The Impact of Negative Gossip on Target and Receiver. A “Big Two” Analysis

Hauke, Nicole; Abele, Andrea E.

doi:10.1080/01973533.2019.1702881

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Positive evaluation of others relates more to Communion than Agency (Wojciszke, Baryla, Parzuchowski, Szymkow, & Abele, 2011); but distinguishing the facets, evaluation relates more to the morality than the friendliness facet, and more to the ability than the assertiveness facet (Abele & Hauke, 2019). People feel more reputation threat from attacks on their morality than their friendliness, and they feel more identity threat from attacks on their assertiveness than their ability (Hauke & Abele, 2019, 2020).…”

Section: Five Models For Navigating the Social Worldmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reflecting one common dimension, DPM explicitly defines Communion as including facets of friendliness and morality, validated across languages (Abele et al, 2008; Abele et al, 2016; Abele & Hauke, 2019; Hauke & Abele, 2019, 2020). SCM and DCM do not explicitly distinguish between these facets of their focal dimensions, but their operationalizations do contain them, and they increase predictive validity (Fiske, 2018; Yzerbyt, 2018; see also Carrier, Louvet, Chauvin, et al, 2014; Carrier, Louvet, & Rohmer, 2014; Kervyn, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2015); Warmth has also proved valid in many languages (Fiske & Durante, 2016).…”

Section: Adversarial Collaboration On Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although measurement of the two focal dimensions without facets often satisfies empirical demands (see SCM and DCM research and parts of DPM research), both conceptual/psychometric research (Abele et al, 2016; Kervyn, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2013, 2015) and hypothesis-testing experimental research (Abele & Hauke, 2019; Carrier, Dompnier, et al, 2019; Carrier, Louvet, Chauvin, et al, 2014; Carrier et al, 2014; Hauke & Abele, 2019, 2020; Leach et al, 2007) have demonstrated that, depending on the research question, differentiating facets leads to more clear-cut results. For instance, DPM research showed that self-esteem relates primarily to the assertiveness facet of Agency and somewhat to the morality facet of Communion (Abele et al, 2016; Abele & Hauke, 2018, 2019); esteem of others relates to the morality facet, but depending on type of target also the ability facet and the friendliness facet (Abele et al, 2016; Abele & Hauke, 2019), which partly integrates with BRM predictions.…”

Section: Adversarial Collaboration On Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The DPM resolves this controversy by noting that people can consider the self from the perspective of the acting self (goal pursuit: Vertical weighs more) or the self as perceived by others (reputation monitoring; Horizontal weighs more). Reputation monitoring relates to Horizontal (particularly morality, but also friendliness), but less to Vertical: People generally rate their own Horizontal (morality, friendliness) higher than their Vertical (ability, assertiveness; Abele et al, 2014; Abele & Hauke, 2019; Abele & Wojciszke, 2007, 2014; Hauke & Abele, 2019, 2020); groups deny entry and withdraw reputation, resources, or even membership if uncertain about a member being high on Horizontal (Van der Lee et al, 2017).…”

Section: Adversarial Collaboration On Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups.

