爱说长道短的人被瞧不起吗?基于规范的八卦与八卦者地位关系研究。

IF 9.4 1区 心理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Journal of Applied Psychology Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1037/apl0001056
Huiwen Lian, Jie Kassie Li, Jingzhou Pan, Chenduo Du, Qinglin Zhao
{"title":"爱说长道短的人被瞧不起吗?基于规范的八卦与八卦者地位关系研究。","authors":"Huiwen Lian,&nbsp;Jie Kassie Li,&nbsp;Jingzhou Pan,&nbsp;Chenduo Du,&nbsp;Qinglin Zhao","doi":"10.1037/apl0001056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While some scholars regard workplace gossip as norm-violating behavior that costs gossipers status, others suggest that gossip clarifies organizational norms and thereby increases gossiper status. Integrating gossip literature with norm research, we develop a model to distinguish positive gossip from negative gossip and theorize their independent and joint effects on gossiper workplace status via peers' perceptions of norm violation and norm clarification-two concurrent but countervailing mechanisms. We hypothesize that positive gossip relates positively to norm clarification perceptions but negatively to norm-violation perceptions, whereas negative gossip relates positively to both norm clarification and norm-violation perceptions. Interactively, positive gossip weakens the norm-violation effects of negative gossip on gossiper status, and each type of gossip replaces the norm clarification effects of the other type of gossip on gossiper status. These hypotheses were largely supported in a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment with 345 full-time employees (Study 1), a three-wave field survey with data from 192 full-time employees (Study 2), and a round-robin field survey with data from 287 focal employees and 1,075 of their team members embedded in 87 teams (Study 3). Three additional studies reported in the supplementary materials revealed contingencies of the hypotheses: The hypotheses received support with a different experimental manipulation (Study 4), and the hypothesized norm-violation effect of negative gossip was not contingent on gossip content (target's self-serving vs. nonself-serving behavior, Study 5) but gossip intention such that the effect became nonsignificant when gossip intention was group-serving (cf. self-serving, Study 6). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":"108 6","pages":"905-933"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are gossipers looked down upon? A norm-based perspective on the relation between gossip and gossiper status.\",\"authors\":\"Huiwen Lian,&nbsp;Jie Kassie Li,&nbsp;Jingzhou Pan,&nbsp;Chenduo Du,&nbsp;Qinglin Zhao\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/apl0001056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>While some scholars regard workplace gossip as norm-violating behavior that costs gossipers status, others suggest that gossip clarifies organizational norms and thereby increases gossiper status. Integrating gossip literature with norm research, we develop a model to distinguish positive gossip from negative gossip and theorize their independent and joint effects on gossiper workplace status via peers' perceptions of norm violation and norm clarification-two concurrent but countervailing mechanisms. We hypothesize that positive gossip relates positively to norm clarification perceptions but negatively to norm-violation perceptions, whereas negative gossip relates positively to both norm clarification and norm-violation perceptions. Interactively, positive gossip weakens the norm-violation effects of negative gossip on gossiper status, and each type of gossip replaces the norm clarification effects of the other type of gossip on gossiper status. These hypotheses were largely supported in a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment with 345 full-time employees (Study 1), a three-wave field survey with data from 192 full-time employees (Study 2), and a round-robin field survey with data from 287 focal employees and 1,075 of their team members embedded in 87 teams (Study 3). Three additional studies reported in the supplementary materials revealed contingencies of the hypotheses: The hypotheses received support with a different experimental manipulation (Study 4), and the hypothesized norm-violation effect of negative gossip was not contingent on gossip content (target's self-serving vs. nonself-serving behavior, Study 5) but gossip intention such that the effect became nonsignificant when gossip intention was group-serving (cf. self-serving, Study 6). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"volume\":\"108 6\",\"pages\":\"905-933\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001056\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001056","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

