悄悄话与组织动态:对闲言碎语者性格的细微评价及其对职场建议寻求的影响

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Lijun (Shirley) Zhang , Nahid Ibrahim , Shankha Basu
{"title":"悄悄话与组织动态:对闲言碎语者性格的细微评价及其对职场建议寻求的影响","authors":"Lijun (Shirley) Zhang ,&nbsp;Nahid Ibrahim ,&nbsp;Shankha Basu","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Prior research has extensively studied workplace group dynamics within the gossip triad (i.e., sender, receiver, and target). This research shifts the focus to third-party observers outside the gossip triad, examining how they evaluate gossipers and non-gossipers, and whom they turn to for advice. Across five pre-registered experiments (<em>N</em> = 1400), the present work builds on an integrative definition of gossip and provides a functionalist account of observers' nuanced evaluation of gossipers' personality from a global perspective. Observers perceive gossipers as less moral and competent, but more sociable, than non-gossipers (Experiment 1). Consequently, observers are less likely to seek advice from gossipers (vs. non-gossipers) for tasks requiring high morality (e.g., enforcing ethical conduct; Experiment 2a) and high competence (e.g., managing excess inventory; Experiment 2b), yet more likely to do so for tasks requiring high sociability (e.g., organizing a welcome lunch; Experiment 2c). A moderation-of-process approach shows that incidental cues signaling morality, competence, and sociability influence observers' evaluations of and advice-seeking from gossipers (versus non-gossipers) on relevant tasks (Experiments 2a–2c). These findings remain robust in an incentive-compatible setting (Experiment 3). This research advances our understanding of observers' evaluation of gossipers and its implications for workplace advice seeking.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103124000568/pdfft?md5=cc67b4fcb63d6b817b3fdb61cbd06951&pid=1-s2.0-S0022103124000568-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Whispered words and organizational dynamics: The nuanced evaluation of gossipers' personality and its effect on workplace advice seeking\",\"authors\":\"Lijun (Shirley) Zhang ,&nbsp;Nahid Ibrahim ,&nbsp;Shankha Basu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104643\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Prior research has extensively studied workplace group dynamics within the gossip triad (i.e., sender, receiver, and target). This research shifts the focus to third-party observers outside the gossip triad, examining how they evaluate gossipers and non-gossipers, and whom they turn to for advice. Across five pre-registered experiments (<em>N</em> = 1400), the present work builds on an integrative definition of gossip and provides a functionalist account of observers' nuanced evaluation of gossipers' personality from a global perspective. Observers perceive gossipers as less moral and competent, but more sociable, than non-gossipers (Experiment 1). Consequently, observers are less likely to seek advice from gossipers (vs. non-gossipers) for tasks requiring high morality (e.g., enforcing ethical conduct; Experiment 2a) and high competence (e.g., managing excess inventory; Experiment 2b), yet more likely to do so for tasks requiring high sociability (e.g., organizing a welcome lunch; Experiment 2c). A moderation-of-process approach shows that incidental cues signaling morality, competence, and sociability influence observers' evaluations of and advice-seeking from gossipers (versus non-gossipers) on relevant tasks (Experiments 2a–2c). These findings remain robust in an incentive-compatible setting (Experiment 3). This research advances our understanding of observers' evaluation of gossipers and its implications for workplace advice seeking.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48441,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103124000568/pdfft?md5=cc67b4fcb63d6b817b3fdb61cbd06951&pid=1-s2.0-S0022103124000568-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103124000568\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103124000568","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先前的研究广泛研究了八卦三人组(即发送者、接收者和目标)内的职场群体动态。本研究将重点转移到八卦三人组之外的第三方观察者身上,研究他们如何评价八卦者和非八卦者,以及他们向谁寻求建议。通过五项预先登记的实验(N = 1400),本研究以流言的综合定义为基础,从全局角度对观察者对流言者个性的细微评价进行了功能主义解释。观察者认为,与不说闲话的人相比,说闲话的人道德和能力较差,但更善于交际(实验 1)。因此,在需要高道德(如执行道德行为;实验 2a)和高能力(如管理过剩库存;实验 2b)的任务中,观察者不太可能向闲言碎语者(与非闲言碎语者相比)寻求建议,但在需要高交际能力(如组织欢迎午餐;实验 2c)的任务中,观察者却更可能向闲言碎语者(与非闲言碎语者相比)寻求建议。过程调节法表明,道德、能力和交际能力的偶然线索会影响观察者对说闲话者(相对于不说闲话者)在相关任务中的评价和寻求建议的行为(实验 2a-2c)。这些发现在与激励相容的环境中(实验 3)仍然保持稳定。这项研究加深了我们对观察者对说闲话者的评价及其对职场建议寻求的影响的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Whispered words and organizational dynamics: The nuanced evaluation of gossipers' personality and its effect on workplace advice seeking

Prior research has extensively studied workplace group dynamics within the gossip triad (i.e., sender, receiver, and target). This research shifts the focus to third-party observers outside the gossip triad, examining how they evaluate gossipers and non-gossipers, and whom they turn to for advice. Across five pre-registered experiments (N = 1400), the present work builds on an integrative definition of gossip and provides a functionalist account of observers' nuanced evaluation of gossipers' personality from a global perspective. Observers perceive gossipers as less moral and competent, but more sociable, than non-gossipers (Experiment 1). Consequently, observers are less likely to seek advice from gossipers (vs. non-gossipers) for tasks requiring high morality (e.g., enforcing ethical conduct; Experiment 2a) and high competence (e.g., managing excess inventory; Experiment 2b), yet more likely to do so for tasks requiring high sociability (e.g., organizing a welcome lunch; Experiment 2c). A moderation-of-process approach shows that incidental cues signaling morality, competence, and sociability influence observers' evaluations of and advice-seeking from gossipers (versus non-gossipers) on relevant tasks (Experiments 2a–2c). These findings remain robust in an incentive-compatible setting (Experiment 3). This research advances our understanding of observers' evaluation of gossipers and its implications for workplace advice seeking.

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
6.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology publishes original research and theory on human social behavior and related phenomena. The journal emphasizes empirical, conceptually based research that advances an understanding of important social psychological processes. The journal also publishes literature reviews, theoretical analyses, and methodological comments.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信