Getting a Grip on the Grapevine: Extension and Factor Structure of the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire.

Gossip is condemned but also ubiquitous and thought to be essential for groups. This triggers the question of which motives explain gossip behavior. Hitherto, negative influence, social enjoyment, group protection, and information gathering and validation are established as motives to gossip. However, venting emotions-discussed as a potentially important motive-has been overlooked empirically. Furthermore, a lack of consensus about a definition of gossip may have affected previous conclusions about gossip motives. This study (N = 460) expands the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire (MGQ; Beersma and Van Kleef, 2012) by including a subscale measuring emotion venting, the desire to share emotionally evocative experiences. To validate the five motives to gossip across definitions, we asked participants to report the most recent gossip event they experienced, randomly assigning them to one of three instructions containing different gossip definitions commonly used in the literature: (1) broad instructions (sharing information about third parties who have no knowledge of the exchanged information), (2) narrower instructions (adding that the shared information must be evaluative), and (3) instructions using the word gossip. After participants recalled and described a gossip event, they completed the 25-item measure of five motives to gossip: social enjoyment, information gathering and validation, negative influence, group protection, and emotion venting. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the five-factor structure. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis supported full invariance across the three definition conditions. This indicates the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire successfully measures the five dimensions argued to motivate gossip and can be applied in research conceptualizing gossip both narrowly and broadly.

When Change Causes Stress: Effects of Self-construal and Change Consequences.

PURPOSE: Organizational change can be a major stress factor for employees. We investigate if stress responses can be explained by the extent to which there is a match between employee self-construal (in personal or collective terms) and change consequences (i.e., does the change particularly have consequences for the individual or for the group). We further investigate if the interactive effect of self-construal and change consequences on stress will be mediated by feelings of uncertainty. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Data were obtained in three studies. Study 1, a laboratory study, focused on physiological stress. Study 2, a business scenario, focused on anticipated stress. Study 3, a cross-sectional survey, focused on perceived stress. Studies 2 and 3 also included measures of uncertainty in order to test its mediating qualities. FINDINGS: Change is more likely to lead to stress when the change has consequences for matters that are central to employees' sense of self, and particularly so when the personal self is salient. This effect is mediated by feelings of uncertainty. IMPLICATIONS: Understanding why some people experience stress during change, while others do so to a lesser extent, may be essential for improving change management practices. It may help to prevent change processes being unnecessarily stressful for employees. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This is one of the first studies to show that different kinds of change may be leading to uncertainty or stress, depending on employees' level of self-construal. The multi-method approach boosts the confidence in our findings.

Team-oriented leadership: the interactive effects of leader group prototypicality, accountability, and team identification.

We examined the interactive effects of leader group prototypicality, accountability, and team identification on team-oriented behavior of leaders, thus extending the social identity perspective on leadership to the study of leader behavior. An experimental study (N = 152) supported our hypothesis that leader accountability relates more strongly to team-oriented behavior for group nonprototypical leaders than for group prototypical leaders. A multisource field study with leaders (N = 64) and their followers (N = 209) indicated that this interactive effect is more pronounced for leaders who identify more strongly with their team. We discuss how these findings further develop the social identity analysis of leadership.

Stereotype content model across cultures: towards universal similarities and some differences.

The stereotype content model (SCM) proposes potentially universal principles of societal stereotypes and their relation to social structure. Here, the SCM reveals theoretically grounded, cross-cultural, cross-groups similarities and one difference across 10 non-US nations. Seven European (individualist) and three East Asian (collectivist) nations (N=1,028) support three hypothesized cross-cultural similarities: (a) perceived warmth and competence reliably differentiate societal group stereotypes; (b) many out-groups receive ambivalent stereotypes (high on one dimension; low on the other); and (c) high status groups stereotypically are competent, whereas competitive groups stereotypically lack warmth. Data uncover one consequential cross-cultural difference: (d) the more collectivist cultures do not locate reference groups (in-groups and societal prototype groups) in the most positive cluster (high-competence/high-warmth), unlike individualist cultures. This demonstrates out-group derogation without obvious reference-group favouritism. The SCM can serve as a pancultural tool for predicting group stereotypes from structural relations with other groups in society, and comparing across societies.

The carrot and the stick: affective commitment and acceptance anxiety as motives for discretionary group efforts by respected and disrespected group members.

Previous research has demonstrated that intragroup respect can strengthen people's commitment to the group and encourage them to exert themselves on behalf of it. In the present research, the authors argue that similar behavior can ensue from self-focused concerns when group members are disrespected. Experiment 1 (N = 174) confirms that high respect as well as low respect motivates people to increase their actual discretionary efforts on behalf of the group. These findings were replicated and extended in Experiment 2 (N = 138), where it was established that enhanced efforts only emerge when people consider the way they are evaluated by others as diagnostic for their position in the group. In addition, it is demonstrated that whereas the efforts of respected people were primarily motivated by affective commitment to the group (group-focused concerns), the behavior of disrespected people was driven by anxiety about their acceptance into the group (self-focused concerns).