虽然一些学者认为职场八卦是一种违反规范的行为,会降低八卦者的地位,但也有人认为八卦澄清了组织规范,从而提高了八卦者的地位。结合八卦文献和规范研究,我们建立了一个区分积极八卦和消极八卦的模型,并通过同伴对违反规范和澄清规范的感知(两种同时存在但相互抵消的机制),对八卦者职场地位的独立和共同影响进行了理论化。我们假设,积极八卦与规范澄清知觉呈正相关,但与规范违反知觉负相关,而消极八卦与规范澄清知觉和规范违反知觉均呈正相关。在交互作用上,积极八卦弱化了消极八卦对八卦地位的违反规范作用,每一种八卦都替代了另一种八卦对八卦地位的澄清规范作用。这些假设在很大程度上得到了345名全职员工的2 × 2受试者间实验(研究1)、192名全职员工的三波现场调查(研究2)和287名重点员工及其87个团队的1,075名团队成员的循环现场调查(研究3)的支持。补充材料中报告的另外三项研究揭示了这些假设的偶然性:这些假设得到了不同实验操作的支持(研究4),并且负面八卦的假设违反规范效应并不取决于八卦内容(目标的自我服务与非自我服务行为,研究5),而是取决于八卦意图,因此当八卦意图是群体服务时(参考自我服务,研究6),这种效应变得不显著(心理信息数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,所有权利保留)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are gossipers looked down upon? A norm-based perspective on the relation between gossip and gossiper status.

While some scholars regard workplace gossip as norm-violating behavior that costs gossipers status, others suggest that gossip clarifies organizational norms and thereby increases gossiper status. Integrating gossip literature with norm research, we develop a model to distinguish positive gossip from negative gossip and theorize their independent and joint effects on gossiper workplace status via peers' perceptions of norm violation and norm clarification-two concurrent but countervailing mechanisms. We hypothesize that positive gossip relates positively to norm clarification perceptions but negatively to norm-violation perceptions, whereas negative gossip relates positively to both norm clarification and norm-violation perceptions. Interactively, positive gossip weakens the norm-violation effects of negative gossip on gossiper status, and each type of gossip replaces the norm clarification effects of the other type of gossip on gossiper status. These hypotheses were largely supported in a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment with 345 full-time employees (Study 1), a three-wave field survey with data from 192 full-time employees (Study 2), and a round-robin field survey with data from 287 focal employees and 1,075 of their team members embedded in 87 teams (Study 3). Three additional studies reported in the supplementary materials revealed contingencies of the hypotheses: The hypotheses received support with a different experimental manipulation (Study 4), and the hypothesized norm-violation effect of negative gossip was not contingent on gossip content (target's self-serving vs. nonself-serving behavior, Study 5) but gossip intention such that the effect became nonsignificant when gossip intention was group-serving (cf. self-serving, Study 6). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
175
期刊介绍: The Journal of Applied Psychology® focuses on publishing original investigations that contribute new knowledge and understanding to fields of applied psychology (excluding clinical and applied experimental or human factors, which are better suited for other APA journals). The journal primarily considers empirical and theoretical investigations that enhance understanding of cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral psychological phenomena in work and organizational settings. These phenomena can occur at individual, group, organizational, or cultural levels, and in various work settings such as business, education, training, health, service, government, or military institutions. The journal welcomes submissions from both public and private sector organizations, for-profit or nonprofit. It publishes several types of articles, including: 1.Rigorously conducted empirical investigations that expand conceptual understanding (original investigations or meta-analyses). 2.Theory development articles and integrative conceptual reviews that synthesize literature and generate new theories on psychological phenomena to stimulate novel research. 3.Rigorously conducted qualitative research on phenomena that are challenging to capture with quantitative methods or require inductive theory building.
期刊最新文献
Prospects for reducing group mean differences on cognitive tests via item selection strategies. Self-promotion in entrepreneurship: A driver for proactive adaptation. Coping with work-nonwork stressors over time: A person-centered, multistudy integration of coping breadth and depth. A person-centered approach to behaving badly at work: An examination of workplace deviance patterns. How perceived lack of benevolence harms trust of artificial intelligence management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1