Abele¹,

Ellemers²,

Fiske³

et al. 2021

Psychological Review

Self Cite

239

272

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social evaluation occurs at personal, interpersonal, group, and intergroup levels, with competing theories and evidence. Five models engage in adversarial collaboration, to identify common conceptual ground, ongoing controversies, and continuing agendas: Dual Perspective Model (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007); Behavioral Regulation Model (Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007); Dimensional Compensation Model (Yzerbyt et al., 2005); Stereotype Content Model (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002); and Agency-Beliefs-Communion Model (Koch, Imhoff, Dotsch, Unkelbach, & Alves, 2016). Each has distinctive focus, theoretical roots, premises, and evidence. Controversies dispute dimensions: number, organization, definition, and labeling; their relative priority; and their relationship. Our first integration suggests 2 fundamental dimensions: Vertical (agency, competence, “getting ahead”) and Horizontal (communion, warmth, “getting along”), with respective facets of ability and assertiveness (Vertical) and friendliness and morality (Horizontal). Depending on context, a third dimension is conservative versus progressive Beliefs. Second, different criteria for priority favor different dimensions: processing speed and subjective weight (Horizontal); pragmatic diagnosticity (Vertical); moderators include number and type of target, target-perceiver relationship, context. Finally, the relation between dimensions has similar operational moderators. As an integrative framework, the dimensions’ dynamics also depend on perceiver goals (comprehension, efficiency, harmony, compatibility), each balancing top-down and bottom-up processes, for epistemic or hedonic functions. One emerging insight is that the nature and number of targets each of these models typically examines alters perceivers’ evaluative goal and how bottom-up information or top-down inferences interact. This framework benefits theoretical parsimony and new research.

show abstract

Section: Five Models For Navigating the Social Worldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Adversarial Collaboration On Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Adversarial Collaboration On Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Adversarial Collaboration On Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups.

Abele¹,

Ellemers²,

Fiske³

et al. 2021

Psychological Review

Self Cite

239

272

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rather than measure actual behavior, we measured how participants indicated they would behave towards a fictive, unknown target of the gossip. The use of experimental scenarios is common in the gossip literature because it allows a high degree of experimental control, places the gossip in an ecologically valid setting, and avoids the ethical concerns which spreading real gossip and associated behavior would entail (Dores Cruz et al, 2019; Hauke & Abele, 2020). Nonetheless, generalizing beyond the scenario and to real behavior should be done cautiously.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gossip about Coronavirus: Infection status and norm adherence shape social responses

Cruz

Lee

Beersma

2021

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To stop the spread of the Coronavirus, people must avoid infection risk. Given widespread skepticism regarding information concerning the Coronavirus received from authorities, one potentially important pathway to estimate the infectiousness of one’s group members could be through gossip (i.e., information about an absent target). Infection risk is reflected by both infection status and adherence to social distancing norms. In hypothetical scenarios ( N = 837), participants received gossip that we manipulated to describe a group member’s infection status and/or norm adherence. Results showed people tended to believe gossip and that gossip influenced behavioral intentions to avoid and punish targets of gossip as well as the perception of targets. We conclude that gossip, while potentially unreliable, could affect how people treat group members. We discuss how gossip could alleviate the Coronavirus crisis by contributing to slowing the Coronavirus’s spread, as well as exacerbate it through increased social exclusion based on unverified information.

show abstract

Do not ask, but you shall still receive: Newcomer reactions to receiving negative gossip

Jalil

Jiang

et al. 2022

Stress and Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As research regarding the targets and initiators of workplace gossip is gaining traction, one perspective that remains overlooked is the gossip receiver. Organizational newcomers are a particularly relevant population to study the impact of receiving negative gossip on because they use social information to navigate an unfamiliar organizational terrain. We propose a parallel moderated mediation model in which receiving negative gossip has contradicting effects on newcomer job anxiety through perceived social inclusion and negative rumination, and agreeableness as a boundary condition of the effects of receiving negative gossip. We collected data from 202 newcomers using a four‐wave time‐lagged design and found that receiving negative gossip increased newcomer job anxiety via negative rumination but did not decrease job anxiety via perceived social inclusion. Further, agreeableness moderated the effect of receiving negative gossip on negative rumination (but not perceived social inclusion) such that the effect of receiving negative gossip on negative rumination was stronger for less agreeable newcomers. Lastly, the indirect effect of receiving negative gossip on job anxiety via negative rumination was stronger for less agreeable newcomers. Theoretical and practical implications specific to gossip and newcomers are discussed.

show abstract

The Impact of Negative Gossip on Target and Receiver. A “Big Two” Analysis

Cited by 14 publications

References 47 publications

Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups.

Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups.

Gossip about Coronavirus: Infection status and norm adherence shape social responses

Do not ask, but you shall still receive: Newcomer reactions to receiving negative gossip

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About