–1898. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206316632057.
Yam, K. C., Barnes, C. M., Leavitt, K., Wei, W., Lau, J., & Uhlmann, E.
L. (2019). Why so serious? A laboratory and field investigation of
the link between morality and humor. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 117, 758–772. https://doi.org/10.1037/
pspi0000171.
Yam, K. C., Christian, M., Wei, W., Liao, Z., & Nai, J. (2018). The mixed
blessing of leader sense of humor: Examining costs and benefits.
Academy of Management Journal, 61, 348–369. https://doi.org/10.
5465/amj.2015.1088.
Zhao, X., Lynch Jr, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and
Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of
Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Leippe, M. R. (1991). The psychology of attitude
change and social influence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.